Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Ejacyoolayshun

• http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejacyoolayshun

Can someone with more experience/language skills look into this?

Originally, User:Hoots Hagis Kilts Porridge added an interwiki to our Ejaculation article. The article name seemed oddly satirical even for another language, so I was suspicious and tested the link. It led to an article page that wasn't created yet. I reverted the interwiki link as vandalism and warned the user.

Now it seems the article page has been created at that other language wiki, and so our Xqbot added the interwiki link again to our Ejaculation article. My suspicion is that this is still vandalism, but I'm not entirely sure, and would like another opinion. Can anyone make sense of this? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the article at the other language wiki, it looks like an exaggerated phonetic version of some English text, ie. a joke. I'm still not entirely sure what to do with this though. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

you may want to click through.. for example http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis this is apparently some kind of written version of a scottish accent.--Crossmr (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that a report to their admins on sco.wikipedia would be more useful; it doesn't look like we should interwiki to that, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, this is a legitimate Wikipedia in the Scots language, which is asserted to be distinct from Scottish English (a matter I take no position on here). They do have an orthographic standard as well, see sco:Wikipedia:Spellin_an_grammar. It is not a joke. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That article is par for the course for the Scots Wikipedia; consider http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose . This is a matter for our sister wiki – none of us speak the language I imagine, so we are in no position to judge the content and so ought not to mess with such interwiki links. 86.41.80.244 (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was reading through more of the wiki and was about to ask. Thanks Gavia. This makes it pretty difficult to determine if individual pages constitute vandalism or not, cause frankly they all look ridiculous. I'll have to be ignorin' all ye' olde sco: links from no' on, aye. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, can we get that guy over here, it's just what enwiki needs:

• http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao - Mao dyed of a hart attak, in 1976 wyul wochin' Star Wars. PMSL
• http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bazza#Ma_block - PMSL
• http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hoots_Hagis_Kilts_Porridge - PMSL

Surely we have an interwiki invite system in place? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 02:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No t'anks; we doon't need moor Demodins. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 03:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That whole project looks a crazy joke and it may be appropriate to bring it to Encyclopedias for Deletion. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We do have articles on Lallans and Modern Scots. I'm sure those editors who like making fun of languages other than English would enjoy reading them. DuncanHill (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's necessarily making fun of it, the question is whether a phonetic transliteration of English as spoken with a Scottish accent is, in fact, a separate language. I know a few Cornish speakers, a fair few Welsh speakers, but nobody who purports to speak a separate Scottish language, though such exist, so I personally can't ask anyone whose opinion I can directly verify and trust. This has been discussed before, there is I believe a very small movement for the resurrection of Scottish Gaelic but it is not clear to me (or to several others) that the Scottish Wikipedia project is actually written in Scottish Gaelic. I would think the best idea would be to involve some language scholars. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Scots is not the same as Scottish Gaelic, which is a Celtic language and rather closey related to Irish. Scots is a dialect of English; a dialect being different from an accent, which only involves pronunciation, while a dialect also has a distinct vocabulary and disctinctive grammatical features. Some people maintain that Scots is a separate language rather than a dialect, and there are definitely arguments to be made for that, but this isn't the place for it. Suffice it to say that Scots certainly is a language variety in its own right, it is not just a phonetic transcription of a Scottish accent. I'm sure some people write joke articles or use bad Scots (or phonetically written Scottish-accented English that isn't even Scots) on sco.wikipedia.org but that's no reason to throw the good articles out with the bad. --bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as a FYI, this is the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 11:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy, the Scots Wikipedia is written in Scots, not Gaelic - if you'd bothered to read the articles I'd linked to you might have found something out about the language and saved yourself the embarrassment of making such ill-informed comments. Still, reminds me of our first interactions. DuncanHill (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both, one learns something every day. I am unconvinced that "Scottish" as a language can be said to formally exist; it sounds to me more like a dialect. We do not have a Scouse Wikipedia or a Geordie Wikipedia, do we? Guy (Help!) 19:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Further to that, Scots is formally a language of the UK, as one of the three recognised languages of Northern Ireland (see the Norlin Airlan Assemblie website for example). – iridescent 11:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ulster Scots is not the same as Scots. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would, for one, have been more judicious to use the word revival rather than resurrection. Sadly, judging by the lack of sources given and signs of it only being in the early stages of development (there is no article on plooks for instance) I would suggest that cross-linking to sco.wikipedia's articles should be avoided. I see no reason to seek its deletion, though. It looks like a harmless enough endeavour and, clearly, quite a lot of effort has been put into producing it (though it looks to me as though a lot of it is written in very "cod" Scots). I passed a few enjoyable minutes surfing round it and, with a bit of luck, it'll keep a few bored people from engaging in more antisocial activities, such as spray-painting old ladies, head-butting bus shelters and stealing the neighbours' television set.     ←   ZScarpia   13:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just look at that guy's user page on Scots wp and especially the talk page (especially all the racial slurs towards the bottom). Obvious vandal of the more obvious kind. I know that's now our problem as such, but can we perhaps not interwiki-link to this user's "contributions". 80.135.8.220 (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely flabbergasted. After looking around more, I really don't know what to say about it. It is more or less (99.9%) readable by an english speaker. Can scots speakers parse english? If they can is something like this even necessary?--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's really a vandal, trust me

sco:Ejacyoolayshun is not real Scots. It's a vandal making fun of the language. Scots is a very silly looking language, yes, but they still use -tion and other endings the same as standard English does. The Scots wiki has very few active admins, so I've nominated the page for deletion but that doesnt mean it'll get deleted any time soon based on my (limited) past experience there with cross-wiki vandals. —Soap— 12:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the account indefinitely. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I just read the culture article off the main page and while it's of higher quality, it still reads very similarly. perfectly understandable by an english speaker. Can a pure scot speaker read english?--Crossmr (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be very much surprised if there are any Scots-speakers who don't, but what relevance does that have? Language is about much, much more than intelligibility. There are many languages in the world that are close enough for almost perfect mutual understanding, but that doesn't mean that only some of those languages should be singled out as being suitable for Wikimedia projects. In fact, the strategic goals they talk about at the top of all Special: pages list "more diversity" as one of the top priorities. Allowing people to use their own language must surely be part of that, and since nobody would accept Scots in English Wikipedia articles, the obvious solution is to have a Scots Wikipedia if there are people who are seriously interested in working on it. --bonadea contributions talk 15:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

While I've argued elsewhere against continued support of the low-readership wikis—including Scots—"I'm sure they can understand English" is a ridiculous argument. By that logic, you'd merge Norwegian, Danish and Swedish into a single project, likewise most Slavic languages, German/Seeltersk/Bavarian/Zeelandic/Dutch, Spanish/Portuguese… – iridescent 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the comparison between this situation and Norwegian/Danish/Swedish, Slavic, German/Dutch, Spanish/Portuguese etc. is not really a good analogy (after all, there are plenty of Dutch speakers who don't understand German, plenty of Portuguese who don't understand Spanish, plenty of Poles who don't understand Russian etc.) A better analogy would be Swiss German compared to standard German (as spoken/written in Germany, Austria). Spoken Swiss German is almost unintelligible to a standard-German speaker, to the extent that when Swiss people appear on German TV, their speech is almost always subtitled to make it understandable. But written German in Switzerland is always standard German, and a newspaper published in Zurich, say, will be perfectly understandable to anybody who reads German. 80.135.8.220 (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The analogy with the Scandinavian languages is very apt, though. The spoken forms of Danish/Norwegian/Swedish can sometimes be unintelligible to speakers of the other languages, depending on which accent the speaker has, but written Da/No/Sw is 99.9% comprehensible to speakers of the other languages. Not to mention the fact that there are two separate Norwegian Wikipedias, because there are two distinct Norwegian languages. Nobody is questioning the existence of these four Wikipedia versions, so "mutual intelligibility" is not a good criterion. --bonadea contributions talk 08:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's actually a good example. Written Danish/Norwegian/New-Norwegian/Swedish are reasonably close and mutually intelligible (at least in written form), yet are definitely considered distinct languages. (In fact spoken Norwegian is probably close to Swedish, but the written form is much closer to Danish, for historical reasons.) In fact the situation with Bokmål and Nynorsk is probably of relevance: while speakers of one of this languages will definitely understand the other without problems -- i.e. native Nynorsk speakers will have no problems with Bokmål -- yet they are still considered distinct languages, and we have separate Wikipedias for these two languages. 80.135.30.136 (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Because, if I can understand what they've written, and they can understand what I've written, is there any point in duplicating content, which is basically just a pronunciation difference? There might be some grammar differences but we already have those between American and British English. It seems to me no different than having a stereotypical bronx encyclopedia or a southern US encyclopedia, or a newfiepedia (which I'm sure exists but probably not as a genuine alternative language on wikipedia).--Crossmr (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate: it is not basically just a pronunciation difference. If it were, I'd agree with you. I think you may be confusing it with Scottish English. Apologies for repeating myself, but a dialect is more than pronunciation and slight grammar differences, Scots is considered by many to be a language rather than a dialect, and being able to parse the text is only a very small part of what language is about. The comparison with American and British English is not a good one - the very minor grammar and spelling variations there are not true differences in the same way. A better comparison there are the different dialects of Scots, which could possibly be compared to the differences between British and American English. Scots has been a written language for a long, long time, and it does have political recognition in the UK. --bonadea contributions talk 08:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of duplicating content. Currently there is a separate Wikipedia in Serbian. And a separate Wikipedia in Croatian. And a separate Wikipedia in Serbo-Croatian. Yes, that's right. Serbian and Croatian are indeed mutually intelligible -- the major difference between them is the alphabet, Serbian is using the Cyrillic alphabet and Croatian is using Latin alphabet. Other than that, the difference is minimal. Imagine having a separate "English" Wikipedia, a separate "American" Wikipedia, and a separate "English-American" Wikipedia, and you get the idea. 80.135.30.136 (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, stick to the topic, don't try to draw the discussion away from the original topic. Don't hide behind the IP to promote your personal attitudes. Admins must delete the message of user 80.135.30.136. Kubura (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There was once an attempt to fork off a Brazilian Portuguese version of Wikipedia. And then of course there's the infamous Siberian Wikipedia. The Brazilian one never got approved, and the Siberian wiki was closed when it was decided that it didn't really qualify as a separate language. (I believe Scots should be considered separate, though ... even as far back as 1300 AD there were marked differences between the dialects of England and those of Scotland.) —Soap— 19:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't the alphabet difference between Serbian and Croatian be fixed with something similar to the hans/hant switch tabs on the zh.wikipedia? 68.248.235.144 (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit of a non sequitur (not to mention comparing apples to oranges, as hans/hant are different writing systems for the same set of languages). There is no problem here that needs fixing. Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are separate languages linguistically and politically, and because they are Ausbausprache it is extremely likely that they will become more different from each other more rapidly than what would be the case if the languages developed organically. And the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedia projects are both very active from what I can see, with 114,000 and 80,000 articles respectively. --bonadea contributions talk 09:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a missunderstanding, Serbian language uses BOTH, cyrillic and latin alphabet, the alphabet difference is that Croatian language uses ONLY latin. Regarding this issue, yes, you have 4 wikipedias with almost identical language Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian. The real news is that now we have a attempt to crate a separate Montenegrin language (regarded as dialect of Serbian until now) with a separate Montenegrin wikipedia (it was rejected). FkpCascais (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is no longer an AN/I matter, is it? The original question has been answered a long time ago, and frankly it's rather uncomfortable to have a discussion about whether various languages are "real" or "different" or whatever - Wikipedia is generally all about the sources and the established knowledge, so why not look at the considerable body of established knowledge about all these languages, instead of making guesses based on superficial differences? And in any case, if there was a question of any of the Wikipedias for any of the languages mentioned being deleted, that question shouldn't be raised on this board. --bonadea contributions talk 09:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Harassment related to Whittemore Peterson Institute and chronic fatigue syndrome

TerryE (talk · contribs) has a content disagreement related to the work of the Whittemore Peterson Institute and their published statements of a possible relationship between chronic fatigue syndrome and xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus. This is a valid (if somewhat one-sided) controversy in the real world, and it is perfectly normal to find it spilling over into our articles here. What is not normal, however, is that instead of following the community's preferred track of discussion at the article talkpage followed by requests for outside involvement and eventual consensus, TerryE has filed an accusation of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keepcalmandcarryon involving Keepcalmandcarryon (talk · contribs), RetroS1mone (talk · contribs), and MiRroar (talk · contribs). This is harassment, plain and simple; I have edited at some of the related articles and will not be acting administratively beyond requesting this review. All four users have been notified. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Co-ordinated conspiracy against people they disagree on topics. I will not edit Wikipedia again b/c of their harassment. They are a cabal and also socks or meats.

User:TerryE less then 100 edits before November 2009 then almost 1500 edits about CFS. Co-ordinates w Ward20 and Sam Weller and Tekaphor to attack people like me and KCCO, it is most from what this person does, they do not make additions to encyclopedia just deleting and attacking. TerryE is planning attacks on KCCO and me, many months writing algorithms and investigating people on the internet [1]. I am sorry but it is a very hateful to do these things.

User:Tekaphor from 2006 has 1000 edits all on CFS and related article. Co-ordinates RfC against me with RobinHood70 in summer 2009. When I give up on August 2009 b/c this harassment Tekaphor goes away and does not edit for two months, mission accomplished?? After February 2 2010, no edits until Co-ordination of sock attack on me and KCCO starts and Tekaphor edits. It does not work, Tek edits two more weeks and does not come back until May 5 after I also come back and reverts my edits four hours after my last edit, attacks me again at Sock investigation.

User:RobinHood70 had about 200 edits about CFS and other things before summer 2009 then 2000 edits most on CFS. Used most summer 2009 to ban me from Wiki like TerryE did to KCCO later. Has 4 edits in January 2010, 4 edits on Februay 5th, does not edit for two weeks. Then he is suddenly on Wikipedia again for edit the SPI attack at KCCO and I TWO HOURS after Ward20 puts it up. He edtis every day until the sockpuppet case is closed with "CU evidence is iffy at best" and then he goes away for weeks. He has only nine article edits until April 29 and then he is suddenly there again to revert my edits.

Most of these edits were in response to disputes with RetroS1mone. During periods where she was not active, my editing patterns returned to normal and were not overly CFS-related. While I continue to monitor some articles, I have largely left the project precisely due to this kind of incident as my recent edit history will show (a few wiki-gnome edits and yes, reversions of RS's edits, many of which labelled things as "bs" and reverted hundreds of edits in one go). I would appreciate if my name were left out of any ANI or similar forums unless there is significant cause to bring it up. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Jagra created 21 May 2007 two days from TerryE, just like TerryE over 1500 edits about CFS. Co-ordinates RfC against me in summer 2009 and leaves for two months just like Tekaphor when I take my break starting August 2009.

User:Sam Weller First 100 edits in 2 years on homeopathy, CFS, and a biography he is very interested on, Martin J. Walker then almost 1000 edits in 1 year about CFS. Tries to destroy me and ban me and also when I am away six months he co-ordinates the February Sock investigation with Ward20 and TerryE, when it does not work he leaves Wikipedia, end of February.

User:StevieNic is away from Wikipedia 3 weeks, returns May 3 to vote against my article for deletion of David Sheffield Bell recruited with TerryE and Ward20.

Pls stop these people and do not let them destroy more editors. RetroS1mone talk 04:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that RetroS1imone is leaving over this. But given that the checkuser clerk endorsed, it's hard for me to characterize this as harassment.--Chaser (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerks endorse to filter out obviously bogus cases. The community restricts checkuser access (for good reasons, IMHO) to only a very few users, making it valuable to spread the workload that does not require the tool. You are free to your own opinion, of course, but that entire filing reads to me like a particularly vicious attack by someone not particularly interested in a neutral encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I stand corrected regarding the role of checkuser clerks.--Chaser (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The clerk in this case User:Kevin Rutherford is a new trainee, and should not have endorsed that CU. Don't use it as evidence for anything. Auntie E. (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:TerryE has not filed three accusations of sockpuppetry against User:Keepcalmandcarryon. The first was filed by User:Immortale, over what I have no idea. The second was filed by myself User:Ward20 strictly on the basis of edit patterns, and it came back "Possible same geographic area with user agent overlap. Meat puppets certainly plausible." I was looking over the third investigation filed by User:TerryE to form my own conclusions, when I saw there was a discussion here. I have also edited the related articles and there certainly have been RFC's on the content for dispute resolution. When I look at the timelines of the editing patterns of User:Keepcalmandcarryon, User:RetroS1mone, and User:MiRroar that User:TerryE has presented I believe there may be cause to suspect a connection between the three accounts. I don't understand why there is a problem with an investigation if there isn't a connection as User:Keepcalmandcarryon has stated.

As far as User:RetroS1mone's allegations please look at her contributions and edit summaries the last three days after her AFD's for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Sheffield Bell and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Fennell (2nd nomination) were not successful. Ward20 (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

RetroS1mone misrepresents the consensus of several editors as some kind of unprovoked persecution. The activity that R describes above is merely the independent response of several different editors who have all been targeted by R's false accusations and problematic editing over the course of roughly 18(?) months. See the previous RfC and its talkpage. Those issues were never resolved, they just went dormant when R disappeared for a while. But now R is back with all the same accusations, attitude and tendentious editing which led to the RfC in the first place, as Ward20 highlights. Nothing has changed despite all the chances and warnings, with [2][3][4][5][6][7] as recent examples of failed "advice".

As for my frequent disappearance from Wikipedia, I regularly take unannounced wiki-breaks from editing, especially after dealing with the extra work R produces, so what? I monitor the CFS articles but most of the time I am either unable to contribute or reluctant to do so. You can be sure that when one of the reasons I do not contribute more consistently (ie R's history of reverting my edits without due cause) shows up mutilating the articles and ranting about conspiracies I will be doing what I can to resolve it. - Tekaphor (TALK) 06:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a comment directed at anyone in this thread, but people do coordinate off-site - especially it seems patient support groups - to get their spin into our medical articles. It didn't take long to find this (for some reason only accessible via Google cache). Conspiracies aren't always products of the imagination. EyeSerene^talk 12:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My first direct involvement with RetroS1mone was when she deleted one of talk page posts[8]. I have always tried to observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and related policies when dealing with other editors, RetroS1mone included. I am open about who I am and what my background and interests are. I agree that I only started to get actively involved in WP in November last year when I felt that another editor was misrepresenting the RS/MEDRS on a few articles. I kind of get sucked in and went through a learning curve as I learnt the WP policies and guidelines (as most editors do; a few like RetroS1mone seem to be able to appear out of nowhere and start editing as WP experts from day 1). If you notice my posting rates on the VirtualBox forums fell off at the same time as I ramped up on WP. I am trying to use standard WP processes within their guidelines. If I have breached any guidelines then no doubt I will be informed on the SPI. If RetroS1mone has any other specific claims of infringement on my part then I will happily answer them.

Picking up EyeSerene's comments. I have made clear on many occasions including on my user page that I am not involved in this forum or others like it. Quite frankly, I find such external topics a pain in a**e as people come blundering in with lots of emotion and reluctance to read the rules and follow them. I only just recently got into an edit exchange on another article where I was attacked by a couple of such posters for defending another editor who has a content viewpoint a lot more similar to RetroS1mone than mine. There are two main reasons why the majority of editors working with you on a page tend to edit against you: yes, there is the conspiracy theory; but the obvious one is that you don't edit within the WP guidelines and antagonise everyone else. -- TerryE (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

First I'd like to say that I'm sorry that RetroS1mone decided to quit wikipedia but I do understand why. Did this edior lose their temper at time, yes they did. English is not their first language but even that was brought into doubt against this editor. If you look at the history of this users talk page, you will see the kind of mean and nasty harassments they had to endure. I used to have Chronic fatigue syndrome on my watch list. Things there got so bad that I and at least one other editor took it off our watch list. The problems that I speak about go back to when User:Guido den Broeder was a main advocate and editor of these articles. He is now permanently banned by the arbitration committee after they gave him an opportunity to return from a community ban which lasted maybe a week. Surprisingly, some of the editors above appeared to take up the cause that Guido was pushing for. I will not name names, period. I just know that this article and articles connected to it is full of advocates who have this disease and a strong POV about how it should be presented. S1mone had her/his ideas of what should be in the article. S/he may have been rude at times with claiming a conspiracy theory but then again there were websites shown where editors were actually talking about how the article should look and also Guido had emailed some of the editors. (Some of the editors were ethical enough to say they received emails from him. I believe this was announced on the CFS article but I'm not sure) I think that there is a clear group of advocates working these articles which needs to be stopped. As for the comments above about the SPI investigations, I believe if you check them out your will see that Keepcalmandcarryon and S1mone admitted to knowing each other, even that they worked in the same place. The last time S1monoe left there were joyful editors. I think it's sad when an editor leaves because of harrassment issues. Maybe all the editors involved in this should be checked out for their own behaviors. I know that I got told off the last time I stood up for S1mone and I hope there is not a repeat of this. I apologized the last time because I didn't want to get into a fight with anyone. I still don't. I just feel that I should say something since S1mone is now gone. I also think that maybe MastCell should be told about this thread since he commented on the latest SPI case. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene is correct: sometimes a conspiracy is a conspiracy. I don't agree with User:RetroS1mone that all of these editors are sockpuppets, but at least some of them have clearly coordinated with each other on- and off-Wikipedia to influence article content, stack votes and harass other editors. And then, of course, there are the coordinated SPIs (yes, Ward20 technically filed the first one, but only after consulting with "Weller", TerryE and others). It's simply amazing that some of these editors have devoted weeks and months of their lives to harassing me because of content disputes on two Wikipedia articles.

From personal experience, here's a bit of what one can expect if one is perceived as standing in the way of the "inner circle" of CFS activists:

1. Harassment on Wikipedia
2. Harassment by email
3. Discussion of one's identity on the internet
4. Implicit and explicit legal threats
5. Complaints to one's employer and/or colleagues demanding silencing and/or dismissal

Unfortunately, it's not for nothing that these activists have been termed "The terrorists of health". I don't know if TerryE has been involved in all of these activities, and I don't really care. What's apparent to me, though, is that TerryE and others have figured out who I am, and considering what they (or like-minded editors) did in the past to User:Jfdwolff, I'm not at all comfortable with that. In the hopes that they will leave me alone, at least in my personal life, I'm going to emulate CrohnieGal and take Whittemore Peterson Institute and [[XMRV] off of my watchlist and leave the controversy to others. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is no surprise, there are some very militant and opinionated people in the CFS community. Article probation might well be the best solution, as it is for a number of intractable real-world disputes. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Geez, you'd think at some point they'd grow tired of it. (waits for groans from the audience) HalfShadow 15:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy/HalfShadow, yes there are some militant people in the CFS community, but I think we are discussing me here. I've got so tired of this accusation that I've even put a specific statement on this point in my user page[9]. Yes, I have exchanged emails with Keepcalmandcarryon, when I was trying to reach out to reconcile our positions and I have offered to make the entire threat public if K wishes. I also take it that the legal threat relates to this, which was a joke and dismissed as such by the administrators. I haven't discussed K's identity on the internet (and by that I think you mean the public forums): heck, it now looks like I didn't even get K's gender right. I certainly haven't complained to his employers. The only reference between K and me on external posts that I can think of was when K outed me for posting a technical comment on another site.

What the debate on the XMRV and WPI articles is and always has been about is whether the content is suitably underpinned by appropriate WP:RS and WP:MEDRS within WP policies and guidelines, and how we editors should conform to WP:ETIQ in our dealings with each other. Please look at the discussion threads before condemning me. -- TerryE (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, TerryE, it's not all about you. As I stated above, the incessant harassment of editors who present reliable sources that are in disagreement with the convictions of ME activists has been a constant on Wikipedia for many years. As I also stated, I believe you've had a role in this, but I don't know the full extent of your involvement. In any case, the harassment of me and others has gone well beyond your Wikipedia e-mails and well beyond your thinly veiled "joke" about Harvey Whittemore suing me.

Whatever your role in the wider harassment, surely you can't believe that devoting several months to questionable "analyses" of other editors' editing patterns, with the goal of banning them from Wikipedia simply because you have a content dispute with them, is in any way constructive. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read though TerryE's analysis fully, but, correlation does not imply causation. In addition, the specific test he's using is his own; I can't find an analysis of it in the statistical literature. Non-parametric factor analysis, which is what he seems to be attempting to do, is known to be questionable, at best. (Furthermore, the K-S test is inherently non-parametric; calling something non-parametric K-S is a best, redundant. What he's done appears to be a time-series parametric version of K-S. However, it may just detect people in the same time zone, rather than actual correlation.)

I'm afraid that I've, also, edited CFS from time to time, so I will not take administrative action here. However, if the statistics is found to be original, and targeted to produce his desired findings, TerryE should be banned from Wikipedia, and his edits reverted, even if supported by other editors.

Perhaps we do need to go straight to ArbCom. This is a conduct issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The specific analysis at User:TerryE/Supplemental SPI analysis would likely produce a positive if (1) U and D work at the same place; (2) U posts from work and D from home, and (3) there is a holiday sometime during the period, or they work on the same project which is running long, irregular, hours.

• (3) is needed to break up the periodicity which Terry seems to be testing for.
• (1) may not be needed if (3) includes a holiday.

I did not intend to imply that Terry developed this statistical method to produce a "positive" result, although How to Lie with Statistics did come to mind. It may be that he developed the method in order to formalize his suspicions. However, the method does seem faulty. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If people are editing in such a way as to coordinate their actions, I think we normally treat this in a similar way to sockpuppettry.. To quote WP:SOCK, "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity". 20:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC) This was DGG (talk · contribs).[10]

(outdent) Since this has come here I think administrators should investigate the active editors there and if they are behaving as socks or meat puppets then sanctions need to be handed out. This behavior has gone on for way too long. Just my opinion, have a good night, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DGGs sentiments, though I suspect that I am the object of these comments in this case. I have really been amazed by this response. As I said in the SPI, I took this step reluctantly -- and in retrospect perhaps hastily, but there was only one name on this -- mine. I have been labelled many ways, for example the originator of this ANI implied that I was supporting fringe[11] theories -- what fringe? Where are the diffs which support this unfounded hearsay? The source of this claim was a debate relating to a paper published in Science and co-authored by domain experts in the NCI and Cleveland Clinic who have very recently publicly supported the integrity of this work. Science -- fringe? NCI -- fringe? I am not trying to oversell anything, just ensure that article content sensibly reflects the RS and MEDRS, though I do object when editors accuse reputable authors of incompetent science.

If some of the other editors on these pages have a common ground, then in my view it is that they object to slash and burn tactics which cut across sound RS and MEDRS based content and that can undo weeks of careful negotiated work with a 15 min edit. As I have said to K many times: it's not our job to interpret the sources, but to report them in an unbiased way and to wait for the science. Within the next year or so the scientific process itself will be the true judge. I don't know which way the coin will land, but whichever way it lands, then I will willingly accept this, because if I do have a bias, it is my faith in the scientific method.

As to my statistical analysis, I really value critique from editors who have read my analysis and have some understanding how to use this class of non-parametric test. Yes, there are weaknesses in this approach. One commenter cited data dredging. I've posted the code. Look at it; run it yourself. Is this data dredging? Throwing the dice 260 times and looking for odd patterns amongst these is an example of data dredging. Wondering whether the dice is loaded because you didn't get a single six in 260 throws isn't. I now realise that it was a mistake to ask this type of question in the first place. -- TerryE (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop playing the "ME activist" stereotype card

A small radical fringe element amongst a wider more reasonable community is often alluded to by Wikipedians. I'm not involved in whatever personal life issues with supposed ME activists that K claims to have, so I can't really comment on that. But the unacceptable recurring theme in so many of the disputes I've been involved in has been use of the "ME activist/cabal/mafia" caricature, used to shrug off my edits and arguments, cast doubt on me, and poison any further discussion. The editorial problems I have with R and to a much lesser extent K have already been outlined elsewhere but I want to address this ME activist cabal strawman and red herring because it has gone on long enough. The evidence presented above and elsewhere for my involvement in or the existence of any "cabal" is rather dubious and paranoid:

• In early 2008 the CFS article was split into several subarticles, per consensus. I supported the split. A harmless project page was created to facilitate the process, but I was not involved editorially. By late 2008 R had major editing disputes with Guido den Broeder who was later banned. Guido used to mention some of the alleged cabal members including me on his userpage as Wikipedians he respected. We did not necessarily agree on CFS issues. R however suspected a cabal, and from then on basically any disagreement with R's POV was further evidence of a cabal. The false accusations and the strawmanning of my opinions became routine when there were disputes over the wording and weight given to various aspects of the psychological factors/treatments for CFS. I was a main contributor in the dispute at that stage. It's all in the archives.

• K makes much out of a more recent comment where Terry implies there is an "inner circle" he was not part of. I'm guessing Terry meant the main editors since he didn't edit much back then, and I'm one of the main editors? On the XMRV/WPI articles, I had minimal involvement there and it was the other alleged ME mobsters who added the majority of the XMRV negative studies. So there's no pro XMRV/WPI cabal either.

• At the CFS talkpage recently one or two anonymous editors turned up out of the blue possibly from a CFS forum and promoted a particular paper. I didn't bother to get involved. However, their arguments or actions were ironically shut down with the help of, wait for it ... -drumroll- ... Wikipedia's own resident alleged ME mafia mobsters Ward20 and TerryE!

Out of the millions of English speakers in the world who may be interested in CFS only a small handful edit at Wikipedia on the CFS pages. The conspiracy theories about me and a "ME activist cabal" that I'm allegedly involved with have been refuted over and over but the false accusations just keep coming regardless of the evidence. When the slightest indication of consensus is misconstrued as cabalistic and instant suspicion is thrown onto anyone who disagrees with you, beware of confirmation bias creep or soon you may be seeing ME cabals everywhere! Why not try comparing what "ME activists/militants" allegedly believe with what the CFS article actually is, you'll see that the idea of a ME activist cabal in control of the CFS articles is humorous enough to put on that Wikipedia list of fake/joke cabals, and I have already done so a few months ago.

_Tekaphor (TALK) 10:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the SPI mentioned above was closed with not actions. Just thought this should be part of the record here and also that editors should be aware. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've actually left all of the CFS pages alone for a good long while and the only reason is the acrimonious atmosphere. There is an immense amount of research done on CFS, it is a constantly expanding field, but also one prone to wild proclamations, exaggerated claims of success, criticism, etiology, treatment, etc. The involvement of a lot of single purpose accounts who have dedicated, strong points of view does not help. Given the enormous number of resources available (pubmed shows 5,000 research articles and over 1,000 review articles), there is no reason for this page so be so daunting to try to edit. Editors coming to the page a priori certain they know what causes CFS and how to treat it (from either the biological or psychological side of things) is the biggest detriment to neutral, dedicated editors coming to the page for the long-term work of establishing a neutral version. The page needs a) a mediator who understands that the field is inchoate, lacks answers, and full of controversy and b) a set of editors who are willing to either be polite, or respond only to the mediator rather than slinging mud at each other.

The page can, and should, be solved with sources. There is no need for it to be an ongoing, aggravating POV battle - editors need to realize there are multiple perspectives, none have come to dominate the field, and they're going to see neutral discussions of theories they don't like on the page.

Like a lot of the uninvolved editors, I'm certainly willing to comment. I am unwilling to step into that minefield. Perhaps arbcom should become involved, but the situation, as is, is borderline intolerable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second WLU's comments. I think a mediator would do an immense amount of good for the CFS article and related articles, since biased edits from both/all sides would effectively be nullified. (I'm assuming the article would be locked to non-admins in this instance; otherwise, it would be less effective.) It could perhaps also provide someone who more closely monitors the behaviours of the editors involved, allowing those behaviours to be addressed before they get out of hand, as well as providing a more neutral third party to give a viewpoint on things if they do escalate. I think the bulk of editors currently on these articles can and do work well together regardless of their personal opinions or biases, but when the more extreme opinions and/or actions come to the fore, it naturally makes everyone look more polarized than they truly are, similar to what's described at WP:TINC ("If you attack people who oppose you as if they were a collective with an agenda against you, then whether they were or not, they will certainly become one.") By setting controls on these actions, I would like to think that it would moderate the impression by some that there really is some sort of cabal here and allow us all to return to productive editing. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree a neutral mediator that has no preconceived ideals on these articles but a good basis in enforcing policy would be beneficial. Ward20 (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ahmed shahi

Although another complaint against User:Ahmed shahi was submitted earlier (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive612#User:Ahmed_shahi), but this current complaint is from my own part. There has been a persistent inaccurate editing in Kabul article by User:Ahmed shahi over the urban and metropolitan population figures.

• User:Ahmed shahi insists that Kabul city's urban population is 615,000 inhabitants relying only on a SINGLE source. Here is his first un-explained edit ([12]). The only source which states that Kabul city's urban population is 615,000 is Naval Postgraduate School ([13]) which itself bases its estimation on official statistics of the government of Afghanistan (like the Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan) and those of the UN agencies operating in Afghanistan. Apart from the NPS, there is NO single other source which supports this point..
• There are numerous sources, both official statistics and secondary reliable sources, which estimate Kabul city's urban population at around 2.5 million, and the metropolitan population at 3.5 million. For example CSO (Urban: 2.8 million; Metropolitan: 3.4 million; est. 2008), CPAU (Urban: 2.4m; est. 2004), UN DATA (Metro: 3.3m, est.2007), AIMS (Urban: 2.7m ; est. 2007), Encyclopaedia Britannica (Pop. (2006 est.) city, 2,536,300; metro. area, 3,138,100.), and numerous other sources. While User:Ahmed shahi cannot provide another single source for Kabul's urban population being 615,000.
• User:Ahmed shahi uses an incorrect approach in determining Kabul's urban population. He tries to compare Kabul with other cities in the world, as he did in here, while he forgets that we cannot compare Afghanistan with other countries which have different territorial administrative division. Countries in the world differ in determining the area of urban section of the cities. In France, for example, they consider Communes, while in Afghanistan the government considers Districts.
• The Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan reported the following statistics for Kabul in its 2006 Statistical Yearbook: Rural (601,700), Urban (2,536,300), Total (3,138,000). Following that, Encyclopaedia Britannica (Pop. (2006 est.) city, 2,536,300; metro. area, 3,138,100.) considers CSO's "Urban" figure as "Kabul city's Urban population" and CSO's "Total" figure as "Kabul city's Metropolitan population". I used the same approach in updating Kabul's population as of 2009, but User:Ahmed shahi writes: "Encyclopedias are mainly used for history but when it comes to data on population we should use government sources." and then he does not even accept the government sources such as CSO and MRRD which I present, and goes for the NPS which is an American institution based in the USA.
• Instead of using the latest figures, he goes for outdated figures such as MRRD. Or instead of being specific and exact about the figures - since there are numerous sources that have provided exact population figure - he writes vague sentences like between 2 to 3 million. He is doing the same thing in Kabul Province ([14]), while there should be NO dispute over Kabul Province's population, because all the sources are clear, direct and give exact figures.
• I provided several references and sources (Talk:Kabul#Latest), and all his response was that "The reason why Kabul appears over-crowded in some images is because most of the people don't stay at home, they all come out in the day and walk around." ([15]).
• It is not only me who disagrees with User:Ahmed shahi over Kabul city's population being 615,000, but there are also User:Ketabtoon and User:Alefbe who did not agree with using the NPS as the only source (Talk:Kabul#Kabul_city.27s_population), but User:Ahmed shahi is still insisting lonely at his part against the view of three editors.
• He lacks cooperation, makes false accusation at me being an "associate" of User:Tajik (here and here) and directly makes a personal attack and insult (You're in college in Europe and you can't figure this simple thing out? [16]) which indirectly insults me of lacking enough intellectual capacity to understand the issue despite being enrolled in a European University.

I am asking for the intervention of an Administrator. User:Ahmed shahi does not show any cooperation as a member of wikipedia community in editing an article. Not only in Kabul's article, but also in Afghanistan and in Ghurid Dynasty articles which are currently Protected as a result of Edit War. Ariana (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:Ariana310. Despite the fact that User:Ahmed shahi is constantly violating WP:NPA (for example here), his actions are being ignored by admins. He is an extreme POV pusher, does not understand what sources to be used, and he removes authoritative academic sources from articles in order to establish his own POV and WP:OR (here is a very good example). His behavior is very disturbing. Tajik (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Both editors (User:Ariana310 and User:Tajik) are trouble making edit-warriors who has been blocked before for edit-warring [17] [18] They are working as a team to get me blocked so they can go back to placing false and misleading information in articles that I've corrected. Both editors are spreading Tajik or Persian-ethnocentric POVs, and, they are going after me because I'm not an ethnic Tajik and I disagree with their POVs.
I cite the most reliable undisputed sources but they still disagree with them. I discuss my corrections on the talk pages in a civil manner but they leave discussions and instead start saying bad things about me and say that I don't know anything. They are provoking me to start edit-war but I learned to ignore them. This is just one example of what Tajik has been saying about me to Ariana310 "Ahmed shahi is a waste of time..." Ariana310 and Tajik should follow the rules of Wikipedia because this is not a place to discuss content disputes. Making such baseless reports is disturbing me and is disrupting Wikipedia.Ahmed shahi (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you focus on the edits, with diffs -- as they have done above, rather than non-diff comments about the editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Ahmed shahi: which "most reliable undisputed sources" are you talking about?! As everyone can see here, you are actually removing the most authoritative sources available (Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam) because these sources and the countless experts and scholars cited in those works do not support your nationalistic, ethnocentric, misleading and wrong claims which are only based on your own POV and OR. Tajik (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik, you know very well why I removed those 2 sources, I gave a good reason in the edit summary that 3 sources for Afghan is just too many in the intro of Pashtun people article. I left one source which is 16th century work explaining what Afghan is, and, the even the word is wiki-linked. You are pressing your POV in Pashtun people article that all Afghans are Pashtun people but this is false, Afghans are citizens of Afghanistan who belong to many different ethnic groups.Ahmed shahi (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Ahmed shahi: Please don't falsify what is going on. You remove the official sources and yet you write in the summary that "Reverting Ariana301 because he/she removed properly sourced content coming from the official Afghan and US governments" [19]. You are using the figures of DIFFERENT YEARS by various sources and you write: "The population of Kabul province is any where between 2.5 million to about 3.5 million.". Such a method is totally inaccurate and false. Please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_statistical_data where it says "Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care.".

Please don't change your position, and please don't falsify my edits and approach. Ariana (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahmad shahi has once again removed authoritative sources, in order to falsify the general consensus among scholars as presented in the two most authoritative academic sources of oriental studies. Instead, he quotes a 16th century historian of Mughal India (the Persian court writer Ferishta) who is only citeable by modern scholars. Ferishta was not a modern scholar and his writings need to be evaluated and validated by modern experts. His words cannot be used as a source to propagate ethnocentric POV. The word "Afghan" is still synonymous with "Pashtun", as can be read in the aforementioned encyclopedias. Leaving that aside, he cannot even name the sentence he is pretending to quote! The meaning of the word "Afghan" is explained here: From a more limited, ethnological point of view, “Afḡān” is the term by which the Persian-speakers of Afghanistan (and the non-Paṧtō-speaking ethnic groups generally) designate the Paṧtūn. The equation Afghans = Paṧtūn has been propagated all the more, both in and beyond Afghanistan, because the Paṧtūn tribal confederation is by far the most important in the country, numerically and politically. This is an authoritative academic source which is being removed and falsified by Ahmed shahi. That's ethnocentric POV-pushing at its worse and it is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules! Tajik (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Afghan" refers to any native, citizen or national of Afghanistan. This is mentioned in all dictionaries and encyclopedias as well as in the Afghan constitutions and in books, articles and etc. Editor Tajik and Ariana310 are stating and claiming that ethnic Pashtuns should be Afghans [20] [21], which is totally wrong and misleading.

I also want to report that editor Tajik and Ariana310 are totally removing information that comes from official Afghan (Afghan Rural ministry) and US government (Naval Postgraduate School) sources. [22] [23]Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, please don't falsify the things around here. This is what you did; removing the exact figure of Kabul Province's population with its official source (Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan) and which was the latest estimation (as of 2009). And you replaced it with three outdated sources (2006, 2007 and 2008) and then writing in the article "......is some where between 2.5 to around 3.5 million." This is absurd and scientifically wrong; you should be specific about the data (you should not say between this number and that number, unless the source says so).

Unlike Kabul city's urban population, there should be no dispute over Kabul Province, because there is no urban or metropolitan areas that you are confusing the definitions of. The CSO is completely direct and specific about the figure: Kabul Province's population as of 2009 : 3.4 million. That's it! Ariana (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If the Administrators are ignoring User:Ahmed shahi's behaviour (falsifying the sources, falsely describing and portraying other editors' approaches, making a personal attack, committing 3RR violation several times, removing reliable and scholarly sources, etc.), they can at least ask a neutral editor who is qualified in statistics and demographics to look at the issue and find out who is employing the wrong approach. The issue of Kabul's population might be a minor concern, but I am afraid if User:Ahmed shahi continues like this, it will be hard for editors to contribute in Afghanistan-related articles; as he/she has made me completely irritated and impatient with his non-cooperation and disturbing behaviour. Ariana (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

More WP:NPA by Ahmed shahi: [24]. Tajik (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reasons to believe that editor Tajik and Ariana310 are stalking me, harrasing me, and making false accusations.Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The many links provided clearly prove your disruptive behaviour. Tajik (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (from a non-admin): this issue has been up for a couple of days now, with no input from admins or non-involved editors. I suspect admins are finding the issue as difficult as me to decipher. Could I suggest that the various parties summarise their views in one paragraph, providing diffs to demonstrate their concerns? Otherwise this is going to continue going back-and-forth with no outcome. Cheers! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Summaries

Ahmed shahi

Almost every page I edit, the three editors (User:Tajik, User:Ariana310 and User:Inuit18) work as a team and revert my edits. See how they keep removing the reliable sources from the Kabul article [25] [26] [27]. These three editors are ethnic Tajiks from Afghanistan who are editing mostly ethnicity of people. They don't like my edits because I provide reliable sources that go against their POVs so then they come here and make up lies against me. I believe one of them (User:Tajik) has been placed on a one revert per page per week so this explains why Ariana310 and Inuit18 come to help revert for him.Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Tajik

Actually, diffs have been provided above: Ahmed shahi is insulting other users as "racist" ([28]), he is removing authoritative academic sources ([29]), and (as already criticized in the previous complaint at WP:ANI) he does not understand the difference between reliability of sources ([30]). He is actively falsifying quotes and sources (see second link), and it is very obvious that he fully misunderstands the meaning of Wikipedia. He truly believes that Wikipedia is a place where national interests are to be defended, no matter if they are factually right or wrong ([31]). See also this comment by User:Eaglestorm. As for the Kabul article: see the detailed summary of User:Ariana310 above: it is in fact Ahmed shahi who is deleting official (!) data provided by the Afghan government in 2009 (!) in order to replace them with outdated numbers. So far, we have not seen any reliable sources on his side. In fact, he actually believes that websites such as www.sabawoon.com are superior to academic standard reference works such as Encyclopaedia of Islam or Encyclopaedia Iranica (he is constantly removing these 2 sources from articles; see my first diff and the comment by Eaglestorm). Please see also his disruptive, ethnocentric edits in Talk:Faisal_Shahzad#Ethnicity and the respective article. Tajik (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I realise that, but the thread above is very long, and I suspect people simply aren't prepared to wade through huge amounts of text just to get to the real issue. Thanks, both of you, for summarising. Note to admins/other-interested-parties who haven't trawled through the thread: another editor, Ariana310 (talk · contribs), has also participated but has not yet had an opportunity to provide a summary. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ariana310

User:Ahmed shahi intentionally falsifies the sources, insists at his own part alone on an issue against the view of three other editors (for ex. on Kabul's population : Talk:Kabul#Kabul_city.27s_population), bases all his argument on a SINGLE source (([32]) and when is asked to present his arguments cannot provide satisfactory and coherent answers (Talk:Kabul#Latest). He removes the latest official statistics (as of 2009) for Kabul's population, and uses several outdated sources (2006, 2007 and 2008) and then writes "......is some where between 2.5 to around 3.5 million." [33]; his approach is entirely incorrect. He makes direct personal attacks ([34]) and accuses of me "helping" or working as an "associate" of User:Tajik (here and here). He is trying to deviate this current complaint and tries to show it like a situation of Wikipedia:Don't take the bait. He continuously removes scholarly sources which are in contrast with his POV and lacks cooperation as a member of wikipedia community. Ariana (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Cptnono

I feel I am being harassed over my attempts to preserve information, including an image, at Teabagger. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This IP is continuing to delete a speedy delete template from an image that does not have the appropriate FUR and has multiple problems. There is currently a review at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:FreeRepublicTeaBag.jpg. From this review, one editor suggested opening a sockpuppet investigation (now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JustGettingItRight) and an admin reinserted the tag with the following edit summary: "please see WP:NFCC and WP:FURG. Add a fair use rationale, per our guidelines, or this image gets deleted. if you need help formatting a FUR, then ask. but DO NOT remove tag w/o a proper FUR".

To make matter worse, the IP has reverted all recent work to the article as it looked on April 25. The biggest change was turning the page into a redirect based on a deletion discussion and more at the Tea Party movement talk page. Other issues with his mass restoration was re-adding the non-free image, several lines by other editors removed or added, and multiple non-reliable sources.

The IP has received multiple warnings and refuses to discuss most of the issues. It is more than likely a sockpuppet but at the best it is just a disruptive editor. Reporting this as harassment is also an abuse of process.Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention is now needed. IP 74.162.147.17 just reverted another editor at the page.[35] It is very likely the same editor. Evidence is submitted at the SPI. He is skirting 3rr by using a different IP. He is making edits although there was ample discussion and has a history of abusing alternate IPs and edit warring. I believe User:Mbhiii should be indefinitely blocked for continued disruptive behavior.Cptnono (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a talk page consensus for keeping this as a separate page from the main article. It looks like a POV-fork to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Completely looks like a fork to me (as tagged). The problem here is not the content but a continuous abuse of IPs over a few years with a splash of edit warring over and over and over again.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - First, the IP editor failed to give any evidence to back up their accusations, which seem unfounded to me. Second, having no knowledge of the dispute or article itself, why isn't it just a disambiguation page with links to the two groups of people called teabaggers? ← George ^talk 07:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for saying something George. Just for transparency: George and I have similar off Wikipedia interests. We don't always agree on here though. This really is a case of an editor abusing IPs and continuously getting away with it. Something should be done since it has been the cause of several disputes after looking at the history. People are free to not agree but flagrant disregard for the standards is a concern. I am surprised it has gone on this long.Cptnono (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And he is still doing it. Now under a different IP in the same range. He has added a fact tag to the article even though there are plenty of sources. I think the article should be redirected completely so don;t really are how much he botches it but it is certainly inappropriate to be editing like that. Can an administrator intervene?Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Eric144

Eric144 (talk · contribs · block log) is adding defamatory content from a tabloid's opinion piece to the article of a politician elected today. It was removed. A short while later, he simply undid the removal.

He'd already tried inserting it in March, but it was removed by another editor. He readded it today with "[author] reminds us of the dark legacy of the Goldsmith family", which says it all.

I've reluctantly brought it here as a large proportion of the user's edits have been to pages on members of this environmentalist/politician's family:

1. He creates a section titled "Nazism" on the talkpage of one linking to a homepage.ntlworld.com webspace page [36]
2. Later he added a further unsubstantiated related allegation [37] (even though AN/I isn't indexed, I'm not even going to repeat what he said in his last paragraph).
3. Again he restores removed content about it saying "I put the ... information back where it belongs in the middle of what looks like a hagiography to me. Any attempt to remove it will see its immediate return." [38] Again in a subsequent month [39] saying "It reads like a nazi hagiography", with remark "would help if you were to reveal your identity" [40]. The edits to the accompanying article mirror the talkpage edits.

He's long made personal attacks against specific editors. [41] His past block history is for "making personal attacks and for reverting against consensus" with multiple unblock declines due to WP:NOTTHEM.[42]

Despite the edit summary explaining his addition was reverted because it was pov pushing and pointing him to the undue weight NPOV policy, as the article already covered the matter from all points of view using reliable sources including The Times, he simply undid it saying "vandalism".

It seems clear from their editing history the user is not here to collaborate, is unwilling to listen, and for whatever reason is especially focused on members of a particular family making non reliably sourced allegations they are nazis or "human chocolate bars".

I removed the poorly sourced pov material again [43], and placed a warning template on their talkpage. They responded with this screed referring to a completely different statement as "pathetic, laughable, and execrable"—the statement's sourced to The Observer and has been present in the article since 2008. They restored their defamatory material saying "vandalism" as before. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

some of the article on Edward Goldsmith at present does read like a hagiography: altogether too many adjectives of praise and an inappropriate separate list of links to "associates" and influences" . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not edited that article myself nor even read it all, so you may be right; glancing, I do see a few peacock terms in its lead. What I am saying is that the unsupported nazi allegations and defamatory tabloid namecalling insertions about the living politician are inappropriate. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

While that could be true (did not take the time to investigate), the IP editor who began this thread is also correct. I have notified Eric1444 about the inappropriateness of his edits, and I have left a reminder for him to reread the BLP and NPOV policies. NW (Talk) 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DGG, that is a true text. I have removed some laundry lists from the article and would encourage better copyeditors than I to "edit mercilessly". Guy (Help!) 15:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have the patience to deal with wikipedia troublemakers like 92.30.111.99 who don't even have a Wikipedia account. No one has addressed the pathetic and utterly crass "Young, gifted and Zac" article which remains untouched as "Goldsmith is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition" in the article. That is an obvious bias by 92.30.111.99 . The Edward Goldsmith article was a very slimy hagiography by someone almost certainly connected to the family. The Goldsmith family are well known to everyone with the tiniest historical knowledge as being on the very extreme right of British politics. According to a Guardian article, they initiated a fascist coup against Harold Wilson, who subsequently resigned (see BBC documentary The Plot Against Harold Wilson ). It is relevant that a Guardian and NYT journalist uses Nazi symbolism against him. George Monbiot wrote an article called 'Black Shirts in Green Trousers' about Zac's favourite Uncle Edward. Could both of you please stop threatening me. It really isn't nice.

--Eric144 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mood Indigo (culfest)

Mood Indigo (culfest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be in the grip of a sustained PR campaign. I have rolled back to the last version before a couple of SPAs took on the task of inserting every weasel word in existence, I am sure this will not be allowed to stand. They have contacted OTRS saying it's "really important" that their changes are not reverted, I have asked why. Something tells me that it will be really important to sales, not to Wikipedia's mission. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bombay studant festival all cited to primary citations, it at least is not hurting anything or any one and is likely very important article of you are a Mumbai student. As it was it was clear advertising, needs a decent write, looks like a pretty notable-ish event, lots of videos on Utube.Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens. That article has one whole reference? And oh, look. It's to the festival's own website. What a lot of nonsense. We ought to empty this article of text and start from scratch. Maybe then we'll get something close to encyclopedic. AGK 23:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is "culfest" really a word? I've never seen it before. It makes me snigger since "cul" is french slang for "butt". 69.228.170.24 (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Template problem.

{{Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names)}}

See also {{Tributaries of Mureş River}}

Hello everybody, i need an advice about a user who ignores a certain rule. The problem is kind of old, and it takes back to this when it was discussed a very similar thing where there also was "a big deal" over a clear matter for the policy applying matter. User:Rokarudi refuses to follow the standard naming policy, WP:PLACE and WP:NAME. We tried to talk here and on many other occasions but the problem still persists, since he continue to ignore this rule. This violation can create chaos on many Romania and Slovakia related articles because both counties have Hungarian minority which is very important to his POV. I tried to explain everything but i failed. The problem is 1 and 2. I want to point out the fact that before his projects there wasn`t any templates with the attempts of a special template just to emphasize other language names. In this case, Romania or any other country has river(or any other type) templates that use the standard naming policy, there is no reason for this to be a special case. Also i want to say the basic idea of the template, it has to be short and informative not cramped with alternative names. A template should not hold unnecessary and irrelevant information for the English Wikipedia, such as Hungarian names for rivers and places that are found only in Romania. Hungarian names are not relevant in this context and therefore should not be used. I am writing this problem here for the need of clarification. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Note user has been previously blocked [44] due to violation of 3RR. I am not an administrator and not experienced to pass judgement, but I feel that the REPORTED user should stay away from articles relating to this subject to prevent edit waring, having discussed this issue with the editor above. To shed a little light on the problem for Administrators, there is tension between Romania and Hungary about land. Regards Captain n00dle\^Talk 23:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Only a couple of days ago I supported unblocking Adrian and instead restricting him to two reverts per day. Now that he has back his editing rights, evidently the most productive use of them he could think of was to jump straight into a contested subject area. This request may well be actionable, but I remain a little disappointed. AGK 23:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good Evening, It was not ME but Iadrian yu who was blocked due to violation of 3RR. Already for the 3rd time. There is no tension between Hungary and Romanian but Transylvania needs patience and tolerance. If someone says I must stay away from editing, please bring evidence that I breached rules or was uncivil. I never provoke edit wars, but I do not like to see that 100 articles were edited without consensus overnight. I never violated any wiki rules on WP: naming. If you find any serious violation, feel free to block me for 2 month minimum. The story is as follows:
1.) From time to time, Iadrian receives a block at John Hunyadi. On such occasions, he comes over to Transylvania-related geographic articles to delete Hungarian placenames. Since 2007, there was a clear consensus in this matter as per this Odorhei naming compromise. All of my edits were according to this. (no one can show any single edit that violates it). On 15 March 2010, he received a block for 55 hours. When he was free to edit, he to geographic articles and on 24th March, 2010 Iadrian yu provoked an edit war by deleting bolded Hungarian placenames from dozens of articles at Covasna County, and when I reverted to status quo ante, he started to report. He was not given the opinion what he wanted at (Mediation Cabal initiated by Iadrian yu) so finally he reported the issue to admin Mjroots. In the discussion Iadrian + permanently banned editor sockpuppet Umumu + zero edit Amon Koth convinced the admin that ‘consensus has changed’. Although I disagreed with the ruling, in the aftermath, you will not find any single edit from me that violated the ruling. If you find 3, feel free to block me for 3 month. Check first false accusations.
2.) A few days ago, Iadrian was about to receive a block again at John Hunyadi for edit warring and 3RR violation, therefore, he came back to geographic articles and after having been reverted by Markussep at changing the template [45], he created a duplicate and started to change the template on app. 100 articles. The template, by the way, was created several months ago as a result of Consensus of responders on template language The consensus was that there is no prejudice against bilingual geographic templates or lists. On the one hand, I never created any nationalistic edit. Please bring an example if did. From the template history [46] you can see that Iadrian yu only continued the work of permanently banned editor Iaaasi sockpuppet of sockmaster Bonaparte.
3.) Look at my talk page at Mures2, even a respected Romanian editor warned Iadrian yu not to harass me. Dahn clearly said that I do not violate any rule although he personally does not share my opinion.
4.) Look at my edits, let's say, during the past two weeks at Hargita County settlements or elsewhere. If you find anything disruptive, feel free to block me. I do not let me drawn into any edit war, so this is all what I want to say.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 00:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note Please note that number 3 of Rokarudi`s comment is false, everyone can check the talk page and see it for himself. talk page.iadrian (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but all this, what does that has to do with the violation of the WP:PLACE of your templates? You didn`t represent a single arguments to support your POV and you make up for this by discrediting the users which have a different opinion than you and being overly nice. "Your first violation of the naming policy was noticed when i pointed to the WP:PLACE and WP:NAME, not by some users you think "helped me" so please don`t try to misrepresent something so clear. The administrator said his decision based on WP:NAME and WP:PLACE. Please stop with the false accusations on other users, stick to the subject. I don`t need to justify myself again (after i told you so many times [47] ,[48]..) since i am acting based on wiki rules and i talked to you many times on this subject which i made clear in my first comment. The consensus was that there is no prejudice against bilingual geographic templates or lists. that was a decision made on when you insisted so much , this is not binding, WP:PLACE is. I will repeat, all templates are the same only you are trying to create a special one based on your POV that violates wiki naming policy and the idea of the template. Beside the WP:PLACE A template should not hold unnecessary and irrelevant information for the English Wikipedia, such as Hungarian names for rivers and places that are found only in Romania. Hungarian names are not relevant in this context and therefore should not be used. iadrian (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I also want to say that all this problems were first introduced by Rokarudi. First of all he introduced other language names in Romania in hundreds of articles(and now on the other hundred of articles about Mures river) in violation with wiki rules and now even templates. iadrian (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The discussion mentioned above referred to the Hungarian name for places in Romania appearing in articles. Templates were not discussed. IMO, the template should only link to the article name, which in this case would be the Romanian name. No translation would be necessary in the template, although such may legitimately appear in the lede of the linked articles. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not a problem, everything that is according to the wiki naming policy is fine, other language names , in this case Hungarian names will appear in the lede but in standard form like everywhere else. Templates the same. Templates carry only official names so there is nothing special about this case to change that. iadrian (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As we can see here and here Rokarudi recently modified this templates also, before his modifications everything was normal, as any other template. iadrian (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As another indication of Rokarudi`s violation of this rules, there was also a similar discussion here where it is explained to another user that tried to do something similar and recognized his mistake. iadrian (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots, It is not a problem that you are not sympathetic with the use of alternate names in specific settings. However, you may give a thought to fact that you have recently made a ruling in a similar matter which was based on a 'new consensus' reached by 3 editors including Iadrian yu blocked for three times for 3RR violation and edit warring, Umumu, a proven sockpuppet and zero edit Amon Koth , who has only been active at that and this voting, showing himself an obvious sockpuppet of Iaaasi|Umumu|Bonaparte|Contest. By your last ruling based on this consensus, you put aside the real consensus reached by a great number of respected editors in 2007, providing guidance ever since. Odorhei naming compromise. Although I considered your ruling a major mistake, I never breached it. It is also a major problem, that in this bilingual template matter, neither you nor others from the opposing side pay anjy attention to the fact that there was an identical discussion in February 2010, and the consensus of responders was that bilingual templates and lists may be acceptable (no prejudice against them)[49]. Sorry, but it is close to ridicule, that every consensus reached in the past through real consensus building can be overthrown in this area at any time if one side is active enough to provoke a new dispute. What is the recipee? 1.step. You choose a sensitive area with delicately balanced practices. 2. step. You edit 50 aricles according to your POV. 3. step. When you are reverted with reference to the specific consensus, you challenge the practice based on this consensus at ANI and the new consensus is declared by those present (the more sockpuppets involved the better) 4. step. The one who worked in line with existing consensus in a specific matter at a specific time is labelled as wiki rule violator and perpetrator. No wonder, that this dispute is avoided by most serious editors who had told their opinion in similar discussions in the past as such evergreen disputes are boring for most, regardless of opinion.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me and trying to tarnish my reputation as an editor or the reputation of other editors. You saw that i don`t do that for you, even if you brake the rules. I never accused you of something so please try to be civil. False accusations are not helping and are not constructive to this discussion. The last block was "planed" [50] by you. You sent a message to Squash Racket for help to block me intentionally, that is edit warring, by YOU. Anyway , the validity of an opinion is not judged by the number of blocks or anything else, everybody makes mistakes and that is not relevant to this subject, except for you. You didn`t represent a single arguments to support your POV and you make up for this by discrediting the users which have a different opinion than you to so you can continue with ignoring the rules.iadrian (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, I am sympathetic to the issue of alternative language names in the appropriate places. As far as I can tell, templates generally fall outside of this. I'm not sure that consensus can override policy, although I do know that consensus may change over a period of time. The two templates have both been nominated for deletion. The outcome of both TfDs should therefore help to establish the consensus on the issue of alternative language names in templates. Mjroots2 (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Mjroots, I do not know how much experience you have with respect to naming policies, but general policies in naming issues are usually implemented by being filtered through country speficic consensus. If you read the link you will see that, not surprisingly, there is no listed convention neither for Slovakia nor for Romania. This proved to cause many problems. Therefore, as a convention-substitute, reasonable editors worked out partial compromises which were respected but not officially listed: for Slovakia the Elonka-convention, while for Romania the Odorhei partial compromise. This latter had been used since 2007 until you were unhappily gamed into abolishing it, based on a dubious discussion. Why I was angry was not because you decided as you did, but I felt that you are not familiar enough with the specific Transylvanian circumtances and the history of the problem, so decided from a distant and purely abstract point of view, thus, let the ghost out of the bottle by encouraging Iadrian yu to challenge all existing compromises and practices. By the way, templates are only means of grouping information, like lists. There are dozens of exonym lists. See them here [51] The only reason I made a template was that a template looks better than a list. Why to delete a template, if a list is acceptable. As to arguments mentioned by Iadrian yu, all the arguments, pros and cons can be read at Mures County bilingual template It would not contribute to consensus building if I repeated them. If anyone is really interested in editor's opinion, can take his time and go through it. It is not from 2007 it is from 4 February, 2010. But, one has to hurry up as Iadrian wants to close this discussion immeadiately after one day :) Regards: Rokarudi--Rokarudi 14:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi you should really stop with you attitude. You were first acting like a victim and now like a teacher. Please stop. Where there is no consensus for particular country like Romania and Slovakia (you gladly violate) we respect the standard naming policy since there is nothing special there. I will remind you that YOU started this problems we have here, from Romania`s names to this templates that are unique in all wikipedia. What special situation about Transylvania? Please don`t try to express some irredentism feeling you might have. The rules are clear here and it was already explained to you several times. I am not rushing the discussion but since we know that you ignore the naming policy this case looks pretty clear. There is no need for every rule you don`t like to make a chaos and a ANI report to talk for days and weeks. iadrian (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Conclusion; Since this is going nowhere like this, as Rokarudi continues to deviate (to complain) from the subject and not presenting a single argument to support his POV i would ask for the administrators to give their opinion on this matter since before Rokarudi`s edits of Hungarian names none of this problems existed. As prof we have this discussion [here and his recent edits that were also introduced in violation with the wiki naming policy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AHarghita_County&action=historysubmit&diff=355585621&oldid=331427961 here] , here and [{{Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names)}}]. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As this section is about incidents, and not of naming policies, the following edits show that the Reporter provokes edit war even during on-going discussion. He has no patience even to wait for the result of the on-going template discussions tocontinue his work in deleting Hungarian name sections from other templates, he feels an urgent need to do it right now. edit warri by Iadrian yu Edit warring by Iadrian yu. In terms of incident discussion, the main isue is to tell the difference between good faith editing and edit warring. In the first case, an editor may edit what he deems good, even may edit bold, even may be wrong, but after consensus is declared, he shall comply with it. If he wants to change consensus or staus quo, he first try to build consensus. As a contrarian example, Iadrian jumps into hot issues, acts quickly and efficiently, then goes to admins and wait for admnistrative legitimization. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 09:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Again , you and your "representation".. "As this section is about incidents, and not of naming policies,"- This has no sense, this section is about an incident because of the violation of the naming policy, one can`t exist without the other. One correction according to the naming policy(you violate) is hardly a provocation for an edit war or do i plan one like you do [52]. You said everything except real arguments, anything about the problem or your edit chaos. If you would be kind to check the talk page [53] and [54] at the templates, you created chaos, you would see that everything is explained nicely. I don`t think that any unsupported accusations are constructive as you should know too, from you and me included of course, so it would be great if you could stop(and i will too) from doing it in the future because we will just end up throwing "mud" one at another and we won`t do nothing with that since nobody of us indeed violates the rules you are talking about in your last comment. Let`s try to keep the conversation at some level and to the subject. iadrian (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How about for a change to answer why did you reverted this ? And why did you introduced Hungarian names in the first place into these [55] and [56] templates ? And if you have valid points why don`t you represent then at my answer at the talk page? iadrian (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• (1) As I said above, the template was modified on 24th February, 2010 according to the result of the Mures (Maros) County template language dispute in which the admin summarized consensus by establishing that although the issue was controversial there was no prejudice against bilingual geographic templates or lists. I edited according to this very consensus prevailing at that time. (2) Hungarian names are not in first place in these templates. The Romanian names stand first (upper section), while the Hungarian names in second (lower section) [57] and [58]. (3) Your arguments on wiki policies (WP:PLACE and WP:NAME) are empty, references to non-existing policies as these guidelines only cover article titles and use of placenames in the body of the articles, not in lists or templates. Policies against a bilingual template are like a Ghost Ship, many speak about it, but nobody saw it. There is no wiki policy on monolingual or bilingual templates, exonym templates or similar. Dahn, far from being a promoter of Hungarian placenames, clearly told it on my talk page. Many approve alternate names in Transylvanian county templates, many disapprove, but this is a question of opinion, not that of wiki rule. (4) You have again Hungarian names deleted without consultation from another county template where 80% of the population are Hungarians and almost all of those names are locally co-official. When I reverted you, you forced your POV again, although you are on parole on condition that you avoid edit warring. I will NOT revert you as this is the very strategy you follow in trying to drag me into an edit war. I will not report you for harassing. I will patiently be waiting until an admin will be kind to ask you to stop it. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 14:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. The points are that:

• The consensus you talk about is not binding in sense that the conclusion was "There is no prejudice against bilingual templates" WP:PLACE is. WP:PLACE and WP:NAME are not an empty argument since it regulates the use of the official names in articles, therefore use of the official names in templates, since that is also a part of the article and it is created conform the names we use in the articles.
• I quote Hungarian names are not in first place in these templates. The Romanian names stand first (upper section), while the Hungarian names in second (lower section) , as i explained as one of the reasons here, If Hungarian users want to see Hungarian names there is a Hungarian Wikipedia. A template should not hold unnecessary and irrelevant information for the English Wikipedia, such as Hungarian names for places that are found only in Romania. Hungarian names are not relevant in this context and therefore should not be used. Even in lower section. - Since that is one of the main motive the Hungarian names should be present, by your opinion, if i understood it well.
• Also, precedent isn't binding on Wikipedia, but it can be illustrative. Is there a comparable template that provides two names? If you look, for instance, at the template for Vojvodina, which has six official languages, only Serbian names are given, with other names provided in individual articles.
• Hungarian is not an official language anywhere in Romania. In 20%+ towns, it has some attributes of an official language, like signage and educational rights, but it's not official or co-official. It doesn`t matter the percentage of the Hungarian population in some compact areas, it matters the official language (Romanian) and therefore the Romanian names.
• Note : The demographic factor is reflected in other ways like in the lede where is mentioned as a second name and in infoboxes and in the maps displayed right under the official name as an alternative. Like in this article [59] where we can see it in the info box and colored on the map of Romania the location and the alternative name.

As i said, i would like to talk about the subject of this discussion since we can`t solve something if we don`t talk about it and constantly throwing unsupported accusations at each other so please stop. I will not respond to your unsupported claims and accusations for the purpose of this conversation.iadrian (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Chichester

A newbie, User talk:MarcusHookPa, is edit warring at Chichester, Pennsylvania. He's reverting cn & dubious tags, as well as deleted my comments on the talk page. I've tried explaining to him how his edits contradict what what he says, and this last time warned him I'd ask to have him blocked if he continued, but he's reverted the tags again. His attitude appears to be that, since he's right and I'm wrong, there's nothing to discuss. — kwami (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to inform him of this discussion. Also, both of you have passed 3 reverts, although arguably you're reverting vandalism, i.e. unexplained removal of fact tags and the like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A new user whose userpage is redirected to the article about that city? Uh, ok. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably so he can get to the article quickly. Not exactly "brand-new", as he started in September, but he's got a particular focus to his editing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time that Kwamikagami has edit warred over the pronunciation of a town's name. Kwamikagami was taken to ANI previously for edit warring and misuse of admin tools. The latter not a case in this account, but edit warring is. While MarcusHookPa's actions may be bad, Kwamikagami has a history of edit warring of the pronunciation's of towns and will edit war to make sure his pronunciation is the "right" one. Clearly something needs to be done to both users. I recommend a 3RR block for both. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • A mini edit-war happened here a few days ago as well again by Kwamikagami. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • A single revert a week later? Calling that an edit war is both hilarious and disingenuous. Knepflerle (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
      • No, that would be called a pattern. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
        • It's not a pattern of edit warring if the other case isn't an edit war. And however much you try to distort it out of all proportion, one revert in a week is not an edit war. Knepflerle (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Yeah, just a big coincidence he reverts once (the other editor doesn't engage) and a week later he fully edit wars with another user. Yeah, just a big coincidence. Not buying it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Thankfully, whether you "buy" that is neither here nor there. He didn't edit war at that article, so it's an irrelevance. Editors are judged on their actual actions, not on what you choose to wildly extrapolate from one non-incident. Knepflerle (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

NeutralHomer hid my rebuttal of his false allegation in a collapsible box in this edit, but left the allegation in the main text. I am happy for both to be archived, or neither; it is not acceptable to hide the criticism alone. Knepflerle (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The missing piece here is that neither edit warrior has provided a citation for the town's pronunciation. Either way, it's original research. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A cursory search hasn't revealed any sources for me. I'd estimate that 99.99% of IPA pronunciations are unsourced on en.wp, and 70% are unsourceable (this is not an excuse at all, just an observation).

In this case the dispute wasn't about the pronunciation, rather how to represent this correctly in IPA. The representation Kwamikagami proposed is correct and hopefully MarcusHookPa will be convinced of this. If he continues to dispute it however, it wouldn't harm to remove the information as OR, as it's hardly crucial. Knepflerle (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right about the unsourced nature of the pronunciations. I expect that's going to be an issue someday. Meanwhile, how would you say "Chichester" phonetically? As in, what common word does each syllable rhyme with? "Buy west her"? "Bee west her"? What's the deal on the stress on the syllables? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(Puts on finest Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language hat): so Chichester, Pennsylvania rhymes with "buy west her", in contrast with the Chichester in England which rhymes with "rich sister" (almost). Chichester has primary stress on the first syllable followed by two unstressed syllables (like the normal pronunciation of the word "bicycle"), whereas Chichester, Pennsylvania has primary stress on the first syllable, secondary stress on the second syllable and an unstressed third syllable (like the normal stress of the word "railroading"). Knepflerle (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Thank you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The part I didn't get was about "as if it were two words". No more so than "Rochester" or "Winchester", I would think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I note that Marcus continues to revert to his version despite discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Puppetmaster User:Sorrywrongnumber again

I've filed another SPI about this persistent blocked and vandalizing editor. I note it here, because Sorrywrongnumber's past M.O. has been to come here and post a complaint about how I am harrassing them (the "new" editor, that is) before they fortuitously discover that I supposedly have a conflict of interest and blah blah blah blah blah. It's all documented here. SWN's last socking activity was six days ago, on May 2.[60][61] I have notified User:Sorrywrongnumber of this report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CU confirms the new sock and finds a couple of sleepers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Bigotgate, again

I salted the title Gillian Duffy after this discussion. There is now a request to reinstate it as a redirect to United Kingdom general election, 2010#Campaign where the incident is covered. My own view is that we should not have a redirect that permanently associates Mrs Duffy's name with the fact that the Prime Minister called her bigoted, and I propose that my protection (which runs only to the 13th) should be made permanent; but I would like other views. Please comment at Talk:Gillian Duffy. JohnCD (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yet again, as has happened all throught the election, this has just been discussed at length on British national television as one of the incidents of the election, with, shock horror, her full name mentioned many times. Yet, we have somehow ended up with interpretations of BLP that mean that, the theoretical situation of her grandchildren being traumatised by Wikipedia, is more important than the real situation of readers wanting to know what the hell actually happened and why it is being mentioned all the time, and not being able to even find the relevant page where it is documented by Wikipedia (not that it has even done that very well). MickMacNee (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a discussion we shouldn't be having. We simply cannot judge the lasting importance of a name that's been in a newspaper for a week. If this is still being discussed in a year's time - we can deal with it then. The notion that "the reader might be searching for this" is silly - we are not a newspaper and any reader looking for this ought to be directed elsewhere. We fail miserably when we try to do immediate current affairs of living people, it is out of project scope WP:NOTNEWS, and as for "do we need this is the long-run?" questions, I simply reply "let's ask that in a few months" - what'stheflippinghurry--Scott Mac 18:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• My own view is that we should not have a redirect that permanently associates Mrs Duffy's name with the fact that the Prime Minister called her bigoted – I think that British political memory will do that perfectly on its own! I see no problem with the redirect myself: is there any policy basis for not having it? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 18:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a judgement call.--Scott Mac 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • For a policy reason, I would cite the passage in WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy about: "...dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." JohnCD (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• The incident met WP:EVENT days ago, which would have fallen within the period of the original Afd, had it not been vanished within an hour. I don't know why anyone is even still pretending this won't still be remembered, culturally referenced, or otherwise written about, in year's time as a major incident of the election, except for ideological reasons and a desire to change Wikipedia, something which should not be anywhere near the mind of an admin when mashing his buttons. This is not a question of improper prediction, it has been proven beyond doubt already, if one is actually looking at the sources, rather than making assumptions about what they say. The idea that Wikipedia waits a year to write articles is a pure fantasy. Wikipedia is treated as a newspaper for major incidents of lasting impact, by readers and editors, which is why Wikinews is such a total failure. MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Major theme in Have I got news for you tonight. Leaky Caldron 21:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Before the next time it happens, Wikipedia should have a discussion to what we want to be. If we want to be a traditional encyclopedia with an online format, then some minor people will not qualify. If we want to have articles on practically everything, that's a value judgment. Until we decide that, we will constantly have this problem. Even the policies and guidelines are contradictory. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Twyfords-Tri-Shell

Resolved

 – Told ya. Şłџğģő 17:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This editor is treating this encyclopedia like a tabloid. It looks like he's been blocked for it already. ProveYouAreHuman (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have been blocked but I have vowed to make reliably sourced edits and have therefore learned from the block. Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So... Case closed or case closed? Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No idea, but while you are waiting can you comment on your user name? This is the policy WP:U and Twyfords is a company and tri-shell is a product associated with the industry in which Twyfords are involved - porcelain sanitary ware. Is there a conflict per WP:U? Leaky Caldron 20:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging from some of your edits post-block I'm not sure if you have entirely lost your tabloid-esque style, however there is nothing that warrants admin action as far as I can see. Reporting user hasn't provided any diffs. I suggest a read of WP:CITE, WP:BLP and WP:MOS but that's all. SGGH ^ping! 20:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A review of just a few of your most recent edits, several of which I'm in the process of removing, indicates you're contributing like a writer for the Daily Mirror. Stop. Keep it up and yes, the case will be closed, but not how you'd want it to be. Şłџğģő 20:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC) The above was directed at Twyfords, not SGGH. Şłџğģő

I would work with wikipeida and take advice. Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

He's a sockpuppet

Dammit, Jake, you hoodwinked us again. Şłџğģő 20:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not know of Mcjakeqcool but I have already defended myself. Twyfords-Tri-Shell (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And a ringing defense it is: "I am not mcjakeqcool". Oh really ... Nevermind!!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

And... he's been blocked by another admin. I posted a note to his talk page alerting him of this... not that it's needed. But it will be interesting to see if he fesses up.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul Bern

I'm sure those of you who have been around awhile remember this page. Well, "activity" has picked up again on this page and I think it's worth keeping an eye on. Multiple IP's attempting to re-insert the same POV material. Several of those IP's 66.99.0.150 (talk · contribs) and 64.107.0.167 (talk · contribs) have attempted to hijack my account by requesting password reminders. -Drdisque (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked Drdisque to forward the password reminders to confirm the IPs. I blocked 66.99.0.150 just now. The other IP, 64.107.0.167, made a password request for his Commons account, but it's been blocked locally anyway. If you want to show this thread to a commons admin, be my guest.--Chaser (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

JzG and Sarah Thomson (politician)

Resolved

 – Article to be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Thomson (politician). –xeno^talk 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

JzG deleted this article Sarah Thomson (politician) apparently without so much as a prod or speedy delete tag. This despite the fact that the candidate has significant media coverage. Be in Nepean (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Without comment on the present case, admins need not wait for a speedy deletion tag to be placed if they feel it meets the speedy deletion criteria. If you disagree with the deletion, why didn't you taken this up with Jzg directly? –xeno^talk 20:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You honestly think that would have made a difference? Be in Nepean (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Correct. It became clear from emails to OTRS that the article (on a political candidate with zero chance of election) exists solely as part of her campaign marketing. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • She's also a magazine publisher and is getting significant media coverage. Rather than make a unilateral decision you should have put it to an AFD or at least prodded. Be in Nepean (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • And he's just done it again! Be in Nepean (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Two inactionable threads in a day. My, tonight seems to be Guy's lucky night. Nepean: he shouldn't have taken this to AFD because that's not how we do things around here. I'm sure, though, that if you took the matter up with JzG directly, he would be more accommodating to your request than if you ran straight to ANI to tattle on him (though I guess it's too late for that). AGK 20:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• • AGK, the candidate has received significant, neutral coverage so she meets the notability requirements you cite. Therefore, he should have taken it to AFD. Be in Nepean (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Not to mention, since the question of the article's existence is being discussed here, you should wait til people here are convinced the deletion was inappropriate before attempting to recreate it yet again. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of the article, AFD wasn't needed. JzG acted appropriately. - Josette (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DRV would be the right place for this discussion, wouldn't it?--Tznkai (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And it's back… – iridescent 20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And it's tagged. HalfShadow 20:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And it's gone. Goodnes, I'm getting pixelated. HalfShadow 20:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And it's back. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hi. Nepean? Over here. *waves hand* Post that again and I'll request the page be salted. HalfShadow 20:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Is there some pressing reason this can't go to AFD? She seems to satisfy WP:GNG. –xeno^talk 20:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I did advise him to DRV but perhaps my message was a bit minimalist! SGGH ^ping! 20:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DRV isn't well-suited to determine if the article meets WP:GNG, for numerous reasons - not the least of which would be the fact that it would remain redlinked during the discussion... –xeno^talk 20:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone want to view the article talk and see if we need an AfD in the end? SGGH ^ping! 21:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Imo, we do: I've declined the latest speedy deletion tag. –xeno^talk 21:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

JzG mentioned something about OTRS emails. If there's good evidence that the article is being created as a campaign tactic, I'd say an AFD would only help them misuse Wikipedia by calling attention to the candidate. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not with her campaign. I'm not even going to vote for her (I'm supporting Pantalone) but I recognize that she is considered a mainstream candidate and is not being lumped in by the media with the fringe. She's being invited to mayoral debates for instance (and with 20+ candidates only the "major" candidates are being invited). Be in Nepean (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm don't have access to OTRS so I can't comment on the specifics of the ticket. However, if the article is written in a suitably neutral manner and meets WP:GNG, it doesn't matter if someone in an OTRS ticket thinks it was posted to further her campaign. –xeno^talk 21:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's quite possible a campaign worker with one of her opponents filed the OTRS ticket in order to make mischief. Have you considered that? Be in Nepean (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also possible that the OTRS ticket was filed by her or one of her campaign workers ie "HOW DARE YOU DELETE OUR ARTICLE". Maybe a cartooney threat was thrown in for good measure. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely as the article was first deleted by JzG as a result of the OTRS ticket, not the other way around. Be in Nepean (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm also a bit suspicious since this supposedly new user seems excessively familiar with the lingo (prods, speedy delete tag, AFD, etc). Just putting that out there. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

But yes I agree, if it meets notability guidelines it can stay no matter what the motivation for creation was. I just want to be sure a speedy isn't applicable first. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been here for two months, so not that new, and I did take the opportunity to read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy today after seeing that the article disappeared. Be in Nepean (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• I did the obvious and sent it to AfD. Either it's notable or it's not, but it should be discussed there, not here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Thomson (politician). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• OK, so now I am getting curious. Have a look at Be in Nepean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Doctorite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Looking back at the email from her campaign office I smell a very large rat with a personal freshness problem. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess you're not allowed to show us that OTRS email, huh... Equazcion ^(talk) 22:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I catch the thrust of your analogy. –xeno^talk 23:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Rodents like cheese, ripe cheese smells like "smelly" ... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
      • My word, where do you shop for groceries? –xeno^talk 23:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm using two computers in the same office and started a second account on the second computer because I couldn't remember the password on the first. What's your point Guy? Be in Nepean (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  Please make explicit the link between the accounts using {{User alternate acct}} or similar. –xeno^talk 23:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for Carl Hewitt

moved to WP:AN. Pcap ping 22:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert the move, but I felt ANI was appropriate since ban evasion is happening right now, and the report contained a block request against the currently active IP sock. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The last report was archived with no action. I guess there's not enough interest among admins to intervene against some determined POV pusher that edits exclusively in his research area, which is utterly obscure to most people. The AN report has longer staying power, and you did ask for a formal WP:BAN, which is normally discussed there (cf. policy I just linked.) Pcap ping 22:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I've seen other bans done here at ANI. The last report did receive action, just less vigorous action than I'd have liked. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

User:GADFLY46

Highly disruptive and indefinitely-blocked user GADFLY46 (talk · contribs) has posted this on his talk page today. He says that he has another account, but does not reveal the name (surprise). Can we get a checkuser on his IP? Also, removal of talk page access wouldn't hurt. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk page revoked. I might be blind but where is the reference to the other account? SGGH ^ping! 22:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"find my other account you sadistic purveryors of Porn!" Bottom of the second-to-last paragraph, next to his signature. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, told you I was blind. Would WP:SPI consider it a fishing expedition? SGGH ^ping! 22:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably not when the fish come to the surface and smirk at you.--Chaser (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible BLP violation

Resolved

 – Editor has refactored his own talk page comment.--Chaser (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO said this recently on the talk page of a BLP about Ian Plimer, "Plimer isn't simply wrong, he appears to be deliberately lying" From what I understand, the BLP policy prohibits attacks on living people like this anywhere in Wikipedia. ChrisO was recently warned about some other incivil comments. I've notified ChrisO on his talk page about this post. I didn't report it to the AGW enforcement board because I think BLP is a question of wider community concern. Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, a comment like that without context might be worthy of a block, but in the context of that discussion, I think he should be asked to redact it first. That, and I am so not getting involved in the whole climate change crap again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The comment was clearly inappropriate on BLP grounds. On the other hand, Cla68 should not be mixing BLP apples with civility oranges. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 did not raise any concerns about this with me but took this to AN/I without any attempt to ask me to refactor my comments, which I have now done. It should be noted that Cla68 was recently blocked for reverting an edit of mine. This appears to be a further attempt at retaliation against me by an editor whom another admin has said appears to have "gone off the rails" lately. I suggest that he should give himself a time-out from this topic area and take note of the policy against wikihounding. At any rate, now that refactoring has been done (which I'm always open to if requested), there is no need for any further controversy on this topic. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not block Cla68 for reverting you; I blocked the both of you, and another editor, for making unilateral edits which fundamentally effected an article which I had earlier protected against a slow edit war - which block I lifted upon request when it appeared that issues were again being discussed rather than being reverted over. The violations were edit warring "per se", and the sanctions accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually you didn't lift the blocks on request, since the requests made by myself and Cla68 were denied. Unfortunately it would seem that Cla68 blames me for that outcome and is determined to get revenge. I have asked him to cease this apparent harassment. But thanks for the clarification otherwise. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Drork again

Drork has been indefinitely blocked for edit warring, topic ban violation and abuse of multiple accounts.[62] Despite this, he has created dozens of sock puppets to continue these edit wars.

He has now used an IP account to place his preferred version of one article in a subpage of my user talk page (now removed), as well as at Harlan Wilkerson's and Taelus's talk pages. Can any steps be taken in order to prevent this serial vandal from continuing with his contempt of Wikipedia, and to protect editors with whom he is in disagreement from suffering this harassment?RolandR (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the two new creations. I've semi-protected the targets I'm aware of. He's bouncing around IPs over such a wide range that I'm not able to think of a better strategy.—Kww(talk) 02:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Time for a WP:LTA entry at the very least. Tarc (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Lasvegaslover on Commons

Looking at File:Wynn 2.jpg, it appears to have been uploaded on Commons by a User named Lasvegaslover, who has posted a lot of Las Vegas images on Commons. It looks to me like a lot of those images are copyrighted. Is a typical Wikipedian going to be making panoramic images of a Las Vegas nighttime such as File:Las Vegas Panoramic 2.jpg and claiming to be the copyright holder? I don't know what to do on Commons to get these images looked at. What should I do? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You do realize commons has its own separate set of admins, with only limited overlap with enwiki admins, who are chartered to deal with such issues, yes? Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I've never done anything on Commons and don't know what the procedures are over there, and besides, the images are being used on the English language Wikipedia. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You could post it here. Maybe you are right about copyright. I looked at two of the user uploads. Different cameras were used.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mbz1. I'll do that. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many wikipedians have good cameras and excellent camera skills and photoediting skills. Panoramics are very common. However the low size under which he uploaded the one you linked (2) makes one wonder.--Crossmr (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Large amount of copyrighted photos uploaded by User:Hemayetsmhh

Resolved

Hemayetsmhh (talk · contribs) has uploaded a large amount of copyrighted photos that I doubt he created. Here are some examples:

• File:Rocky Movie poster.jpg from http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/movies/fstills/12729/index.html
• File:Zayed Khan.jpg from http://www.desihits.com/news/view/its-mission-istaanbul-for-zayed-khan-20080717
• File:Skakib Al Hasan..jpg from http://www.wccc.co.uk/news/news.asp?newsID=626
• File:Apu Biswas - 2.jpg from http://www.mediabangladesh.net/bcard/?p=404

I'd appreciate if an admin could delete the images above and the others in his upload log. Thank you, Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Practically everything he'd uploaded was a copyvio. I've deleted all of them except one that probably passes NFCC and one that actually had EXIF data and looks OK. Also rolled back all his edits. And blocked indefinitely with a note that he may be unblocked if he acknowledges the problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated, thanks! Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wildbot

Wildbot is malfunctioning.[63] Please block Wildbot and fix this history page. I came here because there was a note on Wildbot's user page that said, "Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it ." Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Any edit to User:WildBot/Halt will supposedly stop the bot, so I changed the page. We'll see if that stops it. The histories of Talk:Sayyid of Gujarat and Talk:Jejemon also indicate a problem. --auburnpilot talk 13:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot blocked. --auburnpilot talk 13:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Duck test (?)

I was wondering is it possible to check these two users (User:Samofi, User:Tobar888- only one edit from the latter user which is very familiar with Samofi's edit (NOT DELET), seems to be a sockpuppet, but Samof said that Tobar888 is not him...) to prevent more cheatings at this ongoing discussion? Seems to be a duck test, (This is why I did not report him/her at checkuser) but who nows... (ps.: I was not sure where to write this so sorry if this was not the best place.)--B@xter⁹ 13:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, is that an image in your signature? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's a gif. ps:It was... :)--B@xter⁹ 14:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin, still less a checkuser) With only one edit, I'd say it's too early for WP:DUCK. However, with only one edit the editor does seem to be a single purpose account. You might want to consider using the {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}} template to tag the editor's !vote, but otherwise leave it alone until they've made more edits. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

THX, already marked by someone. :)--B@xter⁹ 14:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Off-Site Canvassing and encouraging personal attacks

Resolved

 – ridiculous canvassing, Toddst1 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

PÆonU (talk · contribs) has been canvassing (attempting on-wiki and off (see particularly this post for evidence of username correspondence), and encouraging disruptive behavior with regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• No, I do not believe I canvassed. I informed some people that the article was being wrongly attacked, and because they supported the opinion of the "keep" voters, they voted. They wouldn't have voted if they believed the article should be deleted. Is that supposed to be wrong? The Message for DreamFocus was a question. I asked him if there was a way to get the rescue squad more involved, which is just as bad as adding a rescue tag in the first place. As for encouraging disruptive behaviour, I don't see where anyone recommended disrupting the AfD process. PÆonU (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh, and here I interpreted your comment of "Flood the page with comments (scroll to the bottom of the text box, copy paste Comment into a new line, and write your comment) about why Muir Skate deserves an article or why Ron is such a douche" to be encouraging disruption. Clearly we are operating under somewhat different definitions. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

the fact that three anon IPs have appeared voting, indicates canvassing. the off wiki canvassing and desperate attempts to dominate discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop is a level that I have only seen from editors with a clear conflict of interest. insulting other editors and canvassing should be punished with a block in this instance. LibStar (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I'd like to ask of some of you guys to vote to keep the article" is canvassing: you didn't just 'inform' them but specifically told them what to say, going as far as writing out six !votes for people to copy-paste into the AfD. It's also abundantly clear from that thread that you're aware you're breaking Wikipedia's rules and were attempting to avoid scrutiny. When you failed you began telling people at the forum to spam the AfD with messages about the nominator being a 'douche'. No matter how mistaken you believe someone's opinions may be that's completely unacceptable - do you really not see that as disrupting AfD?

Continue with this sort of behaviour and you'll find yourself blocked very quickly: consider that a warning. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Enough. Closed and deleted. Toddst1 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Flood the page with comments about why Muir Skate deserves an article" was a request for other people, if they wished, to explain why they want to keep the article up, not just vote or say random things about Muir Skate. As for "why Ron is such a douche," three words: tongue-in-cheek. I never meant to cause disruption and if I knew that so many people don't know how to take a joke, I wouldn't have said it.

Seriously, I'm getting the third degree for this? It's a simple misunderstanding on a website that, like all other websites, will fade away, not defacing the Mona Lisa. What is this, the Warsaw ghetto or a user-editable encyclopedia? Does benefit of the doubt suddenly mean nothing to this site? PÆonU (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a joke; it's not a misunderstanding. It's time you realized that. Toddst1 (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what "third degree" means - it means "interrogation". You're not being interrogated; multiple editors are telling you that what you did was canvassing. Fair enough, maybe you didn't know about WP:CANVAS before you started this. It's possible that an editor who isn't involved with the skate shop will recreate the article, and this time manage to demonstrate notability. If that happens you'll be better equipped to handle any resultant AfD. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what it seems like to me. However, I'd still like you to respond to the comment below. PÆonU (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know where in the rules it says articles can be automatically deleted when someone canvasses. The votes meant nothing and in the end, I was the only one adding my opinion. Even if you delete it, I'm curious, would the article have been safe had I not canvassed (I certainly wouldn't have done it if I knew how funny admins find overreactions)? Even if there is no hope for the article, please be honest. What would the outcome have been? PÆonU (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muir_Skate_Longboard_Shop

The article was deleted because it showed almost no WP:Notability - not because of canvassing. I closed the discussion because of the ridiculous canvassing, your disruption and the mess the discussion had degenerated into. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am extremely confused. It had 3 large local sources, one large national, and one medium sized international interview. How, in any way, is that not enough? PÆonU (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you are lying now. It had two sources, both ucsdguardian.org. Toddst1 (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think the post on my page was an innocent question, as he did explain when I informed him of the canvassing rule. [64] Linking to just his first post, and not the second, kind of takes things out of context. I had said Keep in the AFD before the message on my talk page, as did others. Only three first time IPs which seemed to have come from the posting off wiki at that forum. Dream Focus 15:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Toddst, you can not close an AFD because one editor did canvassing. It hasn't been 7 days yet, so the AFD must run its course. Dream Focus 15:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there even a rule about the possibility of doing this? It seems as if the admins get to do what they want, because I can't find ANYTHING about what they pulled. PÆonU (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, AFDs can be closed early, but in this case I've restored the article. Let the fiasco continue without PÆonU. Toddst1 (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Best to let the AfD run its course so we have a firm unambiguous result one way or the other, without confusion over the reason being notability or canvassing. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Username violation?

Have we all missed the obvious here? the username PÆonU could be interpreted as violating WP:U as offensive - PÆonU = Pee on you. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think so as well. Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Or simply related to Paeon (god)? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd accept PÆon as a user name, but the capital "U" is troubling. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Having just stumbled across this, thus making me totally uninvolved in the above, I'm inclined to agree with Mjroots that the username is not in line with policy. I see no reason why the username without the "U" shouldn't be acceptable, but he shouldn't be a allowed to continue editing with the name as it is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• What is this, the wiki equivalent of tax evasion? The username is borderline, it should be discussed at WP:RFC/N, not indefinitely blocked. If the user deserves an indefinite block for disruption, it should be placed on its own merits. –xeno^talk 17:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, if you really feel that the block is unneccesary, please reset it to the week that originally imposed and unsucessfully appealed against. To me, consensus above seems to be that the name is in violation of WP:U, and therefore the user should be blocked for that reason alone. I'm making no judgement of the situation above, just on the issue of the username. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This just looks like a pale attempt to find any reason to indef block this user. I had already initiated discussion with this user, who, after all, is blocked for a week, there's no need at all to indef block here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please review the relevant guidance at Wikipedia:U#Dealing with inappropriate usernames and consider self-reverting and following the prescribed course of action. This is not so blatant as to warrant an indefinite block without warning; especially given the user has been using this name since 2007. –xeno^talk 17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

And as for "consensus above seems to be that the name is in violation of WP:U," two in favour, one against, and a grand total of 40 minutes to achieve said consensus. Speaks for itself really. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I may have been a bit hasty, so I've reset the block to that originally imposed. I will refer the username to WP:RFCN though. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, good call. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. –xeno^talk 17:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Referred, but I'm not sure that was strictly correct, given what is stated there. PÆonU notified of RFCN. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion and multiple accounts

Hello. Rudeboysliketoska (talk · contribs) has engaged in block evasion and multiple account usage by creating a new account following a block, as he himself states on his user page. [65] I am reporting this here because I believe this does not exactly fit into a sockpuppet investigation. Regards, Anna Lincoln 14:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to know why you think "this does not exactly fit into a sockpuppet investigation". Opening a new account to avoid a block on an existing account looks like sockpuppetry to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User not letting non-autoconfirmed users talk to him

Resolved

User talk page unprotected Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dave1185 has his talk page protected and he doesn't have a page for non-autoconfirmed users to contact him either. I can't even notifiy him of this report. RabariSauce (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's semi-protected. You'll need a few more edits before you can edit there. I'll notify him. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah a few more, since they're only edit aso far is to post this thread. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That is the great thing about the ambiguity of the word "few". Doc Quintana (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The one (1) edit [66] that lead to this was not even that problematic. I've unprotected the talk page. Indefinite semi was overkill. –xeno^talk 16:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 5) I've notified Dave1185. Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What's there to do? Someone can leave a note on his talk page asking him not to indefinite semi protect it. If he persists in it there may be more to discuss but not now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It was protected after this request, I left a note for the protecting admin. –xeno^talk 17:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:RabariSauce

What's the meaning of this? Soft trolling or baiting? For heaven's sake, I don't even know this guy "Rabari" to begin with and here he came along to ask this question about asking for the unblocking of my own page (yes, I requested for it to be SPP due to trolls and vandals!)... and my editnotice specifically said that I don't like to be served wikicookies. Why can't you guys respect my decision? What gives? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the protection policy. –xeno^talk 17:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, i've blocked Rabari, its pretty clear he's a troll/sock--Jac16888^Talk 17:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that much is clear. –xeno^talk 17:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Xeno, I'm clearly kind of disappointed at your judgment call there for letting the sock/troll get through the barrier, IMO it was a wrong call. Please, I'd really wished to be left alone when conducting edits. Socks, trolls and vandals are not really welcome to disturb me during that duration, thank you! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is a collaborative project. Surely you aware that many good faith users edit using an IP? How do you propose they, or new users, contact you? (Especially given that you welcome so many non-autoconfirmed users and suggest they visit you at your talk page if they need help???) –xeno^talk 17:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Their unblock request [67] where they admit they are a sock, lol. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful, probably just trying to get them in trouble. –xeno^talk 17:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Xeno here. This is a collaborative project, lumping the good with the bad isn't acceptable. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You are likely correct, but I've seen dumber behavior. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Per your earlier suggestion → protection policy ←, how about you indef-SPP my talk page and help me create "an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from my main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users"? Much appreciated, thank you. BTW, what Bugs and I are experiencing lately are mostly the works of trollish copycats, it is bleedingly obvious! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dave, you can do that yourself. Just create a subpage of your talk page. You will need to watchlist it to keep an eye on it though. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please help directly or provide an example or not at all, my mind is still stuck on the article I was trying to improve on. Ugh~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• I still don't really see a pressing need for your user talk page to remain indefinitely protected. If severe disruption occurs, I wouldn't have an issue with it being reprotected, but semi-protect is not appropriate just because you don't want to be bothered. Again I note that you welcome new users on a very regular basis (which is good) but they are going to be confused by such an arrangement if they come to you to take you up on your offer of help (which is bad). –xeno^talk

I'm calling this "unresolved", because I don't think it's appropriate to grant the requests of obvious trolls. However, I do agree that protecting the page and having a separate unprotected page is a good idea. I think I still have an example on my page. I'll get back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Here it is. The /unprotected in that link assumes the sub-page is under your ID. Once you post this at the top of your talk page (minus the "nowikis"), you could go to it and create it.

This page is protected against editing by new users.
If you cannot edit here, you may leave a message at my [[/unprotected talk page|unprotected talk page]].

Once you've done all that, the admins should feel safe re-protecting your talk page.

This was taken originally from User talk:Bastique

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

IP editor consistantly editing rants

• 78.101.113.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.101.79.63 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 89.211.184.161 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.101.50.151 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.101.71.20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.101.113.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.101.241.160 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 213.130.115.74 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.101.220.107 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The following Ip's (And possibly more) have been consistantly adding rants and removing content from Islamic views on anal sex, on it's talk pages as well as personal attacks[68] The most recent as of now is this one who was blocked, after his revert. The article has been semi protected because of their actions (Who I'm almost certain is one person due too WP:DUCK) and two more have been blocked today see here, for further evidence see both pages histories. Is there anything we can do to prevent this? A rangeblock perhaps? I'll go through and alert the ips of this.--SKATER ^Speak. 18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, we have another [69], added to the list.--SKATER ^Speak. 18:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already sent an e-mail to a checkuser inquiring about the consequences of a rangeblock. Meanwhile, I'm continuing blocking and rolling back. Horologium (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I asked the C/U only about the 78.101 rangeblock. I think that adding in the other two will have to be done separately. Horologium (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'll keep finding and reporting them to you and HJ as well as adding them here.--SKATER ^Speak. 18:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is anon-only, then you don't need to contact a CU unless a hardblock is desired. –MuZemike 18:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Badmintonhist frequent attacks

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

Is there anything that can be done about frequent snark/attacks like this? This guy constantly makes unhelpful swipes like this in already-heated discussion, which I equate to throwing molotov cocktails. The sole intent of those sorts of comments is to (1) attack and denigrate other editors; and (2) further escalate an argumentum ad infinitum. I post this here because the editor has ignored civility requests in the past, and refuses to acknowledge the inappropriateness of his conduct. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)