Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Report of Vandalism

Resolved

 – See below. --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian people is constantly vandalised by IP users. -- 7D HMS (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably better to report this at WP:RFPP. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Marking as resolved, page was protected by User:Favonian ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 13:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite)) --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

GNAA COI, OWNing and votestacking

Hello folks. Disclaimer: I've never been involved in any 'GNAA' debates before, or similar. Anyway, yesterday, I stumbled across the article at Gay Niggers Association of America while reading up on the old Scientology ArbCom case, and noticed it seemed a little - biased. As such, I drive-by-tagged it (apologies), and after the tag was removed, attempted to make a few changes myself. I made one (admittedly incomplete) content edit, trying to swing the article back to a more neutral state. Another user, LiteralKa (talk · contribs), stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again. So, I looked through the edit history and associated contributions, as one does. I noted that LiteralKa almost exclusively edits articles related to GNAA et al., and so I Googled the username. Not at all to my surprise, 'LiteralKa' is 'Director of Public Relations' for the GNAA group. I didn't think that LiteralKa's editing of the article was in the least bit appropriate, so I dropped him a note about COI. LiteralKa and I had a brief talk page discussion, and we left the matter at that. However, I also had a quick look at his contributions, and spotted a few AFDs LiteralKa had been involved in, as well as a history of 'owning' the GNAA and related articles. I'm going to make the following claims, therefore:

• LiteralKa (talk · contribs) is the Director of Public Relations at GNAA.
• Therefore, LiteralKa (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest with regards to the GNAA and related organisations, and is completely ignoring the COI policy in every respect.
• LiteralKa (talk · contribs) has recently created some particularly pointy AFDs, both of which have the acronym 'GNAA':

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guilford Native American Association (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry
• I wanted to close these as 'disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point', but I think it'd be best to let them run. There's also Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, which LiteralKa has shown an interest in.

• There seem to be a host of SPAs, meatpuppets and potential GNAA members who edit GNAA articles, for example:

• Prozak (talk · contribs)
• 24.57.119.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• TrollHistorian (talk · contribs)
• NPrice (talk · contribs)
• Murdox (talk · contribs)

In short, then, I'm asking what we can do about this. Ideally, I'd like to get editors with a COI, like LiteralKa, to leave the GNAA article alone so that sensible, uninvolved folk can work on it. Some sort of topic ban? Community-endorsed? The Cavalry (Message me) 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ban all forever. Don't forget snaphat (talk · contribs). See also this after I opposed the recreation of the GNAA article in February.  Diego  talk  22:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That LiteralKa is associated with GNAA is not at all news to anyone who spends time at #wikipedia-en, where LiteralKa is a regular. As far as IRC members go, he has recently ranged from mildly constructive to mildly disruptive, but has previously had a history of being banned from that channel and socking to get around that ban, and spent a few days as the single most disruptive troll that I've seen in IRC space in the time I've spent there, which is nearly a year.

What does this mean for actual Wikipedia? It means that LiteralKa has proven that he has access to effective proxy services and is more than willing to sock. I would not be surprised to find that those SPIs are his sockpuppets, although it is likely that they are untraceable. At the very least, Murdox is also on IRC from time to time, so the two are either socks or meats. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the logical extension of that argument is that everyone on Wikipedia is secretly a sockpuppet of one dude with a lot of time and proxies. This is less of a matter of Wikipedia Administration and more of a witchhunt. Murdox (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, you just accused snaphat (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppet when all he has done is vote against one of your articles. LiteralKa (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The vote is perfectly fine, and I'll leave it clear to you: I did not know of the existence of an article on mixed-breed dogs at the time I created the quiltro article, so I created it, believing it was some kind of "different" race when it is not. Snaphat's vote there is perfectly fine, yours is too; however, it is obvious you both are part of that so-called, racist organization I won't bother to spell.  Diego  talk  04:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, you're going to have to provide evidence that he is a member of the Gay Nigger Association of America before throwing accusations around. We've been over this before. LiteralKa (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite simple, user that edits very, very sparsely from 2005 votes in an AfD shortly after the director of public relations of the troll organization votes, too. Since there are no public records of who the members of the organizations are, I have no more proof than this.  Diego  talk  05:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, that is the flimsiest argument I have seen from you yet. Why would that have anything to do with the GNAA except for the fact that I happened to vote a little before him? If that's what you see as justification for banning, I sincerely hope that you never get the power to ban here. You should notify someone when you're accusing them on ANI, BTW. You're grasping at straws here, Diego. Give it a rest. LiteralKa (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and because you wouldn't notify him, I did. LiteralKa (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not related to GNAA. I didn't know it existed until the accusation. It is actually pretty clear who I am if you google my username. I'm not making an attempt to hide this information. snaphat (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ignore conflicts of interest exist everywhere because every single Wikipedia editor is involved with some other organization or interest, and they frequently edit topics of that nature. It's total hypocrisy for you to single out some who may be fans of the GNAA. death metal maniac (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Note above user is User:Prozak. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to say the AfDs should be procedurally closed. The ones that need deleting can be restarted with a nominator who isn't being obviously pointy. The AfDs weren't started in good faith, we should do the equivalent of order a mistrial. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I would let the AfDs run. If the subjects were obviously notable, then speedy close would be reasonable, but they're not. Also, even if the nominations are pointy, the nomination statements themselves are reasonable in pointing out the deficiencies of the articles.. I don't see the point in policy-wonking this for the sake of it. Obviously if there is a sock issue on the AfD that needs to be sorted, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, the yearly GNAA infestation <yawn>. SOP as follows:

  Congratulate them on another successful op. Then nuke from orbit, salt the earth, close any procedures or related procedures started by GNAA puppets, Checkuser the bad guys, Get steward cover if necessary. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC) it's the only way to be sure!

• Blocks all round, then? The Cavalry (Message me) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • They're not here to help build an encyclopedia. They're here for giggles. So yes, blocks all around. Let them get their kicks somewhere else. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Get rid of the problem; yes.  Diego  talk  23:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. You're not assuming good faith on *ANY* of these accounts, and this really seems like a campaign against anyone who's commented in an anything-less-than-negative light on a GNAA-related article. I don't feel I've done anything wrong, and while I cannot account for other users, what's mentioned here hardly seems to warrant a permanent ban. If you look at past votes, they are clearly two-sided, and those who "lost" are now just trying to execute a vendetta against those who "won". Many of the accounts that have been listed are legitimate editors who edit on a number of subjects, and have participated in GNAA votes... Light-editing does not make a user a SPA or sockpuppet. nprice (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh! I didn't realize this was a topic ban, and after a discussion on IRC, not everyone who's put in their input seems aware of that either. If we do this, we should at least do it by each "suspected" user account, based on its own merits. You can't just do a blanket-ban on a group of people you've arbitrarily grouped together because of a perceived connection. Each user should have the right to contest any actions done to their account, by their own merits. What's happened here is that a list of editors has been compiled who have legitimate edits, but few enough of them that SPA can be cited the moment they do something pro-GNAA. In the last DrV, there were plenty of "keep deleted" votes from accounts with the same status. If this happens, the moment any sort of block is placed, a certain editor who's pretty vehemently commented in this "incident", and HIS group are going to take advantage of the situation they've orchestrated to get the GNAA article VfD'd again. nprice (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • One more comment - if you block any supposedly pro-GNAA people from editing, as well as their detractors, who does that *LEAVE* to actually edit the article? Admittedly, it is very polarizing, and this would just arbitrarily unbalance things one way or another. nprice (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It leaves neutral editors to edit it, who edit for a hobby, rather than for a cause. Some people are interested in organisations like this without being a part of them - I studied sociology at university, as well as computer science, so I actually find it rather enthralling. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It also leaves the multitude of editors who are forever biased against GNAA as a result of the many deletion debates. You know this. LiteralKa (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "[literalka] is completely ignoring the COI policy in every respect." I'd like to see evidence of this instead of accusations being thrown around. I have attempted to follow the COI guideline to the best of my ability. "LiteralKa (talk · contribs), stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again" I'd also like to see evidence of how I made it pro GNAA. As for trollhistorian (talk · contribs), he hasn't edited since 2007, calling into question the amount of research that Cavalry actually did. LiteralKa (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're the PR man from GNAA. Editing in the interests of public relations is frowned upon. Why don't you follow Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance, for example? Why do you consistently remove the 'COI' tage from the article, rather than waiting for a neutral editor to come along? It's all a bit fishy, if you ask me, and you're damned close to being blocked for being a single-purpose account. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Single purpose account? I have been editing for years across a wide variety of subjects. I find such accusations baseless, offensive, and childish. Coming from an arbitrator, no less. I removed the COI tag because no specific issue was taken with the article, aside from "LiteralKa edited it" (see WP:COI#Non-controversial_edits (mainly no. 6).) Additionally, you're going to have to prove that I'm "editing in the interests of public relations," instead of just claiming that I am. I have worked to provide reliable, verifiable sources for the article. LiteralKa (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• IDGI Firstly, the implication that TheCavalry has "never been involved in any 'GNAA' debates before, or similar." is a pretty false statement considering that's he's commented upon it multiple times in the IRC. Secondly, I'd like to further understand why I'm not a "sensible" editor considering that outside of attempting to reboot the GNAA article in my own userspace (which earned me a quickly overturned block) I've never made anything approaching unsensible edits on-wiki. That said, I don't have a complete and comprehensive understanding of wikipedia's version of due process and most of my knowledge of wikipedia's various bureaucratic branches comes from being referred to them continually. I understand ignorantia juris non excusat, but I'd appreciate it if you made it a little clearer what I'm being accused of. TIA. Murdox (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• NB: If anyone feels I closed this inappropriately, feel free to open it again. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would rather see this section closed by an administrator, considering the seriousness of the charges you brought. Closing because there is "too much drama here" is bogus; what did you expect? You can't just open up a huge can of worms and then just say "Nevermind!" FYI, I am a totally disinterested party who has never edited or even read the article in question and has never had any dealings whatsoever with any of the parties involved, nor do I particulary care about the outcome of this incident, except that it be resolved properly and competently. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have any problem with someone who originally brought an issue to ANI deciding to withdraw it, whether they're an admin or not. Sometimes one realizes that a particular issue is generating a great deal of noise, and not enough signal to bother with. I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to determine if that's the case here, but in the meantime, if Cavalry wants to close out what he opened, far be it from me to stand in his way. (Sidenote, I'm using the pronoun "he" in the non-gender-specific manner.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cavalry is an admin. LiteralKa (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am an administrator, and have been since 2007, so I thought it perfectly acceptable to close it myself - but I digress. I think we all dislike it when this becomes a drama-board, and the last thing I want to invoke is drama. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm strongly tempted to close the AfDs summarily, as their intent is intentionally disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it really disruptive to put articles that were created with the clear intention of "diluting" the GNAA disambig page up for deletion? I figured I would leave it up to the community to decide if they were notable for this very reason. LiteralKa (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to say that yours is the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate "dilution". The other articles, whether their subjects are notable or not (and that's still arguable...elsewhere), all bear legitimately-named organizations which just happen to bear the same initials. I'm not an attorney, but this strikes me as a prime example of scenes á faire. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Created by the same editor during one of many GNAA arguments, one of which was mentioned in an academic paper once and another had nothing but passing mentions in sources. LiteralKa (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, I took a quick look at the histories of these articles and was going to snappishly post a response to LiteralKa along the lines of "these articles have nothing to do with the 'GNAA' controversy; they were created in 2005." But I looked a little deeper (after noticing that both articles on completely unrelated topics were created around the same time by the same user), and I now see the point LiteralKa is making. (Geez, I hadn't realized that GNAA has been a topic of discussion here since 2005!) I still think it would be better if these AfDs hadn't been created or had been created by someone else, but for what it is worth, I now see a somewhat greater substance to them than I might have initially. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Could we please start assuming good faith on my GNAA-related edits now instead of just assuming the worst? I try to follow the rules as closely as possible when editing related pages. Also, I created {{GNAA History}} so that people could read up on the GNAA-Wikipedia relationship in as much detail as possible. LiteralKa (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to be fair to you. In fairness to me and others, you didn't make this point anywhere that I've noticed either in the AfDs or in this discussion, though it is one strongly in your favor insofar as the issue of intent is concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That was because the point was made already by someone else. (In hindsight, though, I probably should have been clearer in the nominations for each.) LiteralKa (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I have a hard time assuming good faith based on the comments contained in the very diff you link above. And I'm still going to have to hold by my earlier comment: because the articles at AfD appear to name valid, albeit arguably notable, organizations or entities that just happen to bear the same initials as yours, you will have the WP:BURDEN of showing the articles were created specifically for (to use a marketing term) brand dilution. And having said that, I'll now step back and watch. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As LiteralKa has noted, those claims are also my own, so the WP:BURDEN falls upon my shoulders as well. The fact that many find the GNAA distasteful isn't a secret, and years ago, those who found it distasteful sought to push the Gay Nigger Association of America to the back of the bus disambiguation page. One of these users was Astronautics (formerly known as Silsor). On December 7, 2004, Astronautics expanded the disambiguation page with three entries that didn't have articles at the time. On April 2, 2005, an anon removed the articleless entries from the page, and Astronautics's immediate reaction was to create articles on the Guilford Native American Association and the Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry in order to ensure that entries couldn't be removed from the page ever again. Astronautics then decided to belittle the Gay Nigger Association of America by having it listed last: [1]. Astronautics even tried to push GNAA as an acronym for the Great North Air Ambulance Service. Another user involved in similar activities was Brian0918. Brian0918 supported the idea of listing disambiguation page's entries by their perceived significance. When the tables turned on him, he pointedly added an articleless entry listed alphabetically over Gay Nigger and made an equally pointy comment: "alright, then, alphabetical order is fine." When Sam Hocevar removed those articleless entries, Brian0918 took a page out of Astronautics's book and created a Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica article. Those articles weren't created out of good faith; they were created solely to belittle the GNAA on a disambiguation page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the most flattering description I've recently heard of Wikipedia is "the place people go to win bar bets", and that Wikipedia itself won't allow Wikipedia articles to be used as reliable sources, I'm fairly well convinced that no one is going to take ANY article found on Wikipedia as God's Own Truth™, so an argument regarding irreparable harm to ANY of the article topics under consideration here is, in my mind, laughable at best. And now that I've said all that, here's what I see as the acid test for this case. Are the editors in question willing to accept a keep outcome on any or all of the AfDs in question? And what, if any, would the overall effect be on GNAA, other than having to share space on a disambiguation page? Yes, this is a serious question, and I'd appreciate a serious answer. And on a sidenote, I'd like to thank Michaeldsuarez for taking the time to lay out a clear, concise argument supporting his position...even though there are some who won't agree with it, it's a refreshing change from the dramatics I've seen lately on various noticeboards. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and to address the issue of OWNership, I'm pretty sure that I have abstained from editing the GNAA article as much as I used to once it passed the deletion review (ie. entered mainspace.) Before that, my intention was (and still is) to help develop a genuinely acceptable Wikipedia article. LiteralKa (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As an experienced editor entirely uninvolved with any disputes about the other GNAA, I think that this tempest-in-a-teapot is exceptionally unfair to the Guilford Native American Association. This is a solid, worthy organization that has existed for decades, and reasonable people may well disagree about its notability by Wikipedia standards. However, the Guilford group has done nothing that justifies its online reputation being dragged into this "inside baseball" dispute on Wikipedia. It is unjust and distasteful. They've had an article here for 5-1/2 years. Consider the impact on uninvolved people who stumble into this debate while looking for information about a group that was founded 25 years before Wikipedia was. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on the view stats, I'd reckon that doesn't happen much, if at all. LiteralKa (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So, if its only three parents of Native American kids with problems, rather than 20, that's OK with you? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how one of them is me, and the other two are related to the page deletion, yes. LiteralKa (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Google reports that there are an average of 36 searches per month for "guilford native american association". Our article shows up at the top of that search. The potential for collateral embarrassment to this group is real.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The "collateral embarrassment" you mention would be made no worse: its "relationship" to the GNAA would be no more apparent than it already is. LiteralKa (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you then agree the converse is also true...the existence of the Guilford Native American Association, and hence its article, causes no "collateral embarrassment" to GNAA? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I'd like it to be known that I am not any way related to GNAA. I simply voted once on some article AfD of diegos. Since it is very easy to look up who I am, so there is absolutely no reason why this accusation should have occurred in the first place. What can be done about this? snaphat (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree here. I don't see that you're a part of GNAA in the same way as LiteralKa, and it's LiteralKa's conduct I have an issue with in any case - everyone else seems tangentially related, and I'm not 'anti-' or 'pro-' GNAA. The only reason I've issued a block so far is that NPrice (talk · contribs) turned out to be a reincarnation of a blocked user. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks you! I'm not concerned with what is going on here beyond making sure I don't wrongfully get banned or sanctions against me as I've done nothing wrong. snaphat (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cavalry, can you please provide diffs of LiteralKa's alleged meddling in the Gay Nigger Association of America article? LiteralKa's revisions after your own revisions appears fine to me, and LiteralKa provide clear edit summaries. Can you please back your "[LiteralKa] stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again" comment? Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not specific edits, because the edits themselves are individually small and apparently harmless - but they add up to have a cumulative effect. I find it amazing that he's removing COI tags added by neutral editors - and bizarrely citing Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial_edits as a reason for doing so. Ask yourself this: Why is the Head of PR, and the 'Head of Wikipedia editing' (easily accessible through Google searches, seeing as 'LiteralKa' is the username he uses all over the internet, for everything), for GNAA, editing the article at all? This is a man who wrote - just four months ago - Jimmy "Babyrapist" Wales... convicted sex offenders known on Wikipedia as "Sysops"... forcefully ejaculating into MuZemike's pedophile mouth.... And let's not forget the wonderful quote that The Wikimedia Foundation refused to return our requests for comment. Saying only that "those dumb niggers" do not "deserve a fucking article". The man who wrote this is apparently an editor without a COI? Would we allow this from the Head of PR for any other organisation? The Cavalry (Message me) 14:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a COI to me. Given his background, LiteralKa should not be editing the article at all. snaphat (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When LiteralKa removed that COI tag, there hasn't been any discussion about COI since the previous discussion on COI and neutrality concerns was settled several days earlier. Cavalry didn't make any attempt to re-initiate that discussion, and there wasn't any answer to my call for evidence. Silver_seren also noted the lack of further discussion. There isn't anyone who takes anything say on the GNAA website at face value. It's unlikely that anything said on that website will harm the Wikipedians mentioned. LiteralKa uses the GNAA website in the same way I use Encyclpedia Dramatica: To be funny and entertain visitors. LiteralKa didn't use those press releases to out anyone. Should we ban anyone who mocks Wikipedia on Encyclopedia Dramatica or the Wikipedia Review? Only one thing matters here: How does LiteralKa influence the Gay Nigger Association of America article? LiteralKa's offsite activity doesn't have any effect on that article, so that activity is irrelevant. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, I disagree, and I do not have to cite specific edits, because the conflict of interest is plainly obvious. Your diffs above are from several weeks before I even came across the article. This isn't about WR, or ED - bringing those sites in is a fallacious argument, and a rather obvious attempt to obfuscate the issue with drama. The only thing that matters here is: should the Head of PR of an organisation be the main editor of the article for that organisation? The Cavalry (Message me) 15:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by, "Your diffs above are from several weeks before I even came across the article"? I'm seeing a revision by you from July 8, 2011. You added the COI tag on July 14, 2011, and that talk page I had mentioned had only ended the day before. As the PR Head, LiteralKa has the best motivation to keep the article neutral and free of crud from those who despise the group. Why don't you point out how LiteralKa made the article less than neutral? Can you? You haven't done so so far. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? You're talking about allowing PR reps to be the main editors for articles because you think they're neutral? The Cavalry (Message me) 16:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to concur with ChaseMe: this is incredibly peculiar reasoning on MichaelD's part. PR heads, by definition, want to shape coverage of their subject to fit their own agenda, which is unlikely to meet WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in particular. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If PR people were truly neutral, we wouldn't have 1/4 the number of UAA reports we get. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I have to counter Michaeldsuarez' argument. As the self-styled PR man for GNAA, how can LiteralKa not have a COI when editing the GNAA article? I will stipulate that WP:COI specifically states that a voluntarily-disclosed conflict of interest should not be used as a weapon against the editor. However, WP:COI is also quite clear that an editor should avoid making changes to an article unless it helps the project as a whole, and given both the size and the heat emanating from this discussion, I can't see any help to the project as a whole. In fact, based on what I'm seeing, his editing is damaging not only the GNAA article (due to inherent bias) but several other articles as well, simply because the names of the articles have the unmitigated bad fortune to create acronyms of "GNAA". Add to that the comments from the GNAA Web site quoted above, and to me it adds up to a fairly damning case, very little of which is circumstantial. And before I go any farther, I'm also going to stipulate that I do NOT have a dog in this hunt. I have no association with GNAA (in any of the incarnations under discussion...hells, in at least two cases I couldn't even pass the physical!), I have not edited any of the articles, and I have not participated in any of the AfD discussions. My focus here is to examine the core issue and see if there's any sort of mutually-agreeable solution that won't wind up involving significant admin (or higher) action. Sadly, I fear it may be too late for that last, but that won't stop me from giving it a go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI - "Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them." LiteralKa (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The COI template doesn't mention citations, and I can tell you right now that #6 doesn't apply in the case you're talking about. If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit, and you shouldn't be making it at all. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The way COI works is this way... If an editor has a COI but complies with all policies and guidelines, and other editors do not object to their edits, then we allow their editing of the main space of the article (we even encourage it, really). If, however, the editor is being disruptive (either through conflicts with all other editors or violating policies and guidelines), then that editor can be blocked or banned. If we can verify either through technical or behavioral means that sockpuppetry has been occurring, that seems to me a valid reason to do both in this case. -- Atama頭 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've got no prior involvement with this article, but having read through this thread, I'll just add that LiteralKa seems to have a pretty transparent COI regarding this article, and as such should (at the very least) publicly make that clear; and preferably should avoid making any edits to the GNAA article at all. Minor edits are OK but not if they're controversial (and if someone reverts them, that's a clear sign that they are). Robofish (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This recent edit by LiteralKa is non-neutral and the edit summary does not accurately describe it.[2] Given the history and the ongoing problems, I think that LiteralKa and Murdox, listed as GNAA president,[3] should not be editing the article directly, nor should they be involved in AFDs related to GNAA. It would be sufficient for them to use talk pages to suggest edits.   Will Beback  talk  20:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's one thing to say that something is "non-neutral." It's another to say why. LiteralKa (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry but my ADHD makes it very hard to follow the thread of a huge discussion like this without losing track of the argument. Could someone point out to me specifically which edits on the GNAA article are non-neutral or controversial, and why I need to be blocked from editing the GNAA article? My vague understanding of COI is that it doesn't apply if the edits aren't controversial. Murdox (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're editing an article about a group of which you're the president then you should really become familiar with the relevant guideline. WP:COI.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep avoiding the issue of citing specific edits and saying how they're POV? LiteralKa (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where I've violated WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, or WP:COPYVIO. In fact, I've taken a somewhat "hands off" approach to editing the GNAA article since it made the move to mainspace but I don't see why this means I should be blocked from making edits to the page I feel are appropriate? By all means, if you could cite specific edits or lines of policy it would help me understand your position more. TIA. Murdox (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit removed text illustrating the perception of the organization's name as racist, it removed (sourced) information about the group's antagonism toward blogs and Wikipedia, and another mention of the intentionally offensive nature of the organization's name. Either you're being disingenuous about the slant you're trying to put in the article, or unable to recognize it, either of which is a very valid reason to ban you from further involvement in editing the article. -- Atama頭 21:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The "racism" was discussed later in the article. Same with the antagonism bit. Is there a problem with removing redundant material all of a sudden? LiteralKa (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that's true. The article does more-or-less cover it anyway. At the very least, it looks like a POV edit on the surface, and the edit summary was pretty vague (explaining that it was removing redundant statements would have been better). So I can see why Will might consider that a biased edit but I suppose it isn't. -- Atama頭 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In hindsight, a better edit summary probably would have helped. LiteralKa (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion, decision

I think the consensus above (among neutral editors) is that LiteralKa and Murdox - and any other editors who hold positions within the GNAA - should not edit GNAA-related articles, except to remove blatant vandalism or post requested edits on the talk page. The problems with their involvement in editing the GNAA article is plainly apparent. To that end, and to clarify exactly what the problems are, I'd like to propose that: "LiteralKa and Murdox are banned from editing articles related to the GNAA, except to remove blatant vandalism, remove BLP policy violations, or fix spelling and grammar errors. All other edits should be requested using the {{Request edit}} template. I think that this is more than fair, and is in line with current community views on this level of COI editing. It also allows LiteralKa and Murdox to focus on improving other topics, while still allowing them to contribute to the article in question. I'd appreciate the viewpoint of neutral editors on this - ie those not pro- or anti-GNAA. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

NB: Someone also suggested a full topic-ban, but I'm not sure if that's a bit harsh. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We're struggling to get neutral editors involved, so I've mentioned this proposal to a few people who have commented above - but no-one who is openly anti-GNAA. I've also contacted Lugurr, who might come over from simple to comment. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

LiteralKa has been permanently blocked and the consensus shaping up amongst the users who've actually taken an independent look at the evidence presented about my COI (instead of lumping me in with LiteralKa) is that it does not negatively affect my contributions to Wikipedia. Can we have this motion quashed already? Murdox (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support topic ban based on inherent WP:COI of editors in question. Their editing history, commentary here at ANI, and AfD nominations of articles bearing names that can contract to the same acronym (whether or not those articles meet WP:GNG), demonstrate to me their inability to remain neutral when dealing with GNAA. I would therefore suggest adding a "broadly construed" qualifier to the topic. The GNAA article itself, along with those nominated at AfD, will stand or fall on their own merits; my concern is the maintenance of the Wikipedia project as a whole, and allowing editors with a clear and demonstrated COI to continue down the path they've selected does more harm than good. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   In my defense, I would like to point out I have never ever ever put an article up for AfD at any point of my wikipedia tenure. I feel heavily that I'm being put in the same basket as LiteralKa despite an essentially spotless on-wiki record. Murdox (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Murdox, you're a single purpose account. Every single one of your edits has been GNAA-related - that's not exactly a spotless record seeing as you run the organisation. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   That's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm editing something I feel I can write for wikipedia about instead of doing what I usually do which is edit small gramatical errors and dead links as an IP. Murdox (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   No, but it's not a spotless record. Why not edit about things that aren't GNAA-related - 4chan, or LOIC, or the quite excellent tech-rapper Dan Bull? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   I don't actually know much about any of those subjects except I think running LOIC and/or DDOS is illegal or something? I dunno. Murdox (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Could you explain why not banning me from AfD/DRV would be a bad thing? It's not a vote, after all. I'd just be adding my two cents. LiteralKa (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

2. I would Support restricting the editors to non-controversial editing of the articles, as outlined at WP:COI#Non-controversial edits, and as proposed above by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. I don't support a full topic ban because I don't see that evidence of actual disruption has been shown, in spite of the close affiliation of the editors to the organization. I support the restriction to non-controversial editing because our guideline suggests it anyway, and because other editors have objected so strongly, but not because of any actual behavioral problems that I've seen thus far from LiteralKa and Murdox. -- Atama頭 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Support, obviously, as nominator. I'd be in favour of a 'broadly construed', perhaps, but I feel that these editors could really help with hacker culture style articles, and I don't want to prevent them from doing so. I don't have a problem with them being involved on the talk pages, or in AFDs, because their comments there won't have a direct impact on GNAA-related articles. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Support, clear COI violations. Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   If they're "clear" how come I have yet to see any edits cited? LiteralKa (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   The 2 deletion nominations are clearly listed at the beginning of the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   And this relates to me directly editing the article how? LiteralKa (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   It's not an article ban, it's a topic ban. In this case the topic includes articles that share the same acronym. Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Including Gay Nigger Association of America! LiteralKa (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

5. Support something or other, maybe not the full topic-ban, but come on, I've come across the PR agents for an organization/person complaining at the BLPN about their edits being undone, the username is blatantly COI and, in general, it results in a speedy delete for the article in question and a permanent block for the user, so what's going on here? Personally, I find GNAA funny like 4chan or all of the other stuff that says "fuck you authority, control , Big Browzer and so on" but this is really OTT COI. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   The Pope clearly has a COI editing articles about Catholicism, the bush, you are beating about it. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Good thing the pope doesn't have an account! LiteralKa (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Stop being such a gay nigger and take it like a man. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Please do not engage in personal attacks. LiteralKa (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Then don't set yourself up for them; not that I necessarily endorse it, but are you really surprised someone would say that? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, do please stop engaging in personal attacks. It is not only hypocritical, but against policy. Simply put- it suggests much about the neutrality of the voter and doesn't strengthen supporting sides arguments in the least. snaphat (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, please shut up, if anyone could point out where the personal attack took place that would be useful, as contributors to Wikipedia, I assume that most of you do not take Wikipedian to be a personal attack, so saying 'stop being such a gay nigger' to someone who is the PR guy for the Gay Nigger Association of America can hardly be construed as a personal attack. Thanks but really this devolves into wiki-stupidity and pointiness. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 01:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Again, please no personal attacks. snaphat (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Again, stop talking through your hat and repeating yourself, there is no personal attack. (Unless you want there to be one). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 01:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Captain Screebo, you name called LiteralKa and told me to shut-up. I saw the warning on your talk page and the discussion on LiteralKa's talk page. I know that The Cavalry is already aware of the initial comment and such. snaphat (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

6. Support; had this been raised at WP:COIN on any other issue (i.e. a company), there wouldn't even be a question. Perhaps these users should shadow Orangemike and see how he handles articles where he feels he has a conflict of interest; his way of dealing with it doesn't create this kind of drama, or indeed any at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Support only for LiteralKa. I took an extensive look through the article history for this year and see nothing Murdox has done wrong with regard to editing the article. However, LiteralKa is a bit of a different story. On the article, the only thing I see wrong was that he removed the COI tags. However, his deletion nominations for other GNAA acronym articles are why I am supporting this- those appear to be motivated by COI. If the latter hadn't been done, I would not support this decision. I would like however to voice my concern that anti-gnaa editors could try to have a field day with the article. I, myself, would rather he be allowed to edit the GNAA article and simply not allowed to AfD or edit other GNAA acronym articles. snaphat (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
8. Support only for LiteralKa; on the condition that Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry can provide a neutral administrator or editor to protect the article. Although this looked like an interpersonal dispute at first, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has since shown me more instances than just the AfD of blatantly COI-inappropriate editing: edit-warring, COI tag-removal, POV edits; more breaches of trust than I can excuse. Although LiteralKa's edits are not inappropriate outside of the context of COI (indeed they can look pretty good; as I said in my erstwhile oppose vote, for a long time I did not know that they had a COI), they are inappropriate in the framework of COI good practice. As for Murdox, I know that he edits a lot on GNAA and little else, but these seem to be non-controversial cleanup edits, which I have a hard time supporting a ban for. Quigley (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
9. Support, as the conflict of interest at hand is too great a conflict of interest. I'm also in favor of bringing in neutral administrators to enforce this. (I also support the deletion of the article, but I can't imagine a sufficient amount do. This is a joke and not worth our time.) hare j 01:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
10. Support full-ban as there is no way for Mr. Kaiser and Murdox to be a net positive to the encyclopedia; there's nothing to do in their defence.  Diego  talk  01:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

    You have been trolled relentlessly by the GNAA in the past, and thus are by no means a neutral and unbiased editor, especially considering the position you're taking in this discussion. Murdox (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

    He's still entitled to his opinion, Murdox, as are you. The Cavalry (Message me) 02:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

    Just trying to point out the possible WP:COI. Murdox (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

    There is no COI because I'm not affiliated to any racist organization, AFAIK. You, OTOH, are affiliated to the GNAA; and no, I haven't been trolled relentlessly, and anyway, how would you know that? Oh, right... :-)  Diego  talk  05:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

11. Support - based on the proposer's reasoning, and the precedents that have been applied to thousands of other editors with COI over the years. I am particularly unconvinced by Murdox' reasoning for not actually contributing anything to this project outside of the very area where COI is the strongest. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
12. Support only for LiteralKi, as Murdox' edits haven't been very detrimental. Perhaps Murdox can get a warning and a directive towards our COI guidelines. LiteralKi's COI is problematic, as evidenced by The Cavalry, so a topic ban is the common-sense solution. ThemFromSpace 13:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
13. Support only for LiteralKa. The sanctions seem perfectly reasonable, and just what we would expect from any other editor with a conflict of interest. However, I am willing to give Murdox the benefit of the doubt as their contributions seem to be within the COI guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
14. Support deletion and salting, and permanent community bans of all editors ever having defended any article with such an offensive title as to bring the project into such disrepute. 64.134.228.55 (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
15. Support there's clear precedent for this sort of provision, e.g. the scientology accounts. LiteralKa is welcome to become something other than a single-purpose contributor. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose you people are just looking to cause trouble. I see nothing wrong with what these editors have done with the article. They have kept a NPOV and cited all information added to the article. If we went around preventing anyone who had anything to do with a certain topic from editing, there would be nothing on this site. Kids in the sandbox (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC) - Struck, as user is linked by checkuser to hundreds of abusive sockpuppets. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose unless "adding citations to uncited statements" is added and "GNAA-related articles is defined as Gay Nigger Association of America, and Goatse Security." Additionally, as neither DRV or AfD is a vote, there is no harm in specifically banning participation in them. (Perhaps banning us from nominations only?) Why don't we ban all Wikipedians from editing Wikipedia while we're at it? LiteralKa (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose I've made this point before, but I've specifically endeavoured on the GNAA article to keep WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, or WP:COPYVIO. I've taken a somewhat "hands off" approach to editing the GNAA article since it made the move to mainspace but by all means I don't feel WP:COI applies to me when I've already consistently shown that I can edit the article sensibly, uncontroversially, and without bias. A topic ban doesn't quite seem to follow the spirit of WP:COI. Murdox (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose I've watched developments on the GNAA article for a long time without knowing that LiteralKa or Murdox were connected to the organization, largely because their contributions to that article were not outwardly partisan or promotional. In fact, they are exemplars of what Wikipedians should be, in that they cited every statement, strictly adhered to NPOV, and calmly addressed the concerns of fanatical anti-GNAA people on the talkpage. Apparently there is some bad blood between old-time Wikipedians and the GNAA, and as a result, many Wikipedians tend to assume the worst in every action from these two users (such as their AfDs of obviously anti-GNAA articles created in bad faith). However, to uninvolved editors like me, looking at the presumed evidence with no prejudice against these two users, I see no egregious violations of COI policy or anything else that would warrant this proposed ban. These editors, probably because of their outside involvement with the organization, are the only editors who would edit an article on such an unpopular group constructively. As long as they strictly adhere to WP:V and WP:RS as they have been doing so far, LiteralKa and Murdox's presence on GNAA articles is crucial to maintaining NPOV against the legions of users who would like nothing more than to have the articles deleted. See support rationale. Quigley (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Quigley, would you feel better if we nominated some uninvolved admins/editors to protect the article? There are several editors who'd happily volunteer and have talked to me about it privately, some of them are those who originally improved the article. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   That wasn't his concern: "I see no egregious violations of COI policy or anything else that would warrant this proposed ban." LiteralKa (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   I'd still like his input as one of only two neutral editors who voted 'oppose'. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Two things. One: that's not the only "neutral editor." Two: it still won't change his opinion that I am "[an] exemplar of what Wikipedians should be" and that he "see[s] no egregious violations of COI policy or anything else that would warrant this proposed ban." LiteralKa (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   All other things being equal, to have non-COI editors is better than to have COI editors, so your suggestion is good on the face of it. But to gain my support for a ban on those two, I need to see specific diffs of serious disruption resulting from the COI; ideally a pattern of disregard for the points at WP:AVOIDCOI. Quigley (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   @the Cavalry: Out of curiosity, who's the other "neutral editor"? You claim that there are only two. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose – Those in favor of the topic ban have neglected to provide specific diffs or evidence of wrongdoing. Instead of answering my questions, the Cavalry and others decided to focus all of their attention on one of my more tangential comments: [4], [5]. I've provided straight answers. When can I expect straight answers in return? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose The Cavalry has a clear agenda here, this is not for the benefit of the wiki. incog (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose. For fuck's sake, I used to be an admin here, I have tens of thousands of edits on several Wikipedias, including this one, yet I got banned from IRC for being “associated with the GNAA”. Will whoever is in charge of that ridiculous crusade please stop and start doing constructive stuff? Will I be also banned from editing Debian-related articles because I was project leader some time ago and my edits could be biased? Seriously, fuck the bureaucratic bullshit I need to cope with everyday. Sam Hocevar (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Sam, this isn't an anti-GNAA discussion - it's a 'person X has a COI and refuses to accept so' discussion. I'd vote keep in an AfD, I just don't want PR people removing COI tags from the article. What I've suggested above is actually less strict than the COI guideline asks them to do. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Yes this is an anti-GNAA discussion, regardless of the original intent. Several of those GNAA acronym articles were created or protected by an admin who had a grudge against GNAA and probably me (he accused me of cheating at the Wikipedia chess championship, so fuck him, too). AfD'ing them is just attempting to clean up the polluted namespace, yet it is used as an argument to show a CoI. LiteralKa probably has every reason to care about the GNAA article's high quality and because it's such a hot topic no one else will probably dare touch the article. What is suggested here is simply to get rid of the people who care enough to research good material for the article, because most of the others were bullied out of it (need I remind you that there was a long “no GNAA-related discussion” policy on `#wikipedia-en` and several ops would ban on sight?). 2 months from now Diego, who of course has no CoI here, or other people, such as the ones who believe I should be banned from `#wikipedia-en` just because I’m “related” to those people, will AfD it. I'm not saying there is premeditation, but there will certainly be causality. Sam Hocevar (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose Can someone explain to me where edits from either LiteralKa or Murdox have been BAD to Wikipedia in any sort of way. This is seeming more and more of personal opinion rather than an actual violation of WP:COI. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Changing my view to a support based on these comments, and per Quigley's notes in the Support area. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Trying to delete Wikipedia content solely because it shares an acronym with your organization is about as blatant a violation of WP:COI as you can get. Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Well, let's see. One of them is going to get merged, and the other kept. I'd say that I improved the encyclopedia through those. LiteralKa (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Just because your abusive behavior wasn't completely successful doesn't mean it wasn't abusive behavior. The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge your COI makes me more certain that a topic ban is appropriate. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Let's see, one of the AfDs was completely legitimate and valid. The other was in questionable territory, namely due to a severe lack of significant coverage, which the AfD fixed. LiteralKa (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   The AfDs could be completely legitimate and still constitute a conflict of interests. If you have something to gain from the articles being deleted, you should have asked someone else to nominate them. Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   The AfDs don't fall under WP:COI, so I don't see what you're getting at. LiteralKa (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   "There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs." The warning signs have been presented and I believe they are convincing. Kaldari (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   I should also add that WP:AVOIDCOI, point two, is pretty clear. Just because they're not in your industry, it doesn't mean you're not competing for the trademark 'GNAA' initials. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose for Murdox I cannot find anything he did wrong at all. Is there anything? It doesn't seem fair to me to lump them together. snaphat (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose There has yet to be any clear examples of a violation of WP:COI. Just because a user has a COI doesn't mean that they are not allowed to edit the article they are affiliated with. It just means that they are only able to make certain types of changes to the article and not to add material that advocates and promotes the subject. There is no evidence that either of the users in question have done such a thing, so this topic ban proposal is entirely fruitless and just plain vindictive. Silverseren^C 04:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Let me also note that the proposal seems to be some sort of attempt to restate the COI policy so that there can be more active punishment for any mistake in regards to the article. It is entirely redundant and, again, pointless. Silverseren^C 04:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   SS: Just so you've got a better explanation of what exactly ires me here, it's listed at User talk:Quigley#As requested re:GNAA. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Just FYI, I've added my two cents and rebuttal to CMLITC's points on that page. I understand you didn't want to clutter up the discussion page, but is there any reason you couldn't have made those points within this thread directly to Quigley? Murdox (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   I supplied them to his talk page, rather than here, because originally they were directed as a response to Quigley's questioning. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   The first thing I would point out is that practically none of the stuff listed there is about Murdox. You seem to just be going after him because he's a part of GNAA. As for your points in order: Silverseren^C 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   1. The fact that the two of them edit around a set of articles doesn't mean anything if you don't have any proof that they are editing unconstructively within the articles. The reasoning for the AfDs has been explained and it is a reasonable enough reason. Thus, your point #1 lists pretty much nothing. Silverseren^C 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   2. I really don't think the "competitors" that COI is discussing means other groups with the same acronym. Again, the reasoning lsted by LiteralKa for the AfD nominations makes sense. So, again, this has nothing to do with COI. Silverseren^C 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   3. You list no examples, so i'm just going to skip this. Silverseren^C 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   4. The corporation thing is a minor quibble and would certainly seem like an edit war over something that has no real relation to the content in the article. As for the Prodego edit war, Prodego was completely and absolutely wrong there. He seems to think that sources from GNAA can't be used for basic information, like we allow for every other article on Wikipedia. This was already being discussed on the talk page as it is. The removal of the COI tag goes both ways. If you add it, then you have to list on the talk page what edits specifically are from a COI point of view. This did not happen and we do not perpetually have a COI tag on articles just because someone affiliated edits it. And the text removal, as LiteralKa said in the edit summary and on the talk page is already discussed in the rest of the article. Including it in the lede is both a weight issue and, I do think, a POV pushing of negative material about the GNAA. The only thing i'm willing to give you is the addition of the category, that was wrong to do. But the rest of your "evidence" is, to put it bluntly, utter crap. Silverseren^C 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   It might be "utter crap", but it seems to be a concern for the 13 users above - nearly all of whom are uninvolved. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Because what you're asking for in this poll is essentially what WP:COI says anyways, except it doesn't ban other actions, so people largely don't have an issue with it. However, what they're not considering is that this is just WP:CREEP applied on a user level. It's baseless and is extremely pointless. I'm going to be watching the article and the talk page after this to make sure that this isn't an attempt to make the article entirely negative POV-wise. It is well known that portions of the community dislike the GNAA and are constantly out to try and make the article negative, but not encyclopedic. Silverseren^C 23:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Could we identify an edit (aside from removing the COI tags, I won't do that again) that inserted POV? The only edit that people had problems with was explained and accepted as NPOV. LiteralKa (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the above comment to a comments section, rather than cluttering up the straw poll. In short, you are focussing too much on individual edits, and the individual edits aren't the problem: it's the fact that you have a COI. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I can't speak on LiteralKa's behalf, but I've shown straight up that I don't have a conflict of interest. Murdox (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how to take your assertion that the President of X does not have a conflict of interest when editing an article about X. It is an unusual assertion. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The very thrust of WP:COI is that the specific affiliation does not matter, it's the user's conduct on-wiki. Quigley put it much more eloquently than I ever could, but the fact of the matter is that I would only have a Conflict of Interest if I put promoting the GNAA above contributing towards Wikipedia. I believe my behaviour on-wiki shows that: No, I have not put promoting the GNAA above contributing towards wikipedia. After all, I hardly have to worry about being "fired" from GNAA if I don't promote them on Wikipedia. :) Murdox (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but you're mistaken: How do you know you don't have an unconscious bias? Several uninvolved editors have pointed this out to you, especially that your editing pattern displays a clear COI - but you're not quite getting the hang of it. Ignore the wording of the policy, for a moment, and think: If we can't trust the anti-GNAA members to edit the article without bias - even when they are editing for the sole benefit of Wikipedia - how can we trust you? The Cavalry (Message me) 19:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a really unusual case for me, and I deal with a lot of COI cases. Generally, when we deal with COI issues, one of two things are happening. Either an editor has a COI, but is still able to edit productively, and nobody objects. Or, the editor has a COI, and is causing disruption, and people object. This is a case where an editor has a very strong COI (the president of the organization no less) but no actual disruption has been shown, and yet a number of people are still objecting to it. I'm not sure I've ever seen this before. I think that a fair compromise here is the one proposed above, that editors with a COI be asked to restrict themselves to uncontroversial edits. Technically, anyone can be banned from anything as long as a community consensus is found for doing so. WP:BAN says that it must, or should be in response to repeated disruption (it's difficult to tell which) but we can possibly infer that multiple people saying "please stop editing due to your COI", and the editors continuing anyway, could be considered disruptive. This is a weird grey area for me. -- Atama頭 19:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, why can't we let anti-GNAA editors edit the article if their edits are by all means NPOV and intend on improving Wikipedia? Quality and bias are measurable quantities in Wikipedian terms. Furthermore, my "editing pattern" is an incredibly vague term. I'd like to see which uninvolved editors have specifically taken issue with my edits and behaviour, and not lumped me in with LiteralKa's behaviour on-wiki. In regards to what Atama is saying, I understand it's a weird situation. However, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with what amounts to putting community consensus over actively improving Wikipedia. It would be much easier for me to understand where the oppose votes were coming from if I'd made grandiose, self-publicising claims on the article but the fact of the matter is I've utterly strived to play by Wikipedia's rules on this article because it's obviously an area which generates heated emotions. I'm willing to take into consideration other people's points of view, but I'm not willing to consent to a community-imposed ban for playing by the rules. Murdox (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing

This account has been canvassing this discussion off-wiki. Could whoever is running the account please not canvass their supporters? This isn't a vote. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any canvassing. Could you link to a specific tweet? LiteralKa (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're reaching here. I don't see how a link to the New York Times or nads.org is canvassing? LiteralKa (talk)

Just here, July 26th at 1:31am. Links to shortcode ending in cPpM724, which links directly to this discussion. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!" LiteralKa (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Then check the main account? The Cavalry (Message me) 20:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Still no. LiteralKa (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Check harder please. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And this fails WP:CANVASS how? (eg. since when does posting a raw URL on the Internet violate any policy.) LiteralKa (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you conidered that it's a spambot account, simply reguritating random webpages? GiantSnowman 20:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry until or unless a bunch of meatpuppets show up out of nowhere to support with their brand new accounts. But if that does happen it would only serve to hurt the GNAA in this case, so I think it's worth mentioning here so that LiteralKa can prevent it from happening, if it's at all possible. -- Atama頭 21:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We've already had MeepSheep show up, and the GNAA article has started up on SimpleWiki in the last few hours, under a new user (no prior experience with wikis, judging by contributions) called 'Lugurr'. I'm also a little confused as to how the Tweet disappeared so quickly... The Cavalry (Message me) 21:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And you attribute... a tweet to a sockpuppetteer noticing something controversial on a large, public noticeboard and a guy deciding to create a cross-wiki article? LiteralKa (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lugurr isn't creating a cross-wiki article, he's just active on simple. You're saying that you don't know how the article on GNAA on simplewiki has started, that it's just a coincidence? The Cavalry (Message me) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that far-fetched considering the recent controversy over this. LiteralKa (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The controversy is just on-wiki though. I'm trying to work out where/how Lugurr was notified of this discussion. He says it was ED, but I can't for the life of me find where on ED it was. I've just asked him if he recognises your username: if he does, then he's probably found it off ED, 4chan, or the like. If he doesn't, then I'm stumped. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And why would he recognize my nickname if you are concerned about a "Gary Niger" canvassing? Do I smell bad faith? LiteralKa (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guilford Native American Association (2nd nomination) as a disruptive nomination. Anyone who would like to re-nominate it for a good faith AfD should feel free to do so after a reasonable interval. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry, there seems clear consensus for a merge to Space Interferometry Mission and I've closed it according, choosing to disregard any possible incorrect motivation for nomination in order to deal with the article appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

LiteralKa indefinitely blocked

Full explanation here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am completely and utterly against this block. All of the reasons listed are not blockable reasons. There is a consensus for a semi-topic ban in this discussion, that is not a consensus for an indefinite block. It has yet to be proven at all that they have been editing disruptively in the subject areas. The use of an account with a different name on Simple Wikipedia, without using an account over there with the current name, is not sockpuppetry. Having to reveal a COI interest over there is one thing, but it is most definitely not enough for an indefinite block. This is an utter perversion of our rules. Silverseren^C 01:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Silverseren, I was against the block also until I looked at the talk page of Lugurr on Simple English Wiki. When asked if he was LiteralKa, he changed how he writes and lied about it.  snaphat ► 02:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well since you agree there was a consensus for the topic ban despite being against it, that can be enforced if/when LiteralKa is unblocked. However I don't quite follow how there would be a lack of evidence of disruption if there is consensus for a topic ban based on said disruption. Regardless, there is demonstrable evidence that LiteralKa is using these two accounts to create the impression of greater support for GNAA on multiple wikis, which is by definition sockpuppetry and disruptive. (after edit conflict) And per Snaphat's comments, the behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry with intent to disrupt is very compelling. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hersfold: Is this an ArbCom-sanctioned block or one solely issued by you? ThemFromSpace 02:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee did not discuss this, it is not an ArbCom block. The Cavalry (Message me) 02:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hersfold: I wouldn't necessarily say that it was to "create the impression of greater support for GNAA". It most likely was just to conceal COI.  snaphat ► 02:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support block A strict reading of WP:COI confirms that anyone can come to Wikipedia and promote their outlook indefinitely, provided some very easily satisfied and common sense procedures are followed. However, when such a blatant case of COI is revealed, and it involves an editor politely pushing their outlook to promote a trolling group over an extended period, it is appropriate for measures more strict that WP:COI to be applied. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Good block. Having a COI is one thing. Using undisclosed alternate accounts to lie about it is quite another. 28bytes (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  Yes; having undisclosed alternate accounts on a different wiki. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  Are you for real? This is somehow acceptable behavior for an editor just because the page on which he lies to an arb about his multiple accounts starts with simple: instead of en:? 28bytes (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  Or to redirect the query; we somehow gained the right to block people for behaviour which happens outside en-wiki and does not negatively impact upon it? No, this is not necessarily acceptable behaviour - but neither is it our role to punish for it. Ironholds (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  The POV-pushing behavior is happening on both wikis; however, he's using the results of said behavior on this wiki to support his actions on the other. It does involve both wikis, and the disruptive editing he's put into this POV-pushing (bad-faith AfD's, POINTy moves and redirects, etc.) would probably be meriting of a block by itself if this weren't such a high-profile user. There are negative impacts on both wikis, although I will grant that part of the reason for the block here is to arrest the negative impacts on another. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support block Wikipedia was being manipulated by this trolling organization as part of their internet activities. Mathsci (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose block badly formed block reasons, don't justify a block (they may justify a topic ban). Points 1 & 2 of the justification do not support a block. 3.1 is a discussion of policy. 3.2 does not support a block. 3.3's rationale for involving the English wikipedia is tenuous in the most generous reading, and tendentious in a common reading. 3.3 is a rationale which ought to have emerged from the community; which it has not, and further, goes only to a ban from GNAA related articles. Let Simple Wiki clean their own house, and note any COIs for their editors on their own project. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block. Last time I checked, having an account on two wikis and undertaking the same actions with both is neither sockpuppetry nor a blockable offence unless those actions are themselves problematic. The case for an indefinite block has not yet been made. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  Strongly support block. Editing on two wikis is not an issue. Being a little shit on two is. Hersfold's reasoning is problematic, but there are valid underlying concerns. Ironholds (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not approve of what he has been doing here, but the topic ban is sufficient. I think there is not consensus for the block, Hersfold, so perhaps you ought to unblock DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The reasons for this block are thin, and it seems punitive. Is that the tone we want to set for this community? death metal maniac (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not punitive. It's intended to prevent disruption of multiple projects by a conflicted POV-pusher. He has now admitted to operating both accounts, despite denying any knowledge of LiteralKa (speaking as Lugurr) in the past. He is clearly trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion, and is using his efforts to do so under this his LiteralKa account to bolster his efforts as Lugurr. In response to Ironholds above, no, this does not precisely fit any current definition of sockpuppetry, but if he were doing this on any single project he'd be blocked without a thought and nobody would be opposing it. Why should the global community be treated any differently? We're still all here for the same purpose - to build an encyclopedia - and regardless of the language, there is still a universal restriction against using Wikipedia to promote one's own (or any) organization. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Prozak is, I believe, closely affiliated with GNAA, or at the very least the related group who call themselves 'ANUS'. While he's entitled to his opinion, I would caution anyone against thinking that he's entirely neutral. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Good block. The pattern of disruption, promotion, and POV pushing has been going on quite long enough. Deceiving another community within the WMF is just icing on the cake of misconduct here. Courcelles 19:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block Unjustified and The Cavalry has a clear agenda. incog (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd dispute that - seeing as I've never interacted in any significant way with GNAA prior to this, and I think the community are well aware that I can be trusted to not pursue agendas. Unlike yourself, of course - no ulterior motive whatsoever. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - indef?! Really?! Maybe he deserved a block for his recent attitude + actions, but an indef is, quite frankly, ridiculous. GiantSnowman 20:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Good block. GNAA's mission is fundamentally opposed to ours. Personally, I'd support blocking anyone involved with them, regardless of on-wiki activity, but this is even easier, because of LiteralKa's on-wiki activity. As always, it's somewhat amazing how much time and effort of good intentioned productive users we're willing to waste on trying to accommodate people who are obviously not here to produce a respectable reference work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Valid block. I've given this quite a lot of thought, because my impression all along with this GNAA situation is that the GNAA editors were clearly trying quite hard to stay on the right side of what they understood the line of COI to be. Quite possibly they were doing so only so they could solidify their positions as GNAA-members-who-have-Wikipedia-status, to be used as needed in the future, but nonetheless they appeared to be trying to follow the rules. Their actions put them slightly on the wrong side of the line, but I think that was inadvertent on their parts, in that they couldn't restrain their admitted interest in bettering GNAA's reputation quite enough.

  My initial reaction to this block was that it seemed iffy and was probably right on the line between "clearly called for" and "hazy, but possibly for the betterment of the wiki, in a hand-wavy sense". The socking could have been another (more or less) good faith line crossing (devil's advocate in my head: "is there any rule that says someone has to use the same name on all wikis?"), but upon evaluating LiteralKa's actions as himself and as Lugurr, it seems clear that he was quite purposely using the second account to evade scrutiny. He knew that people were watching the LiteralKa account for trouble spots, and he chose to use a different account to attempt to get the GNAA article created on Simple while slipping under the radar. As a result, I agree with LiteralKa's being blocked, since this action of socking is a clear indication that he's not simply trying-and-failing to play inside the rules, but is purposely hopping across that line in the sand. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose block - the rationale is concerned with non-enwiki actions; this was a unilateral decision to block, whilst a discussion was under-way here, and there was no urgent need to prevent disruption. I say this despite my strong dislike of GNAA, and my belief that we shouldn't tolerate trolling. We should rise above it, and follow due process. This is likely to cause more drama than it prevents.  Chzz  ►  22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose block - Just like the user above me said it. This is only going to keep the bitching going. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 23:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• This wasn't the greatest block (not the most egregious either, but it wasn't good). I wouldn't stand by it, but... <shrug>
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm with Ohms. Not the strongest reason to block someone, but nothing I would get up in arms about either. -- Atama頭 02:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with the block to the extent it is necessary to enforce a topic ban. Having a COI is not blockable, but dedicating most of one's editing to promoting one's organization is. That said, if LiteralKa agrees to abide by a full topic ban regarding the "GNAA" organization, and makes otherwise useful edits, the block is no longer necessary and should be lifted. The concerns relating to other wikis do not seem to support a block on this wiki.  Sandstein  08:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: None are blockable, "Cross-wiki sockpuppetry"? It would be a lock on the global scale. (Non-administrator comment) ~~EBE!@#~~ ^talk_Contribs 12:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• support GNAA members are expendable.©Geni 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not an admin but I weakly support an indef block, and strongly support a block of 3-6 months and a topic ban where any further GNAA contributions mean an indef block Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support- I agree with Fluffernutter's reasoning. Reyk _YO! 20:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I am especially concerned about the usage of Simple Wiki. This is clear evidence of an intent to use any means to promote this group across Wikimedia platforms, including through the use of deception. Had there not been such deception, I could have accepted the below alternative of an indefinite topic ban, but that tactic makes it clear to me that this user cannot be trusted to edit in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support I'm not sure that this block is in accord with most of our policies, but it's definitely in line with one of them. This account is being used to disrupt both this Wikipedia and another one in multiple ways, and the sooner we stop it, the better off the encyclopedia will be. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - "cross-wiki sockpuppetry" ? Unified login is a feature provided as a convenience for people to link their accounts if they choose to do so. Did I miss a memo somewhere that made unification mandatory, and forbade differently-named accounts on different wikis? Tarc (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Is using SUL mandatory? Of course not. When asked a direct question deception, however, is problematic. Courcelles 20:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. Beyond the appalling deletion nominations, there's obvious intent to deceive above about how Lugurr (who LiteralKa refers to as "a guy") might have become aware of this conversation to create the Simple wiki article (timestamped in the 2100s, 28 July). I might support a topic ban (as proposed below) as well, but I am presently more concerned that such behavior demonstrates a strong commitment to COI editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support in preference to the more limited proposal suggested below. At the risk of repeating myself, do we really see this editor as enough of a benefit to Wikipedia that we want to keep them around? EyeSerene^talk 20:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Don't feed the trolls.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to shut the hell up about the GNAA for at least two weeks.

While I admit to being pro-GNAA and enjoy a chuckle every now and then, this silly discussion is leading to nowhere except giving their IRC channel a laughfest. Let's all stop feeding the troll guise. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 23:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - Don't feed the trolls. (And I presume someone needs to support this.) CycloneGU (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they are laughing since I'm sure the PR guy didn't intend to get banned. Probably to hide weakness as this did not go their way and they probably don't want to admit that.  snaphat ► 00:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• There are currently 4 more people opposing than supporting this block, if you count Ohms and Atama as being undecided. Silverseren^C 03:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You want to run that count again, this time not counting pro-GNAA cronies who are obviously just a little biased? Also, having heard that GNAA intends to out a bunch of people, including me, presumably in response to this, I'm not feeling too charitable at the moment. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I’m curious. Aren’t anti-GNAA cronies a little biased, too? Sam Hocevar (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Would those supporting LiteralKa please review the highly deceptive language used by Lugurr where they pretend to be a semi-literate new editor who only wants to help by adding GNAA to Simple. See any talk page contribution at Lugurr's contribs, or just review the example at can you undelete gay nigger. I encountered LiteralKa at WP:Deny recognition (commonly referred to with its shortcuts WP:DENY and WP:DNFTT). My summary of the disagreement is at WT:Deny recognition#Purpose of this page, and it is not reasonable to expect editors such as myself to enter into lengthy discussions in such a topic with someone who is at Wikipedia to promote GNAA—in retrospect, the image that LiteralKa wanted at WP:DENY (see this edit) is exactly what a troll would want at Wikipedia's DENY essay. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

    I guess I'm "supporting LiteralKa" (yuck!), but my main concern with this is the whole cross-wiki thing. I'm concerned that this new power (as far as I'm aware, blocking users based on their activity outside of the site is completely new) is not something that is good for all of us. I'm sympathetic that a couple of you are apparently feeling embattled here (hersfold apparently is, at least, based on the comment above), but an easy solution to that is to step back and let someone else take care of things. There doesn't appear to be any shortage of administrative interest here.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

    Ohms law, I was uninvolved until a week ago, and Hersfold made this block as an uninvolved administrator - neither of us has, so far as I'm aware, had any involvement with GNAA-related topics or discussions prior to this week. The situation was discussed on the functionaries list and in the checkuser IRC channel. I stepped back - as I was involved - and Hersfold, an uninvolved administrator, stepped in. The potential for 'outing' has only become apparent since the block was made. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

    I don't know about outing (and really, I don't know or care much about the GNAA stuff... I had read about it, offsite, a while back [the topic is held up as an example, by the way], but my level of caring about hate groups and hate speech is pretty slim). The only aspect of this that worries me is blocking another user for what they (supposedly) have done elsewhere (another wiki in this case, but the principal is easily applied to other web sites). Additionally, the impression that Hersfold is feeling embattled is from his own statement above.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

    If by embattled you mean "generally annoyed that any time a high-profile user gets blocked for reasons they've had coming to them for a while massive drama breaks out" then maybe, yeah. I've had no previous involvement with GNAA and frankly have tried to avoid the matter entirely - as many understandably would. However, when the issue of this disruption came up on the functionaries list, I offered to issue the block as a) an uninvolved administrator b) a non-arbitrator checkuser and c) someone who doesn't really care if he gets trolled on-wiki. From what I can see, making this block was necessary for the benefit of this project and Simple English Wikipedia, even though the primary reason for doing so (the cross-wiki socking) isn't strictly covered under policy. The majority of the opposition to this block appears to be either supporters of GNAA or those who have not really looked into the situation enough to see beyond my admittedly somewhat unusual reasoning. Those supporting for the most part appear to have answered the basic question to be considered when reviewing any block: "Would allowing this user (in this case, the Director of Public Relations for a self-avowed internet troll group who clearly intends to edit with a conflict of interest) to edit the project be, on the whole, a net benefit to the project?" I believe it is clear from LiteralKa's edits that the answer is no. His efforts at deception at Simple Wikipedia, which involve the English Wikipedia, only further compound the issue. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm proposing a slightly weaker proposal that I think answers people's concerns Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Counter Proposal for LiteralKa

LiteralKa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two month block and topic ban from GNAA articles. Block increased if he socks here or violates topic ban. As several editors have noted, he has done enough on this wiki to justify a block and topic ban Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: Topic ban is indef and far-reaching, basically applies to anything tangentially related to GNAA in article, user, talk, or Wikipedia space Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - topic ban & shorter (but still substantial) block are much more suitable. GiantSnowman 19:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Question How broadly construed is 'GNAA articles'? Would it include, say, articles such as American Nihilist Underground Society, Weev, etc? Would it also extend to AFDs in the appropriate subjects? The Cavalry (Message me) 20:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If I were the admin enforcing this, I'd attempt to keep him away from anything that could be about the GNAA. Certainly ban him from inserting anything about the GNAA in articles, and from talking about the GNAA in talk or Wikipedia spaces Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Question – Will the topic ban be two-months long as well? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban would be indefinite and kick in when the block expires. No point in having concurrent block and topic ban Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'd want a permanent topic ban as well. GiantSnowman 20:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'll support this. Having been reading about this since the thread began, and knowing his association with the organization, any editing on the subject is an unquestionable COI. I think a total block as suggested prior to an indefinite topic ban is a good plan. Though I laugh at how the topic ban kicks in post-block, as if saying he can edit the topic while blocked. Just say both kick in at once and remind on unblock, I'd say. Also, since user is already blocked, if this motion carries, the two months should begin from 00:51 (UTC) on 30 July 2011, when Hersfold enacted the indefinite block. CycloneGU (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe his disruption on this wiki, and that spanning across multiple wikis, is meriting of an indefinite block. I also don't see that he'd be that constructive elsewhere; the vast majority of his contributions would fall under the scope of a broadly-defined topic ban. Most of the rest is adding cleanup tags without making an effort to improve the page, nominating articles for deletion (often disruptively), or removing content from pages (sometimes referenced). I don't see that he's usefully contributed outside of GNAA topics, and even there using the term "usefully" would be quite a stretch. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't feel that we've blocked someone who could ever be a productive user. We must ask ourselves: will he go on to be productive, or will he go on to participate in low-level trolling (for example, trying to get the picture heading the 'virginity' article to the front page)? I cannot support an unblock for a user who takes delight in describing Jimmy Wales as a "babyrapist... a bald, worthless narc and a boldfaced liar-turned-power hungry manchild" - even if they did so in jest. He abuses Wikipedians he is in conflict with off-wiki and described two prominent editors as a 'pedophile' and a 'Jewish cripple'. Is this really someone who we want to let loose, even after a few months? The Cavalry (Message me) 21:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As I suspected, opposition to my proposal from the more blockist. I was never opposed per se to the indef block. I would note that we appear to be deadlocked on whether or not there should be an indef block or not, which is why I proposed this. If you're sure the indef block will stick, go ahead with an indef block. If it doesn't, my proposal seems like a reasonable alternative. And I agree with you that Ka is not a productive editor, which is why I'm confident that if this proposal is adopted he will either sock around the block, violate his editing restrictions (either of which would be pretty clear grounds for a indef) or leave the Wikipedia outright. So you'll get your indef block later if not sooner. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't mean we can make this decision based on what he might do. Just because we suspect he'll violate his topic ban isn't reason enough to indef. him now. We're judging based on what has already happened. CycloneGU (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just like to say, come on, speak English and speak truthfully, so many people pandering around saying "ooh I hope it doesn't violate wiki-something law" or "really, he only socked on another WP and blatantly owned the articles relating to his organisarion or their aims", come on, this is called playing the system, check the above 'dispute' with LiteralKa: people who will engage any and all methods to twist the rules while appearing to respect them. Until WP decides to stop being the tooth fairy to internet trolls (and vandals ;-) DENY, then WP will be ceaselessly rammed up the arse by this type of behaviour IMHO, omg, Darth Vader is my Dad, please do not nominate me for adminship, I don't think I cut it. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Screebo, I take it you want an indef block. Don't blame me for being soft, Screebo...I'm fine with the indef block. Blame the lack of consensus for the indef block. And yes, some of the opposition to the indef block comes from his cronies, but other opposition comes from well-meaning editors. This proposal is merely to make sure that if the indef block fails, this guy doesn't fall through the cracks Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support AFAIK operating a different account on another wiki hasn't ever been considered abusive sockpuppetry. Indef-blocking for this is setting a bad precedent. A 2-month block for recent disruptive behaviour is OK, with the indef-topic ban resuming afterwards. ThemFromSpace 18:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, prefer the indefblock. Are we better off with or without him? I see no reason to facilitate such a disruptive editor. EyeSerene^talk 20:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

User ClaudioSantos (again), personal attacks

Disruptive user ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also known as PepitoPerez2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is making numerous personal attacks against other editors, likening them to "buffoons" and "donkies". When reproached for this, he simply claims, in broken English, that this is how people interact in Spanish (namely, with insulting epithets and pejorative metaphors).

I quote him here:

"Your last comment is what we call here "un ladrón bufón" (a burglar playing also as a buffoon)." [6]

"[In referring to another editor] We say "un burro hablando de orejas ("a donky speaking about ears")." [7]

I will not go into his extensive history of disruption, right from when he was an IP-hopping editor. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You state he's using multiple accounts. Have you opened a sockpuppetry investigation? That seems to me the next logical step to take. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, AFAIK he is only using the ClaudioSantos account now. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter if he's socking or not? Uncivil editor is uncivil. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. So this didn't go to WP:WQA...why, exactly? That seems a much more apropos venue for the issue. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I brought it here because of exasperation with this user. He started off editing as an IP on Action T4 and reduce the pace to a shambles, despite the repeated intervention of admin TeaDrinker, who could not control him. He posted messages in ALL CAPS AND BOLD again and again on the Talk page, claiming that wikipedia was conspiring to murder people. Eventually he registered an account, which was blocked, and now another account, ClaudioSantos. As ClaudioSantos he is engaged in numerous edit wars on euthanasia-related pages, for instance:

1. Trying to insert the word "murder" onto Dr Jack Kevorkian's page
2. Trying to put an Infobox Criminal on Kevorkian's page
3. Trying to delete nearly all of the content on the pages Suicide bag and Exit International
4. Trying to slant the whole page on Euthanasia to say that the Nazi WW2 extermination program, which used the euphemism "euthanasia" to camouflage outright murder, is akin to modern euthanasia.
5. Etc etc .. too much to go into here.

Bottom line is that this is a highly disruptive, bafflegab-generating, intensely POV editor who is harming the project in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways. His egregious insults were the final straw. So I guess this is more, in the end, than an etiquette issue, and I should have said so in the beginning. This is really an extension of a previous incident on this noticeboard → here A search for "claudiosantos" on this board raises several other incidents on this editor, lodged by other editors (not me). Jabbsworth (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See also his list Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Jabbsworth, who reported me here becasue alleged PA, he is currently being involved in a WP:WQA as another user feels Jabbsworth has been personally attacking him[8]. Few days ago Jabbsworth was unblocked after being permanently blocked due 6-sockpuppets. His 6 sockpuppets has also a long record of edit wars. Just one day after being unblocked Jabbsworth got another block due edit warring. I have also felt rude his comments remarking the users' religion[9][[10] and language[11][12]. And more than one user expresively asked to stop that sort of comments. It seems that as he is against my position on euthanasia then he encourages other users to report me to the ANI. Ironically the above user who complaint about Jabbsworth rude behaviour was in the past encouraged by Jabbsworth to report me to the ANI to get a block for me ate the euhtanasia articles. For my comments: the above comments were clearly explained in the respective talk page of that article, those are spanish expressions, adages, proverbs used to explain certain situations, and I expressively said that I was not referring to the users but to the situation, precisely "a donkey speaking about ears" is a proverb used when someone accuses or remarks faults allegedely commited by another people while he himself is commiting those faults, it is like a donkey speaking about other's ears. I do not know what is the respective english expresion. But after all I know why Jabbsworth did intrud in a conversation between me and another user just to encourage the other user to report me to the ANI because of my proverbs. Look my last editions on Euthanasia or in Richard Jenne and in the respective talk pages, to realize what are my real edits, all well sourced and all my efforts to argue in the dispute resolution there using reliable, verifiable references, etc (See for example this or this). For a change, it seems Jabbsworht is just trying to resolve the dispute through eliminating me out of the field. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

1. My own etiquette case involves a user who cannot produce any evidence of a PA, other than that I quoted his misspelled word with a (sic) next to it,
2. My recent unblock and puppet case involved me using multiple accounts to try to avoid persistent wikistalking and even real life stalking, and the evidence was accepted by Arbcom, so do not raise it again.
3. I have made no rude comments on anyone's religion, merely highlighted that some of the POV edits on euthanasia are coming from the religiously motivated (which everyone knows is true),
4. Likening people to "buffoons" and "donkeys" is not excused by claiming cultural differences. Perhaps, since you are a native Spanish speaker, you should take your insults to the Spanish version of wikipedia where nobody will take exception? Jabbsworth (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The correct link to that earlier IP-case mentioned is this one. It is a case out of 2009, so I have no idea what is the worth of it in 2011.

Secondly, Jabbsworth a.k.a. Ratel a.k.a. TickleMeister has a particular disrespect for people who's first language is not English. Referring to other peoples spelling mistakes is extremely annoying and, to my opinion, a PA. By the way: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Jabbsworth. There Jabbsworth disruptive and annoying style of editing is discussed. No matter what happens, he claims to be the innocent victim and the other guys is the bad boy.

Thirdly: it is just a content dispute. To my opinion ClaudioSantos is strongly against euthanasia, while Jabbsworth is strongly in favour of it (to the extent sometimes that he is promoting it).

In my opinion, the only way to solve this dispute is giving a topic ban to euthanasia related articles to both Jabbsworth and ClaudioSantos. (And I would accept one too, if necessary) Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment above comes from someone who believes I am "promoting" a non-profit by adding the number of staff and names of key directors to the organisation's infobox on the organisation's wikipage. Is this a sane viewpoint? You do the math, dear reader! Jabbsworth (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is adding this picture neutral or a provocation? I take it as a provocation and POV-pushing... Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You Jabssworth subtracted to the equation that NotBW is also reverting your attempts to publish in wikipedia parts of a manual to commit suicide, which is one of the well known purpose of that organization: to teach how to commit suicide. And NotBW not solely warned that is not the purpose of wikipedia to teach how to commit suicide, but he also (plus) warned that it also could bring adverse legal consequences for wikimedia foundation, because assisting suicide is against the law in most of the United States including Florida. Perhaps readers know more than subtract. Notice that NotBW never suggested that Jabbsworth's point of view was insane or illegal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Three month topic ban proposal

Note: This proposal has now passed the bare minimum 48 hr discussion period and may be closed by any uninvolved administrator who believes there is a consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed for community consideration:

Jabbsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are both topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed, and banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed, for a period of three months. Any checkuser-verified sockpuppetry used to evade the ban by those users during the ban period will result in a six-month editing block on that user. Either user may make minimal reports to uninvolved administrators should they observe a topic ban violation by the other party that is not responded to, 24 hrs after the violation and in absence of any administrator reaction, but may not discuss it further after notifying of the diff and the applicable ban.

• Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic and interaction bans based on observed exchanges between editors both at WP:ANI and on the Euthanasia talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - a reasonable solution to the users disruptive contributing/interactions in the Euthanasia and related topic area. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree unless the ban specifically relates to Euthanasia and its subpages (ie Voluntary euthanasia, Non-voluntary euthanasia etc). This is, in fact, a proposal I put to ClaudioSantos myself, suggesting to him that we only make arguments on the Talk pages diff. Of course, he declined. But do not extend the ban, for me at least, to articles I have defended with consensus support, such as Jack Kevorkian, which ClaudioSantos has tried to vandalise by calling the man a "murderer" and changing his Medical Infobox to a Criminal Infobox, etc. For heavens sake, don't punish someone who is defending the Project from this sort of rubbish! Likewise, don't ban me from pages like Suicide bag, because this page is now under attack by an editor with a grudge against me (Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) who is trying to have it reduced to a stub on specious grounds. And at least leave access to all Talk pages. Thanks. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If he's not editing on the topic, there's nothing to have to defend (and others editing in consensus can do usual work on it). The proposed ban includes talk pages as both you and ClaudioSantos have had aggressive head-butting sessions on those. It's just better for both of you to step away from the topic and each other, and work on something else for a while. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok George, if that's what you want. I'm only trying to improve the euthanasia space, which has been sorely neglected and recently messed up by people with political or religious axes to grind. But there are a few good editors getting involved now too, so let them at it! Please consider topic banning Night of the Big Wind too please, as he's been fanning flames from the get-go, and he has invited one above as well when he said Claudio and I should be banned, "and I would accept one too, if necessary". That's an admission that he's been heavily involved in the disruption. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen much disruption involving Night of the Big Wind, but if others feel he should be included then the case can be presented. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A ban will not change that it was a jury who condemned Jack Kevorkian as a murderer so I was just editing the thing based on reliable sources. And be aware also that you Jabbsworth publicly attempt to pressume and publish my alleged religion, my country of location, as you have done repeatedly is a sort of WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT. You Jabbsworth were already warned here. Your double standars are proverbial as I have noticed with my proverbs but also was noted by NotBW -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please calm down and discuss constructively here, ClaudioSantos. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the NY Times link in Claudio's post. -- JN466 05:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• strong support A classic tracert more or less confirmed my suspicion that you might have a conflict of interest in the whole Euthanasia-sector and Exit International. But is still only a suspicion. To me it seems a reasonable solution to the users disruptive contributing/interactions in the Euthanasia and related topic area. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow. Okay, we're going to have to give you a chance to reword that there, because I just read that comment as saying that an entire country has COI and shouldn't be editing certain pages. That's an inappropriate remark to make. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
    • This better? (after 3x bwc) Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Although Jabbsworth is not bound to publish his private information, does not should he let the community clearly know if he has a relationship with Exit International as it could constitute a COI given his clearly strong and biased engagement in that article and in Suicide bag which is also related to that organization?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to comply. I have absolutely no relationship to Exit International (a non-profit, BTW). I am guilty of owning a copy of The Peaceful Pill Handbook though, and like the vast majority of people, I support the concept of voluntary euthanasia, because I've seen people dying in agony, despite painkillers and hospice palliative care. I have no desire to force my religion down other people's throats, forcing them to die an undignified and horrific death because my god or ideology dictates it. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, at any rate you are trying to force your POV on euthanasia here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• But first, would either Night of the Big Wind or ClaudioSantos do Wiki a favour and go to Jack Kevorkian and fix the claim that at least 17 patients who suicided "could have lived indefinitely". Might be OK for a newspaper to say people can live indefinitely, but Wiki hopefully has better scholarship than to perpetuate such an absurd statement. Moriori (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It was not NotBW neither me who added that sentence to that article. But at any rate, if eternal life is your concern may you should read that sentence literally. As "living idefinitely" strictly does not mean "living forever", but precisely: an undefined time. I now have to wonder if killing is precisely defining life's lenght. Whatever. You Moriori perhaps should also find absurd the wide spreaded slogan: "right to die", as if someone could be forced to live forever. Should it be rewritten "right to not live indefinitely"?. Whatever again. What I certainly have to write here is that the "right to live" is also a quite absurd statement that -nevertheless- had to be included into the law, precisely because people are indeed being killed. For example, in the German Weimar Constitution, there was not explicity a "right to live". But this apparently natural and self-evident right had to be included after WWII in the German Constituion and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, precisely because of the 60 million of murders, included those commited by doctors under the guise of euthanasia during the Nazi regime. Perhaps it should be noticed here that also the informed consent binding medical doctors, was also not a gift from the good doctors, but it was included into the law because of the indeed coercively medical practices in the nazi europe, but also at other places like the forced sterilizations in the United States. Excuse my non-indefinitely long response. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - CS seems to be edit warring again already on the Jack Kevorkian page. Let's end the disruption. Dayewalker (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Edit warring? For restoring a quote trimed by Jabbsworth just because a medical chief was critic to Kevorkian? In a paragraph with balanced pros and cons? A paragraph that was accepted by consensus with NotBW?. You must be joking or are you biased yourself? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • You are up for a three month topic ban on the articles, and in the middle of that you've made the same edit three times [13] [14] [15] in less than two hours, reverting two other editors. Regardless of the content, that's edit warring. If it's that important, the best thing for both of you to do is to just leave it for some other editors who's not about to be topic banned. Dayewalker (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, half of Kevorkian's "Legacy" subsection is occupied by a scathing comment from a man who runs the palliative care unit in a Catholic hospital. It should have been completely removed because it is nothing more than mean-spirited sniping, and has naught to do with his legacy, but I left some of it in to satisfy Claudio. That was not good enough for him. It's his all or nothing, take no prisoners approach that's making editing anywhere in his vicinity toxic. What's the Spanish word for "compromise"? Jabbsworth (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You should have read it properly, Jabbsworth. In fact the guy said plain: I like the way he stirred up the debat, but his methods were wrong. Then you should not chop away half of it. Page protection is requested to stop another of your editwars, but at least that is better then the page protection you have requested on Suicide bag to protect your own edits from evil guys. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Full Support I've protected three articles fully for 2 weeks because of the two and edit warring. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Ask admin to be fair in order to be constructive Hey George, above you asked me to be calm. But I think it is absolutely not constructive that Jabbsworth have been referring publicly to my personal info, my "religious agenda", my "incomprehensible grammar", my "tenuous grasp of English", my "broken english", my "poor reading comprehension", and just here above referring to my edits as "vandalism", "rubish", etc.; and I am not the only user concerned (he said "grudge", "insane point of view", "bloody minded" referring to NotBW, etc.). In more than one opportunity I have complained about these disruptive provocations to you George, but I have got no response at all. So I also find far from being constructive that again and again you solely ask me to calm down, but again and again you let that sort of things pass, without not even a shy demand adressed to Jabbsworth about his disruptive, provocative and rude behaviour to the oher users. It seems a clew of certain sort of bias from you. If you would at least attempted to stop that sort of comments perhaps I would not had to publish mine nor to defend myself from those PA's. To get an objective panorama you also should have read my edits during the last days. For example you should take a look of Talk:Euthanasia and talk:Richard Jenne, wher I have been just providing sources and arguments, thus making strong efforts to argue and avoiding Jabbswroth provocations. While Jabbsworth again and again was solely "replaying" my comments with provocations and nothing else. So be fair to be constructive. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree: I propose a complete ban for Jabbsworth. He needs and interaction ban with everybody here. It is proverbial Jabbsworth ability to hunt wars and disrupt users. Jabbsworth is now also engaged in a clear war not only against me but also against another user, just because Jabbsworth attempts to force by any mean his pro euthanasia agenda and attempts to eliminate any obstacle including opposite users. Take a look on his last comments to NotBW and his warring edits on the respective articles. For me is clear that Jabbsworht is now provoking and attacking NotBW. Just a couple of examples: Jabbsworth is expressivelly telling to NotBW to "stay away from the articles I (Jabbswroth) have created"[16], and Jabbsworth uses his usual provocative PAs, such as referring to NotBW as "risible","pathetic","pointless", etc.[17]. I found Jabbsworth very agressive against the people. Jabbsworth deserves a ban. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You're cherry picking comments off talk pages, out of context, which is typical. Anyone interested enough in this subsection is advised to look at the edit histories and talk pages of Suicide bag and Exit International to see how User:ClaudioSantos and User:Night of the Big Wind are tag-teaming to revert and destroy perfectly good articles, mainly because I am trying to expand them. They have added no data to these articles, merely tried to remove information (cited to RSes). This kind of battleground activity should be strongly discouraged. Jabbsworth (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Jabbswroth you think that you are the victim here. You Jabbsworth in two weeks got involved in two wars with two different users (and NotBW used to be your wikifriend who you encouraged to ask for a topic ban against me!). And anybody can take a look into your pass accounts (Ratel, OzOke, TwikleMeister, etc.). It is proverbial how you get involved in similar wars against other users in the past, same modus operandi: stressing and disparing user with PA's, references to his grammar, edit warring, in order to put them out of your way. Yes Jabbsworth of course you believe that you are the reasonable guy as well as you also think that "nazi euthanasia started with reasonable premises" as the first murder was commited against a boy "born blind, ill and idiot" (sic!). -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't just think I am the victim here, I'm sure of it! Jabbsworth (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, therefore so few minutes later you disqualified another user's (Hemshaw) comment tagging it as "ridiculous" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To both of you (J and CS) -

At this point, you're both behaving disruptively both here and elsewhere. Again - please calm down and knock it off while this is being discussed. You're both approaching the normal blockable point for disruption.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please George for the sake of objectivity, show me clearly where did I allegdely edited disruptively at AFD Richard Jenne or here, and why it is understood as disruption. I have kept very cautious at AFD Richard Jenne referring solely to arguments. And here, I do not understand if you mean that notifying PAs and provocations here is a disruption, while it is the legitime and appropiate place to do so, precisely to avoid reply PAs and provocation elsewhere. Am I wrong? What should I do if the provocatioons and PAs continue? Should I keep silence? Is it drisputive to ask this? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the list would be the majority of edits you made responding to or interacting with Jabbsworth. Pretty much every response you've done in the last several days. If you think you're being reasonable in the way you are handling this, you are missing something fundamental about assessing your own behavior, and your competence to keep editing Wikipedia at all is in question.

Please stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite easy and quite unfair to accuse someone saying "the majority" because "yes". If you think you're being unbiased, fair and reasonable in the way you are handling and judging this, you are missing something fundamental. Therefore I will voluntarily ban me of any further interaction with you George. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation: block Jabbsworth for block evasion and other abusive sockpuppetry, temporary topic ban for others

While Jabbsworth (talk · contribs) was deemed to have had a legitimate reason for sockpuppetry on his second case involving TickleMeister (talk · contribs), it begs the question of the account ever having been legitimate at all. As the account was created less than 48 hours after Ratel was blocked for sockpuppetry, the TickleMeister account was always a block-evading sockpuppet, never eligible for any unblock on the basis of additional future sockpuppetry.

Even the first TickleMeister sockpuppetry case rings of habitual abusive sockpuppetry. A new account AllYrBaseRbelongUs (talk · contribs) was created on July 27, 2010. The following day, TickleMeister tried to negotiate his departure in exchange for an improper external link. I suggest that there is sufficient evidence of abusive sockpuppetry and block evasion to block Jabbsworth (talk · contribs) at the minimum. I am unsure if this is a matter for more stringent action.

As for any other editors who have engaged in edit warring on Euthenasia-related articles during this maelstrom, they should be encouraged to accept a voluntary topic ban of sufficient duration to allow tempers to cool. (The 90 day period seems to be a good ballpark figure.) Should the relevant editors accept the topic ban, page protection should be reviewed.Novangelis (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had behind the scenes negotiations with Arbcom on this issue, and some serious stalking issues are involved, unrelated to any of the articles under discussion. You are not privy to what was discussed, so your call for a ban is completely ill-advised. Nor is it part of the current discussion either. I believe you have written to admin Georgewilliamherbert by email in an effort to lobby to get me banned because of your long history of wp:OWN at aspartame and related articles. I have deliberately kept away from aspartame and aspartame controversy because of the hostile atmosphere there, which does not allow any editing that is not favorable to a product with which some editors have intense hidden COI issues (which I raised here at ANI, see log). In fact, so much well sourced data was excluded from those articles that all the excluded data had to be moved to another wiki, namely SourceWatch, see aspartame. Readers please note, almost all data on that linked page was excluded by user Novangelis from the wikipedia page. IMO your input here amounts to wikistalking and harassment. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your baiting me will not work. I seriously doubt that ArbCom ever approved your creating the TickleMeister account two days after you were blocked for sockpuppetry in a !vote as Ratel/Unit5. If I'm wrong, ArbCom can correct me.Novangelis (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not meant to bait you. I'm defending myself with the truth. Let others see what you have done at the aspartame articles, and look at the screeds of excluded data, and decide themselves. If the cap fits, wear it. As for Ticklemeister, as I said you are poking your nose in something you know nothing about, and I'm not going into all the private details on this forum. Drop it. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

On point - and please stay on point, everyone - Jabbsworth seems (to me) to be moderately confrontational but not disruptive in general in other areas now, outside the conflict with CS. The former sockpuppetry has been reviewed, acted upon, and the current account's status reflects admin and arbcom's most recent judgements in this matter. There's no call to re-re-examine those prior incidents per se.

If there is a broader pattern of disruption outside the disagreements with CS, that rises to the level of administrator attention, it will become evident shortly after the topic and interaction ban becomes effective.

People are surely aware of the history and will be closely scrutinizing all editors involved for some time.

Other admins may see this differently, but I am not willing to act based on the current situation (beyond the in-discussion disruption mentioned in my last message above, and more generally the topic ban which is the focal point of the current disruption). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, it seems for me that you are biased George. The interchange between Jabbsworth and NotBW, where Jabbsworth has been calling NotBW "risible","pathetic","pointless","if you do not like me then stay away from the articles I built", "insane point of view", "bloody minded", etc. and where two articles Exit international and Suicide Bag were involved in edit wars and had to be protected, evidently that denies your point of view George. Jabbsworth is currently behaving very disruptive and extremely agressive with other user than me. And I do not mean to be rude by saying this: but as long as you do not see this, you are encouraging his disuprtive behaviour. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also I think the Arbcom procces should be published and publicly scrutined, as the unblock affects a lot of users who has been affected by the serious disruptions provoked by Jabbsworth sockpuppetry. Prime facie wikipedia clearly claims that sockpuppetry is a serious breach against community trust. Perhaps the lack of clearness is the reason that I find very difficult to believe that this sockpuppetry, clearly used solely to evade a block of 55 hours and to edit warring could be allegedly an attempt to avoid stalking. Why then he returned with his sockpuppets precisely to the article (Aspartame) where he was being stalked, if he was so wishful to not be identified and stalked?. Also I do not understand how it is allowed to someone to use 6 times sockpuppet even for avoid wikistalking. Why did not he warned the arbcom about the stalking before? why just wait until the 6 time? I At any rate, community deserves to know the process as the unblock affects the trust of the community. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a question: who consider you to be "the others". I guess Claudio, me and several others? Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Back here

I requested the return of this case. The archive bot was quicker then the final decision. And something has to be done to solve this nightmare. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I retrieved it from the archive as the history will show. It appeared to be an unresolved case where a poll was taking place, and I saw another one like this go into the archive yesterday. 24h isn't a good archive timeframe for things like this. I'm not involved with this poll and have no opinion, but I've tagged it to stay a few more days in case the final decision isn't made immediately. CycloneGU (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We are past the 48-hr minimum community enforcement discussion period (actually at around 96 hrs) and any uninvolved admin can action the proposed community sanction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that, but nothing had been enacted yet so I simply brought it back for enacting. When it's enacted, the enacting admin. may remove the stamp at the top of the thread keeping it from archiving for now. CycloneGU (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest to modify the text so reports (after 24hrs since the violation and is not acted upon) are to be posted at WP:AN3 or WP:AN/I, and the interaction ban is exempted for the purpose of notifying the user with strong scrutiny on the actual text used to notify the other party. The filing party may not post to the report afterwards, and the responding party may freely respond on the corresponding report. In addition: (1) Frivolous reports constitutes a violation of topic ban (reports that are not accepted, but are not deemed to be frivolous, may still be exempted if community deems it so); (2) Blocks due to this topic ban shouldn't be just flat 6-months, it should be modified as 1st offense constitutes a 6-month block; subsequent blocks may be longer. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Marina Poplavskaya - possible legal threat

• Marina Poplavskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Margopera (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

I think this constitutes a legal threat.

I have sympathies with the article subject, regarding their concern; however, I think that legal matters should not be dealt with on-wiki, and therefore the user should be blocked, simply to ensure their concerns are dealt with appropriately, off-wiki.

I see two concerns in the post;

a) declaring our photo to be "against the law". I know of no policy/guideline reason that the photo would be removed, as it appears to have a valid copyright status, having been taken at a public event - but, I would find it challenging to even discuss that with the user, with the apparent threat of legal action. If there is a legal reason the photo should be removed, that needs to be discussed off-wiki. If there isn't a legal reason, then we could discuss it in the usual manner (I could advise on policy/guideline, suggest FFD if appropriate, and so on).

b) In relation to Facebook, it says a Wikipedian "has violated my rights and, by opening facebook page under my name. I believe it is called "identity theft" - something which is unlawful and will be prosecuted." - although this is not a direct legal threat against Wikipedia, it is a legal threat against a Wikipedian. Again, making any further discussion of the issue very difficult.

I empathize with the article subject, and certainly want no punitive action, but I do not think this matter can be sorted out on-wiki, with "legal" looming over us. If I'm over-reacting, please do let me know, and I'll accept that.

The above all came to my attention from Wikipedia:BLPN#Marina_Poplavskaya. I'll add a note of this thread over there, and inform the user of this discussion

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is getting long and some of this is outdated, so I've collapsed this top portion. More can be collapsed if needed. CycloneGU (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, I think you're right although I'm not super knowledgeable about this subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I think blocking might be overreacting, she's being polite towards Wikipedia and hasn't made any further attempts to edit the article. I don't really see what it would achieve other than probably alienating her. She's not a wikipedian and not really interested in our procedures, she's just waiting for us to resolve whether or not we're going to remove the photo. But I don't have any experience myself of this kind of issue on WP. Aegoceras (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) putting on photographer's hat I don't know how European laws are set up, but United States case law has found that publishing photographs that were obtained through violations of law is unlawful. While the festival may have been a public event, if an admission fee was charged and paid, a contract was entered into, where the person paying the admission fee agreed to be bound by whatever restrictions on behavior the festival organizers had in place...including a restriction against photography. So the complaint could be found to have merit, at least in an American court. Insert standard "I am not an attorney" disclaimer here. With all that said, no matter whether the complaint has merit or not, my 2p is that there's a definite WP:NLT in place against a user of Wikipedia regarding the publication of that photograph. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks, N5iln; I agree. I had similar thoughts re. the legality, or otherwise - but don't think we can, or should, discuss it on-wiki, unfortunately.  Chzz  ►  15:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC) It's complicated by the fact that it isn't just the photo (and its uploader), there's a separate a legal threat (albeit due to a misunderstanding of how those Wikipedia-based automatic Facebook pages work) against the editor who created the article. It's all a bit unfortunate. Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Not a proof of anything, but that photo was taken using a Canon EOS 5D, which is quite a sizable DSLR. If the festival bans taking photos indeed (and AFAICT it's at least partly open air, and the picture seems to be outdoor), I doubt he could smuggle that so easily. Taking a photo of a person who does not want it published might be unethical, but I believe it is legal in most countries. No such user (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC) The question in this entire situation is whether indeed there was a rule prohibiting photography. I guarantee you images at musician's articles such as Taylor Swift, Beyonce Knowles, and Bruno Mars (among many, many, more) were all taken in concert venues where photography was forbidden. The question is whether this image qualifies as fair use for helping understand the subject, and whether the subject (who is obviously here) is willing to allow it for that purpose and only on her biographical article to help readers understand the subject (her, in other words). If she is still adament about the use of the photo, I'd be curious if there is a fair-use image that we CAN use. Some of you may not be familiar with Jackie Evancho, but that image is a fair-use image submitted by her own mother. It appears on her Twitter as well (which her mother also uses, I've seen tweets saying "This is Lisa"). So if she is willing to submit a picture we can use, that clears the entire issue and the other image is deleted immediately without question. If she doesn't want a picture on her article at all...well, we can't promise that, a fair use image can still appear at any time so we have to determine whether this image can be acceptable. CycloneGU (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Its got a commons licence, was taken by a user, it seems fine to me. Perhaps ask the uploader was photography allowed at the venue and allow him to retract the picture if he wants. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I've already notified de:Benutzer:MatthiasKabel, but he hasn't edited since mid-June. No such user (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Also notified to his account here - User_talk:MatthiasKabel#Ani_-_pic - I support blocking for the legal threats.Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC) The Jackie Evancho image is not "fair use" at all. It has Commons license. There's no justification for "fair use" in the case of Marina Poplavskaya. Voceditenore (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Oops, I better clarify. Seems I got the two mixed up in there. I meant as in it's being fairly used in an article on the subject in the case of Evancho. My question rather was meant to question whether the image of Poplavskaya is being fairly used or whether it ought to be removed. Because the image was provided to us by someone who took it, general fair use rules don't apply. CycloneGU (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I see what you meant now. I thought you were referring to Non-free fair use. Anyhow, it would be good to get some adminstrator input here concerning the original issue re WP:NLT. Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC) This is not a legal threat. It's the copyright holder stating her opinion that we are infringing on her intellectual property rights. Nowhere does she actually threaten to sue us, but actually politely asks us to remove the image. We ought to take that request seriously and consider it. causa sui (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC) To me it reads as a legal threat, albeit reasonably politely worded. However, before taking any sort of action against the complainant, it would be best to find out if the complaint has merit, which you all are already working on it but have not resolved yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I think opening a deletion discussion at Commons will be helpful in this case. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I agree with you re the subject's photo concerns, but the concerning bit was: "I hope you can sort out this matters, since, I suspect the same user, who opened this page, has violated my rights and, by opening facebook page under my name. I believe it is called "identity theft" - something which is unlawful and will be prosecuted. [18] (my underlining). Voceditenore (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC) "Copyright holder" is a difficult term in this case. The person who took the image is technically the copyright holder of the image and has released it into the public domain. The image is suggested to have not been allowed to be taken in the first place. That is more of a legal route and would have to be verified by a ticket stub or something that explicitly says photography is not permitted at the venue in question. At this time, I don't think we have anything to worry about, but then again, I'm no legal expert. CycloneGU (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC) - Nominated for deletion discussion at Commons - here. - Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Note that the opinion at Commons is that the image was taken in a public place at which there is no evidence that photography was not permitted. The uploader has confirmed that he took the picture himself, and has several others taken at the same time to confirm this. That being the case, there are no compelling grounds to remove the picture from the article at this time. I appreciate that the subject is being polite, and might even give us a picture that she prefers, but she needs to take this offwiki and through OTRS. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Please have a look at deletion discussion at Commons - here, I've a uploaded a photo which should clarify the situation at this event. MatthiasKabel (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Well that simplies it - how can she possibly say the image could not be taken and cannot be posted? Perhaps she thinks the image casts her in an unflattering light for some reason. Either that or a troll is impersonating her. CycloneGU (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we know it's her?

I have no problem with BLP subjects discussing their concerns about their articles, images etc. but Margopera could be anybody. The account could have been set up by a "trollz and lulzer" trying to cook up a little drama. IMHO before any action on such an article or image on behalf of a BLP or corporate subject is considered, the subject should be prompted to contact OTRS so their identity can be verified. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why requests for removal of because of ownership of the copyright go to OTRS, where we can deal with claims of ownership properly and confidentially. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Just speaking as one of the previous editors of Marina Poplavskaya, I don't believe its an imposter, though obviously the procedures for identification have to be followed. BTW User:Dr. Blofeld just left a message on User talk:Margopera asking her if she wants to supply another photo - should this be reverted? Aegoceras (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading the talk page I agree that it most likely is her but prompting her to contact OTRS is not pointless process wonkery. We don't want to send a message to potential troublemakers that they can get articles and images deleted/protected by impersonating the subject. We need to be all but certain that they are who they say they are and the best way to do that is through OTRS. Alternative ways of determining their identity is if they state their intentions on a blog or website known to be under their control and which predates the WP article in question. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not imo - the simple questions are often the best. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and backed the good doctor on the statement over there. CycloneGU (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

2nd legal threat

Margopera has just made another comment on their user talk page [19], asking that we please remove the page, but saying [it] is my right to use further protection of the law.

I suggest (again) that we block the user for legal threats; I note that, above, many people earlier agreed that a NLT block was appropriate for the original comment (though some disagreed), and I think this thread has drifted from the request up top; I'm concerned that, in all the speculation over the legality of the image, we're entering the murky world of providing amateur legal opinions.  Chzz  ►  10:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's no longer simply the photo. She now wants the whole article removed because she did not give permission for it to be created and the creator didn't coordinate with her first. I left her another message [20] urging her to use the OTRS system and directing her to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. I have a lot of sympathy for her. She doesn't know how Wikipedia works. She doesn't even have personal web site, by her own choice. Quite the opposite of the usual publicity seeking I see all the time in WP articles about (and alas, often by) current opera singers. Anyhow, if she has to be blocked, please do it gently, if such a thing is possible. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We've seen this kind of thing before, where a user doesn't want a wikipedia article about them. It's important to be certain that the user's real-life situation is notable and doesn't violate any wikipedia rules. If it meets the criteria for inclusion, then the article can stay, and the user has to be indef'd until or if they retract the legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Non-admin. - This is a clear legal threat. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  Fully agree it's a legal threat, even if it is bluster like with Harold Covington which I got myself heavily involved with. Not in the mood to repeat that yet as it seems she hasn't read anything we've said. Can we e-mail this user? CycloneGU (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A block would violate WP:BLP. Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure? Legal threats are not allowed. Now, if the article violates BLP, then it should be altered or deleted. But unless the user has a clear, legitimate grievance about the article, then the user must be indef'd until or if they retract the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could Count Iblis - or anyone else - please explain the above comment to me? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  17:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to concur with Bugs. WP:BLP requires unsourced negative or contentious material to be removed from an article, no matter who brings the material to the attention of others (or removes it). The "contentious material" in this case is a simple photograph, which by all appearances was lawfully obtained, appears flattering to the subject, and is appropriate to the article in which it appears. The only person apparently considering it "contentious" is the person described in the article. Using a legal threat is not the appropriate procedure, as I'm sure most if not all commenters here can agree. The prescribed action in the event of a legal threat is an indefinite block of the user making such a threat, the lifting of which is contingent on retracting the threat or resolving the legal action. WP:BLP doesn't enter into that equation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem as Baseball Bugs already mentioned some paragraphs above, is that the BLP is herself getting involved here. Then, the BLP policy mentiones that the BLP should be given more room to deal with problems than we would allow other Wikipedians: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material." Now a NLT violation as happened here is no big deal and we can igore this. In general you wouldn't do that, because the consensus about legal threats is to have zero tolerance on legal threats. But the spirit of the ArbCom Ruling is that BLPs editing themselves should be given special consideration. Count Iblis (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree. WP:NLT is a bright line, and I can't see any exceptions being made because a BLP subject happens to be less than flattered by a particular photo or paragraph. If such exceptions were to be made, we would see a flood of politicians, actors, athletes, and celebrities in general diving into a frenzy of removing unflattering material from articles about them, and tossing legal threats around with impunity simply because "special consideration" is given for BLPs, under a particular interpretation of a particular ArbCom ruling. I also think you're interpreting that passage far too broadly in this case, because the BLP subject is NOT trying "to fix what they see as errors or unfair material"; instead, she's using a threat of legal action to remove one photograph she is unhappy with. NLT doesn't give any "wiggle room." --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a good way forward is for Margopera to have an email exchange with User:Mdennis (WMF) (Maggie Dennis or Moonriddengirl) to clarify matters. A block doesn't seem helpful. Mathsci (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I should read user pages more often. I had no idea they were the same as I've only encountered her through the volunteer account. But yes, might be worthwhile to inform her of this thread. CycloneGU (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I've asked MRG to comment here. CycloneGU (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to interact with this one as a volunteer. :) In my opinion (in that capacity), we would better serve this BLP subject and Wikipedia if we can encourage her to stop with the legal threats and start working within processes, as well described to her at her talk page by User:Voceditenore. If she continues with legal threats in spite of our efforts, then we might have no option, but I am mindful of the Board's BLP Resolution in urging us to treat "any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and [encourage] others to do the same." We may not be able to make her happy, but we may be able to at least give her the sense that she has been heard and her viewpoint respected, thus living well up to that whole "patience, kindness, and respect" bit. Alan makes a good point about the bright line of WP:NLT, but I think we can almost always find wiggle room, if there's a good reason. :) That said, User:Count Iblis, I really don't think a block would violate BLP. I've seen BLP subjects blocked for such before. Sometimes they won't be talked down. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that such people can be blocked if necessary. I just interpret that particular paragraph in the BLP policy as saying that if you can afford not to block, you shouldn't even if other Wikipedians would be blocked. So, basically a higher threshold for blocking for people who have just arrived at Wikipedia and edit or raise concerns about their own BLP. Count Iblis (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:NLT. User has other channels they can use to rectify this situation. --John (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, and she will undoubtedly be ever so much easier to handle when she utilizes them, because that won't escalate her unhappiness at all. *sigh* (Not much point in saying I object to the block, given that I objected before you did it. WP:NLT, at least, recognizes that a block is optional, even if typical.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  Well, she did say, and I quote, "this is my final letter". It sounds like she wasn't going to comment further at Wikipedia NEway. But I agree, in case she tries to now, this will just escalate her and basically, if she wasn't going to carry the threat before, she might now. CycloneGU (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

More Posting

All right, if the way this is typed is any indication, this is not her, but a troll. I'm going out on a limb here. Until we can identify that it's really her care of OTRS, I'm going on the belief it's a troll. I'm not going to pay it any attention and recommend we let this thread die. Selling photos for 50€ each outside the event? PLEASE. Pay this troll no attention.

And if I am in fact wrong, I am ready to retract that comment. But I wonder if a sock check is appropriate. CycloneGU (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and retracted the comment above not because I've heard a confirmation saying it's her, but because I have wrongly jumped to a conclusion before learning all the facts. I did this on my own without anyone suggesting I should do so. I feel it's the right thing to do for someone whom it sounds wishes to try to work with us, and is taking the step to verify with OTRS. As for the photo; that is still up for debate regarding its legality, but I think the community has spoken regarding their views. CycloneGU (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It didn't say "outside a festival" - xe indicated that a photographer who was "kicked out from the signing session", later sold pics on the web. [21] Chzz  ►  23:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I got a very nice response to my e-mail, fwiw, and she has followed recommendations to contact OTRS. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Once the OTRS confirms it's actually her, I'll happily retract the comment. The last post at the user page just sounded trollish more than anything else, hence my concerns. CycloneGU (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, similar comments were made about User talk:Orly taitz, but she turned out to be the real Orly Taitz. Some Wikipedians still don't believe it's her, though, and are demanding additional evidence. :) . Count Iblis (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The last comment is a little bit strange. Neither I was kicked of by security, nor I sold any of my pictures ever, I'm just a hobby photographer and a volunteer for wikipedia. I can't also remeber anybody else was kicked of. But I feel sorry, if she doesn't like to be photographed. At least I use my real name also. ;-) MatthiasKabel (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Article subject, NLT, DOLT

Placeholder. Please don't close this thread, yet; I want to add something, but don't have time right now. Should be within 24 hours, easy. Collapse the done stuff, if you like, but please leave it on ANI for a little longer. Ta.  Chzz  ►  00:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Now added, see below. Thx,  Chzz  ►  10:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll put a 48h stamp at the top of the section. I think we should keep this up as it sounds like we might have an OTRS confirmation of who she is. CycloneGU (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there's lessons to be learned from this. And I still think the better option would've been a block, at the beginning of this thread; I think it'd have been a fairer, more drama-free solution. Once any subject starts talking about legal action, it puts editors responding in a very awkward situation.

I knew it wouldn't be appropriate for me to say "No, it is not illegal to take a pic at a festival" - because IANAL. And for the same reason, I'd have to be very careful discussing the other aspects of the article after the user appeared to threaten legal action against another editor.

Realising blocks were not punitative, I thought the best course would be a block, - with no ill-feeling intended - and then for the subject to discuss it off-wiki. I wish that had happened. Instead, several users started to debate the legality, or otherwise, of the picture.

Then there was a second, clear legal threat. The user had been warned for the first. So I re-requested the block, but it didn't happen, until 8 hours later (and plenty of admins saw the 'red flag' I posted). Instead of a block - despite nobody arguing it wasn't a legal threat, and several directly agreeing - we had more comments about the person. So, yes, I do consider the subject with "patience, kindness, and respect" - and the most patient, kind and respectful way to resolve their concerns would've been a block, then off-wiki discussion - where we could have explained how things work, without escalation, without a need to discuss it in public, and without the subject making comments that they might later regret.

It is indeed unfortunate that we have to block in those cases, but I do think that NLT is a policy that we should enforce. Chzz  ►  10:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

She responded very well to a personal e-mail and might have reacted somewhat better to an initial explanation of why she should not threaten legal action other than the template, which isn't the friendliest approach. There's a difference between an entrenched POV pusher who tries to use a legal threat to control an article and a panicked and upset BLP subject. I believe when we have the opportunity to help avoid escalation of that kind of unhappiness, we should take it. I think WP:DOLT, which you referenced in your header, offers very good advice in its nutshell: "When newcomers blank articles or make legal threats, they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive or wielding a banhammer." I'm inclined to agree with Jimmy's take on this, too: "Banning them on the spot for a legal threat is not a very helpful response, usually." This woman's legal threats are almost certainly based on a misunderstanding of law and it's not likely that we will be able to satisfy her on all points, but often people just want to be heard. Giving them an opportunity to calm down reflects well on us, and her comments were safely contained at her talk page, where she was being patiently addressed by people who may have been able to talk her down. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

For the same reasons mentioned above, a NLT ban did no good in any case. She was merely posting quietly within her talk page, so what were we keeping her from doing since she wasn't editing anywhere else? CycloneGU (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

The editor withdrew the legal threat, so I unblocked. --John (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. It sounds like she wants to work with us. I'll go ahead and retract my statement earlier in that case. I've also attempted to answer some of her questions below the unblock. CycloneGU (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Marina Poplavskaya is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Poplavskaya. The AfD was not initiated by the subject, but by another editor in an apparent good faith attempt to "resolve" her complaints. But I'm not sure this is the most appropriate way to handle the issue. None of the normal criteria for deletion apply and it's liable to simply entrench opinions and create a permanent record of the whole kerfuffle. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that this is probably not going to help. :/ User:Jclemens is handling her OTRS correspondence; hopefully, he'll be able to help her find appropriate means of resolving some of her concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Just saw this per MRG's note on my talk page. I will try and get back with her tonight. Shame that no OTRS agent (including me!) saw this and connected the dots earlier. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bowser423

I wanted to bring the attention of what appears to be a young user who has been rather disruptive in recent weeks. Firstly, the user has been involved in borderline edit wars on Tropical cyclone and 1996 Lake Huron cyclone. Second, the user has created many nonsense articles, all of which (I believe) have ended up deleted or on AFD. Some active ones:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bowser423/What a tropical cyclone is not
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Alert Message Encoding
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cieluza
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOR:CON
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Evac

Also, this AFD (and this edit in particular) shows his habit for disruption.

I am somewhat involved in this case, so I didn't want to do any rash action, so I wanted to seek the input of other admins of what to do. I did a search through his contributions, and the ratio between useful edits and edits that were reverted or resulted in AFD was fairly substantial. Could some administrator help out? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the user has tried gaming the system by adding {{humorous}} tags on questioned articles to prevent some of them from being deleted. In general, I feel that the user lacks an understanding of Wikipedia policies, and lacks competence. Darren23^Edits|Mail 14:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Definite competence issues here, with large helpings of WP:IDIDNTHEARYOU and disruptive activity along the way. His contributions have not improved at all despite being told by many editors that they are not ideal. Might need to look at forced mentorship here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Strange Passerby, User:Bowser423 has been making questionable edits as of late, and it appears they could be on the border of a WP:3RR violation on the page Tropical Cyclone. That being said, I feel Bowser wants to contribute to the project and could become a active member of a meteorology based wikiproject if he becomes more disciplined. Perhaps some form of mentorship with a member of WPTC might be a better solution to an outright block? -Marcusmax(speak) 22:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any other thoughts on this? How could we go about a forced mentorship sort of thing? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

For the option of forced mentorship, there's a section at WP:MENTORSHIP regarding Involuntary mentorship.

For other options, I don't think his activity qualifies for blocking at this stage. It's not vandalism, as it's done in good faith, just with a limited understanding of relevant content guidelines and policies. Another option could be a community sanction against his creation of new articles, or limiting him to only creating new pages after submittals through other users or through Wikipedia:Requested articles. Last option could be encouraging him to investigate if a relevant Wikia project may be a better fit for his new articles (such as http://weather.wikia.org, or http://hurricane.wikia.org )

I'm not sure the best path ... possibly start with mentorship and move to sanctions later if that doesn't resolve the issues? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright. At the very least, I'll offer to give him a hand, give him some guidelines, whatnot. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Tripower

Tripower (talk · contribs) has been deleting cited and relevant material without explanation for several years, for reasons that are obscure in part because he has (until now) never made a Talk: page comment. He most recently deleted this material from Nat Turner's slave rebellion and this material from Miscegenation. Looking at his edit history, I discovered this is not the first time he has done this - he was deleting the same material in 2008. I've warned him to stop doing this, but he has merely edit-warred, including (apparently) as 75.75.22.150 (talk · contribs). Rather than edit-war with him, I've brought the issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have provided my reason for this edit (The entire Miscegenation article for instance is entirely political in nature and seems to have an agenda rather than to simply be informative). I do find many of the Wikipedia User Interface structure very difficult to navigate and have no idea how to create a talk page. The person, Jayjg, seems to have some particular interest in my posts perhaps because this user agrees with the position being espoused in these articles. With respect to the Miscegenation article it is flagged for the very reasons I have stated and needs to be completely gone through and edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripower (talk • contribs)

Please do not modify my comments again. Do you have any specific reason for removing that reliably sourced information? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Diff. in question. CycloneGU (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Tripower has attempted three times to change text in the topic post that would change the meaning of the post.

• Example 1
• Example 2
• Example 3

I have placed a 3RR warning on his talk page as a final warning given there are already so many warnings there. A block may already be warranted; I will leave this to administrative discretion. CycloneGU (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose a block, and think the warnings to date are over-the-top. This editor has made good-faith attempts at communincation, and has clearly stated that they are unfamiliar with the conventions here. Rather than plastering thier talk page with icons of stopping hands, exclamation points, and final wranings, how about we try talking to them a little bit? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page does look a bit cluttered with all those templates, and I think it might do well to remove some of them (though I must point out that the 3RR one is as a result of trying to change this post thrice and should stay - though I forgot to sign it, I now notice). Also given the issue was just brought up, it's far from resolved, so we still have to address the problem here. CycloneGU (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And yet, he has reverted once again. Nothing seems to be getting through. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what Aaron thinks then. CycloneGU (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the previous warnings with and edit summary saying I'd done so and left another message. I do hate the downward spirals we frequently get into with newer editors, but I've provided a clear way for them to progress this (talking to me) and if they choose not to do so I'll not object to any further administrative action. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami mass renaming script pages to alphabet pages, when they are not alphabets

In the move log one can see that this User:Kwamikagami moved several articles called X script to X alphabet [22] This is incorrect for many. No proper discussion took place, no move reasons are given. He is just moving. Also he deleted a dab page at Arwi which distinguished between the language (or call it dialect if you like) and the script. But interestingly the Arwi article has a subsection on the script, i.e. Arwi itself is not the script. Please can someone stop the article moves and page deletions? Please see also his talk page and this section at Editor assistance/Requests where other users complain about the moves. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Even more disturbingly, User:Kwamikagami engaged in the discussion at WikiProject Writing systems about his first move of 48 articles, and then proceeded to move another 20 messages, without discussing the moves with anyone. Moves which he has repeatedly defended without apology to the community, and which he has not reverted, knowing the furor it has caused. At the editor assistance request, I've been informed that this is part of a larger pattern of disruptive moves for this editor. I would appreciate an admin removing his ability to move articles until the RfC at WikiProject Writing systems has completed, and any other assistance (eg, a stern talking to) that can reasonably be rendered. VI_WS ^talk 18:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"I would appreciate an admin removing his ability to move articles"—You do realize that the only way to do this is by blocking him? I don't think a block is warranted at this point. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe step one would be to remove his Admin rights. So he can at least not delete articles to make way for the moves. And if he goes on with moving, yes please, block him. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just staring at the edits, it seems he'd be making double redirects as well... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are fixed by a bot within a couple hours. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

With Arwi, I was responding to comments on the talk page suggesting that it's Tamil as used by Muslims but not a separate language. Basically, Tamil written in the Arabic alphabet and used for religious purposes and consequently with a lot of Arabic loans. Calling that a "language" would seem to be an exaggeration, and I haven't seen anything to the contrary. It could be, of course, but no-one has provided anything that I see. It doesn't have a separate ISO code, for example, and much of the time we don't accept things as separate languages even when they do. It would seem that the prime definition of "Arwi" is how it's written, so separating the script would be unwarranted, and in this case a WP:CONTENTFORK. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to discuss content issues. You deleted claiming "G6. Technical deletions. Uncontroversial maintenance..." - By this you violated WP:ADM : Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers; ... They are never required to use their tools and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved. WP:INVOLVED Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize he is an admin - that changes things. He certainly doesn't act like an admin. The fact that he takes it upon himself to undertake drastic changes without consensus is a huge red flag for me in any administrator. These are supposed to be people who resolve and mediate conflicts, not cause them. I guess I request a conduct review for a suspension of admin privelages, then. Is this the proper place to make that kind of request? VI_WS ^talk 03:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else as disturbed by the fact that Kwami never divulged the fact that he was an admin as I am? How does someone this deceitful and clandestine even get admin privelages in the first place? VI_WS ^talk 03:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a fairly prominent box on his userpage that says "This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia (verify)." If admins went around starting every conversation with "I'm an admin and I want to do X" the natural reaction would be that we were using the implied social context of being an admin to win debates. I'd much rather admins not brag about their status since it is plainly displayed in the user list and not a secret to anyone. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that the original act of moving 48 pages is the sort of thing that I would expect an administrator to do, carrying out what they considered to be an act of cleanup, and say something like "Oh, I was just doing some administrative cleanup and thought this would be uncontroversial", making it much less of a transgression. Also the continued moving after that point isn't just the act of someone who doesn't understand community consensus, it is someone abusing their power and knowingly acting against the community consensus that they are tasked with upholding. This conflict is not about the original moves, it's about the Kwami's continuing disregard for the effort to form a consensus, a fact that is all the more disturbing given his position. VI_WS ^talk 03:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can move large numbers of pages; I don't see abuse of admin tools here unless kwami made moves only an admin can do (that is to say, deleting pages to make way for the move), and even that is not an abuse of admin tools if there was no prior dispute about naming. (It would be if he did that sort of move as part of a move war, but the first time is fine; as far as I can tell, it was only after the moves that anyone complained). Furthermore, in the message above I don't see the OP listing any specific examples of articles where kwami's "script -> alphabet" move is problematic, and the EA discussion linked to seems to have been started at the same time as this one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there was a prior dispute about naming, which Kwami participated in, and then proceeded to move 20 more pages without consensus. That is the behavior that concerns me. I don't know what tools were used to do that, all I care is that Kwami acted in a way that he knew to be contrary to consensus and has neither apologized for his actions, nor reverted them. I happen to believe that a position of trust demands a higher standard, and Kwami has consistently fallen well below my expectation of the standard of conduct for an editor, let alone an admin. VI_WS ^talk 04:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just browsing through Wikipedia when I stumbled upon this discussion. In my humble, honest and neutral opinion, as per common rule of Wikipedia, editing, or in this case, moving pages which are controversial must be accompanied by a discussion and a proper consensus from the Wikipedia community, and this rule applies to normal users like me and also to administrators as well with no exceptions. Guidelines are there to be followed, observed and obeyed because if left ignored, arguments such as this one will definitely arise. I hope that everyone will keep their cool and a proper consensus can be achieved. Good luck and peace, be cool always. Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 13:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

While "Kwami has made a series of bulk page moves" is not exactly an uncommon ANI topic, in this case I can't see much in the way of a consensus that he's wrong to be making them. There's an open discussion about it and he's said he's fine with them being moved back if there's consensus to do so. As such, I don't see that there's much in the way of abusive use of tools going on, even if the moves did involve some housekeeping deletions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

While Kwamikagami may or may not have abused his tools, some of the comments in this ANI thread bear witness yet again to his abuse of the trust vested in him as a sysop. Thus is not the first time he has made contentious, unilateral, board-wide edits to linguistics pages in the face of serious protest. This ANI started by User:Bogdan Nagachop and the comments by Usr:VI are only the tip of a behavioural iceberg. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

How to deal with tendentious editing?

The thread below, up to Fowler&fowler's msg at 18:58 is copied from WP:AN per their advice. MangoWong and Thisthat2011 are two contributors who have been arguing tendentiously across numerous India-related articles, at the India project, at the Article Titles project, here at ANI, at NPOVN ... and probably in other forums also. A third contributor in this loose group is Yogesh Khandke but s/he is currently on a one week block.

How do we deal with a situation as ridiculous as, say, the goings-on at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_45#Need_some_opinions_on_Talk:Kurmi.23Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna
• Talk:Kurmi#Source_for_Shudra
• Talk:Nair#Lede_section
• Talk:Sudheendra_Kulkarni#Overlinking (this was Yogesh Khandke alone)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Please_look

In their attempts to either censor Wikipedia (by, for example, objecting to inclusion of shudra in the Kurmi article per the above thread), or push an India-centric POV over Wikipedia's NPOV ethos (as in threads regarding article renamings for Ganges and Gandhi), they are raising the same issues time and time again but rarely have a policy-based argument to substantiate their positions. Indeed, they appear often to misunderstand policy but are fluent in the systemic bias argument. I acknowledge that there is such bias, by the way, but that is a wider problem & will not be resolved by going round in circles on a few articles here and there.

Edits such as this one demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of policy and guidelines, seemingly in an attempt to wriggle out of having to acknowledge the list of 15 sources presented to support a statement that MangoWong objected to.

There have also been examples of rather poor advice such as this being given to relatively new contributors, and various instances of undermining the integrity of the project.

This is occurring on a daily basis and it is wearing people out. Well, it is certainly wearing me out. There are surely far better things to do than run round in circles dealing with people who rarely present sources to support their opinions, wikilawyer to an extreme but in a way that totally misrepresents policy, and simply will not drop the bone, How does one deal with this situation? The list of examples of the tendentious repetitive disruption would be truly massive & the idea that I would have to compile the thing is daunting.

I've gotten so confused and hassled dealing with these contributors that I've been making errors of my own, btw. Eg: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Need_comments_on_Hindu_Jatis_related_discussion. Keeping track of all the repetition etc is a nightmare, but feel free to boomerang me. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue is still being discussed at India Related Topics. I would suggest to excuse the shortcut that Sitush has taken to take the topic on this noticeboard before discussions elsewhere are done with, before issues can have chance as suggested by Sitush to boomrang. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I should have brought in an ANI on Sitush for wasting phenomenal amount of my time with unnecessary arguments, accusations, proposing things which he is not serious about, edit warring on minor issues, claiming policy says x, when it does not, putting up unnecessary warnings on my talk page, trying to revert my edits by inserting garbage sources, claiming myself agreed to things when I did not, etc. etc. etc.-MangoWong (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that despite having unsuccessfully tried before to get support at ANI and other places for a perception that there is admin "incompetence" etc, Thisthat2011 is still persisting in the trend even after receiving a notice for this discussion - see here. TT is entitled to the opinion but it is counterproductive to keep carping on about something that has already been reviewed by numerous independent observers at ANI. Mind you, since they would mostly also have been admins I guess that this is a part of the Big Conspiracy. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The only Big Conspiracy I see is the Big Bang. The rest are details. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just found an example of Yogesh Khandke's recent disruption on a FAQ page, although I note that he subsequently self-reverted. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC) :Sitush, this discussion should be taking place at WP:ANI, not here. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Boing! said Zebedee thought this would be the best venue when I asked a while ago. Can I just copy/paste the entire thread? - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, cut and paste this thread there. I'll add my bit there as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about MangoWong, but Thisthat2011, in my view, has become a disruptive presence on Wikipedia. Whether his knowledge of written English is truly poor or he feigns ignorance, I do not know, but he has been handled with kid gloves for over two months now. In this time, however, he hasn't learned much. His posts are both repetitive and vague in the extreme, seemingly blithely unaware of the prevailing Wikipedia standards of logic, reasoning, citing, precision, prose writing, and even reading comprehension. Talking to him is akin to talking to a child who keeps asking, "Why?" in response to every answer. It is only so long before the parent gets exasperated. I don't know if he needs a topic ban in the manner of Zuggernaut, some kind of supervision by a firm and very patient mentor, or a week-long block in the manner of Yogesh Khandke, but he needs to be given some message from the community. He has wasted an inordinate amount of time of a number of productive Wikipedians. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My experience of Thisthat2011 is more or less the same as Fowler&fowler's. Discussion is utterly frustrating. Every answer is responded to with yet another question which just goes on and on and on. His posts demonstrate a complete inability to understand basic arguments. Paul B (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had similar experiences with Thisthat2011 as have Fowler and Paul Barlow. I have had lengthy (very) discussions with him on two occasions, wherein I have seen the same points being stated and restated, and where he tries to repeatedly insist that there is some consensus. Lynch7 19:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am yet to get any answer on why sources related to legends etc. on Hindu Jati pages are required as per strict standards of Wikipedia, when the legends/classifications etc. are religious in nature. As far as "a notice for this discussion - see here", let me know where I have mentioned anything against admins after that as well. I don't know from where Paul B is giving his opinion from suddenly. About ML and Fowler, the feeling is mutual. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the discussion are going on, I would also like to suggest a standard like WP:KnitShA meaning "Knight in the Shining Armor", where secondary sources are not presented till some time when all editors have a go of opinion in the absence of RS, and then a Knight in the Shining Armor will present the source to corner glory while an editor will be remarked upon just to demand RS in the absence of consensus. I can cite an example here, shows kind of arguments that keep going on and on and see where and who has presented sources and who has argued without sources. Calling me tendentious would be incorrect in such a case. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat, is it really wise to introduce here proposals here that you have raised seemingly ad infinitum in other forums? It is practically one of the definitions of a tendentious person (see 2.9). I note an interesting thread around this diff where you mention the "knight" theory, one of a series on that article talk page where you and Mango (by self-confession, at that time editing as an IP) tied up a lot of the time of people such as Paul Barlow & Bwilkins. Your current Hindu Jati sourcing hobbyhorse seems to be appearing on all sorts of tangential forums.

You refer to the diff that I had previously mentioned regarding your attitude to admins. If you look at the timing then you will see that your comment occurred after I had notified MangoWong and after you had acknowledged receipt of my mispoted notification to yourself. There have been no such further statements probably because it has been raised here and also MangoWong warned you off doing so. But you (and IIRC MangoWong also) have for some time had a predilection for this type of "biased admin" comment. - Sitush (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, till now hardly anyone has given a clarity on how strictly RS standards are to adhere to on topics related to Hindu Jatis, though perhaps there are some diffs that explicitly are stated by Sitush/others about how Hindu scriptures like Puranas are not to be considered for the page because ... etc. I wonder why such exactness is required on pages related to Hindu Jatis, where many legends/beliefs etc. could be related to ancient texts and where Hindus might well have to go through the maze of issues including english-translation-of-texts, their relevant RS explanations, even proto-religions etc. to clarify details of beliefs and legends. And so this topic comes here too, along with the tendentiousness allegations. If this is not done properly, you will definitely find many people logging on Wikipedia just to point out how incorrect it is as per beliefs/legends and will be subsequently be disappointed on finding out that each of them have to prove God along with rest of the issues discussed above to make their point clearer. That is why I had mentioned the topic on India-related discussion board, which was cut off immediately and mentioned in two boards ANI and AN. An example of similar page, according to me, could be Catholic Church, where religious legends are not ignored on/similar pages.

As far as 'biased admin' part is concerned, I would like to clarify that admins should have pointed out how these pages could not have to be so stringent in the first place, a position that otherwise will emerge regardless according to me. This is high time someone makes it clear.

About this diff, the source I do not believe was RS, and the issue was settled long time ago, which you have missed, immediately after mentioning RS for the same content. It is therefore incorrect to say that the discussion was tendentious at all for anyone. Although User:Sitush gets the exact sources needed to make his point, I would like to point out that he leaves it half explained for the other side to do the explanation part very well as per understanding of the rest of people/admins. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

About "attitude to admins", you have yourself stated that "There have been no such further statements probably because...", bordering on assumptions that I almost did it after warning which does not mean anything. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there any thoughts regarding how to deal with MangoWong's ludicrous wikilawyering etc? An example already referred to being [such as this one this]. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Thisthat2011 is topic banned from India-related articles for three months. Basically, he needs to learn how to collaborate with others by practicing on less emotionally-charged (for him) topics first. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this a proposal or already decided? Will I be able to log in and follow topics of interest in my watchlist, without edits/discussions - if this can be clarified as well please. I was going to reply of above post by Sitush, but if I am already topic banned, I am not sure if I could. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a proposal. You are entitled to comment on it. A topic ban would not stop you watching but it might stop you from commenting even on indirectly related/unrelated pages. - Sitush (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than introducing a topic ban on ThisThat2011, my impression is that it may be enough to advise them to study the TPG closely and to not to get involved in too many articles at the same time. The way I see it, I think ThisThat2011 has been running into complaints because of not having read, or not having internalized the TPG. Secondly, I think ThisThat2011 has been trying to do too many things at the same time. Spreading oneself too thin does not seem like a good idea to me. Thirdly, I agree that ThisThat2011 be advised to stay away from contentious issues for some time. The way I see it -- getting involved in too many disputes, without having internalized the TPG, spreading oneself too thin--seems to be the reason that ThisThat2011 has been running into complaints. ThisThat2011 may also have become worried because Sitush seems to have been behaving in a way which would suggest that he could get admin support for whatever he wants. This can have an unsettling effect on some folks. Besides this, I would like to be allowed to give some friendly tips to ThisThat2011 on how to formulate comments on the Talkpage. These are already there in the TPG, but still....Having studied the TPG multiple times myself, I think I might able to go some distance there (although I do not see myself as a "master" of TPG, to be clear). Secondly, I too am having complaints with Sitush's behavior. I would request that they too should also be examined.-MangoWong (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You questioned my behaviour here in the thread you started on 22 July and which rambled on for several days. Questioning it again, so soon after a prior thread, seems likely to be tendentious unless you are going to stick to issues which have arisen since that thread closed. However, I will accept with whatever the wider community thinks of this. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

NB: I did mention WP:Boomerang above. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is perhaps a difference between WP:Boomerang and Boomerang. WP:Boomerang is more social than the other one. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

MW, it is rather disingenuous that you, of all people, are offering helpful suggestions on TT2011, given that you are the other problematic party addressed in this thread. I would also be quite leery of any offers of yours to mentor folks, as you have a terrible habit of playing Iago and trying to sweet-talk other editors into edit warring for you (most recent example: [23] where he refuses to take his sweeping allegation to ANI, but in the same breath nudges a rather bewildered but well-meaning new editor to go ANI Sitush). For any outside party curious about MangoWong, note the man's Contribution record: he spends almost all of this time wikilawyering on Talk pages, and even on Talk we have barely seen the man offer so much as a citation, or even specific refutation of any citation he disagrees with. All he does it toss around policy names, even when corrected by uninvoled editors for mis-using those policies to push POV points. He also has this obsession with removing the word "Shudra" (labouring class in Hinduism), but rather than discuss the matter professionally will hurl accusations of oppression, ignore all evidence that the term is used by academics, and even refuse to use the word, typing instead "S*****", which I submit casts some doubts on his ability to approach the topic in an NPOV manner (example: [24]). MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That I have too many talk page contributions is because I am having a dispute with folks who would go through great lengths to revert citation tags, (tags which they could never provide cites for). Moreover, they have a penchant for irrelevancies and even argue about stylistic issues which can be settled by the MoS. And that newbie was quite frustrated at that time. All his proposals were being rejected for quite some time. He was even being given a week's timeframe for replies (and was expected to wait for that time). etc.-MangoWong (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Three months might be too long. I would support an initial three-week topic ban on Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs) from India-related topics, with the clear understanding that he would face stiffer penalties if he went back to his old ways upon his return. Hopefully, the topic ban would force him to work in areas where he is not so emotionally invested, and give him some perspective. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I want to make clear that by "India-related topics," I mean topics that have some bearing on the history, geography, culture etc of the Indian subcontinent. In other words, pushing the antiquity of Indian mathematics in the History of Mathematics article, even if the region of antiquity, such as the Indus Valley Civilization or Mehrgarh), is in present-day Pakistan, will be considered a violation of the topic ban. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Having had the same experience with Thisthat as Fowler, Paul, and Lynch, I would support a three week topic ban (agree that three months seems excessive). This [25] thread at Talk:Mathematics says it all. He made some highly POV edits to the article, they were reverted, he edit-warred, then spammed the talkpage with irrelevant crap. A real time-sink. Athenean (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all convinced that a three week topic ban will do it. Thisthat has been warned and advised on numerous occasions since registering and there has been no change at all in their behaviour. This is one of the latest contributions, which I can make no real sense of at all. However, I will go with the flow provided that Fowler's "stiffer penalties" condition is acknowledged by Thisthat as being serious rather than just some throwaway remark. TT appears possibly to have some difficulties with the language, and so I would like it to be crystal clear. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

From my limited interaction with Thisthat at Mathematics articles, I would support Fowler's proposal for a three-week topic ban and for the same reasons. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on extensive experience with TT in a very short amount of time, I would definitely support a topic ban of some sort, but agree with Sitush that TT has a long, long history of this exact behaviour throughout his entire time here regardless of topic. Dig his Talk page, and he's been told the same things for the same misbehaviour the entire time. However, a 3wk India ban would buy Sitush and me some breathing space, and after that I would anticipate WP:ROPE coming into effect more than any real change out of TT. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I am not opposing the proposed topic ban, I would not see much use for such a topic ban unless it would provide ThisThat2011 an impulse to study the WP:TPG. I don't see much value in a topic ban if it is merely meant to be punitive. Unless things are explained, the same thing is sure to get repeated.-MangoWong (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Support for 3 week topic ban. I think we all agree that a punitive topic ban is unacceptable. This issue, though, isn't really punitive; it's the fact that ThisThat2011 is, for one reason or another, not understanding how to properly interact with other users on article talk pages. This behavior is disrupting the ability of editors to improve these articles across a wide ranch of topics (though all within the bigger topic of Indian issues). While I've been a bit on the fence, after looking back at some more work today, I'm inclined to offer support for a three week topic ban on articles, talk space, and user talk space discussions related to India, broadly construed. It would be ideal if TT2K would use this chance to edit other topics and get a feel for what its like to edit in a less disruptive manner. Whether or not xe does that is up to xyr. Upon the expiration of the 3 weeks, TT could come back to India articles, and should xe demonstrate no improvement, it would likely be necessary to extend the topic ban, perhaps indefinitely. It's possible that it would help for ThisThat2011 to have a mentor (before and after the topic ban), though I don't know if anyone would be willing to do it. Note that, MangoWong, you would be an exceptionally bad choice as mentor, given how close you also are to the subject matter; I'm afraid your influence would likely lead TT down the wrong path. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

TT has been referred to the various guidelines on more occasions than I care to remember. It has also been suggested on several occasions that xe might benefit from contributing to articles in which xe has less likelihood of a conflict of interest. As far as I can tell, neither of these numerous suggestions have had any impact at all. If a topic ban causes TT to (a) explore other areas of Wikipedia and (b) actually take on board the various advisory comments about behaviour then all should be well. If it doesn't work then TT has a fair idea of what to expect next. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Referring to guidelines is generally not sufficient unless specific points are shown. One is unlikely to find the specific point in a longish guideline. It is also possible that one may ignore to read through the guideline entirely. I don't say that it is good to ignore reading TPG. But it may have happened. And suggestions that eds with an Indian background should entirely stay away from India articles seem "not serious" to me. Nevertheless, I agree that ThisThat2011 should work through WP:TPG. And I was only offering to provide some "friendly tips". Nothing more.--MangoWong (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide him friendly tips as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Gothic Forest

This user has been an active genre warrior since February 9 of this year, and has performed 222 edits as of this post; not all of that has been unneeded genre changing, but theres's been enough of that from the account to bring to attention here. (S)he frequents pages related to metal, folk, and/or ambient music; the user has also edited music pages with the subject matter being rather ambiguous in the genre department. Gothic Forest has never attempted to discuss the genre changes with other editors, let alone try to reach consensus. Also, as far as my knowledge extends, (s)he has never added sources to the genre manipulations. Pages that Gothic Forest has regularly edited include Antimatter (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with 12 edits, and The White (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with 8 edits. With the Woodsmoke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) album page, (s)he even made an "extra" section, alongside three other edits on that page, detailing how one song had "elements of Folk metal [sic] in it". This person doesn't add "extra" sections all the time, but this is just an example of the habitual NPOV and OR breaching performed by the editor. However, as to my knowledge, I think it's noteworthy to state that there are no sockpuppets here. The user has been warned multiple times about not doing this type of editing activity, but (s)he has continued to do so regardless. As has happened before with other editors doing similar activity, I would probably recommend that this user be blocked temporarily. Thank you for your interest. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 19:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a project board where a person who likes finding refs might be teamed up with this editor ? Seems like an attempt at matchmaking might be constructive ? Penyulap _talk 21:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Matchmaking? I don't know if there is something like that on Wikipedia. However, there is the Adopt-a-user program which has a few similar traits to the proposal. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't care to go search for references to suit every genre modification that Gothic Forest does. Also, I don't think Gothic Forest would be interested in such a system, because (s)he never has communicated with other users about anything; to put that in perspective, all of this person's editing activity has been on the articles. This does include said genre warring. Also, I saw the message that you posted on the user's talk page, which appears to be both praising his/her editing activity and condoning the addition of unreferenced material to Wikipedia. I'm saying this with all due respect, but I'm being honest when I say that I'm uncomfortable with that message; my reasoning is that the Wikipedia principles of verifiability and reliable sources would appear to be at direct odds with your commentary on the user's talk page. Another thing, telling the user that you "love [his/her] editing" and to "enjoy what [(s)he is] doing, and keep up the good work as best [(s)he] can" is really counterproductive. As you can see by this essay, such genre changing is highly discouraged and frowned upon by Wikipedia. This user has been warned by three users, including myself, against this type of activity, yet has persisted. I don't know if I'm missing anything about your posts, but their nature seems rather dubious. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting traditional adoption, which requires two way communications, rather a strategy tailored to two users. (I know you don't care to put in the refs, just as everyone doesn't want to join the copyediting guild , I'm not suggesting you do it personally, just that a very small effort is made to find someone who is). I think Gothic Forest actions are both good faith and typical of a new user, Gothic Forest defines a wikichild. I know editors have posted warnings, but I see zero evidence the person is aware of such warnings. Give the user the chance to come further on board, you catch more flies with honey as they say, and I stand upon what I said on refs, just add citation needed tags to her work where appropriate if it concerns you that much. At least wait until this user shows any sign of malicious behavior rather than good faith editing disruptiveness, that is, a more serious disruption, or some sign of foul intent. Penyulap _talk 06:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have invited Fluffy[26], a friendly looking Gnome I saw on the relevant project page to assist Gothic Forest. Fluffy, if your too busy, you may know someone who could assist ? Penyulap _talk 07:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

While I'm flattered to have been thought of for this, my availability in the near future is spotty enough that I'm not able to devote adequate attention to a new user who needs a lot of coaching. I would suggest that you encourage the user to try adoption, since the process of improving their editing is going to call for Gothic Forest to participate as much as any adopter/mentor, no matter who that is. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a rather different view. Communication with other editors is not an option but a requirement to work on Wikipedia; without it, consensus building, mentoring, article development and all the other collaborative activities we rely on simply can't happen. Gothic Forest hasn't responded to a single talk-page post, moderated their editing in response to those posts, or posted on a talk page in any WP space. They haven't even used an edit summary, which would at least be something. As a consequence I've blocked them for 48 hours - hopefully it's long enough to get their attention. If not and/or the disruption resumes, their next block will be indefinite.

Penyulap, thank you for your good intentions in attempting to find a solution. However, I'm slightly surprised that you posted on their talk page "...references are not always needed for good editing. I stuffed a big slab into a top quality article I work on, the bit I put in was about the same size as one of the entire articles you've been editing, and there is not a single reference in the whole thing". This is in fact a direct violation of one of the core principles of Wikipedia; WP:V. Some blatantly obvious material (like 1+1=2) may not need a reference, but in general you should always provide at least a source if not an inline citation. It would be helpful if you could modify your post to Gothic Forest to more accurately reflect policy (and perhaps dig out a source for that "big slab" you added to whatever article it was!) Regards, EyeSerene^talk 16:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in here, EyeSerene. I find the block to be appropriate and convenient. I hope that Gothic Forest will think about his/her editing activity over the duration of the block. Genre warring to this extent is certainly unjustified.

@Penyulap: The "no proof" statement can go either way; there is no proof that this person hasn't seen the messages, either. Going around and editing genre sections to suit one's own point of view is not good faith editing. It was worth assuming good faith before all those warnings were given to him/her, but not so much anymore. EyeSerene also took issue with the message you posted on the user's page, with the questionable promotion of adding unsourced, questionable content. However, your teaming idea, I guess, had some good ideas in theory; in practice, though, is another concept. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 18:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well lately I've found plenty of reasons to NGAF, I give permission, and ask, that you delete my 'good intentions' from Gothic Forest talkpage, in it's entirety. Especially the part where I try to establish rapport by finding common ground. Thanks in advance.

I had been thinking Fluffy, as you hang about that area you might have thought of someone who likes that sort of thing and has time on their hands. I don't think it matters now, as it's off in a different direction, and the backup plan I had, I think I'll keep to myself for the same reason, and also the tact required. Penyulap _talk 18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Backtable, I don't think it is appropriate to present a single, or even two dozen editors collaboration[27] as 'Wikipedia'. The essay would need a lot more work to gain wider appeal, it's poorly written, single point of view only, the picture would suggest it's meant to be humorous, however the text has none. Overall, it's tedious. It does assist other editors to stereotype new users, and may encourage inflaming arguments, as well as Biting, by creating or promoting a new insult. Penyulap _talk 19:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of help Backtable. If the block's too short - it's possible they may not notice it if they don't log in for a few days - let me know.

Penyulap, I'm not particularly comfortable removing anyone's posts but since you've kindly given your permission I'll do as you've requested. I think you have the right idea in trying to establish a rapport and your good faith does you credit, but first we've got to make them sit up and take notice that we're trying to communicate with them. If they respond positively, your plan would be an excellent next step. EyeSerene^talk 18:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks EyeSerene, feel free to try my idea, however I'll leave Gothic Forest to all of you. Personally, in real life, I don't open a conversation with a punch in the head, or a slap to the face, so to speak, I doubt that strategy is the best possible one. But I guess it's generic, and time economic. Penyulap _talk 19:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll choose not to interpret your post as suggesting that I couldn't be bothered to invest the time and effort in anything other than a "generic solution", though I do hope you aren't in the habit of posting that sort of thing. In this case, unfortunately experience has shown that when a user ignores multiple attempts to communicate, blocking is the only strategy that prevents further disruption to our articles. Given a choice between leaving an established editor with a productive record to grin and bear it, or temporarily inconveniencing a disruptive editor with the exact opposite record, it isn't a difficult decision. WP:AGF can be incredibly elastic but, as has often been stated, it isn't supposed to be a suicide pact. EyeSerene^talk 20:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're choosing not to misinterpret my remarks, I do see you are willing to put in a great deal of effort. I'd say I'm just investigating economy of effort in conflict solving here. With the distinctly negative labeling of editors and a talkpage that is ALL negative (now). I see two out of three future paths as negative. They leave, they stay, or they turn to sock-puppetry and vandalism. So it's a 2 out of 3 chance editors who are already here will either be dealing with conflicts or writing the encyclopedia themselves. (ok so demographic research is needed for exact figures, so I hope you'll entertain me on that one point). Are we smacking them into leaving, or whipping the slaves ? A new user is a blank page, and I'm thinking using just the red pen, on it's own, won't help skew the workload in your favor. Anyhow, I guess we better stop now, I'm looking for a smack it seems, so far off topic. (and please don't think I'm promoting a fresh perspective ahead of anyone's tried and true experience, I'm not, it's just an idea, that's all.) The opportunity to give Gothic Forest a cookie, kitten or barnstar for their better edits, to bait the mousetrap of conversation has passed. I think if they walk away, we may never know how bright they may have been. Penyulap _talk 22:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A Naughty person is posting polite notes.

See also: BLP dispute in progress at Talk:Harold Covington

[28] Always seems a shame to see people alienated from a community. This bloke clearly writes a funny page visually, I had a look, no idea what his grievance is though. Takes a LOT less effort to make a friend than deal with an Enemy -penyulap 2011. Harold, via the IP user talkpage has been notified of this complaint. Penyulap _talk 21:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume he's complaining about his article, Harold Covington.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for sure, but it looks like all the problematic content was stripped out of said article a day or two ago. What admin action are you looking for here, Penyulap? Or is this just a heads-up that someone has made a negative blog post about Wikipedia? --Dianna (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am definitely aware of his blog (apparently blacklisted) and am tired of helping him. My efforts at helping him were useless; he basically kept a sarcastic attitude and in the end spat in my face. I will simply laugh at whatever he posts knowing it is baseless cruft. CycloneGU (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for having no personal plan Diannaa, I expected upon sight that other people would know all about this one, and it seems that is exactly the case, Cyclone may already know where actions have been taken and can provide a shortcut to those existing plans of action. I think there are articles or sections critiquing wikipedia somewhere, but this doesn't appear to be up the editing and playing nice alley. Penyulap _talk 06:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Inquiry

Greetings all. As some of you may know I'm an editor with a lot of stake in the project who's contributed tens of thousands of edits over the years. In the past few months, however, I find that all my edits and discussions are being veritably stalked by an admin who, becoming involved on the pretence of "mediating", in every issue of every dispute invariably opposes my position whatever that may be. I've literally had no discussions without this happening since I met the man, and he's openly expressed his apparent distaste for my style of conversation, and I am fairly certain he may harbour considerable personal dislike for me. The thing is really getting out of hand: I can no longer imagine being able to discuss issues with other users without an actual admin inevitably coming along and throwing his weight against me. That happens every time, and I no longer think there's any doubt to the clear pattern of personal bias against myself, or at least any edit I might conceivably support. As you can imagine, this can be very frustrating, and has soured Wikipedia quite thoroughly for me. I will deliberately not name any names just yet, as this is not really a report.

My inquiry here, is whether this is acceptable behaviour, and if not - where and how is the proper venue where one might address the issue? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

is it this bloke "Please stop wasting valuable time of other users. PANONIAN 12:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)" ? Penyulap _talk 22:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You question contains insufficient information to produce a valid answer. Just link and be done with it.©Geni 22:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

@Penyulap. Um.. no. That fellow's not an admin.. was that a joke? :) But it does not matter who it is at this point, I'm only asking for instructions.

@Geni. I'd rather not.. I don't want to offend the guy, really. I just want to know what one does when faced with such a situation? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a joke, (I don't know how to ID admins 4sure) the text is just typical of the problems newbies face, avoid discussing the content of the content, stay on track with the article saying 'jack said this and jill said that' never try to work out on the talkpage if jack was right and jill was wrong, that's totally illegal and you'll run in circles with those people till they force you to leave or bite. Feel free to start a chat on my talkpage if you think I can help. Penyulap _talk 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, DIREKTOR. There has been little inclination on this board recently to discipline admins who behave badly, and it is not really the right place. I would suggest sending an e-mail to a trusted long-term admin and ask them to have a word with the problematic editor? assuming you feel you do not have enough material for a request for comment. --Dianna (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Can you please support the statement "little inclination on this board recently" with some examples? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Admin conduct can be reviewed by the arbitration committee, if a request is made, or (sometimes) an RfC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And what's the point of that drama when there is a lack of a majority who will actually do their jobs and make admin policy mean something (by enforcing it)? RfCs can accomplish the same non-outcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@Aaron, if I knew I was going to be called upon to present diffs I would not have made this cynical remark. It's just the general trend, in my opinion. Sorry to have said --Dianna (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you need to apologise, particularly when you are not alone in that opinion. But in saying that, I don't think we can ignore the genuine efforts some users to make to discipline poor admin judgement and conduct; it's just that it seems such efforts are often overpowered by those who put individual admins ahead of the rest of the Community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In non-emergency situations, arbcom generally relies on Requests from the community before investigating. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I put the cart before the wrong shovel above, what I meant was more like "I'm always concerned if/when administrators are held to a different standard. If there have been some instances lately that were worse than what is percieved as the "usual" double standard, I'd like to see them, because I don't like it when that happens." As opposed to saying "Oh yeah? Prove it!" which is more like what I initially wrote. Apologies. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Rule 25--Adam in MO Talk 17:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by user:TenPoundHammer

<span class="anchor" id="Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs)"> On Remergence I declined an A7 speedy by TenPoundHammer because my view is that multiple albums is a sufficient claim to notability to pass the speedy rules. Not content with this, TPH has now renominated the page a further 2 times despite my explaining the reasoning for the declined speedy. This forced me to protect the page for an hour to prevent further tag warring my TPH. Since TPH clearly doesn't want to listen to me, please can someone uninvolved explain to him/her why their actions are disruptive and why they shouldn't renominate declined speedies. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Someone tell me how Remergence is not an A7. I tagged it twice but Spartaz removed the tag both times, saying that they're notable because they had multiple albums. That is not AT ALL what WP:BAND says; it says "multiple albums on a notable label". And their label is clearly not notable, since it's currently tagged for A7 itself and there is only one other bluelinked act on it. I think that Spartaz is being a complete process wonk, even going so far as to full protect the article. It is very obviously A7 in my book, and yet Spartaz is denying it just to make process for the sake of process. I really think this should be A7'd instead of slogging its way through AFD or PROD for God knows how long. I would like an uninvolved admin's opinion, because IMO this couldn't be more obviously A7 (and probably G11 too, since there are a bazillion links to the band's website in the text of the article). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• (ecx2)Further reading. I have now unlocked on the implied promise not to tag war but I'd still be grateful if someone could take some time to explain things to TPH. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Only if someone will explain to Spartaz that "multiple albums" by itself is not, and never will be, an assertation of musical notability. It has to be multiple albums on a notable label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin) TPH, why not take it to AfD? - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Because I feel so strongly that it's a slam-dunk A7. AFD will take too long. And I bet you anything it'll just rot in AFD for two weeks and then get closed as no consensus because no one gives a crap. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, TPH, but here's the opinion of the most profoundly exclusionist admin you are likely to find: it's not A7 material. Neither was Atom Sounds, and I might take that to DRV. A7 has nothing whatsoever to do with notability, and the claim that they have released multiple albums and singles is enough to cross the threshold of importance that A7 requires. It would probably be toast at AFD, but they are two separate processes with two separate thresholds.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• If speedy is declined, take it to AfD. They have multiple albums, Spartaz is an excellent admin. and has a pretty firm grasp of guidelines for speedy deletion, so let users decide over a week whether it should go. CycloneGU (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Prodded the article. I still think Atom Sounds is an obvious A7 since "Atom Sounds" + "label" turns up 0 hits on Google News and as I said, there was only one notable act in the roster. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  WP:GHITS isn't reason enough for deletion by itself, perhaps a WP:GNG test is needed at deletion discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The fish market is open. CycloneGU (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this situation highlights the need for CSD to include the wording "credible claim" and not just "claim". It's essentially a license for anyone who wants to get their article here a minimum of 7 days to make up any kind of information that could be interpreted as a "claim" and force it to AfD.--Crossmr (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This × 9001. I've seen cases where A7 was declined because the article had something obviously BS like "is often considered the best producer in the world". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There is another issue here: if a speedy has been declined by an admin, an editor should not renominate it for speedy (in the same category at east). Debresser (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We should really add such a rule explicitly to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It is inevitable that people will tag articles and then some percentage of the time the reviewing administrator will disagree. It is not acceptable to retag the same way in hopes of getting another admin to agree with you. LadyofShalott 01:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

and in the same vein it's just as troublesome for such obvious cases to be forced to be put through an extended process because someone is being far too liberal with their interpretation of "claim". As TPH stated above, and I've observed as well in some of these cases, people will make absolutely ludicrous claims in an article, completely unsourced, and then an admin will come along and deny it despite clear evidence that the claim is false/insufficient even if it were true.--Crossmr (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference being that once a speedy has been denied, it became a matter of opinion, and therefore per definition can not be a speedy any more, which is for non-controversial deletions. Debresser (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"AFD will take too long" is one of the seven pillars of deletionism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Bugs is being trite here, but let me back him up with a less drole take on the matter: Deletion isn't a race. There is no impending harm to Wikipedia if something takes 7 days to be deleted, and there is absolutely no shame if a CSD request gets declined by an admin. If the article is so blatantly bad that it deserved to be speedied in the first place, you'll have a landslide support at the AFD discussion you can rub in the face of the admin who declined it. If not, then maybe it wasn't all that clear-cut in the first place. Seriously, there are bigger things to worry about than whether something takes a few hours or a week to be deleted, especially if someone thought it was borderline enough to decline the speedy request. --Jayron32 03:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It may not even be borderline - it just may not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. LadyofShalott 07:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• CSD's threshold is importance which is a far cry from notability and is a much lower threshold to pass. That is the essential difference between CSD noms and AfDs. The benefit of an AfD is that if the article is recreated with essentially the same material, THEN it is a candidate for CSD under G4. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• On a side note, I found TPH's arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kixeye of the tendentious variety. Perhaps he needs a break from all deletions? FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  That would be like taking a kid into a candy store and saying he can buy anything that isn't candy. Granted, every editor could use a vacation once in a while. Works wonders.

  The fish market is still open, FWIW. CycloneGU (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  I don't see those arguments as tendentious at all. Reyk _YO! 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I have added

If speedy deletion has been declined once, the page should not be retagged for the same type of speedy deletion. The fact that speedy deletion was declined proves that deletion of that specific page is contentious, and therefore per definition the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion, which should be uncontroversial.

to the lead of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Please have a look. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the change, I feel it needs to be discussed more, while I agree with the sentiment I think that the current wording is to vague as to what constitutes "declined once", for example creator logs out and as an IP removes the tag with the word "declined" what happens then. Does it apply to all criteria, for example WP:CSD#G4 should be excluded unless an administrator has reviewed it; like wise WP:CSD#G12 has legal implications. It is for that reason I have reverted it. Mtking ^(edits) 10:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I can't believe some of the newbie arguments here from TenPoundHammer - No, the labels have to be "important" (which I would see as a simple filter against trivial self-publication), not "notable" and this is certainly not WP:Notable (to avoid just this situation). Then to try and use the wiki-recursive argument that "because the label's article was deleted the label was non-notable" (One of the most pernicious arguments around WP), then even to extend that into the "Delete the label and you get to delete all related artists too deletionist bonus prize" claim. I'm reminded of Wasp Factory Records, when nearly all of UK industrial music was deleted with a similar strategy. And is that really our old friend WP:OSE with that, "I've seen cases where ..."?

As a practiced editor and deletionist with one of the longest hit lists around, you ought to know better that this. Trout. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Whales have been spotted in the harbour if they are more suitable. CycloneGU (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have decided to be bold and nominate this article for deletion. I enumerated the reasoning at the AfD page. Yes I'm open to taking a trout to the face for stepping on the issue, but for every justified deletion there are many new articles created that are of even lower quality and standards. Hasteur (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the addition I made to WP:CSD which Mtking reverted. I think his call for more detailed discussion is legitimate, (although I don't think there was need to revert an addition which in broad lines was agreed upon by several editors here), so I opened a discussion on the talkpage at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Declined_speedies. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There was recently a discussion at wt:CSD about a similar change, and it met with some resistance. Please have policy/guideline discussions at the relevant talk page. Or at least announce them there. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy says, "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page" and "Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below, rather than being deleted." There generally has to be a good reason to deviate from norm. WP:CSD#G12 might be a good reason. WP:CSD#A7, not. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• The bottom line is that A7 is only for clear-cut cases. If another editor acting in good faith believes there's enough to make A7 unsuitable then it isn't an A7. --Michig (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• The Discography section is a claim to notability and defeates A7 (arguably). Another editor in good standing removing the CSD tag means that it is no longer speediable. It needs to go to AfD. That it will be SNOW deleted is beside the point. Editing warring over a CSD tag can be read as an attempt to intimidate administrators and should be discouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A few IPs of User:Sambokim need blocked and probably some page protections

Sambokim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an indef blocked user. Quick background: he's a non-native english speaker who seeks to use wikipedia solely for promotional reasons. He is the PR for Anyang Halla and cannot help but attempting to insert links to the teams various news items on as many pages as he can as often as possible, and frequently jams in irrelevant links or copies content wholesale from the articles and tries to make them article content here. He has poor communication skills and attempts to talk with him are often ignored, or when answered it's clear he doesn't really understand.

He created a sock account Madforhockey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which Elen of the Roads blocked, along with a couple IPs, but he's been following up with a couple more. Most of his IPs are quite static, so if you want to give them a month or two it shouldn't be a problem, as well, a semi-pp on the articles he normally targets should work as well. We did it before but now that it's expired he's back again

IPs:

• 203.90.45.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.90.43.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.90.37.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.32.86.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think what you have here in terms of IP are a home/work scenario

Articles:

• Ric Jackman
• Samuel H. Kim
• Brad Fast (I thought he'd be done with this one, the guy retired)
• Brock Radunske

He mainly targets his article, as well as the foreign players' articles to push in their news links to try and promote the team. In the past he used to copy and paste from their articles into the wikipedia articles turning them into press releases. There is no point to notifying him, his accounts are indef, and he won't respond anyway. You can really only get an answer out of this guy in e-mail and even then it's hard to follow and despite my asking him numerous times there, he won't communicate on wiki. Note this is a duplicate request to User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#A_possible_ducky-sock it seems Elen got tied up/missed my last report to her there, I'm sure she wouldn't mind if someone else blocked him this time around.--Crossmr (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted WP:RFPP and asked them to semi-protect those articles.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Consider using the wikipedia embassy appropriate to the users native language to translate warnings, bans, and the explanation of his violations to him. Penyulap _talk 06:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And it was summarily dismissed despite the fact that we've done it before and it worked while enacted--Crossmr (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've checked back through the history of some of the articles and there are other IPs used in the 203.90.XX.XX range. A quick check with the rangeblock calculator says that blocking the 203.90.32.0/20 range will cause minimal collateral damage (and less so as these are Korean addresses), so I've blocked that entire range for three months. I've done the same with 122.32.86.41, which also locates to Korea and is clearly the same guy. Hopefully this will be of some use, though I think that if he finds a way around the blocks page protection will be a better option. A request will be more likely to succeed if this doesn't work. Best, EyeSerene^talk 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, we protected them in the past, at the end of last season he was getting into it a bit, you can see that on the Brock Radunske and Brad Fast articles. Ric Jackman is a new player just coming on this year, so he's just getting started with that. The season starts in about 6 weeks, so there is likely to be several new stories come out during that time.--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Give me a yell if he edits through Eye Serene's rangeblock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious edits

I noticed on Alain Chabat that I have reverted the addition of Category:French people of African descent six times over the course of the last three months. The interesting thing is that the edit was made from six different IP's: Special:Contributions/69.118.16.247 Special:Contributions/72.43.218.181 Special:Contributions/96.233.206.47 Special:Contributions/98.15.136.61 Special:Contributions/98.15.136.61 Special:Contributions/76.15.106.121. When I checked other edits from these IP's, I found that each of these IP's was used on a different day for almost exclusively one purpose: to add nationality/ethnicity categories to articles. I think this matter needs looking into. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The negative is that if they are not editing now, we can't action them for anything. IPs are finicky like that unlike registered users. We see IPs changing height and weight in hockey articles all the time (I've had to revert at Nail Yakupov, a rare article submission from me, three times now), but the same problem applies. CycloneGU (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a way to find out who is making these edits. It seems clear to me that there must be more of this going on, perhaps even every day. This could be the work of a registered editor who prefers to make these edits incognito. Notice, that many of them have been reverted. This editor seems to have certain issues with Wikipedia categorisation based on nationality and/or ethnicity that may be traced back to somebody. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think there is a good case for semiprotection (especially with BLPs), one can make a case over at WP:RFPP - I find semiprotection a better way of dealing with this than IP blocks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, they will not semiprotect in this situation. We're complaining about a single vandal (at a time) on multiple articles. Protecting all of the articles for another vandal attack that could be in three weeks or three days is preemptive and not in practice. CycloneGU (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a long term issue, involving tens of pages about people, and very specific edits. It could be worth our while to get to the bottom of this. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Today we had Special:Contributions/67.82.171.39, doing the same thing. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it's going to continue and we can't do anything about it. We protect these articles, next time the IP will go to other articles instead. It's impossible to keep them away. CycloneGU (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser suggests that if this is one person, he's editing from multiple pcs and mobile devices using throwaway IPs from multiple providers. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam stylesheet

Resolved

 – Deleted per request. CycloneGU (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please delete User:Pritam2003/common.css (it is automatically protected). Thanks. MER-C 12:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done per WP:G11 ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing by User:AngBent on several articles and war edits with sockpuppetry

User:AngBent is busy since several days on edit wars on many articles related either to Greek topics and some other ones. From the nature of the edits he seems to have a chauvinistic Greek and pro-Pyongyang Communist agenda. There are at least a dozen articles involved. He also edited as Special:Contributions/46.177.71.53 and Special:Contributions/46.176.13.209 (precisely the same type of POV edits). This seems to be going on since at least two months, some edits have been reverted but he is going on with disruptive edits.

I first reported this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎ but the answer was "Declined. Please take this issue to WP:ANI".

Typical examples (among a dozen articles at least as 99% of his edits are crude POV-pushing):

• Hu Qiaomu : [29] and [30]
• Culture of North Korea : [31] and [32]
• Imperialism : [33] and [34]
• Macedonian Struggle: [35] and [36]
• Aromanians : edit war with use of sockpuppet, see [37]

--Pylambert (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Pylambert is behaving in a condescending and uncooperative manner. Regarding his assertion that I have a pro-Pyongyang agenda, my answer is this; I edit North Korean articles in order to make them less offensive and more encyclopedic. Unfortunately, most of these articles look like a 1950s McCarthyite propaganda brochure, like "Oh, look at these evil commies and their ridiculous and dangerous beliefs". As this is an encyclopedia, it must avoid an ironic and biased view of things. This does not mean that I, in any way, endorse Kim's dictatorship, but even if I did, it is not Pylambert's job to play God. Regarding his assertion that I have a chauvinistic Greek agenda, I challenge everyone to look at my contributions, and they will see that the majority of them are backed by serious references. Of course, as a Greek, it is natural that I have a certain love for my country (and the bias that comes with it). Yet it is ludicrous for him to describe everything he doesn't approve of as vandalism (he seems to have a history of conflict with other users). While he accuses me of supporting Pyongyang, it is he who appears to endorse Stalinist methods, by his cavalier disregard of everyone else's opinion, and his REMOVAL OF REFERENCED EDITS, that took me hours of serious study to complete. I urge Pylambert to reject this black and white worldview. Fortunately, his previous request was WISELY DECLINED.

And one final thing; why didn't he just start a discussion with me, to tell me about his complaints and grievances? Instead, he seeks to censor me using immoral tactics. People who refuse an honest conversation and show fanaticism can't really accuse others of being chauvinist. Pylambert, if you offer me an apology, I'm willing to forget about all these things, and please, stop being so dogmatic. Read some Voltaire, it will help you. AngBent (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

The vandal is also busy on a an edit war with use of a sockpuppet on the Western Thrace article: [38] as AngBent, then reverted by another user ("Undo POV"), then a mysterious IP, 46.176.88.230, only active today but obviously of the same sockpuppet nature as 46.177.71.53 and 46.176.13.209 , reverts ([39]), is again reverted by another user ("Rev sock of a POV-pusher"), then a fourth sockpuppet IP 46.176.224.54 ("specialist" of suppressing Bulgarian topographic names, see [40] and [41]) rereverts. No possible discussion with such a vandal, as with all chauvinists. --Pylambert (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As there is still no reaction from the administrators, I consider they support the actions of the POV vandal or rather let it to the "invisible hand" to repair his multiple vandalisms, including those on unpatrolled articles. As I don't want from an ethical point of view to belong to the same project as chauvinists or stalinists, be they Greek, Turkish, Moroccan, French, Belgian or whatever else, I choose to withdraw definitely from Wikipedia after 6 years of contributions. --Pylambert (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I will not tolerate being called "chauvinist" and "Stalinist". Just look at my contributions and those of Pylambert, and you will quickly see that is he who is always trying to impose his views on reality. At no point did he attempt to start a discussion, he just proceeds with personal attacks. Why is this tolerated? Is it okay to call everyone whose views he doesn't like a vandal? Is it okay to call every unregistered user a sockpuppet of mine, while he very well knows that unregistered POV-pushers interfere in political articles of all types? All this could have been avoided if Pylambert just offered me an apology, and had the courage to join me in an honest conversation. As for his choice to leave Wikipedia permanently, I urge him to STAY. He can still be helpful, provided he stops his crusade of censorship, and name-calling.AngBent (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Pylambert demonstrates his intolerant nature, and now "discovers" conspiracy theories and sock puppets. Has it crossed your mind, Pylambert, that there are other people who can't stand your patronizing and moralizing behavior, not to mention your ludicrous attempt at censorship and cyber-bullying. You keep labeling everybody a vandal and a chauvinist. Are you 15 years old, or what? I'm sorry to disappoint you, but people can't stand censorship. As I wrote before, you really need to read some Voltaire. If you look for "vandals" and "chauvinists", then you only need to look into a mirror. And you should immediately stop this farcical attempt to censor me, just because you don't like my REFERENCED edits. If you continue behaving like this, then the whole community of Wikipedians will turn against you. So, stop embarassing yourself; your previous request was unceremoniously declined, and this one will also be declined. And your history as a user isn't exactly perfect. There comes a time in life where one must accept that he doesn't possess the ultimate truth. Now is the time for you to learn that lesson, to finally mature, and learn to accept different opinions, backed by facts. Your continuing denial of an honest discussion shows your true (totalitarian) colors. AngBent (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

It is absolutely necessary for Wikipedians to control people with a Manichaean worldview. In our previous discussion (Pylambert's monologue of personal attacks, that is) I was called a "typical Greek chauvinist vandal". I think this shows Pylambert's true colors to everybody. I won't tolerate such insults to my personality. I still have faith in Wikipedia's determination to stop censorship. AngBent (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

Well, the edits to Culture of North Korea are very obviously not "crude POV-pushing" so I have no idea why they were cited. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lewontin's Argument / Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy (scientific paper)

• Lewontin's Argument (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy (scientific paper) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

• SlowhandBlues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SlowhandMediator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SlowhandBlues has copy-and-pasted an article to produce two different POV-forks, (with no indication in the history of one, as required to preserve authorship history/copyright). He/she has also been editing this page under two different usernames - a direct contravention of policy. While I can see that the latter might have been a genuine mistake I consider the former to be provocative, as well as contrary to established policy.

Can I ask that, for a start, someone with the necessary tools reverts this, while we discuss what other action (if any) needs to be taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, a very new user. Mathsci (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There also appears to be a User:SlowhandBlue - supposedly an anti-impersonation doppelgänger account, but actually also in current use. [42] I must say that it seems strange for a new user to unilaterally appoint him/herself as a 'mediator' - not that this seems to have been very effective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of posting the required notification to SlowhandBlues' Talk page. As the other two accounts appear to be sub-accounts, I have not posted notifications to them. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooops! I thought I'd done that. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not request a speedy delete for the second article above? Mathsci (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I just G12-ed it as a copy without attribution. I find it very interesting that Silver seren (talk · contribs) copied a template onto the talkpage that claimed this article had survived an AfD, when it was the _original_ that had survived the AfD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I didn't notice that edit by Silver seren. Mathsci (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Silver seren just moved the "Lewontin's Argument" page to the title above, so I gave SS a WP:ARBR&I warning for disruptive editing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's some more background for comment:

• AfD result keep Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lewontin's_Fallacy
• Retitled to form article on Lewontin's argument, the initial argument made in 1974 [43]
• Discussion of title [44]
• New article made about the paper (written as a rebuttal to Lewontin's Argument), subject of the above noted AfD [45]
• Rationale described [46],[47]
• Notification to discussion where new article was proposed [48].

Number 67, The first link in the fifth point can no longer be seen, however I do have a screenshot of it if requested 16:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC) the text of the summary is: "(bold), Neutral title, preserved original text. lewontin's argument article is now free to take the shape of it's subject" ³SlowhandBlues¯ 16:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hope this helps, ³SlowhandBlues¯ 15:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The diffs above provide no justification for creating this kind of fork with identical but unattributed material. SlowhandBlues has not taken into account the lengthy discussion on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like an explanation for why SlowhandBlues also chose to contribute to the same talk page as SlowhandMediator - and indeed, why this username exists at all, given that it has made no edits elsewhere. Not to mention why a username was chosen which implies some sort of position of authority? And why the 'doppelgänger' account is also being used? All of this makes following contribution history unnecessarily complex, and seems odd behaviour from a new user. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit is not encouraging. [49] The closing administrator had already explained on his user talk page that nothing in the outcome of the AfD is binding,[50] a page edited just before by the doppelganger account SlowHandblue in his only edit outside his user space [51]. Something doesn't seem quite right here. Mathsci (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Now that Sarek has deleted the fork created by SlowhandBlues, I'm not sure there's any further need for administrative assistance here. Mathsci (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Recap Administrative intervention is required to undo the move to Lewontin's Argument because it is an incorrect demonstration that previous contributions were for that subject, while editors were actually intending contribution to it's rebuttal. Simultaneous violations of WP:Copyvio, and Guidelines on Merging, especially that history cannot be merged. ³SlowhandBlues¯ 17:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

At a minimum the moving editor should have used WP:HISTSPLIT; ³SlowhandBlues¯ 17:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That interpretation is incorrect. You created a fork, against wkipedia policy, and that fork was speedily deleted by an administrator. You are now in addition wikilawyering. None of these things was helpful. Because of your familiarity with wikipidia processes (page protection, AfD, etc), could you please say whether you have edited wikipedia before these accounts were created? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

At a minimum, can I ask that SlowhandBlues be reminded that using multiple accounts to contribute to a singe discussion is against policy, and that creating a POV-fork in the middle of a discussion does not constitute 'mediation'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Claims of vandalism

Could an admin have a word with User talk:Ifcp1 who is reverting editors claiming that their edits are vandalism when they clearly aren't. His edit summaries can be seen here Mo ainm~Talk 16:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hear hear. This user doesn't seem to be familiar with wikipedia guidelines and is very quick to brand legitimate edits as vandalism. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Both of you need to take a neutral point of view to updating articles, its clear from both your edits that you despise Linfield Football Club — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifcp1 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Which of these do you feel these edits fall under? If it doesn't fall into one of those very specific criteria, they aren't vandalism (at least not by Wikipedia's standards, which has a very narrow definition of vandalism). - SudoGhost 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume the above unsigned is from Ifcp1? (haven't checked the history).Thanks sinebot :) Ifcp1, I've left a clear warning on your talk page; if this continues you will face sanctions. Please take special note of the edit warring issue. Your above post also indicates you may be having difficulty complying with our neutral point of view policy. It's hard to write objective, neutral content if you care deeply about a subject and feel a need to defend it. It may be helpful for you to work on other articles where you personal feelings don't come into it. EyeSerene^talk 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I may not be up to date with the workings of wikipedia, but i believe there is an agenda by Mo ainm & EamonnCa to tarnish the name of Linfield FC and other football clubs in Northern Ireland, they should also take the neutral point of view, their negative attitude towards anything that is from Northern Ireland should be looked at, its a shocking trend going on in Wikipedia, as a fan of football in Northern Ireland and a website editor on Irish League football i take offense at this agenda and feel i am being singled out. ifcp1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifcp1 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:IDL. That you feel strongly about a subject may make it difficult for you to see NPOV. I think you'll find that I have been fairly neutral, I have actually added a lot of content to the Linfield page which reflects positively on the club. Please do not conflate your own POV with NPOV. What counts on wikipedia is verifiability, not what paints the article's subject in the best light. The edits that you have removed are all cited with verifiable sources per WP:V, and removal of sourced content can be considered vandalism. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that as an admin I can't make content decisions so this is now me talking as a fellow editor, and that this page isn't for resolving content disputes:

Ifcp1, I've looked at the edits you removed/inserted on those articles. Some appear to be adding national flags to players. I'm not an expert on this with regard to sports articles, but in military history articles (where I spend most of my time) there's a consensus not to use flag icons like that. To find out if this is the case in those articles the best place for you to ask would probably be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. There may even be an answer in one of the project style guides on that page.

Other edits you object to seem to deal with sectarianism. This is a delicate area on Wikipedia as I'm sure you appreciate and is subject to an Arbitration Committee ruling, so it's an area where all editors need to tread with care. It's unfortunate that such an ugly phase of history touches even sports clubs, but if the content is relevant to the club history, complies with our policies on reliable sourcing and verifiability, and is written in a neutral way that favours neither side, it's allowed in the article. We don't want attack articles that only exist to belittle a subject, but neither do we want whitewashed articles that don't mention unpleasant but important issues. It might be that you think the material is offensive to the club, but if it doesn't break Wikipedia rules it's allowed (just as material complimentary to the club is allowed if it follows the same rules).

Finally, it's best if you can stick to commenting on edits rather than the editors themselves. You've accused a couple of editors of having an agenda, but you can't know that. For that reason, unless you have very convincing evidence to the contrary (and can prove it), stick to discussing edits. It doesn't matter who makes the edit, only if it's policy compliant. I hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

EamonnCa1 i think it is quiet clear you do not have a neutral point of view on the subject, your edits on the subject show clearly that you are anti Northern Ireland, i take no biase on any football club or nation regarding their religious backgrounds, you edited details on the Portadown FC page when you knew they had no connection to the club, trying to link the club to paramilitaries, i think you should refrain from editing on subject you have no interest in and continue with your GAA edits. Ifcp1 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

EyeSerene the flags issue has been somewhat of an obsession for Mo Ainm, he has been on a crusade on wikipedia to remove all sign of the Ulster Banner(Northern Ireland flag) , the flag has been used on all football pages to show which country the player comes from or is eligible to play for, its widespread used om here, also the issue on sectarianism is another part of the Linfield page that has been constantly edited by users Mo Ainm & EamonnCa1 to show a slant on Linfield FC, last year i edited that section to show the work that Linfield Football Club has been doing over the years to stop these problems but these edits were removed, they were showing the positive work and also the negative problems that have accured in sectarianism, but the positives keep getting edited out, this shows i have taken the neutral point of view always. Ifcp1 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:MOSFLAG before you write half truths about me, flags are not used to show what country a player is from but they denote the sporting nationality of the player, and the flags I removed are from uncapped players who are eligible to play for ROI or NI. You are just using it to show the persons nationality.Mo ainm~Talk 21:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You removed flags from players who have been capped at full international level and removed flags from players who have been capped at various other levels, Eamonnca1 i wiould appreciate it if you would remove the Sectarianism content you are intent on connecting to Linfield Football Club. Ifcp1 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is all relevant and sourced content complete with citations that meet WP:V and is worded in a neutral tone per WP:NPOV. I'm sorry that you don't like the facts as presented, but "I don't like it" is not sufficient grounds for deleting sourced content from a wikipedia article per WP:IDL. Wikipedia is not a fan page, it is an encyclopedia. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@ Ifcp1, that is a blatant mistruth please retract the comment or back it up with a diff. Mo ainm~Talk 23:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ifcp1's edit warring is getting so blatant it's almost painful to watch. [52] [53] [54]. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Eammonca1 can you tell me why the Conor Hagan incident was not listed on the Cliftonville page instead of the Linfield page, wa it not an act of sctarianism by supporters of Cliftonville FC, is it because they come from a predominantly Catholic background?Ifcp1 (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please take that question to the appropriate talk pages. Further edit warring could result in you getting blocked from editing. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Eamonnca1 it is being discussed here, theres no need to sidestep the quesion, it is prove of your one sided agenda, its sad that you are trying to get another user banned from wikipedia as i have tried to discuss the matter civilly with you and Mo Ainm, i have asked you to post the positives as well as the negatives. Ifcp1 (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you have personalised the discussion and attributed an agenda to others rather than WP:AGF, which is hardly WP:CIVIL. As I have already indicated, I have previously made edits to the Linfield article which include the negatives as well as the positives and the downright neutrals. Now please use the appropriate talk pages for the discussion where other editors of those pages can see it. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I've now blocked Ifcp1 for 48 hours for continuing to edit war and placed them under 1RR on those articles per WP:TROUBLES (sanctions logged). Invoking the arbcom ruling may seem a little harsh on football-related articles, but considering the subjects of contention seem to be the Ulster banner and sectarian issues at the clubs I think it's justified in this case. EyeSerene^talk 08:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good call. Reading even just the exchanges here, there's no doubt that it is the Troubles aspect that was engaging Ifcpl1, not the quality of the footie. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, 1 August 2011

I reluctantly make this request for an extended block of Doncram for a serious of edits culminating in this one. Recent noticeboard archives are littered with threads related to Doncram's behavior, including plentiful remarks by him about others, as are the sections of WT:NRHP and various related pages. Time and again, Doncram's been brought up for personal attacks and for denominating disagreements as "lies" or those who disagree with him as "liars". The edit that I link above was made in the middle of a section in which he multiple times accused Elkman of falsehoods. Forgive the confusing narrative (perhaps you'll need to read the section to understand what's going on), but Doncram's continued "lies" and "liars" statements were the primary subject of the entire section, and he responded to these claims with comments such as the one I linked above, with statements such as the edit summary of "new accusation of being called lying, seems false." In other words: "you're telling a falsehood when you say that I say you're lying". We've already had too much tendentious editing by Doncram for a very long period of time, and threads like this are severely disruptive of the encyclopedia — among other things, this thread has prompted Elkman to take down a website upon which many of us in WP:NRHP depended, due to the ways in which Doncram has continued to speak. I've already issued Doncram a final warning, but since that time, he's made multiple statements such as what you read above. At the rate things are going, I suspect that someone or another will soon request arbitration. If for no other reason than the improvement and maintenance of the encyclopedia, I believe that an extended block is needed. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I took Nyttend's statement about a warning that he links to very seriously. I replied this diff, including (1)I have not characterized Elkman as lying, ever, as far as I know. A lie is a deliberate untruth. Elkman's assertions that I have characterized him as lying, at my Talk page and repeated here, are false however. I think Elkman conceived the idea that I was calling him such during one previous wp:AN episode, when he described a Minnesota article he had developed in a way that I understood as him saying that he had misidentified a person as being an architect in that article. I do perceive the Isabella Ranger Station article as one where he was misled by ambiguous information in NRIS, i.e. that he put CCC into the article in the infobox= field, which I removed, as probably false. He agrees that was probably false, so I don't see why he should take offense. Nyttend seems to have accepted Elkman's assertion that I have characterized Elkman as lying. I believe I have not. Show diffs, or please stop repeating this, both of you."

Nyttend had the last word in that discussion, archived in full at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Isabella Ranger Station, and Nyttend did not choose to provide any diff. Since then, at the wt:NRHP discussion Nyttend links to, Elkman repeated these accusations, and I asked him to show diffs, and the edit that Nyttend leads with here is me responding, fairly I think.

I am not happy about being dragged to wp:AN discussions repeatedly, and don't think it is necessary for Nyttend to have opened this, rather than having responded in the previous discussions. I don't have time for this, but will try to return later to respond if needed. --doncram 18:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this edit is the one that pushed me over the edge. Doncram has long accused me of not knowing the difference between an architect, a builder, and an engineer. Now, he's accusing me of not knowing the year in which a structure was built, versus the significant year(s) listed in the National Register database. Basically, whenever I fail to use weasel words in an infobox or in an article, I'm being accused of lying. And, since I'm providing a database query tool that others use, I'm being accused of helping other users lie about content. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend's first diff and Elkman's diff are from one current discussion at wt:NRHP, perhaps easier to read completely at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Architect vs. builder in the NRHP infobox generator. I don't agree with Elkman's characterization, here. It all relates to previous discussions, yes. I don't know what to say further. Why not discuss it there, in the discussion there. --doncram 18:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish that Doncram would recognize how his behavior affects other people -- and quit behaving in the ways that the rest of us find so disruptive. The recent three-week-long block kept him off the site for more than three weeks, and I think he has been somewhat more careful not to start battles than he was in the past, but it seems (based on confrontations here and elsewhere) that the time away did not cause him to rethink his behavior. (He has asserted repeatedly, for example in his complaints at User:Orlady/List, that the consensus conclusions of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs were wrong.) Elkman's taking his infobox generator offline ought to have shown him that his behavior has negative consequences, but it seems that it is only producing a new outpouring of words to the effect that he is being misjudged. I'd like to suggest a program of self-flagellation (or maybe self-slapping with a trout) in the public square, but we don't have a public square. Like Nyttend, I don't particularly like the idea of blocking him -- because I would prefer for him to stay at Wikipedia but change his behavior, but I don't think that we have any other effective means of preventing further disruption. --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "why not discuss it there" — because everyone who frequents that discussion page lacks the technical right to implement the sanctions that I am requesting, except for people like Orlady and me who obviously are involved. I don't care what terminology you use: when you continually accuse multiple people of falsehoods in their words, it's no different from when you outright say that they're lying, and when you effectively tell them that they're lying when they say that you're calling them liars proves my point — either you just said that, and thus they tell the truth already, or you didn't just say that, and thus you make them true. My "this one" link is an example of the diff that you require; and please note that there's no way for me to continue a discussion if I already have the last word in it. Even if you think you're right in a situation, there's no good reason to persist to the point that another good-faith contributor becomes unwilling to participate: that's most definitely disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia. Finally, of course nobody likes being brought to the noticeboards repeatedly; it's simply that your editing patterns have not changed since the previous discussions, and the fact that lots of different people are raising the same issues may mean that the majority of people who pay attention to your editing patterns are disturbed by them. The previous discussions were attempts to ensure that your editing did not go in certain patterns; since those attempts have not worked, I have started a new discussion to seek an admittedly-unpleasant solution that I believe to be the only one that will have a chance of ending this disruption. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

From an outsider's point of view, it would be awfully nice not to have to wade through all these Doncram-related threads on the noticeboards, but to do that either Doncram has to change his way of editing, or he needs to be blocked. Of course, multiple threads about a specific editor could just indicate that someone is being ganged up on, but there have been too many editors who have complained about Doncram's modus operandi for that to be the case. In addition, in reading these discussion, I don't believe I have ever seen Doncram admit to being at fault: everything is, from his perspective, caused by someone else's actions. Even without investigating every reported incident, it is extremely unlikely that this can be the case. It is much more probable that Doncram is unable to recognize when he is in the wrong, is unable to see the points of view of other editors, and is unable to change his behavior to alleviate the concerns his editing creates in his fellow Wikipedians. Those are hardly attributes which contribute to collegial cooperation, and therefore not indicative of someone who can fit into the Wikipedia mold.

Having said all that, I'm not convinced that an extremely long block is a good idea at this time. Rather, with the hope that Doncram can still be valuable to the project, I could support a block of a couple of months to give him time to reflect about his way of working and change it when he returns. If he exhibits the same problematic behavior at that time, then I would say a much longer block, perhaps even an indef block contingent on his asking to return with a pledge of change, would be justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• AFAIK this is my first post to the month after month (... after month, ... after month) perennial Doncram threads at AN and AN/I. While I don't see an individual post or thread that may be worthy of a block, I have to wonder when I see continual posts of "one" editor debating with multiple other editors. Perhaps any individual post is not "disruptive" in and by itself, but the conglomeration is a huge time sink that the project could well do without. The entire Doncram/NRHP subject gives the distinct impression of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is disheartening, and frustrating for multiple other editors on the project. I would strongly suggest that Doncram take a self-imposed hiatus from all things related to NRHP for a minimum of 3 months. I fully credit Doncram for his good faith, and admittedly good efforts to our project "en toto", but I fear at this point a break is indeed required. There are many other areas to work on throughout the project. I fear that if this advice is not adhered to, then indeed a much longer, and much more restrictive solution will be forthcoming. Cheers and Best to all. — Ched :  ?  04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I note that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram didn't get much attention, I'd like to see more of the normal dispute resolution steps taken before we go to a long block. However, would a topic ban for a couple of months seems a reasonable middle step? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm planning to submit a request for arbitration. This pattern of behavior has indeed gone on for far too long, and there have been multiple threads on multiple noticeboards with no end in sight. There's no way he would consider taking a self-imposed hiatus or adhere willingly to a topic ban. He'd just come up with a bunch of legalese and protracted policy discussion to explain why he should be allowed to skirt the edges of the ban. Sanctions by individual administrators haven't worked very well in the past; it's only led to larger walls of text and even longer sections at noticeboards. I hardly see where an entry in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct would lead to something more productive and more conclusive than any of the arguments that have already come up in the admin noticeboards and at WT:NRHP. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'd be happier with a request for arbitration, more painful in the short run but "stickier" in the long run than if we just decide here. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Arb requests take a long time, and can't usually be justified without prior dispute resolution steps. Personally, I'm in favour of blocking him for a couple of months here and now. If he comes back afterwards and does the same thing, we can go to arbcom, but it seems silly to bother them and go through all that rigmarole for something this obviously one-sided. Anyone with me? Ironholds (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think a short block at this point will change anything, except giving the editors who have been trying to clean up after him a chance to get ahead. I think the only thing that has a chance of changing anything going forward will be a full ArbCom case, where the various editors who are familiar with him can explain why they think his editing style is unacceptable, he can provide his evidence for why it improves the encyclopedia and why other people's behavior has been unacceptable, and ArbCom can determine the facts and remedies for all. Failing that, a community ban should be imposed, and I don't know if there's currently consensus for that, and I don't know if anyone who hasn't be following the issues all along is going to read through the wallsotext to decide.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'd agree with the idea of a block for three or four months, with the proviso that if that doesn;t work, we've already decided exactly what to do next, so no more lengthy discussions will be necessary. I he comes back after a three-month block and does this again, I'd say OK, straight to ArbCom. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Article talk page and article both semi-protected indefinitely: 3+ months now.

NOTE: THIS IS ONLY ABOUT UNPROTECTING THE TALK PAGE! Not the article itself.

Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher has been semi-protected indefinitely since April 29, 2011. That is three months. The main article page is also semi-protected. This means that no anonymous user can contribute here in violation of Wikipedia policies for three months so far in any way.

I asked for unprotecting on 25 July on RPP and was referred back to the admin that did it three months ago. That admin was unwilling to unprotect as seen here on 27 July.

Wikipedia:Protection#Semi-protection says

"Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents unregistered and newly registered users from participating in discussions. A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time."

Can someone please unprotect this talk page? Merrill Stubing (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Because valid anonymous editors on a very high profile page are frozen out in violation of policy? Merrill Stubing (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If this is seriously going to be considered, then we should also seriously consider the unblock of Trowbridge tim (talk · contribs), which, from looking at the edit history, is the person responsible behind the semi-protection. –MuZemike 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PP. "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy." (Emphasis in original text.) Given the article's high-profile nature and the history of questionable (at best) editing from IP editors, I see more reason to maintain semi-protection than I do to remove it. If an IP editor wishes to make a contribution to that article, they can use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. MoMK needs to remain protected. It has at times been subject to full protection due to the contentious editing there. There has been some recent progress and unprotecting it would only serve to rekindle the fire. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not about unprotecting the aritcle, ONLY the talk page. I also cited that same thing which says Articles AND the talk page should not be protected at the same time. I want the TALK page only unprotected. Not the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Edit_semi-protected is for people to ask for the article to be edited. People can't even edit the talk page to do this. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:PP does say "A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time." It does NOT say "...may not be protected at the same time" or "...shall not be protected at the same time". If there is a clear administrative concern that calls for both to be semi-protected, admins would be doing less than their duty to not semi-protect both. Given the editing history of the article AND its talk page, it would appear that there is indeed a clear administrative concern regarding the integrity of both. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So for how long do we leave these users out in the cold? Quarter of the year so far. Half a year? A year? Two years? Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A few weeks after the appeals process is over. That decision will have everything to do with what direction the article may take. It is currently on track to be decided this autumn.

I have no problem leaving them in the cold. History has shown that they aren't adding anything else to the 'pedia.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I echo the sentiments of MuZemike, Berean Hunter and N5iln - seriously, unprotection at this point is a recipe for disaster. The sockpuppet attacks that necessitated the semi-protection included the posting of privacy-breaching information that required immediate oversight. Added to that, there has been quite enough misuse of the talk page even from autoconfirmed accounts; bringing the talk page off semi-protection during such a critical phase is more or less guaranteed to turn it into a swamp of personal attacks and a platform for unconstructive soapboxing. I speak from experience; this article and its talk page have been on my watchlist now for well over a year. The benefits of semi-protection far ouweigh the minor disadvantage of IPs being unable to edit - besides, if an unregistered user has something constructive to offer, they can always fill out an edit request. SuperMarioMan 21:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this discussion is focusing on one very-high-profile article. Wikipedia has over 3.6 million articles. IP editors are NOT being "left out in the cold". From a perspective of scale, they're being kept away from one very touchy pinhole. Just something to think about... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

other indefinitely semi protected article talk pages

This sort of protection is in violation of policy. I just figured out how to check, I think, and nearly no article talk pages semi protected. none of these are supposed to be.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3ADisappearance+of+Madeleine+McCann
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk%3ACarl+Hewitt

Anonymous users are supposed to be able to contribute. I wll ring that other admin too. Merrill Stubing (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

From the past history of this, "valid anonymous editors" is a contradiction in terms. The topic area is rife with single-purpose-accounts as it is, and I would be hesitant to open the door to either random IPs or accounts that cannot even meet the ridiculously low threshold of being auto-confirmed. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So our masthead and all that says "anyone can edit" is secondary to our convenience? Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. — Satori Son 20:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What evidence is there of any other high profile article where we have for a quarter of a year locked out every single anonymous editor from any contribution at all? Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I would be quite pleased if this is the only article we have ever had to do this with. Just because we are rarely, if ever, forced to take such drastic action to protect an article doesn't make that action inherently wrong. — Satori Son 20:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Remember that "anyone can edit" is a double-edged sword; that also means anyone can abuse it, which was clearly been happening here. –MuZemike 20:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia requires article content to be verifiable and neutral in tone. There's way too much IP editing in the history of the articles in question that is neither verifiable nor neutral. As much as I'd like to assume good faith on the part of every IP editor that shows up on Wikipedia, history and experience have demonstrated otherwise...which is why Wikipedia has administrators and the Counter-Vandalism Unit. I would say it isn't convenience that demands semi-protection remain on these articles, but prudence. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I should also add, with Talk:Carl Hewitt, Hewitt himself has been significant disrupting that talk page. Unprotecting that page is tantamount to unblocking User:CarlHewitt, because he will sock to disrupt. –MuZemike 20:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(To play Devil's advocate here briefly) I mean, we could try lifting the semi-protection on said talk pages in hopes that those responsible for the disruption have ceased caring. However, I've personally seen that fail more often than succeed. –MuZemike 20:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

These I just put out for discussion and comparison mainly. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if people participating in these discussions would at least pay lip service to the fact that excluding the vast majority of our editors from contributing to a subject is at least regrettable wherever it is actually necessary. Anonymous contributions to Wikipedia are declining faster than registered contributions [55] and that is not a good thing. causa sui (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to see more constructive editing by IPs. WP:AGF holds more often than not. The problem arises when feelings run high, as in the case of the MoMK article. Soapboxing, coatracking, and even worse behaviors drown out the actual constructive contributions far too frequently when polarizing issues such as this case arise; even more so when what I call the "professional talking heads" (to most people, they're "pundits") start tossing their speculations around instead of being responsible journalists. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll grant that the worst editors are generally anonymous. We would expect that, since a person who is committed to achieving an agenda in a particular area of intense personal interest would not find it worthwhile to register or become part of the general "community of editors". On the other hand, a great many well-intentioned and prolific contributors to Wikipedia similarly have no intention of making themselves known to anyone on this noticeboard. If you want to see constructive editing by IPs I suggest you do some RCP for a few hours and consider what a terrible thing it would be to, rather than reviewing them individually using our extremely powerful RCP tools like Huggle, punish the innocent with the guilty and revdelete all the IP contributions you find in the stream. Effectively, that is what we are doing when we semi-protect a page for an extended period. I'll grant that sometimes that is necessary, albeit very regrettable, where deleterious IP edits vastly outnumber their constructive counterparts. But it is disheartening to see the idea tossed around that IPs -- real people, many of whom read a lot and don't edit much but have bought our propaganda that they can contribute at the same time as they consume -- need to be tossed aside. causa sui (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not disagreeing with you. I haven't kept stats on such things, and I'm not sure anyone else does either, but I'm willing to bet I revert as many registered-account edits with Huggle as I do IP edits. And I'll flat-out state that it's most often the registered-account users who are the most egregious vandals. That doesn't even scratch the surface of the reports at WP:UAA or WP:COIN, either. Bottom line, without IP editors, Wikipedia wouldn't be half the size or quality it is today. But that begs the question: does an admin take the gamble and lift the semi on the MoMK article, talk page, or both, with the very real possibility of having to slap it right back on in just a couple of hours, along with a double handful of RevDels or full-on edit suppressions? Which approach is better for the Wikipedia project as a whole? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I would also like to see some of our more long-term semi-protected pages un-protected if we can. In fact, I know I proposed a couple times that we use pending changes (pardon my profanity) to help facilitate the un-protection of such pages and to see whether or not said pages can remain stable and as free as disruption as possible. However, PC is considered a bad word, mainly due to the chilling effect and stigma it brought upon the community. As a result, we're stuck with the "all or nothing" approach to page protection. –MuZemike 22:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Merrill Stubing is missing a very important fact with regards to the semiprotection of the above pages and talk pages. The choice being made here is not a choice between letting everyone contribute, and letting only registerred users contribute. In these cases, it is a choice between letting registered users contribute and letting no one except the most disruptive contribute. If we unprotect those pages, in this case, we don't make it easier for level-headed, netrual contributions to occur, we make it so NO ONE can contribute in a constructive manner, because the people who wish to disrupt Wikipedia will take over those pages. These decisions are NOT made arbitrarily, and we aren't doing it to be mean or because we hate unregistered users. If there was a way to stop disruption at those pages that did NOT involve semiprotecting them, we'd be doing it. So, why don't YOU propose a solution. You don't like it; how do YOU stop the people who insist on monopolizing those pages and preventing good work from going on? --Jayron32 00:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

An idea: why not temporarily try a sub-page, like users whose usertalk pages have regularly been the victim of IP attacks use? Add a big notice at the top of the page that links (in some bright color) to a second page that isn't semi-protected. Yes, in almost every situation, this would be a terrible solution, because it creates a completely unfair two-tiered system. But we could use this as a temporary solution so that at least it would be possible for IP editors to contribute. Autoconfirmed users would need to monitor that page for 2 things: first, any useful comments should be copied to the main talk page. If the majority of comments turn out to be useful, we would do away with the two-tiered approach and unlock the main talk page. Second, any soapboxing, spamming, or outing would be immediately reverted; if that secondary page is dominated by such, we just shut it down to prevent ongoing problems. Would this temporary approach work as a semi-compromise? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

All this does is shunt the crap out of sight out of mind, like Talk:Muhammad/images does. Just wait until the trial is over, then the Knox-is-innocent offsite advocacy groups won't have anything left to come here and complain about, as she'll either be free or incarcerated for quite awhile. Tarc (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it's not going to do much to stop any blatant disruption, except move it to another place (which is why I don't really use my "non-autoconfirmed talk page" anymore). As far as the trial is concerned, though, who knows when that is finally going to end; it's almost been 3 years now, with no end in sight, and perhaps people (I mean, the public, not necessarily us) are getting rather impatient. –MuZemike 02:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

While I am normally a zealous advocate of "IPs are human,"I also am uneasy with the idea of sub-paging, but would agree to it with some conditions. If the problem includes material that needs oversighting then putting it in a less-obvious pile doesn't help, but ff the page had text at the top like "this page is not for general discusion, and is blanked every 12 hours" or wording of that sort, and if anything other than direct edit-protected requests are indeed blanked (or revdel-ed, even). And this could be a time-limited trial, defaulting to "stop doing it unless consensus says otherwise." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

user:TheBlackGumper : Sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Reaper Eternal. --Taelus (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the best place but I was reluctant to open a sockpuppety case as it could be one of several well known blocked users. TheBlackGumper (talk · contribs) started where the recently blocked Caiboshtank (talk · contribs) left off, reverting referenced edits involving the term British Isles. Seems like a duck to me. Bjmullan (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Could I get a temporary block of 74.177.46.240

The IP has removed the PRODBLP tag from Mar Contreras five times and removed from Fabián Robles three times. They have been warned twice on their User talk:74.177.46.240 page. Bgwhite (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24h. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2

There is a disagreement at User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2 (permanent link) about whether Timeshift9 (talk · contribs)'s recreation of User:Timeshift9 with blog-like material is in violation of the closes of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. I asked Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs), the MfD closer, to review the situation. He wrote:

I'm on my semi-annual one-month admin tools break due to travel. That said, it does look pretty bad to me, and even if he didn't quite cross the line he's definitely deliberately pushing its limit, which isn't good. A "drama board" posting, as Spartaz put it, looks like a good idea before another MfD if needed.

Spartaz (talk · contribs), the DRV closer, wrote:

I think this is probably more Tim's field then mine. I tend not to involve myself too closely in editor behaviour issues because I really suck at that side of the admin role but thanks for the heads up. I'll watch what happens closely. I'd be tempted to blank and protect but that's quite an extreme action for a user talk page so I'm inclined to this going to a drama board for a discussion. Tim may be (and probably justifiably too) inclined to do something else.

Would uninvolved admins and users review the user page and determine whether {{db-repost}} is applicable to the page or whether, as suggested by Spartaz, the page should be blanked and protected as an alternative? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The only substantive difference I see in the old and new versions is that the new one is "better written", and a little less polemical. But it's still an extended diatribe on a specific political point of view, which both the MfD and the DRV confirmed are not appropriate for a user page. This doesn't technically fall withing db-repost, as the text is not "substantially identical to the deleted version". Nonetheless, Timeshift9 can't just keep recreating this political speech until xe manages to get a version past MfD. In other words, this could be taken to MfD, but it the community shouldn't have to argue the same basic point over and over again. For a userpage, some userboxes with xyr political positions, a few selected quotes...heck, even a paragraph of argumentation, I could handle...but this is far beyond that and clearly within the same general realm which caused and sustained deletion last time. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm...wouldn't this fall under WP:NOTBLOG? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the MfD and DRV were both somewhat ambiguous, and that the user has waited some time and made some effort to address concerns, I think it should be sent to MfD. A not very dissimilar case currently at MfD is here. I think this is a matter of uncertain boundaries, for a contributing Wikipedian’s self-introductions tending to bloggy soapboxing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe another MfD is desirable. The community, in both the MfD and DRV, has rejected the content which violates WP:NOTBLOG and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Repeated recreations and repeated MfDs to exhaust the community's patience are unacceptable. The admin who initiated the first MfD was unfairly accused of "harassment and wikihounding", as well as "harang[uing]" User:Timeshift9. The admin was then threatened with an arbitration case.

User:Surturz/AdminWatch (WebCite) was created for admins involved in the MfD who initiated, participated, and closed the deletion discussion. Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) and GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) were both asked whether they were open for recall. Support for defending the user page was requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics.

Owing to the sustained campaign to allow the repeated recreation of this inappropriate content and threats against those who have supported deletion, I ask that the page is dealt with without another contentious MfD. The page undoubtedly meets the spirit, if not the letter, of {{db-repost}}. Cunard (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cunard, thank you for bringing this here, especially seeing as Gorilla is gone for a few days. First, the userpage is really unacceptable for a Wikipedia editor; Timeshift probably needs to move to a de minimus userpage. Second, Gorilla has been accused of "harrassment" and being a sockpuppet (or purposely colluding with sockpuppets) along with a threat of being dragged to Arbcom, all of which are plainly ridiculous. User:Orderinchaos, who is an admin, needs to cool it down. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I just deleted that AdminWatch page under WP:ATP. It was only there as a threat, or at the least, intimidation. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So any attempt to defend Timeshift9's user page is seen as contravening rules? why is it okay for Cunard to shop around for admins to support his position, but if I simply ask for involvement of editors at WT:AUSPOL I get hammered? How is it intimidation to ask whether admins are open to recall? An admin can block me with the click of a button, but for me to get an admin recalled would require WP:CONS and assent by the recalled admin - I think the assertion that I as an editor can in any way intimidate admins grossly misrepresents the power relationship here. --Surturz (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked, and except the wall-of-text feel to it, the actual content was much better than the version that was MfD'd. Granted, I -think- this is better suited for a sub-page that Timeshift can link to (instead of having it on his main user page), but that can be discussed. If you don't like it, Cunard, MfD is the way to go. {{db-repost}} won't work, as the material is vastly different than what was deleted. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition... if this gets worse, then the community (or ArbCom) would need to look at related user conduct. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Fastily and Alecmconroy

Hi all. The other day, I received a snide and threatening message from User:Alecmconroy. While the basis of the message was with regards to an unnamed deleted image, I felt the message was more of an attack directed at me than it was a request for clarification, so I dismissed it as a threat/sordid message I routinely receive from disruptive users. However, today, I received yet another threatening/condescending message from the aforementioned user. Within a few minutes, he attacked me yet again at a BRFA for a proposed bot of mine. At this point, I looked into the user's contributions and made several highly disturbing finds. Alecmconroy attempted, in bad faith, to nominate one of my uploads, and one of Masem's (he had a dispute with Masem earlier) uploads at FfD. Furthermore, as demonstrated in this dispute, he has a backwards and egregious misunderstanding of how media file policy and copyright is enforced around here, and is more than willing to disrupt the project to prove his point (e.g. attempts to change WP:NFC - when reverted, he is willing to edit war to keep it in). That said, I would like to respectfully delegate this issue to the community so that appropriate action may be taken to prevent further damage to the project by User:Alecmconroy. Sincerely, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a much larger context here, as always. In any case, I won't repeat any of the above behaviors or seek out the specific individuals. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Add to the above the upload of File:Rebekah Brooks 18 July 2011thb.jpg, a non-free image reduced to a ridiculous degree so as to make it completely useless, obviously another WP:POINT attempt to lead NFC policy ad absurdum. This behavious really does need to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a higher quality image that was deleted as 'not-free'. I made a very low quality one to see if that stuck. Again, note I didn't insert it into an article. Blurred images are not 'absurd' they're used in criminal cases all the time. What we have here is not an intimidating rogue user-- we have some major changes in how people are interpreting longstanding policy, and it's generating lots of confusion. If our struggling for clarity looks absurd or 'intimidating', there's a deeper reason. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in NFC policy in the past several months, maybe even years, save for the actions of Delta, and that's only to the vigor to which NFC is managed. News press images used without direct commentary on the image have long been disallowed (since at least 2007). --MASEM (t) 06:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Confirming Fastily's assessment wrt to me: Alecmconroy removed an image and then subsequently AFD'd it, but later described that they didn't want to see the image deleted (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 2 (first one, it looks like). Clearly trying to pick a battle in the WT:NFC but extending it elsewhere. Prior to today, I didn't have any interaction (that I'm aware of) with the editor. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Alecmconroy just attempted to inappropriately change the title of this thread here -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

and do you seriously feel intimidated by me, Fastily? Do you, an admin with years of experience, feel 'intimidating' is an honest and fair summary of my discussion today? A text conversation between strangers and I'm "intimidating" you? If that's somehow true that I 'intimidated' you, I do owe you an apology. If I just bug you, you owe me an apology for conflating violence with debate. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

duplicated posts collapsed here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Add to the above the upload of File:Rebekah Brooks 18 July 2011thb.jpg, a non-free image reduced to a ridiculous degree so as to make it completely useless, obviously another WP:POINT attempt to lead NFC policy ad absurdum. This behavious really does need to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I added a higher quality image that was deleted as 'not-free'. I made a very low quality one to see if that stuck. Again, note I didn't insert it into an article. Blurred images are not 'absurd' they're used in criminal cases all the time. What we have here is not an intimidating rogue user-- we have some major changes in how people are interpreting longstanding policy, and it's generating lots of confusion. If our struggling for clarity looks absurd or 'intimidating', there's a deeper reason. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Nothing has changed in NFC policy in the past several months, maybe even years, save for the actions of Delta, and that's only to the vigor to which NFC is managed. News press images used without direct commentary on the image have long been disallowed (since at least 2007). --MASEM (t) 06:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the talk page disagrees. People forgot 'guidelines' aren't WP:OFFICE. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You just tried to justify your POINTy upload to Future Perfect as if it were a sincere endeavor...but it contains this line from you, "The project is dying, and people who delete images over copyright paranoia are A part of why we are dying." That is disruptive and doesn't help the project at all. How many new users might see that?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry-- expressing opinions isn't disruption. As for the dying-- that's not my prediction, that's in the numbers. If we stomp on newbies and delete their work, they won't stay here. If you look at the numbers, the exodus has already begun, don't take my word for it. We reverse that trend by holding a mirror up to ourselves-- by having this discussions over guidelines and how they apply to specific images. The discussions that ensue may be contentious, but they're not a disruption unless you choose to make them into one. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Alecmconroy insists on keeping a badly formatted duplicate copy of this thread [56] below. I'm going to stop reverting him lest I should breach 3rr. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry bout the formatting. Edit conflicts where text disappears just get the text added right back. But not trying to be intentionally 'badly formatted' about it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to see any images deleted, I merely believed the guideline as currently written required its deletion. There's a difference. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You likely need to review WP:POINT to understand what not to do when you dispute a guideline. Enacting the negative action to demonstrate a point is a textbook example from that. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is not disruption. That it proved my point about fair use is just sauce for the goose, there was no disruption to Wikipedia. If I momentarily disrupted Fast's controversial deletion spree by forcing him to discuss them, I take solace that his is not Wikipedia. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Block suggested for Alecmconroy

This user has clearly been harrassing Fastily. Having made an unholy mess of this report, which he refused to cleaan up himself, he made a bad faith report at WP:AN3. He attempted to archive that report himself with a bad faith personal attack on Fastily.[57] In addition he tried to close this report on his own conduct.[58] I suggest some form of block for this ongoing disruption. Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Please. Excessive violations of WP:POINT, WP:NPA. After all this, the user is still attempting to defend their actions. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I do defend my actions. Fastily behaved unwisely and rudely to me, I felt offended, and I sought ample discussion to alert the community to the problem. I've been threated with a block for 'poor formatting' once today by the admin I was in a dispute with me-- if you want to threaten me with a block for mere discussion too, I must confess to being little desensitized to threats of blocks and bans at this point. I did nothing wrong, and if I was incivil, it was extremely mutual. --Alecmconroy (talk)

You have continued unjustified personal attacks, the latest being in response to an explicit warning from Future Perfect at Sunrise which you copied to his user talk page.[59] The disruption is meanwhile continuing elsewhere with edits like this.[60], refactoring the comments of others. This needs to stop. Mathsci (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, this conversation is unlikely to serve any useful purpose. If you feel I have truly unfairly maligned Fastily, you may refer the matter to Arbcom which I will accept as a authority. If they conclude Fastily could, indeed, have blocked me for formatting, if they concluded made bogus claims about my upload, then I will apologize.

If we don't block over good-faith formatting errors, if my complaints to 3rr and FFD were sincere not trolling, and if my uploads were made in good-faith, then Fastily will owe me an apology and a resignation.

I doubt arbcom will have the time and I doubt Fastily would care to take the risk. But if you want a 'justice' from this, that's the direction you should look.

In practice, it'll be a long time before I upload an image to EnWP again and perhaps it's time to find a new hobby. It's been a good decade. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You have disrupted WP to make a point. Your actions, including continued personal attacks and taunting, can be dealt with by any uninvolved administrator. I have no idea why you mention ArbCom, before you have even attempted most forms of DR. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned it since you accused me of a personal attack without investigating the facts. You want me gone, I'm basically gone already. If you want me to apologize, you need someone I trust to convince me I was incorrect in my facts. And I don't inherently trust self-selected groups of admins.

The outcome will be you will block me or ignore me or else I'll wind up deleting my account or ignore you. I will go on with my life creating, you will go on deleting, people will keep getting mad at you time after time after time after time until eventually they go somewhere you won't bother them.

This is not a personal attack. This is not a disruption. This is a discussion about openness. If you don't like how I discuss things, take comfort in that our paths will likely never cross again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecmconroy (talk • contribs)

You have repeatedly accused Fastily of lying (see the diffs above) and that is a personal attack / harrassment. One instance of that was redacted by FPaS on WP:AN3. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep. If he says I've been acting in bad faith in my discussions at other pages, that's a problem. If he says he can block me for 'formatting errors', that's a problem. The heading accuses me of near-criminal acts, that's a problem. If someone wants to redact those facts, I won't edit war over it. If someone wants me to retract those claims, file a RFAr. If you want me to go away, just be quiet and you'll probably get your wish.

Why the continued questions? Are you hoping to mediate a resolution or merely to goad me into a satisfying block? You don't seem like the latter type, but it's not unknown on wikis. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please take into account the warning from FPaS and de-escalate matters. That just involves toning down your language, dropping the accusations of lying and not mentioning ArbCom. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh please. Strong oppose to blocking alecmcconroy. This is ridiculous. Fastily, considering the work you do in the image deletion department (even, recently, right down to a daring request for deletion of Bishzilla's portrait..!, which fortunately you had to ignominiously withdraw after a snowball KEEP reaction), I would have thought you'd expect people to get a little hot under the collar sometimes. Perhaps it's unfair, but surely it comes with the territory? And as Alec says, you're a big strong admin, are you really that easily intimidated? And incidentally, no, Alecmconroy's attempt to change the title of the thread to something neutral was not inappropriate at all, see the instructions at the top of this page: "New threads should be started under … an informative title that is neutral." You yourself gave the thread an inappropriate, attack-mode title, and then you complain when Alec makes it strictly neutral. Are you that unfamiliar with ANI etiquette? To all: you're dealing with a useful long-time contributor in an extremely heavy-handed way, and I'm sorry to see it. Bishonen | talk 10:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC). PS. I've supplied a neutral title for the thread, per the ANI page instructions. Please don't revert me, it's not right. Bishonen | talk 10:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC).
  • Well, no, we probably don't need to block Alecmconroy at this point, as long as he heeds the warning and doesn't continue with the image disruption. But, Bishonen, I must strongly object to your suggestion that this kind of behaviour just "comes with the territory" and that those of us admins who do image work should be expected to simply put up with it. No, no, no. Nobody did any harm to Alecmconroy. He made two or three poorly thought-out non-free image uploads; they were deleted through two regular FFDs; they were both extremely obvious, open-and-shut cases and it was all his own fault because he hadn't worked out the copyright status properly and lacked understanding of NFC policy; and most importantly, Fastily was merely the admin who happened to call the obvious consensus closure on those two FFDs. From there, Alecmconroy launched into a ridiculous spree of personalizing the whole matter into a conflict with Fastily, hounding him across multiple unrelated venues with insulting and belittling comments, and ended up with a rampage of WP:POINT moves. No, we should not excuse such behaviour so easily and dismiss it as simply somebody "getting a bit hot under the collar". If he is now offended enough to consider leaving, that's a pity, but I don't see anything "heavy-handed" about the way he was treated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    • This. My involvement simply started from trying to explain the legal and philosphocial relationship between Fair Use, the Foundation's Resolution on non-free content, and en.wiki's NFC, with the point that we cannot change what the Foundation laid out. This subsequently led to the questionable remove and deletion of my image. Now, if Alecmconroy came out earlier and wonders why his press photos were being deleted, several steps in the process could have been removed including avoiding this situation. Instead , as I see what led up to that, he was basically being retalitory due to images being deleted including disruption of others work (outside of talk pages). I don't think the block is needed now, but certainly there needs to be reminder that such actions are completely uncalled for, and if there is a legit grip with the reasons for removal of non-free content we can try to discuss it but our hands our tied to a degree by the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 12:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not blameless here-- I've realized that this is a testosterone environment and have slowly adapted against my nature to work in it. I hope I'm not as bad as the portrait Fut paints, but I'd be the last person to know if I was.

I can't speak intelligently about me, that's for you all to do. But the fair use deletions-- something has gone wrong here. I sense we'd rather delete an image than fix its tags. I sense that fair use is being used as leverage in pov-wars, with people using fair use to kill pics they oppose on pov grounds. We are clearly demoralizing huge swatchs of people with fair use deletions. Most of all, I suspect we're crippling our very own articles by this.

When we can't show a picture OF testimony in a democratic government that has a semi-public license in a section all about that person giving that testimony-- something's broken somewhere. This should be an easy common-sense decision for us at the copyright level.

Are we really having to argue over whether "The Sum of the World's Knowledge" can include historic pictures of legislative bodies? Whatever guidelines we use are failing the common sense test.

an admin to intentionally deleting an image of parliament is almost like a reductio ad absurdum of how wikipedia bureaucracy can go crazy -- the mere fact that it happens is a red flag. The fact that it seems to be happening to others is a bigger flag.

And then, of course, "cause we said so" just doesn't work on wikipedia. If you can't explain, in common sense, why something should be, people just argue about it until a consensus or a fight breaks out.

Lots of people quoted me guidelines with obscure codes they know by heart... but nobody could explain why the article would be better if we deleted the picture... nobody even tried.... and that means something's broken, aside from just me. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not often I agree with Bishonen, but oppose block for the moment, as this clearly needs to Go to RfM/RfAr, as neither side is showing signs of backing down. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I'm not 'backing down', but I'm one night's sleep away from a good vanish. I don't expect this to go to RFAr-- they're too busy already-- the last thing they need is to see a two-bit php programmer who spends more time on code than content. I 'offered' to go through an RFAr if someone really wants an apology from me. I'm not 'backing down', but i'm not obsessed with getting an apology either. I don't need one-- I'm basically content to vanish-- it'd probably be good for my career :)

The bigger issue is that if you obsessively delete fair use images whenever justifiable, people won't contribute images anymore. If you threaten people with bogus blocks, most people won't know it's BS, and they'll think we're ruled by tyrants. The "Fair Use Jihad" has to end, or we might as well all just move to Wikia. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Claimed suicide threat from open-proxy recently used by a known troll

Already taken care of. –MuZemike 06:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just posting here as I haven't responded to any of these before. See User talk:216.6.232.237. The IP is an open proxy, and one which was used by an IP-hopping user in attacks on other users just a couple hours before the suicide threat - so the legitimacy of the post is questionable. I did post a {{Suicide response}} reply, just to cover any potential legitimacy; but am also posting here in case there's any additional follow-up required of which I'm not aware. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

31.47.14.109 and BLPCAT

I think a short block may be necessary to get the attention of Special:Contributions/31.47.14.109. They have been adding information to the religion attribute in the Bashar al-Assad infobox that doesn't comply with WP:BLPCAT over and over and over again. As you can see from User talk:31.47.14.109 they've been given multiple warnings about this. I gave them a final warning yesdterday. There's a discussion section on the article talk page Talk:Bashar_al-Assad#Shia_or_not_Shia. The IP hasn't commented there. We've also put a prominent comment in the article to alert editors that the entry needs to comply with BLPCAT. The IP even removed that here. I hesitate to call the IP's edits vandalism because there's really no dispute that Assad comes from the Alawi community so from the IP's perspective adding religion = Alawite probably seems uncontroversial. It's apparent that it is much more difficult to find a BLPCAT compliant source that actually supports that. Assad self-identifying his religion as Islam is the best that I've managed to do. A short block and a few words from an admin are probably needed to get the IP to stop and understand that his edits have to comply with BLPCAT. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter's Signature

Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has flat-out stated that he's not interested in changing his signature, so I've brought this here. I asked him to refrain from forcing a new line every time with his signature as it unnecessarily added to the length of his comment. Essentially every time he comments in a discussion it is +1 line over what anyone else would generate. He comments 10 times in a discussion that's +10 lines of scroll just for his signature. His justification for this is that if he doesn't do it, his signature will sometimes "break". On the off chance that the comment he's written ends up putting him at the exact right spot at the side of the page, his signature will be split in two, and we couldn't have that.[61]. As pointed out at Wikipedia:SIG#Length Signatures have to avoid being long both in appearance and code. His signature gives undo prominence to his comment by making it longer than another editor making the same comment, and disrupts discussions by adding unnecessarily to their scroll. When I informed him of this, his response was to blank the conversation [62], which tells me he's got no interest in cooperating over this. This is a user who, otherwise, maintains extensive archives.--Crossmr (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent consensus seems to be that a single line break in a sig is fine. I don't see a problem with it myself. 28bytes (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Signatures#Linebreaks and the discussion on the talk page where they were told to take it would suggest otherwise.--Crossmr (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That thread shows no consensus to force an editor to abandon the use of a single line break. Favonian (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And it shows no consensus not to either. And taking each case as it comes, Berean hunter's reasoning for placing the line break is only because he doesn't want to "break" his signature in the off chance that the line length is within a very narrow window. In other words, he's constantly causing unnecessary scroll, placing his signature in a position of prominence on every edit for the tiny chance that his comment might fit a certain width on any given edit.--Crossmr (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not something to be overly concerned about. I agree that it's a little bit annoying and would prefer it if there weren't line breaks in sigs if only for consistency. However, it's only a minor issue and I don't think that you should let it worry you. violet/riga (t) 11:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Gagik Tsarukyan

Gentlemen, can I use information about Tsarukyan's very popular nickname from "The Times", Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, The Moscow Times and Routledge books? Erik1987ghazaryan deleting this info as wandalism.

In Russian Wiki Erik1987ghazaryan is a sockpuppet of two another accounts (see Russian Wiki Requests for checkuser). Razbirzti Guru (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011

An IP-hopper carrying a grudge has taken to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011 to add frivolous checkuser requests against La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who is in conflict with the IP. This IP was amongst those listed in the original report (filed by me), and I'm quite surprised it wasn't blocked (even for a short time) based on behavioural evidence. I have to log off now, but I'd appreciate an extra pair of eyes or two. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have said many times I am on dynamic IP which is not within my control if it flips. Seeing how she likes to accuse people of sockpuppetry, why was La goutte de pluie's case of using sockpuppets to revert edits never brought up? evidence here and here202.156.13.11 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)