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

Report of Vandalism

Resolved

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

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

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

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

GNAA COI, OWNing and votestacking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion, decision

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

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

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

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

Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Support - based on the proposer's reasoning, and the precedents that have been applied to thousands of other editors with COI over the years. I am particularly unconvinced by Murdox' reasoning for not actually contributing anything to this project outside of the very area where COI is the strongest. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
12. Support only for LiteralKi, as Murdox' edits haven't been very detrimental. Perhaps Murdox can get a warning and a directive towards our COI guidelines. LiteralKi's COI is problematic, as evidenced by The Cavalry, so a topic ban is the common-sense solution. ThemFromSpace 13:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
13. Support only for LiteralKa. The sanctions seem perfectly reasonable, and just what we would expect from any other editor with a conflict of interest. However, I am willing to give Murdox the benefit of the doubt as their contributions seem to be within the COI guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off-wiki canvassing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LiteralKa indefinitely blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose block - the rationale is concerned with non-enwiki actions; this was a unilateral decision to block, whilst a discussion was under-way here, and there was no urgent need to prevent disruption. I say this despite my strong dislike of GNAA, and my belief that we shouldn't tolerate trolling. We should rise above it, and follow due process. This is likely to cause more drama than it prevents.  Chzz  ►  22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose block - Just like the user above me said it. This is only going to keep the bitching going. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 23:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• This wasn't the greatest block (not the most egregious either, but it wasn't good). I wouldn't stand by it, but... <shrug>
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm with Ohms. Not the strongest reason to block someone, but nothing I would get up in arms about either. -- Atama頭 02:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with the block to the extent it is necessary to enforce a topic ban. Having a COI is not blockable, but dedicating most of one's editing to promoting one's organization is. That said, if LiteralKa agrees to abide by a full topic ban regarding the "GNAA" organization, and makes otherwise useful edits, the block is no longer necessary and should be lifted. The concerns relating to other wikis do not seem to support a block on this wiki.  Sandstein  08:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: None are blockable, "Cross-wiki sockpuppetry"? It would be a lock on the global scale. (Non-administrator comment) ~~EBE!@#~~ ^talk_Contribs 12:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• support GNAA members are expendable.©Geni 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User ClaudioSantos (again), personal attacks

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

I quote him here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three month topic ban proposal

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

Proposed for community consideration:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To both of you (J and CS) -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back here

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

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

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

Tokerdesigner, again

I've had the misfortune to get embroiled in monitoring Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs), who I recently blocked for a month due to a serious failure to disengage from mutilatio ex equus mortis. It appears that Tokerdesigner has, in a completely unsurprising move, chosen to use his month off to compile yet another list of injustices on his talk page. Could someone who has sensibly remained uninvolved have a look and decide what, if anything, needs done about this? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude is paranoid, obviously. At this point, even a brief skim though his contribs makes it abundantly clear that the (drug addled?) person behind he username is basically unfit to edit constructively here. I wish it weren't so, but this guy has been given every opportunity and then some. Increase the block to indef and walk away.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 11:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...but MfD the user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

mutilatio ex equus mortis, from the people that brought you Romanes eunt domus. People, if you are going to make up fake Latinisms, at least try to make them grammatically correct. – ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nil illigitimo clockwork, costus illigitimus (I'm sure you get the gist lol) Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole fun of pidgin Latin is to mutilate it. :) Nevertheless, I'm not entirely comfortable with increasing the block myself right now. If the soapboxing in question gets to Biblical proportions like the last one then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully support an indef block on Tokerdesigner. He seems incapable of comprehending and abiding by our content policies if they happen to contradict his own, shall we say... unique ideas about the proper way to smoke pot. This has been going on for years now and is unlikely to ever stop. I have been involved ina content dispute with him in the past and so will have to recuse myself from admin action here, but hopefully someone will step up and take the necessary action. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

*cough*At least the editor didn't print a book with an incorrect Latin title. ;) - SudoGhost 17:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Latine dictum, sit altum videtur. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner's soapboxing is clearly not going to stop. I suppose I should be flattered to not be considered a sockpuppet in his recent user talk page screed despite having blocked him for a week last month. I'd support an indefinite block and revocation of his user talk page privileges (since he's just using that page to continue the same behavior that got him blocked). I'd do it myself, really, I don't think anything I've done should make me involved. As long as nobody has a reasonable objection or expectation that he'll suddenly change. -- Atama頭 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth considering a topic ban on cannabis related topics, rather than an indef? How are his contributions in other areas? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonexistent. This is an WP:SPA, every edit I've looked at, going back several years is aimed at promoting his philosophies about safe pot smoking and/or discouraging the use of cigarettes or joints. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

These are his article edits not related to cannabis, out of all of his non-deleted edits:

All non-cannabis article space edits

Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche on February 18, 2011. Robinsons Galleria on January 27, 2011. Vascular plant on January 25, 2011. Symphony No. 9 (Bruckner) on January 23, 2011. Wood flour on January 3, 2011. Wood flour on December 21, 2010. Jorge Luis Borges on August 24, 2010. Troll on August 24, 2010. (Technically 2 edits.) Pijin language on November 9, 2009. The End of Man on October 30, 2009. The Bloody Exorcism of Coffin Joe on October 30, 2009. Damned – The Strange World of José Mojica Marins on October 30, 2009. The Strange World of Coffin Joe on October 30, 2009. Embodiment of Evil on October 30, 2009. 48 Hours of Hallucinatory Sex on October 30, 2009. Mozart and Beethoven on April 21, 2009. Choral symphony on March 11, 2009. Philip Glass on December 26, 2008. Maxwell Street on September 17, 2008. Maxwell Street on September 3, 2008. Maxwell Street on September 3, 2008. Maxwell Street on August 26, 2008. Maxwell Street on August 25, 2008. Maxwell Street on August 21, 2008. Symphony No. 39 (Mozart) on August 21, 2008. Carl Nielsen on April 7, 2008. Concerto for Orchestra (Lutosławski) on April 1, 2008. Symphony in F sharp major (Korngold) on April 1, 2008. Concerto for Orchestra (Lutosławski) on April 1, 2008. Concerto for Orchestra (Lutosławski) on April 1, 2008. Solomon Volkov on March 31, 2008. Alexander Glazunov on March 11, 2008. Sanding block on March 7, 2008. Ivan Sollertinsky on February 12, 2008. Plastic shopping bag on September 25, 2007. Plastic shopping bag on September 24, 2007.

Out of 1,330 edits, 37 of them were to articles that weren't related to cannabis. (There were also a handful of talk page edits to non-cannabis topics also but I didn't bother to document them.) The majority of those edits were minor. It has been 5 months since his last non-cannabis edit. It's pretty safe to say that he is a single-purpose editor and a topic ban would be a de facto site ban. -- Atama頭 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's been a while, but that he has contributed to other types of articles indicates that there may be some point to topic banning rather than just outright banning / blocking him. Largely SPA, but not entirely. His problems seem related to the topic.

He might chose to walk away from other topics if topic banned, but perhaps a mid-term topic ban (1 month? 3 months?) with a community review to be based on his contibutions elsewhere in the meantime? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess a topic ban can be attempted, maybe he'll work on music-related articles. That seems to be the only topic that he has made any real substantial contribution to that isn't cannabis-related. I'll note that even many of those edits seem to have a good deal of WP:OR in them, which is part of the problem that he has had with his cannabis-related work also. If he is banned, and violates the ban (as I would predict he would) then it would probably just lead to an indefinite block anyway. -- Atama頭 23:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This has suddenly changed to an SPA issue? Would that address the topic of this thread which is epic soapboxing and incivility? Mjpresson (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because if an editor is causing trouble that is exclusive to a particular topic area, sometimes they can be productive outside of the area, that's the whole point of having topic bans. A ban is easier to support if we can expect that the editor could be productive elsewhere, and one way to show the possibility of that is to show what work they've done on other topics (a real SPA would never have had any activity anywhere else). As I said, though, my experiences don't make me optimistic about the potential for the topic ban to work, but violating a topic ban would lead to an indefinite block anyway, so either way we can stop the disruption. -- Atama頭 00:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support A topic ban or indef block. Looking over his contributions I think he does more harm than good to project. A topic ban will, in my opinion, probably lead to a future indef block but if we want to be conservative then that would be the way to go. N^oformation ^Talk 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• My only concern with a topic ban is that his problem appears to be... well, um... mental. I'm no psychologist or psychiatrist, but it seems obvious that the guy is slightly unstable, and probably suffers from paranoia problems (which, as far as I understand, is a possible side effect of smoking too much reefer). I don't say that to disparage the guy, but to make the point that even if he complies with the topic ban (which I'm guessing will be a large "if") and moves to another area, all we'll be doing is spreading the problem around to other areas. That being said, I'm not adamantly against letting the block expire and enacting a topic ban, and I'm certainly willing to give an editor every possibility (to the point of slight unreasonableness, actually), but I'd hate to see him running around stirring up shit and driving otherwise productive editors away before we really give up on him.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't entirely appropriate as a line of discussion. If there's a topic ban from the community, they can stop editing or find other areas to productively edit. If they edit disruptively in other areas then that's handled. The objective of the topic ban is to handle the glaring problem but leave open a path to recovery and redemption, if they can move into a productive editing mode. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Right... like I said, I'm not adamantly against the topic ban idea. Go ahead and try it. <shrug> I'll just hang on to my "I told ya so" for later, is all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I have little confidence that it will work, since he's more a SPA than not, but it's worth a try. If he is topic banned, his user page needs to be cleared of all cannabis-related material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I'd already said that a topic ban might be worth an attempt, but I suppose I might as well make a formal approval of the idea. -- Atama頭 07:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, (indef. block preferred, can agree to ban, but...) myself being one of his obsessions. Mjpresson (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but not really. If it's going to be a topic ban, I suggest it be a "sudden death" style ban. Just one violation and an indef block is applied. This should apply equally to article space, talk pages, and his own user space, which should be purged of all the ranting an raving that is currently collected there as part of his soapboxing crusade. I predict he will rapidly violate any such topic ban and will end up blocked anyway, so what the hell. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support — Indef block, or a topic ban if there is no consensus for an indef block. I suggest we avoid using words that refer to the editor's mental state or possible drug use in this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Insertion of Foul and Abusive words and repeated vandalism on Mohun Bagan AC

Dear Admin, This is nothing new but it is really reaching its limit. For the past few days user 14.96.114.8 has been continually been editing the article on Mohun Bagan AC by inserting foul and slang words inside the article. plz feel free to verify the same from the user's profile as logs of only insertion of inappropriate and racial slurs will show that his foremost object of visiting Wikipedia is to vandalise its property. User 115.242.174.192 has been mass erasing data from the same article. again plz verify the same. Hope you will do the needful and protect wikipedia. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.sinha04 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What do those words mean exactly? As a non speaker of the language it's hard to gauge whether it's vandalism or not. N^oformation ^Talk 09:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP has made precisely 3 edits. The first may or may not be problematic, the second appears to be an unsourced change, which would be hard to call vandalism, and the third edit is possibly problematic. I tried to use Google translate, which said it was in Italian then promptly failed to provide a translation. Unless the OP tells us which language this is, there's not much we can do, even if the editing is problematic. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP is located in Andra Pradesh India, so one of two languages seems right, either Telugu or Sanskrit.

I checked some of the text in a Sanskrit dictionary | here and got some matches, but nothing coherent. We may need a native reader / speaker of Sanskrit (or Telugu). @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 18:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, I don't believe there are any living native readers or speakers of Sanskrit.  :) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think they're mostly names actually -though I'm not to sure about "Khanki". Could the complainant tell us what he thinks the words are and what he thinks they mean?Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed the IP hasn't been notified. Will do that now.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well there's been no more activity and no response. I'll post a note on the page but it doesn't warrant more active admin response unless he comes back.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked while reporting a vandalism by User:Bokpasa.

Hello,

Since I asked the admin who blocked for some "clarifications" but that I got no answer, I'm reporting this issue on this board (note that this request isn't for contesting the blocking but to discuss an issue of vandalism) :

While reporting an ongoing vandalism on this board, another contributor, Jasper Deng, reported me (later) as being the vandal [18], after which I was blocked by Ioeth (I assume the good faith of both, but I think that Ioeth's action was a little bit precipitated and as a minimum of honesty Jasper Deng had to report both me and the involved IP, but he reported just me...).

Btw, if we take a look on the articles cited by Jasper Deng:

• Marinid dynasty, disruptive edits started on December 2010, the current version is the one edited by Bokpasa (no discussion, no justification, references deletion & OR). this edit's comment is particularly interesting.
• Almoravid dynasty: disruptive edits started on December 2010, same remark about the current version
• Same remarks about the articles Almohad caliphate and Saadi dynasty.

By the same way, it can easily be seen that I didn't add/remove information from these articles while reverting the IP's edits, I was just putting the article on its pre-vandalism version: [19] [20] [21].

But now since these pages are protected, Bokpasa has to be identified to edit them (as he's doing right now (can be seen on each article's history page), WP:DUCK!!). For information, this user is particularly known for his vandalism on Morocco related articles: [22][23] (you can easily see that he was blocked for disruptive edits on the same articles than right now).

Note that he's also blocked on ES.Wiki and FR.Wiki for excessive vandalism... on that same articles than here...

Also for information, these are some previous issues involving Bokpasa: History of Morocco, sections 7 to 16 of the article's TP (Bokpasa is signing here his messages MOI instead of his own username), Incident noticeboard, User:Bokpasa tendious editing and personal attacks.

Btw, Jasper Deng also referred to some "EW with some IP's", but I suppose that nor him nor Ioeth toke a look on the concerned entries (a simple section search with my username can give that): [24] [25] [26].

As I wrote on my TP, I don't contest my blocking, I just need some "clarifications" ;

My questions are:

• Can these articles be putted under their pre-EW form (2010/12 versions)? Or should we let Bokpasa act as he want?
• Can Bokpasa's act of contributing anonymously to avoid being blocked be considered as a kind of "Reverse Sockpuppetry", as he started to contribute with his own account after his IP range was blocked?

Thanks in advance for the answers.

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say you got no answer? You only asked about 5 hours before asking here and the admin involved seems to have gone inactive before you asked. It seems it would be more resonable to either wait longer or say you asked but haven't got an answer yet but it's only been 5 hours. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'pre-EW' point but if the article has had significant changes since December 2010, it's unlikely reversion to the December 2010 version is going to be justified, particularly not just because of the claim of a 8 month edit war. On the other hand, if an editor has recently came along and modified the article and these changes are disputed, it may be okay to revert (but probably not to edit war) these changes (even if the version you're reverting to is from December 2010) while they are discussed. BTW, I fail to see how you didn't add or remove info if you were reverting to an earlier version (whether or not that reversion was justified) unless only formatting or organisation changes had been made. Note that removing recently added or disputed info or re-adding recently removed info is clearly still removing/adding info. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You were blocked because you violated the three-revert rule, which applies all the time unless you're reverting obvious vandalism, and the blocking admin most likely determined that it isn't the case here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: You mean 29 hours? I didn't see that he wasn't active for more than 24 hours, that's why.

@Penwhale: Right, as I said, I don't contest the blocking itself, I'm here to ask to stop Bokpasa's vandalism and POV (which is recurrent since december 2010 and which is highly contested as shown by the diffs I cited) as it is mentionned in my two questions.

Omar-Toons (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message at his talk page. Let's see what he replies... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies I saw the date wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Can someone try to make sense of this edit by Bokpasa that was written as a response of my message to his talk page? 'Cause I'm having difficulty. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Also, he marks all his edits as minor. This, to me, is very problematic (and on top of that, the editor's English skill level makes it a bit tough to communicate... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, he's not here to contribute to the WP project but to impose his PoV, I don't think that he cares about the fact that his English skills are very very bad.

I tried to understand what he wrote on your TP:

• The Almohads was/were not a dynasty but a country (I don't understand the "according to..." sentence)
• 2nd line: ?
• The kingdom of Fez existed (?)
• 4th/5th lines : ?

I didn't get the point...

Omar-Toons (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Raeky and Twinkle

Before anything else, I feel a disclaimer is appropriate. On July 18, I made this edit to Creation–evolution controversy, as I felt the wording was not as NPOV as it probably should be. However, it was reverted, and it seems the consensus is to keep this wording, so I didn't press the issue. Earlier, an IP made the exact same edit, and it was then reverted as "vandalism". I then left a uw-notvand template on User:Raeky's talk page, and tried to show Raeky that the edit was not vandalism and was made in good faith, but was unsuccessful.

I'm requesting that an administrator review User:Raeky's use of the Twinkle tool, and, if appropriate, to remove his ability to use the tool. Raeky is mislabeling edits as vandalism,[27][28][29][30] and templating IP addresses as such, and has a misunderstanding of what is and is not vandalism, even after being explained that such edits fall under WP:NOTVAND.[31]

"Random new accounts and IP's making the edit without an edit summery is essentially vandalism, specifically if the edit is against consensus and been reverted numerous times."[32]

When I made the edit, it was apparently in good-faith and not vandalism, but because the exact same edit was later made by an IP address, it "was clearly not good faith edits, they was POV pushing edits"[33].

Here, Raeky admits that "for dealing with these POV edits, it's clicking the vandal edit is an easy one click solution, that happens occasionally". Raeky is not marking the edits as vandalism because they fall under Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, but because doing so is "easy". This is not the intended use of Twinkle. Wikipedia:TWINKLE#Abuse specifically says that Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. This is why I have brought this to the attention of the administrators, so that the issue can hopefully be solved.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, hopefully it wasn't too drawn out, I just wanted to make what I was trying to say clear enough. - SudoGhost 16:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bitter much? I've explained my reasoning to the best I can on my talk page, but I see you want to keep it going by coming here. Irregardless of your edit, the article in question is plagued with POV pushing edits, and this particular edit is a POV pushing edit. It's not just the first time this particular sentence was removed, it's always removed, and almost always removed by IP addresses who have never edited before, or brand new accounts who have never edited before. After some point the same series of edits and changes become more, and to me it becomes vandalistic. It seems clear SudoGhost is either hurt that his edit was reverted or an extreme-rule follower. There are WP:IAR and WP:UCS, but a quick browse through the history of these creation/evolution articles, this type of reverting isn't uncommon. *shrug* — raekyt 16:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusing good faith editors of vandalism is not a 'shrug' issue - it chases off good faith contributors. Do you understand what WP:vandalism is? Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure I do, I interpreted these brand new editors, jumping straight to a highly-controversial topic, and making a highly-controversial and debated edit, that has been changed multiple times already this week, as a likely WP:GAME with sockpuppets. Unless you edit these creationist/evolution articles, then you can't understand how much WP:GAME actually takes place. A brand new editor first editing there making a common POV edit, is likely WP:GAME... more likely than them being a legitimate user... If I'm incorrect in this assessment, then I am, but that was my reasoning for the edits. — raekyt 17:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a contentious statement, I'm not a creationist and even I think it's a pretty loaded statement, so it makes perfect sense that it would be removed often. Someone viewing that article and feeling strongly enough to make that first edit isn't going to know to scroll through talk pages and understand consensus or even that Wikipedia works through consensus. There is no WP:GAME there, and there is no vandalism. Everyone who makes that edit is not automatically a sockpuppet, making the WP:GAME argument completely unfounded without some kind of proof of sockpuppetry. - SudoGhost 17:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion on the edit or reasoning, just explaining mine. Theres a core set of editors on these particular pages that come here JUST to game the system, to disrupt it and to try to push their point of view. They use new accounts, ip's, etc... Afterall these articles are basically refuting their faith. It is VASTLY more likely a brand new editor making a POV edit on these creation/evolution articles IS here just to game the system, at least in my point of view. It's likely a point of view many of the regular editors of those articles would feel as well. Virtually every edit there gets reversed, and most are POV pushing. Just because YOU disagree with the consensus doesn't make the edit alright. Maybe I was wrong about it, but you keep pushing it further, like on my talk page, and now here... — raekyt 17:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Just because YOU disagree with the consensus doesn't make the edit alright." Who said otherwise? What I am saying, is that you still fail to see that the edits are not vandalism, that you're abusing the Twinkle tool, and that even still, you fail to see why it is an issue. If it were that one time, I wouldn't take issue, but you've shown that you have no intentions to change this behaviour, and my concern is that if you are allowed to continue to use twinkle for "ease", then you'll continue marking edits as vandalism when you disagree with them, and scare away potential contributors to Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 17:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you don't get to use WP:IAR to call edits that aren't vandalism "vandalism". If the talk page consensus supports keeping the existing language in the article, put that in the edit summary when you revert, instead of clicking the "[rollback (VANDAL)]" button. 28bytes (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No. In adition to the rollback options there's also "undo" and "Restore to this version" buttons (both in and out of Twinkle). Unless it meets a very narrow definition of vandalism, you don't use the rollback options at all. If you can't seperate the good items from the bad, edit the page to undo the changes and note it in your edit summary. In short, put down the automation tools and edit by hand. It'll help you identify at a quick glance what does and does not qualify for various methods of reversion. Hasteur (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Raeky, it is pretty clear here that you do not understand the very, very narrow definition of the word "vandalism" as it should be used as a rationale for undoing the edits of others. That does not mean that I agree or disagree with your reverting the edits; I am taking no stance at all on that issue. However, I would strenuously suggest that you stop using the word "vandalism" to describe anything at all, since it is clear from the times you have used it that you have no idea how to use the word correctly. Instead, please try to describe exactly what is wrong with the edit in question. The more detailed you are in your rationale for reverting an edit, the more likely people will come to your side in any dispute over the issue, and the less likely people will get hung up over the words you use and completely miss what may otherwise be good work on your part. Instead of drawing attention for the wrong reasons, just avoid the word "vandalism" altogether. Strike it from your vocabulary, and instead be detailed in the specific reason for reverting someone. --Jayron32 17:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Raeky! I have a huge amount of respect for your work on Wikipedia and commend you for being so diligent at keeping Wikipedia accurate and free from vandalism. Unfortunately, I have to agree that, in this case, you may have made a mistake in labeling one or more edits as vandalism that were not actually vandalism. This is a very important issue for the health of the Wikipedia community and I think it needs to be taken seriously. Although Twinkle is a very useful tool, using it incorrectly can drive away potentially constructive new editors. If you are willing to correct this mistake and agree to only label obvious vandalism as vandalism, I think we can probably close this thread. Although it's often a pain in the ass, sometimes we actually need to take the time to talk to new editors in good faith, regardless of how misguided (or even malicious) they may seem at first glance. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already said I probably made a mistake in labeling, and everyone seems in agreement that I did, so I did. It just gets a bit annoying when you watch edits on an article that 99% of all the edits need reversed... *sigh* — raekyt 17:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I must profess a great deal of sympathy for Raeky's position here. I consider these edits to be a form of subtle vandalism. The obvious strategy here is to repeatedly make a change to the article that is easy to make and creates maximum inconvenience to reality-based editors to fix. It isn't obvious vandalism, so the grownup in the room has to go through a more lengthy process to get the article back to it's consensus state. It seems to me a valid use of WP:IAR to defeat this disruption by using the simplest possible one-click way to revert it. Having said that, if anyone objects (as someone now has), it's probably better to revert without labeling the edits vandalism. It's not that much more difficult. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's like "Don't Template the Regulars", though. Anyway, slightly off-tangent: I once blocked an admin for using admin rollback (at the time) while violating 3RR; the end result is a messy argument from other parties (and not the blocked party, in fact). Still, though: fixing vandalism is hard work, but one must be careful of misinterpreting others' intent. I used to hear complaints about misuses of TW (which I once used but no longer); it's convenient, but sometimes a proper message to the editors, instead of the stock responses, are helpful. (This is also why that when I do use edit summaries, I try to be informative.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

After this AN/I discussion, the user is still inappropriately marking edits as vandalism. Misinformation in good-faith is spelled-out as not being vandalism, and even if the edit was made in bad-faith, it does not fall under one of the WP:VANDTYPES. Even if malicious or disruptive, that edit was not vandalism. There was no valid reason to mark that edit as vandalism, time issues is no reason, as it was the only edit Raeky made after this AN/I discussion. Raeky has shown that the user cannot tell the difference between vandalism, and not vandalism, yet will continue to use tools to mark such edits as vandalism, even though that same tool has a non-vandal rollback button right next to it, and writing an edit summary would have taken 10 seconds. The user's use of Twinkle is inappropriate. WP:TWINKLE says One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's access to use Twinkle revoked or one's account being blocked. The user does not understand Wikipedia policies and is not using this tool within these policies. Raeky seems unwilling to manually edit when the situation calls for it, preferring to abuse Twinkle in order to save time (what time was saved in this last edit?) therefore I highly recommend that the user's ability to use Twinkle be removed. - SudoGhost 07:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Note The recent re-write of Twinkle took away the ability to individually blacklist users. On the twinkle docs it's noted very explicitly that edits performed by twinkle are to be treated no differently than manual edits. If this is still a problem then it is time to convince a Administrator to issue a block to prevent further disruption of the community and the Wiki. Hasteur (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The user has not made any edits since then, so I think blocking would not be appropriate right now. However, if the user continues to mark edits as vandalism when doing so is inappropriate, I think a short block might help prevent such actions in the future, because simply asking doesn't seem to be the answer. - SudoGhost 08:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks, bad-faith and slow edit-warring

JerryDavid89 (talk · contribs) was pretty sure[34] he personally attacked someone at Talk:Gilad Atzmon [35], but ultimately doesn't care (see first diff). JerryDavid89 has also attempted to remove some content over the period 1:00 27 July to 16:44 29 July on Marty Peretz four times.[36][37][38][39] The justifications, given in edit summaries have included "ridiculous amount of material here. "Wikipedia: the tabloid controversy conservatory"?!" and "there's still far too much "controversy" as far as I'm concerned". I've reverted these attempts twice. I first said, "If it is undue, you can still trim and preserve some content", to which an edit summary replied "that's what i did... [40]. I attempted to explain to the editor on they must have misunderstood what preserving meant[41] on 15:59 29 July. I rewrote the material, by shortening it, and reinstated it in condensed form on 15:47 29 July.[42] It was promptly reverted at 16:08 with no edit summary.[43] This was reverted by another editor who said "Unexplained removal or a large amount of content" to which the editor replied with the fourth revert, "actually, was explained".

In addition to their lack of concern over personal attacks the slow edit warring behavior, their talk page replies (including one that cautioned the editor about our ArbCom Arab-Israeli sanction) suggest no concern for our standards.[44] Can this be dealt with? Shootbamboo (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this myself (since its an attack on me) and would note that my one block was when I asked someone about whether their sexual interests were being gratified by attacking me or women on wikipedia, merely based on a reading of their editing history. He similarly assumed I am an antisemite and insulted me about it because I have done edits he disagrees with on the Israel-Palestine issue. So I do think what's good for the gander is good for the goose. (Though I do think it is appropriate to warn people about WP:ARBPIA.) Thanks for noting this, Shootbamboo. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I myself in the last week have had to deal with JerryDavid89 biased edits, this time reverting1, 2, 3 the removal of questionably sourced and/or WP:Undue and WP:Coatrack material, refusing to discuss these policy issues, refusing to edit cooperatively by looking for sources, and resorting instead to personal attacks.1, 2, 3, 4. So it does seem to be a pattern. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There also is this attack by JerryDavid89] on the admin who warned him on his talk page about not doing personal attacks, clearly insinuating the admin does not like Jews. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

---

He's only a minor annoyance so far, but he's now resorting to anonymous IP socks to get his precious sentence into United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, so someone should tell him what's what in a semi-official manner... AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Should ongoing AFD discussions started by a now-banned user be summarily vacated and closed?

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

This user was a single-purpose account registered to promote and defend the coverage of Fly (programming language) on Wikipedia. When the article went up for AFD and the discussion was clearly not going his way, he left several harassing comments and pointily nominated several other obscure programming languages for deletion in classic "If I can't have mine, then you can't have yours" fashion. Subsequently he was indefblocked by Ruud Koot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and talk page access was then revoked by Smartse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

As an uncontroversial indefinite block (at least three admins including myself agreed with it), I judged that the user was now community banned. Therefore, I closed several of his pointy AFDs out of usual process as disruptive contributions by a banned user.

Later, Ruud Koot appeared on my talk page asking me to reverse my closes since some of the discussions had been forming consensus to delete. He clearly had a point, since WP:SK indicates that bad faith or pointy nominations should not be closed if uninvolved editors think the discussion is worthwhile. Somewhat serendipitously taking the opposite view, Pepper (talk · contribs) left me a comment soon after, asking me to close the pointy AFDs that I'd missed, citing the indefinite block.

The contradiction is amusing, since both options appear to be reasonable courses of action. It's an interesting test case based on a contradiction between WP:SK vs WP:BAN, so hopefully some third opinions will help resolve what to do. causa sui (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the AfD nominations preceded the indef block and de facto ban, it seems to me that WP:BAN wouldn't be applicable, hence no contradiction. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a possible way to resolve the cognitive dissonance. However, does it match precedent? In abstraction from this specific situation, if a disruptive SPA is de facto banned due to disruptive contributions, shouldn't we revert those disruptive contributions that were the basis for the ban? That seems to be the spirit of the banning policy. causa sui (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the disruptive SPA angle, so your point is a good one. Hmm, I'll have to think a bit more on this... ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp: if he's blocked first then put up the AFDs, revert (and summarily close). Otherwise let them play out. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Note, though, that the user couldn't have made nominations if they were already blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A number of the nominations didn't really make sense as AfDs (as they clearly had sources), but a few actually did and would quite likely get deleted if the AfDs were reopened. snaphat (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I would close them with a note on the talk page saying that there is no objection to their being reopened. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the whole "point"y AfD issue is that if a user nominates articles and is banned, say, ten minutes later (not saying that's the case here, just saying), that the "point"y AfDs can be closed. However, if there is an AfD among them that has a "Delete" comment by an uninvolved editor (essentially, not a sock), then the AfD should remain open as it could be presumed that this editor would be able to reopen the AfD if it were closed. CycloneGU (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts go along the lines of CyloneGU's. I feel like having a banned user nominate an article for deletion (no matter how bad the article is) is not right. If I were a (new) user who was actually trying to create an encyclopedic article and it got nominated for deletion, I wouldn't feel too bad. If the nominator was a banned user, I would feel like it was completely unfair. However, if there is another editor who also believes the article should be deleted, then they should in affect be the nominator. I feel like the banned user's opinion shouldn't count, and this already happens other places (RfA etc.), therefore the article they nominated for deletion shouldn't count unless there is another user sharing their opinion. "Pepper" 22:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the few areas in which the treatment of de facto and de jure bans varies. The rules on bannage have been abundantly clear for years: revert anything a banned user does on sight. However, from what I can see, this user has been indef blocked and talk-restricted, but is not under any formal ban. Bans are social measures used to exclude editors from the community, rather than merely anti-disruption tools. I'm very much in favour of letting noms by users who are merely indef blocked run as normal if they seem to be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. If you want to propose that the block be considered a formal ban then so be it, but I'd have left the noms to run in this case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A banned user can't nominate something for deletion, Pepper. I would say unless they were banned because of an improper AfD nomination, then their AfD nomination is as valid as any other. It should be judged on its own merits, not the character of the editor who nominated it. AfD doesn't equal 'deleted', and editors in perfectly good standing can make an improper nomination for AfD. So again, consider the nomination on its own, don't close things just because a person you don't like was the one nominating it, but because its actually improper, and if its fine, let it be. -- Avanu (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This AfD discussion ended in delete despite being started by a banned user, and the deletion was upheld at DRV. The community evidently holds the very sensible position that we cannot invalidate the good-faith opinions of later !voters just because the nominator is banned. Reyk _YO! 22:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. If the only person who thinks an article should be deleted is the now-banned nominator, then it can probably be a speedy keep. But if others are supporting deletion, then the discussion should play out to its natural conclusion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the discussions should continue if other editors find them to have merit.  Sandstein  06:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I say relist those that have other editors leaning towards delete and let the AfDs run? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have raised a request for community input at WP:VPP#Comment needed: What should we do about processes (such as XfD) created in violation of banning/blocking policy, but had at least a handful of other valid supporting views of nom? for situations similar to what we've been talking about here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• For my part, I'm persuaded that the AFDs should be reopened or relisted. I'll do it in the next couple days. Thanks to everyone who chimed in. causa sui (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Marina Poplavskaya - possible legal threat

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

I think this constitutes a legal threat.

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

I see two concerns in the post;

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

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

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

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

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

Chzz, I think you're right although I'm not super knowledgeable about this subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think blocking might be overreacting, she's being polite towards Wikipedia and hasn't made any further attempts to edit the article. I don't really see what it would achieve other than probably alienating her. She's not a wikipedian and not really interested in our procedures, she's just waiting for us to resolve whether or not we're going to remove the photo. But I don't have any experience myself of this kind of issue on WP. Aegoceras (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) putting on photographer's hat I don't know how European laws are set up, but United States case law has found that publishing photographs that were obtained through violations of law is unlawful. While the festival may have been a public event, if an admission fee was charged and paid, a contract was entered into, where the person paying the admission fee agreed to be bound by whatever restrictions on behavior the festival organizers had in place...including a restriction against photography. So the complaint could be found to have merit, at least in an American court. Insert standard "I am not an attorney" disclaimer here. With all that said, no matter whether the complaint has merit or not, my 2p is that there's a definite WP:NLT in place against a user of Wikipedia regarding the publication of that photograph. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, N5iln; I agree. I had similar thoughts re. the legality, or otherwise - but don't think we can, or should, discuss it on-wiki, unfortunately.  Chzz  ►  15:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated by the fact that it isn't just the photo (and its uploader), there's a separate a legal threat (albeit due to a misunderstanding of how those Wikipedia-based automatic Facebook pages work) against the editor who created the article. It's all a bit unfortunate. Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a proof of anything, but that photo was taken using a Canon EOS 5D, which is quite a sizable DSLR. If the festival bans taking photos indeed (and AFAICT it's at least partly open air, and the picture seems to be outdoor), I doubt he could smuggle that so easily. Taking a photo of a person who does not want it published might be unethical, but I believe it is legal in most countries. No such user (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The question in this entire situation is whether indeed there was a rule prohibiting photography. I guarantee you images at musician's articles such as Taylor Swift, Beyonce Knowles, and Bruno Mars (among many, many, more) were all taken in concert venues where photography was forbidden. The question is whether this image qualifies as fair use for helping understand the subject, and whether the subject (who is obviously here) is willing to allow it for that purpose and only on her biographical article to help readers understand the subject (her, in other words). If she is still adament about the use of the photo, I'd be curious if there is a fair-use image that we CAN use. Some of you may not be familiar with Jackie Evancho, but that image is a fair-use image submitted by her own mother. It appears on her Twitter as well (which her mother also uses, I've seen tweets saying "This is Lisa"). So if she is willing to submit a picture we can use, that clears the entire issue and the other image is deleted immediately without question. If she doesn't want a picture on her article at all...well, we can't promise that, a fair use image can still appear at any time so we have to determine whether this image can be acceptable. CycloneGU (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Its got a commons licence, was taken by a user, it seems fine to me. Perhaps ask the uploader was photography allowed at the venue and allow him to retract the picture if he wants. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already notified de:Benutzer:MatthiasKabel, but he hasn't edited since mid-June. No such user (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Also notified to his account here - User_talk:MatthiasKabel#Ani_-_pic - I support blocking for the legal threats.Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• The Jackie Evancho image is not "fair use" at all. It has Commons license. There's no justification for "fair use" in the case of Marina Poplavskaya. Voceditenore (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  Oops, I better clarify. Seems I got the two mixed up in there. I meant as in it's being fairly used in an article on the subject in the case of Evancho. My question rather was meant to question whether the image of Poplavskaya is being fairly used or whether it ought to be removed. Because the image was provided to us by someone who took it, general fair use rules don't apply. CycloneGU (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I see what you meant now. I thought you were referring to Non-free fair use. Anyhow, it would be good to get some adminstrator input here concerning the original issue re WP:NLT. Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is not a legal threat. It's the copyright holder stating her opinion that we are infringing on her intellectual property rights. Nowhere does she actually threaten to sue us, but actually politely asks us to remove the image. We ought to take that request seriously and consider it. causa sui (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • To me it reads as a legal threat, albeit reasonably politely worded. However, before taking any sort of action against the complainant, it would be best to find out if the complaint has merit, which you all are already working on it but have not resolved yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think opening a deletion discussion at Commons will be helpful in this case. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with you re the subject's photo concerns, but the concerning bit was: "I hope you can sort out this matters, since, I suspect the same user, who opened this page, has violated my rights and, by opening facebook page under my name. I believe it is called "identity theft" - something which is unlawful and will be prosecuted. [45] (my underlining). Voceditenore (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Copyright holder" is a difficult term in this case. The person who took the image is technically the copyright holder of the image and has released it into the public domain. The image is suggested to have not been allowed to be taken in the first place. That is more of a legal route and would have to be verified by a ticket stub or something that explicitly says photography is not permitted at the venue in question. At this time, I don't think we have anything to worry about, but then again, I'm no legal expert. CycloneGU (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• - Nominated for deletion discussion at Commons - here. - Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that the opinion at Commons is that the image was taken in a public place at which there is no evidence that photography was not permitted. The uploader has confirmed that he took the picture himself, and has several others taken at the same time to confirm this. That being the case, there are no compelling grounds to remove the picture from the article at this time. I appreciate that the subject is being polite, and might even give us a picture that she prefers, but she needs to take this offwiki and through OTRS. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at deletion discussion at Commons - here, I've a uploaded a photo which should clarify the situation at this event. MatthiasKabel (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that simplies it - how can she possibly say the image could not be taken and cannot be posted? Perhaps she thinks the image casts her in an unflattering light for some reason. Either that or a troll is impersonating her. CycloneGU (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we know it's her?

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

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

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

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

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

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

2nd legal threat

Margopera has just made another comment on their user talk page [46], asking that we please remove the page, but saying [it] is my right to use further protection of the law.

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

It's no longer simply the photo. She now wants the whole article removed because she did not give permission for it to be created and the creator didn't coordinate with her first. I left her another message [47] urging her to use the OTRS system and directing her to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. I have a lot of sympathy for her. She doesn't know how Wikipedia works. She doesn't even have personal web site, by her own choice. Quite the opposite of the usual publicity seeking I see all the time in WP articles about (and alas, often by) current opera singers. Anyhow, if she has to be blocked, please do it gently, if such a thing is possible. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disturbing content on User_talk:MickMacNee

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not much point to keeping this open any longer. CycloneGU (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Resolved

I was browsing through Recent Changes and stumbled onto this person's talk page. Pretty disturbing and long note, but I thought I should let somebody look at it. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 19:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is really not worthy of further administrative reporting - ask the arbs to hurry up and close the case or block his talkpage access until they do. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbs? I didn't see any link to a ArbCom discussion. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 19:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

He deletes anything he doesn't like. The guy's in the process of being banned. Decisions been made, but until it's implemented he's ranting at every opportunity. DeCausa (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If he's being banned NEway, can an admin. just block his talk page access until the ban takes effect and it's blocked NEway? CycloneGU (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. CycloneGU (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(It was since reverted by Off2riorob. CycloneGU (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC))

(Non-admin comment) I've seen some of this editor's posts in the past and he didn't strike me as one who would post something like that. I don't know what's made him go beserk (for lack of a better word) but I just want to offer the suggestion that he's not always been like this. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, he's SOL if he continues. Sorry for wasting your time. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 19:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If he's about to be banned, he's already SOL. CycloneGU (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

He's been indef blocked and Talk page wiped pending implementation of the arbcom decision. I think this thread can be closed. DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've indef blocked him and locked his talk page. He's about to be banned, and any further interaction is just pointless drama at this point.--Scott Mac 19:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we add this removed text to this thread. Count Iblis (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

...the heck is that site? o_O CycloneGU (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Mop needed for old delete job

Resolved

 – Thank you for posting. Come again.
(Seriously, I think this has been addressed.) CycloneGU (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is an old unanswered deletion vote, one in which the same content was moved to another page. Both the old page and the new page should be deleted.

Pages to be deleted

• User:Colonel_Warden/RIP
• User:Colonel Warden/Inactive accounts

Deletion discussions

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (Closed as snow keep)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination) (Closed as delete)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 16. Deletion review closed with no consensus, defaulting to the former deletion decision.

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Err, you seem to have reading comprehension problems. "No Consensus to endorse or overturn and our jury says..... I made the endorsed and overturn arguments deadlocked at 23 each give or take a couple either way and there is no way to take any kind of meaningful consensus from that. There are arguments on each side and closing with any kind of outcome would simply be a massive great super vote. So trouts all round and feel free to relist this if anyone can stomache running this absurd discussion a third time... – Spartaz Humbug! 14:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)" How did you conclude from that it is "defaulting to the former deletion decision"? FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

... especially when the admin who closed the 2nd MfD wrote at DRV: "Closing admin's comments I undeleted this because I was taken aback at the heat here, and the insistence of the letter of process over the result. In retrospect that wasn't good, because I again short-circuited this process in an annoyance at process - I could redelete it, but that's just likely to cause more problems. Sorry. I'm really past caring about this, and saying no more. The person closing this should do as they see fit, it can either overturn the deletion and allow the page to remain, or endorse deletion and re-delete the page. Either will be a not unreasonable close of a contention DRV. I suspect if it remains more drama will occur, but I'm bowing out.--Scott Mac 08:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC) " FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't User:RickK appear on the list? Count Iblis (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Issue with User:Yosesphdaviyd

Said user has created several articles - David L. Gray, Joseph Walkes, and Phylaxis Society in particular. I will also note that per a COI posting, this user is an acquaintance of Gray, but assured via reply that he will be neutral. I cannot currently find the report, however.

In the Gray article, it seems the strength of notability is based on something that isn't really notable, that being accomplishments and honors within the realm of Prince Hall Freemasonry. The user seems to think Gray is a notable Catholic apologist, but I did not see anything that would verify that in my searches. The AFD on Gray and the AFD on Walkes were started by User:MikeWazowski as was a CSD on Phylaxis Society.

As can be seen, Yosesphdaviyd has accused Mike and myself of collusion on both AfDs (and I don't know Mike from a hole in the wall, by the way). I actually had something on the notability talk page to figure out what other people thought of "fraternal accomplishments" meeting some aspect of WP:N. Nevertheless, this is not the first time Yosephsdavid has, for want of a better phrase, had a tantrum because he refuses to understand policy the way everybody else does. He then goes back, reads the policy, and decides he's going to do things the "right way", but seemingly doesn't.

As for Phylaxis, the sourcing is nonexistent, and Yoseph claimed the CSD was "racist and prejudiced" because we had an article on its counterpart Philalethes Society and that wasn't deleted (an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aergument). I can't grab that because the CSD is over and done with, and I am not an admin. I would point out that Philalethes is about 50 years older then Phylaxis and had five independent sources in the article anyhow, so states of content weren't even comparable.

Yosesphdaviyd has the capacity to be a good editor, but he's basically going about things all wrong and causing more disruption than anything else. I think that he's not 100% correct in understanding what is article-worthy, so he has started to run (making articles) before learning how to walk (understanding WP basics). Most seriously, allegations of collusion and racism should not be arguments used as excuses for not knowing policy, and I'm not even sure Yoseph knows how serious making those statements is here on WP. In short, I think he needs a mentor, but he needs a mentor who is not someone he has dealt with thus far, and I think he needs to be told what is and what is not acceptable behavior here on WP or he's going to get into more trouble than he does good. MSJapan (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Response

MSJapan - I am new here and I will get better IF I think it is worth of the trouble staying around, but there is a way to help me get better and there is a way to rub me wrong and you have been rubbing wrong since I got starting. I have been putting together articles that are, yes, comparable to OTHERSTUFF on wiki. Yes I think you have a vendetta against Prince Hall Freemasons and you being a Mainstream Freemason I can assume why, but I won't. The speedy delete against the Phylaxis was wrong, knowing that it has had significant influence in Prince Hall Freemasonry, but that was my fault for not fully developing the article before I published it. As you have noticed since your issue with me began I ALWAYS make the changes that you have troubles with and I will continue to do so, but, again, you have went about helping me completely the wrong way kid - even this was going about it the wrong way - you're wasting my time that I could be using to fix these problems.--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that why you're prodding everything you can think of related to Freemasonry? I'll add that to the record. See contribs MSJapan (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been going through the prods one by one on their merits. Some have been appropriate; others have been ruled out on technical reasons (reprod) rather than being struck for the topic clearly being notable. However, the volume does raise the question of whether all the proposed deletions are to make a point. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Response: Those were good mark ups MSJapan. They were not retaliatory as you assumed. I went through a whole category that S. Brent Morris was in (Persons knows for their Contribution to Freemasonry) and found several of the articles seriously lacking, but you arbitrarily undid each of my edits as if this were a game. Why not let them go through the process? If they are good then they are good - if not then they go. As Fred said - no notability no article. Let them go through the process. I read Wiki all the time - I never knew stuff could be suggested for deletion until one of mine was. Now that I know . . . I just have to figure out how to do it right I guess. I'm not going to remark them, but I think you should allow them through the process instead of game playing. I would also like the Moderators here to issue a separation order against you to cease from contacting me or editing anything I post. I feel threatened and harrased by you. You are a cyber bully. --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you check the instructions for WP:PROD again, you'll see that any editor can remove a {{Prod}} tag for any reason, or no reason, so MSJapan was "going through the process". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Only just spotted this, so better update you all on what I did earlier. I speedy deleted the page User:Yosesphdaviyd after it had been requested according to CSD:A10 (attack page). It appeared to be nothing more than general "cabal" accusations against the people with whom Yosesphdaviyd has been in dispute. It also made accusations against a specific group of Freemasons, though with no real life individual names. As such I wasn't sure it was in keeping with our "No personal attacks" policy, but it was clearly an example of WP:BATTLEFIELD, and so I came down on the side of deletion. If anyone disagrees, or thinks I interpreted the policy too harshly, you are welcome to revert my action without needing to consult me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Parties to ArbCom cases blocking each other

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No admin action required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC))

---

Resolved

I've been following the MickMacNee arbitration case, and I noticed that one of the parties (User:Rd232) blocked one of the other parties (User:MickMacNee) for an edit made during the arbitration case. As far as I can make out, the edit that the block was carried out for was this. I agree that this was a blockable offence, but what Rd232 should have done is reported that edit, rather than carried out the block himself. I note that User:HJ Mitchell has since taken over the block, and User:Scott MacDonald has since made the block indefinite. I agree with both those actions, but that doesn't make the initial block by Rd232 any more acceptable.

Administrators have been desysopped in the past for blocking those they are in dispute with at ArbCom. Whether that should happen here is not clear (that would be up to ArbCom), but I'd like the community to reaffirm the principle that while administrators are involved in an arbitration case, they should refrain from using their tools with respect to other parties in that arbitration case. I'm going to notify the non-blocked editors I've named above. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Erm, what? At the time of the block Mick was already on his way out the door (Arbcom vote to ban) and he knew it, and consequently had thrown restraint to the wind. The case was effectively over (without motion or sanction against me), and nobody else had stepped up to put a lid on Mick's increasingly unpleasant attacks. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. PS Only today an established contributor retired at least in part because incivility was effectively rejected as being an issue. At time of writing the relevant thread is still on this page. Rd232 ^talk 01:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although not ideal for it to be Rd323, because Mick wouldn't accept the legitimacy of the action (hence my taking it over), calling somebody a "stupid fucking moron", combined with Mick's recent behaviour and ArbCom's failing to get its arse in gear and drop the hammer, is pretty straightforward. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with HJ Mitchell here. It would have been better had someone else taken care of the issue initially, but since it was an obvious block there's really nothing to complain about here
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a very, very longstanding principle, Rd232, and is well described in the Administrator policy. I had already alerted the Arbitration Committee to this issue, and since you have done this, there has been an added Finding of fact to the case and closure may now be delayed while active arbitrators reconsider.[48] Given your statement above, it is clear that you do not understand that you had a conflict of interest here. Per Carcharoth, I agree that a block was appropriate for Mick. But with 800 other administrators, it was the role of someone who was not a named party to the same current arbitration case to make that block, and it is clear there was no shortage of uninvolved administrators who were willing to do so. Risker (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um, Risker, of course I understand that it wasn't ideal to do it myself. But I felt in the circumstances, as I said to Mick, that the need "cap the well" was pressing, and that the need to cap it was so obvious as to override issues of involvement. Probably the ANI thread I saw and commented on this morning (mentioned above, with User:Thecheesykid retiring) factored in that. And I have to stress I wouldn't have done it had Mick not already been halfway down the road to a ban, per the Arbcom vote status at the time, which he was clearly responding to. Rd232 ^talk 01:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, wait a second, since when do arbs add findings of fact after all the sections have passed and voting to close has begun? That strikes me as _very_ not cool. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I indef'd Mick and locked his page to avoid further drama when there was now an obvious conclusion. Do we really need to waste further time on this? It was worth the effort and discussion when there was still some chance of rehabilitative Mick, but now there's not. With due respect to Carcharoth the actions HJ Mitchell and I have taken renders the moot. Trout slap Rd232 for not leaving this to someone else (it might help if he indicates he realises that) and then let's all move along.--Scott Mac 01:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Rd232's decision to block, rather than report those attacks, shows poor judgment. The case hadn't yet closed, and he was posting on an arbitration page where he (and other parties) had started posting in response to what MickMacNee had said. If he was, as Rd232 said, "on his way out", why did Rd232 feel a need to respond there to what he had said? Anyway, maybe it is best to let this be dealt with in the ArbCom case. WT:ADMIN might be a good place to reaffirm any principles needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, actually it does not render it moot. The principle of conflict of interest was just reinforced in the Racepacket case that recently closed, and that administrators are *not* getting this message is genuinely unfortunate. As you correctly point out, both you and HJ Mitchell also identified a problem here and were willing to take action. To be honest, I'm half surprised nobody did it yesterday; Mick's postings over the last 48 hours considerably exceed even my level of tolerance for incivility, and I'm supposedly incredibly lax on this point. Risker (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"To be honest, I'm half surprised nobody did it yesterday..." probably because civility enforcement is so broken nobody has the balls to take it on even when utterly obviously necessary, and people were waiting for Arbcom to block him and thereby avoid the need to grab the bull by the horns. I'm trying to imagine how pleasant an ANI thread "please block Mick" would have been... Hey ho. Rd232 ^talk 01:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec w/Rd323) Nobody blocked him yesterday because nobody wanted to offend ArbCom's sensitivities and get themselves added as a party to the case. I certainly wouldn't wish to blame any individual arbitrator (and certainly not you, Risker), but if the case had been closed yesterday and the hammer dropped, as has been inevitable for at least the last few days, Rd323 wouldn't have had anything to act upon and Mick's rants wouldn't have been an issue. This is just another case of the "Arbitration" Committee getting in the way, rather than helping a situation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it'd help if clerks or ArbCom members took a more active role in responding to inappropriate behavior on ArbCom pages.   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, an ArbCom clerk had already taken action. See what I've noted below, and see the action taken here. The clerk also hatted the thread in question. Possibly further action should have been taken, but you can't reasonably say here that the clerks were not taking an active role. Carcharoth (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting points, all. The postings by Mick that managed to even raise my eyebrows were on his own talk page, not the case pages; any administrator could have acted there, and it is that which surprised me. The case was already set to be closing ahead of the usual schedule; normally the voting period is one full week after the posting of the decision, which was admittedly quite delayed. I agree that in a perfect world, all active arbitration case pages will be regularly monitored; however, there was exactly seven minutes between the edit and the block, which is hardly even enough time for anyone to read the page, let alone respond to the edit. HJ Mitchell, this is a bright line offense for administrators, and it is critical that administrators understand that. This is the kind of action that is most likely to lead to administrator sanction, and it has been a longstanding policy of this community. The fact that nobody even bothered to report these issues anywhere is a concern in and of itself. Risker (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

One full week? Then why does it say "The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• For my part (no offense on the resolved tag being removed, I see now this is a different issue), I don't see what Rd232 did as a huge issue. A thread DID come to AN/I about Mick's behaviour on his talk page. Granted, by that point he was already blocked from the rest of the site. But the last thing we needed with Mick already knowing he was being banned was for him to run amuck just because with a free pass until ArbCom decided to actually enforce the ban. I cannot argue with any administrator, involved or not, applying a block if Mick is being disruptive. The actual ban, on the other hand, is an ArbCom bit and applies from the day they decree; a block is simply for disruptive editing and that is what Rd232 applied from what I can tell. CycloneGU (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• This shows really poor judgement and if there's time before the current case closes, I hope there's some acknowledgement of that. It didn't make a huge difference in the sequence of events here but it's a real problem if blocking under those circumstances is considered anything other than a bright line fail. RxS (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that it's not an acceptable block. Plenty of admins around, kicking your "opponent" while they are down is just not cool. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Who the hell cares? The action was blindingly obviously sensible. HJ Mitchell certainly at least used to clearly like Mick, that he endorsed the block outright means it was clearly the right thing to do. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So, we're going to unblock him and then re-block him two minutes later per the imminent ArbCom ban, strictly on principle? Come on! He knew a block/ban was coming, and he disrupted as much as he wanted to in order to get everything he could get in before somebody put the hammer down on him. –MuZemike 07:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Committee is considering a finding of fact that Rd232 misused their admin tools by blocking a fellow party to an arbitration case. If so, the same finding would need to be made concerning HJ Mitchell, who is also listed as a party to the case and who reimposed Rd232's block [unnecessary additional text removed,  Sandstein  07:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)].

But while several arbitrators have asserted that there is a rule by which no party to an arbitration case may take administrative action against another party, I have not found this rule enunciated in any previous decision or policy, and am not certain that it has merit. Administrators must not use tools while involved, yes, and such involvement may result from being party to a dispute that is being arbitrated. But it is not clear to me why one should become involved only because one is named as party to the case. First, there seems to be no process or rule governing who is named as a party and who is not, which gives the whole matter a haphazard and random appearance; second, there is a difference as regards involvement (i.e., perceived bias) between blocking another party whom one has previously opposed and one whom one has previously supported; and third; WP:UNINVOLVED exempts previous administrative actions from creating involvement, so being party to an arbitration case solely because of one's administrative actions should not by itself create involvement.

As others have said, a rule creating involvement simply as a result of being a party can also be counterproductive: arbitrators and clerks are notoriously reluctant (so as not to say negligent) to intervene against disruption by parties in open cases - perhaps, wrongly, to avoid the appearance of bias on their own part. And non-party admins will seldom act - either because they don't watch the relevant pages or because they do not want to be capriciously added as parties, too, as a result of taking action (as happened to me and HJ Mitchell in this case). As a practical matter, this may leave only admins already party to the case in the position of taking timely action.

But the instant case allows the Committee to discuss and clarify this. If the case does not result in action against Rd232 and HJ Mitchell, we can conclude that, as per my argument above, blocking other parties to an arbitration case is not prohibited per se, but only if it would have been prohibited (because of involvement) if the blocker had not been named as a party. (I don't know whether these two admins would have been considered uninvolved but for the case.)  Sandstein  07:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For christ sake why the hell is anyone whining about this. Mick was clearly acting in a totally unacceptable way and its blindingly obvious how Arbcom is going to close the case. Regardless they can change the block if needed when they actually close the case. While Rd232 may have acted improperly who really cares? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Right result, not the best path to get there. If WP:BURO and WP:IAR mean anything, they mean that this kind of after-the-fact nit-picking isn't really very helpful, if the right result was achieved -- and it was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Can one of those who think this block was a problem explain why this doesn't apply: "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." DeCausa (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What seems to have been missed is that an ArbCom clerk had already acted here (five minutes after the edit in question, User:AlexandrDmitri). The logical thing to do would have been to go and ask that clerk to take further action. It seems that instead of doing that, Rd232 was carrying out the block and posting this block notice to the editor's talk page. In effect, Rd232 was usurping the role of the clerks and taking on himself to block and lecture a fellow party in an arbitration case. In mitigation, I managed to completely miss this aspect of things myself when looking at this yesterday. Carcharoth (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Shit happens. As Rd232 says in the arbcom talk page he missed that until the block was completed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Rd232 objects to the changing result of the arbitration case, will "shit happens" be an appropriate response? The point is not that he missed it, but that he shouldn't have been busy typing up a block notice in the first place. He should have been trying to contact someone who would have been in a position to carry out any action needed. He appears to have assumed that no-one else was around, and that immediate action was needed, and that he was the one to take action. None of those assumption hold up when examined. Carcharoth (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Carcharoth's edit summary said: point out what should have been obvious. (a) "You stupid fucking moron." (b) Just deleting it wasn't going to stop Mick on his rampage. DeCausa (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether the action was correct, but whether it was appropriate for the admin concerned to take it. It is a question about judgment, not about rules. Whether or not the result of MacNee's case was a foregone conclusion is irrelevant - this action sends out a very poor message to non-admin users. What kind of justice system is it in which the plaintiff can sanction the defendant prior to the judge's verdict? It also adds unnecessary drama in a sort of farcical reprise of the "Assassination of Jesse James". Ben MacDui 10:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Point of order 1: I most definitely was not the plaintiff. The only reason I was even a party to the case was that Mick got pissed off at me over some admin actions of mine, and subsequently in one of the ANI "Mick incivility" threads I made some comments in the direction of "something must be done" and then got upset. Point of order 2: the verdict was in. Indeed, Mick was responding to the verdict. I'm starting to get pissed off at people genericising what is a very specific set of circumstances. Rd232 ^talk 10:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Another point of order. You were a named party and had a FoF about you and admonishment put up for discussion. Surely you must be able to see that you were an active party to the arbitration and therefore were no longer neutral with regard to Mick? This block was exceedingly poorly conceived and its very disappointing that you don't seem open to feedback on this point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another point of order: the FoF and admonishment were failing (and also not grounded in policy, by the by). Another point of order: the increasing volume of discussion about this may obscure it, but I have said I wouldn't do it again. I'm trying to explain why I did it. Rd232 ^talk 10:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, the title of this section is incorrect as MMN did not block Rd232 (and wasn't capable of doing so). IMHO, this is a good example of where WP:IAR was applied appropriately. I fully support the block. MMN was going to be banned for a minimum of a year anyway. Does it really matter that he has been prevented from adding further rants and PAs for a few days before Arbcom turns the block into a ban. Hermann Goering committed suicide before he could be hanged. The net result was the same, he was dead. There have been enough editors driven away by MMNs continual failure to interact with others in a manner that is compatible with core policies, let's not drive away an more by calling for RD232s head over this. Let's all get back to editing and improving Wikipedia instead of arguments over an editor who is all but banned from the site until such time that he can show he is capable of editing in accordance with the requireds standards. If you really want summat to do, I've got a GA in the offing, which has good potential to make FA. Assistance there would be welcome. Mjroots (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The section title refers to the general principle. Can we please not make unpleasant analogies with Nazis, suicide and death? Carcharoth (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"The section title refers to the general principle." ANI is for incidents, not general principles. Your presentation of the incident stripped of much context is part of the problem here. Rd232 ^talk 10:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

To put it another way, Carcharoth, it's like when a manager tells an employee "you're fired" and the employee retorts "You can't fire me, I resign!" The employee is still out of the job when all is said and done. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This is about Rd232, not about MickMacNee. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

@Rd232. Quite the reverse. The issue at hand is your lack of appreciation of the effect of the action (i.e. incident) in the context. Of course MM should have been blocked, and yes, he's been "fired" - but you should not have been the one to do it. Ben MacDui 10:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well let's spend another 5000 words on it, maybe I'll get it then. Rd232 ^talk 11:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth started this thread with the remark I'd like the community to reaffirm the principle that while administrators are involved in an arbitration case, they should refrain from using their tools with respect to other parties in that arbitration case.. If the intention was not to discuss the incident, it shouldn't have been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. There is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard for such purposes, beside Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or pages related to ARBCOM. Rd232 ^talk 10:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Wrong location. Sorry about that. I actually think WT:ADMIN is the best location. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest someone closes this. seems to be fairly pointless. DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

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

111.184.196.225

Resolved

 – IP identified. Nothing to do here for the moment. CycloneGU (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed a impersonating message at Thumperward's talk page left by 111.184.196.225. I'm confirming this IP address a troll user; also sighted his contributions that appear to be nothing but vandalism. So where was I? Oh, yes. I will revert any harassment that gets in my way. He was replacing other content with gibberish, for example: "whgxtm4mwcmm48wil48n783cmyou7m4doenc". If you are deeply concerned about the message on Thumperward's page, it can also mean he is assuming bad faith and being uncivil. He is already blocked for 2 weeks, but when the block lifts, he just might go back to vandalizing. In closing, if you think this report is unjustified, please contact me on my talk page. Thank you. StormContent (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting AN/I. Can you please tell us what kind of administrative help you require? CycloneGU (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The administrative help I require is blocking. If he keeps attacking and biting others after multiple warnings, I can ask a sysop to block the IP address indefinitely. Then revert any attacks made by the IP. However, since i'm an auto confirmed user, I can't block vandals, delete pages under AfD or CSD, or protect pages. After all, those options are what sysops can do. Pages are for good-faith assumption only, not for uncivil comments. Also, he is possibly a sockpuppet of Sven70. If Sven70 and 111.184.196.225 edit wikipedia with vandalism only, then it becomes definitely clear that sven70 is a sockpuppet. THATS when you block him. Thanks for listening. StormContent (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi StormContent. We don't block IP addresses indefinitely, but if he resumes editing disruptively when the current block expires, we will of course re-block for a longer period. 28bytes (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

28bytes is correct. I'm surprised it's a two week block, myself, but just in case IPs change (even permanent IPs can be released manually and changed to something else on the next reconnect), we never keep IPs permanently blocked. CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocks are only when the IP resumes on vandalizing just after several blocks. Maybe 6 blocks or higher? I don't know how much blocks does it take to impose an indef block. StormContent (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

On IPs, never. On registered accounts? Depends on what type of incident it is. But a vandal blocked permanently at one IP can move a year later and resume vandal "work" at the new IP while a new editor at the old IP is permanently blocked (or worse, a registered user is sockpuppeted to the vandalism). See the problem here? CycloneGU (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely a sock of Sven70. Note that when I tagged it as one he reverted it with "Persecute (the) disabled elsewhere, Fuckhead!"[49] Yawn. He's being watched, StormContent - trust me :> Doc talk 03:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL I trust you always. Hey, I better halt this discussion until tomorrow! It's way past my bedtime. Good night! StormContent (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Doc: love that. =D SC, I'm going to mark this resolved, hope that's all right since we'd IDed someone we...don't want here. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange edits by User:96.238.130.153

I encountered the strange edits by 96.238.130.153 (talk · contribs) on the Mulatto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, where they were changing words, some of which were just odd choices, like changing "person" to "human". I left them a v1 warning. They continued with the bizarre edits in several other articles, as well as going back and making the exact same changes to the Mulatto article again. Looking back at their edit history, they have this same modus operandi for at least the last ten days, including changing "American" to "U.S.", changing "20 years" to "2 decades", and making other really strange edits that don't have any substantive change to the articles they're editing. Nobody seems to have noticed this edit pattern despite all of their edits having been reversed by a large number of other editors over the last ten days. I haven't gone back to look at any more edits beyond the 20th of July, but this pattern is rather worrisome. They're currently, as I type this, on a final warning for just the edits they have made tonight, but they may need a longer timeout than normal. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Digging further into their edits, all of the edits this IP has made since July 1 are the same bizarre pattern. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked for a week. If anyone is willing to change the block settings or unblock, please go ahead without asking me. These [50] [51] representative edits make me believe it is nothing but trolling. Materialscientist (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Generalized Death Threat

[52]

Here's a generalized death threat in which FaZeClan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) threatens to kill everyone if the page gets deleted. I'm not sure about generalized death threats, so I brought it up here for discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also noticed that he appears to have made an alias: FreshKilljoy47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) b/c his youtube page:http://youtube.com/freshkilljoy47 is the same as the link referenced on user:FaZeClan.Curb Chain (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I blocked the obvious sock and left a cool it note on their talk page. I don't think they have any newbie rope or tolerance left but its such an obviously inexperienced that I'm inclined to laugh it off and see if they can turn it around Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, my thoughts exactly: glad I brought it up here for discussionCurb Chain (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask for a second pair on eyes please?

Resolved - editor has redacted. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

See this thread querying an article I deleted on my talk page. I'm very uncomfortable with the close juxtaposition of the term "legally speaking" and "false statements" which seems too close to a legal threat - especially as the user claims not to be a lawyer. I have asked them to redact their statement twice but the have not. Two questions. Am I being unreasonable and is it appropriate for someone to do something about it if I am being reasonable? Cheers. Spartaz Humbug! 08:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I do not think that Marshalsumter intended to make a genuine legal threat. Nevertheless, he should go back and strike out "legally speaking" for his own protection, and replace it with "according to WP policy", which I gather is what he actually meant. He should also be intructed that using the word "legally" here on WP is a VERY BIG DEAL that can have very serious consequences. An editor who makes anything that in the slightest way might be construed as even a hint of a legal threat can be instantly summarily permanently banned without being given the benefit of a doubt or a chance to defend themself. Again, I do not think that a serious legal threat was intended, but it would be best if he went back and edited the phrase "legally speaking" from his posts to make it perfectly clear that he did not mean to make a legal threat. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your comment. Marshallsumter (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Bowser423

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evasion of block by IP sock of "Since 10.28.2010"

Resolved

 – Just another blocked drive-by IP. CycloneGU (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• 71.146.19.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Since 10.28.2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• By his own confession here, evasion of block is established here, here and here. Could any patrolling Admin please look into this? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked the IP. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

NB, there was no socking - he was logged out, and made all those edits PRIOR to me blocking him. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - was just about to say same - and I just did on User talk:Edgar181,

Unless there are deleted contribs, the last edit from 71.146.19.240 (talk · contribs) (07:03, 31 July 2011)[53] was before the block (10:22, 31 July 2011) [54]  Chzz  ►  16:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Note, there is also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Since 10.28.2010 - which appears invalid, to me.  Chzz  ►  17:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked. If anyone thinks my unblock was wrong, feel free to reblock, or let me know, and I'll reblock.--SPhilbrickT 17:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:12Rolando

• 12Rolando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This editor has been a long-term nuisance for us over at WP:FOOTY, as he continually creates articles about himself and his friends, all of which have been repeatedly deemed non-notable and deleted (by CSD, PROD, and AfD), under a variety of different names and spellings. Examples:

• Himself = Rolando Lewis Teixeira, Rolando Lewis, Rolando., Rolando Lewis Texeira, Rolando Texeira, Rolando (football born 1991)
• His friends = Dane Hadley, Desroy Peters, Ivando Clarke, Renice Sam, Damian Lorraine, Kenvorn Cuffy, Jenson Davey, Gerron Texeira, Shane Williams (footballer born 1989), Bradley Ollivere, Akeme Ryan, Ivan Clarke, Zimron Texeira
• His sports club = Royal Saints F.C., Brownstown Royal Saints Football Club, Brownstown United

I have tried pointing him in the direction of the appropriate notability guidelines, and warned him that his edits could be considered disruptive, as well as asking for some response/acknowledgement - all of which has fallen on deaf ears, given his latest incarnation, created about an hour ago. I'm getting pretty exasperated, and bring it here for further discussion and action. Regards, GiantSnowman 17:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Genocide Denial Watch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sascha Kreiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was told before I came here that you were a highly fanatical genocide denier. It won't stand; I will rever every single one of your racist and horrific genocide denial edits. (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[55]

...Face it, your days of advocating for pedophiles are over.... Sascha Kreiger (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[56]

The comments by these two editors appear to be personal attacks and I request that they be asked to withdraw them and to avoid making similar comments in future. TFD (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Both Sascha Kreiger & Genocide Denial Watch have been blocked indefinitely for Meat-puppetry and harrassment--Cailil ^talk 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Tripower

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

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

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

In the move log one can see that this User:Kwamikagami moved several articles called X script to X alphabet [57] This is incorrect for many. No proper discussion took place, no move reasons are given. He is just moving. Also he deleted a dab page at Arwi which distinguished between the language (or call it dialect if you like) and the script. But interestingly the Arwi article has a subsection on the script, i.e. Arwi itself is not the script. Please can someone stop the article moves and page deletions? Please see also his talk page and this section at Editor assistance/Requests where other users complain about the moves. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Application not working

I used to check this website: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest to see the number of hits each page gets, But for the past week the results have been blank. Whats wrong with it? Pass a Method talk 17:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)