Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686

Carrite (talk · contribs) has invited me to post here for a third-party opinion on whether posting notifications of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Conservatives of Texas to 19 individual members of WikiProject Conservatism is a violation of the WP:CANVASSing guidelines. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks fine to me - it's worded neutrally, merely asking for input, and not trying to sway opinion. GiantSnowman 01:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The notification itself is fine, in a vacuum, but invites for WP:CONSERVATISM appear to have been targeted mainly at editors who display a conservative POV in their editing, rather than at editors who simply edit on conservatism topics, so the audience is something of a problem (not necessarily through any fault of Carrite's). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats a pretty bold statement, and a tad insulting. - Haymaker (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Roscelese is just saying what other people are thinking, although I'd rush to say that my interpertation of "the audience is something of a problem" is that posting only to the conservative project means that the audience will be conservative. I think that Carrite is playing in a very grey area. Asking the neutrally worded question "What is the best country in the world" in France will get you a different answer than asking the same question in Spain. Same concept at play here. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true. It's certainly possible for a project on conservatism to attract non-conservative editors (perhaps those who are affected a great deal by conservative policies *waves*). And it's true that left to its own devices, the project might naturally have attracted more conservative users anyway, but there's probably not much can be done about it - I'm referring to the distribution of invitations to the project. But this is something of a digression. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that distributing individual notifications to the members of this project gives the impression of soliciting partisan opinions and should be avoided. The closing administrator may want to disregard opinions expressed by people so canvassed.  Sandstein  06:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What people are getting hung up on is that a neutral message was sent about a deletion discussion on a conservative group to WikiProject Conservatism and thinking that non-conservatives should have also been likewise contacted (who exactly, I wouldn't know). Such expectations are not consistent with expected deletion procedures, but given the omniscient left-right divide that exists in real life, perhaps this is more of a natural reaction. –MuZemike 08:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If he had posted that message to the WikiProject's talk page, I wouldn't have blinked twice -- it was sending the individual notices that I see as a violation of WP:CANVASS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that a great many projects on Wikipedia are populated by editors with a specific point of view. WP:CANVASS allows posting to any project, and those drafting the guideline were surely aware of this. As long as the post is neutrally worded, the guideline permits the posting. [1] shows how a non-neutral post to a project looks. I think the difference is substantially clear. Collect (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is much the same as notifying the article rescue squadron about an AfD - the message can be as neutral as possible, but it is not going to attract neutral comments or a balanced keep/delete vote ratio. I just to joke with suggesting a template to tag an article for annihilation to attract deletionist attention, similar to the flagged for rescue template used by the inclusionists. I don't think project conservaism is going to attract many delete votes either, and it also doesn't seem to have been the intent.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It might be useful to note that wp:WikiProject_Conservatism seems to have at least four locations of afd discussions. 1) the scrollbox on the project page (it is fed externally, so additions to it might not show up on watcher's watchlists), 2) wp:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politics (which feeds that scrollbox, but one would have to view the page source to know that), 3) the yet-to-be-created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conservatism, and finally 4) the project talk page. This could conceivably be one reason why the message wasn't simply posted to the project page, as would have been preferred. BitterGrey (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus. I don't think there was bad faith, but the odds are the recipients would be more disposed to one side than the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd like to think that members of a work project can address a notability question dispassionately. The fact is that WP Work Groups are often not being adequately notified of such challenges as this one and they should be — which I attempted to do. I have endeavored to provide a neutral phrasing in this case to the WP Conservatism Work Group. I do not believe this to have been a violation of either the spirit or the law of Wikipedia's CANVASSING prohibitions. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Don't forget everyone, AfDs are decided on strength of argument, not number of !votes, so it doesn't matter if there's one person arguing X or there's one hundred people arguing X. These notifications were not bad faith, so there's no admin action requited IMO. GiantSnowman 01:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless I think it is important that the user know that that kind of posting is not ok in the future. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds? Did I send out an "excessive" number of communications? What is the permitted number? — it's not specified in policy. Did I send out communications to uninterested individuals? No, I did not... OF COURSE, it's not a numerical vote, getting Work Projects interested in the fate of articles in their purview leads directly to their improvement, which is the whole point. Carrite (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There is history in the archives of the guideline reflecting interpretation of what is not considered an "excessive" number.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

One has to always be aware of the blurred edge between selective notification based on bias and selective notification based on the natural human gravitation towards people of similar interests, always something visible on Wikipedia. It doesn't necessarily smack of deliberate (or even accidental) bad choice on the part of the editor in question in this case. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The user has extensively vandalised Serbian- and Greek-related articles, and is known to have a history of prominent edit warring, reverts, OR, POV, etc. A brief look at this users talk page history is evidence enough for his personal feuds with User:Alexikoua, User:WhiteWriter, User:Athenean and his general resentment against non-Albanian history of Albania, the history of Greece (a majority in relation to Epirus) and Serbia (in majority in relation to Kosovo). He has been warned several times, and at times been subject of arbitration and bans. For recent reverts see Vojsava Tripalda (compare 1 and 2) --Zoupan (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, seems to me that all of you just jumped into reporting eachother rather than discussing content. Neither one of you actually did nothing worth administrators attention. No one broke any rule and what is happening is that all of you are edit warring insted of discussing content. There seems to be nothing sanctionable there. The only thing some administrator could do is to assist you in the discussions, but not allways admins are able to spare time for all divergencies. You could and should start discussing, and only when some of the rules is broke, you come here to report. I´ll try to see if I can spare some time to assist you in some content disputes. FkpCascais (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Zoupan obviously cannot understand that when there's a consensus on WP:RS reached on various discussions [2][3], we should stick to it and not use IP evasion in order to avoid the consensus. Apparently this report is a reaction to my report of his IP evasion and edit-warring [4] earlier today. After deciding to stop the IP evasion Zoupan went immediately back to edit-warring [5][6], even though he has been given too many final warnings about it[7][8].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion -- if there is an editing dispute, try to work it out on the talk page, and see wp:consensus. If there are actual disputes appropriate for this page (see the instructions at the top), describe what guidelines are being violated and supply the appropriate diffs.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

85.162.96.197, 85.162.172.143, 85.162.62.139, 85.162.50.187 (maybe more) is involved in edit warring in the Chris Hani article (also other dubious edits in other articles). The fact that he/she found a source now which supports his/her claim about Umkhonto we sizwe doesn't entitle him/her to reinsert it, per Wikipedia:Designated terrorist organizations ,Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) and maybe other rules (we have admins to judge that).--Severino (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the used source doesn't seem to be WP:RS.--Severino (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP continues it's edit war and it seems that it has violated the 3RR MORE than once.--Severino (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

At least one more IP (Special:Contributions/85.162.27.170, obviously the same user) and one more article (Joe Slovo) is concerned by the POV-pushing/vandalism/edit warring.--Severino (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

i've brought the case forward on the 3RR/EW noticeboard, case is settled.--Severino (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Good move, Severino. ... the result being...? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) created several articles about local church pastors and cited his own locally published article which in several cases is the only "independent" source in those new wikipedia articles. As a result, since they don't appear notable I nominated three of those articles (out of many more) for deletion.

One in particular is Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary. During the AFD, the creator of the article has added unnotable local pastors who have graduated to the article. I removed them as they are unnotable and explained why in edits and on the Talk:Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary. However it keeps getting reverted.

In addition, my tags such such as questioning if a local church is a reliable source for notablity keeps getting removed. Then the editor has canvassed the AFD for keep votes.

I am requesting a third-party please explain notablity and sources to this and his fellow editors who are doing his bidding. Wikipedia is no place for someone who use an article they published in a local publication to draw attention to their interests.

AFDs about this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Louisiana History, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. L. Clover, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (2nd nomination). HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Don't you think it might be appropriate for you to notify the subject of your complaint? Per the instruction at the top of the page to the effect that "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion."--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Missed that, no problem. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, I contacted that person as well as two others (one pro and one con) that seem to be interested in the issue. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Many thanks. I note that you have under 200 edits, and are therefore what we would consider a newbie, so I understand how you could have missed that. Just a suggestion -- read instructions carefully when using processes such as these, and read all governing guidelines carefully. Wikipedia rules are far from intuitive. Thanks again.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I'd just like to point out that again my tags are removed. I added a reliable source tag because I don't think novelguide.com is a good source, much less calvarybaptistminden.com, stampslandmark.com and missionarytrainingministry.com or so on are helpful sources, but it keeps getting remove.
        • To make my point stronger the claim that the seminary awards doctorates comes from a local pastor's autobiography on his church's website that only claims to have a degree. Hardly a WP:RS to assert the seminary currently offers such degrees. <cross posting on the talk>HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Carrite (talk · contribs) has invited me to post here for a third-party opinion on whether posting notifications of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Conservatives of Texas to 19 individual members of WikiProject Conservatism is a violation of the WP:CANVASSing guidelines. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks fine to me - it's worded neutrally, merely asking for input, and not trying to sway opinion. GiantSnowman 01:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The notification itself is fine, in a vacuum, but invites for WP:CONSERVATISM appear to have been targeted mainly at editors who display a conservative POV in their editing, rather than at editors who simply edit on conservatism topics, so the audience is something of a problem (not necessarily through any fault of Carrite's). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats a pretty bold statement, and a tad insulting. - Haymaker (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Roscelese is just saying what other people are thinking, although I'd rush to say that my interpertation of "the audience is something of a problem" is that posting only to the conservative project means that the audience will be conservative. I think that Carrite is playing in a very grey area. Asking the neutrally worded question "What is the best country in the world" in France will get you a different answer than asking the same question in Spain. Same concept at play here. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true. It's certainly possible for a project on conservatism to attract non-conservative editors (perhaps those who are affected a great deal by conservative policies *waves*). And it's true that left to its own devices, the project might naturally have attracted more conservative users anyway, but there's probably not much can be done about it - I'm referring to the distribution of invitations to the project. But this is something of a digression. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that distributing individual notifications to the members of this project gives the impression of soliciting partisan opinions and should be avoided. The closing administrator may want to disregard opinions expressed by people so canvassed.  Sandstein  06:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What people are getting hung up on is that a neutral message was sent about a deletion discussion on a conservative group to WikiProject Conservatism and thinking that non-conservatives should have also been likewise contacted (who exactly, I wouldn't know). Such expectations are not consistent with expected deletion procedures, but given the omniscient left-right divide that exists in real life, perhaps this is more of a natural reaction. –MuZemike 08:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If he had posted that message to the WikiProject's talk page, I wouldn't have blinked twice -- it was sending the individual notices that I see as a violation of WP:CANVASS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that a great many projects on Wikipedia are populated by editors with a specific point of view. WP:CANVASS allows posting to any project, and those drafting the guideline were surely aware of this. As long as the post is neutrally worded, the guideline permits the posting. [9] shows how a non-neutral post to a project looks. I think the difference is substantially clear. Collect (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is much the same as notifying the article rescue squadron about an AfD - the message can be as neutral as possible, but it is not going to attract neutral comments or a balanced keep/delete vote ratio. I just to joke with suggesting a template to tag an article for annihilation to attract deletionist attention, similar to the flagged for rescue template used by the inclusionists. I don't think project conservaism is going to attract many delete votes either, and it also doesn't seem to have been the intent.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It might be useful to note that wp:WikiProject_Conservatism seems to have at least four locations of afd discussions. 1) the scrollbox on the project page (it is fed externally, so additions to it might not show up on watcher's watchlists), 2) wp:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politics (which feeds that scrollbox, but one would have to view the page source to know that), 3) the yet-to-be-created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conservatism, and finally 4) the project talk page. This could conceivably be one reason why the message wasn't simply posted to the project page, as would have been preferred. BitterGrey (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus. I don't think there was bad faith, but the odds are the recipients would be more disposed to one side than the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd like to think that members of a work project can address a notability question dispassionately. The fact is that WP Work Groups are often not being adequately notified of such challenges as this one and they should be — which I attempted to do. I have endeavored to provide a neutral phrasing in this case to the WP Conservatism Work Group. I do not believe this to have been a violation of either the spirit or the law of Wikipedia's CANVASSING prohibitions. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Don't forget everyone, AfDs are decided on strength of argument, not number of !votes, so it doesn't matter if there's one person arguing X or there's one hundred people arguing X. These notifications were not bad faith, so there's no admin action requited IMO. GiantSnowman 01:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless I think it is important that the user know that that kind of posting is not ok in the future. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds? Did I send out an "excessive" number of communications? What is the permitted number? — it's not specified in policy. Did I send out communications to uninterested individuals? No, I did not... OF COURSE, it's not a numerical vote, getting Work Projects interested in the fate of articles in their purview leads directly to their improvement, which is the whole point. Carrite (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There is history in the archives of the guideline reflecting interpretation of what is not considered an "excessive" number.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

One has to always be aware of the blurred edge between selective notification based on bias and selective notification based on the natural human gravitation towards people of similar interests, always something visible on Wikipedia. It doesn't necessarily smack of deliberate (or even accidental) bad choice on the part of the editor in question in this case. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The user has extensively vandalised Serbian- and Greek-related articles, and is known to have a history of prominent edit warring, reverts, OR, POV, etc. A brief look at this users talk page history is evidence enough for his personal feuds with User:Alexikoua, User:WhiteWriter, User:Athenean and his general resentment against non-Albanian history of Albania, the history of Greece (a majority in relation to Epirus) and Serbia (in majority in relation to Kosovo). He has been warned several times, and at times been subject of arbitration and bans. For recent reverts see Vojsava Tripalda (compare 1 and 2) --Zoupan (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, seems to me that all of you just jumped into reporting eachother rather than discussing content. Neither one of you actually did nothing worth administrators attention. No one broke any rule and what is happening is that all of you are edit warring insted of discussing content. There seems to be nothing sanctionable there. The only thing some administrator could do is to assist you in the discussions, but not allways admins are able to spare time for all divergencies. You could and should start discussing, and only when some of the rules is broke, you come here to report. I´ll try to see if I can spare some time to assist you in some content disputes. FkpCascais (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Zoupan obviously cannot understand that when there's a consensus on WP:RS reached on various discussions [10][11], we should stick to it and not use IP evasion in order to avoid the consensus. Apparently this report is a reaction to my report of his IP evasion and edit-warring [12] earlier today. After deciding to stop the IP evasion Zoupan went immediately back to edit-warring [13][14], even though he has been given too many final warnings about it[15][16].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion -- if there is an editing dispute, try to work it out on the talk page, and see wp:consensus. If there are actual disputes appropriate for this page (see the instructions at the top), describe what guidelines are being violated and supply the appropriate diffs.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

85.162.96.197, 85.162.172.143, 85.162.62.139, 85.162.50.187 (maybe more) is involved in edit warring in the Chris Hani article (also other dubious edits in other articles). The fact that he/she found a source now which supports his/her claim about Umkhonto we sizwe doesn't entitle him/her to reinsert it, per Wikipedia:Designated terrorist organizations ,Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) and maybe other rules (we have admins to judge that).--Severino (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the used source doesn't seem to be WP:RS.--Severino (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP continues it's edit war and it seems that it has violated the 3RR MORE than once.--Severino (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

At least one more IP (Special:Contributions/85.162.27.170, obviously the same user) and one more article (Joe Slovo) is concerned by the POV-pushing/vandalism/edit warring.--Severino (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

i've brought the case forward on the 3RR/EW noticeboard, case is settled.--Severino (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Good move, Severino. ... the result being...? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) created several articles about local church pastors and cited his own locally published article which in several cases is the only "independent" source in those new wikipedia articles. As a result, since they don't appear notable I nominated three of those articles (out of many more) for deletion.

One in particular is Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary. During the AFD, the creator of the article has added unnotable local pastors who have graduated to the article. I removed them as they are unnotable and explained why in edits and on the Talk:Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary. However it keeps getting reverted.

In addition, my tags such such as questioning if a local church is a reliable source for notablity keeps getting removed. Then the editor has canvassed the AFD for keep votes.

I am requesting a third-party please explain notablity and sources to this and his fellow editors who are doing his bidding. Wikipedia is no place for someone who use an article they published in a local publication to draw attention to their interests.

AFDs about this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Louisiana History, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. L. Clover, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (2nd nomination). HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Don't you think it might be appropriate for you to notify the subject of your complaint? Per the instruction at the top of the page to the effect that "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion."--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Missed that, no problem. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, I contacted that person as well as two others (one pro and one con) that seem to be interested in the issue. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Many thanks. I note that you have under 200 edits, and are therefore what we would consider a newbie, so I understand how you could have missed that. Just a suggestion -- read instructions carefully when using processes such as these, and read all governing guidelines carefully. Wikipedia rules are far from intuitive. Thanks again.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I'd just like to point out that again my tags are removed. I added a reliable source tag because I don't think novelguide.com is a good source, much less calvarybaptistminden.com, stampslandmark.com and missionarytrainingministry.com or so on are helpful sources, but it keeps getting remove.
        • To make my point stronger the claim that the seminary awards doctorates comes from a local pastor's autobiography on his church's website that only claims to have a degree. Hardly a WP:RS to assert the seminary currently offers such degrees. <cross posting on the talk>HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Warriorboy85 (talk · contribs) has a long history of violating BLP with his contentious edits. He has a page full of warnings about edit warring and BLP violations, and he was blocked at one point for making legal threats. He retracted the legal threats, but he continues to edit with non-reliable sources, making BLP violations. Note: I don't have any dog in this hunt, I know nothing about the problems he's dealing with, all I know is the long history of edit warring and his recent BLP violations with accusations of criminal activity and non-reliable sources to support his contentions. Corvus cornix_talk 05:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of problematic behavior? elektrikSHOOS 06:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

His whole edit history is problematic, but the most recent problem edit was [17]. Corvus cornix_talk 06:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Further unsupported BLP violation: [18]. Corvus cornix_talk 06:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a complicated something going on over corporate fraud and alleged corporate fraud and various companies or shell companies. Robert Rooks, a man convicted by the SEC of fraud, is at the center of some of it, as explained in a recently updated article on United_Assurance_Company_Ltd.. I don't think WarriorBoy has been doing anything intentionally of late, except not understanding our WP:PRIMARY policy. That's coming along though, and I think the user just needs some instruction about how we operate with sources, especially in controversial areas. I'm not involved here, but have been mediating of sorts between editors who are very well informed on facts but speaking past eachother. Eyes appreciated but I don't seen anything actionable for admins right now. Ocaasi ^c 08:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported accusations of criminal activity are not actionable? Corvus cornix_talk 17:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Maybe I'm missing something really obvious...it's happened before...but it looks to me like WarriorBoy85 is actually working on correcting potential BLP violations, seeking secondary sources for referencing, and otherwise working to improve the article. The trouble I see in the article Talk page seems to be arising from 173.75.81.106 (talk · contribs). Feel free to trout me if I'm misinterpreting things. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What am I missing here? How is this not an accusation of criminal activity? Corvus cornix_talk 17:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not an accusation to state that someone was criminally charged, then direct the reader to Lexis Nexis to look up the specifics. Criminal charges, if they exist, are a matter of public record. If a television reporter states a person has been accused of a crime, and refers to a filing of charges by a district attorney, does anyone yell that the reporter is making the accusation? No. Now, if WarriorBoy85 had stated Brooks had committed a crime, but not provided any sort of support for that statement, you'd have a basis for saying he was accusing Brooks of a crime. In this case (and I haven't yet looked at Lexis Nexis to see whether there's actually anything there or not), he's just relaying his information. I'd prefer if WarriorBoy85 had provided direct citations to the court proceedings, instead of just saying "look it up", especially since (last I knew) Lexis Nexis was a for-pay reference system. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

<==So anybody can make any accusation and tell people to "go look it up" and that satisfies BLP? Corvus cornix_talk 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please demonstrate that WarriorBoy85 is accusing someone of something. What this non-admin sees is WarriorBoy85 working on improving an article, and while he hasn't created an actual citation to support his reference (which I'd really like to see him do as a matter of resolving this), I have no reason to doubt his good faith. Do you have positive, demonstrable evidence to the contrary, something that proves bad-faith editing or blatant BLP violations? If so, please post it here so the admins can review it. I have off-wiki tasks to attend to, so I'm not going to be back to see this discussion for quite some time, but I'm fairly certain there will be interested parties stepping in. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't think there's any dispute about Rooks being convicted. In fact, both WarriorBoy and the ips seem to agree on that. However, there is disagreement over the role of Kimball Richard (or Kimball Dean Richard) that apparently goes back to a 2009 thread (partly here: [19]). Disputed family names and disputed company names and it didn't exactly come to an answer. I think all editors are now at least 'acting' in good faith, and we just need to stick to sources on the talk page for now. Ocaasi ^c 00:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

All I can do is shake my head and wonder why I bother. BLP is BLP, all accusations require reliable sources, which are not forthcoming. Do whatever you want, I'm through with this, but I'll expect equal lack of action the next time a BLP violation is claimed. Corvus cornix_talk 01:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This ANI is hilarious. WB85 obviously has a COI that has been problematic. It has been a mess trying to figure out is going on (I have been watching and am still completely confused). The diffs take some thought. I am inclined to let him keep on going since if he did it this long he deserves the credit. Nice work on duping the community, Warriorboy.Cptnono (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm still not seeing any evidence of bad faith editing, apart from not citing a source. And since the article is about a corporation, not an individual, I'm not even sure how WP:BLP applies. I ask again, is there actual evidence that he's accusing anyone, as opposed to reporting on accusations made by others? If not, the entire ANI report here would seem to be nothing more than a bad case of "consensus didn't go my way and I'm going to make someone hurt for it." That's not how Wikipedia works. (Congress, maybe. But not Wikpedia.)

Also, perhaps now is a good time to remind everyone that the absolute defense to libel is truth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, another reminder to add, is that the WP:BLP policy does not exist for the primary purpose of avoiding litigation. (My mini-essay on the subject expands that slightly.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What part of {a person's name} was criminally charged in Nevada 8 or 9 years ago, and those records are available is a sourced non-violation of BLP? Corvus cornix_talk 04:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You're ignoring the elephant in the room: Allied Artists International is an article about a corporation, not a person. Therefore, BLP does NOT apply. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I'm posting? The name I redacted above is a PERSON, not a CORPORATION. Corvus cornix_talk 16:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have read this entire ANI, the article in question, and WB's Talk page and contribution history, as well as several of the links from the latter two. There are two issues that stand out: WB85's WP:PRIMARY issues, as pointed out by Ocaasi, and a content dispute between you and WB85, as pointed out by the remainder of the exchange. Your incredulity and unwillingness to see anyone else's points don't change those two simple, stubborn, irreducible facts. Were I an admin (which, as should be clear by now, I am not), I'd be directing both of you to the dispute resolution process, with a further admonishment to WB85 to review WP:PRIMARY and include citations/references to support changes to articles. Since I'm not an admin, and since you don't seem to be interested in my input, I'm walking away from this topic, effective now. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. WB is posting accusations of criminal activity without supporting them with reliable sources. I do not understand why you don't see that, and I do not see what more I need to do to point this out. I'm tired of beating my head against a brick wall. I'm done. Do something or don't do something, but BLP is not optional. Corvus cornix_talk 19:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the details here but some of this discussion concerns me. We definitely shouldn't be telling people to go look up court records, particularly not in a BLP. If no one else has published details the these charges then they don't belong in the article. P.S. I briefly read [20] and it concerns me even more that in what seems like an incredibly complex case stuff may have been added or at least proposed to be added based on an editor's analysis of multiple court records Nil Einne (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That the article is not specifically a BLP does not alter WP:BURDEN. Moreover, this very clear advice would still apply: "While Biographies of living persons policies do not apply directly to the subject of this article, this article may have content that directly relates to other living persons, such as friends and family of people no longer living or living people involved in the subject matter. Controversial material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard." Any other discussion about the matter would seem to be as useful or as relevant as rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Keristrasza (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• User:Zoupan lately has been edit-warring on many Balkans-related articles and misusing sources on many of them. Since April 1 many of his edits have been reverts[21], so when he was warned about edit-warring by User:Kebeta[22] and source misrepresentation by me [23] he stopped editing. Three days later he returned as an IP editor living in Stockholm[24] and continued with similar edits, which made me realize who he is since he had been using a similar IP before leaving [25].

• I assumed good faith and gave him the chance to admit his identity[26], but after my question he stopped editing again. Three days later he returned with another Stockholm-based IP[27] and continued the edit-warring[28] on all articles he had been editing as Zoupan. A block or a sanction should be imposed to make this user accept consensus or at least stop him from making edits like the redirection of a large article he considers OR[29][30].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit of yours is rather content dispute. You also precipitated yourself in removing all categories related to Serbia, when is clearly part of its history. Also, I fail to see any attempt of dialogue by any of you.

In all cases it´s rather about content dispute, and he is basically lone defending the Serbian point of view on those articles. From your recent edits I can observe you´re seaking some ethnically based association in order to block that user. I fail to see your so called "consensus" because no dialogue occured. WP:BRD has not been in use here, and you´re trying to block an user because you disagree with him. A good suggestion would be for some administrator to possibly intervene and obligate the editors involved to discuss the content instead of all editors edit warring without discussion, although the initiative can be donne without any administrative intervention, it simply requires good faith by the intervenients. FkpCascais (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Only a very small minority of the articles he edits are related to my edits so I'm not trying to block him because I disagree with him and as for Andrea Gropa he was deleting sources and trying to present him as Serbian and he was reverted not by me, but by someone else[31]. On Torlaks, Andrea Gropa, Vuk Kosača, House of Kosača, Zachlumia, . he's been edit-warring, deleting sources, redirecting whole articles without any kind of attempt to follow any wikipedia policy. When he got his final warning he decided to stop editing from his account and return once in a while only to revert others with IP evasion techniques. Kebeta showed good faith with the warning and I showed good faith again when he started using IPs for his reverts and not his account, but he decided to change the IP and continue the reverts.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In the edit war over Vuk Kosača (exemple: [32]) I´m having hard time to understand why was he edit wared. The other users are actually removing all Serbian related cats for no reason, adding Bosnian and Croatian language at lead without any reason, and the content dispute seems nothing too much dramatic. In House of Kosača the situation is similar, with him having expanded the article and being reverted for allegedly "unreliable sources". Torlaks debate is well known, because more than an real ethnic group, they are rather a linguistical one. The article however should exist and he was wrong there to simply create a redirect, however a discussion could/should be made. In Zachlumia its also a content dispute, with his additions being reverted. I honestly think that no real aproach of dialogue was never made in any case. I think that rather than punishement, a discussion would be much more productive. Regarding the IP, well, WP:SPI? FkpCascais (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a content dispute on all those articles, but because of the IP evasion there's no discussion. The Kosaca family for example could be classified as Serb, Bosniak and Croatian, but because non of the users involved is discussing all that's left is the edit-warring.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The same IP has also several times deleted the whole content from the article Torlaks, after Zoupan was no more active there. I am shure that is User:Zoupan. Jingby (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Torlaks are just speakers of Torlakian dialect, and the article Torlaks, claiming they are an ethnic group, seems to be simple WP:OR. In that case he is actually doing right, however a discussion should take place. FkpCascais (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not see such statement in the article. FkpCascais, can you please, point this sentence, where it is claimed, the Torlks are an ethnic group. Jingby (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In the categories... Anyway, the article could be merged into Torlakian dialect and all relevant information from the Torlak article moved there. The Torlak article looks like pretending to be about an ethnic group without actually being it, and in my view not worth a separate article. We could have a WP:3O on that. FkpCascais (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about a WP:3O on that. Jingby (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, nobody even notified User:Zoupan about this tread. I did just now. FkpCascais (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I notified him on his 84. talkpage and given the fact that immediately after returning he went back to blind reverting [33] something should be done.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the blind reverts from the same IP (i.e. IP evasion by User:Zoupan) are fact again. Jingby (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this and reporting it. Clearly Zhoupan is using IP's in order to edit war on numerous articles and a block is in order for this nonsense. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

None of this edits are dramatic or deserves admin reaction. This is content dispute, and as there was no 3RR violation, nor any other violation, this should be dismissed. User:Zjarri have a history of conflict based on numerous users ethnicity, and therefor, this is just one more way of POV pushing. "Remove incompatible ones." Also, user Zjarri is reported below. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Following my edit, Swtpc6800 responded to my edit (one indent level in). User:RaptorHunter then edited against convention by injecting a response to my edit before Swtpc6800's edit. I fixed the edits to follow convention, and it is obvious to everyone who engages on talk pages that RaptorHunter's edit is still in response to mine. Unfortunately, RaptorHunter proceeded to revert my fix and in the process managed to delete my post, and then bizarrely ruin the ordering of posts altogether. Could an admin please have a look at this and restore the conventional chronological/indenting used on talk pages?  GFHandel.   23:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As you can see here in my original edit [34]. I was replying to a post by GFHandel. What other users may have posted before I posted is irrelevant. I've never heard of any rule that posts aren't allowed to be threaded.

Futhermore, I implore GFHandel to WP:Assume Good Faith, when editing other user's posts. It is absurd that such a minor issue would hit the administrator's notice board before GFHandel even attempted to contact me on my talk page.--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You should not inject a response to a post before another editor's response to the same post. That is not fair on that other editor (in this case Swtpc6800) because it looks like that editor has considered your post. The way I fixed it is understood by all, and follows the traditions of editing on talk pages. Unlike your subsequent edits, my fix does nothing to diminish the semantics of your post, and you should get in the habit of following the conventions that help all editors to follow a debate.  GFHandel.   23:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like his post was responding to yours directly. It's more likely he just indented too far. My post WAS directly responding to yours, so I put it directly after yours. --RaptorHunter (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Quoting you, RaptorHunter: It doesn't look like his post was responding to yours directly. That’s not credible. SWTPC6800 began his quote with I also think… Given how demanding you are that others make posts and edits to your satisfaction, perhaps you might rigorously practice what you preach. Greg L (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am demanding that users don't edit other user's posts. That's what got you blocked yesteday. [35] Now would you please quit WP:STALKING me.--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter: Please don’t evade the issue by employing your patented “you were a poopy-head in the past”-defense; that’s just baiting. My block was undone in a matter of minutes and the closing admin offered that it was clear it was a goof-faith editing mistake on my part. This is about your behavior now and there are now a number of editors here frustrated with your manner of interaction. You should also know that an ANI is not the best venue for “a best defense is a strong offense”-strategy. Now… if everyone on that talk page operated on good faith, everything would be fine. And please don’t complain about being stalked (in that “I linked it blue so it must be true”-style) when someone at an ANI points out that your argument has logical holes. Just behave yourself please. Greg L (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You should preserve the chronological order of responses to the same post. The way I fixed it, it is still obvious that you are responding to my post. Swtpc6800 is an experienced editor and I'm going to assume good faith that he knew how far to indent. If Swtpc6800 outdents his post, then I'll restore your edit. Take it up with him.  GFHandel.   23:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I will add that RaptorHunter has ceased trying to undo my reformatting edit, and I thank him for that. As it stands, the article is not in need of attention from an administrator.  GFHandel.   23:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am waiting to see the result here.--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd add in that at the top of every talk page it says "Put new text under old text". --Blackmane (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Background

See talk discussion. IMHO basically maybe the discussion on a controversial topic covered by a {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} got a little overheat, both sides appear to be more calm now, so maybe no action is needed. Though there is a disagreement among editors on WP:NPA and WP:TALK interpretation.

Due diligence

• I am following Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and edited their account user page.
• I'm not familiar with Owain the 1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which prima facie appear to be a new and productive account registered on Apr 04 author of a new article and many productive edits.

Disagreement

“	Your comment "sounds like a thing a Thai would do with a knife" is blatantly racist, just saying.	”
— User:Sean.hoyland, [37]

“	If you continue to break the rules I will report you though. Personal insults are not allowed here.I suggest you read the rules.I am done with you now.	”
— User:Owain the 1st, [38]

This has ended as I will not be replying to this person again in connection with this dispute.I do not believe it is right for someone to brand someone else a racist for stating what some Thai people do, actually it is against the rules of this board to personally insult other members.I have already told the other member that.Owain the 1st (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Will you not be making anymore blatantly racist statements because that was really the outcome I was hoping for ? I take the alternative view that it's right to tell people who make blatantly racist statements on Wikipedia talk pages to not do it again. Perhaps I should have done that on your talk page rather than the article talk page but really what seems more important is that you not do it again. Since you haven't agreed to that because apparently you still believe that saying "sounds like a thing a Thai would do with a knife" about the murder of 5 members of the Fogel family is just fine, I don't have any reason to believe that you won't do it again somewhere else. Your attempt to blame your behavior on my knowledge of the country I live in wasn't very helpful. Sean.hoyland - talk 23:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a blatantly racist comment to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not too bothered what it sounds like to you frankly. It was not and personal insults are not allowed on wikipedia(not you). As for Sean..he clearly has no idea about the country that he claims to live in, I guess he still thinks it is the land of smiles and believe the TAT adverts.I was going to let it lie but now I am not as he continues to insult me.One more thing I never attempted to blame my behavior on anything, that is just some fantasy you have made up.What I did do was question your knowledge of Thailand and its people, totally different altogether,Owain the 1st (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that Thai people aren't happy smiling people, they're murderers who slaughter innocent children? Insisting that your racist slur against the Thai people is accurate is not going to do you any favors here, you know (Disclaimer: I live in Thailand too, for about half of each year - have done for 25 years, and my family are Thai) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Making such such comments about a country/people is not appropriate here, so please do not do so again. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is what to do with the extant unproductive comments on the talk page. I'd personally favour simply chopping the thread in question just prior to Owain's first comment on it, and unless there's a good reason not to I'll go ahead and do that. Obviously Owain should consider this a warning that further inflammatory nonsense of that type won't be tolerated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I've just had a re-read of the thread, and I'd support removing from Owain's "Thai" comment onwards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Warning left with Owain admonishing him not to repeat this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 00:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So no warning for branding people racists for sean then? I see how this works, just a witch hunt by the pc crowd. I deleted your warning. Have fun with the bullying.Owain the 1st (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Besides, Sean called Owain the 1st's comment, not Owain the 1st himself, blatantly racist. I think that the difference is important.     ←   ZScarpia   00:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Same thing.00:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain the 1st (talk • contribs)

Actually it is not. Sean's comment falls within the realm of "comment on the content not the editor". --Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually in the real world it is the same thing.Saying someone made a racist comment is calling them a racist..no way around that how ever hard you might try.So no punishment for the guy who breaks the rules on here and and personally insults me.But hey witchhunts are great ..You should all feel proud of yourselves.Owain the 1st (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Then gotta have a good long look at your comment and think about whether it's racist or not. I know neither of you but even to a bystander like me, that's still a pretty insulting comment to make about a nationality and definitely inflammatory. Wasn't Giornorosso banned recently for something of a similar vein? --Blackmane (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

People frequently utter racist comments without actually being racist - sometimes it's cultural, sometimes it's a poor communication of their actual meaning, sometimes it's meant as humour, etc. Opining that a comment is racist is not the same as opining that the commentator is racist. Should the editor who first suggested that your comment was racist be punished? Well, no, partly because we do not apply sanctions as punishment (and you haven't been punished either), but as preventatives - and they're not currently doing anything that needs preventing. And partly because it looks like there is a consensus here that agrees that your comment was racist. I don't know whether *you* are racist, and I make no claims either way - I simply note that from that comment, and from your now-deleted follow-up comments, you were expressing a rather jaundiced view of Thai people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with my comment at all whatever you pc witchhunters think.I see what happens here you enforce a rule against one person and do nothing against the other person. Bit of a joke.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No one is "enforcing a rule" against you. We are simply asking you to consider whether something could cause insult to someone before you post it. Also, Sean.hoyland specifically says "Your comment...is blatantly racist...". And, as the other editors have said above, that is completely different to saying an editor is racist. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 13:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually you would be wrong as I have been given a warning and in the real world not cyber land if you said to someones face that they uttered a racist comment then you are calling them a racist.Try it in a pub someone time and see what reaction you get.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Using your own logic, if this was the real world and you made your comment to a group of Thai people, what do you think the reaction would be? Wikipedia is different to the real world. You were warned that if you continued to make inflammatory comments, a rule could be enforced on you. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 13:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes wikipedia is not the real world, I can see that from all the comments on here. Seems all the people live in some cyber world.I suggest they get out more into real people land.As for your bit about the Thais..I would give you an answer but do not want to be witchhunted over that as well by the pc crowd here.My statement was to do with the specific circumstances surrounding the story from the Palestinian media that a Thai person had been arrested for killing the family because they owed him money. I said it was something that a Thai person would do.As in a Thai person not the whole of Thailand and all you lot have jumped in for a witchhunt.I should post up scientific research into Thai emotional reactions, there have been studies but why bother.Owain the 1st (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is going nowhere. Why don't we stop beating this horse and walk away. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 14:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop accusing the admins and users here of engaging in a "witchhunt" because you got called out for making a racist comment or two. Also, this is Wikipedia, not the real world. Making comparisons as if Wikipedia is the real world is the main reason why so many POV-pushers, advertisers, and the like get indefinitely blocked in the first place. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Listen up, you do not tell me what to do.Got that? I do not care about your opinion of what is what.Got that? No interest to me whatsoever.Got that?Welcome to the witch hunt, guess you could not resist.YawnOwain the 1st (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

People telling you you're wrong on this page and you responding this harshly on this page is not a witch-hunt by any means. Stop using the term; you're going to end up taking an enforced vacation from Wikipedia otherwise. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 08:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Precisely because this is "cyber land", it is even more important that we must all be careful what we write so there are no misunderstandings. However, your comment could not possibly be misconstrued as anything less than racist. Basically, if I were to go to Thailand, point at "a" Thai person I could conclude, based on your comment, that that person would go kill someone because they owed them money, which ultimately is a sweeping statement that any one Thai person would be able to do such a thing. How can that not be seen as a racist comment? What we're trying to have you understand is that such inflammatory comments are not conducive to a collegial editing atmosphere. Non-admins like myself may not be able to tell you what to do and what to write, but you might want to think about what you do write if you don't want to be "witch hunted" and if you can't see what's wrong with that then you should go have a good hard look at yourself. --Blackmane (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The only misunderstanding is on all your parts.I suggest you go buy some Thai newspapers and see what happens in Thailand before even commenting.You need to have a good hard look at yourself.I am done with this witch hunt but I am sure you and your pc friends will carry on.Post whatever rubbish you want, I will not be reading it.Yawn. Owain the 1st (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you really not understand that making comments like "I suggest you go buy some Thai newspapers and see what happens in Thailand" is carrying on making racist generalisations? If you read English newspapers you'll discover that there are murders in England, so if an Englishman is implicated in a murder, is it fair to say "Yes, that's what an Englishman would do?" - or is that an inflammatory generalization? That events of type X occur in country Y does not justify the statement "Yes, X is what a person from country Y would do". The vast majority of Thais are not brutal murderers, so to suggest that brutal murder is what someone would be more likely to do simply *because* they are Thai is racist - and your constant compounding of the slur is not improving the way you're coming across here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

One could potentially take the analogy even further by saying "A Thai person did that? well he's human, that's what a human would do" which would tar the entire species with the same brush. --Blackmane (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've got a huge concern with Owain's posting style at least on AN/I. He's responding to criticism of his comments with accusations of witch hunting, and from his posts above seems to not be interested in changing his tone at all, not to mention the fact he seems to be conflating meatspace and Wikipedia. Is he having similar problems on the talk page the OP seems to be referring to? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 08:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Owain the 1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since Owain continues to reiterate his blanket characterization of Thai people, why is he still here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This thread is obviously not helping matters. If everyone drops it I imagine this issue will resolve itself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's not much else to do here as long as Owain doesn't continue making such generalizations. I can live with the fact that he thinks everyone is wrong and he is right.--Atlan (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, no admin action can be taken at this moment. Who wants to bet that an indef will hit him in the future? --Blackmane (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Article moved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe in the title of this article, Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep, the word "To" should not be capitalized. However, since Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep is currently redirected to the all-caps title, it seems an admin is needed to do the deed. Thanks and apologies if I missed a better board. Mackan79 (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is thanks to the rather useless bot edit. Next time, I suggest you go to WP:RPM for these things.--Atlan (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}} is a pretty speedy approach (ooh! pun!) to uncontroversial moves of this sort. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

137.61.234.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has continued to change things after his own ideas disregarding consensus. As I've mentioned on the discussion page for the article the two users that have likewise tried to change the name of the article are the same, a check was first done on svwp and then here on enwp resulting in four users blocked on enwp and seven (or is it eight?) blocked on svwp. Since the person behind these edits have kept multiple accounts up and running since 2004 on svwp where several have been elected administrators I suggest a block is done to this IP since the person responsible is unlikely to change the way he tries to change consensus. Last time the block was for only two weeks. I suggest that the block here on enwp matches the one on svwp, which is three years. A block, for it to be effective, shouldn't allow new users to be created or old ones loging in. Another IP used by the same person is 83.250.32.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and I suggest a one year block (same as svwp), shorter since it's semi-dynamic. GameOn (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This unregistered user 76.89.183.205 (talk) has engaged in persistent editing without providing any sources and explanations and also has engaged in edit wars with other users in the Cheek kissing article, and is still continuing to engage in an edit war. Even though he is neither a registered user nor does have the authority to issue a block warning (as neither do I), this user threating me with this and also of escalating the edit war. --Menikure (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You do have the authority to issues warnings - all Wikipedia editors do -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: Sorry I don't have time to look into it now (and I have no idea who is right or wrong) - but please make sure you do not revert again, as you already appear to be up to 3RR today yourself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Menikure kept ignoring the discussion page which explains the reasons of why such changes have been made. The previous article consisted an unreliable source which was simply a blog page. Furthermore, the previous article included personal opinions such as referring the hitting of temples by men as "possibly as an attempt to masculinize the action" without a source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheek_kissing&diff=423503416&oldid=423498572 Menikure has been notified on his talk page several times about recent changes and he has been asked to check the discussion page and encouraged to join the discussion, which he basically ignored and kept reverting the changes. The discussion page can be seen on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheek_kissing#Turkey with the explanation of the changes made. Also can be found is the user's talk page which consists the notifications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Menikure#Cheek_Kissing:_Escalated I believe Wikipedia is not a place where personal opinions matter and it is no race that another side wins or loses. This user has also had history of similar policy violations which can be found in the archives and can be verified by his talk page. 76.89.183.205 (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The user reverts the previous article without discussing the issue on the discussion page of the article. The user was warned on its talk page, explaining the reason why s/he should contribute to the discussion page and why the previous version of the article was unacceptable. The previous article included an unreliable source which refers to a website which is written like a blog. It also had mispronunciation and again personal thoughts about the matter. Another issue was about the categorization of the country Turkey, which I included the reasons why such categorization change has been made. The country has been categorized throughout Wikipedia under the Europe continent and I kindly asked the user to follow the same guideline for the integrity. The source which is included in the new edit also refers the country in Europe. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheek_kissing#Turkey to see the inappropriate editing on April 11,2011. As it can be seen the user didn't contribute the discussion page but kept reverting the recent changes. It can also be seen that necessary warnings have been given on user's talk page. I tried my best to keep the dispute under control but it looks like the user is persistent on reverting the changes because of his/her personal opinions about the matter. The user has also had a record of several other complaints about him/her here and his/her talk page. Thank you for your concern. 76.89.183.205 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be strictly a content dispute, the dispute being over whether Turkey is considered "southern Europe" or "Middle East". It's clear from the "Middle East" article that Turkey (which is primarily in Asia, not Europe) has long been considered to be "Middle East". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP is also at least a couple of notches past the 3RR boundary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's also clear from the "Europe" article that Turkey is a European country. I cannot see what's considered "long" or what makes something "primarily" other than your own thoughts. 76.89.183.205 (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rather than throw out blocks I've protected the page for a short while so that disputes can be worked out on the talk page. It is only semi-d because I think that is enough to stop the edit war but can be upped if needs be. All editors involved also need to remember that any edit that is intended to improve WP even if it is misguided or incorrect is not vandalism, and referring to them as such is frowned on :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that this editor's aggressive behavior toward other editors has become detrimental. See this thread at editor assistance for details. Danger (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly don't condone the uncivil comments of Factlover1 I do understand their frustation. It was some way in to the thread before Factlover1 was pointed to OTRS, which is what they really needed, and when shown that, the response was civil. I understand that the vast majority of copyright breaches really do not have permission, but that is no excuse for lazy replies, especially at EAR which is supposed to be helping user's with this sort of thing. Factlover1 has been warned, they have the information they need, the thread is now closed, hopefully they will take note of the warnings and not repeat. SpinningSpark 09:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If there were a line beyond which even the very frustrated may not cross, I would have thought that it would be a 650 word screed directed specifically at one other editor including such choice phrases as "group-think proto-nazi nerds" and "take your hypothetical light-saber and ram it out of sight" [39]. This oration was given after the editor was informed of the OTRS process; the editor was frustrated that zie was directed there, claiming that only people bloated with flatulence would care about copyright. [40] --Danger (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Other than a warning on their talk page, which I have now given to the editor, what administrative action where you looking for? SpinningSpark 22:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Had the user not directed that attack at me, but at another editor, I would have blocked them myself. I meant for my warning to be a final one. They had already been warned specifically for aggressive behavior by Jonathanwallace on their talk page [41] and by Orange Mike on EAR [42]. (NB: the notice that I posted on the editor's talk page did link to this subsection specifically. It just also provided a link to AN/I as a whole.) Danger (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The user also directed a few less severe attacks at me several times at Talk:Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler. They wrote: I now understand that Eisfbnore don't want people to see for themselves the real wording of Hamsun's obituary [43], Stop quibbling over four lines … Your limiting of what people can see for themselves in this case, contrary to what you claim, amounts to censorship. Stubbornly repeating that your censorship is not censoring, fails on its own unreasonableness … Don't get carried away in your personal preferences [44] and You're "Gaming the system" … Your stubborn denial of censoring … your demonstrated stubbornness against factual info on Wikipedia. [45]. Factlover1 aka 85.165.24.213 also wrote the following at wikiquote: Eisfbnore reveals his eagerness to censor Hamsun … This guy doesn't like facts … It's getting ridiculous not to conclude that the censorship by Eisfbnore it not a non-NPOV (Neutral Point-Of-View) violation based on negative bias towards Hamsun as an historical person [46] --Eisfbnore ^talk 23:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not want my comments to be taken in any way as restraining any other admin from blocking or taking any other action they feel appropriate in this case. SpinningSpark 08:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if the user has taken note of the warnings they have received. In this reply, Factlover1 stated that they had just replied to "unfactual personal attacks" by other editors …(!) Additionally, they directed another attack at me: "This issue is still about one person, Eisfbnore, vandalizing the entry Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler". Eisfbnore ^talk 17:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, rcvd, to other comments above. "Eisfbnore" is using selective quoting here to misrepresent my statements. The original issue is still to keep factual content at the Wikipedia-entry "Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler", which "Eisfbnore" continues to delete. Pls look it up. Discussion of this users comments aside, the focus should still be on the quality of the entry "Hamsun's obituary...". It appears that "Eisfbnore" is now using a complaint on tone to push aside attention to factual content at the "Hamsun's obituary..."- entry. Hope this improves the tone to refocus attention on the factual content on the "Hamsun's..."-entry. Factlover1 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Factlover1 aka 85.165.24.213 has just breached 3RR over at Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler, whilst accusing other editors of editwarring and patent nonsense – just check the hist and the talk. It also seems that they have revealed my conspiracy in the previous post.^(irony) Eisfbnore ^talk 19:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, which block has now been declined twice. SpinningSpark 22:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not any big deal, as I do not care whether this particular AFD is reopened, but I am a little concerned that Instruction Erosion (the antonym of Instruction Creep that I just made up) could be happening here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolinson Ferdinando. Or maybe it is Creep, because the users are applying PROD rationales to AFD procedures. I note in particular that the AFD was Relisted and then deleted the same day; not unusual in itself of course... Anyways, messy. Anarchangel (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems a bit odd. AFD's without sufficient commentary are relisted. If a prod tag is removed, it's not replaced and AFD is then required (unless speedy deletion can be applied). Am I missing something here - I can't see any way this is standard procedure. Was WP:IAR applied? Exxolon (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also notified the admin who deleted the article. Exxolon (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that this was a BLP PROD (which may not be removed without adding sources), not a normal PROD. The article was an unsourced BLP (though it did have two external links by the time it was deleted). Ucucha 01:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If no one opposed a deletion request in 7 days, it could very well have been a prod. So why not? Being at AfD only increases visibility. Prodego ^talk 01:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time getting my head around the sequence of events here as there is no article history. Can you restore the article & history so I can see exactly what the sequence of events was so I can comment knowing the facts rather than having to guess. Exxolon (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Created 3:04, 27 January 2011; BLP PROD added 3:10, 27 January 2011; removed 3:21, 27 January 2011; AFD nominated 18:16, 2 April 2011; deleted 5:53, 9 April 2011. Ucucha 01:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, without seeing the article & history I'm still a bit in the dark.The first question is did the two external links provide sufficient sourcing to satisfy the BLP-PROD policy requirements? Exxolon (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the BLPPROD was removed on 26 January, no links of any kind were added until 18 February, from what I can see. (I'm guessing I'm in a different time zone than Ucucha, but the basic point holds.)--joe decker^{talk to me} 02:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not quite what I was getting at - did they provide sufficient evidence of notability that if the BLP-PROD procedure had been correctly followed the article would NOT have been deleted? (Note - it would be far easier to temporarily restore the article so we can see exactly what happened rather than having to rely on admins who can see the deleted article & history to answer individual enquiries.) Exxolon (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, it's here, I'll redelete when we're done. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I would personally perform the delete on a BLPPROD if those ELs had been added either before or after tag placement, as neither source appears to mention the subject, and therefore does not verify any statement about the article subject. (At least in the simple case where the tag was never removed.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The sensible route would have been to redirect to La Bambas, this guy's band - something which I'm going to be bold and do now. GiantSnowman 02:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) - Thanks for restoring. Having looked through the articles history and checked the links neither of them would appear to be of sufficient quality to have averted a deletion under BLP-PROD had that have been followed correctly. This would seem to be then insufficiently clear explanation by the deleting admin who said "on AfD for a week with no comments, I'll consider it a prod then" and the closer of the AFD who said "The result was Deleted -BLP PROD was removed by author; AfD unnecessary. NAC by nom, housekeeping". What should have been said somewhere was somthing like "DELETED - Article previously nominated for deletion under BLP-PROD policy but process not completed due to premature ta wg removal by article author. Sourcing insufficient to satisfy BLP-PROD requirements and article would've been deleted had tag not been removed and not replaced. Relisting AFD not required as article should have already been deleted" or words to that effect - this would have negated this entire thread as it at least appeared that the admin was making policy on the fly by "converting" an AFDith no comments into an uncontested PROD. Exxolon (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Most welcome. And GiantSnowman is right about the redirect, without objection, I'll leave that be. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What you all should have done is taken advantage of the week long AfD to make these comments. But deciding on a redirect sounds reasonable. The deletion was done for the reason I gave. BLP PROD had nothing to do with it. I was indeed "making up policy on the fly" if you wish to call it that. The only reason the page wasn't already deleted was because of what tag was chosen to be transcluded on it. With no objections to deletion, I'll go ahead and delete, I don't see why the exact procedure will matter. Prodego ^talk 02:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I absolutely love you Prodego. An elegant solution attained with minimum fuss on personal initiative. Its a refreshing flashback to when we had a functioning community instead of endless rules and noticeboards. -- ۩ Mask 21:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry, AKMask. There are many such to love. I can agree it was inventive, though. The usual thing is to redirect after a No Consensus vote (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental organisations topics). Or just redirect without an AFD at all (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000). Or to redirect the article before the AFD is closed as part of a deal within the AFD independent of closing ruling (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hands of God), on the condition of changes, which are then not implemented (Hands of God afd again, and the non-changes at Przeworsk culture and Lodz#World War II). Anarchangel (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• We've actually had this discussion before and the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll supports Prodego's actions in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you, while the principle seemed sensible, I'd seen nothing before that suggested that it was within any consensus, but that discussion looks pretty clear, and I'll be happy to have that option in my own AfD-closing toolbox in the future. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no administrative action required here. If you believe an article has been unfairly deleted, go to WP:Deletion review. 28bytes (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I attempted to create this page, in a similar vein to List of convicted Australian criminals. I was adding the first entry when it was deleted: 12:07, 11 April 2011 Lectonar (talk | contribs) deleted "List of convicted Jewish criminals" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: POV magnet) I recreated, only for: 12:09, 11 April 2011 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "List of convicted Jewish criminals" ‎ (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Bernard Madoff) Whether or not there is a good reason for this article not to exist, it should be clear that the reasons given so far have been spurious. Bob19842 (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Do you also intend to create a List of convicted Christian criminals? Or might that turn into a life's work? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC) No, but I wouldn't object if someone did. Bob19842 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC) To break it down further, how about List of convicted criminals named Bob? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I doubt that would interest anyone. Bob19842 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 'Australian' is a nationality: a matter of fact. 'Jewish' is an ethnicity and/or a religious faith: less clear - cut, and quite possibly less relevant too. Personally, I think that lists like this are highly suspect, for the same reason that List of Jewish Nobel laureates is suspect: an arbitrary intersection seemingly created by friends/foes of a particular ethnicity or faith to push a POV. Others seem to see this differently though, and I can't think of a policy reason why one should be acceptable, and not the other. I suspect that as long as arbitrary 'list of ethnicity X ys' and the like are allowed, we are going to have to put up with this sort of nonsense - to ban the 'negative' ones and allow the 'positive' ones would be a breach of NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC) No, we do not have to put up with it. Zeroing in on Jews, or any particular ethnic group, is not appropriate, as it carries an implication of "guilt by association". I might question the Australian one also, but if there are lists of convicted criminals by a wide range of nationalities, that could be different... although it sounds more like a category than an article. What can such an article say anyway? "These guys were Australian"? That's not an article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC) What is an Unconvicted Australian Criminal? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC) It simply isn't a notable thing to be Jewish and to be a criminal, and it ca be seen as an attack page. I will also note that the Australian article seems to be the only list focused on nationality alone found within Category:Lists of criminals. I think AfD will be seeing some activity today. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Deleting admins notified. —DoRD (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC) There are several "List of convicted..." articles, but Australia is the only one that zeroes in on a specific ethnicity or nation. Astonishingly, it's been around for 5 1/2 years. But its creator is still an active user, so a question or two to that guy might be called for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Would Nawlinwiki care to explain his deletion reason ("Madoff")? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Other than the article's content at the time of deletion being 'Bernie Madoff was convicted in bla bla biggest ponzi scheme in history'? Without knowing more that certainly looks like trying to duplicate Bernie Madoff (which incidentally was the content when it was originally deleted). Syrthiss (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC) It should be obvious that I had added the first name in a list and was not trying to "recreate" the Madoff page. Bob19842 (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Bob19842 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It looks like this was the editor's first attempt at an article. Perhaps he should work on some other article of interest and see how it goes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC) If List of Jewish Nobel laureates is acceptable I think List of convicted Jewish criminals should be. Bob19842 (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for giving away your true agenda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC) To create List of convicted Jewish criminals? And why shouldn't I? Bob19842 (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I would prefer "List of Jewish criminals". Kittybrewster ☎ 13:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Bugs, stop it. That's a personal attack; please retract. Look, someone shows up here and sees several lists of criminals, and several list of Jewish whatever — it isn't far-fetched to combine the two, and when you mean to say someone is an antisemite, then say it, and don't "euphemize" it to "true agenda" or whatever. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC) It's the red-link himself who's talking in euphemisms. He's got some 'splainin' to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC) What? You're talking in riddles. Seriously. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC) His argument is that he wants something to "balance" the article about Jews winning Nobel prizes. To me that's sounds like smack-dab, in-your-face anti-semitism. Is that clear enough for you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The statement now is, thank you. But I think you are wrong. If "Jewish" is a valid determinant for a list (any list) I cannot see any reason why it should only be positive lists. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Feel free to argue against the list of Jewish Nobel winners. Its current existence does not require a "balancing" article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Just like Errant, I have. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The problem is that the "nobel laureate" and related list articles were well-protected at the recent AfDs and DRVs by a large group of editors, editors who would IMO strongly oppose a "Jewish criminal" list if it were ever to appear at AfD as well. In the latter case though, they would be correct to oppose it...and I would oppose it as well because it is the correct thing to do. We can't do a tit-for-tat "oh you kept your GOOD lists so now I am going to support the BAD list because of that". Tarc (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Where does Bob say "balance"? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC) He didn't; but that's his, y'know, "agenda." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC) He stated it clearly enough: "If List of Jewish Nobel laureates is acceptable I think List of convicted Jewish criminals should be", or the more-telling contrapositive, "If List of convicted Jewish criminals is not acceptable, neither should List of Jewish Nobel laureates." He's free to explain why he thinks there needs to be a "bad" to balance a "good". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC) He never said the counter-positive. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The contrapositive has the same truth value as the original statement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC) So, back to the point of the discussion. Is it helpful or useful to the encyclopedia to have such a list or category, and why? -- Avanu (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Well, he said "If List of Jewish Nobel laureates is acceptable I think List of convicted Jewish criminals should be. Bob19842 (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)" which kind of sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFF more than balance. Syrthiss (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, my response had nothing to do with Bob, it was to the "If "Jewish" is a valid determinant for a list (any list) I cannot see any reason why it should only be positive lists" comment of Seb az86556. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I didn't say "balance," either. I question any List of Jewish [] — but it strikes me as odd that people create all sorts of List of Jewish [], but as soon as it says "criminals," it gets nuked as "attack" and the creator is accused of having an "agenda." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Guilt-by-association is a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Oh dear. I thought jews and Roman catholics were brought up to feel guilty. Original sin, etc. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Different type of guilt. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC) By the way... List of United Kingdom criminals List of United States criminals or would you care for something more of an ethnic flavor? :P List of American mobsters of Irish descent Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC) "Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC) It is as much an argument as "doesn't exist" — no? :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Let's not forget the probably relevant List of Jewish American mobsters... Fram (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Was it created by a red-link as his first article? I doubt it. Besides that, there is plenty of coverage of the Mafia about the various ethnic groups that made up the American mob: Italian, Irish, Jewish, etc. Their ethnicity was considered notable by the mob itself. There's no ethnic notability connected with guys like Madoff, unless the red-link is trying to dredge up "the international conspiracy of Jewish bankers" as his justification. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC) It would be quite interesting to compare a List of Jews conned by Madoff (a lot) with List of Gentiles conned by Madoff. Madoff relied to some extent on the reputation of Jews as brilliant businessmen. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I would delete all these lists as having little in common and rely on category tags. Jeez. (a good way to start your list of Jewish criminals, btw. Convicted, too, they say). And I would agree that Bob would be better advised to find a different field for his first article (welcome to the wiki, I should have said). This would be like learning to swim by going to Dover and deciding to take a little paddle over to Calais.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I've participated in attempts to show some of these articles as ones that should be deleted in the past.. with little success. Frankly, if no one can produce a secondary source with sufficient detail on why a specific intersection is significant then it is not a notable topic. But that got squashed at the Nobel laureates article (apparently the 20% statistic was judge sufficient, although no detail discourse appears to exist on this fact, other than it exists...). Inflammatory topics like the one referenced in this thread definitely does need a decent level of sourcing to identify it as a notable intersection. my own view, of course, is that many of the lists are not notable intersections because being X isn't shown to be related to the committal of Y. Oh, they just happen to be X? Stick em in the list ;) --Errant (chat!) 13:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Does thte title mean that we assume that Jews not on the list have just not been convicted yet? The article clearly has no raison d'etre.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I love it. Their time will come. And then they will convict thee and me. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC) ...and they still poison the wells! While people are at it, what are the commonly known crimes the Jews commit? Exactly, they murder children and poison the wells. Not convinced? You just need to read en.wikipedia's article on well poisoning. You find three recent, well-sourced (pun!) reports about some people who say they saw Jews poisoning wells, graphical details included. And to make sure that this doesn't slip the occasional reader's eye, another article is linked as "see also" where these reports are reproduced. Where is the Jewish cabal controlling the world/media/wikipedia? Afraid to reveal themselves once more? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Some of the comments here seem more focused on whether they believe the topic of the article is 'nice' or not. A properly sourced and reasonable article is not wrong. The question here before us is whether a case can be made for having a list like this. If we have various criminals included in Wikipedia, then is a combined category of "Jewish Criminals" useful or helpful? I'm sure we have "criminals" and "jewish", but what is the specific rationale for having both? I don't see it as being inherently an invalid category, but I'm not sure I see how making a list is really useful. -- Avanu (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC) None of these are useful. It's the people who fear antisemitism at every corner, but happily keep the one that says the Jews control space... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Avanu, I think the category could be considered in terms of "is it useful". In terms of the list I think the usual notability criteria apply; i.e. are there any reliable sources discussing the link between Jews and being a criminal. I highly doubt there are.. if there were, then it is undoubtedly a valid topic. This is why List of Italian American mobsters is a valid topic. --Errant (chat!) 14:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Upon reading that I had to wonder if there are any reliable sources discussing the link between being Australian and being a criminal, apart from those written by English cricket fans. The existence of any of these lists is questionable by that criterion. HiLo48 (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Precisely. Italian Mafia, Irish Mafia, Jewish Mafia... all verifiably notable groupings. You'd be hard-pressed to find any valid attempt to group Jewish criminals in general - except by anti-Jewish groups trying to make a point of some kind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I have no idea what anti-Jewish groups are trying to do in general. I do know that the discussion here is about whether this is a suitable article. I personally have never heard of people making a statement specifically about Jewish criminals, but that is merely anecdotal evidence. I would also appreciate, as an editor trying to make an effort here, that some of the snide remarks and little quips might be dropped from here on. I don't mind a legitimate discussion, but when it degrades to snarky remarks, not a fan. -- Avanu (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Your statement that "I'm not sure I see how making a list is really useful" is precisely to the point. It's not useful. Even more to the point, it's not verifiably notable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (←) Criminal organizations are notable. However List of Jewish Criminals (or List of {race/nationality/religion/group/association} Criminals) is not. At this point, however, List of Single Purpose Accounts Defaming a race/nationality/religion/group/association They Don't Like is getting pretty long. Let's put this to bed please. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Feel free to box it up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC) HiLo48 said: "Upon reading that I had to wonder if there are any reliable sources discussing the link between being Australian and being a criminal, apart from those written by English cricket fans. The existence of any of these lists is questionable by that criterion." Some might have found it appropriate since Australia was once a penal colony. I'm not sure though, and seems pretty strenuous at the least.-RHM22 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Jesus Christ (so to speak). List of Australian Criminals makes more sense as a category, first of all, as that adds the additional notability requirement of the subjects already having articles. It's determined by nationality mainly because it's a list of people tried and convicted in Australian courts. List of Jewish Criminals doesn't make any more sense than List of Redheaded Criminals. --King Öomie 16:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I only know of one red headed criminal. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC) All gingers should be locked up, honestly, but that's straying down the tangent a bit... :) Tarc (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The 'List of Australian criminals' article fails the same notability test, I think. We see Wikipedia has an article on Jewish-American organized crime, but this has a clear notability. From the Notability guideline page, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Convict era of Western Australia seems to have a reason, but the list of criminals is a bit of an arbitrary thing. -- Avanu (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC) I maintain that if you can have a List of Jewish Nobel laureates, a List of convicted Jewish criminals is also OK. This is elementary. Going off on tangents about "red hair" etc. is simply irrelevant. Bob19842 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Why? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This editor, who has been registered for less than two weeks, has just returned from his third block. This time, it was for 72 hours, for edit warring.[47] I was also sanctioned for the same incidsent, for 48 hours, reduced to 18 after an appeal.[48] In the discussion, EdJohnston commented that "The behavior of AFolkSingersBeard is so blatant that he seems unlikely to have a long career, whether or not he is a sock".[49]

Since his return, this user has made three edits. Two of them were unjustified (and, in my opinion, POV) reversions of my latest edits. Obviously I cannot re-revert, because the articles are subject to 1RR under WP:ARBPIA. I am reporting the editor here because I believe that his behaviour is clearly recidivist edit-warring, and seems designed to entrap me into a breach of 1RR. I request that appropriate action be taken. RolandR (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the "Arab citizens of Israel" edit. At this point, there's no violation of policy, but I've left a warning to try to back up previous warnings and a notice that an indef block is likely to happen if this behavior continues. You're welcome to try for a temporary or indefinite ban if this continues. Nyttend (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In June 2010, User:Vinie007 changed Lapot (senicide) into a redirect with this edit. They then cut and paste the article contents with this edit. I am asking if an admin could sort this out so that the page histories are merged properly. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... —DoRD (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I think it's all back where it belongs, but another admin may want to check my work. FYI, WP:REPAIR is all about dealing with this sort of request. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good and thanks for the link. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Anglo Pyramidologist blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks, his talk page has also been full protected.

Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs) continues to make personal attacks (in this case in edit summaries) despite being blocked for personal attacks five days ago [50]. See [51] and two other edits at the same article where his edit summary was "reverting vandalism by a darwinist (troll) who is deleting any source connected to a creationist or Christian, even on Biblical dates" and here [52] where he wrote (about a different editor "Undid revision 423492830 by AnonMoos (talk) reverting vandalism (note this user has also left me abuse on my personal page" - the so-called attack can be seen here [53] - I can't see that as an attack. I would have blocked but I've been involved in complaints about this editor earlier (pov issues mainly). Notifying him now. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just preparing something for WQA about this, but I was waiting on his response to my warnings. I'll just post this here.

This user is... well, he seems to be in a poor mood.

This unacceptable edit summary is found four times:

"reverting vandalism by a darwinist (troll) who is deleting any source connected to a creationist or Christian, even on Biblical dates"[54][55][56][57]

And this:

"reverting vandalism (note this user has also left me abuse on my personal page))"[58]

The 'abuse' in question, an exchange in which another user states a point and gets called a troll- [59]

And any given edit he's made to Talk:Dating Creation.

The problem, AP, is that you're personalizing everything. Every edit anyone makes in your sphere of interest, you're seeing as an attack on you. Calm down. --King Öomie 15:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

See also his comments at WP:FTN#Dating Creation where he is accusing another editor of lying. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And at Talk:Dating Creation#Biased Edits by a Darwinist/evolutionist (love the 'militant fundie Darwinist' bit. Dougweller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

This editor has received warnings and a block, yet continues to make personal attacks against other editors. I would recommend a block of longer duration, only to be lifted if Anglo Pyramidologist agrees to refrain from further attacks. TFD (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

- Yes, i am entitled to revert edits to stop vandalism, which i put hours into researching. As i noted, my posted content was deleted by a self-confessed militant darwinist. I'm not sure why biased evolutionists are allowed to delete/edit material on related creationism pages. As for doug? Doug is another biased user, if you search for his name on google you find a 'skeptic' website he owns where he attacks or mocks what he calls 'fringe' science/archeology and he links to atheist/evolutionist websites like Talkorigins. I also noted he has a page up attacking pyramidology and other areas of alternitive sciences, but yet oddly doug is given power to edit all these (what he calls) 'fringe' sciences over wikipedia. Hardly neutral. I'm not sure what position doug holds, but i tried a day or so get help from him but he ignored. Probably because i have pyramidologist in my name and i am not an evolutionist. I am going to contact an actual admin to expose how this neutrality thing has got out of hand. Why are darwinists and atheists allowed on creationists pages? You tell me, would you let a neo-nazi on the Holocaust page or a biased communist on capitalism? The only complaints or issues i have raised are about neutrality. Also you should edit the above innacurate statement/lie, i was not blocked for personal attacks, i was blocked for accusing another user of being a sock puppet. I was then told to file a 'SPI' report, but since i don't know what that is (and i tried to ask the mods, but no reply) i don't see how i could have followed that up. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"militant darwinist" + "biased evolutionist" + "actual admin" = 48 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Firstly, a content dispute is NOT vandalism. And secondly, this ANI issue is not about content anyway, it is about your abusive attacks on other editors. If you wish to dispute the content of an article, you are welcome to, on its Talk page - but not via abusive edit summaries (or personal abuse of any kind). You ask would we let a neo-Nazi edit the Holocaust page or a Communist edit pages about capitalism? The answer is yes, if they stick to our notability, sourcing, and NPOV policies. In fact, for example, a Communist might be better aware of valid notable criticisms of capitalism than would a free market capitalist, and if they added them in a properly sourced manner, they could make a valid improvement. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The blocked party clearly isn't learning. In lieu of his eloquent unblock request, I'm all for doubling the length of his block and removing his talk page access. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support increased block - the editor in question seems unwilling to listen and/or accept that their actions have been wrong. GiantSnowman 16:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • User's talkpage is full-protected (as opposed to the user being talkpage-blocked), because other people were "trolling" there. I didn't personally see any edits mocking or intending to provoke AP, but okay. --King Öomie 16:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've suggested to the blocking admin that unprotection and blocking talk page access would be a better approach, as I don't see anyone else trolling there - and if others do, I think we should warn, revert and block them, rather than preventing valid edits to the Talk page by other editors (eg other notifications). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Whatever. I certainly didn't intend on trolling him, although I see how it might appear that way to the admin. I marked this as resolved, we all have better things to do by now, yes? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks everyone. I'll note that he did ask me for help at 8pm my time last night - he says he is editing from home with the same IP his brother uses and they are being called sock puppets. I didn't respond mainly because I was busy (and spent most of today travelling) and I wasn't sure what to advise him or even what I thought about the situation. Then when I got home and would have tried, I discovered his attacks on other editors. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

86.10.119.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has admitted that they are editing from the same IP as Anglo Pyramidologist and might have one other seperate account besides that editing from that same IP. See discussion of User talk:86.10.119.131#Identity causes concerns and complicates things in my book. HE claims they are several seperate people editing from the same computer The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Something about this IP doesn't quite rhyme. When he defends himself against allegations of sockpuppetry, he claims to be AP's younger brother and writes in a rather rudimentary English (e.g. [60]), but his other edits use a fairly "normal" language. Favonian (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed Extremely different from this post earlier today The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, really? WP:LITTLEBROTHER? Well in that case let's unblock him with an apology. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikistalk further complicates things. British Israelism for example shows 86's last edit there to be 2nd of February Anglo Pyrmid follows up and works persistently on it on 4th of Feb. Christian Identity shows the same pattern Last edit by 86's on the 21st of March and AP picks it right up and 86 never edits there again. Here is another interesting coincidence their editing the same article together here. There is some serious off wiki coordination same articles same POV and several near identical edit sumaries here and here The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there an SPI open? A CU will be able to immediately determine if the point about Anglo editing from elsewhere is true, while the IP continued editing (obviously from the same place). --King Öomie 17:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, but "corrected spelling" is a bit too innocuous to really show the users at the same. I've probably used that edit summary before, as have at least half of the users who'll read this. lifebaka++ 17:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I try to avoid fixing other people's typos, but I actually fixed a link at the beginning of this thread, so I see your point. --King Öomie 18:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok look at these next few extremly simliar edit summary and tell me if I am crazy...

• "Corrected spelling"
• "Added paragraph on Carroll"
• "added more sources and new information on origins"
• "corrected spelling error"
• "corrected spelling error"
• "added key section on beliefs and tenets"

Looking on these edit summaries its the same style for the same acts The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - is there a reason why Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist has yet to be opened? GiantSnowman 18:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I thought it wasnt necessary since 86 is pretty open about editing from the same computer as the other account. Typically when multiple accounts operate from the same IP then a block for one is a block for all accounts of that IP. Also IP wont be connected to Account per privacy policy. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• comment OK, just a note from the sidelines (as I generally avoid religious content like the plague), and I know that calling someone a troll is a big no-no (only established editors are allowed to do that); but wow .. sure seems like this guy got tarred, feathered, and run outta town on a rail in a huge hurry ... just sayin. — Ched :  ?  20:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That tends to happen when people make multiple personal attacks in their first few edits on the site. Kansan (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• As well as continuing such silly behaviour in their unblock request... GiantSnowman 20:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Look, I don't deny that he needs to adjust his approach to successfully edit here - I'm just saying that I can think of 30+ "established" editors here that could have used the same language and not a word would have been said. As an "encyclopedia" that deals with WP:V and WP:RS types of things, this particular website doesn't always achieve the "welcome" factor that many political, or religious type of things might accept because we don't deal with the "leap of faith" beliefs. I'm just saying that talking to the guy might have been a better approach. Religious issues are always such hot-button topics, that they can quickly escalate into rough discourse. People are passionate about their beliefs (be they religious, political, or nationalistic in nature). I'm sorry, but saying someone is a "darwinist" or "creationist" just doesn't equate to a block to me. Yea, I know, the whole "you called me a troll" thing gets posted on these boards all the time .. well, if that's the worst that anyone ever calls me .. oh wait ... too late. Best of luck. Feel free to send him my way when his block is done, I'd be happy to talk to him. With only 400 edits, I wouldn't be shocked if he never even SAW WP:NPA or WP:CIV (although that last one seems to get used in only subjective circumstances at times.). Other than that, I have no desire to include myself in this little brew-ha-ha. — Ched :  ?  21:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if you doubt how touchy the religious issues can be, take a walk over to WP:RFAR on any given day - there's a real good one going on right now revolving around some of the edits to various "Jewish" style articles. — Ched :  ?  21:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP should be blocked as it's just Anglo, pretending to be his 'younger' brother, in hopes of avoding the IP being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI, After some reflection I realized 86.10 has always been very cooperative with my inquiries and its odd behavior today is abnormal for the usual 86.10 The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

@GoodDay .. yep, that's what WP:AGF says .. always assume it's a trick. — Ched :  ?  22:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Kindness don't feed the bulldog. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And vinegar don't entice the new editor. — Ched :  ?  04:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at the comments being made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination)? It seems to me that an opening statement by the nominator should be sufficient to make the case without repeated "clarifications" that may potentially influence the voting process. Once editors have cast their vote and made their statement, they shouldn't need to come back again and again to lobby for their position. I am requesting that all of these extra "comments" be removed from the record. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that AfD is a discussion, and as such a commenter can clarify their point if needed? I don't see where the nominator is lobbying one way or another within the AfD, and also I do find it curious that you are asking to have opposing viewpoints removed, since you wish to have the article kept. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) It is a discussion, I think it would be abnormal for somebody to make a point and, if that point was challenged, not return to make their case more clear. Nothing wrong in this AfD as far as I can see - this ANI just smacks of IDON'TLIKEIT. GiantSnowman 20:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong at all. It is perfectly normal for a nominator to take part in the discussion just like everybody else. I wonder where you got the idea that this might not be allowed, or even that it might be a good idea not to allow this. Hans Adler 20:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well I guess I stand corrected. We will proceed with the comments. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not wrong to discuss the !votes. It can be counterproductive to hector !voters or to accuse them of bad faith or partiality simply because they disagree with the nomination. This can give the impression that the nominator has opened the discussion for reasons unconnected with the betterment of the encyclopedia. Collegial discussion, however, is always appropriate. --NellieBly (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Because of an ongoing RfC here at Talk:Hard disk drive, User:RaptorHunter (contribs) has been contacting over one hundred individual users of a cherry-picked user group on computer-related matters. Specifically, he contacted members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux because Linux, which has 2% market share, is one-half Ubuntu (1% market share). Ubuntu uniquely embraces an odd practice of using terminology unused with all the rest of the computer industry. The above-provided link to his contribs is a 500-edit summary showing the length of the canvassing.

RaptorHunter knows full well that Ubuntu uniquely uses this terminology, as he stated as much here in this ∆ edit yesterday and then launched straight into contacting each and every editor active in that project individually.

This is an extreme example of vote stacking that goes far beyond merely leaving general posts on the project pages of a wide assortment of computer-related projects. This 100+ canvassing of a highly targeted, cherry-picked group like this has rendered the entire RfC moot now.

I also think it is time to do a CU on this editor. The editing manner, tendentiousness, and the use of fighter jet names as screen names, plus the Revision history of Timeline of binary prefixes all suggest that RaptorHunter is Thunderbird2. The latter one was told by User:Gwen Gale (an admin) to desist with tendentious and disruptive editing over this issue of the “IEC prefixes” and he left the project. Now the same sort of editing pattern comes back under a different jet fighter name. This canvassing suggest that RaptorHunter is rather fearless, of the type that might be expected by someone who dropped in to pick up where he left off as Thunderbird2. Greg L (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not in the best spirit of editing at WP. RaptorHunter, when will you be posting similar notices so that the other 98% of OS users can have an equal chance to contribute? Drama certainly does seem to follow RaptorHunter as he moves through WP.  GFHandel.   01:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see my full response below: [61]

However neutral the message the sheer number of talk page messages should have had the canvass bells ringing in the back of your head. The policy clearly states that canvassing can be either a question of mass or of neutrality of message. There is no question that WP:CANVASS has been violated, only whether it was in good faith. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter canvassed some editors from the group, not all editors. It looks like the editors contacted were more likely to agree with RaptorHunter's point of view in the RfC. The editors were contacted only after it was obvious the RfC was not going RaptorHunter's way. I don't think good faith has been demonstrated.Glider87 (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• And now RaptorHunter flat out deleted two entire posts of mine from the page at which the RfC is being conducted (∆ here). This is escalating levels of disruption. My leaving posts on the talk pages of computer project pages of a wide variety of computer-related projects (like Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Programming_languages and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_networking) was purely and simply an effort to obtain wide input from a wide variety of broad-based, generic, computer-related projects that represent the widest possible and most inclusive set possible. As my posts there said, we needed much wider participation on the RfC to discern a proper consensus. My posts—again—were on the talk pages of the projects. That is far cry from targeting over 100 individual users of LInux knowing full well that this is precisely the opposite of what I was doing and was trying to game the system because that 1% follows a practice that RaptorHunter likes but which is soundly ignored by the entire rest of the computer industry. Greg L (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg_L was trying to unilaterally and prematurely end an RFC. This is disruptive to the RFC process, so I reverted him. If Greg_L wants to post a message telling everyone that I sent out RFC notifications, he is free to do so. However, he can't just decide to end an RFC like that. --RaptorHunter (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That is vandalism. You’ve done this three times. You are deleting signed posts that I made. Where in the world did you get the idea you may do that?? Add your own posts. Don’t dare delete a signed post of mine again. On Wikipedia, the proper response to bad speech is *better* speech if you so very much disagree with someone. Greg L (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• And now RaptorHunter flat out deleted two entire posts of mine from the page at which the RfC is being conducted (∆ here). This is escalating levels of disruption and after doing it a second time is pure vandalism. One just doesn’t delete another’s posts.

  My leaving posts on the talk pages of computer project pages of a wide variety of computer-related projects (like Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Programming_languages and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_networking) was purely and simply an effort to obtain wide input from a wide variety of broad-based, generic, computer-related projects that represent the widest possible and most inclusive set possible. As my posts there said, we needed much wider participation on the RfC to discern a proper consensus. My posts—again—were on the talk pages of the projects and were directed to very broad-based parts of the computing world. That would have brought in a wide variety of editors from all over Wikipedia’s computer-related articles so that we could discern a true, project-wide consensus rather than have an RfC with only a dozen editors that are inhabiting an obscure article.

  The above-mentioned type of generic, broad-based notices of an RfC is far cry from targeting over 100 individual users of LInux. RaptorHunter knew full well that this is precisely the opposite of what I was doing and was purely trying to game the system because that 1% he contacted follows a practice that RaptorHunter likes but which is soundly ignored by the entire rest of the computer industry.

  His targeting over a hundred individual users from such a self-serving sub-set of the computing world (the Linux and its Ubuntu subset comprising 2% and 1% respectively) was clearly by design and his protestations to that it wasn’t canvassing and votestacking aren’t in the least bit credible. He got caught and his trying to explain away such extremely focused canvassing makes no sense unless it is viewed for what it simply is. Greg L (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not contact hundreds of linux users. I contacted every member of Wikiproject: Computing and only 18 linux users. There is no inherent bias in these users groups and my messages were neutral. --RaptorHunter (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

RaptorHunter canvassed a group of editors who were more likely to agree with RaptorHunter's point of view because those editors are interested in Linux. It looks like RaptorHunter be told not to edit any talk page or article related to this topic for one week is in order, a topic ban if you like. If RaptorHunter does not comply then a global account block would appear to be in order. Glider87 (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• (To RaptorHunter re his 02:04, 11 April 2011 post): Over one hundred users individually contacted? Who does that? It’s a marathon effort. And 18% of them were specifically targeted because they were Linux and are responsible for Ubuntu, which represents something like 1% of the computer OS market. This was only an accident that you canvassed the Linux crowd? You think “random” is a plausible explanation for all that Linux??? That sort of CYA just isn’t credible; it’s obvious what you were up to. Instead of what I was trying to do (invite genuine, wide, diverse input by posting generic notices on a half-dozen or so project talk pages in order to break the logjam and finally figure out what the whole community really thinks instead of a small cabal of combatants), you feared that very outcome (lots of normal editors participating in the RfC) and tried to stack the deck in one specific way. Greg L (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked RaptorHunter for a 3RR vio on Talk:Hard disk drive -- I take no position on whether he's correct in his interpretation of the canvassing guidelines. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. His efforts to undo what he perceived as being “out of process” doesn’t seem credible. He deleted a signed post at the bottom of one section as well as a signed post and its entire section with those edits. He knew better.

  FWIW, I started that “un-advertised” RfC as a quick, informal way to seek a consensus and it grew from there. His proper remedy to my declaring that the RfC should be discontinued with my signed post would have been to make a post of his own below mine saying “Nyuh-uhh… is too valid.” He knows that.

  Please see my above rationale (00:51, 11 April 2011 post) for believing RaptorHunter is Thunderbird2, who was the prime opponent of the current MOSNUM guideline on this issue. If they are one in the same, then RaptorHunter-Thunderbird2 becomes a different matter because as T-bird, he was a single-purpose account that was exceedingly disruptive. I think he’s back. As I understand it, an admin can request a CU based on this sort of evidence. No? Greg L (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

  P.S. As User:Maunus wrote above, There is no question that WP:CANVASS has been violated, only whether it was in good faith. And User:Glider87 in his 02:21, 11 April 2011 post offered a sensible remedy to this; I ask that it be seriously considered. He wrote It looks like RaptorHunter be told not to edit any talk page or article related to this topic for one week is in order, a topic ban if you like.

  The canvassing of all those editors now must be dealt with over on the RfC. I’ve revised my post at the end of that RfC to say that it might be able to be continued if editors who had been directly contacted by RaptorHunter strike their !votes, and if the others would refrain from participating. It would be immeasurably helpful if RaptorHunter can be topic-banned for a week so that the RfC can be peaceably conducted.

  I was fully confident that a good, widely advertised RfC to the broad community would quickly settle the editwarring that RaptorHunter was employing to get his way. Whether it is editors tag-bombing articles or deleting whole sections, RfCs on whether the edits are appropriate have resolved such situations in as little as 24 hours for me. For those of us in the trenches, it’s clear that RaptorHunter saw writing on the wall once he was confronted with an RfC (no more gang of three to prevent the article from being compliant with MOSNUM) and he got darn bold in trying to undermine that process. It will take time to resolve this and it would be helpful if he stayed away until it’s done. Greg L (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• RaptorHunter sent me an email asking me to comment on the talk page debate. When I wrote in the RfC a detailed list of reasons against RaptorHunter's point of view the editor claimed because someone emailed me to comment my point of view was not valid. The editor then denied sending me an email in the first place. This is most irregular behaviour. It is difficult to assume good faith given the editor's actions. Fnagaton 06:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

  If that's the case, it's pretty blatant gaming of the system as well as partisan canvassing. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What actually happened was User:Becksguy posted a message saying that User:Fnagaton received an email about this RFC. [62] I added my own message saying that this means his vote doesn't count. [63] I think this enraged Fnagton so he started claiming the email came from me, which is completely untrue. I never emailed anyone on Wikipedia. I have tried to dispute this with the editor on his talk page, but every time I do he deletes it and calls me a liar. [64]. I asked him to post the emails, but he refuses. You can read the exchange here [65] (end of the page)

Please note that whoever sent the email, did it before the RFC even started, so It's irrelevant anyway.--RaptorHunter (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sheesh people, use common sense. Greg L is disrupting that talk page quite a lot. The decimal/binary GB distinction is a constant source of confusion among computer hard drive buyers and it would be crazy for the article to not give necessary background and explain the issue, and it's perfectly reasonable for IEC prefixes to figure into the explanation. Could we just delete MOSNUM or something, to take care of this? (That's wishful thinking of course). It's not that having a MOSNUM is a bad idea, but MOS pages seem to attract tenacious wikilawyering editors who seem to think that editing a style guide turns them WP content czars with sweeping authority over every article in the whole project. The resulting disruption (how many arb cases already?) is a complete waste of everyone's time.

  Greg L says "This attempt to use the IEC prefixes in a computer-related article is precisely what MOSNUM’s guidelines are intended to prevent." Sorry, no, MOSNUM doesn't prevent anything, it just makes suggestions. Greg L also says "We won’t have the standard handful of IEC fanatics violating the clear intent of MOSNUM." Again what we really have is MOSNUM fanatics disrupting clear writing in an article. I have no idea whether RaptorHunter is socking/canvassing but Greg L is acting dictatorial. There's an info box at the top of MOSNUM that says "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". The talkpage discussion should figure out the clearest way to present the info about hard drive capacity, and if that involves IEC prefixes, then so be it. It just means the hard drive article becomes one of the occasional exceptions-- MOSNUM does not take priority. It just says what to do if there's not a solid reason to do something differet (which there very well might be in that article). If Greg L continues this tendentious MOS battling he should probably get an edit restriction. Greg is showing extremely poor judgment. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that quacking I hear? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And with just hours to spare, peace has broken out (∆ edit). As one can see at the bottom of this perma-link to Talk:Hard disk drive, resolution is at hand. It’s like Rodney King’s “Why can’t we all just get along??” It’s quite a departure from the old routine that was quite ubiquitous on that talk page lately. Greg L (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Having gotten some sleep since writing it, I see that my post above was a more aggressive towards Greg L than it really should have been, which I regret. But, having read the article talkpage, this still looks to me like a content dispute in which MOSNUM is being used as a wikilawyering device. Greg L doesn't seem to like the term "gibibyte" in explanations about hard drive capacity (specifically, why the capacity marked on the box differs from the capacity reported by OS software). It's true that general computer publications taken in the aggregate don't use the term very much, but focusing on the narrow topic in question, numerous RS's on the topic do use the term. I posted some cites and further comments on the article talk page. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I contacted every member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing then started going through the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linux (only 18 - not hundreds). My RFC notice was unbiased and neutral. You can read an example of it here [66]. There is no inherent bias in contacting member of computing or linux. Both would be interested in Binary prefixes. I do not think it follows that because Ubuntu uses binary prefixes, that any member of WikiProject_linux, would vote one way or the other. I am simply bringing more voices into a stalled RFC.

I would like to state that I never intended to violate WP:CANVASS. No where in that guideline is there written a maximum number of messages you can send out. What I thought was reasonable, others have labelled as "extreme". I thought that as long as I wasn't using a bot it wouldn't count as "mass posting". In fact, I posted every message manually. Of all those messages I sent out, only 3 people have actually contributed to the RFC: [67] [68][69] (all in the computing project) None of the linux users have responded yet. To me, this shows that notifications were reasonable. If this was somehow a problem, I would have stopped when told. But not one of the users I posted messages too have complained. The only complaint was this noticeboard incident from the most vocal users on the other side of the debate. I would like to remind everyone that User:Greg_L has been posting RFC notices on a whole slew of different WikiProjects as you can see here in his contribution history [70] For example he contacted Wikipedia:WikiProject_Apple. The apple OS does NOT use binary prefixes and has many more users than any of the linux OS's. This whole incident report is nothing but hyperbole.

--RaptorHunter (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Underneath all this is a messy, long-term, very lame content dispute that affects quite a lot of articles. I've gotten sucked into it now (on the "include the prefixes" side, following books I located) but I'm trying to run away. There's been an insane amount of debate on related MOS pages (index of 12 archived talkpages of madness) and the current issue is an attempt to enforce MOS on the hard drive article (the RFC asks mostly the wrong question, namely whether certain phrasing "violates" the MOS) but this just seems like a localized outbreak, out of many past and presumably future. The amount of obsessive-compulsiveness over the MOS is making it impossible to straightforwardly edit a not-that-complicated subject that there's no real factual disputes about. Several related articles are also somewhat screwed up about this not-exactly-earth-shattering issue. An earlier user RFC about Greg L is here. Greg continues (IMO) to show ownership issues. I don't think there's much for ANI to do right now, but it's not a pretty situation and will probably keep recurring and some drastic remedy may eventually be needed. For the immediate issue, Ruud Koot's comments on the talk page seem like about the most sensible to me. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the 66.175.205.171 probably deserves a block for this edit summary and various other nonsense e.g. edit warring at New Israel Fund, an article covered by sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I left a single notice warning, but I agree this editor needs a timeout. Basket of Puppies 06:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked for edit warring but, if doug doesn't mind, I'll add a sub-note about civility. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

...to which the user responded in an unsatisfactory way. Let's see if a note from me makes any impression. <shrug>. - Philippe 06:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI -- at this point in time, non-admins can't see what the edit summary is that you are referring to.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a very vile PA, without a doubt it was correct to censor it. Passionless -Talk 07:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep -- I now know what it was. I would be supportive of this IP being blocked simply for the outrageous nature of his edit summary. If it doesn't happen now, I predict further disruption will follow and necessitate it, in very short order. Not even a close call, here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sean -- unless someone beats you to it by blocking the IP permanently, you may want to leave mention of this AN/I at his talkpage. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I notified him when I posted it here. He deleted it. He would probably benefit from wearing mittens to avoid harming himself or others. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This person is not new to this. See the range contribs from 66.175.200.0/21. –MuZemike 07:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

From the nonsense on his talk page and edit summaries now I'd say it's just trolling :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He may be back as Special:Contributions/66.175.201.175. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

After doing a little bit of research, this is banned user EverybodyHatesChris (talk · contribs). I am blocking 66.175.200.0/21 for 1 year. –MuZemike 06:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That guy's still around? I remember him giving me rubbish way back when I was a new admin. Still hasn't gotten bored with us, I guess. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Talknic is a new editor. I first encountered him when he inserted a google maps overlay he made [71] and some OR and editorializing based on primary sources [72] (see paragraph 7 and onwards) into an article. I tried to explain WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR to him several times (here (notice the subject) and repeatedly all over Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War). I suggested that he consult with other editors and pointed him to the helpdesk and WP:DR [73] [74] [75] [76] but to no avail. He continues to argue endlessly about policy and guidelines he just refuses to get (see, again, pretty much the whole of Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War), occasionally making inappropriate edits (eg here where what he put in the article can't even be inferred from the primary source he's using, not to mention the extra text he put between the ref tags) eventually making this edit which not only misrepresents the source he's using (the first one), but was done after the problem was explained to him on the talk page, specifically here (full discussion here), and his proposed edit received no support. All the articles he edits are Arab-Israeli conflict related and are under discretionary sanctions.

I don't feel like arguing endlessly with this editor. He often posts walls of text that are uncivil if not outright belligerent. I certainly don't want to edit war with him to remove inappropriate content. I think a mentor could solve the problem. Any other options/suggestions? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks for Talknic:

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

He has already been notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA, after an April 1 report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive154#User:Talknic reported by User:No More Mr Nice Guy (Result: Notified of discretionary sanctions). Consider opening an WP:RFC at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War to resolve the content issue. If a clear consensus is reached on Talk and he refuses to accept it, then you might have a reason for admins to take a look. If you have a question about quality of sourcing for the claim being made, you could raise it at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If it were an issue of one source or one discussion I wouldn't have brought it here. Have a look at the whole talk page or in fact all his conrtibs. There aren't that many. This editor needs guidance. He can either get some now or get blocked later. I think the former is preferable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous user 24.1.69.247 persists in reverting the article ipad 2 to a version which contains unsourced material placed their originally by him (or her). This is in spite of myself and 3 other editors removing it as unsourced (and probably also WP:OR and in spite of warnings being posted on his talk page.

Original placement of unsourced material

1

Subsequent reversion of unsourced material after deletion:

2 3 4

The article was then protected as a direct result of this persistent reversion, after the expiry of which the reversion of the unsourced material started again:

5 6

In view of this editors less than satisfactory edit history here, I feel a better solution would be to block this editor. 86.181.51.84 (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

most of this ip's edits consists of making the claim that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) was the first animated feature film (it was not), deleting entries predating it from List of animated feature films, etc. the edits to The Legend of Zelda (video game) appear similarly incorrect. user talk had a last warning, so i figured i'll bring it to your attention. cheers, k kisses 12:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like Bambifan is back --Blackmane (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I could use some help here. An editor (who seems to be involved with the subject, given their username) is editing this article on a school in a way that is not compatible with our guidelines--there's incorrect wikilinking, incorrect references, problems with the manual of style, non-neutral text, directory information, an extensive link farm, BLP violations with "notable people" that aren't notable or even verified, etc. etc. I've reverted once or twice already and don't want to get into an edit war. I've tried to explain on their talk page and in edit summaries; they are uncommunicative and for the most part blindly revert to an earlier version. I don't doubt they are of good will, but they are not listening, and the article in its current state can't stand. Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough; perhaps one of you can help out here. I'm not sure if admin intervention per se is required at this stage, but this could get ugly and I'm trying to prevent that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) keeps creating wikipedia articles based on publications from Billy Hathorn. I nominated three unnotable articles for deletion (here, here and here). In each one I've added tags and voiced my concerns about the contradicting sources, missing sources and so on, but have never received a reply back. Instead, Billy (the creator) of the articles keeps citing himself and removing tags without explanation.

For example, concerning the fact that two sources contradict one another I put the tag here, and when it got removed I again put it here. I posted the issues on the talk page here: Talk:Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary.

The creator the article's response was to remove the tags without comment and cite his own article. (His name is Billy Hathorn and the article he cited four times is "Austin Toliver Powers" by Billy Hathorn. It's the same article cited by himself in related articles like L. L. Clover (out of 19 foonotes, 10 are his).

To save an article from deletion, he lists the subject's books and citing himself three times (Hathorn adds Hathorn, "Powers and Clover.") I'd also like to point out there is no evidence of these books on google books.

If an editor cited himself a few times and was willing to talk about it that's one thing, but...

He has only published what appears to be three articles in local history papers, but has cited his publications in these articles: Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, Earl Williamson, A. T. Powers, L. L. Clover, Barbara Staff, Robert L. Frye, John Tower, Ray Barnhart, Don W. Williamson, Tedford Williamson, American Baptist Association, Crane, Texas, James M. Collins, Tom Craddick, Frank Kell Cahoon, James A. McClure, John Grenier, Mangum, Oklahoma, Port Lavaca, Texas, Henderson, Texas, John N. Leedom, Sheridan, Arkansas, Jimmy G. Tharpe, Little Rock, Arkansas, Ernest Angelo, Somerset, Kentucky, Winthrop Rockefeller, Hot Springs, Arkansas, Jesse Helms, Plano, Texas, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Taylor W. O'Hearn, Sam H. Jones, DeLesseps Story Morrison, Orval Faubus, Edwin Edwards, Albert Estopinal, he even cites himself on other people's alumni pages here List of University of North Texas alumni and List of Southern Methodist University people. (Click on those and look for "Billy Hathorn.")

For those of you keeping track, that's nearly 50 articles he's cited his own three publications on wikipedia. That's just what I've found, there may be more. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In 2006, for example he cited one reference in Edwin Edwards, which was his own MA thesis. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the venue you want is the Reliable sources noticeboard. It doesn't particularly matter if Billy's citing a publication he's written if it's considered a reliable source. It's not like he's hiding anything. 28bytes (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, repeatedly removing cleanup tags without any discussion (even ones which aren't specifically about lack of reliable sources, such as the removal of {{contradict}} where the contradition was clearly explained on talk) is problematic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would think that this would need to be checked into because of COI. Maybe at the coi board to see what they say there? I'm not sure to be honest but this can look almost like spamming. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a genuine professor at a community college. I guess he is doing research on some pretty obscure topics, so it's natural that when writing about them on Wikipedia he has to cite himself. Whether he has crossed any line while doing so can of course be discussed at WP:COI/N, but I hope he won't get bitten more than necessary. Just citing one's own books is not necessarily a crime in itself. Hans Adler 11:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there seems to be a long-term problem. Apparently the editor can't comply with our notability rules. [77] But I am not sure that the COI angle is helpful. Hans Adler 11:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember where it is, but we have an explicit policy statement permitting authors of reliable sources to cite their own works. There's nothing wrong with authors of reliable sources using their own published work here. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're thinking of something else, it's less policy than guideline: Wikipedia:COI#Citing_oneself. :) But it does note that "Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged", and HHaeyyn89 makes a good point that he should be willing to talk about it. More worrisome is the removal of tags without discussion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not thinking of that page; I wish I could remember what I do want. Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution#Citing yourself, maybe? 28bytes (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research used to have a similar section, but it's since been removed. 28bytes (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? I'm not an admin; what does it expect me to do about it? HalfShadow 17:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Same here. GiantSnowman 17:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's Template:AIVBacklog Notice which is transcluded here. You could have just said that instead of making a snapshot and uploading it.--Atlan (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't know, would I? I don't do coding. HalfShadow 17:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could have pressed the little "v" in the template. :)--Atlan (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think my point stands; non-admins shouldn't be seeing it all. Can anyone fix that? HalfShadow 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you've been promoted (or demoted) to admin and they forgot to tell you? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just a regular template. The fact that you saw it here for the first time is because the backlog was unusually large. The template has been set to show up at 8000 bytes or more for quite some time. Don't worry about it.--Atlan (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

At any rate, it's not doing it now. Must have been some backstage work going on. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the backlog is sufficiently cleared now for the template not to show up here anymore.--Atlan (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

For the past several weeks, 114.134.82.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been radically reformatting several articles in succession despite multiple reverts and requests posted to his talk page to not use the particular formatting he has been using (unnecessarily bolding items, utilizing the HTML line break, utilizing hyphens instead of colons). I do not know how else to convey the concept that his edits are not welcome on these pages. Yesterday I reported him to AIV, but that clearly was not the proper option because he was still editing this morning. I have just given him a final warning template, but I doubt that that will do anything. He may be the only IP editor on these pages, but there are at least a dozen pages in question that he's been editing (all of which are in his edit history for the past couple of weeks).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is he editing against any particular consensus or just against what you like? There is nothing obviously wrong with his edits. Egg Centric 20:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(Note - this is not intended as a criticism of your position so much as a criticism of how you laid out your complaint, if you see what I mean - us uninvolved editors who will never understand anime and similar perversions (:P) ain't gonna know the particular layout rules you're using. I would be astonished if you're not correct that you have consensus behind you, given that, well, you're you - but I would prefer it to be clearer why in this complaint. Egg Centric 20:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no established style guide for these articles, but the formats he is using are used nowhere else on the English Wikipedia (at least not after myself and several other editors attempted to unify the formatting of these articles a few years ago). He has been directly asked to not use these particular formatting styles (as explained to him at User talk:114.134.82.136#Formatting), but he persists in reformatting several articles in succession to these unprofessional formats.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is something obviously wrong with his edits: they're contrary to both the prescribed style guidelines in the MoS, and the existing styles used on the pages in question (which editors are admonished not to arbitrarily change without discussion). If the user is completely unresponsive to requests to at least discuss the changes in question you've got to question his competence to edit in a collaborative environment. Of course in the end there is the question of why it is worth going to the bother of dealing with this when the editor is involved solely in the basic copyediting of various anime articles, which are at the bottom of Wikipedia's exceedingly deep barrel quality-wise. You'd think we would need all the help we can get, even if some of it is idiosyncratic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the subject of the articles, the actions of the IP are overall unhelpful. While he has attempted to introduce improvements to the prose, it is almost impossible to incorporate them when he consistently changes the formatting of the page into a form that it existed in 2006.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We're having one of those dreaded nationally motivated naming wars again, and it's been breaking links and redirects. This time it's over Tenedos vs. Bozcaada (historically preferred English name vs. current official Turkish name). The page had been at Tenedos for four or five years (after repeated move debates in 2005/2006), but was moved without prior consensus today. Since the intended Bozcaada is protected and had a page history, the editor chose to move to the non-standard spelling variant Bozca Ada instead. This has left the actually intended Bozcaada as a non-fixable broken double redirect. The old title Tenedos is now also scorched, so the page can't be moved back without admin help.

To fix the broken redirects and allow a regular move discussion to proceed, can an uninvolved administrator please either (a) move the page back to the status quo ante, (b) move the page to the actually intended target Bozcaada (overriding protection), or (c) at least fix the broken double redirect at Bozcaada? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, I think I got it all. I didn't leave a redirect at Bozca Ada and deleted Bozccaada too (which had been used part way through the move). I have no idea whether those are plausible redirects, they can be easily recreated if they are. Does it need short move protection? Or will things be discussed? --Errant ^(chat!) 21:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Redirects from "Bozca Ada" and "Bozca ada" do make sense (from Bozccaada not so much). I hope we can have a peaceful discussion now, but of course I can't speak for those editors who'll now be unhappy with the status quo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Whats the current thing to do for accounts that are most likely sleeper accounts waiting for their 4 days to pass? See Fornakki (talk · contribs). Thanks--Jac16888^Talk 22:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Notified Fornakki of this discussion. Hobit (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) keeps creating wikipedia articles based on publications from Billy Hathorn. I nominated three unnotable articles for deletion (here, here and here). In each one I've added tags and voiced my concerns about the contradicting sources, missing sources and so on, but have never received a reply back. Instead, Billy (the creator) of the articles keeps citing himself and removing tags without explanation.

For example, concerning the fact that two sources contradict one another I put the tag here, and when it got removed I again put it here. I posted the issues on the talk page here: Talk:Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary.

The creator the article's response was to remove the tags without comment and cite his own article. (His name is Billy Hathorn and the article he cited four times is "Austin Toliver Powers" by Billy Hathorn. It's the same article cited by himself in related articles like L. L. Clover (out of 19 foonotes, 10 are his).

To save an article from deletion, he lists the subject's books and citing himself three times (Hathorn adds Hathorn, "Powers and Clover.") I'd also like to point out there is no evidence of these books on google books.

If an editor cited himself a few times and was willing to talk about it that's one thing, but...

He has only published what appears to be three articles in local history papers, but has cited his publications in these articles: Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, Earl Williamson, A. T. Powers, L. L. Clover, Barbara Staff, Robert L. Frye, John Tower, Ray Barnhart, Don W. Williamson, Tedford Williamson, American Baptist Association, Crane, Texas, James M. Collins, Tom Craddick, Frank Kell Cahoon, James A. McClure, John Grenier, Mangum, Oklahoma, Port Lavaca, Texas, Henderson, Texas, John N. Leedom, Sheridan, Arkansas, Jimmy G. Tharpe, Little Rock, Arkansas, Ernest Angelo, Somerset, Kentucky, Winthrop Rockefeller, Hot Springs, Arkansas, Jesse Helms, Plano, Texas, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Taylor W. O'Hearn, Sam H. Jones, DeLesseps Story Morrison, Orval Faubus, Edwin Edwards, Albert Estopinal, he even cites himself on other people's alumni pages here List of University of North Texas alumni and List of Southern Methodist University people. (Click on those and look for "Billy Hathorn.")

For those of you keeping track, that's nearly 50 articles he's cited his own three publications on wikipedia. That's just what I've found, there may be more. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In 2006, for example he cited one reference in Edwin Edwards, which was his own MA thesis. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the venue you want is the Reliable sources noticeboard. It doesn't particularly matter if Billy's citing a publication he's written if it's considered a reliable source. It's not like he's hiding anything. 28bytes (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, repeatedly removing cleanup tags without any discussion (even ones which aren't specifically about lack of reliable sources, such as the removal of {{contradict}} where the contradition was clearly explained on talk) is problematic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would think that this would need to be checked into because of COI. Maybe at the coi board to see what they say there? I'm not sure to be honest but this can look almost like spamming. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a genuine professor at a community college. I guess he is doing research on some pretty obscure topics, so it's natural that when writing about them on Wikipedia he has to cite himself. Whether he has crossed any line while doing so can of course be discussed at WP:COI/N, but I hope he won't get bitten more than necessary. Just citing one's own books is not necessarily a crime in itself. Hans Adler 11:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there seems to be a long-term problem. Apparently the editor can't comply with our notability rules. [78] But I am not sure that the COI angle is helpful. Hans Adler 11:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember where it is, but we have an explicit policy statement permitting authors of reliable sources to cite their own works. There's nothing wrong with authors of reliable sources using their own published work here. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're thinking of something else, it's less policy than guideline: Wikipedia:COI#Citing_oneself. :) But it does note that "Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged", and HHaeyyn89 makes a good point that he should be willing to talk about it. More worrisome is the removal of tags without discussion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not thinking of that page; I wish I could remember what I do want. Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution#Citing yourself, maybe? 28bytes (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research used to have a similar section, but it's since been removed. 28bytes (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? I'm not an admin; what does it expect me to do about it? HalfShadow 17:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Same here. GiantSnowman 17:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's Template:AIVBacklog Notice which is transcluded here. You could have just said that instead of making a snapshot and uploading it.--Atlan (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't know, would I? I don't do coding. HalfShadow 17:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could have pressed the little "v" in the template. :)--Atlan (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think my point stands; non-admins shouldn't be seeing it all. Can anyone fix that? HalfShadow 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you've been promoted (or demoted) to admin and they forgot to tell you? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just a regular template. The fact that you saw it here for the first time is because the backlog was unusually large. The template has been set to show up at 8000 bytes or more for quite some time. Don't worry about it.--Atlan (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

At any rate, it's not doing it now. Must have been some backstage work going on. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the backlog is sufficiently cleared now for the template not to show up here anymore.--Atlan (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A user (User:Miacek) keeps reverting my edits in the article A Word to the People. Is he supposed to do that without any explanation? He also put a sign to my user page saying, I am suspected of being a "sockpuppet" of some Dodo19. --Hilderich (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's probably because you  Likely are a sockpuppet of Dodo19. TNXMan 18:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What's that suppose to mean? I make some edits and immediately this Miacek turns up and reverts everything, not just the mistakes. What is a sockpuppet anyways? --Hilderich (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) hi, please refer to [79]. It's this extremely odious vandal, sock puppeteer and troll again, this time trying to introduce some factual errors, apart from usual additions of frivolous tags (e.g. {clarify} tag for 'citizens of the country', whereas its quite obvious that it can be nothing else than the USSR/Russia). I suggest we (1) have this account blocked (2) initiate a discussion on formally banning User:Dodo19 with all of his re-incarnations (he's just indef blocked right now). Given the amount of disruption all of his sock puppets cause, this is long overdue. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see Hilderich has now put in a report on Miacek at WP:ANEW. For someone whose account is only around an hour old, they seem to know the noticeboard system surprisingly well... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you surprised about that? Wikipedia has been around for TEN YEARS now. Somebody might have heard a thing or two about this website, you know? --Hilderich (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But certainly not enough to know where the heck everything is within an hour of signing up for the first time. People generally don't talk about Wikipedia dispute resolution unless it's ArbCom and, more specifically, WP:ARBSCI. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Tell me then, what is that thingy on top for? --Hilderich (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone might just show the door to this Herr. Btw, is there a need to initiate a separate thread on banning him, too, or shall we start finding a consensus here and now? (Evidence is overwhelming, anyway). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe start with an SPI to formally link the accounts? If you can show repeated block evasion, it'll make your case stronger. GiantSnowman 18:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like there's one already open. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, fantastic - but it hasn't linked these two accounts together. GiantSnowman 18:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

'Constnaz' has been established as Dodo19's sock, see [80]. The account 'Dodo19' itself was blocked so many months ago that there are likely no direct CU data available for that account.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But I thought the issue here was the (potential) link between Dodo19 and Hilderich - which the SPI doesn't show... GiantSnowman 19:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dodo19 = Constnaz, per CU results (run by Tnxman307), Hilderich is likely Constnaz (=Dodo19). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right, sorry - I thought the "likely" was Dodo19 to Constnaz, not Hilderich to Constnaz. Apologies for being so slow :) GiantSnowman 19:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Better luck next time Hilderich. Maybe try not to be so obvious next time? Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 19:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

SPI seems conclusive, so I've blocked Hilderich indef. Favonian (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You swung your Hilderich & Bradsby and knocked that fly out of park. d:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

For the past several weeks, 114.134.82.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been radically reformatting several articles in succession despite multiple reverts and requests posted to his talk page to not use the particular formatting he has been using (unnecessarily bolding items, utilizing the HTML line break, utilizing hyphens instead of colons). I do not know how else to convey the concept that his edits are not welcome on these pages. Yesterday I reported him to AIV, but that clearly was not the proper option because he was still editing this morning. I have just given him a final warning template, but I doubt that that will do anything. He may be the only IP editor on these pages, but there are at least a dozen pages in question that he's been editing (all of which are in his edit history for the past couple of weeks).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is he editing against any particular consensus or just against what you like? There is nothing obviously wrong with his edits. Egg Centric 20:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(Note - this is not intended as a criticism of your position so much as a criticism of how you laid out your complaint, if you see what I mean - us uninvolved editors who will never understand anime and similar perversions (:P) ain't gonna know the particular layout rules you're using. I would be astonished if you're not correct that you have consensus behind you, given that, well, you're you - but I would prefer it to be clearer why in this complaint. Egg Centric 20:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no established style guide for these articles, but the formats he is using are used nowhere else on the English Wikipedia (at least not after myself and several other editors attempted to unify the formatting of these articles a few years ago). He has been directly asked to not use these particular formatting styles (as explained to him at User talk:114.134.82.136#Formatting), but he persists in reformatting several articles in succession to these unprofessional formats.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is something obviously wrong with his edits: they're contrary to both the prescribed style guidelines in the MoS, and the existing styles used on the pages in question (which editors are admonished not to arbitrarily change without discussion). If the user is completely unresponsive to requests to at least discuss the changes in question you've got to question his competence to edit in a collaborative environment. Of course in the end there is the question of why it is worth going to the bother of dealing with this when the editor is involved solely in the basic copyediting of various anime articles, which are at the bottom of Wikipedia's exceedingly deep barrel quality-wise. You'd think we would need all the help we can get, even if some of it is idiosyncratic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the subject of the articles, the actions of the IP are overall unhelpful. While he has attempted to introduce improvements to the prose, it is almost impossible to incorporate them when he consistently changes the formatting of the page into a form that it existed in 2006.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

209.65.95.130 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This user continues to make disruptive edits despite there being a consensus per WT:MMA about making sure we keep the the MoS. This editor makes small (seemingly innocuous) changes that don't seem like a big deal but require constant undoing based on consensus. Editor has also added things from time to time that are purely disruptive.

Diffs from the past few days:

[81] - against MoS
[82] - disruptive edit
[83] - against MoS
[84] - against MoS

Admittedly, some of his edits look very "content dispute"ish, which I did not include in this ANI, but this editor has also been warned and blocked previously (per his talk page) and looks to be just continuing the trend of behaviour that's gotten him warned and blocked before. I'd appreciate if someone looked into this. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 20:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't see a need for administrator's intervention here. Are these edits vandalism? One or two, maybe, are disruptive (like the one you so labeled above), but vandalism, no. And I don't see much of a slew of warnings for vandalism either. Those edits you claim are "against MoS"--does the MoS specify that "punches" is not to be capitalized? And has this been explained to the IP? Were they ever provided with a welcome template with some guidelines? Drmies (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I never said they were vandalism, I'm not sure where you got that word. I didn't claim the IP to be a vandal or that these edits I provided were vandalism. The welcome message you just put on his page, so I guess that takes care of that issue. The MoS for WP:MMA does, in fact, say that we shouldn't capitalize things like "punches" and even has an example of it here. But, in case no one clicks on the link, I'll quote the exact line: (In the column Method, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), do not capitalize the text within parentheses. For example, use "TKO (corner stoppage)" instead of "TKO (Corner Stoppage)"). As for explaining this to the IP, when I looked at his talk page and saw ClueBot NG had reverted his changes as perceived "vandalism" on a few occasions, the IP has already been referred to the sandbox by another editor plus ClueBot NG, the IP was warned to stop disruptive edits by another editor (LOL), and then was actually blocked by admin HJ Mitchell all in March.... then was hounded by ClueBot NG again already 4 times this month in a matter of 12 days....... I must admit, I tend to see these things and not assume good faith. I assumed any attempt by me to contact this IP would have been ignored so I figured I would let an admin look into this. Anyway..... I guess I'll just keep trying to revert his disruptive edits and hopefully ClueBot NG will take care of the others I can't get to. Thanks for your time. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 00:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We're having one of those dreaded nationally motivated naming wars again, and it's been breaking links and redirects. This time it's over Tenedos vs. Bozcaada (historically preferred English name vs. current official Turkish name). The page had been at Tenedos for four or five years (after repeated move debates in 2005/2006), but was moved without prior consensus today. Since the intended Bozcaada is protected and had a page history, the editor chose to move to the non-standard spelling variant Bozca Ada instead. This has left the actually intended Bozcaada as a non-fixable broken double redirect. The old title Tenedos is now also scorched, so the page can't be moved back without admin help.

To fix the broken redirects and allow a regular move discussion to proceed, can an uninvolved administrator please either (a) move the page back to the status quo ante, (b) move the page to the actually intended target Bozcaada (overriding protection), or (c) at least fix the broken double redirect at Bozcaada? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, I think I got it all. I didn't leave a redirect at Bozca Ada and deleted Bozccaada too (which had been used part way through the move). I have no idea whether those are plausible redirects, they can be easily recreated if they are. Does it need short move protection? Or will things be discussed? --Errant ^(chat!) 21:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Redirects from "Bozca Ada" and "Bozca ada" do make sense (from Bozccaada not so much). I hope we can have a peaceful discussion now, but of course I can't speak for those editors who'll now be unhappy with the status quo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Whats the current thing to do for accounts that are most likely sleeper accounts waiting for their 4 days to pass? See Fornakki (talk · contribs). Thanks--Jac16888^Talk 22:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Notified Fornakki of this discussion. Hobit (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Where to begin. As you can see on the talk page after every edit the user is warned for something or another. WP:COMPETENCE is required and i do not feel that this user is willing to learn from their mistakes, she/he just does whatever they please. User has violated WP:EDITWAR, WP:GF, and sockpuppetry. "Bitch i did. I listed a SOURCE to the cover, licensed it and everything. So STFU. :/" is in no way acceptable. As seen here I Wanna Go the user has violated Suckpuppetry and edit warning. The IP address Special:Contributions/69.14.99.128 is the same user and they will log in and out to avoid a 3RR block and will edit war to get their way. I am tired of dealing with this user and im putting it into admin hands now. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I read WP:NFCC, and I couldn't find anything that was wrong. And on the other hand I'm bipolar and I flip out sometimes. Second of all, How did I violate sockpuppetry? I forgot to log in. I'm not using proxy or anything. And lastly, I have the right to freedom of speech where I live, and somebody telling me I can't say that is truly sad. Nickyp88 (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC "3a)Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." and "8)Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Im not the only user whos removed it, you would know that if you read previous edits that day. And you constantly log in and out, there is no way this is a simple mistake and i can prove it.

• Edit one as IP.
• Edit two as Nicky
• Edit three as IP. over a 24 hour period. There is no way you are just forgetting to log in, there is a giant notice telling you that you are logged out when you edit. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I must have cleared my history. I clear it often, which removes my login information. I'm not lying. I would not intentionally log out to edit, thats just ridiculous. Nickyp88 (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Nickyp88: Not getting involved, as I'm not particularly active anymore, but your freedom of speech is not applicable on Wikipedia. We are not Congress and can shut you up whenever we choose. Read WP:FREE for more info. --auburnpilot talk 02:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

See here. I can't be bothered to file a SPI—too much paperwork. The admin who indef'd Lanternix seems gone. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article Naperville, Illinois and it's talk page was just vandalized 12 times in the last 24 hours by a pair of IP's at the same location (Washington U)

9 times by 128.252.255.129, 3 times by 128.252.255.132.

The latter also just modified/corrupted the standard vandalism note that editor Jsharpminor put on their (.132) talk page to say: ".......Your edits appear to constitute awesomeness and have been a good contribution. If you would like to experiment, please use the drugs" (Just to repeat, Jsharpminor was the victim, not the perpetrator of the modification/corruption)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

They just did it again, this time corrupting what I wrote into jibberish. Suggest short term block, including from their talk page. North8000 (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked .132 and semi-ed Naperville for a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Several edits by WP:VOA account Goodoman69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and IP 203.100.244.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Penleigh and Essendon Grammar School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) have the appearance of cyberbullying on individuals who may be currently enrolled and underage students at the school. I'd like to ask for those edits to be WP:REVDEL'ed according to criterion WP:RD#2.

The specific edits that I'd suggest to be deleted are:

[[85]], [[86]], [[87]], [[88]], [[89]], [[90]], [[91]], [[92]]

As for Goodoman69 and the IP, their edits have been undone and they've both been warned. I'll leave it to you to decide on whether anything further needs to be done, particularly as the IP's activities seem to have dropped off since. I'm informing them of this report now, not that I expect that they'll contribute to any discussion. -danjel (talk to me) 02:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In general, best to see WP:OVERSIGHT and request action by email (they will know what to do if there is a mismatch between their powers and what is required), rather than mentioning things here where extra coverage is ensured. However, since it's here, best to leave it here until it's dealt with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

True, but the people looking at it here aren't the target audience for the cyber bullying so I'm not so worried about coverage.

I actually think that, perhaps, we (and specifically we at WP:WPSCH) need to think about a specific policy in regards to cyber bullying. A large number of the instances of vandalism to school pages target particular students (i.e., cyber bullying), and we need a better reaction to it than reverts and warnings. They actually really need to be stamped out and removed.

Noted, in regards to WP:OVERSIGHT for the future. -danjel (talk to me) 07:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume that we don't routinely contact the schools themselves over this sort of thing? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As a teacher, I wouldn't mind if wikipedia contacted us regarding instances of cyber bullying, but I'd have no idea how wikipedia, being largely run by volunteers would do it. I know what we would do once we had that information, but, acting on IP's and that sort of thing alone? Difficult.

Students are told to report issues, and we follow it up with organisations if necessary. I know of only one instance of a cyber bullying issue involving wikipedia being dealt with by the schools I work with though. -danjel (talk to me) 09:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Goodoman69 blocked, revisions deleted. The IP should probably be dealt with as well, since it looks like a fairly stable one with little-to-no useful edits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm is probably a good guide to use for cyber-bullying. If these edits were threatening (since deleted so I can't see them), emailing the Foundation at "emergency﹫wikimedia.org" is probably a good idea. I know schools usually would at least want to keep a record of this if anything further developed, and if these edits were threatening then the local authorities nowadays in the US do not treat them lightly at all. I have no idea how authorities in Australia respond to these, but that probably would be best for the Foundation to decide. --64.85.215.180 (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The above looks all resolved now, but incidentally there has for some time been a draft at User:Timtrent/Cyberbullying that could use input regarding this topic. This is the "strong view" on how to react to cyberbullying - there is discussion on its talk page about some of the issues with it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

178.32.48.228 (talk · contribs) is running around spamming an article about an nn bio to Talk pages all over Wikipedia, and promises to continue. Not just the spamming, but they're putting article categories into User space. Corvus cornix_talk 03:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it got blocked.  :) - Philippe 07:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A while back, I tagged File:7 RAR Vietnam (AWM EKN-67-0130-VN).jpg with a {{watermark}} tag. User:Nick-D reverted the edit with a reason, and I didn't notice it until recently, and tagged it again likewise. User:Keraunoscopia removed the watermark, but reuploaded the image with the watermark. I then noticed the following line in the page:

The AWM requires that the AWM watermark is not removed from images sourced from its online database. Higher resolution versions of this image may be ordered through the AWM Website at www.awm.gov.au.

So now i'm ridiculously confused. I've been lead to believe that Wikipedia (and Wikicommons) frowns upon watermarked images and to seek out non-watermarked images whenever possible, yet there is....this. Can someone clear up my confusion about this? Like, would this sorta thing be allowed on Wikipedia in the first place, or is it a violation of policy?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

For free-use images, watermarks are discouraged – they are unsightly and their terms of use allow it. When the image is being used under fair use, however, it's different (afaik). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I was confused about this as well. After removing the watermark and uploading the new version, I only then noticed the terms in the licensing section (I now read these first before proceeding with any work). I went to the Australian War Memorial website (linked as the source of the image), found the copyright page, and then posted this question at the Help Desk, but because it's somewhat of a legal matter, it was suggested I take it to WP:MCQ. I did not follow through since I simply decided I would make the personal choice to not remove war memorial watermarks from this point forth. I did remove one piece of the watermark on the far left: the website address. I did not remove the war memorial stamp. Sort of a compromise, I suppose, but I can't deny that I'm not curious about what the correct way to move forward with this is. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that I believe this discussion is irrelevant to the purposes of the incident notice board, since there was no incident requiring administrative intervention. This question is most likely suited to the Help Desk or, as was suggested to me and mentioned above, WP:MCQ. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons does not allow fair-use images, period. WP allows fair-use images when the image is important and no free replacement is possible. That watermark is butt-ugly so I'd ask myself if the image is editorially absolutely necessary for the article. If not, I'd remove it altogether and submit it to WP:IFD (images for deletion). WP is not a marketing venue for commercial images, and it has too many images anyway. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this issue would be better handled elsewhere. For what it's worth, the AWM seems to have dropped the requirement on its website that watermarks not be removed from images taken from its collection database since I uploaded this image (presumably as part of what appears to be an initiate to become more Wikipedia-friendly which included them explicitly labeling which of their photos was and wasn't PD). However, as this is covered by copyright and was uploaded on a fair use basis, it seems to me that the watermark should be left on the image as a) removing it constitutes modifying the image, which is problematic for a non-PD fair use image and b) retaining the watermark is a courtesy to the AWM as it clearly marks this image as being its property and includes the AWM's reference number for the photo. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Nick, for clearing this bit, but what about IWM? Concurrently, I'm facing the same problem of watermark with uploading IWM images for re-use here and I've been notified on a number of occasions that they are in need of having them watermarks removed. Honestly, is there a better idea/solution to this confusing mess? Thoughts, anyone? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If you remove the watermark then by definition you lose the additional rights granted to you by the copyright holder in the license. As such, you fall back to your statuatory rights, which include fair use. So either we host the image with the watermark and add a license tag explaining exactly what users can and cannot do with it, or we chop the watermark and use it under fair use. In any case it is far better if we look for free use images. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Landalva is a new contributor who started two articles, Adarsh_shreeramleela_samiti_khanpur_ghazipur and Dussehara. There have been many problems with these articles relating to content, lack of sourcing, POV, style/tone and similar matters - the whole gamut, in all likelihood, of issues that could possibly arise.

On several occasions myself or others have made changes and introduced maintenance tags, eg; [96] and [97]. On every occasion, the additions from contributors other than Landalva have been reverted by Landalva.

There have been attempts to communicate on Landalva's talk page, as well as warnings being issued for 3RR, removal of templates, failure to use edit summaries etc. Each attempt at dialogue has met with no response.

This situation is a mess and is not specifically a content dispute or vandalism. I would appreciate thoughts on how to deal with it because it would appear that the contributor is beginning to expand the number of articles s/he is creating, eg: Khanpur_Saidpur,Ghazipur and Narad-Moh - the issues already present seem to me likely to appear on these newer articles. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, the user has already received a last warning, and continued with behavior. This included a edit war warning, and continual removal of tags. Wouldn't it be grounds for a short block if the user does not respond and comply?

We definitely want to know if the user is acknowledging the warnings. Croben (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been no acknowledgement at any point. And there have been further reverts of tags, POV fixes etc today, which is a good few hours after their last warning. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've indef blocked until such point as the user makes it apparent that he is willing to work in cooperation with others. Happy to lift if and when that happens. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll go back into the articles later and fix the relevant bits, but not right now because I do not want to seem to the blocked user as if I have gamed the system. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A while back, I tagged File:7 RAR Vietnam (AWM EKN-67-0130-VN).jpg with a {{watermark}} tag. User:Nick-D reverted the edit with a reason, and I didn't notice it until recently, and tagged it again likewise. User:Keraunoscopia removed the watermark, but reuploaded the image with the watermark. I then noticed the following line in the page:

The AWM requires that the AWM watermark is not removed from images sourced from its online database. Higher resolution versions of this image may be ordered through the AWM Website at www.awm.gov.au.

So now i'm ridiculously confused. I've been lead to believe that Wikipedia (and Wikicommons) frowns upon watermarked images and to seek out non-watermarked images whenever possible, yet there is....this. Can someone clear up my confusion about this? Like, would this sorta thing be allowed on Wikipedia in the first place, or is it a violation of policy?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

For free-use images, watermarks are discouraged – they are unsightly and their terms of use allow it. When the image is being used under fair use, however, it's different (afaik). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I was confused about this as well. After removing the watermark and uploading the new version, I only then noticed the terms in the licensing section (I now read these first before proceeding with any work). I went to the Australian War Memorial website (linked as the source of the image), found the copyright page, and then posted this question at the Help Desk, but because it's somewhat of a legal matter, it was suggested I take it to WP:MCQ. I did not follow through since I simply decided I would make the personal choice to not remove war memorial watermarks from this point forth. I did remove one piece of the watermark on the far left: the website address. I did not remove the war memorial stamp. Sort of a compromise, I suppose, but I can't deny that I'm not curious about what the correct way to move forward with this is. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that I believe this discussion is irrelevant to the purposes of the incident notice board, since there was no incident requiring administrative intervention. This question is most likely suited to the Help Desk or, as was suggested to me and mentioned above, WP:MCQ. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons does not allow fair-use images, period. WP allows fair-use images when the image is important and no free replacement is possible. That watermark is butt-ugly so I'd ask myself if the image is editorially absolutely necessary for the article. If not, I'd remove it altogether and submit it to WP:IFD (images for deletion). WP is not a marketing venue for commercial images, and it has too many images anyway. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this issue would be better handled elsewhere. For what it's worth, the AWM seems to have dropped the requirement on its website that watermarks not be removed from images taken from its collection database since I uploaded this image (presumably as part of what appears to be an initiate to become more Wikipedia-friendly which included them explicitly labeling which of their photos was and wasn't PD). However, as this is covered by copyright and was uploaded on a fair use basis, it seems to me that the watermark should be left on the image as a) removing it constitutes modifying the image, which is problematic for a non-PD fair use image and b) retaining the watermark is a courtesy to the AWM as it clearly marks this image as being its property and includes the AWM's reference number for the photo. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Nick, for clearing this bit, but what about IWM? Concurrently, I'm facing the same problem of watermark with uploading IWM images for re-use here and I've been notified on a number of occasions that they are in need of having them watermarks removed. Honestly, is there a better idea/solution to this confusing mess? Thoughts, anyone? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If you remove the watermark then by definition you lose the additional rights granted to you by the copyright holder in the license. As such, you fall back to your statuatory rights, which include fair use. So either we host the image with the watermark and add a license tag explaining exactly what users can and cannot do with it, or we chop the watermark and use it under fair use. In any case it is far better if we look for free use images. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Landalva is a new contributor who started two articles, Adarsh_shreeramleela_samiti_khanpur_ghazipur and Dussehara. There have been many problems with these articles relating to content, lack of sourcing, POV, style/tone and similar matters - the whole gamut, in all likelihood, of issues that could possibly arise.

On several occasions myself or others have made changes and introduced maintenance tags, eg; [101] and [102]. On every occasion, the additions from contributors other than Landalva have been reverted by Landalva.

There have been attempts to communicate on Landalva's talk page, as well as warnings being issued for 3RR, removal of templates, failure to use edit summaries etc. Each attempt at dialogue has met with no response.

This situation is a mess and is not specifically a content dispute or vandalism. I would appreciate thoughts on how to deal with it because it would appear that the contributor is beginning to expand the number of articles s/he is creating, eg: Khanpur_Saidpur,Ghazipur and Narad-Moh - the issues already present seem to me likely to appear on these newer articles. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, the user has already received a last warning, and continued with behavior. This included a edit war warning, and continual removal of tags. Wouldn't it be grounds for a short block if the user does not respond and comply?

We definitely want to know if the user is acknowledging the warnings. Croben (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been no acknowledgement at any point. And there have been further reverts of tags, POV fixes etc today, which is a good few hours after their last warning. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've indef blocked until such point as the user makes it apparent that he is willing to work in cooperation with others. Happy to lift if and when that happens. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll go back into the articles later and fix the relevant bits, but not right now because I do not want to seem to the blocked user as if I have gamed the system. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Dave1185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Notified

I believe the above user has violated BITE, NPA, and 3RR. Today, an apparently inexperienced IP editor (from a school IP) added information on a recent aircraft mishap to the Airbus A380 article. Instead of helping tutor the new editor, Dave1185 reverted the edit while also adding hostile hidden text threatening a block or a ban. After revert warring with that IP, Dave1185 then violates 3RR. At the same time, he was belittling, insulting, and threatening that and another IP editor on the article talk page [103] [104] [105]. In conjunction with all that, Dave was accusing the IP on its talk page of vandalism and violating 3RR, even though Dave himself had violated 3RR. Dave then tried to get the IP blocked by reporting it to the vandalism noticeboard, even though the IP's edits were clearly good faith edits by an inexperienced editor. Fortunately, the admins at the board saw through it and did not block the IP.

This is one of the most egregious examples of WP:BITE I've ever seen. I see that Dave1185 apparently has a clean block log, so perhaps this is just an aberration. I have apologized to one of the IPs on behalf of Wikipedia. The three violations (BITE, NPA, and 3RR) together may be worthy of a block, but perhaps a formal warning on Dave's talk page by any admin will correct the behavior. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the attitude by the IP is not necessarily golden, either. –MuZemike 05:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, why are all of Dave1185's edits being tagged as minor? –MuZemike 05:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's a fourth violation of a policy or guideline. Cla68 (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I asked him (Dave) to calm down a bit. Rather not see this escalate any more than it has really. — Ched :  ?  06:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That request was removed, along with the ANI notice by Dave1185. While he is at liberty to remove such notices, this is to be taken as having been read and understood. Should such behaviour continue, then maybe a short block would be in order. Mjroots (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As the edits in question were not vandalism, I've struck through the warnings issued by Dave1185 to 140.247.126.237. Mjroots (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Dave1185 just commented on my userpage that he is taking a little break, which IMO amounts to a de facto block. Frankly, I am rather disappointed to the disproportionate treatment given here, which in effect is dismissing and even rewarding the IP's behavior. Perhaps Malleus Fatuorum (see RFC comment) was right: Wikipedia has become so desperate to attract new editors that it ignores the retention of existing editors.

That's not to say I condone harsh treatment of newcomers, but it doesn't seem fair that, many times, they get to cop attitudes at will and essentially get away with it. The last I remembered, everybody here should be a civilized human being (or a bot, but that's beside the point) and are all expected to at least conduct themselves rationally. –MuZemike 18:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

...and there I was thinking I was finding a balance. The IPs edits were clearly not vandalism. They were a genuine attempt to add info to Wikipedia. As such, Dave1187s warnings were not justified, which is why I struck them. I could have blocked Dave1187 for the reasons laid out in the opening post. I chose not to as I considered that doing so would not prevent damage to the project, any such block would have been a short one in any case. Whether or not Dave1187 continues to edit Wikipedia is down to him. One would hope that in future he is a bit more welcoming to newbies and a bit more tolerant of IP editors who are clearly not intent on vandalism. Unless the previously exhibited behaviour continues, there is no need for any further action here. Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Experience demonstrates that we have a significant shortage of editors, especially new editors, and especially IP-editors; whereas we have such an oversupply of admins that requests for action never take multiple hours, let alone days, to be processed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree the IP didn't exactly react well this looks like a case of "you reap what you sow" to me. If Dave hadn't come on all insulting and accusing bad faith right out of the gate the IP may have gained a better understanding of what they did wrong instead of getting a very negative impression that implied clumsy ot uninformed editing is the same as deliberate vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Something's out of whack with this complaint. Looking at the article history, Dave1185 is one of several editors who have been defending the A380 article against a variety of IP marauders in the last day and a half. One of the IP's ignored the already-imbedded statement defining what should be on the accidents and incidents list, so Dave added some teeth to it, but the IP ignored it and edit-warred with two different users (Dave being just one) over the inclusion of that one item he was trying to add. Near as I can tell, Dave and other editors were probably having their patience tested from all the IP garbage and were getting a bit exasperated. Dave's only real mistake was maybe being a little free with the term "vandalism". But the primary problem there is with the IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• My 2 cents. Reviewing the article history, I come to the same conclusion as BB. The term vandalism, also, is one that some editors have a view of that is at odds with the rather broad definition of it on wp. There does seem to be edit-warring going on by at least one of the IPs, but beyond that I don't see any AN/I-worthy conduct here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• comment First, I admit that I'm not all that familiar with either the topic or the project to jump in and say "it should be this way". Second, I've talked to Dave a bit, and he's actually a really nice guy with a ton of clue. It does get frustrating trying to get new users who are stubborn up to speed. To be honest, when I first started, the "truth vs. verifiability" issue thing made me have tons of folks pulling out their hair I'm sure. IIRC, it took 128 editors, 64 admins, and an arb in a pear tree to get it explained to me. The bottom line is this: 9 outta 10 blocks could really be avoided if we talk to people. This one was a minor issue, and is over now - so .... Happy editing all. :) — Ched :  ?  21:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the conclusions that a couple of you have come to. I, of course, checked the article history when I was preparing this complaint, and I saw that the IPs were edit warring to introduce information. When I first started editing as an IP editor five years ago, I also acted the same way. I introduced uncited information. In my case, however, instead of revert warring with me, inserting threatening hidden text in the article, or telling me to buzz-off on the article talk page, patient editors explained to me how Wikipedia works. Dave should first have tried the carrot approach to persuading those IPs to edit more in accordance with our rules, failing that, perhaps the stick would have been the next step. The stick, however, should not be the first step. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here he tags a new user as a sockpuppet without providing any explanation or notifying the user: [106][107]

Here he removes a talk page comment by another new user and makes accusations of sockpuppetry. Again without any evidence or justification.[108]

The only faults of the these new users seems to be that they dare to disagree with the strongly held POV by Maunus.Miradre (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. (I assume you are just about to do that.) There has been a long wave of sockpuppet edits to these pages making the exact same kinds of edits and that these accounts did. They were both accounts that made their first contravening in a discussion in which Mikemikev was heavily invested using his exact POV and perspective. I reverted and tagged them per WP:DUCK. If any administrator looks at their editing pattern and Mikemikev's sock history and think I was wrong I encourage them to undo my edits those edits.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a very controversial area with many interested users. The only justification you give is that these new editors have the same POV as Mikemikev (and which is the opposite your own)? Are all newcomers who disagree with you on these pages sockpuppets?Miradre (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Everyone has the right to tag suspected sockpuppets. The user can speak for themself and doesn't need your help. 2. regarding the removed talkpage comment, you could have reverted, you could have asked me why I did it on the article talkpage or at my talkpage, or by email, but you came here directly. 3. the edits of the newly registered user showed clear editing experience in the topic area and the same POV as Mikemikev. We have blocked several accounts as socks of him based on the same evidence. My judgment was that it would be a wastew of a check users time to send it there. I did not block the user, exactly in order to give them a chance to explain. You are allowed to disagree with my judgment of course, but it seems a little much to drag to ANI. Also I would kike to note that you are yourself an admitted alternate account of an established, but undisclosed, user, and your account is an SPA dedicated to pushing the same POV that Mikemikev did untill he was banned. I am not suggesting that you are a scok of him, because you are much too clever and civil, but you are not just a concerned user here, you are currently engaged in a dispute about your pov editing patterns involving at least ten other users who disagree with you.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Speaking as an observer only, I'm not seeing a particular need for admin intervention in this. Looking at the linked material, I'd say that Maunus was acting appropriately based on experience and available information. On the other hand, Miradre seems a bit aggressive in bringing this to ANI. That said, since Miradre and I have taken opposing viewpoints on a AfD in progress, it's possible someone might see my comments here as non-neutral, so this is as far as I go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That Maunus have tried to ban me several times from the area should explain why I prefer neutral eyes to look at the situation. Newcomers certainly need help. See Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Maunus has presented no evidence at all for similarity to anyone else except being new and disagreeing with his own strongly held POV in these articles.Miradre (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Diff where Miradre admits to creating new account: "Yes, I have edited under another username before. But I did not change the name because I was banned. Obviously when editing such a highly controversial topic I want to remain anonymous." [109]. Since creation of this account, he has aggressively pursued what he sees as WP:TRUTH as a WP:SPA, regardless of what the mainstream view is: "Denying biological realities will help the disadvantaged group the least." [110]. See also AE/Miradre2. aprock (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Aprock is another user who have unsuccessfully tried to ban me from this area in AE. I do hope anyone interested will read why I edit this controversial area in my explanation in the now closed AE case. See "My motivation for editing these controversial topics" in AE/Miradre2. Not that it is relevant for Maunus's actions here against newcomers.Miradre (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious from the edits that none of these users were newcomers in any sense of the word.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never asked that Miradre be sanctioned in any way. In fact, one month ago I said exactly the opposite: "at this time I do not think Miradre should be banned, topic banned, or sanctioned in any manner" [111]. Miradre is a sufficiently skilled editor that if he can disengage from pursing his WP:CPUSH campaign, he would be an asset to the project instead of a liability. aprock (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That is from the first AE. After you had unsuccesfully tried to argue that I was sockpuppet and regardless made inappropriate edits. You did not mention this view in the second AE but only again unsuccessfully presented arguments against me. If that was your view it would have been nice if you had mentioned it in the second AE.Miradre (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

At no point during AE2 or during that SPI did I ask you to be sanctioned. The SPI was filed to determine whether the new Miradre account was created by a banned user. However, as I noted above, I do think that you could benefit greatly from refocusing your energies. aprock (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not familiar enough with this topic area, having stumbled into it recently, to be able to tell who's sockpuppeting as who, but I have been around Wikipedia a long time and I can spot a likely sockpuppet quite easily (though I can't always figure out who the sock master is as that usually requires topic-specific knowledge and experience). And yes, the account tagged by Maunus looks, walks and smells like a sock puppet.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You do seem familiar enough to constantly agree with Maunus's view in the articles. What is this evidence for sockpuppetry? Simply deleting comments and tagging as sockpuppet simply because a new user disagrees with one's own POV is clearly inappropriate. Which is what Maunus did.Miradre (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm that just means that he is familiar with mainstream research into these topics.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Maunus is an experienced admin, and I have never before encountered anyone who questioned his judgment regarding actions requiring administrator privileges. But you seem to be quite vehement in your insistence that his actions were inappropriate, or at the least premature. So, let me ask: would you be satisfied if he opened a WP:SPI investigation regarding the accounts in question? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. As well as explaining his action to the newcomers and stop using this tactic against any new newcomers to these pages whose only offense is disagreeing with Maunus's POV.Miradre (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also for the record I did noty use any administrator privileges in this case.

My own, non-admin $.02 here, that account is quacking quite loudly to me. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is a frivolous report: it is exactly the kind of frivolous ANI report which was mentioned in the findings of WP:ARBR&I concerning some of those still topic-banned. ipsocks of Mikemikev have been active recently. In the past they have targeted Maunus and left tell-tale messages on User talk:Maunus. That happened recently with 94.116.41.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mikemikev has openly revealed himself in that range of IPs in the past: 94.116.72.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [112] and 94.116.40.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A passing checkuser could verify if Ghf777 is Mikemikev. I would say that it was probable per WP:DUCK (the style and form of his past edits since his site-ban) and considering the renewed activity in this area. Mathsci (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. But in fact shows that the sockpuppet allegations was inappropriate. 94.116.41.214 geolocates to the United Kingdom. The second new user whose comments Maunus deleted and accused of sockpuppetry [113] geolocates to North Carolina! Miradre (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Non sequitur. I'm in California, but if I was using my cell provider's broadband card, I would geolocate to Dallas. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there is another anon troll that has posted form North Carolina before, I have reverted my removal of his comments.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what are you saying? That you have been regularly deleting comments from a New Carolina user who is not a sockpuppet but a "troll"? What does this mean, disagreeing with you? Miradre (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

How would you arrive at that interpretation from my previous statement? I have undone my removal of the NC trolls comments, since it apparently wasn't Mike. What are you fishing for now? If I also were to give an apology it wouldn't be to you.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Miradere, why are you asking these questions at ANI? You should be having this discussion on Maunus' talk page, which should also have been your first stop when you were looking for an explanation for the sock tagging. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Maunus have several times tried to ban me from the area, wikistalks me, and has generally made it clear he dislikes me greatly. So obviously I prefer neutral eyes to look at this. Maunus have now admitted that he made a false sockpuppet accusation. This is why one should check evidence and behavior before simply accusing a user with a different POV from oneself of being a sockpuppet. I ask that he does the same with first user and does a proper SPI if arguing that this user is a sockpuppet.Miradre (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You can remove the tag from his talkpage if you disagree with my assessment. I think the general agreement that the account looks like a sock account here at ANI suggests that I do not need to make an SPI. And for the record, yes I still think it would be best for the project if you were topicbanned from editing anything related to race broadly construed.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I had noticed that there had been several edits from North Carolina from The Triangle. That could conceivably be some kind of ban evasion, although there's no way of knowing. Mathsci (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you accusing any particular banned user or just fishing for everyone in this area? Yes, I have removed the template and ask that you do a proper SPI if continuing the accusations.Miradre (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Mathsci (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Anybody is allowed to mark a user page as a suspected sockpuppet. Mathsci (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

But deleting the talk page comments is frowned upon. Especially of a new user. It is good Maunus admits he made an inappropriate sockpuppet accusation and has reverted his comment deletion. Regarding the other user I have removed the tag and ask that a proper SPI be done if wanting to continue the accusations against that user. I am satisfied with this outcome it if stands so.Miradre (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not make an inappropriate sockpuppet accusation. I made a sockpuppet accusation that turned out to be incorrect.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This could have all been done on Maunus' talk page. Nothing was gained by bringing these matters here. Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated, Maunus has several times tried to ban me, wikistalks me, and has generally made it clear he dislikes me greatly. Considering my past interaction with him some neutral eyes were necessary. Which has now swiftly resolved the matter. I would also like to thank you for your valuable contribution of bringing up Mikemikev 's IP so if could be confirmed that one of accused newcomers was most likely was not him. Thanks.Miradre (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Maunus has not been wikistalking you. He is one of the few editors who keep an eye on a collection of race-related articles. It seems highly likely that a motion will be passed by ArbCom which will make it more straightforward for sanctions to be imposed when problems arise in this area. Mathsci (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be good.Miradre (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that the IP 174.97.236.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from Cary, North Carolina made an identical edit to you on another article. Here is his/her edit [114] on 20 March to Human genetic clustering and here is an identical edit [115] by you to Race and genetics on 24 March. Were you just copy-pasting? You also blanked almost all of the article Human genetic clustering on 24 March with this edit. [116] Was that a normal thing to do?

My own feeling is that semiprotecting Race and intelligence and its talk page would avoid recurrent problems with IPs. Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This morning, I got forwarded a copy of an email signed by Sergey Fedosin and sent to physicists around the world, encouraging them to read Wikipedia's article Strong gravitational constant.

If you Google sergey fedosin gravity you see zero evidence of third-party interest in his gravitational theory but substantial indication that his very speculative theories now feature in Wikipedia and in Wikiversity as well. Wikiversity: wikiversity:Nonstandard physics/Gravitomagnetism wikiversity:Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter

Also User:fedosin seems to be an SPA devoted to promoting theories of Sergey Fedosin in Wikipedia articles.

The AfD for Strong gravitational constant was withdrawn on a statement from fedosin that Nobel laureate Abdus Salam had written about the topic in 1993. I would like to re-open the AfD but am not sure how to proceed. I also think this speculative and non-notable material also should not be in Wikiversity. betsythedevine (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

We have nothing to do with Wikiversity, I suggest expressing your concern to them directly. Under the instructions at WP:DRV, it says that if significant new information that comes to light which wasn't there during the initial discussion, you should start a new AfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also external links from the "fedosin" userpage on Wikiversity cite 4 Wikipedia articles which I think should get a closer look here based on WP:COI:

• Gravitational induction
• Strong gravitational constant
• Ball lightning
• Gravitomagnetism

If somebody here has a connection to Wikiversity, I would be grateful if you would look into it there. betsythedevine (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity permits original research; see Wikiversity:Original research. Adrignola (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of Fedosin's wikiversity material has already appeared on, and been deleted from, Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selfconsistent gravidynamic constants and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter. Bm gub (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been notified about this, but I'm uncertain what you want me to do. You can see in my archives (User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 4#Ball lightning) that I tried to discourage him from linking to his own website after he asked me for help, but that is the only time I have ever seen him. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, which was very helpful. I have asked the closing admin about re-opening the Afd, as suggested, and also asked for advice at the COI noticeboard, which is probably where I should have raised this issue in the first place. If anybody wants to hat my query, I feel I already got the help that I asked for. betsythedevine (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Googling his name in cyrillic rather than romanised returns 6 or 7 editorally checked & published sources of material but no obvious third party cites of his theories. That's not to say they don't exist using some contraction of his name, but it might be better if a fluent russian reader or writer confirms they dont exist. There may be grounds for considering the material as fringe rather than non-notable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds a lot like both, if you ask me... --Jayron32 03:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Stuart that it appears to be fringe. Am less certain as to whether it is also non-notable, but that may as Jayron suggests also be the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have notified WikiProject Physics. Hans Adler 07:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The list of publications of Fedosin is here. Nothing notable even in Russian journals. Ruslik_Zero 09:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• I can repeat here the same as at page

About e-mails. Yes I sent some e-mails of such text:

Good day. The article Strong gravitational constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_gravitational_constant is under intensive discussion.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strong_gravitational_constant.

It was necessary because too little people discussed the article, only Bm gub, Fedosin and Robert a stone jr. In the letters as you seen no any evidence for acceptance of any theories.

Also about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Selfconsistent_gravidynamic_constants. In Wikiversity is article Selfconsistent gravitational constants , which was reedit by me. I found it before in Russian Wikipedia in very bad condition. I think it may be useful.

About deletion of article "Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter". Up to now I do not understand why it was deleted. It was simple translation of Russian version.

Pages Fedosin and user page of Wikiversity user "fedosin" were made by physicist Sergey Fedosin and maintained by him personally.

About quantity of papers. I prefer more some good books then a lot of shot papers. Fedosin (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Fedosin email that was forwarded to me contained that text plus an additional paragraph: "As you work in field of gravitation you could see my last paper about General Theory of Relativity at http://vixra.org/abs/1103.0109 " Whatever the intention behind sending it, I think the email implies that Strong gravitational constant is a legitimate Wikipedia article concerning a notable topic rather than a self-published physics essay. betsythedevine (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that viXra.org is evidently a site set up by people who were unhappy with the anti-crackpot safeguards introduced to arxiv.org, the legitimate preprint server for physics and mathematics. It hosts such gems as "The Gëdel Thesis 'about a Incompleteness of Formal Arithmetics' is not Proved and This Hypothesis is not Similar to the Truth", a paper (in Russian) that apparently tries to refute Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Hans Adler 13:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out vixra; it's revealed to me a whole new world of cranks who want their ideas to be more widely known, and I'm now looking through some of the stuff they've sneaked onto other wikipedia articles... This is fun. bobrayner (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Would that be sufficient reason to add vixra.org to the blacklist? If my research is accurate, that website's not on it. Yet. -- llywrch (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Several other language versions are also (slightly) affected. [117] Maybe it's even a case for the global blacklist? I don't know because I don't know what the trade-offs are. Hans Adler 23:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Although a vixra article by itself is unlikely to be a reliable primary source, or evidence of notability, it's easy to imagine such a link appearing legitimately in (say) a biography of a noteworthy fringe scientist, or an article about a theory that received wider notoriety. And there's the distant and never-yet-realized possibility that something on Vixra turns out to be important. I think the level of Vixra abuse is small enough to handle case by case. Is there some kind of bot that searches for "warning sign" links and posts to a noticeboard?Bm gub (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I was about to leave a note that after inspection of the vixra links so far I am also against putting it on the blacklist. There appear to be legitimate uses, and it's not even clear that the illegitimate uses outweigh them. A bot looking for such links would be great. Hans Adler 23:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah viXra is real joke of a site. It's a place for crank and nuts, and other famous scientists such as Jesus Christ to (pre?)publish their nonsense when they can't shove it on the arXiv. As for a compendium of links, gimme 5 minutes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well from the March 17 database, it looks like the only instance of "vixra" on all of Wikipedia was this, removed by Bobrayner a few hours ago, and here, and here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even after being alerted to Wikipedia policy concerning WP:OR and WP:COI, fedosin continues to add his work to Strong gravitational constant. If some admin could issue a short block, that might get his attention. betsythedevine (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Fedosin renamed the article in question, Strong gravitational constant, to Strong gravity, apparently with the intention that the latter would be the "mainstream" article and the original would remain a playground for OR. The name change is appropriate enough, the COI isn't, so I have changed Strong gravitational constant to a redirect. Hope this was appropriate and that it doesn't muddle the issue. Bm gub (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Bm gub, it is your false. I do not renamed the article in question, Strong gravitational constant, to Strong gravity. I do not say such: "apparently with the intention that the latter would be the "mainstream" article and the original would remain a playground for OR".

What was in reality? I take from the article the text of Bm gub and removed it to article Strong gravity. Since this text is for the article Strong gravity not for Strong gravitational constant. Afer it Bm gub in fact deleted the article Strong gravitational constant by redirecting from it to Strong gravity.

I ptotest against such action of Bm gub. Fedosin (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Argh! What Fedosin has done is a copy & paste "move" from Strong gravitational constant to Strong gravity, losing its history in the process. He did at least keep a diff in the edit comment, but it's till the wrong way to go about it. I think we may need an admin to do a history merge to fix this. And Fedosin, you need to explain why you moved the article content. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. This needs a history merge right now, before people start editing both pages and messing up the history even more. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As you can see the beginning of text in article is: "Strong gravity is a (non-mainstream) theoretical approach"...

The text about Strong gravity, not about Strong gravitational constant. So I removed it to new page Strong gravity, which was created by me. At the page I inform Bm gub about it. So he know the history of removing his own text. Fedosin (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

<-- Just to let you know that discussion is invited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong gravitational constant (2nd nomination). I restored "Strong gravitational constant" to the state "owned" by Fedosin and undid the re-direct, so that people can discuss the material in a coherent way.betsythedevine (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Kkalantar (talk · contribs) and his/her socks have been disrupting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourosh Kalantar-Zadeh. see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kkalantar. admin attention is requested. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

the user has removed strike outs of clear votes from his/her socks. [118]. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, this user might as well be blocked. Good luck sorting out that mess. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

yes the behavior is now extremely disruptive with the sole purpose of someone keeping an article about themself. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for reversing a "strong delete" to a "weak keep". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that, immeadiately after commenting on Wuhwzuzdat above, user:Rmzadeh prodded 3 articles created by Wuhwuzdat, as a revenge action due to previous interactions between the 2 users. see [119] [120] [121]. Clear case of bad faith prodding 64.53.177.123 (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)— 64.53.177.123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There is no Vendetta here, after looking through the users edits and finding problems with his articles I have taken proper action, Please notice that all articles stated lack any sources of reference and upon searching i failed to find any reliable reference, please also note that images published by user claim fair use with a link to a copyright page that does not exist but upon looking at the Denver library copyright statement I find that they have specifically prohibited the use of image without valid written permission. I have looked at the user's edits and acted according to Wikipedia guidelines. Looking at a user's contributions and flagging problems is a normal procedure. if there is an issue with my reasoning please state it so I may remedy it. also I suspect this ip is the actual user in question trying to evade being active so that he does not have to answer to the incident above regarding him, in which case i invite him to join us with his username instead. Thank you  Rmzadeh  ►  19:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Were you going through their edit history, or just clicking links found in this section of their user page ? Its quite a coincidence that all the articles you Prod'ed, or AFD'ed, as well as the article using the image you attempted to CSD as a copyvio were all linked there. 64.53.177.123 (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Per the category the alleged copyright violation image belongs to, written permission has been obtained for Wikipedia use of these images. As for the rest of your comments, I would remind you to WP:AGF. see also Wiki-stalking, and Wp:Outing If a user wishes to remain as an anonymous IP (as I do), he has that right. 64.53.177.123 (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Commenting on the prods, The first has a reference in a previous version that I re-added. I was in the process of challenging on that basis when the IP removed the tag. Due to the likelyhood of the 2nd and 3rd having similar offline references I'd be inclined to have challenced those as well. So regardless of the good faith/bad faith I'd consider all 3 challenged on merit. AFD is still available--Cube lurker (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have put forward the articles for AFD before reading your comment, I did search for reference but failed to find any reliable sources so if you reference it with proper sourcing I will take back my AFD. thanks :)  Rmzadeh  ►  19:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, I don't believe any of the AFD's were transcluded correctly. You might want to double check the instructions from the AFD template.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

All are now refernced, per your above comment, please retract the AFD's. On a side note, the refernces were found with less than 30 seconds effort, have you read WP:BEFORE? . 64.53.177.123 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the template issues with afd. you have used a book as reference (without any page number btw) which could not have been found on the internet, and you have used the manufacturer's website for the 3rd article which has nothing but basic specification of the locomotive, i still fail to source that "The engines are computer controlled, with the computer stopping and starting engines on a rotating basis, as required to produce the horsepower needed at any given moment." this is the only sentence written in the 3rd article and the source clearly does not verify such claim. I did mention that if reliable sourcing is added i will remove AFD but i do not consider the current sourcing reliable. Please add more sources  Rmzadeh  ►  19:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

since no delete comments have been added so there is no conflict, I will close my afds on 2 of the 3 articles based on now available book references which I can not verify but assume good faith. I will however keep the 3rd article on afd until better sourcing is provided. the source offered does not substantiate the claims made in the article and the article has very little useful substance.  Rmzadeh  ►  19:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor point -- AFDs are not for cleanup, so I imagine you are saying that you will close the third AfD if what you consider to be better sources are brought to your attention (not that they need to be added to the article).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

What I am saying is that article in question Railpower RP14BD fails Wikipedia:V Completely as it is made up of a mere sentence which can not be verified. The other 2 articles lacked any sources which made them perfect candidates for Wikipedia:V based AFD also, but since sources have been added I requested my AFD's to be withdrawn. however the Railpower RP14BD still easily fits deletion criteria based on lack of verifiability.  Rmzadeh  ►  21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This Incident report has clearly gone off topic, to some extend my fault, I looked at the users history as he is being discussed in a real incident report above, trying to find none twinkle edits, in process I found the following pages and acted according to guidelines. I nominated these pages based on perfectly legit grounds and I have removed the 2 articles now sourced. This is by no means a personal attack, rather me taking care of issues as I caught them. Although I do find it funny that a user whose 99.9% of edits have to do with deletion of articles, fails to enforce the same standards to his own creations. I feel that this incident report by the above ip was very much overly exaggerated and in the wrong place. this board is not for petty claims, neither is it the starting ground for assumed conflict resolution and no talks were initiated by the ip before reporting this so called incident. I still stand by my decision  Rmzadeh  ►  21:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• As Blofeld is still posting on this matter in relevant places: I have commented on the matter here [124]. I trust that Arbs and Admins will ensure that this is the end of the matter. I don't intend to be insulted or trolled by this person again. I hope it will not be necessary for me to have to comment further. I will try to leave it to the Admins and Arbs as I always being told to do. Giacomo Returned 12:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• In light of the two very serious gaffes that Blofeld made in the process of this debate, and the justifiable angry response to them, he should shut up about the whole megillah, and move to a totally different area of wikipedia to edit. I'm sure there is no shortage of other articles that could be created/edited and pushed towards GA status. Basket weaving, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for the band Deftones has basically been a den of disruption and feuding for a substantial (see history). The area of concern is the genre of Deftones. Out of the last 150 edits, dating from November 18, 2010 as of this post, there have been 81 edits concerning their genre, which includes 55 of the last 100 edits (since January 3, 2011) and 29 of the last 50 edits (since February 20, 2011). For these edits, the activity has mainly been focused in the infobox and introduction sentence, and one part of the fight is whether or not they are either nu metal or experimental rock. While I'm not saying that all of them are vandalisms, because that would not be the truth, some of them are, and I am stating that there has been way too much attention toward the genres of the band's music; this is while the article itself has evolved and improved very little recently. Regular and/or recent participants in this genre feuding include Prove you're robot (links to contributions page, due to a lack of userpage), Wisdomtenacityfocus (contributions), several IPs named according to 93.39.XXX.XXX, 108.64.172.101 (I have dealt with this genre warrior previously and on other pages; this person has been blocked previously for genre warring), and others, including IPs. The conflict has extended to some of the album pages, such as, for instance, White Pony and Around the Fur. I have not done much in this conflict, although 108.64.172.101 and I reverted each others' edits briefly on the Around the Fur page and I posted a response to something that Wisdomtenacityfocus posted on the Deftones talk page. Also, on the Deftones band page, especially in the last 50 edits, there has been a lesser controversy amongst anonymous IPs as to whether Deftones were formed in 1988 or 1989. It is not as important, but I feel it is worth mentioning. Back to the genre, I do not care what genre or genres this band is, I just hope that a solution can be attained soon and that more edits can be performed to update or improve the article for Deftones, along with relevant articles thereof. I am not siding with any particular genre line-up, but I hope that one selected line-up can be agreed upon. Some extra opinions or actions could be useful. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Music can technically fall within the remit of more than one genre, so the concept of a 'war' over it seems a bit puerile. The best compromise would be to mention the genres most often cited by respectable sources, and to reference each accordingly. Something along the lines of "Deftones' music has been described variously as nu metal,^[1] alternative metal,^[2] blah^[3] and blah.^[4]" Surely that'd satisfy everyone, right? Seegoon (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say to verify any claim? GiantSnowman 00:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can't they include both if both have references? Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 00:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment that music can have more than one genre. Also, as puerile as it is, genre fighting and useless genre manipulation are frequent occurences on the internet. There is a musical style and influences area for the Deftones band page. I have just been really fed up with such dispropotionate attention toward the genre, generally speaking. Maybe, for this page, the infobox could have its genre area removed? Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 00:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What admin action is being asked for here? This looks like a content dispute that should be dealt with on the article talk page, perhaps with neutral notifications to all potentially interested WikiPrrojects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good point. Maybe administrative action is not necessary. I just want people to be aware of this unfavorable activity on the band page and relevant pages. Maybe it should have been discussed more on the talk pages and/or relevant WikiProjects before I brought it here. Eliminating the infobox's genre area could be a good idea, though; that's been done on another page, with led to good results. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• 98.82.234.45 (talk · contribs)

User:98.82.234.45 continues to add unsourced content to numerous television stations after being asked to stop. I am hesitant to go on a revert spree, but with a slew of pages getting unsourced content added to them, I am unsure what else I can do. Requesting some help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, do you think the info being added is actually wrong? (It's a bunch of stuff about advertising slogans from radio stations). If not, then AGF and talk to the person nicely about citing the info. I left a usertalk message, maybe someone else can continue the conversation if there's a response. It looks to me like someone with an interest in radio station trivia, or if something is amiss, my next guess would be someone in the advertising business with a COI. But the stuff being added doesn't look all that spammy at first glance. Anyway, don't bite the newbies. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't that it is wrong or not, it is unsourced content and could very well be OR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And this makes it different from 95% of the content of the articles involved in what way? Those articles are pretty much bereft of sourcing, especially in this area. If you want to clean up the articles, fine, but singling out one new editor for doing nothing different than what other editors have been doing is likely to do nothing but drive the new editor away. There's no sensitive content involved, and no indications found that the additions are dubious. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one, this editor isn't new by any stretch of the imagination. This has been going on for over a year now. Two, I am fairly certain we are looking at a sock of an indef blocked user, but can't confirm it with a CU. Three, yes, the pages do need more sources, but with very little people at WP:TVS, we can only do so much. If there were more people willing to source these pages, then I would be thrilled, but it is essentially only me and about one other person at the moment, so we are just cleaning up messes on the pages and together with working on other projects, we are stretched too thin. You want to help, please help and source the pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, which blocked user, and (again) do you think the info is actually wrong? Generally, "verifiable" on Wikipedia means that a source exists (or is presumed to exist) somewhere, not necessarily that the source is actually cited in the article. We generally only revert stuff if it's contentious or we think it's likely to be wrong. If you in your best judgment think that the edits are vandalism then I'd say go ahead and roll them all back, but post a message to WT:TVS saying what happened. Otherwise I'd say just make a note of the issue at TVS, so members can spot check a few of the edits at their leisure. If several fail verification then revert them all, otherwise don't worry too much. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I will say this again, it doesn't matter if the information posted is correct or not, it is unsourced and more-than-likely OR. It could be very well be correct, but without a source, it doesn't matter. I have run into that problem myself on GA articles. No source, no go. So until the anon gets a source, they should all be reverted. But I will need an admin for a few since they have been covered by other edits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I watch a lot of the same articles, although only for one specific issue. I have to say that it's hard to believe the legitimacy of these edits. The user is adding slogans to TV stations across the entire country. A large number of these are adding "local versions" of national network slogans (see this edit as a representative example. These are not current slogans, and many of them go back numerous decades. There is no way that the IP has personal knowledge of the local slogans of hundreds of TV stations across the country. So either one of two things is true: 1) The user has a reference that says "All of the ABC (e.g.) affiliates used a localized version of Slogan X in Y time period"; or 2) The user is aware of the existence of a slogan used in multiple places, and thus is speculating/assuming it was used at all affiliate stations across the country. If #1 is correct, then the source should be provided. #2, however, seems far more likely to me. At least with most of the unsourced additions to TV network stations, it really seems like the person adding info (usually to just one station or stations in one broadcast area) seems to be working off of personal knowledge ("I remember seeing that..."). But this really feels like additions based on, at best, supposition, and, at worst, intentional fabrication of information. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

According to our policies, can't unsourced material be removed by anyone and its up to the person arguing to include it to find appropriate references and WP:CITE them? Heiro 04:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, if the info is challenged, which it sounds like this is. It's disruptive and not good editing to remove stuff indiscriminately just because it's unsourced, if it's uncontentious and doesn't seem otherwise suspicious. There's a Wikipedia fork called Veropedia which requires sourcing for everything, but on WP there's a combination of WP:AGF and WP:PRESERVE, so it's a matter of judgment. Discussing with other editors (like this) before going forward is a good thing.

In this example AGF is diminished because of Neutralhomer's sense that we're dealing with a block evader, and by Qwyrxian's issue with the content itself. NH and Qwyrxian are much more familiar with this TV stuff than I am, so I defer to their judgment on both issues. (My own guess would have been someone sitting around with a TV reference book, or someone at an ad agency that had some kind of historical records). Neutralhomer, did the blocked editor (before being blocked) know how to use talk pages? You might also privately identify the blocked person to a checkuser.

Next step I'd say is see if the person starts editing again without responding to the talk messages. I just added to the earlier message I left there, saying responding is not optional and that they'll probably get mass-reverted if they don't answer. If you do roll it all back, leaving a report with a diff at WT:TVS (so people can find the stuff if they want to check it themselves) seems like a reasonable PRESERVE gesture. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, being that the anon hasn't stopped editing or responded to 75.'s posts for comment, I don't think there are editing in a constuctive manner and really, that's when my AGF starts going southbound. I am still hoping the anon responds, but if they aren't responding to a fellow anon (ie: 75.), then I don't think they are going to. I will give them a couple longer and then I am going to revert what I can and leave the rest to the admins who can revert over conflicting edits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• We went through this same issue with the IP last week, and I will repeat what I said last week to confirm NeutralHomer is correct; many of these slogans are indeed unsourced, and in fact, were never used on the air at all on many of the stations, especially the national ones, which in the past usually only aired them in minute-long promos with a channel number butted into the network's image song that filled unsold commercial time to prevent dead air (and aren't used anymore as direct response ads now fill said time and make money). There is no way to source this except for YouTube (tenuous as a source at best) or a station actually having a detailed history of what slogans they used on their website or an anniversary special, which few stations have. As I stated previously the slogans are usually unneeded in my eyes and easily are WP:CRUFT and sections with them should be removed, though I'd rather have consensus before pursuing that avenue. Nate • (chatter) 06:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I see--you're saying that person saw a logo on (say) the Podunk, NH local affiliate of ABC, and then went and put that logo into the articles of a bunch of other ABC affiliate stations? Yeah, that is lame. Although, if there's a Youtube clip of the specific logo on a specific station, that does seem to show that it was actually used there. As for the cruft issue, hmm, I'm usually more bothered by cruft connected with products that are actively being marketed, than historical cruft that nobody has a COI about any more. I also notice the person hasn't edited since I left those messages (it's late evening where I am) and the earlier messages left for them (at least on that page) weren't that informative. Shrug. I don't see a whole lot of urgency to this (there's no crazy BLP allegations or anything like that) but if you guys want to revert as a content judgment, I don't have a problem with it. I take it that nobody thinks at this point that we're dealing with an actual newbie (those should always get some slack and understanding). 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • No, at first I did, but after some digging, it became obvious we have a sock on our hands. I just couldn't tell you whose sock, it is one of two people though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Not to be rude, but 'It's one of two people, and I'm not going to share who I think those people are' type statements don't give us much to work with. You could be right, you could be wrong, but if you tell no one, we can't help you figure it out. If you don't want to say it publicly, maybe email it to one or two checkusers (they might not be able to a run scan, but they have more experience in recognizing socks than just about anyone.) Sven Manguard Wha? 06:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I wasn't going to say because I didn't want to get accused of calling someone a sock of someone and it turn out to be they weren't, but if you want me to....OK. It is either User:Mmbabies or User:BenH. Both are prolific vandals, both have whole damn bedrooms full of socks and both have vandalized television station pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
          • I'd probably lean more towards BenH (who I also suspect); MMB has been around, but only haunting his usual Houston, Dallas and Christian children's show articles and checks of the slogan IP's show none in the Houston area. Nate • (chatter) 18:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
            • It could also be User:Dingbat2007. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
              • This also is similar to the classic behavior of Codyfinke (talk · contribs). Cody likes to work on television and radio-related articles, making repeated changes to programming information, slogans and other minutae of the channels. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I came upon an editor named Revinchristian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has insisted that a digital subchannel, Shorewest TV in Milwaukee, airs on five Milwaukee stations and of course reverted this immediately. Suddenly though I seem to have hit a goldmine as this one has so much tenuous incorrect and false edits that it's going to take an hour-long rollback session to fix everything they edited. This edit to WFLA-TV meets the slogan MO quite nicely, along with this one to KHQA-TV, and an assertion that all four television stations in one market are going to come together in a big and very illegal monopoly, using this terrible MS Paint logo to assert their reailty (the same was done on WNEP, though without the fake logo). I'm thinking we might have enough to get a checkuser report in, and judging from their edits, it has to be Dingbat2007. Nate • (chatter) 09:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

69.0.11.9 (talk · contribs) - had similar radio station edits yesterday. Some appeared possibly helpful but for the most part, disruptive. The plot thickens?--NortyNort (Holla) 11:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The types of posting reminds me of Mmbabies as well. It's quite bizzare. --Rockstonetalk to me! 15:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think you have a case I suggest you proceed to WP:SPI with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably not MMB, as their MO is to stick to Houston and children's TV subjects and ramble on and on about them with an occasional injection of Spanish and an address to an apartment complex (I find him more annoying at this point than actually harmful to the site as rollback makes it very easy to keep him in line now). It's probably Dingbat as many of the stations tagged by Revin were smaller anonymous ones in the south and Texas, where Dingbat began way back in 2007. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the thing about sockpuppets is you never know who isn't a sockpuppet and who is. Although it doesn't really matter who's sock it is- just that it is a sock. --Rockstonetalk to me! 16:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Any particular reason for not having flagged the image (which is derived from four copyrighted logos) for deletion on Commons? I've now done so (along with all but one of the user's other works on Commons: the other, while probably problematic for other reasons, isn't evidently derived from copyrighted works and then improperly licensed). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually work on Commons so I wasn't sure how to delete everything but the Shorewest TV logo, which was unambiguously a copyvio. I feel it best left to the experts there. And you can also take out the 13 dot logo too; it was derived from the logo of XHDF-TV as their "new one as of November 2011". Nate • (chatter) 22:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)