Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Socks fell, boomerangs everywhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Dear Administrators,

I was wondering how I can go about reporting abuse and unwiki behavior. The pages in question are:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Closky
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp_Prize
3. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Closky
4. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prix_Marcel_Duchamp
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Williams
6. It appears that a new wiki account has been made to initiate the abuse and vandalism. User: Weakart [[10]]

Do you have any suggestions on how I might file a report or get assistance in this matter? Thank you -- --Hellartgirl (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The account edits have clear comments. I am following that case since a paper used a picture I made... As well as I can tell, the artist called LG Williams seems to be an artistic hoax of somekind, and his work seems to exist only on photoshop, therefore it is a problem to use a weird article of the french Huffington post (why not on the english one ?) as an insulting rhetorical question. Jean-no (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to be a content dispute over the reliability of some article from the French edition of the Huffington Post. (I should note that on the French Wikipedia an admin came to the same conclusion [11].) So try WP:RS/N or WP:DRN. (I've left a note about this at WP:WPVA. Some experienced editor with an interest in visual arts may be able to mediate this affair.) Also please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:NOTVANDALISM and use WP:user talk pages to post notifications, not the user pages themselves. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I just said « Stop » on WP:fr ! S t a r u s – ¡Dímelo! – 23:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starus (talk • contribs)

  Well, you didn't block either party for WP:VANDALISM but warned them to stop edit-warring, so I assumed you concluded it falls within the realm of WP:AGF-able content disputes. Of course, an edit war is not how such disputes are supposed to be solved... Tijfo098 (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And it looks like my assumption was correct [12]. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, I don't see why they are not discussing in French on the French Wikipedia. Starus is an admin there and his warning roughly reads "We are on the French Wikipedia and to write in French. This conflict is of no interest of the article and (their) spillover from other wikis (no less). The blogpost in question appears to be disputed - whatever the blog audience support -, it is (therefore) necessary to add a different secondary source, neutral and reliable for the content in the article. Unless of course that doesn't achieve consensus among contributors. Violations will lead to blocks." As for the "vandalism" and "abuse" part, such terms are not relevant here. I see personal attacks on the frwiki talk page and those need to stop as well. --Jasper Deng (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you Jasper. Your translation reflects exactly my idea. Just a thing, I wrote « Unless, of course, that does achieve consensus among contributors ». I left her a last warning for her personal attacks. S t a r u s – ¡Dímelo! – - Starus (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Esteemed and Concerned Wiki Colleagues: I am enjoying this conversation, thank you. Please forgive my intrusion but I am curious if any other wiki users share my concerns?

1. Should not the discussion here be oriented upon the repeated deletions from an self-confessed angry editor of a verifiable and reliable source?
2. Because the reason for the user/editor deletion has clearly been documented: "Myself, I'm just pissed off (...so I deleted the posting.). (->Jn) (d) 6 septembre 2012 à 00:25 (CEST)"
3. Clearly deleting another user's posting on this grounds is illegitimate.
4. Moreover, as far as the discussion of 'suspected' a hoax upon an international verifiable source, you are simply kidding yourselves. Where in the HuffingtonPost.fr is the article disputed? Nowhere. This claim is mere fantasy -- mere conspiracy theory.
5. As far as I can tell the HuffingtonPost.fr has 350,000 readers a day and an excellent editorial staff -- surely the editors are professionals and they would would have by now dealt quickly and effectively with any supposed 'hoax'.
6. Possible Remedy: why not simply post the article until which time some wiki editor can publish their contradiction in a similar verifiable source?

I look forward to reading your replies with great interest -- --Art4em (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends who posted it and in which part of the site. See The Huffington Post#Controversies and RS/N discussion, particularly the part "In the case of aggregated content, the original source is what should be evaluated." Tijfo098 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you talking about the angry wiki editor and his illegitimate deletion? Because this is the matter in question under this thread... --Art4em (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "off topic" in an AN/I thread. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! That is the wiki spirit: there is no such thing as "off topic". In which case, I would propose that we turn our attention something relevant like can 12,345,566,788,345 angels really sit comfortably today in Charlotte at the Democratic Convention? What do any other wiki editors think? --Hellartgirl (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI?

It would be helpful if the parties involved clarified their affiliations in this matter, as they both seem to have a WP:COI. Jean-no has stated above that a picture of his was used, although it's rather unclear what he means by that. Hellartgirl appears to have intimate knowledge of the employment place of LG Williams--the ASU Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts--, which also "happens" to be the employment place of Julia Friedman who wrote the French Huffington Post blog entry at the center of this dispute. (Also, Friedman doesn't seem to be a regular blogger on the HuffPo, because that was her only post there insofar. If her claims were to be included in Wikipedia articles, assuming they even qualify per wp:weight, they would clearly need to be attributed to her, because the employment connection between Friedman and Williams is simply too strong to allow us to attribute her opinions to the "French Huffington Post", as Hellartgirl has done [13]. Also, 68.98.238.40, who first added this info to the French Wikipedia [14], maps to Scottsdale, Arizona--which is nearby ASU.) Art4em has been focusing on LG Williams for quite some time, including some articles which turned out to be non-notable when examined by the wider Wikipedia community. Finally, let me say that WP:COI does not require a declaration, but one would go along way towards the rest of us extending good faith in this matter, in the face of accounts whose editing appears fairly focused on this affair. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. And indeed, a novice observer might discern that your diligence deserves merit were it not for the fact that:

1. It should be clear to all by now that too many editors write upon nothing they know very little about, i.e. The Cult of the Amateur
2. This might be the first person in the modern world to describe public records and resumes viewed upon the internet as 'intimate'
3. The above comments clearly display outright prejudice and total disregard in its "oversight" in mentioning that said comments posted above were in response by a user to contest another editor's editorial summary and illegitimate deletion, "((lg williams n'existe pas!))" (● 4 septembre 2012 à 00:09‎ Qiwi (discuter | contributions)‎ m . . (19 259 octets) (-229)‎
4. The reliability of IP's and a clear disdain for anonymity on the internet and wikipedia
5. Specious expertise on just how one becomes regular? [15] [16]

Overlooking this "bad faith" summary wrapped in good faith duplicity and rhetoric, let us simply get to the point of the discussion: "Do you think the 2005 Prix Marcel Duchamp should be reattributed to LG Williams or not? [17] --Hellartgirl (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps it would be better to say, what is preventing a wiki editor from mentioning in the wiki articles under view that there is an article in one of France's most viewed and peer-reviewed media sources wherein the merits by which an artist who has received France's preeminent art award has been discovered to be illegitimate -- either through plagiarism or ignorance. --Art4em (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. What I ment is that the picture used by the Huffington post is a photograph that I took and let on Commons, this one : [18]. Of course, it is perfectly legal from the Huffpo to use this image as it is under a creative commons licence. But still, I couldn't help feeling this a little disapointing to see my work used to (obviously) harm an artist I've been working with for fifteen years now (I write computer programs for him). So this answers to my personal status upon all that. Please note that even if I quite never contribute on en:wikipedia, I know Wikipedia's functionning, as I have been very involved between 2005 ans 2010 (less now : I miss time for it). So I'm usualy careful on personal matters, and, for instance, I quite never do anything on the pages of artists I work with, except very factual stuff, as correcting dates or titles. I came to this case when I've been noticed that my picture was on the Huffington Post. Since then, I did a little research, of course. At first, I thought LG Williams didn't even exist, as I never heard his name and guessed that the pictures of his work were pure photoshoping. But the man exists, he is a teacher, essayist, and since something like two years, he shows his work. He has (forged, I think) tracks on the Internet : numerous Kindle books, websites, etc. To my guess, all this is a self-created famous artist of the internet age in the style of Paul Devautour (french artist who invented his own critics) or the excellent "Yes Men"'s debut, RTMark. These kind of pranks are very common in contemporary art... Six month after a scandal related to them, suddenly the truth is known : it was a fake, wikipedia, Slate, the Huff and whoever have been fooled,... I cannot swear for sure it's the case here, I just have hints, the first ont is that I never heard of LG Williams, the second is that this artist appears in a show in France since the day before the Huffpo's paper, and the third one is that a domain name have been bought one week before, just to relay the HuffPo's paper : http://2005prixmarcelduchamp.com/. Claude Closky is a quite famous artist, I don't see how he could have fooled the art critics for 15 years by reproducing the work of an unknown wannabe artist. I wrote to Ms Friedman by e-mail, and she answered me this : "Please post your question as a comment, I will respond in detail. I appreciate a personal message but this discussion should stay in the public forum". But guess what : my last comments on the HuffPo's site are not displayed anymore !

Now you know my background and my point of view. The rest of the story is yours. Of course, feel free to ask me anything else. Sorry for my unpracticed english. Jean-no (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for bringing to our attention that this thread is attracting a swarm of irrelevant personal asides, unsubstantiated remarks about 'hoaxes' and 'conspiracies', cloaked biases from supposed saints, and here-say from editors whom "never do anything on the pages of art"?

Therefore, allow me to remind those learned editors that the point of this discussion is:

1. What is preventing a wiki editor from mentioning in the wiki articles under view that there is an article in one of France's most viewed and peer-reviewed media sources wherein the merits by which an artist who has received France's preeminent art award has been discovered to be illegitimate -- either through plagiarism or ignorance.[19] --Art4em (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May we proceed with the matter at hand? --Art4em (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

come on, Art4em ! You perfectly know that this phrasing cannot be told as a truth ! I have not used the word "conspiracy", just "hoax" and "pranks". I didn't either said that I never do anything on the pages of art : I am an arts college teacher and I even gave courses where y students had to contribute to Wikipedia (first in the world ! had a little press for that...). I write a lot about art. But I also have a lot of artists among my friends and collegues, and for those ones, I try not to write on wikipedia, I feel it's not my place to do : any artist seems a great one if he is your beloved uncle, your admired neighbour or your soulmate (is that the problem, Julia ? Tell us !). So I usualy avoid editing about people I know on wikipedia, that's all.

So I told what my "personal asides" were, but did you ? Why are you using two different accounts to discuss all that ? Jean-no (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing : you cannot speak about the Huffington Post's blogs as France's most viewed and peer-reviewed media sources. It is a minor website for France, that uses the formers blogs of an old website, "The Post", that was a very free website where anyone could write (and did), mostly known for conspiracy theories about illuminati or so. Now it's better I think, because there is a professional staff for the frontpage articles, leaded by Anne Sinclair (wife of the terrible former IMF president Dominique Strauss-Kahn). But if you ask in the street about the Huffington Post, most french people will have no idea about what it could be (Slate is more famous for instance). Now can you call it a peer-reviewed website ? I'm into academic research and what I know about peer reviewing is that peers have names ! I don't know who reviews the Huffpo's blogs... Do you ? Jean-no (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that is not the place for personal and irrelevant bias's, rants and diatribe's about one life or failings. But that is just my opinion. Please consult Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability and cited materials. Defaming the #86 website in the world with an estimated readership of 350,000 people a day -- and belittling the "Most Shared" article this month in HP.fr is, well, perverted.

Therefore, if I may be persistant I would like to remind those learned editors that the point of this discussion is:

1. What is preventing a wiki editor from mentioning in the wiki articles under view that there is an article in one of France's most viewed and peer-reviewed media sources wherein the merits by which an artist who has received France's preeminent art award has been discovered to be illegitimate -- either through plagiarism or ignorance.[20] --Art4em (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop repeating yourself - and using the bold. Bold = shouting on the Internet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Art4em : "defaming" ??? In French, defamation is precisely what you try to do about Claude Closky : claiming that a person did something legaly wrong. Just saying that the Huffpo is not the most famous french-speaking website (not as famous as it is in english for instance) is not defamation, it is my observation. HuffPo is quite recent here you know. And 300 000 views/day for a website with so much content doesn't seem a lot to me but that's just my opinion. Was it realy le "most shared" article of the month ? A few tweets, not even a hundred facebook "likes" don't seem a lot to me. But wether I'm wrong or right about that, the number of pagevews has never been an evidence of relevancy. If a lot of different authors told the same, if it had made a huge scandal, well, the paper would be noticeable.

I think it is wrong from you to act as if the good of Wikipedia was your only purpose : obviously you have your own interests or bias. The difference with me is that you are not very transparent about it (and never answer on it). This situation is being a little ridiculous. Jean-no (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish admins good luck enforcing WP:BLP in this matter. That's all I have left to say on this. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry ?

I think that User:Art4em and User:Hellartgirl might be one and only person pretending to be two with the purpose of legitimizing each other's claims. I suspected that because of their similar way to express themselves, but I have quite no doubt since I saw that User:Art4em answered to a question asked to User:Hellartgirl : [21]. I don't know how sockpuppetry is considered on the english-speaking wikipedia (on the french wikipedia it is not a felony, depends of the use), but it doesn't seem very healthy to me that a person uses several identites in a controversy. Jean-no (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started to suspect the same but they deny it, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art4em. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, time will tell ! Jean-no (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That request appears suspended in bureaucratic limbo. On the other hand, admins had no qualms approving Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jean-no. The results were interesting. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This second inquiry went fast :-) Actualy I have nothing to hide so I'm very glad it has been done. Jean-no (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We have two batches of socks - Qiwi, Weakart and Hellartwoman (account never edited) and Art4em and Hellartgirl. The sock groups are unrelated. CU has found no socks of Jean-no. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Jean-no has no socks. Jean-no will wear flip-flops as long as summer lasts. Using socks and flip-flops would be awfully tasteless :-D Jean-no (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't say that here. I've seen more dirty socks in sandals on US campuses than I care to remember. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Luckily we had another another case of this. This report can be closed now because the filer and his long-term sidekick account have been both indef blocked. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved from Jean-no casename to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qiwi...no comment on socks and flip-flops.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Jew Watch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Can an admin please review the recent edit war on the talk page and knock some sense into some people?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's mainly the new(?) editor, and I've warned him and will be keeping an eye out. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more like some people there wants to remove comments that are indeed to the discussion about the article, but not liking when others do it about comments that are not about the discussion. hipocrisy in this case of Jim1138. do talk to himWitsBlomstein (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WitsBlomstein the issue is that we do not delete other people's contributions to the talk page. That is what talk is about, healthy discussion. We edit the article and discuss the edits on the talk page in order to try to reach consensus. I appreciate that the topic of the discussion is an emotive one. It is for both sides. Try abiding by the procedures the Wikipedia community have developed and seek moderation by an administrator if it is not working OK? The same of course goes for Seb az86556, Jpgordon and Mann jess, I do not believe deleting contributions from the talk page is appropriate do you? Djapa Owen 14:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) [reply]

WitsBlomstein is a pretty obvious sock of the IP hopping anon editor 109.225.103.247, 77.53.83.107, and 77.53.83.205, who have been readding comments to a closed discussion. Given that, he's edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And 77.53.83.46 (talk · contribs) who has also edited the same page (all the IPs are from last month). He's editing on articles to do with Jews, white supremacy, etc. Virtually every edit of his that isn't on a trivial subject has been reverted. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True djapa, thats why he delted said article is not ok. he never did try to discuss it. Its pretty obvious that ian thomson, stephen j, jpgordon and Dougweller is Meatpuppeting. you have been adding comments to a Not forum discussion. you confused not forum with closed. given that, ian is indeed edit warring via Meatpuppetry, you dont need 3rr to edit war, you just need same editors teamtagging and meatpuppetrying it. it also seems from the list of Dougweller that he has been editing articles that has to do with jews, white supremacy(check history) and users who are jews. so its kinda ironic that every edit he made isn't on a trivial subject has been reverted. its also true that he lets the Talmud gets desecrated, but will allow other sections not to be desecrated? if that is not bias then what is?WitsBlomstein (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you get involved in a hostile way, though, then you risk the situation where people see both sides as equivalently misbehaving, and then don't act against either of them - whereas if all the fighting seems to be one way then it's much easier for neutral admins to deal with the party causing the offence. Admins are volunteers and often unaware of the wider context of what is going on, so try to understand based on what actions are taking place at that exact time. Orderinchaos 02:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed an SPI on WitsBlomstein, though it's honestly a formality. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WitsBlomstein's comments above are to put it mildly silly but show, again, that this isn't a constructive editor. I think he is probably a sock, but of a named account. The IPs haven't edited this month or at the same time WitsBlomstein has edited, so I doubt there will be any blocks. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we check history, then both Dougweller and jpgordon and stephen j seems to indeed be engaged in teamtagediting, so they arent vandalising but rather unconstructive political meatpuppeting. this behavior lasts for years if you check back to 2010 and underWitsBlomstein (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but I think Wits is trying to refer to me in his accusations of meatpuppetry/tagteaming. To the extent that he is, his allegations are categorically false. There has been no collusion or co-ordination between me and any other editor in this or any other dispute. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, could an admin please have a look at Wits' edits, particularly his talk page edits? He edit wars to delete someone else's talk page comments; he asks random questions on talk pages that have nothing to do with article improvement; he wikilinks an ordinary English word (remnants) to create an inappropriate link to an article about a novel by that name; he posts long, shambling, incomprehensible gibberish on talk pages that has nothing to do with the subject of the article, let alone improving it; and he has a thing about Jews and something he calls "anti-non semetism" (sic). When several, independent editors revert his obvious nonsense, he calls that meatpuppetry. His signal-to-noise ratio so far is 100% noise, 0% signal. He's about the best candidate for a WP:COMPETENCE block I've ever seen, assuming he's not just trolling. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly trolling, see his latest comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WitsBlomstein where replying to me he says: "There seem to be meatpuppetry here, including by you. some hilarious comments by you. so unless you have discovered some shared library IP, then no. Unless we can check what other things Dougweller has engaged with other editors in, like what topics and articles that he has been tagteam editing with others, then we'll see if its a short intervall between edits showing he is indeed engaged with even more than suspected, or if its days/weeks between editing and he just wasted our time being neurotic". I agree with the SPI clerk that there's nothing to be done here without a puppetmaster to compare to, although I seem to remember an editor with an apparently Jewish name who was clearly anything but Jewish. But there's nothing constructive coming from this editor, and if I weren't involved I'd block. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WitsBlomstein blocked in all his incarnations, at least for the moment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, not over yet. I'm going through links to flawlesslogic.com. Can someone smart build in a filter and block that Nazi propaganda site? Drmies (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Wouldn't blacklisting it be more acceptable? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe, sure--anyway you like it, as long as those sites don't keep showing up here. See, that's why I was asking for someone smart. ;) Drmies (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do a checkuser, but based on editing style it looks like User:Akemi Loli Mokoto has vandalized his own user page multiple times. This guy is actually the indef banned User:Saikano who was causing trouble in 2007, but I unblocked him in 2009 and have been keeping an eye on his edits since then, which have not been especially troublesome or controversial. Anyway since this is a "community ban" which I arbitrarily ignored I think it's about time for me to turn this over to the community, and maybe think about:

1. confirming who is doing the vandalism with checkuser, if anyone thinks that will be helpful
2. getting other people to watch his edits
3. or just banning him again if that really seems like the best solution.

Shii (tock) 06:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should do a usercheck because I have not vandalized anything. Since I have been allowed back to Wikipedia, I have done what I should have done before my ban(edit pages without bias, not insult other users, not use the "talk" page as a forum, etc). I was pretty child-ish back then so I regret my actions in the past. I hope, if it comes to it, the community understands that and lets me stay. Beside that, I am completely lost on what the hell just happened to my user page since I was asleep and I would like it if Wikipedia investigated it. I guess announcing the fact I was going to sleep to Twitter was not the best idea since I am often targeted due to my blunt tweets. I am going to fix the minor damage now. The edit done to my page are not "like me" by the way. I'd never be caught dead using idiotic words like "weeaboo". I do however get the feeling that despite my edits on other pages(most of which were minor), I am facing a ban for something I did NOT do. If I edited my own page, it was done using this user name and I did not edit to the point of violating Wikipedia's rules. That is all I have to say. --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Checkuser note. It seems unlikely that the two accounts are operated by the same person. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I thought they were the same for sure but I'll assume good faith that they are not. Anyone can close this conversation if they check it over and see that nothing unusual has happened here. Shii (tock) 12:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akemi Loli Mokoto, on your website that you link to on your user page, you have the following disclaimer:

Lolicon(some of the pics you see on this site) is LEGAL in the US, Japan, and other countries. But this will only be about the US. In 2002 the US Supreme Courts ruled in a 7-2 ruling that virtual child porn is LEGAL![link] This was affirmed in 2003. It was upheld in 2008.[link 1] [link 2][Link 3]. In Ohio the high courts also ruled that Virtual Child Porn is LEGAL[link 1] [link 2]. My host does NOT prohibit sexual or pornographic content if it is legal. This blog is UNTOUCHABLE! So do not waste your time bitching.

I'm curious - what is the meaning of the "Loli" in your username? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you were User:Saikano, you used to sign as "Lolicon3043910" - is this related? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, Loli is(to me) short for Lolicon. Over the past 1(maybe 2) years, I have strayed away from using "Loli" and "Lolicon" in my usernames and about mes since I am moving towards a correspondences contract with CNN next year(hopefully). Since I am unable to change my username on Wikipedia to something more desirable(Akemi_Mokoto, Akemi-Mokoto, Akemi.Mokoto, or even AkemiCNN) I have been forced to keep the "Loli" in Akemi_loli_mokoto. As for the Saikano and Lolicon3043910 usernames. I am unsure. I know I was User: Saikano but I do not know where the Lolicon3043910 username came from or anything else about. I know I made it but that is all I know about it. Is it a problem? If I could redo what I did in the past, I would. --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a problem? No, not at all. After I saw your defense of "virtual child porn" on your site, I was curious if your username was promoting it. I think you have answered that. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. All the best. --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing username is permitted, so I see no reason not to allow a change to Akemi Mokoto (note that spaces are allowed in usernames, if you want). Though as that policy says, you might want to think twice about using your real name on Wikipedia, especially if you're already being harassed. I don't think that a past agreement not to use sockpuppets (whether or not it is still active) should be interpreted to prohibit a name change - does anyone disagree? Wnt (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know. Would I be able to use the username of one of my Sockpupets without having one of the bureaucrats ban me? I'd like to take Akemi Mokoto(Akemi_Mokoto). --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the block notice on the talk page of User:Akemi Mokoto, that account was "blocked for pedophilia-related disruption including attempting to operate violative sock accounts". Perhaps that account wouldn't be a good choice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think that block notice is VERY misleading. What they mean is I went on the "Lolicon" talk page and started bashing pedophiles and stuff. I basiclly used the talk page in a way it was not intended. The block notice makes it seem like I was talking about stuff a pedophile would talk about, I guess. But I understand. I'll use AkemiCNN or Akemi.Mokoto until either I ma officially pardoned by Wikipedia(and all account I used are unblocked and released) or until I think of a better username. Thanks for the help. --Akemi Mokoto (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same user - I see no trouble with him "usurping" his own blocked account (but it's best to move that account to some other name, and move his present account to Akemi Mokoto in order to preserve recent contribution history). I should add that I think that blocking an editor under his own name, leaving a notice worded like that, if indeed he is anything other than a confirmed pedophile (and he clearly must not be one, given that he's been allowed to continue editing for three years since, after thorough administrative scrutiny), seems like a Very Bad Thing which thoroughly violates the spirit of "BLP" as we know it, and seems like it could expose Wikipedia itself to libel actions. Even the actual pedophiles found on Wikipedia weren't treated this way - they just have some vaguely worded ArbCom ban notice on their pages. I think User talk:Akemi Mokoto should seriously be reworded NOW. Wnt (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure anyone can confirm this from reading Akemi's edit history, but that block was a long time ago when Wikipedia was below the lawsuit radar and he was just an anonymous user really upset about pedophiles. It's not something that should happen again. And yes, he ought to change his name, and we should formally say that he is no longer indef banned. Shii (tock) 02:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, this article already got full protection for a day just a little bit ago and all the combatants have jumped right back into the edit war after protection ended. It needs to be locked for longer and there probably needs to be a serious look at some of the editors repeatedly reverting on this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In lieu of individual notifications, I have left a comment on the talk page linking to this discussion.

Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. In the future, you can also take this to WP:RFPP. --Jayron32 03:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are concerns other than protection as I noted. I am concerned about the general conduct issues in question as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't take sides. If someone wants to do so after me, that's fine. Protection hits all offenders equally. And from what I can see in the article history, I'm not sure I see any reason to suppose someone deserves credit for taking "the high road". But whatever. If some admin after me feels that blocks are in order, fine. But the protection has stopped people from reverting the article, and they now need to use the talk page to discuss and establish consensus first. I should note that, on one particularly conntentious article of a similar ilk, Presidency of Barack Obama, there have been some good custodians who have worked very hard to keep the article under control. Perhaps some of them could be brought in here to restore some sanity. --Jayron32 03:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just going to point out the obvious here that StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is involved in this. His third ANI thread in as many days, must be some sort of record. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. I predicted "next week"... maybe that was too optimistic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last thread about him only closed a few hours ago. This is getting just a smidge ridiculous, and I'm tempted to propose article or topic bans for the handful of names I keep seeing come up in these threads, starting with StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs). This level of disruption - whether in good faith or not - is getting, well, disruptive. It's apparent that SS, and quite possibly a number of other actors in these "Wikiproject Conservatism vs the people-who-don't-seem-to-much-like-conservatives" clashes, are unable to contribute to the topic of Paul Ryan, and perhaps the American electoral season as a whole, without causing disruption.

      Historically, articles and editing related to American presidential elections go, er, what's the kind term, sort of insane in the lead-up to November of presidential election years, and I'm becoming increasingly persuaded that we should keep articles in this area on a short leash during that time. It may be that we need an arbcom case for that, or it may be that the community is capable of imposing that short leash on its own. I'm hoping it's the latter, because there's no reason we should have to rely on Arbcom to say things as obvious as "This is a hotly contentious area, with a lot of emotion on both sides, and editors who cannot be on their best behavior for the duration of their editing should look elsewhere for something to do." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been thinking that something of that nature may be necessary as well. Also should note that I actually suggested that Still stay away from these topics for a while, but the response was unfavorable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I really don't think you can single out StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) here. In particular, the conduct of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs) needs serious review. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't single out any pair of editors; once we've stopped them, more will show up, since this is a high-profile article about an important public figure. No, the only answer is protection, I'm afraid pbp 04:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's somewhat true, but I think it misses my point. We have a particularly problematic user who's done 6 reverts on the same article in 24+epsilon hours, and has made numerous personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. And it's not StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs), it's Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs). The record is there for anyone who wants to look. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were more editors causing problems than that and several were brought up in the previous ANI cases. You are actually one of the other participants in the edit war yourself having restored the material in contention with a revert once before protection and again after protection. On the other side I would say Belchfire (talk · contribs) and Arzel (talk · contribs), who have had many problematic interactions with Still recently, were two of the more prolific edit-warriors. Another of the newbie editors SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) had already been blocked for 3RR over that very same material. However, that editor is apparently new and just reverted once since that block and Rtm is presumably also a new editor and thus unfamiliar with 3RR, having just been warned after the fifth revert of the day without any subsequent reverts on the article. Honestly, I don't really like listing people here, but I do not want this to become a dog-pile on Still. Lots of bad behavior to go around and there are still others I have not mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Make it two months full-protection: If we're going to gold-lock this, might as well extend it 'till after the election. If 2008 is any indication, the four candidates' articles will be gold-locked in mid-to-late October anyway. pbp 03:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a good idea. Anything that comes up about Ryan between now and then is probably going to be partisan (for one side or the other) and need a great deal of care to straighten out, since the media will report just about anythting about anybody as long as it's "out there". I'd think the same would be true about the Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Joe Biden articles: we're not a newspaper, and it's not going to hurt our status as an encyclopedia to be a bit out of date with the latest scandals and PR. There's plenty of time after the election's over to add whatever still seems significant then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I was about to make same suggestion. 1 month protection is silly since things will be even crazier 1 month from now. If keeping article protected that long is tolerable at all, then protect til after the election (might be a day or two longer than two months). Alternative: put on PC2. Yeah there's no policy for that. Policy schmolicy, if it doesn't work it can be undone. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a scattershot approach here and propose a number of different remedies which I think may address some or all of the issues here. These are all possible routes, some of which may be more preferable than others, and I welcome all input into which, if any, of these options is useful to the community. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general statement: I could be convinced that a ban or sanction on SS247 is justified, but certainly not in the absence of a similar ban or sanction on his antagonists. It takes (at least) two to tango, and there are been a lot of repeat names popping up in those AN/I reports from the other side of the aisle as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, wasn't the latest advice to open an RFC/U on SS247? Are we going for bans and sanctions before the issues with his editing have been aired out in the proper forum? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this would definitely be the appropriate forum for a discussion of whether General Sanctions are appropriate. As far as topic bans/editing-behavior issues, such things are commonly handled here, though there's no reason they could not instead be handled by an RfC if someone started one. I'm responding to this set of issues from the perspective of someone who's not involved in the topic area and has seen the same name(s) pop up repeatedly, fighting the same ways, on the same issues, all over our noticeboards, which means that I personally tend to feel ANI is an adequate venue for discussion of that issue. YMMV, and you're by no means required to agree with me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear: AN/I is the right place to bring up bans and sanctions (well, actually, WP:AN is, but put that aside), what I was questioning is whether we're putting the horse before the cart by talking about bans and sanctions when there's been no RFC/U, which is normally the first step in dealing with an editor's perceived behavioral problems. How many times have you read someone saying on AN/I, "Why are we dealing with this here when Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StillStanding-247 is a red-link?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see a couple possible areas that may serve as an area of topic-ban for StillStanding. Each of these should last a minimum of three months (which would put us post-election), though I would recommend an indefinite time frame, with SS allowed to appeal after 3 months. Possibilities:

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As proposer: Support option 1. I think SS needs to step away from American political articles entirely. I would note that my support of this sanction does not absolve any other users in the topic area of responsibility for their behavior, and that I may support similar topic bans on other users if they're proposed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support option 1. We will then have to look at general sanctions (see below) to put some of the other re-appearing names on notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, but if there is going to be a T-ban, it really needs to include all LGBT articles and all articles concerning SPLC or organizations listed as hate groups by SPLC. Belchfire-TALK 05:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's plenty of grossly inappropriate behavior at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center as well, including flat out refusal to comply with the result of a RfC, and rehashing the same argument over and over again, and serious personal attacks on other editors. I sincerely hope an administrator takes the time to look at it. I will add another ANI if necessary. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth mentioning that he started 2 DRNs in quick succession at Focus on the Family, then refused to abide by the results when the DRNs failed to produce the result he was looking for. Much as he stated here [25], he's not looking to build an encyclopedia; he wants to "fix some articles". Belchfire-TALK 05:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a topic ban from Southern Poverty Law Center due to concerns about grossly inappropriate behavior at the TP.--Calm As Midnight 05:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose focusing on a single editor, in preference to handling the issue in a systematic and consistent way. My survey of these articles suggests there are a dozen or so editors from across the political spectrum -- including several participants in the present thread -- who should be put on ice until 7 November 2012. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per my comments above, since there has been no RFC/U, and the supports above me are among those same editors who appear to be aligned on the opposite political side from SS247. If there is a behavioral problem, the RFC/U is the proper first step to take. If, while the RFC/U is proceeding, SS247's behavior appears to an admin to be truly disruptive or tendenitious, a block would be in order, but I am strongly opposed to a community topic ban or sanction discussion used as a hammer top squealch one's political opponents. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) To clarify in light of Boris's comment above: If admins (perhaps a triumvirate?) want to do a survey of the political editing situation and hand down blocks to a number of different editors, I have no problem with that. It's the specific focus on SS247 (without proper groundwork) to the exclusion of other editors that concerns me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Jumping straight to an indef with a required wait of three months before appeal is woefully overdoing it and the focus on Still is, as noted by Boris above, focusing too much on one editor when there are many editors involved whose conduct is at issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As Boris explains above, focusing on a single editor is the wrong approach here. It is typically heavy-handed and elephant gun approaches that AN/I threads seem to reach for first, rather than exploring something simple like full protection for an extended period. These debates at these various article are going to only get more partisan and more silly, and rather than make it sound like one editor is the solitary 'problem', why not focus on the real issue at hand? Focus on solutions that don't single people out, especially when there is a larger problem to consider. -- Avanu (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the user continues, we can always start another an/i thread.--Calm As Midnight 05:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what's wrong with the usual results of AN/I complaints: Wikipedia punishes the innocent and lets the editor causing the problem off the hook. Articles get frozen so that nobody can edit them, and the behavior issue is never addressed. It's nonsense, and we just wind up back here over and over. (And I note, this is only Still-24's most recent trip to the woodshed. Last time I checked, a few weeks ago, he's been the subject of AN reports something like 7 times in 21 days.) Belchfire-TALK 05:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be the ones who are causing problems to be topic-banned.--Calm As Midnight 05:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your criteria to determine that? A sustained pattern of disruptive behavior, perhaps? Like this? [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. That's just up through 8/17, I'm pretty sure the list would be a little longer if I went to the trouble of making it exhaustive. (For example, it doesn't include the report just a few threads above this one.) Belchfire-TALK 06:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to complain about grossly inappropriate behavior on someone else's part:

[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

That is just barely the tip of the iceberg. Kerfuffler (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In reference to the point about singling out Still, see my comment above where I name some of the other participants. Note that it is not an exhaustive list by any measure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Devil's advocate. Still's edits seem far less objectionable than the civil POV pushing from the pro Republicans. Rather than reward them, a better solution might be to fully protect the most sensitive article(s), until after the election, and for a team of 2 or 3 impartial admins to update them based on the balance of discussion on the talk pages. FeydHuxtable (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with FeydHuxtable's idea to have the pages fully protected rather then enforce a TB.--Calm As Midnight 05:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless the same sanction is applied to all the problematic combatants in this area. Dragging SS along to ANI repeatedly (sometimes on the thinnest of pretexts) and then claiming he should be topic banned "because his name is always getting brought up at ANI" would be funny if it wasn't actually borderline disruptive. WP:BOOMERANG should be kept in mind here. Black Kite (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. General sanctions applying to all users is preferable to any topic ban applied to one user. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose As others have pointed out, there are many editors with problematic behaviors, from across the political spectrum - including some who have commented in this thread. A blanket sanction should probably be imposed on a whole list of people. This proposal feels too much like some edit warriors working the system to get an 'enemy' removed. FurrySings (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in favor of General Sanctions below. Mojoworker (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; Still's editing is not more problematic, and may be less so, than that of his "opponents" in the topic area, and I will not support any sanction that favors one "side" when both have been misbehaving or when the favored side has been misbehaving more. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Roscelese hit the nail on the head here. Support for sanctions against this editora is driven primarily by the political motives of editors whose behavior is more troubling than Still's. It's hard for me to assume good faith here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Still has done nothing wrong, this is a strong case of WP:WITCHHUNT GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose (Snoppose) Still is problematic, but the real issue is the "other side" who are disrupting wikipedia on a much larger scale, including a war against then SPLC across wikipedia etc (using tag teaming etc [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]). That is the real issue here. That he has been here at ANI so much is only because the conservative editors edit warring with him drag him around these venues. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Topic ban on Still Standing only. Although very tendentious, its not fair to single out one editor over the many others making reverts. I propose placing a series of articles on article probation and 1RR. Anyone breaking these rules will be blocked. But locking the page with full protection for two months is the worst idea ever. Don't punish the 90% of editors making serious edits to the article, because of the actions of the 10%. If those editors are disruptive, they will be blocked, otherwise we need the admins to stop being the nannies for the rest of us.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Topic Ban, as I've said before its not the content, its the battleground mentality. If he remains working on non-political areas, I doubt anything will change. A topic ban would just be a bandaid. Support trout slap for IRWolfie and others for egging Still on to create an RfC by proxy since they didn't have the guts to do it themselves.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  13:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helping with the RfC is a far more productive way of dealing with the issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the point Still "started" that RfC, his behavior was such that it was (or should have been) obvious to all that his involvement in this RfC would lead to a boomerang. Shame on those who goaded Still into walking into this snare.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Option 1 - StillStanding has shown he is completely incapable of constructively editing articles on American politics, particularly articles on conservatism, and this is entirely necessary to prevent further disruption. Other editors may be doing stuff as well, but StillStanding has been repeatedly doing this at dozens of different articles since he joined. I believe this is ample enough evidence that Still does not intend to change or even address his problematic editing behavior, and if that is the case than a topic ban will be inevitable anyway. Toa Nidhiki05 14:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - would you support a similar ban on another editor (and I'm just picking one at random here) who has commented in this thread, around 60% of their articlespace edits are reverts, and who performs drive by taggings, and tag-teams? If so, does that seem fair? Black Kite (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Response - Seems like a trick question to me; as with the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, you haven't given me a full list of his editing behavior. It depends on the user and their sum of contributions. In my experience with Still, it is apparent he is essentially a single-purpose account disrupting American political articles (I know this because that it essentially my editing behavior was at one point, but in the opposite slant). The sort of battlefield mentality that he edits with and spreads goes so far against the idea of consensus-building and compromise that a topic ban is necessary. The fact he is threatening to leave if he is topic banned proves his lack of intent to recognize and change his disruptive editing behavior. Toa Nidhiki05 18:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. Since this this isn't going to pass anyway, I'll leave it for now. I am sure the editor I refer to (and a few others) will be back at ANI soon anyway. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what you find interesting - you asked me if I wanted to topic ban a mystery editor based entirely on hearsay and I said that I'd have to see their overall behavior. I'm not sure if you are setting up an argument against me or this mystery editor, but Still has been recognized by a wide variety of editors as being disruptive in the topic area of American politics. As he has no intent of addressing, fixing, or stopping said battlefield behavior in the topic area, a topic ban is the only real solution to the issue at the moment. Toa Nidhiki05 20:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My point, really; "Still has been recognized by a wide variety of editors as being disruptive in the topic area of American politics." How many of those editors have been neutral in that editing arena? Because looking through the last few ANI reports, the number appears to be very, very small. If Still was (a) disruptive, and more importantly (b) the only disruptive influence on those articles, he would certainly have been sanctioned severely by now. As you'll see from the comments here, however, consensus is that that is not the case. In my example I gave you the pertinent edit history of one of the other main editors in this arena; you declined to comment on that whilst asking for a topic ban for Still for a far less clearly defined "crime". That was what I found interesting. Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you give me an idea as to what 'neutral' means before using it to support a claim? I don't know if you mean politically moderate or editing neutrally. However, the fact is Still has been incredibly disruptive and has been acknowledged as such by editors. The fact is he is indeed responsible for both short and long-term disruption on a wide variety of political articles, particularly American ones, and he has taken a battlefield attitude towards anyone who he suspects has political views opposite of his. This is both uncollegial and disruptive, and does not improve this encyclopedia at all. Still is undeniably being disruptive.
• As for your mystery user, please don't misrepresent my view - I am not going to support or decline a request to topic ban a user off of the hearsay of one user, and I hope as an admin you would act similarly if a similar request were to be posted on your talk page. The reason why I support a topic ban for Still is based off of personal experience and knowledge on Still and his editing history - particularly relating to his disruptive behavior and his lack of interest in acknowledging or changing it. I'm not asking for a topic ban, I'm supporting one - and while the community is clearly not ready to hand one out, I think that it will inevitably happen if Still continues his pattern of behavior. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As others have alluded to, there is no such thing as a one-sided edit war. Several editors dogpiled on many of those articles, and I cited two whose behavior was much worse, chock full of grossly inappropriate commentary. There are a bunch of editors in this area who commit gross and repeated violations of WP:PETTIFOG, WP:AGF, WP:TE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:FORUMSHOP, and WP:FILIBUSTERS. Kerfuffler (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Option 4: We know he's making unconstructive edits there. But this will be irrelevant because, (a) the topic ban is destined to fail, (b) He'll probably be blocked, and (c) if my proposal below succeeds, the article will be gold-locked pbp 17:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Focusing on one activist editor is not what will fix the larger problem. Wikipedia needs a way to rein in all activist-type editing. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No evidence has been presented to show that there is anything to merit a topic ban. TFD (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support option one  WP:CIR.  In addition to the ANI threads mentioned, Still has been to Wikiquette Assistance twice within the last two weeks.  I took Still to Wikiquette Assistance after he/she called a comment of mine uncivil on his/her talk page.  Still's response to problem resolution is that he/she already knows what I think and why I think it.  [61], [62].  I asked Moonriddengirl here, "Is potential libel something that editors should ignore". 

Additional diffs:

• Admin warning on August 25, [63]. 
• Another Wikiquette discussion, accusation of personal attack
• Still recommends a blog by "Guest Commentator".  [64]

Unscintillating (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose For most of the reasons already mentioned above. A topic ban is not the solution to a problem that is much larger than one editor. I have seen marked improvement in StillStanding's approach to collaborative editing, even in the past week, probably due to some excellent (and generous) coaching that he has received from other editors and admins. I think he has the potential to be a great contributor here once he learns how to effectively influence, negotiate and compromise. Also, there are some unclean hands in this situation: I've observed a few other editors goading him in truly shameful fashion.

As long as his interactions continue to trend positive, he should be able to remain involved, even with politically charged topics. – MrX 23:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban. This user is capable of self-restraint and showed it in the middle of a controversial article. Please don't ban a person for trying. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose as overkill. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1 Initially I was not going to comment on Still but because of his continued battleground attitude I feel there is no other option. I had not even suggested a topic ban on him, and he is now suggesting that I be topic banned while this discussion is ongoing! It is clear he has no intention on working collaboratively with anyone that does not share his personal beliefs. Arzel (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, a couple of possible ways to handle community-imposed sanctions.

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As proposer: Support option 1 from areas and option 1 from time frames (that means "Articles about American presidential and vice-presidential candidates and their campaigns, broadly construed" under the GS, with the GS to automatically expire after 3 months). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support options 1 and 1 per Fluffernutter. These articles are rapidly spinning out of control. Admins should enforce these sanctions on a near-zero tolerance basis. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in preference to a T-ban, as proposed above. Still-24's early history suggests he has potential to be a highly valuable contributor to the overall project; he just has trouble in certain topic areas. If sanctions are imposed, they should be narrowly crafted to protect Wikipedia while still allowing the user to contribute, if possible. Belchfire-TALK 05:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1 from areas and 5 from time frames, or sanctions to be reapplied automatically starting 3 months before each election. I do not see any reason why the situation is likely to get better for future election cycles. We also should not expect topics bans to resolve this for the future - note that most of the editors in the current set of disputes joined after 2008, so probably this would be the same case for 2016. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose per my comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?? Your comments above say "seems like a good idea" for full protection. So you'd rather completely lock'em down instead of probation? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1/1 Thanks for that, I misread the suggested sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Request for clarification There seems to be some confusion as to whether the proposed sanctions are addressed specifically to Still24/7, or are meant to be broadly applicable to all editors. It would be helpful for the proposer to make this explicit. (My support is conditional on the latter interpretation.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is meant for everyone and anyone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I had assumed as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1/1 for all editors. (Note, now second choice to full protection below (but still supporting, obviously). Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The suggestion is for allowing stricter sanctions for misconduct on these articles, not sanctions on specific editors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I know, I was making it clear per the request for clarification just above my posting. Black Kite (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. About time. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 1/1 is a good idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support proposal 2 - 1. Political BLPs are getting all kinds of crap from partisans involved in the elections. FurrySings (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support option 1 (though should we specify 2012 candidates? anyway, this covers biographies, campaigns, conventions without picking up a lot of articles that have had no or unrelated problems) with timeframe 1. If agenda-driven editors continue to be a problem after the election, sanctions can be re-imposed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1/1 for all editors, without making reference to Still or any other particular editor, withour prejudice against expanding the timeframe should problems with partisan editors continue. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 2/5 There are plenty of congressional races which invite the same sort of problematic editing behavior. Or as Arc en Ciel suggested, sanctions to be reapplied automatically starting 3 months before each election, since it's likely to be a recurring problem each election cycle. Mojoworker (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1/1 at least, we should have done this a while back, it's more than merited at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support placing all WP:BLP covered articles connected with politics for all nations (not just the US, as the same occurs in other articles as well, though with less visibility to most editors) for a period of 3 months prior to any elections in such countries under "silly season protection" with the goal of reducing the use of such articles as campaign vehicles. Collect (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• By any elections, Collect, you mean that articles about US presidential candidates would have been under protection since about November 2010, three months before the first primary elections? —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think elections in other nations have the same sort of effect on wikipedia as the US ones. IRWolfie- (talk)

Off the top of my head, I don't recall seeing much drama related to Mongolian politics, Altankhuyag seems to have generated very little wiki-controversy, at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The examples most currently noted are ones aimed at Australian politics, although UK articles are also known for such edits. And no -- since the elections are at the start of November, the candidates and persons involved and articles directly relating to them per WP:BLP should be restricted as of the start of August before the actual election -- not in perpetuity. BTW, the first primary elections for the 2012 cycle were not in 2010. <g> In the case of Australia, see [65] indicating a reasonable likelihood of an election there in the near future. And of course the infamous edits on British MPs in the past as well. And the French DSK article, inter alia. And Canadian BLPs. So much for "this only applies to the US". Political BLPs are so routinely used for campaign purposes that they are a long-term major problem for Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an extension to a list of other countries as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 2/1. 2/5 would be my second choice. I also like Arc de Ciel's recurring protection proposal (assuming that the articles are removed from probation) and Collect's idea has merit, although I suspect we could tailor it a bit to make it less unwieldy. The only other countries which seem to have experienced such election-period nonsense in en.wp have been the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia (all populous, industrialized, English-speaking nations). I'd be willing to bet that Collect's suggestion, applied to just those four nations, would essentially accomplish the same thing with far less overhead. Just a thought. Horologium (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Support 1-4. Include all think tanks that comment on political issues in the US etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and include all that abortion related fluff as well, SPLC, Chick fil A, FRC, and more.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and any polemics on the talk pages should also lead to topic bans or blocks etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 2 / 1 - Basically 1RR type restrictions, forcing WP:BRD, a slightly slower pace that is less reactive, for all candidates in all seats at every level of govt. Under WP:IAR, I would also support full protection on the 4 big articles for P/VP, and allow modification only via the talk page/review/admin, until after the election, around Dec. 1. This isn't a news site, it is an encyclopedia, and preserving the peace and sanity justifies the protections, which at this point could arguably be described as not "preemptive". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think an interesting experiment would be to sysop protect all the key election related articles; that would enforce a slower approach to the article building. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question How would this work? For example suppose Editor XYZ is being a disruptive ass on the talk page of one of these articles? Is any admin (involved?) allowed to come in and say "XYZ thou art being an disruptive ass and thou art banned from this article for X months?" then enforceable by blocks?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  14:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's exactly how it works (as long as the admin is not involved, of course). Black Kite (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1/1 Do NOT support using this as a catch-all for other stuff. That should be handled separately.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1/1 This will deal with any and all disruption, as editors will be required to be civil and follow BRD instead of disrupt. Toa Nidhiki05 14:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Moderate Support of 1/1 I say moderate because the problem is really that many editors seem to think that WP should be a repository of the daily news cycle. Much of the issue here is that many editors mistakenly believe that anything that gets published in the news today is deemed the most important thing in the article and must be included or others are censoring WP because of their political bias. These sanctions will not solve this problem. I suggest we apply a time line for most everything related to political season articles. With few exceptions one week must have passed before the inclusion of new controversial material. It has been my experience over the years that WP articles, especially BLP's are overwhelmed by daily events, especially if some think that these events make the subject look bad in some way. After a few days context regarding the events are determined and the event is almost always of no consequence. If editors would simply adhear to existing WP guidelines like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT and admins would actually come along and enforse these guidelines these articles would not be nearly as problematic. Arzel (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; this area is going to be crappy, anyway, but this should make it a little easier to deal with the flood of POV-pushing around this time of year. I'd prefer 2/1; if we can't get consensus on that, 1/1 is OK. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, full protect instead: See my comment above and my proposal below pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Clamp down on political campaigning on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Option 1/Timeframe 5 Indefinitely could be 2 hours or 2 years, but it can be lifted based on when it's necessary. I agree with Sphilbrick that all issues should be addressed individually. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Option 1-4/Timeframe 1, include sexual politics, eg LGBT rights.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  19:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify whether you mean option 1 time frame 4, or options 1-4 without specifying a time frame please? Go Phightins! (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst I understand why you want to include those, that would be a huge range of additions, and actually quite difficult to define. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would "Same sex marriage" narrowly construed be better? While an unfortuante few come to wikipedia to spew forth a hateful agenda, there are quite a few editors who fight back. Though the cause may be noble, the latter group is no more welcome than the first if they are editing not for the encylcopedia, but rather for WP:THERAPY.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Options 2 and 2. Alternatively, topic ban (and tar and feather) everyone who is obviously here to push a political agenda. It would be really nice if logging in didn't mean seeing Bill O'Reily's minions battle it out with Keith Olberman's. Sædon^talk 20:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support options 1/1. It's about time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I suggested that Paul Ryan be full-protected until after the election (~2 months); a couple of editors liked the idea. A few more mentioned full protection in the sanctions section above. Since everybody last night/this morning seems to be making proposals, I'll make one too pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as an addition to the above proposal There are clearly major issues with the edit warring on the Paul Ryan article and that the cause is the US election. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. Not only no, but hell no. Don't punish the 90% bacuse the 10% can't play well with others. block not lock.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, if a person made 900 solid edits, and 100 vandalism edits, he should be allowed to continue in this manner. Ridiculous! If vandalism edits were 10% of an editors edit count, he'd not only be blocked, but indeffed! Blocks and protection are supposed to be preventive. We know that there will be more vandalism and content disputes on this article, probably a lot around Halloween. We had to lock the major candidates in 2008, and it's time to look at locking them now. Under your proposal, this will turn into a giant time sink for admins, to say nothing of being a fairly unstable article. Under my proposal, consensus is achieved for every single edit, the article is stable, and admins don't have to waste their time blocking person after person pbp 15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were talking about edit warring, not vandalism, and this is about 10% of the editors, not 10% of a single editors edits. If there is disruption, block the editor, but place the article(s) on 1RR and block anyone breaching that. Not too hard to figure that out.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If it was actually 10% of editors, I'd agree with you. A quick look at the history of the article gives the lie to that statement, though. Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for all 4 top candidates. Again, we are an encyclopedia, not Google news, accuracy before timeliness, and these are disrupting the regular business of building the entire encyclopedia, not just these articles, demonstrated by the fact that we are here, now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nom getting consensus before edits at this peak time is a good thing. As long as consensus is based on policy, not vote-rigging from POV project members GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and add Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and associated articles. Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First you support placing the article(s) on probation, now you support the counter proposal to fully protect the article(s). Which is it, because they don't mesh?--JOJ ^Hutton 16:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one (which didn't exist earlier). I'll make it clearer above for you if you want. Black Kite (talk)

Ok, thanks. :)--JOJ ^Hutton 16:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Edit requests required for article changes. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as an addition to the above proposal. The problem is widespread. Paul Ryan just happens to be the most high-profile article which it has spread to at this time. Arc de Ciel (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the moment. If General Sanctions pass, they will give admins a much more extensive toolkit to curtail bad behavior on these articles, to the (hopeful) extent that editors who disrupt the environment can be easily removed. If that's in place, there's no need to lock down the article(s) under full protection. My preference is to leave the articles open for editing (they are, after all, extremely popular and attract many new editors) and just remove those editors who can't play well with others using GS. If GS fail to handle the matter - if there's extensive socking, or if every single editor who edits the article can't behave, etc, then full-protection may have to go back in place, but I prefer to leave it as something we could deploy, if we end up needing to, in the future. (Note: this non-full-protection should obviously not go into effect unless and until General Sanctions pass. Without GS, full-protection at admin discretion is appropriate). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose with a slightly different rationale than JOJ: don't punish Wikipedia's readers because a few editors can't behave themselves. The hammer should fall hard on those who have created problems. But editors who are willing to engage the articles in a constructive way should not only be permitted but encouraged to improve these articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Boris. While many of us lament the news-y state of election articles, stuff is undoubtedly going to happen in the next two months and we'd disservice our readers by keeping the articles so out of date. Probation should take care of the issues. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all above. Maybe we do this on Election Day, if we can't keep up with everything. But constructive editors should almost always be accommodated if possible and we would do a disservice to our readers to not allow constructive editors to keep the articles in good quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
• Couldn't Oppose More Absolutely unnecessary to limit all improvement of articles for 2 months because of some editors who can't control themselves. Maybe, and I emphasize maybe, if this is necessary the day before election day and the morning of, this could be acceptable. But this suggestion is ludicrous at best, flat-out offensive at worst. General sanctions are an infinitely better idea. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that being full protected ≠ not being edited pbp 18:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can only be edited by admins, correct? That's less than .01% of editors. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus edit requests. It just means that each edit can be quickly checked before adding it, and enforces the requirement for consensus before the edits are made (plus eliminating simple vandalism). Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well edit requests can only be carried out by admins...there are roughly 1500 admins and 17.5 million editors, you do the math. It's just not a good idea. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Phightins, who says it very very well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Reminds me of the story of a Zen student asking his teacher how long until I become enlightened? The teacher started with "10 years", then when he saw the student was in a hurry, "Sorry, 20 years". The student started to say that he planned to work very hard at it, when his teacher replied "30 years". The article is no longer truthful, by virtue of omission, and needs to be edited. Waiting for an election is not a solution. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although it will never happen, it is probably a good idea for all political articles to be locked during the prime election period. It would still allow information to be added via talk page concensus and RfC, but it would go a long way in removing tedious "news of the day" edits which serve no historical value. OR we could establish a time frame for additions. Events less than one week old could not be added. It usually takes a few news cycles for the entire story to get out anyway, and this would eliminate many edit wars regarding something that just happened. Arzel (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda random, I noticed two IPs with no prior edits that geolocate to different countries 92.48.194.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 84.244.183.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (now blocked) have started going around reverting my edits and/or editing pages I created tonight. Just seems odd. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now add 64.38.198.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 64.38.197.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to the mix (both from Arizona) Hot Stop (Edits) 03:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose it could be a coincidence, but I agree, that's somewhat weird. I don't quite know what to tell you. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Toronto too now. 38.117.79.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 38.117.79.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Hot Stop (Edits) 04:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It could be an open proxy thing, WP:OP would be the place to ask for help. Or it could be a coordinated attack; something like a 4chan thread where someone asks random people to revert you, and a few dozen people hop on board to do so. Not sure which it is. --Jayron32 04:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These IPs are all very weird. Look at the WHOIS data. Each one is a static IP registered to some obscure company in various parts of the world. If this was a coordinated attack you should be seeing dynamic IPs registered to major ISPs. Only explanation to me is that the attacker is using some type of proxy service. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add 92.48.194.185 (talk · contribs) and 64.38.197.224 (talk · contribs) and 64.38.226.77 (talk · contribs) to the list as well.--Jayron32 04:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm heading to bed, but it is starting to look like we're developing into a limited number of obvious ranges. If this continues for much longer, perhaps a rangeblock is in order. Anyone want to try to put something like that together? --Jayron32 05:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical that will all be possible. Perhaps Hot Stop should stop editing for a while and reassess what exactly he did wrong that pissed that person or people off. I hate to say it, but I don't think we can do much at all here. --MuZemike 05:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Blame the victim? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Resolved: user blocked indef as a troll.--Calm As Midnight 20:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This new user (first edit on 23 July 2012) seems to either have significant WP:COMPETENCE issues, or possibly we are being trolled. After a grossly-inappropriate first edit at Talk:Julian Assange [66], Oxycut has proceeded to engage in further bizarre edits to the Assange article, labelling him an Ecuadorian [67], label multiple individuals as members of Category:Monorchid people without any source, repeatedly recreate categories related to Monorchism (see [68]), and, amongst other things, add a bizarre selection of WP:OR, off-topic material, and a dubious image with a WP:BLP-violating caption to our article on Sexual intercourse (see history, and note the bizarre edit summaries 'goatbuggery clarify' and '2006 research (Denmark)' - the latter of which is nothing to do With either Denmark, or 2006 research, as far as I can see. [69]). After the issies with the latest article were raised at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Editor repeatedly adding original research, poorly-sourced and/or irrelevant material to the Sexual intercourse article, Oxycut went on to add further bizarre material at Talk:Sexual intercourse. A charitable interpretation of this might put this down to language difficulties, but given the subject matter, I'm reluctant to extend WP:AGF too far to someone who seems to think that 'goatbuggery clarify' is an appropriate edit summary, seems to be obsessed with testicles (or rather a deficiency of them), and seems to think that our article on Adolf Hitler needs "a more smiling and conducive depiction of the Fuhrer as lead image" [70]. I'll refrain from commenting further, and suggest that others look at Oxycut's contribution history [71], and then decide an appropriate course of action. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oxycut has also been involved in quite a few disputes involving Syrian civil war articles, including a previous AN/I that was archived without ever being commented on an admin. Jeancey (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And he has introduced a lot of incorrect information and original research. I think a block might be mandatory if the user becomes involved in any more edit wars.--Calm As Midnight 05:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Indef blocked as troll - A look at his talk page contribs and confusing sigs, etc. makes it very clear. This isn't a new user and is likely a sock of someone as well. Any admin is free to review and modify, but I'm pretty sure you will conclude the same, that this is a failed attempt to introduce subtle trolling to WP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good block; the conclusion of both myself an another editor on the CfD for the cat mentioned above was that he was, indeed, a troll. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

User:Timeshift9's Userpage has become a political blog where he posts quite abusive comments about political opponents. The user has turned his page into a blog. This is in breach of WP:UPNOT and WP:NOTBLOG. This section states 'You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia'. On his Userpage he has an excessive level of political commentary, where he has labelled Conservative Politicians 'disgusting', 'loons' and other abusive politcal commentary. I would consider myself a progressive, but would not dream of my userpage into a blog. He latest commentary today is about Tony Abbott, a senior conservative politican. 'WHEN Tony Abbott lost the University of Sydney Students' Representative Council presidency, he allegedly approached the woman who beat him and, leaning into her face, punched the wall on each side of her head... you know what's worse? That nobody is surprised by his actions. It's just pure Abbott'. I would like an uninvolved admin to take a look and give an opinion. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins looking at this should also have a look at the "Neutral point of view" topic at the top of this page, where a topic ban on Australian politics is currently passing on the votes on the OP. Orderinchaos 09:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a look and I agreed that this was well beyond what is acceptable, so I deleted it. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and there are plenty of blogging sites out there. --John (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Looks like User:John has deleted it. I'm sure this ANI post has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Australian_Greens. Nothing at all. No siree! —Tom Morris (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC

• Comment I'm not going to get into a slanging match here but it has Nothing whatsoever to do with it. I haven't mentioned his user page until he went overboard now with Abbott. He went way to far. I don't dislike you or even him personally. This is about policies and their correct and fair application. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, and it would have nothing to do with the fact that you have been trying to get him banned on this very board over an unrelated dispute you're having with him? Orderinchaos 10:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nup, I don't want him banned. I just want his Userpage to follow the rules, and not be a personal abusive blog where he accuses people of being disgusting and loons. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am still looking at this matter. I took Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 into account when deleting. I am particularly scrutinizing the conduct of Welshboyau11. --John (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have now restored the UP per Orderinchaos's request. --John (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's clearly breaching policies. WP:UPNOT and WP:NOTBLOG. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, why? A clearer violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX you'd be hard pressed to find. If not deletion, it needs very large amounts of content removal. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there any particular reason why we shouldn't just have another MfD? There was one back in 2011 which was closed as delete and then overturned at DRV. It would seem reasonable to suggest that MfDing it means we might have a chance to see if consensus has changed since the last MfD/DRV. Personally, I'm okay with a small amount of user advocacy on user pages and I do not, for instance, get all concerned about having opinion or identity userboxes. But the simple principle of "hey, look, nothing wrong with having opinions but if you want to run a blog, Wordpress and Tumblr exist, go there" seems a pretty reasonable objection. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly a good idea. The previous MfD and DRV are irrelevant anyway because the content of the page is completely different from what it was then [72]. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If anyone wants a further admin opinion, they can have mine: the page should be summarily deleted - no discussion necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Black Kite and Tom Morris that this stuff does not belong here, but I acceded to the request from OiC to give the user a chance to defend this work and maybe amend it before outright deletion. If there is a BLP concern it needs to be instantly deleted but I am not aware of that being the case. What harm will leaving it up for 24 hours do? --John (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• None, I suppose; I simply couldn't see any way that the page doesn't violate WP:SOAP. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now blocked Welshboyau11 (talk · contribs) 24 hours for continuing this dispute after he had made others aware of it and I had asked him nicely several times not to. If anyone feels I have been heavy-handed I shall be glad to reconsider. --John (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To explain my request to John - I asked him (as the deleting admin) for a courtesy restoration to give Timeshift9 time to fix it, and notice that the community desired him to do so. I think a user in good standing with the sort of contributions Timeshift9 has to the encyclopaedia deserves that, although it isn't a free pass and if he doesn't fix it, then it ceases to be up to him (or me, for that matter). Orderinchaos 11:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After looking at the page, I agree that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I suggest that it be blanked first, and that Timeshift9 be given a chance to copy the contents that he wants to keep. After Timeshift9 has had a chance to do so, it should be deleted and a new user page created. FurrySings (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly exceeds the tolerance of WP:UP. Had I stumbled across it, I would have just MfD'ed it and not given it a second thought. Blanking is another option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final comment I feel like my initial instinct to delete was justified; I also feel like I was justified in acceding to the request to undelete. At the same time, I have no objection if another admin wants to redelete or blank it. --John (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree it should be deleted. Perhaps MfD is the way forward? Wikipedia isn't the place to host "rant time!" [73]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - I've boldly cleaned it up, which is the least drastic solution, as he will still have access to the data. I've left a note on his talk page explaining this, and that if he reverts, either myself or another admin is likely to either speedy delete or send to MfD, based on policy and a clear consensus here. He probably won't like it, but it is the least aggressive way to solve this issue. Any admin that feels it still needs to go to MfD/CSD is free to without hurting my feelings, I just felt like this was a minimal solution. If he restores, stronger delete action may be needed. Hopefully he will appreciate the mildness of this solution and just move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I've just blocked Welshboyau11 (talk · contribs) for an indefinite period as being the latest sockpuppet of another editor (please refer to my block rationale on their talk page). Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I note that Welshboy11 has been blocked as a sock. I have had this questioned multiple times over my years at wikipedia, and it's always been decided that some level is ok, but not excessive pages and pages. I admit that it may have grown a bit bushy of late, i've taken a chainsaw to it and introduced a minimalist version which is far less than the previous one that was given the all-clear in the last time it was brought up. Timeshift (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of the motivations of the original nominator, this page needs to be quickly sent for deletion. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, if you read the above. Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous ANI discussion

Settdigger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - editor with new account, does not seem to have the hang of sourcing, POV, consensus, AGF, etc., blocked twice shortly after creating account[74] for edit warring an attempt to describe US killing of Anwar al-Aulaqi by drone as an "assassination", returns from block to continue edit warring the subject.[75][76] Discusses proposals in odd, verbose language with references to the Rubicon, Magna Carta, OED, etc., while edit warring talk page management.[77] Created strange dispute reports on multiple forums[78][79][80] accusing various editors of bad faith for trying to deal with it, and appears to reject all attempts by others to counsel on appropriate Wikipedia editing / conduct.[81] Edit history suggests prolific burst of bold editing inserting unsourced or poorly sourced personal opinion / analysis on other topic areas as well.[82][83] They seem to be very keen to edit the encyclopedia but not to work with others or learn how. Engaging this editor through standard Wikipedia process does not seem to be working, and I strongly urge against arming them for WP:BATTLE by teaching them how to create viable dispute reports. Could we get some help dealing with them? Perhaps a firm hand can help set them on a better path before they run completely out of WP:ROPE. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear this new user has a point they are trying to make, and it might even be valid, but Wikipedia is not a place for making points. It was fine when it was a simply content dispute, but now this has spread to multiple articles with assumptions of bad faith and a tendentious, defensive position that brings Samuel T. Cogley to mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just spent the last good while undoing damage that Settdigger has wrought in multiple articles (not all of it has been undone). Wikidemon's phrase "prolific burst" is most apt. Wikidemon has also done a commendable job of compiling some of the many things Settdigger as done immediately upon expiration of his last block, not only in articles, but as Wikidemon points out, in various forums. I believe three WP:DRN reports have been closed (filed by Settdigger. In addition, he left a screed at WP:EAR ([84]). To prevent further damage and because the two previous blocks had little effect on Settdigger's agenda and non-collaborative style (first by MastCell, second by me), I have indeffed him. I am, of course, open to other admins' views on the propriety and duration of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those rare times I actually miss having the mop. I was watching this whole thing unfold early this morning, and I would have indefed him too. This user was treating the project with a battlefield mentality with a healthy dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to go along with it. I have looked over his contributions and I can't see anything that he does which makes me believe that the project isn't better off with him gone from it. The level of disruption he caused this morning from forum shopping his dispute with several other editors around every venue he could think of proves this. I think Bbb23 made the correct decision. Trusilver 16:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do not know how long this has been going on. His/her contributions section is replete with a massive amount of "deletion tagging" and warnings to users about uploaded images, with the rationale that "no source is provided". I don't know if the user is using a bot, or is actually opening up the image descriptions to confirm whether or not the image has a provided source. Some of these nominations appear valid, but quite a few appear erroneous. This first came to my attention when this public domain image: File:John Albert Gardner III.jpg was nominated for deletion as no source. Source listed is California Department of Corrections photographic records. Bulwersator then added the image to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 6, again with the rationale that no source was given. When I asked about this, Bulwersator seems to feel that it must have an online link to verify the source. I pointed out WP:PAYWALL, but the user still thinks that only an online link can verify the source, and that we should wait for the result of the deletion discussion. I don't really trust those deletion requests. I've trusted that process in that past but many a time an admin has come through and simply deleted the image without verifying that the nomination was valid, and simply just trusted that the person nominating the image for deletion was correct. This happened to me a few times, by a now retired admin, whose name I will not mention here.

Bulwersator has also done this with several other images, File:963 AWACS.JPG, File:BoNM Rhodesia3.JPG, File:Ogden Portrait.JPG, File:Vicksburg-USCT.JPG, File:Discovery space viewedit1.jpg, to name only a few, and his talk page is full of several requests to either stop or to explain, including by an admin, most of which is ignored.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I caught a couple of these the other day, where the source website had simply moved location, and I was able to easily find them at the Wayback machine. If this a continuing problem, then yes, something needs to be done. Eventually, the source location for every file will move on the web and you have to rely on a bit of common sense, otherwise all images would be deleted over time, making the idea of having images from other sources at WP unworkable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciate that comment. What is your take on offline sources, or "Self" sources? Bulwersator seems to feel that unless there is alink that he can verify teh source from his computer, it is technically unsourced. This is troubling because it makes me wonder just how many images have been erroneously deleted under his rationale.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verification must be possible, it isn't required that it is easy, whether it is a fact or an image. If it is easy to see that a website source has simply moved, then nominating the image for deletion is just disruptive. At the very least, you start a discussion somewhere instead of slamming it with a speedy tag. Now someone is going to have to go and look at every speedy tag he has ever done, which is going to take an insane amount of time. This is very, very disruptive to say the least. I would hope that admins rejected his tags about sources in most cases if it is just a matter of a source moving. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow, based on the conversations on his talk page, he seems to think that every images must have a free weblink provided in the licensing, which is clearly not the case. If we required free weblinks for sources, half of WP's citations and images would disappear over night. Either he needs to learn properly about sourcing, including that paywalls and offline sources are fine for sourcing, or he needs to be topic banned from nominating images for deletion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that there are other forms of sourcing - "own work" based on AGF, books and other publications, collections that are not digitized, confirmations by trusted person that permission exists/existed (OTRS etc) and more. It was not my intention to imply that "free weblinks" are the only allowed source Bulwersator (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I looked at this one File:963_AWACS.JPG and Bulwersator is absolutely correct - if this is a copyrighted image, the photo is a derivate work and therefore cannot be released under a free license. If it's not a copyrighted work, the uploader needs to specify that (and why) on the image page. Either way, yes, it needs to be tagged. Haven't looked at the others - will do so now. Black Kite (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, what I see is a mixture of copyrighted items and non-copyrighted ones. The uploaders appear to believe that they can take photos of things and the copyright belongs to them. They are wrong. Where copyright exists, the images must be tagged as non-free. Where they aren't, it must be clearly explained why they're free (out of copyright, never coprighted, etc. ). Bulwersator has possibly been a little too keen here, but policy-wise they are generally correct. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The patch itself would fall under PD as a work of the US Govt. The photographer was the editor that uploaded, and he released his contribution of the "art" into the PD, whether or not it was a part of his job, which he claims it was, so it would automatically be in the PD. They are not correct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's my point. If it's PD, it needs a tag saying that (probably PS-US-Gov or something similar). If the uploaders don't tag as such, other editors are free to question it. Black Kite (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe there is a tag saying so, at least on the patch.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It does say that in the summary. WP:BLUE comes to mind when it is a work of the US Govt. and declared as much, but in this case, he explains it adequately. And discussing is very different than speedy delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Woah, hang on - the tag and summary wasn't on it when Bulwersator nominated it - it was only added today. Thus, my point stands - it should have been tagged properly (which it is now). You can't blame an editor for questioning something that isn't tagged correctly. Black Kite (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Retagged image was moved to Commons. Thanks for comments and fixes Bulwersator (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the images in question are photographs of 3-D works of art, e.g., File:Vicksburg-USCT.JPG. A photograph of a 3-D work of art is a new work, given the photographer's options in choosing the angle, framing, etc.—that's supported by Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. I don't see any reason to leave those images up for discussion, unless he can make a valid claim that the uploader is not the photographer of the works. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the two I removed speedy tags for the other day, NASA I believe and watermarked, were just a matter of the website changing locations. This is disruptive, even if that isn't his intention. I'm tight on copyright, but his idea that every image must be freely accessible on the internet to be verified, and these, shows a real, significant problem. Again, someone is going to need to filter through his contribs to weed this out and make sure we didn't lose good images due to a simple page move of the source. That isn't enforcing copyright, that is shotgun nominating based on a misconception of copyright policy and failure to do a little due diligence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I appreciate that you have been actively checking whether or not images nominated for deletion have been validly nominated. That hasn't always been the case in the past with other admins, and it puts my mind at ease, at least a little, to know that some admins take the time to review the images before deleting.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, my concern is that I normally do not check CSD for files. I just accidentally wandered into that area for the first time the other day, or I wouldn't have been aware of the problem. And I deal with copyright issues every day, so I'm fairly familiar with the law. My concern is that even if we catch most of them, some slip by and get deleted, and if he is making a lot of bad filings, it creates unnecessary work for admins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is why I filed this report. My first inclination was to have the user explain to me the rationale, but was at first ignored. I of course persisted, but his answers were unacceptable. You're right, this is disruptive and causes more head aches than it solves. I can't speak for everyone, but the image that I uploaded has a source clearly listed, but his rationale is that since its not an online source, its not a valid source.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be fair, the problem is that in the past we have had a lot of issues with non-free files being attributed to a PD source with no real proof, whereas the onus is on the uploader to prove its free-ness. This one isn't actually a very good example, unless someone had Photoshopped a mugshot it's fairly obvious that it's a valid California mugshot, but other images aren't that easy to fix. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Why tag on File:Discovery space viewedit1.jpg is "false and misleading"? This file is without source (and I tried to fix it, but google image search failed to find this image on website operated by NASA, it is without any useful description and without ID of photo) Bulwersator (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there you go again. Thinking that every image source must be easily found online. There is absolutely no requirement that says that verifiable information must be found online.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't require every image to be available online, but we do require better source information than just what that image currently has. There's no immediate evidence beyond the uploader's claim it came from NASA (obviously only a few entities could make that pic).
    • However, to that end, image searches are much better done by tineye.com, which comes up with this NASA IOTD page, so we can fix the source and the like. Be aware that tineye doesn't know original from copies so often you may find images that might have actually originated at WP to be duplicated to blogs. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know how image search works, thanks for info that tineye is again useful (I stopped using it about three months ago as it was clearly worse that google) Bulwersator (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Source found with tineye, image copied to Commons Bulwersator (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • At some point, common sense has to come into play. Who the hell else COULD have done that photograph, Bulwersator? No one. You don't nominate things for deletion just because you can. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not deconstruct one, and you have to be able to determine which images really need discussion and which ones do not. Personally, I think you need to not be sending any photos to delete discussion at all because I don't think you understand the policy well enough to. It isn't personal, but we don't need a backlog of copyright discussions on images that aren't needing to be questioned. My opinion is that you are actually harming the project by creating unnecessary backlogs in an area that is already perpetually backlogged. I know you don't mean to, but you are. I would feel better if you voluntarily stayed out of image deletion for six months and learn the policy better. I would support a move to require this, as this isn't one or two issues, but a whole string of them that is causing problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was obviously made from ISS (full name: International Space Station). Images made by employees of Russian Federal Space Agency are not automatic public domain Bulwersator (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• File:BoNM Rhodesia3.JPG - yes, this one was my mistake as mentioned in deletion request that I closed 20 minutes after comment by 76.65.131.248. Bulwersator (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll chime in to confirm that Bulwersator's behaviour is a problem. Per threads at WT:AST, they seem to have been indiscriminately tagging images sourced from NASA as being unsourced. As far as I can tell, they're either using a bot or using tool assistance, as they were making several nominations per minute in bursts from the 5th to the 7th (haven't done a detailed check today). They certainly aren't bothering to put in due diligence, per other comments in this thread. They have been approached by several users on their talk page about this, and as of yesterday hadn't responded to complaints (there are a couple of responses today, presumably due to this thread, but I'm getting a strong WP:IDHT impression from the tone of them). Long story short, please put the brakes on this, because it's a serious problem and the last several discussion attempts didn't seem to do much. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This may or may not be of interest with regards to this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Vicksburg-USCT.JPG - I wonder why obvious derivative work (photo of statue) was kept as "The original work is the photograph, not the statue: see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright" despite Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative_works and Freedom_of_panorama#United_States Bulwersator (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same problem - File:Ogden Portrait.JPG Bulwersator (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Photo is derivative work of statue, works of art are not covered by FOP in USA (see Freedom_of_panorama#United_States) (maybe statues are work of federal government or so old that copyright expired or for some other reason. But it was not mentioned in description, and still is not mentioned) Bulwersator (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is exactly what I'm talking about, you don't understand the policy, which is why I'm asking you to stay out of this part of Wikipedia until you do. There is no Freedom of panorama in the USA, but it doesn't apply to every building every made. And the decision is based on a consensus view of what is acceptable via policy, not our interpretation of US law as we are not lawyers. Either you learn the consensus, or you make mistakes. Generally, buildings and art before the 1970s (or 90s, depending upon statute [85]), when copyright law changed, are exempted (grandfathered) from panorama requirements, for example. Otherwise, you couldn't show pictures of old estates, homes, etc. Anything. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be mean to you, but your perspective is rigid and uninformed, which is why you are doing more harm than good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best thing that I found is essay Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama with "In the United States, "freedom of panorama" exists only for buildings (17 USC 120). For photos of works of the visual arts (sculptures and statues, but also murals) there are no similar exemptions in the U.S. copyright law.". Unfortunately I was unable to find any policy about FOP Bulwersator (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "your perspective is rigid and uninformed" so enwiki ignores potential copyright belonging to designers of statues, murals etc? Bulwersator (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are correct that there is no Freedom of Panorama in the U.S. except for buildings (any' building, whever built), but if the subject of the photograph is itself not copyrighted – for instance, if it as created prior to 1923, or was not labelled with the proper notice for the time period that was required (until 1968, if I remember correctly) – then Freedom of Panorama does not come into it, because images of non-copyrighted artworks are legal.Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the Commons page, which explains which templates to use there, and they are WAY more rigid than we are. [86]. If you need to fix a license on a page, fix it, don't delete the photo. Ask the contributor if you think the license needs refining. If it is obvious copyright infringement, great, CSD it, otherwise, you need to choose a less destructive methods of dealing with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• We've had this issue with derivatives of 3D art in the USA before, and I can't remember what the outcome was - I've linked to this conversation at WT:NFC for more comment. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3D works of art do not have freedom of panorama in the US (per commons FOP). Furthermore, the photograph of a 3d work of art, while a derivative work of the original artist, creates a second copyright for the photographer since the angle, lighting and shadows selected for the art are creative elements the photographer can select. (this is counter to, say, a scan of a 2D work of art, where the act of scanning is presumed to be slavenly accurate as to introduce no creativity, and ergo there is no copyright possible on the scan itself. Now, if the statue is out of copyright timeframe, then the only copyright is what the photographer chooses (which we hope is a free license). --MASEM (t) 19:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I couldn't remember if that was the case (i.e. the difference between public 3D art and say, a picture of a copyrighted toy, which I knew was always derivative.). Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we have file that is likely to be PD but without source and without source identifiable by description, title and image search. What I am supposed to do with this? I ask, as at least part of editors seems to think that tagging with "no source" or nominating for PUF is a serious offence. Bulwersator (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• First you should try to contact the uploader since many people are simply sloppy when providing source and author data, especially for obviously old works. If you you don't get a sufficient response because of inactivity or other reasons there is still Files for deletion to dicuss the file. I'd also like to note that we don't need a working url as a source. Many images have been scanned from books by the uploader or the original weblink is broken. That's not a reason to speedily delete the file either. De728631 (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, uploader is also notified during nominating file for deletion. And I really know that url is not the only form of allowed source. Bulwersator (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's good practice to establish a helpful conversation before nominating something for deletion that can be saved. Because if that works you don't need a deletion nomination at all. If you ask me, leaving the messaging to the bot is quite impolite in such cases. De728631 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This guy appears to be the latest entry in what could be called the Betacommand School of Deletionism. Generally, their approach is slash-and-burn, with minimal communication with the uploader and little or no effort to help otherwise. The guys who've taken that approach in the past usually end up getting booted from wikipedia. Bulwerks should try to do things better than his banished predecessors have done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that assessment. In fact I'll take it a step further. Some admins have gotten into quite a bit of trouble deleting these "tagged" images. Again I won't try and open up the big can of worms by naming him, but one admin with over 50,000 edits actually retired, because he got so much grief from other users whose images he deleted, that were erroneously nominated for deletion from guys like this. It needs to end. Editors nominating images for deletion need to justify the deletion request and not just nominate the image and let the admins work it out. Like Dennis said earlier, its disruptive.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If the sourcing template says "NASA", then spend the five minutes on Google it would take to find a link to the NASA image in question. There doesn't have to be a working URL in the image description; per other threads on this subject, these links stop working whenever someone decides to change their web page structure. All there has to be is enough information that a motivated party could verify the stated source with a reasonable amount of effort. An analogous example is academic journal papers used as references in articles. Most of these are not freely available online - but they are readily verifiable by either using an academic internet connection (where the academic institution has paid for access to the journals), or by visiting a brick-and-mortar library to look it up. For images, or article content, where it is highly likely that the source given is correct, assume that the template accurately reflects the source. Only if there's doubt should other action be taken. Even then, step 1) is to contact the author/uploader to ask for clarification, and step 2) is to bring the image/citation to the attention of the relevant wikiprojects and ask them to dig further. Deletion is for after both of these avenues have failed, not before trying either one. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintaining the requirements for images or other medias is on the uploader or those using it, per BURDEN. Yes, its helpful to try to look for the source, but there is no requirement for this (much like BEFORE is not required for deletion). --MASEM (t) 22:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, by that logic, everybody who has ever uploaded anything is required to watch it like a hawk and instantly fix links when they break lest it be deleted for not having a source? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps WP:BEFORE should be extended to images as well. Certainly, the spirit of it should apply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:BEFORE has no teeth, what is needed is common sense and nothing else. You don't go trying to delete every possible image just because the source has moved or you have a question about it. It is flat out assuming bad faith, nothing more complicated than that. If we need a policy that explains this, then Wikipedia is hopelessly broken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also noticed several files on my watchlist and that fall under WPUSA come up for deletion and asked him to stop. Certainly there are files out there that should be deleted but Bulwersator doesn't seem to me to be doing much due diligence with their deletion submissions. Its just, as my kids call it, "ding, dong, ditch". Kumioko (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ding Dong Ditch? Clever. That's what this seems like to me as well. Just seems to nominate and lets the admins figure it out. The problem is that not every admin takes the time to ensure that the nomination is valid. He seems to think he is helping but in reality he is just causing a big mess. His talk page is full of people complaining about how he is doing these nominations. I'm just the first to take it to the next level with an ANI thread.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm glad someone/you did. I thought about submitting one myself for about 1/8th of a second but my opinion isn't worth much these days so if I would have done submitted it someone would have voted it down just on principle. I give my opinion anyway of course. :-) But I am under no illusions of how many (maybe even most) in the community perceive me. Kumioko (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• He's hitting there, too. Note that this image was one he had tagged here for deletion originally. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems a strong case of "I don't hear you". I still think a topic ban is appropriate and I would support it without question. This causes way too much damage and work for others, plus the obvious loss of what is possibly good content. His comments thus far in this ANI and on his talk page can be summarized as "Prove it or it gets deleted" with no understanding whatsoever of the problem that others have with this kind of disruptive conduct. It is simply inconsistent with our goals here and a net negative for the greater project. Slash and burn, indeed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I support topic banning Bulwersator from all deletion processes. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. We should help, inquire, discuss and try to fix, rather than this high-speed slash and burn of other people's hard work. Bulwersator has been given warnings and asked nicely, yet he does not show any sign of flexibility. On balance, the harm of his work exceeds the value. Good faith Wikipedians are offended, and good images are lost. Jehochman ^Talk 00:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above discussion. It seems he is trying to use deletion processes to attempt to alter policy to his desired position, rather than to enforce policy. Orderinchaos 00:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Unfortunately I also agree for whatever my opinion is worth. Kumioko (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Looking at the situation, and given B's attitude and IDHT behavior, it seems as if a topic ban is the answer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I made a good faith attempt to discuss this with him on his talk page and he seemed very inflexible and very set in his attempts to continue nominating images, despite the massive amount of threads on his talk page telling him he was erroneously doing so. He was very stubborn with my image, first trying to get it speedy deleted, and when I removed the Speedy delete tag, he stubbornly nominated it for deletion. In fact, he continued to nominate other images, even after I shared my concern with him. I wouldn't have begun this ANI discussion if it was just my single image that was erroneously nominated, but it looked to me that there were several. If a topic ban is the only way to get through to him, then let it be so.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Maybe that will work. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Cmmmm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cmmmm1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 84.177.243.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the past, User:Cmmmm/User:Cmmmm1 as well as other usernames (blocked some time ago for sockpuppetry) frequently made POV additions to articles about Jehovah's Witnesses. Today he has added a link to WikiQuotes[87] to the article Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (as an IP editor, but evidently the same individual). He has populated the WikiQuotes page (using the same username[88]) with selective quotations to push his continued agenda of proclaiming that Jehovah's Witnesses are racist.

It has not been established in any reliable sources that there is any particular issue of racism in the religion, or that their older views did not reflect inappropriate racist views that were prevalent at the time. At the very least, the selective quoting violates WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE.

What can be done about this, given that the primary misuse is occurring on the WikiQuote site?

See also:

• Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Cmmmm
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cmmmm/Archive
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive55#User:Cmmmm reported by User:Dev920 (Result: 24 hours / unblocked )

--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the real issue is on wikiquote not on wikipedia, I'd recommend asking on the correct board on wikiquote. One of [89] should help though I'm not sure which. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove link to WikiQuote iff it violates WP:UNDUE? Bulwersator (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikiquote has received notice of the situation on its Village Pump. We will sort it out there, though the wheels turn slowly. I have viewed the article with dismay for some time, and recent developments definitely call for the community to have a look and settle some issues about what is and is not appropriate there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC) (Wikiquote administrator)[reply]

  P.S. – In the interest of promoting collegial relations among Wikimedia projects, please note that the project's name is Wikiquote, not "WikiQuote" or "WikiQuotes". Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statements at the Wikiquote Village Pump incorrectly implied that the issue is about whether Wikiquote should have a page for Watch Tower Society quotes at all. I have clarified the situation there. The editor in question has a history on Wikipedia of pushing a personal agenda. Because he was blocked from Wikipedia, he has taken his soapboxing to Wikiquote instead. Surely there are similar rules there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]