Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Theresa knott (talk | contribs) at 21:18, 5 August 2011 (→Vikingman69). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    How to deal with tendentious editing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This issue is still being discussed at India Related Topics. I would suggest to excuse the shortcut that Sitush has taken to take the topic on this noticeboard before discussions elsewhere are done with, before issues can have chance as suggested by Sitush to boomrang. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I should have brought in an ANI on Sitush for wasting phenomenal amount of my time with unnecessary arguments, accusations, proposing things which he is not serious about, edit warring on minor issues, claiming policy says x, when it does not, putting up unnecessary warnings on my talk page, trying to revert my edits by inserting garbage sources, claiming myself agreed to things when I did not, etc. etc. etc.-MangoWong (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Sorry, Boing! said Zebedee thought this would be the best venue when I asked a while ago. Can I just copy/paste the entire thread? - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    Sure, cut and paste this thread there. I'll add my bit there as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    My experience of Thisthat2011 is more or less the same as Fowler&fowler's. Discussion is utterly frustrating. Every answer is responded to with yet another question which just goes on and on and on. His posts demonstrate a complete inability to understand basic arguments. Paul B (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had similar experiences with Thisthat2011 as have Fowler and Paul Barlow. I have had lengthy (very) discussions with him on two occasions, wherein I have seen the same points being stated and restated, and where he tries to repeatedly insist that there is some consensus. Lynch7 19:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Thisthat, is it really wise to introduce here proposals here that you have raised seemingly ad infinitum in other forums? It is practically one of the definitions of a tendentious person (see 2.9). I note an interesting thread around this diff where you mention the "knight" theory, one of a series on that article talk page where you and Mango (by self-confession, at that time editing as an IP) tied up a lot of the time of people such as Paul Barlow & Bwilkins. Your current Hindu Jati sourcing hobbyhorse seems to be appearing on all sorts of tangential forums.
    You refer to the diff that I had previously mentioned regarding your attitude to admins. If you look at the timing then you will see that your comment occurred after I had notified MangoWong and after you had acknowledged receipt of my mispoted notification to yourself. There have been no such further statements probably because it has been raised here and also MangoWong warned you off doing so. But you (and IIRC MangoWong also) have for some time had a predilection for this type of "biased admin" comment. - Sitush (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, till now hardly anyone has given a clarity on how strictly RS standards are to adhere to on topics related to Hindu Jatis, though perhaps there are some diffs that explicitly are stated by Sitush/others about how Hindu scriptures like Puranas are not to be considered for the page because ... etc. I wonder why such exactness is required on pages related to Hindu Jatis, where many legends/beliefs etc. could be related to ancient texts and where Hindus might well have to go through the maze of issues including english-translation-of-texts, their relevant RS explanations, even proto-religions etc. to clarify details of beliefs and legends. And so this topic comes here too, along with the tendentiousness allegations. If this is not done properly, you will definitely find many people logging on Wikipedia just to point out how incorrect it is as per beliefs/legends and will be subsequently be disappointed on finding out that each of them have to prove God along with rest of the issues discussed above to make their point clearer. That is why I had mentioned the topic on India-related discussion board, which was cut off immediately and mentioned in two boards ANI and AN. An example of similar page, according to me, could be Catholic Church, where religious legends are not ignored on/similar pages.
    As far as 'biased admin' part is concerned, I would like to clarify that admins should have pointed out how these pages could not have to be so stringent in the first place, a position that otherwise will emerge regardless according to me. This is high time someone makes it clear.
    About this diff, the source I do not believe was RS, and the issue was settled long time ago, which you have missed, immediately after mentioning RS for the same content. It is therefore incorrect to say that the discussion was tendentious at all for anyone. Although User:Sitush gets the exact sources needed to make his point, I would like to point out that he leaves it half explained for the other side to do the explanation part very well as per understanding of the rest of people/admins. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    About "attitude to admins", you have yourself stated that "There have been no such further statements probably because...", bordering on assumptions that I almost did it after warning which does not mean anything. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any thoughts regarding how to deal with MangoWong's ludicrous wikilawyering etc? An example already referred to being [such as this one this]. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Topic ban enacted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Is this a proposal or already decided? Will I be able to log in and follow topics of interest in my watchlist, without edits/discussions - if this can be clarified as well please. I was going to reply of above post by Sitush, but if I am already topic banned, I am not sure if I could. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a proposal. You are entitled to comment on it. A topic ban would not stop you watching but it might stop you from commenting even on indirectly related/unrelated pages. - Sitush (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than introducing a topic ban on ThisThat2011, my impression is that it may be enough to advise them to study the TPG closely and to not to get involved in too many articles at the same time. The way I see it, I think ThisThat2011 has been running into complaints because of not having read, or not having internalized the TPG. Secondly, I think ThisThat2011 has been trying to do too many things at the same time. Spreading oneself too thin does not seem like a good idea to me. Thirdly, I agree that ThisThat2011 be advised to stay away from contentious issues for some time. The way I see it -- getting involved in too many disputes, without having internalized the TPG, spreading oneself too thin--seems to be the reason that ThisThat2011 has been running into complaints. ThisThat2011 may also have become worried because Sitush seems to have been behaving in a way which would suggest that he could get admin support for whatever he wants. This can have an unsettling effect on some folks. Besides this, I would like to be allowed to give some friendly tips to ThisThat2011 on how to formulate comments on the Talkpage. These are already there in the TPG, but still....Having studied the TPG multiple times myself, I think I might able to go some distance there (although I do not see myself as a "master" of TPG, to be clear). Secondly, I too am having complaints with Sitush's behavior. I would request that they too should also be examined.-MangoWong (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You questioned my behaviour here in the thread you started on 22 July and which rambled on for several days. Questioning it again, so soon after a prior thread, seems likely to be tendentious unless you are going to stick to issues which have arisen since that thread closed. However, I will accept with whatever the wider community thinks of this. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NB: I did mention WP:Boomerang above. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is perhaps a difference between WP:Boomerang and Boomerang. WP:Boomerang is more social than the other one. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    MW, it is rather disingenuous that you, of all people, are offering helpful suggestions on TT2011, given that you are the other problematic party addressed in this thread. I would also be quite leery of any offers of yours to mentor folks, as you have a terrible habit of playing Iago and trying to sweet-talk other editors into edit warring for you (most recent example: [1] where he refuses to take his sweeping allegation to ANI, but in the same breath nudges a rather bewildered but well-meaning new editor to go ANI Sitush). For any outside party curious about MangoWong, note the man's Contribution record: he spends almost all of this time wikilawyering on Talk pages, and even on Talk we have barely seen the man offer so much as a citation, or even specific refutation of any citation he disagrees with. All he does it toss around policy names, even when corrected by uninvoled editors for mis-using those policies to push POV points. He also has this obsession with removing the word "Shudra" (labouring class in Hinduism), but rather than discuss the matter professionally will hurl accusations of oppression, ignore all evidence that the term is used by academics, and even refuse to use the word, typing instead "S*****", which I submit casts some doubts on his ability to approach the topic in an NPOV manner (example: [2]). MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That I have too many talk page contributions is because I am having a dispute with folks who would go through great lengths to revert citation tags, (tags which they could never provide cites for). Moreover, they have a penchant for irrelevancies and even argue about stylistic issues which can be settled by the MoS. And that newbie was quite frustrated at that time. All his proposals were being rejected for quite some time. He was even being given a week's timeframe for replies (and was expected to wait for that time). etc.-MangoWong (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    PS I want to make clear that by "India-related topics," I mean topics that have some bearing on the history, geography, culture etc of the Indian subcontinent. In other words, pushing the antiquity of Indian mathematics in the History of Mathematics article, even if the region of antiquity, such as the Indus Valley Civilization or Mehrgarh), is in present-day Pakistan, will be considered a violation of the topic ban. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Having had the same experience with Thisthat as Fowler, Paul, and Lynch, I would support a three week topic ban (agree that three months seems excessive). This [3] thread at Talk:Mathematics says it all. He made some highly POV edits to the article, they were reverted, he edit-warred, then spammed the talkpage with irrelevant crap. A real time-sink. Athenean (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not at all convinced that a three week topic ban will do it. Thisthat has been warned and advised on numerous occasions since registering and there has been no change at all in their behaviour. This is one of the latest contributions, which I can make no real sense of at all. However, I will go with the flow provided that Fowler's "stiffer penalties" condition is acknowledged by Thisthat as being serious rather than just some throwaway remark. TT appears possibly to have some difficulties with the language, and so I would like it to be crystal clear. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    From my limited interaction with Thisthat at Mathematics articles, I would support Fowler's proposal for a three-week topic ban and for the same reasons. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on extensive experience with TT in a very short amount of time, I would definitely support a topic ban of some sort, but agree with Sitush that TT has a long, long history of this exact behaviour throughout his entire time here regardless of topic. Dig his Talk page, and he's been told the same things for the same misbehaviour the entire time. However, a 3wk India ban would buy Sitush and me some breathing space, and after that I would anticipate WP:ROPE coming into effect more than any real change out of TT. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I am not opposing the proposed topic ban, I would not see much use for such a topic ban unless it would provide ThisThat2011 an impulse to study the WP:TPG. I don't see much value in a topic ban if it is merely meant to be punitive. Unless things are explained, the same thing is sure to get repeated.-MangoWong (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for 3 week topic ban. I think we all agree that a punitive topic ban is unacceptable. This issue, though, isn't really punitive; it's the fact that ThisThat2011 is, for one reason or another, not understanding how to properly interact with other users on article talk pages. This behavior is disrupting the ability of editors to improve these articles across a wide ranch of topics (though all within the bigger topic of Indian issues). While I've been a bit on the fence, after looking back at some more work today, I'm inclined to offer support for a three week topic ban on articles, talk space, and user talk space discussions related to India, broadly construed. It would be ideal if TT2K would use this chance to edit other topics and get a feel for what its like to edit in a less disruptive manner. Whether or not xe does that is up to xyr. Upon the expiration of the 3 weeks, TT could come back to India articles, and should xe demonstrate no improvement, it would likely be necessary to extend the topic ban, perhaps indefinitely. It's possible that it would help for ThisThat2011 to have a mentor (before and after the topic ban), though I don't know if anyone would be willing to do it. Note that, MangoWong, you would be an exceptionally bad choice as mentor, given how close you also are to the subject matter; I'm afraid your influence would likely lead TT down the wrong path. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    TT has been referred to the various guidelines on more occasions than I care to remember. It has also been suggested on several occasions that xe might benefit from contributing to articles in which xe has less likelihood of a conflict of interest. As far as I can tell, neither of these numerous suggestions have had any impact at all. If a topic ban causes TT to (a) explore other areas of Wikipedia and (b) actually take on board the various advisory comments about behaviour then all should be well. If it doesn't work then TT has a fair idea of what to expect next. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Referring to guidelines is generally not sufficient unless specific points are shown. One is unlikely to find the specific point in a longish guideline. It is also possible that one may ignore to read through the guideline entirely. I don't say that it is good to ignore reading TPG. But it may have happened. And suggestions that eds with an Indian background should entirely stay away from India articles seem "not serious" to me. Nevertheless, I agree that ThisThat2011 should work through WP:TPG. And I was only offering to provide some "friendly tips". Nothing more.--MangoWong (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to provide him friendly tips as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through the both the Kurmi and Talk:Kurmi pages last night I believe that both user:Sitush (the original poster of this thread) and user:MatthewVannitas are too inextricably involved in the dispute there to be truly objective in their views here. In my view, the overseeing admin here should not factor their posts in the overall decision. I still support a three-week topic ban for user:Thisthat2011. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is up to the closing admin but, frankly, is very peculiar statement to make. Of course we are involved, so were you, so is MangoWong, so is or was practically every person who has commented here. That, surely, is the entire point. This is not an issue about one article, it is an issue that has spread over many, many articles, talk pages etc. - 2.125.226.61 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC) That was me, got logged out for some reason and now the edit window looks odd also. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not. I was not involved in the India caste-related articles. It is my view of course, but judging from the discussion there, I believe you and MatthewVanitas are not entirely guiltless. You are both pushing for a certain point of view there, and apparently in are in a hurry to see it through. MV says as much in his post above: that three weeks will give him breathing room. This, I'm afraid, is not about his comfort. By pushing to absolutely have "Shudra" in the lead you are unnecessarily stoking the flames. Most academics, by the way, don't consider the Kurmi to be Shudras as you seem to have it in the lead. In any case, I'm aware of the problem now. Whether MangoWong or Thisthat2011 are there or not, you'll have me as a stumbling block if you insist on having "Shudra" in the lead with the kind of shabby evidence you have thus far collected. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said it was just caste-related articles? You have said here that you have had unfortunate experience(s) with TT: the issue extends beyond caste articles. As for the content stuff, well, you need to read what has gone on at the specific articles in full, as it seems to me that at least in one instance you have not done so. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the "breathing room" comment was not "let me get my way on Kurmi while he's gone", it was "can turn my back on Kurmi for half a moment to work on other articles without TT2011 demanding attention." Let's leave the content issues at Talk:Kurmi, but hope to see you there. Getting back to behaviour, I would dispute "guilt": Sitush and I are trying to show an array of complexities, TT2011 just likes arguing and MangoWong is convinced that a term that appears in academic literature is too obscene for polite company. Though I'm not perfect, I feel in the right here, but am open to critique. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Another proposal

    I don't support that MatthewVanitas and Sitush be barred from India related topics, specially caste related stuff. They have brought forth a very important part of Indian history. Though S and MV have very little knowledge about India, but they will learn overtime. They seem to be engaged in disputes with everyone on India related topics. I would suggest that they work under the supervision of someone like Fowler&Fowler who has a lot of experience about India. Fowler&Fowler can help them improve the articles. I hope that Fowler&Fowler will agree to such a proposal. MatthewVanitas and Sitush want to improve te articles, but due to their limited or no knowledge of the topics they end up damaging the contents. I hope they don't get punished for:

    • taking ownership of articles
    • biting the new comers
    • POV pushing, etc.
    • I hope these guys don't get WP:Boombrang.

    I know they may not be involved in such practices, but due to their limited knowledge of the topics they seem so. Nair, Yadav, James Tod, Kurmi seem to be distorted beyond recognition. There may be other India topics, but it takes a lot of time to assess the damage. I know they are trying to improve the articles, but are limited in their knowledge. I hope that having a good mentor will help them come up to speed. Qxyrian is another editor who may benifit from such a mentorship. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I too have the strongest impression that the articles have a weird look. They seem to be in complete contradiction with reality. I too have suspicions that ownership has become an issue. And the James Tod article just wont look like unmalicious.-MangoWong (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What?? Okay, be calm, be calm... Let me just try to say this as simply as possible. I have not personally talked to a single editor on Wikipedia who does as much in depth, detailed research as Sitush. Period. I have no idea where either of you got the impression that any sanction against Sitush or MV is in any way recommended by anyone. Saying Sitush (I know less about MV) has "limited or no knowledge" either proves you haven't paid any attention to the article talk pages in question, or are simply being intentionally inappropriate. I've known Sitush to read dozens to hundreds of pages out of books when other editors read only the one paragraph they could see on Google books. A simple glance at Talk:Kurmi demonstrates Sitush showing more intricate knowledge of the sources than everyone else on that talk page combined. While there have been times over the last few weeks where Sitush has come to speak abruptly and strongly, this is only due to the extreme POV warring being carried out, the extremely malicious off-wiki claims, and an amazing amount of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Your concerns here, Nameisnotimportant, are extremely misplaced. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, just to clarify: I'm sure there are other editors who do as much or more research than Sitush. Many of our articles are great and well-researched. I'm simply saying that Sitush is the best I've personally talked to and worked closely with thus far. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Conduct need to be looked into

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill_clinton_history#Careful_of_manipulators.2C_keep_doing_the_good_work_you.27re_doing

    OK. Please explain this comment by MatthewVanitas - I would caution you against the goading of TT2011 and particularly MangoWong (fresh off a block). MangoWong has shown a clear pattern of trying to get other editors to fight his fights for him; note on Talk:Yadav he makes allegations worthy of an WP:ANI report, but then refuses to make them himself, but encourages you to make one. You'll note MW does very, very little constructive work on articles himself, but hangs about Talk pages adding hostility, and goading others into fights. To make an analogy: he's that guy at the corner pub sidling up to his "friends" and saying "Oi Ted, did you hear what that bloke said about your mother? You're not gonna stand for that, are you???" He's a cheerleader for conflict, and I'm probably remiss in not having an ANI on him already.

    Qwyrxian:Please add the appropriate wikipedia policy that has been violated. What do you think of this???? You are an admin.

    I am surprised. Admins please take this thing into consideration how MatthewVanitas is going about killing the reputation of two editors. This is gross misconduct. Please look into this serious misbehaviour.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill_clinton_history#Careful_of_manipulators.2C_keep_doing_the_good_work_you.27re_doing 

    Nameisnotimportant (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I refer to this specific instance of MW refusing to file an ANI yet encouraging Bill to do so above, and here's the diff again.[4]. If you look at the timestamps, it was this diff which led me to drop in to say hello to Bill and give him overall advice (its in the link you give but not copy-pasted here) including encouraging him not to let MangoWong talk him into filing claims MW had pointedly refused to file himself for whatever reason. I fail to see how this is "killing the reputation" so much as publicly stating concerns about the work of others in the context of telling a new editor that he's walked into the middle of a difficult and heated discussion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitush has a long history of saying uncivil things. And you always keep trying to slander others in a direct/indirect way. Lots of users have been driven away by you guys (through incivility, stubbornly refusing to agree to anything, getting block on them etc.) and When I had put up that comment, it was because you had made an apparantly uncivil comment to the new user. I had said what I had said in order to inform the new user that he has protection + to discourage you guys from misbehaving with new users. If I find you saying uncivil things to new users again, I think I will do so again.-MangoWong (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    MatthewVanitas - I hope this will help you. I am not sure what all other policies may apply on the sweeping claim made above, but I hope this will not be repeated.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attack This section seems more relevant :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F

    This repeated coming to ANI is becoming a serious drain of time. I hope at least something will be done this time.

    I will assume WP:AGF and hope that Sitush and MatthewVanitas will learn from this, and possibly won't do this again. MatthewVanitas: I hope you will retract your statement, and if possible apologies to the editors. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Admins: I encourage you to look into this repated behaviour. This is becoming a serious headache now. Fowler&fowler never had any interaction with these guys, still he got the picture crystal clear. Please look at Talk:Kurmi. They are into serious issues with him too. Please do something so that we can get rid of such useless time waste. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I can agree a little bit that the message from MV is a little strong, but I don't think it crosses over into being a personal attack (other more objective admins may disagree, though). I think there is a very real concern with MangoWong giving advice to new editors, despite not having a clear grasp on our civility, reliable sources, or neutrality policies; thus, I read MatthewVanitas's comment as a sincere attempt to save a new user from getting bad advice. You're right, this repeated coming to ANI is a waste of time; this would be fixed if editors acted more like Sitush and MatthewVanitas, and less like Mango Wong and Thisthat2011--that is, if they looked at reliable sources, listened when others explained policy to them, didn't keep repeating the same thing over and over again, etc. Also, as always, other users are more then welcome to join us at Talk:Kurmi--i think having more univolved, neutral editors will absolutely help the situation. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Qwyrxian: This reminds me of a famous quote:- 

    “The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about."

    I hope that this is not the reason that certain sources are termed as unreliable.

     Qwyrxian: What do you think user:Fowler&fowler was doing? He got involved in this mess because of Sitush. Actually, he is the one who had issues with ThisThat2011, but still he can see clearly. You have concerns that this is bit strong?? For how long things will be swept under the carpet. I have my doubts as to why would you think in such a manner. Anyways, it's crystal clear that gross miscounduct is happening, and things are just being brushed aside. 

    It would have been OK if this unreliable sources phenomema was happening on Kurmi, but this is a major concern across all the topics these two editors have got involved into. Why so?

    Admins: I have nothing more to add, and I would have not bothered to enter into this if not initiated by Sitush into this. I know nothing will happen to Sitush or MatthewVanitas even if every diff, proof, editor, etc. says otherwise. This entire situation around these articles due to the conduct of certain editors is grim and hopeless. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, aside from the unnecessary bolding, it is encouraging to see a newcomer with such an extensive knowledge of policies and guidelines even if they appear to be being somewhat misapplied. It may even be unique in my own experience, although the misapplication is very similar to that of MangoWong/TT2011 & so perhaps there is some scope to review the wording of the policies to which you refer. I am sorry that you feel myself and Matthew Vanitas are somehow above the system but can assure you that we are not - you either believe that or you do not, but either way it is in fact true. I am unsure where I have "initiated" you into anything. I did notify you of this thread when it started, but that was just a common courtesy. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep saying that I misapply policy. I don't believe that putting up cn tags in the lead or infobox is wrong. I don't believe trying to use the MoS to settle stylistic issues is wrong. Show me the policy which says so, and you will not see me do it again.-MangoWong (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The list is pretty long and often convoluted due to the tendentiousness etc. A clear-cut example is this. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Or this to a new contributor, which mis-states things entirely. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Or this which was a complete misunderstanding of 3RR. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The first example which you provided does not seem to be a misapplication of policy to me. I was saying some general things without citing any policy except for WP:CIVIL. I had cited WP:CIVIL because you had asked me to go away from WP, at a time when we had hardly had any interaction. Is it wrong to regard that as a violation of WP:CIVIL. The other things which I said were without citing policies and they were general things. Which policy did I misinterpret? I don't see what could be wrong in the second example. I am trying to show some argument to the new user. What is/is not fringe can be a contentious thing. I even warned the new user about it. It is something which can be decided only after a discussion. Even if my view in that matter be incorrect, I don't think that it is wrong to put up an argument of that sort. If the thing be fringe, we would not need to have it in the article. At least that much should be correct? In the third example, you show the 3RR. I had made a mistake in reading the timestamps. After that mistake was pointed out to me, I accepted immediately that I had made a mistake in reading the timestamps. I did not argue that my reading or interpretation of 3RR is different and that it only is correct. Did I? That is not a misinterpretation of policy. I had accepted my mistake immediately.-MangoWong (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the first instance you were told that you had got the wrong end of the policy stick (on several different counts) by the admin to whom you complained, and you are repeating here an allegation that was and remains untrue: I did not tell you to go edit somewhere else but rather suggested that there are other places where you can contribute if you do not like the way things work here. The second example is quite astounding and various people picked up on it. The third example is an untruth on your part: whether or not you misread the timestamps, you continued to argue the point and even got 3RR and edit warring mixed up. I could dig out more examples but right now am actually trying to do something useful here. There is nothing wrong with not understanding policy etc but when you start arguing the toss about it and you start passing on your lack of understanding to others then it becomes problematic. The idea is that you learn but, no, you are still now claiming, for example, that a cite request in an infobox is justifiable even though the article contained a cite; and you are still saying that you would prefer it if a historically certain was omitted because "it is a lie". You have been told time and again where you can go if you don't like the system but you more or less consistently refuse to use the options that are suggested to you, be they here on Wikipedia (RSN, DR etc) or elsewhere, preferring instead to keep rattling cages. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain this Sitush: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurmi&diff=prev&oldid=442109883  I hope this comment was in WP:AGF, and not because anyone with a different view is definitely WP:MEATPUPPET.
    Admins: If anyone is ever blocked, does the block makes the editor someone lesser than the others? I am not sure why Sitush feels that way - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yadav&diff=prev&oldid=441934534
                      Bill has a decent brain and doesn't need your wikipolitics corrupting him. You are the only one out of us four who has been blocked from editing and that is hardly a good recommendation for your advice etc, is it?    Nameisnotimportant (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, about the first diff, [5]I have already said that I was only talking about one policy in there (WP:CIVIL). The other policy which came up was WP:CANVASSING. I think there is some misunderstanding there. I was talking about some other instance of canvassing and the admin appeared to be explaining something else. I don’t think there is a misinterpretation of policy on my part there. I wasn’t talking about any other policy there. Here’s the diff [6] of you asking me to go away from WP. (At least I interpret it in that way). And I think it was your first ever comment to me. Whether or not it is a violation of WP:CIVIL is for the community to decide. Salvio seems to more or less accept that it may be a violation, but seems to regard it as not serious enough to require a warning. In that comment, you are assuming that I don’t like WP:V and WP:RS, and asked me to go away because of that reason. Actually, I think the sourcing policy (WP:V) is excellent. Your assumption is baseless. I do not understand how you could assume something like that about me even without having had much interaction with me. I did not tell you to go edit somewhere else… I think you did tell me to go edit somewhere else. What you are saying seems untrue to me. About the second example, you have not yet explained what policy I misinterpret, and how. Various people pick on it does not mean I am misinterpreting any policy. About the third example The third example is an untruth on your part: whether or not you misread the timestamps, you continued to argue the point and even got 3RR and edit warring mixed up. This is an untruth on YOUR part. If it is not, please show a diff to prove that I argued anything about it after it was pointed out to me that I had misread the timestamps. I had provided four diffs of reverts by you, and after it was pointed out that they were not within 24 hours, I had accepted immediately that I had made a mistake in reading the timestamps. There was zero argumentation about it. And where did I confuse 3RR with edit warring? About the cite request in the infobox, it was put up because the article DID NOT have any valid cite for the line which I had tagged [7]. You did put in one ref once, [8], but it was unsupportive of the material (i.e. a misrepresentation) and I reverted it [9]. Plus, you too have now accepted that it is not a good source, [10]. It is obvious that there was no source in the article which could properly support the material which I had tagged. Rubbish refs don’t count. The material has now been deleted. Why do you keep saying again and again that my tagging was wrong? I had said that the material in the infobox was a lie, and I can still say it unless you can show some proper source for that material. I interpret the WP:V and WP:NOR to mean that anything that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation. I interpret them to cover the lead and the infobox too. If they are kept out of the scope of these policies, these areas would be misused to insert unverifiable and OR material. We don’t want such things on WP, do we? How was my tagging wrong?-MangoWong (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not replying to you here any further regarding these issues. It is descending into another tendentious wikilawyering farce. If you believe that you were/are correct then feel free to carry on doing so. I will never change your opinion because you have consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to change. If you are/were correct in your opinion then the community will deal with me as appropriate. Right now, I have better things to do here. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One more classic by Sitush:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zuggernaut/Archive
    • The trenchant views and tendentiousness bear a likeness to those which resulted in Zuggernaut's topic ban. There is definitely something not right regarding the prolonged discussions at Talk:Kurmi and there seems no reason for MangoWong to want to avoid entering that discussion, although s/he clearly does avoid. This may be a meatpuppet rather than a sock but I feel that it deserves some attention. If it is possible to check for sleepers then that, also, might be worthwhile.
    As per WP:MEAT - <quote>The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute.</quote> Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, Nameisnotimportant. The word was, however, used with care and sockpuppet investigations are overseen by admins etc, so if I was really off-beam then I would have anticipated a sharp rebuke to that effect. That has never happened to me but it seems to make sense to me that if someone is clearly being uncivil etc in an arena that is chock-full of admins then they would rebuke if they felt it to be appropriate. The SPI revealed no connections. It is the only SPI in which I have been involved that has had that result, and it surprised several people rather than just me. The result was good news for the project and I did apologise.
    I am not the only person who is of the opinion that there is, for example, off-wiki canvassing going on with regard to articles of this type. It is in fact a well known phenomenon but you may not realise this as you appear to be a relatively new contributor. The pattern of edits pretty much confirms it, as do some other sockpuppet investigations which have resulted in blocks and can be reasonably tied into comments made by contributors. Is it ever definite? Well, perhaps not. But experience counts for a lot when considering this type of thing. I do not have that much experience, but I do have a reasonable amount and, sad to say, in this particular regard it is growing fast.- Sitush (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If nothing else, you want to discount me as 'newcomer. It doesn't take long to figure out such things. Wikipedia is really easy to master, and that's the beauty of it. I won't boast about my IQ level, my scores in standardized tests, or my being an alumnus of one of the top 10 MBA schools, as these are unverifiable claims. Anyways, let's focus into the core policy violations that I have cited. Please feel free to edit my comments if there are issues with bold letters. I hope the issue is not with WP:BOLD. I sincerely wish that we all get back to important stuff rather than wasting time here.

    Admins: I hope there is no WP:BOOMARANG for Sitush and MatthewVanitas for endlessly wasting precious time. I hope there is no ban on them for editing India related articles. Mentorship will definitely help them on India related topics. These are reputed editors, just that they seem to have very little grasp on India related articles. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I meant unnecessary bolding of words/sentences. I won't boast if you won't. <g> - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2

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

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

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

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

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

    The only substantive difference I see in the old and new versions is that the new one is "better written", and a little less polemical. But it's still an extended diatribe on a specific political point of view, which both the MfD and the DRV confirmed are not appropriate for a user page. This doesn't technically fall withing db-repost, as the text is not "substantially identical to the deleted version". Nonetheless, Timeshift9 can't just keep recreating this political speech until xe manages to get a version past MfD. In other words, this could be taken to MfD, but it the community shouldn't have to argue the same basic point over and over again. For a userpage, some userboxes with xyr political positions, a few selected quotes...heck, even a paragraph of argumentation, I could handle...but this is far beyond that and clearly within the same general realm which caused and sustained deletion last time. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm...wouldn't this fall under WP:NOTBLOG? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the MfD and DRV were both somewhat ambiguous, and that the user has waited some time and made some effort to address concerns, I think it should be sent to MfD. A not very dissimilar case currently at MfD is here. I think this is a matter of uncertain boundaries, for a contributing Wikipedian’s self-introductions tending to bloggy soapboxing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe another MfD is desirable. The community, in both the MfD and DRV, has rejected the content which violates WP:NOTBLOG and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Repeated recreations and repeated MfDs to exhaust the community's patience are unacceptable. The admin who initiated the first MfD was unfairly accused of "harassment and wikihounding", as well as "harang[uing]" User:Timeshift9. The admin was then threatened with an arbitration case.

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

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

    (edit conflict) Cunard, thank you for bringing this here, especially seeing as Gorilla is gone for a few days. First, the userpage is really unacceptable for a Wikipedia editor; Timeshift probably needs to move to a de minimus userpage. Second, Gorilla has been accused of "harrassment" and being a sockpuppet (or purposely colluding with sockpuppets) along with a threat of being dragged to Arbcom, all of which are plainly ridiculous. User:Orderinchaos, who is an admin, needs to cool it down. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I just deleted that AdminWatch page under WP:ATP. It was only there as a threat, or at the least, intimidation. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So any attempt to defend Timeshift9's user page is seen as contravening rules? why is it okay for Cunard to shop around for admins to support his position, but if I simply ask for involvement of editors at WT:AUSPOL I get hammered? How is it intimidation to ask whether admins are open to recall? An admin can block me with the click of a button, but for me to get an admin recalled would require WP:CONS and assent by the recalled admin - I think the assertion that I as an editor can in any way intimidate admins grossly misrepresents the power relationship here. --Surturz (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked, and except the wall-of-text feel to it, the actual content was much better than the version that was MfD'd. Granted, I -think- this is better suited for a sub-page that Timeshift can link to (instead of having it on his main user page), but that can be discussed. If you don't like it, Cunard, MfD is the way to go. {{db-repost}} won't work, as the material is vastly different than what was deleted. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition... if this gets worse, then the community (or ArbCom) would need to look at related user conduct. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked on my talk p. if I'd open an MfD as a relatively uninvolved ed., but I think the improvement in this version is a good sign, and we should simply suggest he move it to a subpage , /Politics, and let the matter rest whether he does or does not. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My objection to User:Timeshift9 is primarily because the page contains the similar blog material and BLP-violating content rejected in the previous MfD. Save for this page being much shorter, I do not see an improvement. Moving the content to a user subpage would not resolve that. I have had no prior involvement with Timeshift9. In response to DGG's comment here, GorillaWarfare, not I, was accused of wikihounding Timeshift9. I became involved to notify Spartaz and Timotheus Canens to enforce the community's decision in the MfD. They have deferred it to the community, where all the uninvolved users save for yourself support initiating an MfD. Because I contacted the MfD and DRV closer, and because of the accusation by Surturz ("why is it okay for Cunard to shop around for admins to support his position"), I considered you to be a better MfD nominator. Instead of irrelevant discussion about editor behaviors, participants could focus on the applicable user page policies. I maintain that this inappropriate content must be dealt with. Would Qwyrxian, N5iln, SmokeyJoe, Penwhale, or The ed17, who support initiating an MfD, start one? You five are relatively uninvolved and a nomination by one of you will ensure that the debate is not tainted by discussion about users' conduct. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see an MfD initiated mostly because this discussion here, and on the user's talk page, would be better focused in an MfD. My general position is that if there is any reasonable dispute of the applicability of a speedy criterion (with exceptions), then the matter should go to XfD. (See the current discussion at WT:CSD). I think cunard is probably, but not certainly, right. The community may decide that the less bloggy userpage is within reasonable leeway. Years ago, it would. Over the years, Wikipedia has matured/hardened. Personally, I'd prefer to ignore non-effensive transgressions unless it causes trouble. However, I'd rather participate in a debate about policy and whether the page is OK than debate behaviours such as wikihounding. My ideal outcome? As per Surturz (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC) paraphrased, "Shifty should [...] move the commentary to an off-WP blog site" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, the people who want to discuss it will decide. I just add this to the list of examples that if you ask my advice or help, you will get what I think appropriate, which may not be just what was expected. And I think thats pretty true generally, at least at AN/I. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that each user has his or her own perspective about a topic and interpretations of policies. As Spartaz wrote in his reply to me: "Tim may be (and probably justifiably too) inclined to do something else." Cunard (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, Timeshift is using his userpage as a blog. This is not encyclopedic content, it is only a microscopic fragment of Timeshift's ideological stance and thus give us little insight into any prejudices or biases he may have as an editor; it is a weak substitute for starting a real blog, and is in pretty blatant violation of the community consensus about his prior pseudo-blog. Like the previous version, my concern is not BLP but rather WP:NOT#WEBHOST. If you want to opinionate about politics in Oz, do so in a real blog, not on our servers. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, well I'm back and happy to see I haven't been desysopped yet! :D Though it seems some may have it on the mind... Anyway, I'm glad Cunard brought this here. I was planning to do so once I returned, and this saves me the trouble. When I first posted about the recreation on Timeshift's user talk, I was hoping to avoid even bringing the issue to MfD, not to mention escalating to ANI, SPI, DRV, or... ArbCom? Anyway, as for where I stand on the userpage issue: though the content on the recreated page is not as grossly inappropriate as the BLP-violation-filled tirade I originally brought to MfD, I still view it as a violation of WP:NOTBLOG. I recognize that it is Timeshift's prerogative to state any beliefs and/or biases that would influence xyr Wikipedia editing. I think that declaring bias in that fashion should be encouraged. However, I agree with Orange Mike that the content on Timeshift's userpage is extremely specific, to the point where it could only be used to state bias as it pertains to the subjects of the userpage. I understand that the line between acceptable and unacceptable amounts of opinion and bloggy content is fuzzy, but I think we need to find a way to decide clearly what is acceptable for Timeshift so xe is not forced to keep toeing the line until xe finds a version that the community can accept. Furthermore, repeated MfDs will do nothing but frustrate Timeshift and the community, so I think a preemptive decision should be made so that myself, Timeshift, and the rest of the people involved here can return to productively editing. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone who supports initiating an MfD and as someone who has had minimal involvement, would you, SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), initiate an MfD nomination for User:Timeshift9 at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)? After several days of discussion, it is unlikely that the problematic user page will be resolved at ANI. Cunard (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So, what's the plan here? To keep taking Timeshift's userpages to MfD as xe creates them? This will frustrate both the community and Timeshift. I think we need to decide on some general agreement instead of forcing Timeshift to keep trying different things until one version is acceptable. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely agree with GorillaWarfare on this. If we're going to enforce boundaries, we need to start by deciding where they are and writing them down. If an editor has strong opinions about an area in which they edit, I want them to disclose those opinions in their userspace. And there's also a discussion to be had about who will be in the userspace police. Will this be yet another sysop's job?—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the plan should be that either you hash it out with Shifty on his talkpage to get the page acceptable, or you raise an MfD and get consensus to delete. Real consensus, not merely a simple majority like last time. Shifty has shown that he is willing to address concerns that are raised with him. he has been very patient and polite and I suggest you extend the same courtesy, rather than trying to find a quick solution involving admin tools. FWIW Shifty and I are polar opposites politically and have had many heated, spiteful content disputes over the years. I think it is the lesser of two evils that he air his political views on his userpage and get it out of his system, than him try and POV push those views into article space, as has happened in the past. --11:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    Surturz, I am certainly not trying to find a quick solution involving admin tools. If I was, I'd have taken this to MfD already. However, I don't think it's possible at this time for Timeshift and I to "get the page acceptable", because the current guidelines on the issue are extremely vague. What I'm trying to do right now is figure out the simplest and most effective way to establish what is and is not acceptable on the page. An MfD seems like a poor choice, since the process is designed to decide deletion discussions according to existing guidelines and policies, not create new ones. ANI isn't really a good place, either. Perhaps an RfC is needed? Any other ideas? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    arbitrary section break

    I think we really should look at what the purpose of WP:NOTBLOG actually _is_. I think it is to stop people creating WP accounts just to host content on their user page as if it were GeoCities. It's not really there to stop genuine editors from expressing their views. People comment on current events on talkpages all the time. I think genuine editors should be allowed to put bloggy stuff on their userspace if other editors are the target audience. Shifty is a prolific articlespace editor and I get the impression that he writes the bloggy stuff primarily for his own and WT:AUSPOL's amusement. personally, I think that is tolerable. --Surturz (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an established precedent (not a rule you can point to) that productive editors are given a little leeway with their user space. People who actively improve Wikipedia are given a pass somewhat if they use their user space for frivolous purposes, such as to express opinions, write humorous info, play word games, etc. Within reason. An editor who is only doing those things is usually warned and those pages deleted. So I don't support your suggestion just because it's reasonable, but because that's usually how we handle such things anyway. -- Atama頭 16:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Timeshift9 and WP:NOTBLOG questions

    Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site, to which WP:NOTBLOG links, states inter alia:

    Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account.

    Does User:Timeshift9—in this version on 14:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)—violate WP:NOTBLOG? If it violates your interpretation of WP:NOTBLOG, how should it be dealt with (e.g. page blanking or trimming or MfD)? A medium should be achieved between disclosing personal biases and using userspace as a blog. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    G-Zay user conduct

    I have had various encounters with G-Zay, and have followed the edits long enough to think his contributions won't work out with that attitude: namely tendentious editing, adding original research, giving undue weight and going against community consensus. Just a few examples:

    • Edit warring on Final Fantasy XII: G-Zay keeps re-adding review scores despite consensus on the talk pages of the article and the project not to do so: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] (again waiting several weeks to conceal his most recent edit from the opposing editors).
    • Adding original research or misleading/interpreted sources: G-Zay usually uses sources that do not confirm the statements he adds to articles. For example Final Fantasy X-2 (not in source, unsourced, unsourced, not in source), where he sourced the development team with an Edge article that does not even mention the development team. Also used for Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy XIII. Again done after several notes to provide reliable sources.

    This is, by far, just the tip of the iceberg. After countless reverts by multiple users and many warnings on his talk page and several article discussion pages, I started a subsection about G-Zay's conduct at the administrator's noticeboard, where I suggested another chance to let him reconsider his editing practices. But four months later, he is still on with the tendentious editing and, much worse, adding original research and interpretations of sources to advance POV statements and speculation (if that wasn't bad enough, many of the edits with original research affect featured articles). He has had many chances to learn his lessons, and has shown more than often that he does not care about Wikipedia's policy concerning original research and consensus-building. At this point, I am just really sick of cleaning up his mess and talking at a wall, so I'd appreciate it if someone finally got him in line. Prime Blue (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Still going against consensus and adding original research. Prime Blue (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has been warned. The "I will never stop reverting." comments are especially troubling. If the behaviour continues, he should be blocked. – Quadell (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think he will revert the review table again. My bigger worry is the original research, as he still continues to add statements without sources. And if he actually does give a source, it's usual an interpretation where the information or person in question is not even mentioned – which is particularly problematic in featured and biographical articles. It's hard to trust him if he posts "false" sources that do not address the statements he wants to add, just because his earlier unsourced edits were reverted ([50][51][52][53] — [54][55][56] — [57][58] — [59][60][61][62]). That said, I have not yet checked some of the new references he has added yesterday, but I am also afraid I don't have the energy to police his edits in the future. Prime Blue (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about it, I'm following him now. He makes good contributions, I just wish he wasn't so in love with Ito and so tenacious over the long run. --PresN 21:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Neptunekh2

    Resolved

    When I bring a problem to this page, you guys always talk me out of admin action, so I'm hoping someone can come up with another solution here. Neptunekh2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has some learning difficulties - see her talkpage. She's been the subject of two previous reports Copyvio_edits_among_other_things_by_Neptunekh2 (Dec 2010) and User:Neptunekh2_-_long_term_competence_issues (May 2011). I tried to help her after the first one, and after the second, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights offered to mentor her. There's also User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Neptunekh2 and User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Neptunekh2_back_doing_copyvios_again. I've tried to advise her [63] - anyone who works at one of the Help or Reference desks will be used to seeing her asking the same question in multiple places. She creates loads of categories that have only one entry Category:Fictional Americans of Belgian descent - I kid you not - but she's quite good at putting things into categories. She creates bad stub articles, then posts on the helpdesks asking people to clean them up, but they are about obscure subjects that no-one would think of eg Looty Pijamini.

    Anyway, after a round of grief that involving getting about 10 categories deleted, and a copyvio, see User_talk:Neptunekh2/Archive_1 and Special:DeletedContributions/Neptunekh2, she discovered that Velasca from Xena:Warrior Princess was based on a real (legendary) character, an associate of Libussa. She created an article Valasca on 27th (here's what it said).

    I'd rather got the ache by this point, particularly as Blade confirmed that he has had no success in getting her to communicate with him. I gave her a final warning [64] on 28th and, among other things, sanctioned her to creating articles only in userspace. She's got something of a bee in her bonnet about Valasca (or Dlasta, which seems to be a variant spelling of her name) though, because she went on to create User:Neptunekh2/Dlasta (deleted in the mistaken belief it was a copyvio). In the meantime, I suggested the topic would have notability issues, and that she should add a line to List of women warriors in folklore. She added this, which was reverted. She then added this to a random spot in the article on Velasca (the Xena character). She then created User talk:Neptunekh2/Dlasta/Temp, and asked at the Helpdesk for someone to expand it [65]. She then created Dlasta, and pointed the edit at Velasca and List of women warriors in folklore to it [66] and [67].

    At this point, I'm fairly pissed off with chasing around over this, but feel I'm too involved to block her - if indeed this warrants a block. After all, I imposed those sanctions unilaterally. I'll notify Blade as well as Neptune of this report. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)ETA [68], posted after being notified of this thread. I'm just finding it very frustrating. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but I think some outside eyes are needed. I've been trying to get her to work on existing articles, but I haven't had much success. If there was something else I could do, I'd gladly do it, as I too enjoy seeing some of the obscure topics she frequents; however, I'm not sure what else I can do over the internet (face-to-face, I know exactly what I'd do, but it doesn't work in type). To paraphrase from what I've said earlier, I'd have no problem reviewing her contributions to articles, except I can't seem to get her to contribute much. If anyone has any other ideas, please tell me, but I'm at a loss as to what I can do short of asking for a block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Incidentally, I think what Elen was trying to link to was the creation of the Dlasta article. 03:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you have tried and tried and tried, but we are still seeing exactly the same problems on which she's been given repeated advice. Your final warning was perfectly reasonable, but again you didn't get the acknowledgement you requested and she merely blanked your warning. You've both tried, but enough is enough. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Elen of the Roads and The Blade of the Northern Lights should be commended for the time and effort they have put in to attempting to rehabilitate Neptunekh2, but enough is enough. Neptune's editing style, personal interaction skills, and poor communication have proven to be completely incompatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and it is now apparent that no amount of hand-holding and guidance will change that. It's time to cut the cord and block the account. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As an initially involved editor, see for example [69], I have been monitoring this from the sidelines for the last couple of months. Although there appeared to be a slight glimmer of hope initially, Neptune's inability to take on board the slightest piece of advice is utterly disappointing. I agree with the above editors that Elen and Blade deserve kudos for their time and dedication and, unfortunately, Neptune appears to have tried everybody's patience and hasn't really responded to Blade's mentoring. As a huge drain on editors' resources and considering WP:COMPETENCE for example, sadly I believe there is only one solution, as stated above. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A bit of topic, but if that Dlasta article is really copy/pasted from a 1910 source then that's a case of neither copyvio (since presumably it's in PD) nor plagiarism (maybe... at least not any worse then copy/pasting massive amounts from the 1911 EB).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's never been a copyvio, as I've explained to numerous people now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There appears to be consensus for a block here - is there any uninvolved admin willing to enact it before the thread is archived? Note that Neptune has again started to create new, sparsely populated categories which will all need to be reviewed and cleaned up. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      And that after I explicitly told her to run new category ideas by me... if no one has done it by this evening, I'll go through them and see what is and isn't salvageable. I'm almost tempted to tag them all G5, since she created them after she was told not to, but I think that'd be stretching it a bit as there was never anything formal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That does it, I give up. She has just re-created Category:Fictional American people of Belgian descent [70], and posted at the Helpdesk [71] to ask if it's OK to put Scott Evil into it. The first time she created the category, Captain Screebo joked that she'd missed putting Scott into it - the only other fictional American of Belgian descent! I'd block her myself, but I think it would be totally out of order - could an uninvolved admin please do it before she starts re-creating categories for random parts of Canada. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have rather reluctantly blocked this user. Their edits are disruptive and they are not contributing productively to the project. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Much as I hate to say it, thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A mixture of relief and disappointment all round I'd say. Blade, you did do your best, she just wasn't responsive. CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    John254 sockpuppet suspicions

    Given the results of the CU, there is no admin action required here. 28bytes (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Recently, there has been some off-site discussion regarding whether certain users might be sockpuppets of User:John254, a banned disruptive editor. One of the most suspicious accounts is User:Cbrick77, who has extensively commented at the Cirt-Jayen ArbCom case. This user account has less than 250 edits, the first of which was on April 20 of this year. The account holder claims to be (1) a new editor and (2) 16 years old, both of which I find highly implausible after reading their contributions. We know that John254 has a history of using sockpuppets to disrupt Arbitration cases; he was banned when he was discovered using both John254 and User:Kristen Eriksen to argue both sides of the same case. He later used another confirmed sockpuppet, User:Chester Markel, to open the MickMacNee ArbCom case and make various proposals, before he was discovered and again blocked. Now we've got another new account making extensive edits to Arbitration and making questionable claims about his identity... do I hear quacking? *** Crotalus *** 16:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In general, the best way to handle this is by WP:SPI. Sure, checkusers who could look into the issue DO check this noticeboard as well, but the advantage of using SPI is for filing purposes: keeping all of the sockpuppet reports and checkuser checks in one location makes it MUCH easier to track a sockpupetteers behavior and make it easier to spot trends. If we just have sockpuppet discussions on this board, we can of course resolve the case for the specific sockpuppet account, but that resolution doesn't help the overall situation. For that reason alone, I would recommend starting a formal SPI case. If you wish, you can link that case from here so we can have the discussion at the SPI case page. But I really think that sockpuppet issues (excepting in the most obvious, simple cases) should be kept together, and this one is complex enough and onerous enough that we should be keeping this under one file. --Jayron32 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Cbrick What evidence do you have to support your claim that I am a sockpuppet? You provide no proof except my constructive edits to an arbcom case and that I am 16. Neither prove anything. I haven't been disruptive, far from it. I am active on both the English and Latin wikis (on the Latin wiki I am trying to organise editors to improve the chemical element articles) and added content to commons. Is that the actions of a sock puppet? I would like proof for these accusations beyond being new, being active, being young, and being constructive. Cbrick77 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • All I'd add here is that, in general, when someone is accused of doing X, if they are innocent of the charge, generally react with such as "Don't be ridiculous, I would never do X". Whilst guilty parties generally react with "Why do you think I have done X?" or "What evidence do you have that I have done X"? This is a general sociological point, not a Wikipedia one. YMMV. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You turn up and comment that you write scripts , just like User:John254 and then you focus on an arbitration case involving User:Cirt , just like User:John254. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" does not mean that single purpose accounts should involve themselves in disciplinary proceedings against other editors. It seems to me that for a user to be able to offer informed opinion and analysis, they ought to either have had interactions with the parties or to have significant experience editing the kinds of pages that are at issue in a given case. For example, since this is a case about CofS and BLPs, credible workshop proposals will come from editors with a history of editing articles about CofS or a history of editing BLPs. Non-credible workshops should be removed and copied to the user talk page of the proposing editor. There is no reason to clutter the workshop with proposals from non-credible editors, whether or not they can be proved to be sock puppet or bad hand accounts. Thatcher 20:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I totally agree, well said. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ask for proof because no one has any. I write scripts, so what? Most of Hollywood does and as I said on my talk page, I do it through a program, script frenzy. My script frenzy user page is here. I had to validate in April so that winner bar means I do write scripts as cbrick on script frenzy and I did it in April. I doubt john did that. Because I am focused on the arb case on the en wiki doesn't mean I'm not doing anything. On [la.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Usor:Cbrick77 the Latin Wikipedia] I have been working on translating and creating infoboxes for the elements. I am not a single purpose account. And I have offered my best input as an uninvolved editor to the arbcom case. I aspire to be a clerk or even an arbitrator and before throwing my hat in the ring, I felt it would be best to get experience with arbcom cases and show I can offer valid thoughts. In conclusion I have done my best to contribute to this encyclopedia. I have source BLP's and have worked to revert vandalism. I have contributed to la.wiki as well as this one. I am not a sock puppet and I am 16. And rob, if you agree that inexperienced editors should not comment on arbcom pages, why were you so supportive of my proposal and my evidence and my input into the case. Cbrick77 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I found Chester Markel's participation odd in the MickMacNee case. Equally well, for a 16 year old, as I've written off-site, the editing history of Cbrick77 is equally puzzling. Mathsci (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should run a check user then... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am directed as an experienced contributor to assume as much good faith as possible, but the quacking is deafening WP:duck. I am also supportive of the comments here and at other locations that arbitration cases are not correct places for uninvolved inexperienced new users to focus their energy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eraserhead1: My editing pattern is confusing because I most often hit the random page button and see what ways I can help.
    @Rob: Well why didn't you say that before? If you think I was focusing too much on the arbcase for a uninvolved inexperienced new user, tell me that, I'm always willing to listen to friendly suggestions (as such, I'll try to be less involved in the ArbCom case). If check user would be best to clear my name, I'd be willing to have it done (not like I have a choice, but I'm assuming that volunteering would get it done faster). Cbrick77 (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A user whose 5th edit is this (note the edit summary) is either (a) not a new user, or (b) incredibly quick at picking up citation templates, referencing style and projectspace tags (WP:URBLP). Having said that, I edited as an IP for quite a while and picked up quite a bit of this stuff, so .... Black Kite (t) (c) 23:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I came across citation tags and styling from WP:URBLP as well as WP:REFB(linked to from WP:URBLP) and studying other article styles of citation. If I remember correctly, I learned about WP:URBLP from the notice box above the watchlist, that or I saw an edit summary in recent changes with the link in it. Either way, I clicked and decided to help since I'm good enough at googling things. Cbrick77 (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Other possibilities:

    User:Cbrick77 is a CleanStart editor who would rather not make that public.

    User:Cbrick77 is an undercover ArbCom agent probing the editing climate to gain information relevant to some ArbCom cases.

    Count Iblis (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I forgot to mention another possiblity. It may be that an Arbcom member wants to participate in the ArbCom case and wants to do that anonymously. If this is the case then it's quite likely that User:Cbrick77 = User:Coren. Count Iblis (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    {{checkuser needed}} /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Count Iblis, I appreciate your alternative suggestions as to whom I could be, but they are also false. I am not a CleanStart, nor an undercover ArbCom agent (I didn't even know they had those), and I am no arbitrator. I am simply another editor who, through an unfortunate series of events, has landed himself in this situation on his first and only account. Cbrick77 (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Iblis, if you really do think this user is a sock of Coren, the correct course of action is to open an SPI, not make random accusations here (oh, he might be Coren, or an Arbcom plant - and what exactly is one of those anyway - or he might be Greta Garbo, who knows). Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibilities are just possibilities, not per se something to be concerned about. And that also applies to the thread subject of whether User:Cbrick77 is User:John254 or not. Because even if this were the case, as long as User:Cbrick77 behaves in an exemplary way as he's done so far, Wikipedia is better off with him contributing here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but you see, no. If Cbrick77 were a sock of John254, he would be blocked immediately, so it is important to establish whether he is or not. Hence the request to the OP to file an SPI, as the Checkusers have all the background info. On the other hand, randomly accusing an editor of sockpuppetry, without any intention to file an SPI and have someone actually investigate it, has been established to be a personal attack. Consequently, the advice to you has to be to either put up and file the case, or shut up and withdraw the allegation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia suffers from OCD? The "personal attack" charge reminds me of my aunt who has OCD, when I joked about her floor not being 100% clean. It was as if I had made her floor very dirty (like throwing dirt on the floor) and then forced her to clean it. :) . As far as I'm concerned, Cbrick77 is an excellent editor, whether he is Coren, Greta Garbo or someone else, until his actual edits prove otherwise. Count Iblis (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally, once a doubt has been raised, checkusers on ArbCom do these kind of checks without a check being requested (cf Chester Markel and Risker). Presumably that has already happened. cqfd Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been notified nor seen anything about me being check usered. Though it's not required, I assume someone would tell the results instead of just letting this simmer. Cbrick77 (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Accounts can be checked by checkusers (including most of ArbCom) at their own discretion, in private without notification. I would assume that has already happened and that the result was negative. Mathsci (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    With respect to the accused and to "clear the air" as far as the sock accusations are concerned, Cbrick77 is completely Red X Unrelated to John254/Chester Merkel, and is also completely Red X Unrelated to Coren. –MuZemike 21:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What accounts are associated to the address...is the question we really want answering - anyway - it doesn't matter who his previous contributions are under or if he is actually an innocent minor wandering by wanting to get involved in wikipedia arbitration related to Scientology - its a good offer he has made to stay away from the arbitration and that is the only issue anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid ArbCom would have more information about that than me, especially if it's regarding Scientology. All I have is what I have seen in front of me with the CU results. –MuZemike 22:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your CU is that the new user is not User:John254, you have evidence of who the user could be but are unable to inform us? Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a reason we decline CUs without good evidence as fishing expeditions; if you look hard enough, any IP can be correlated with some other user. The question is whether that's just random coincidence, or enemy action. I'm not sure that (barring some obvious miscreant based on the actual IPs and CU history) it's worthwhile for us to continue the thread here. If the CUs find someone who is a known troublemaker who matches the IP(s), then they can do what they always do. If not, then it's not an actionable ANI-ish sort of incident. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia's oversights of swift deletion

    No administrative action required. AFD will take care of this in around 6 days time. Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As an artist who has received a multitude of press (Washington Post, 3 variants of the BBC, Newslite, Reuters and many more), won a Guinness World Record, performed on large stages and played roles in film and TV - who is both humble and heart and a warrior for his art, I am appalled by Wikipedia's oversights of swift deletion. The page featuring me, not created by me, had 7 quality & verifiable sources noted below. Member KOAVF decided it should be deleted because he is a) a volunteer & b) he personally didn't find the article notable & c) the sources below were not good enough for him. What kind of thing is this, that real people achieving real goals are put down by those who don't even have the sense to do some research prior to 'deleting upon content'. I find this COMPLETELY UNFAIR, a chaos and an anarchy.


    1. ^ "10 strangest Edinburgh Fringe venues". BBC News. August 12, 2009
    2. ^ "Musician gets record for longest single title". Newslite. April 22, 2011
    3. ^ Season 3 Actors. Alias The TV Show. accessed August 2, 2011.
    4. ^ "A virtual first for the Fringe". The Scotsman. June 22, 2009
    5. ^ MacKenzie, Ian. "Acts flock to Edinburgh Fringe despite recession". Reuters. June 10, 2009
    6. ^ Ruh, Dennis. Oldenburg Film Festival. August 24, 2009
    7. ^ Scholer, Robin. "Mikhail Tank Wins a Guinness World Record and Continues Being a Renaissance Man". Studio City Patch. April 24, 2011

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwillbetold3 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears this user is upset that an article he contributed to has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikhail Tank (2nd nomination). The AfD is ongoing. It is a dispute over notability. No admin action required here. Singularity42 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User Koavf notified: [72]. Singularity42 (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks I appreciate the heads-up. This user is the subject and he has removed the AfD tag from the article and sent me harassing e-mails (in case someone really needs verification, let me know.) This can be safely ignored as a crank. I've told him repeatedly that if he wants the article to not be deleted, he can establish notability through verifiable and credible third-party sources either in the article or at the AfD. Instead, he decides to spam my e-mail, post to ANI, and even e-mail Jimmy Wales. *sigh —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment "This can be safely ignored as a crank" is inappropriate. Not everyone understands Wiki-speak, and insisting that people follow Wiki-rules when they are essentially new to the entire process isn't very fair. A simpler approach would be to clearly outline what you feel they (or other editors) need to provide for the article to meet Wikipedia standards and give a reasonable amount of time, maybe 2 weeks, for them to provide what is needed. -- Avanu (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh to hell with that milquetoast nonsense. Someone who goes to the trouble to harass via e-mail deserves no coddling and certainly no over-abused WP:AGF consideration. Read standards and guidelines first, then create the article. Those are the kind of editors we need to work on retaining, not the ones that treat the click-on-a-redlink aspect of the project as a personal myspace band bio page. Tarc (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A user who shall go unmentioned (not me) once said that he was fully in support of blocking any username with "truth" in it on sight... I'm wondering if he might have been onto something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn't create the article, they are its subject. The person only has 11 edits. So I'm kind of asking for those of us who do know how things work to be classy and accept that not everyone understands how Wikipedia works and people can get frustrated with it easily. It is hardly 'milquetoast' to act like a decent host for a guest. -- Avanu (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I sent Truthwillbetold3 a personal welcome and an offer to explain our arcane ways. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    @Avanu No, he's a crank. He wrote me a profanity-laden e-mail asking "what I've ever accomplished" and calling me names because I nominated this article for deletion. This isn't an issue of him not understanding policy (I received an e-mail from his representation simultaneously which was professional and respectful--that was an e-mail about not understanding policy.) He's mad and rude and is harassing me--you shouldn't give his complaints the time of day or else you will end up wasting your time as I have done. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You might be right, but also it might be just a really poor reaction in frustration. Certainly not what we want to deal with, but understandable. I hope his attitude changes. -- Avanu (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I sternly warned the user not to do that again. Even newcomers should be minimally aware that they cannot be harassing like that; this is not "wiki-speak", this is common sense. –MuZemike 05:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If he really is Mikhail Tank, then he's edited here before as User:Emperortank. An article on this topic was created and deleted twice in 2006, by him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Extremely serious and severe edit war commencing at "Sophie Scholl"

    Resolved
     – We're done here then, I guess? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP address 50.40.243.7 keeps removing content from the page above, so his vandalism got reverted 7 times. Gave him 2 only warnings, answered the AIV report for the IP address, requested page protection, and now i'm left with no choice but to report this to you. What has really gotten to the IP address?? StormContent (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The page protection has now been put in place by Materialscientist. --Dianna (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Either the IP needs to be blocked or Dayan Jayatilleka needs to be semied too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Semied that one too. The vandal was already IP-hopping again, and had been vandalising that article repeatedly over several weeks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. Multiple edit wars from different IP addresses from 50.40.xxx.xxx range make up one big, serious, and critical edit war. Also, one of the biggest edit wars in Wikipedia history. StormContent (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RaúlLoveMiley

    Resolved
     – User currently blocked. CycloneGU (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has been making unconstructive edits to Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus related articles over the past month or so. The user has been previously blocked for uploading copyrighted images to the articles, and has been warned for edit warring with the same subjects.

    Now, this user has been reverting edits I had made to the infobox of Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus (where I added more information, and merged the two infoboxes - as it is all one album, and not two). In doing this, the user did not leave an edit summary, and continued to do it again after I reverted, explaining why. I then decided to leave the user a message asking why they were doing when they were doing. The discussion was unsuccessful and then afterwards the user moved the page in anger. Doesn't look like I'll be able to get through to them, which is why I'm bringing this up here. ℥nding·start 20:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The user is now moving a bunch of pages, messing up links, and the proper naming of articles. (See their contibs). ℥nding·start 20:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh oh. I went for a block at apparently the exact same moment that Reaper Eternal was leaving a "final warning." Given that they were explicitly asked to be more careful with page moves two days ago and were moving a large volume of pages I thought a block would be the best way to drive home the point since they ignored that warning, but if consensus favors leaving it at a final warning instead I'm ok with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, you beat me to the draw. I warned him for moving without consensus, and blocked him for ignoring a previous warning over something else - if he does it again, he deserves another block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw all the moves and this user is becoming quite annoying. He or she is always reverting and adding false information to Miley Cyrus articles. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this has been resolved already but I too have had issues with this user for the same reasons. They pretty much to me don't seem to respect or care about what wikipedia guidlines are and if you ask me a temporary block doesn't seem suitable cause once it's over they'll be right back at it. They've already done it twice now. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 09:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If he causes problems again and I see it, the next block will be for a month. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent personal attacks

    Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This editor continues to use abrasive language when addressing other editors and discussing sources. I believe that he should be warned to avoid personal attacks. Below are examples, which are representative of his general communication with other editors.

    • To myself:
      • If you are dyslexic or poor vision or have another disability, it may help for you to identify yourself so that people cut you more slack when you (without fault) make mistakes....17:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[73]
      • [I asked him not to make personal attacks.][74]
      • ...for persons with similar vision without a large screen, the rate of error must be much higher. I admire the King of Sweden for his public poise and good humor about his dyslexia. I certainly meant you no insult. Is it not possible that I am seriously concerned? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[75]
    • At User talk:Peter G Werner:
      • ...For everything else, you were plagiarizing the SPUSA pamphlet and duplicitously citing Drucker.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[76]
    • About Donald Busky, author of Democratic Socialism: A global survey (Praeger Publishing, 2000)
      • It's time for T4D to recognize that the UFO did not arrive as Busky predicted.
      • ...is no need to cite Busky. Busky was a partisan hack and incompetent academic, who had difficulty writing English. Unfortunately, T4D followed Busky and wrote a wildly inaccurate and partisan history of the American left, one wishes naively. WP does not require that bullshit from herbalists or phrenologists be reported in its medical articles, balanced with other views. WP should remove bullshit from its political articles, also. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[77]
    • He was brought to WP:WQA previously[78] but sees the fact that no action was taken against him to be a vindication.

    TFD (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    TFD is apparently using AN/I to be disruptive and waste peoples time. It's not the first time. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't see anything wrong with the quotes above. Maybe I'm missing context? -- Atama頭 16:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    TFD omited my introduction, where I identified myself as a person with poor vision who has a large screen. I have previously complained about having trouble reading on the talk page of the economics sidebar, also, to explaiin why I could not write edit summaries (after long section headings)
    At times, I write more bluntly than others, usually after AGF and my patience have been exhausted.
    In this case, TFD and I have had many interactions, where I have objected to a section he has written (using Busky) which I have replaced with an accurate and properly referenced (with inline citations with page references to highest quality, most reliable sources. You can see that my sections have remained, with minor copyright editing by others, where TFD's is gone. This fact, visible on American Left and other articles speaks for itself.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone close this?

    Resolved
     – Handled by C.Fred - nothing else to do here. CycloneGU (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I was wondering if someone could close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lae Garden and Landscapes. Once I told the article starter that offline sources are allowed, he did a good job sourcing the article. I would close it myself, but I forgot how to. I think that the sooner this is closed, the better since the member is new. Joe Chill (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing as a speedy keep, withdrawn nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Review and Close Needed

    Resolved
     – Closed by User:Elen of the Roads. CycloneGU (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The thread was a few hours from archiving before I posted, and no one else has commented since, so it seems we have as much comment as we'll get. Can an uninvolved administrator please review and close this thread, which originally appeared here at AN/I before discussion moved to the COI noticeboard and since to AN? CycloneGU (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gurt Posh and his mistakes on "copyright violations" in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 16

    Gurt Posh (talk · contribs) has removing the episode summaries section in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 16 and he thinks that he added the copyright violation tag and accidentally deleted the section. Actually, the section is from the article itself and copied it to a blog without permission. I guess someone restored the article for good and block him. He's been an editor since May and has over 8,000 edits. ApprenticeFan work 23:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You forgot to notify the user. Done. CycloneGU (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I see what he is saying. The blog is datestamped 7 July 2011, but all the material existed in the article well before that (page at the start of April 2011). Therefore the blog has copied Wikipedia, not the other way round. However, all content you provide to Wikipedia is licensed for reuse without restriction, so there's no problem in someone doing that. I don't see why you thing it was Gurt Posh, but it wouldn't be a blockable action even if it were. I've put the content back, and I'll mention to him that it's not a copyvio - thinking a mirror is a source is an easy mistake to make. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The article's talk page may be tagged with {{Backwardscopy}} to avoid later confusion. Reuse must conform to the WP:Reusing Wikipedia content policy. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This section of the article is actually copied to a blog (link). ApprenticeFan work 07:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Contravention of manual of style guidelines and vandalism edits

    User:Ruairí Óg's seems intent on pushing a POV on boxing articles, especially where it concerns trying to enforceflags in infoboxes and that boxers from Northern Ireland are of Irish nationality in the infobox - where the nationality field refers to citizenship (which i have informed them of), without any reliable or explicit sources. This is made worse by the fact they are now trying to use press/tabloid sources which are sensationalist and frequently label Northern Irish people as simply Irish without actually referring to their citizenship.

    This may stem from Ruairí Óg's possibly ambiguous interpretation of what nationality means, however Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph 3.1 states "the country of which the person is a citizen or national". However whilst that applies to ledes which Ruairí Óg's has edited, i take it to cover the "nationality" field of the infobox as well.

    They have also vandalised boxing articles by removing wikilinks or references or both to the UK, Northern Ireland etc. i.e. [79] where he removes Northern Ireland leaving just the settlement Charlie Nash is from. Here where he removes the wikilinks to Belfast and Northern Ireland and adds a nationality to the lede without evidence that Gerry Storey had changed his nationality. Here is an example where they replace United Kingdom with Ireland, despite the fact Ireland was not a country then, and was part of the UK.

    They have also resorted to using press/tabloids as references (which tend to sensationalise) to insist that someone born in Northern Ireland is of Irish nationality without actual proof that they actually have Irish nationality (even though they are entitled to it) - hence why i blanked out the nationality in the infobox and lede as it is highly debatable whether they identity as a British citizen or have Irish citizenship without concrete sources which none of the sources contained, hence the most neutral route in my opinion is to leave the nationality blank and just state the country they were born in. This is compounded by the fact some boxers represented both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

    Examples of dodgy press sources include here and here. Other press sources include here and here. None of these back up Ruairí Óg's nationality claims. Only the source provided for Matthew Macklin actually stated he had an Irish passport, however as he was born in the United Kingdom he is legible for British nationality which it doesn't say he never had, though Ruairí Óg's felt obliged to remove "British" even though "Irish" was stated along with it.

    In one article they even resorted to adding in ethnicity such as "Irish-Canadian" for a Canadian boxer despite the fact this also contravenes WP:MOSBIO unless it is highly notable which in this case it wasn't as far as i can see.

    Wierdly though, they seem intent on adding Republic of Ireland flag icons to Northern Ireland boxer articles, however have edited many Republic of Ireland boxer articles but haven't added the flag to them even after i removed them in the edit before or several edits before theirs, i.e. here, here, here, and here. However the above examples of Northern Ireland born boxers such as here, here and here all have the Republic of Ireland flags added in. This i interpret as a strong attempt at provocation.

    This is simply disruptive provocative behaviour that the editor seems intent on persisting with.

    Mabuska (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It sounds like Ruairí Óg's needs it explained to him in words of one syllable that nationality and ethnicity are not necessarily the same thing. If it needs the banhammer to drive those words home, then so be it. Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Mabuskas sole purpose in life is to go around removing the word "Irish" from wikipedia and doesnt like it when someone else has an opposing view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs like this are worrying. WP:COMMON is no justification for changing "Belfast, United Kingdom" to "Belfast, Ireland" - especially when sources on that person explicitly and repeatedly refer to the UK. There are a lot more edits like that... bobrayner (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to be worried. Maybe just read the MOS and you will be enlightened. Anglocentric wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:IE#Biographical_articles. Ruairí Óg's
    That is a very poor arguement Ruairí Óg's which is easily countered when you look at any article of an Irish boxer (from the Republic of Ireland, or is stated as having an Irish passport such as Matthew Macklin) where i removed the flag per WP:MOSFLAG but left in their nationality as that is their nationality. I have no problems with stating Irish, however without proof that Northern Irish boxers have Irish citizenship to have them stated as Irish and seeing as we can't confirm whether they have a identify with their British nationality, leaving theirs blank avoids the POV and edit-warring problem over it.
    A further example of what you could call anti-British behavouior or denial is Barry McGuigan, the article states and has a source that states he took out British citizenship making him of dual nationality however Ruairí Óg's edit here and here keeps removing it. In one of those edit summaries he clearly confused nationality with cultural identity and not citzenship despite the fact nationality here is on about citizenship. Mabuska (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a joke that Mabuska refers to my edits as vandalism. I may not be as experienced as Mabuska on wikipedia and know what buttons to push to game the system. But Mabuska wishes only to push his Loyalist POV and claim all people from Northern Ireland as British when they can be Irish or British. In each case I have provided a source to show that the sportsperson is Irish not British. Mabuska has removed these sources to leave information as he would wish and unsourced. Is this not against wikipedia rules to have unsourced information holding power over sourced information?

    I understand from the tag Mabuska left for me that you can not have flags in infoboxed. That is OK, I have learned something new. But Mabuska uses this rule to remove both the flag AND the nationality. See an example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Wilton&diff=prev&oldid=438032691 where he removes the Irish flag and nationality and replaces it with 'British' and the edit summary 'per WP:MOSFLAG, also adding actual nationality' with no source to back his claims up. This is surely abuse of the system. The removes other editors inserts with references or citing suprious inaccurate policy and replaces it with his unsourced POV.

    Again here he removes sourced information to suit his POV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Duddy&diff=prev&oldid=443157779

    I will get new information to build a stronger case but hopefully this is enough proof of his abuse not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 10:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No need for personal attacks Ruairi Og's, if you noticed anything at all in regards to Northern Irish boxers, i have left "Irish" AND "British" out of (almost all of) them due to the problems over proving their citizenship or whether they changed it. The same for the ledes where it simply states where they were born rather than "British" or "Irish". Yes very loyalist pov and very pushing everyone is "British".
    In regards to [80], they have never boxed for the Republic of Ireland, however if it should be omitted from there then so be it. However this edit Ruairi is hardly proof of citizenship and is very poor. In regards to this edit, your source doesn't state its on about his citizenship especially when the press sensationalise people especially Northern Irish people as simply Irish.
    If my edit summaries are a little bare-boned i apoligse for that, but i have short time and at times many edits to make and i can't elaborate on every detail.
    Anyways if they have never boxed for the Republic of Ireland and are born in Northern Ireland a part of the United Kingdom, then how is explicit proof actually needed to state that they are British nationality when by British nationality law they are British citizens? Would the impetus not be on to prove that they have taken out Irish nationality? Mabuska (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The good friday agreement states that people from northern ireland can be british or irish or both. do you have a source that every british person from northern ireland have rejected their irish nationality. Do you have a source that Ian Paisley has rejected his irish nationality? if not should i list him as irish? that is a stupid argument. you prefer unsourced information to back up your POV as opposed to sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wierd arguement, the GFA says you are entitled to both British or Irish citizenship, however it doesn't automatically mean that you are of Irish citizenship for you to refuse it. Under British nationality law most people born here are a British citizen anyways, however the GFA means that here you can take on Irish citizenship as if you were born there without any problems or complications. Hence you don't need a source of ian Paisley rejecting his Irish citizenship as he never had it in the first place - something that'd make all the headlines if he ever did.
    Due to this problem, its why for Northern Irish boxers i've taken the option of omitting the boxers citizenship as its problematic and very hard to find credible sources.
    It still doesn't excuse your provocative edits in placing the flag of the Republic of Ireland on Northern Irish boxing articles (whilst not putting them boxers from the RoI) and your imposition that the boxers are all Irish, without any proof that they aren't British citizens as well and the use of highly dubious sources to back it up. Mabuska (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And under irish law everyone born on the island of Ireland is automatically entitled to Irish citizenship. You cant have things all your own way.
    I have not tried to make 'provocative edits in placing the flag of the Republic of Ireland on Northern Irish boxing articles'. I didnt not know that you could not have a flag in infoboxes. I know that now and have not included a flag in the infobox. To prove this you cite MOSFLAG to remove both the flag and the nationality http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damaen_Kelly&diff=prev&oldid=443104622 This is wrong and corrupt and highlights you bias and POV. You can see that I reverted that but did NOT include the flag. This shows you are a liar. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damaen_Kelly&diff=next&oldid=443104622 I am multiple other examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first sentence there doesn't contradict anything i said in the comment before it. We both said entitled, which means we can claim it, it doesn't mean that we automatically are citizens. Mabuska (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the examples i provided above, you edit articles on RoI boxers where i removed the flag and never readded it, but added the flag to NI boxer articles. Regardless of guidelines or not, that is provocative. Also seeing as [[81]] edit was only made today after you've finally accepted WP:MOSFLAG - it is hardly proof to back yourself up with. Mabuska (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    More examples of Mabuskas abuse of wikipedia. removing sourced information for POV 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly you don't read all of my responses to you. Explainations are given. Mabuska (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your explanations are unsourced POV. My edits are backed up with references. You might be a lot more experienced gaming the system then me but the facts are the facts. Doesnt wikipedia work on references and not twisted bitter POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you have a source doesn't make it viable for use on Wikipedia. It must be verifiable and reliable and not subject to synthesis. Unfortunately your guilty of synthesis with the sources you provide, the reliability and verifiability of which are highly dubious. Mabuska (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So instead of starting an edit war, why not highlight WHICH sources you consider do not pass WP:RS and then we can actually have a rationale look at it and see if there are more or better sources? No, instead you run headlong into a war and screaming about all sorts of suprious policies as a smokescreen. If you saw a fighter from Belfast come into the ring in a pair of tricolour shorts, with a Irish flag behind him and the Irish national anthem blazing around the arena, you would still argue that he was British. Its bloody embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    More personal attacks

    Ruairi seems intent on personally attacking me. [82], [83], and add in above where he has labelled me as a liar, and tries to label me as having "Loyalist POV" and of lacking neutrality despite the fact i'm treating the matter in a very neutral manner by having both nationalities omitted to avoid a POV problem in the first place. Mabuska (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You referred to my edits as vandalism so I call your edits POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another personal attack. Mabuska (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you or did you not refer to me as 'anti-British' FIRST? Gamer. Plain and simple, game the system to silence opposing views thats are backed up with FACTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "A further example of what you could call anti-British behavouior or denial" - notice how i said what you could call, not that it exactly was. I never called you "anti-British", i basically said your behaviour could be interpreted as that. Very big difference, and to be honest is backed up by some of your edits, whereas your personal attacks on me aren't backed up at all with anything - and anything you have tried to use as evidence i've explained above and you've skimmed past not responding on it. Please stop the personal attacks in your future edits please. Mabuska (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is yet another personal attack where i am labelled as having a "twisted bitter POV". And here is anotehr one. Mabuska (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So you can call me anti-British and a vandal but its not OK not me to point out your twisted POV. Let me ask you a question then if you do not have an agenda or a POV. Why is it that you only alter peoples nationality from Irish to British but NEVER the other way around? Why is it that on every page I see you in conflict on, see CS Lewis etc, that you are in conflict with people arguing the they are British not Irish. I am only the most recent person to encounter your particular brand of nastiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please re-read my last comment in regards to "anti-British". So your going to do ad hominem now. The C.S. Lewis article stated "British" and an editor argued to have it removed and "Irish" used, providing original research and synthesis. That is not a foundation for a change on a tricky situation. I was not the only editor to argue against them, and they were told to provide weight of proof and evidence to back up their stance and it wasn't given especially as most sources state C.S. Lewis as being British. Also the lede is meant to state citizenship, not ethnicity unless its important to the article (which the user couldn't prove without a degree of synthesis). There was no Irish citizenship then and most sources state C.S. Lewis as being British not Irish. I and most other editors agreed to a compromise proposal so that Ireland got mentioned. So very poor example of ad hominem. Mabuska (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad homie what? What about Darren Gibson or Johnny Evans. You are a troublemaker thats all. Scream and shout until the other person is asked to leave. Every article you go on you cause trouble and you spend most of your time here. Which is why you are so good at twisting everything and playing the victim. The centre of this argument is that you prefer unsourced POV material over sourced information. Plain and bloody simple. Drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Darron Gibson? Another poor example seeing as i agreed with calling him Irish seeing as he plays for the Republic of Ireland! That blows all of your claims against me out of the water. In regards to Jonny Evans, he is a Northern Irish footballer - what problem is there in that seeing as an editor was trying to remove that fact from the article. Please stop trying to find faults by going through my edit history to try to create more ad hominem statements. Although not a stranger to this place (reporting editors or commenting on cases), i am rarely ever here to spend all my time here. Mabuska (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that really "blows all of your claims against me out of the water". Do you not think that that is a bit of a dramaqueen thing to say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack summary

    As the above is heading too much back into content dispute issues, i'll summarise the personal attacks labelled at me today by Ruairí Óg's:

    POV pusher, You are just an anti-Irish POV pusher., You are the most anti-Irish editor on wikipedia. shame on you., push his Loyalist POV, you are a liar, twisted bitter POV, your nasty bitter twisted POV, dramaqueen, then add in several attempts at ad hominem above, and i think there was one or two other things that i might have missed. Another editor HighKing has twice informed them to be civil.

    This in contrast to me labelling a few times continued reverting of edits based on Wikipedia guidelines as vandalism (which it is) despite informing the editor in the edit summaries of the policy being enforced, and once stating that an edit could be considered as anti-British. Mabuska (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    But you are a POV pusher, its not a personal attack its a statement of fact, you push your POV on pretty much every page you touch. You would rather try and throw up smoke screens like this to avoid the substantive issue here which is you removing sourced information that you do not like and replacing it with unsourced POV. That is the whole reason we are here. I would rather not go about whinging and balling about personal attacks because I am not an attention seeker, but that facts of the matter are that you were the one that instigated the left of centre comments by referring to edits as anti-British behaviour and also calling my sourced edit as vandalism and that I was pushing POV. You cant start giving it out and not expect those actions to be mirrored. So stop trying to play the little victim here when you instigated all of this. Simply game playing.
    Lets call a spade a spade here, you go around cause trouble and when you find it you cry foul and accuse people of making personal attacks. Its your tactics and it seems to be very effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC) .[reply]
    If you would actually read my comments where i explain those edits and take time to understand the concept of what is a reliable source and what synthesis is then you have no arguement and why u were reverted. Ive explained myself above for all my actions and im happy to let an admin decide who really is thw trouble. Im not the one persistantly dishing out personal attacks and trying to use ad hominem claims to try to back myself up. you instigated it with your constant reversions of policy and imposing bias in regards to nationality with dodgy sources. Mabuska (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And like I said above, at no stage did you ever question or attempt to discuss the sources I put forward. You were only to happy to start and edit war and reverting sourced information for unsourced POV. There is no way around that to be honest. If you hadnt have carried on in the usually agressive confronation manner that you go about thing then there wouldnt have been an issue here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Seeing as i only reverted a couple of articles you added dodgy sources too you dont try to act as if thats the focus of my actions. Most of your edits contained no sources at all. You started any edit warring by reverting again and again enforcement of policy such as flags and reimposing nationalities without evidence that any of those people identified as that nationality. Our actions are recorded and ill let them stand for themselves. Mabuska (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    The evidence doesnt back that up. The only thing I will give you is that I didnt know that you couldnt have a flag in the infobox. Once I realised that I didnt reinsert the flag only the nationality.
    Here is an example of your actions. On the Luke Wilton page. You swapped the nationality from Irish to British, adding NO source to back up your change. I then changed that back to the original and added a source to back that up. You then REMOVED the sourced information and replaced it with you unsourced information.
    Same trick again here. Removes BOTH nationality and flag citing MOSFLAG. I then reinsterted it adding a source and Mabuska then removes the sourced information. I then reinstered it WITHOUT the flag as I had at that stage realised that you dont put flags in infoboxes.

    Admin needed as nobody has intervened yet, if these two are left to it this will run all day (and night) and fill up the page with this back and forth POV name-calling. Cheers! CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually i haven't done any name calling if the above is read properly and read in the right contexts. Anyways yes an admin is needed sooner rather than later. I want this issue to end and be finished. I wouldn't have to keep replying to Ruairi (feeding the fire?) if Ruairi would stop distorting and mispresenting my actions when i've already several times explained them to him above, causing me to further defend them as no doubt readers may skim past vital information. And even ignoring the content issues, there is absolutely no call for the personal abuse directed at me by Ruairi - no call at all. My last comment was intended to be my last anyways, but this one will do instead until an admin steps in. Mabuska (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    all you go on about is name calling to try and deflect from your dodgy use of various policies to cover up your POV editing. I have shown you up for the POV editor that you are. On the issue of name calling, without trying to sound childish, although I realise it does, you started it and I only said the exact same things to you that you said to me. I am cringing typing out that post but its the truth. I wont be posting again until an admin comes along.

    Patrick Reynolds (actor)

    Resolved
     – Taken care of by Elen of the Roads. CycloneGU (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I need some more eyes on a topic that I don't have the time to spend on, and to be honest I don't know quite what to do about. The article Patrick Reynolds (actor) has recently been edited by User:2Patrick2 to change a lot of details and ad in what amounts to personal blogging and strong anti-smoking advocacy and advertising. 2Patrick2 has been spending a lot of time spamming anti-smoking advocacy sites over Wikipedia, even on articles that have nothing to do with smoking or tobacco. Now the thing is, 2Patrick2 is now claiming to be the person in question for the article, Patrick Reynolds. Any chance someone can take a look at that article and the user's edits to see if they're okay. I think they're slightly essay and blog like, with unbalanced views and undue weight. See this edit which contains all of them. I have warned the user about spamming external links on Wikipedia, and I have notified them about this discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 01:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given him a 48hr block for the spam, as he had been warned already several times over a couple of weeks, and advised him about how to go about getting factual corrections to the article if it is him and the article warrants it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's too bad our BLP subjects don't do a little more research into how to do this type of thing. Do we perhaps need to have something at the top of every BLP advising of this? Typically they don't wish to dig through pages looking for answers and it's only after being warned for something that they get any information to on what to do.
    NEway, I'm tagging this resolved. Discussion is welcome on this briefly, though. CycloneGU (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor attempted to remove Afd

    • The article Aunt_Bam was listed as an Afd. The creator/sole contributer (Lilwoo93) of the article than removed the Afd from the main article. The Afd will expire in two days and no-one has commented on it as of yet. Questions. Where should people alert admins if they notice stuff like this? What should be done about the Afd? What should be done about the editor? Thank you --Djohns21 (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The editor probably doesn't know Wikipedia policies on this stuff. Just revert him and leave a friendly note on his user talk page welcoming him to Wikipedia and letting him know how to comment at the AFD discussion. --Jayron32 03:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a set of uw-afd warnings, but a personalized message is always good too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock request.

    User:201.245.212.89 was blocked earlier for 31 hours. However User:201.244.43.102 couple of hours later starts to vandalize similar pages. By doing a geolocate both IP addresses come from the same source. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anything obvious in the edits, so I'm going to leave that for a less tired admin. That said, the range is a /15, which is larger than Mediawiki lets us block, and doing so for two abused IP's would be quite overkill, as it would be blocking 131,072 individual IP's. Courcelles 04:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Windsor University School of Medicine

    I am coming to AN/I to request a review of a report made to WP:ARV. Over the past few days, User:SGMD1 has been removing information based on at least 10 reliable sources. It has become quite obvious that this is a single purpose account that has significant conflict of interest issues. It appears as though a member of the school in question is trying to remove any negative information from WP [Diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windsor_University_School_of_Medicine&diff=443117827&oldid=443116546] This user has been reverted by 4 other users, each considering his edits vandalism (5 if you include ClueBot).

    In the past, this type of removal of WP:RS has been dealt with as vandalism (content blanking). (For example, the exact same situation presented itself on Caribbean Medical University, where admin User:Orlady felt the whitewashing and removing negative information by the school's owner constituted vandalism and blocked them. Therefore, I went to WP:ARV to report. However, User:Qwyrxian felt it was a content dispute, because User:SGMD1 counter-reported myself. In discussions with User:Qwyrxian, he suggested I take it to AN/I for a wider admin viewpoint. Thank you for your assistance. Leuko Talk/Contribs 05:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I certainly did not. You suggested taking it to ANI, and I told you to go ahead, but that you should beware of WP:BOOMERANG. yes the other editor is wrong to add all of those details about the curriculum added (unnecessary details/promotional, whatever you want to call it, you are correct that it doesn't belong). But the section on "Accreditation and licensing" is pure WP:OR. Unless those sources cited explicitly mention Windsor University, deciding on your own that they are not accredited in those places is original research, and should be immediately removed. Taking a source about a general rule, and then deciding that the specific case fits that rule is original research. I was hoping the 2 of you could start talking about this on the article talk page so that I could advise in a less stressful/combative venue than ANI, but, we're here now.... Qwyrxian (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, the Curriculum section was not originally written by me (almost none of the content was, actually, except for minor edits) and I am not concerned with the level of detail in that section. My primary concern is with respect to the accreditation and student loan scandal sections. SGMD1 (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    SMGD1 just made another edit to the article after explicitly being warned about 3RR (and user acknowledged it). After giving my opinion above I now feel too involved to make a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't block me; I thought the 3RR rule only applied to reverts. I deleted both mine and Leuko's edits, not just Leuko's; this was just so that we could resolve this dispute first (I indicated this in the edit comments.) I won't make any more edits. SGMD1 (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) It is rather late in the evening in the time zone that the offending editor is in, perhaps he is a little tired and did not understand the rule correctly? Perhaps a 7 hour block may help? Phearson (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If he acknowledged understanding it.... Leuko Talk/Contribs 05:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, sorry, I misunderstood you. However, since multiple editors feel this is vandalism, I felt a wider review of the situation was warranted, since since it was not handled in the usual fashion. I have been editing these articles for years, and have developed a sense of the usual consensus. For example, most of the Caribbean medical school articles have an accreditation and licensing section similar to the one presented here. There have been multiple discussions (at ArbCom, deletion discussions, etc), but in the end the consensus is that they stay. Unfortunately, the noteworthy/encyclopedic fact is that the school is not listed (i.e. in lack of approvals/accreditation), not that it is explicitly mentioned. Leuko Talk/Contribs 05:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin Qwyrxian already determined that my edits did not constitute vandalism, so please stop referring to it as vandalism. All my edits abide by the good faith rule. Secondly, you indicate that you "have been editing these articles for years" despite the fact that you attended a competing medical school to Windsor which is a significant conflict of interest. This is evidenced on your Talk page with multiple complaints (including from an admin) about your edits to the pages for various medical schools which lack the required neutrality and verifiability. SGMD1 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, I take offense to the claims that I am an SPA, or SOCK. I have been registered for four years and have edited multiple unrelated articles.
    Per the edit counter, 35 edits, most of which revolves around this topic. Leuko Talk/Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly all of those edits involve reverting your changes. SGMD1 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondly, Windsor University is accredited. Period. It is an accredited educational institution by the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis, and my version cites this clearly. Leuko’s version states that Windsor University is unaccredited, which is patently false.
    The Government of St. Kitts and Nevis does not accredit anything. They recognize, but they do not accredit. In fact, they utilize ACCM (http://www.accredmed.org) to accredit their medical schools (which Windsor is not, hence unaccredited). Leuko Talk/Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This link from the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis website disagrees with you: http://www.gov.kn/ct.asp?xItem=519&ctNode=114&mp=1 SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thirdly, Leuko’s version deletes the Tuition, Student Life, and part of the Curriculum sections. These sections are present in WP articles for a plethora of educational institutions, are not in any way “advertising” as Leuko claims, and are basic facts that belong in a WP article for an educational institution.
    As per the consensus on the talk page - most editors don't feel this is noteworthy information for an encyclopedia. Leuko Talk/Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    False. The consensus is with respect to the length of the Curriculum section, not the inclusion of those sections altogether. Those sections are present on WP articles for a plethora of educational institutions. SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to the “student loan scandal” subsection, my claim is that the incident has a biased, non-credible source, is two years old, and does not meet the standards for large or long-term impact to/on the university for it to be included in a short encyclopedic WP article. Leuko had an almost identical conversation with admin User:Orlady on his talk page, and this particular administrator came to a similar conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGMD1 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, the St. Petersburg Times is "biased" and "non-credible?" Really? I would argue that the administration of the school scamming the US Govt out of $500,000 is relevant. Leuko Talk/Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the claim that "the administration of the school" is responsible for "scamming the US Govt out of $500,000" is not verifiable in the cited article. The article states explicitly that students at the Midwest Institute of Massage Therapy received $500,000 in loans, not Windsor students, and makes no claim - verifiable or otherwise - that the 26 MIMT students who received loans were students of Windsor. And as the admin User:Orlady indicated to you previously, such an incident (especially when inaccurate) doesn't meet the requirements for scope in an article about an educational institution.
    (ec)Local standards can't override core policy. If those sources do not mention Windsor medical school (or any of other schools mentioned), they must be removed. Noteworthy/encyclopedic information by definition means information that is covered in reliable sources. If it is important information that the schools are accredited, I'm sure some newspaper article, medical education journal, or other source must have mentioned the fact. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, no. Most of these operations are under the radar, and that's how they exist as unaccredited institutions. It is the lack of inclusion in WP:RS (for example California's approved school list - the CA med board goes out and does site visits before approving a medical school for licensure.) Leuko Talk/Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This post of yours exhibits a clear lack of neutrality. SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. The St. Kitts and Nevis government website has a list of "accredited educational institutions": http://www.gov.kn/ct.asp?xItem=519&ctNode=114&mp=1. Doesn't this make the accreditation argument moot? SGMD1 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation does not recognize St. Kitts and Nevis' accreditation, because they do not feel it is comparable to the standards for US schools. Only schools accredited by the ACCM are felt to be comparable and actually accredited by a recognized agency. Leuko Talk/Contribs 06:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is irrelevant; the NCFMEA does not accredit individual foreign medical schools at all. You can't pick an arbitrary accrediting body and say that because that particular body hasn't accredited the school, that it isn't accredited at all. SGMD1 (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the debate on what constitutes a valid accrediting agency, if reliable sources haven't mentioned the issue, then I don't see how it can appear in Wikipedia. Yes, Leuko, I understand how it seems "important", but Wikipedia doesn't make judgments based on what seems important or true--we rely on reliable sources to do that for us. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. This also applies to the state-specific/country-specific licensing. Licensing in the United Kingdom/specific US states is beyond the scope of an article for a non UK/US medical school. None of the citations for state-specific licensing indicate that Windsor is an unapproved/unlicensed/unaccredited school in that particular jurisdiction; rather, the ABSENCE of Windsor's name in the referenced lists are being treated as evidence that the school is unapproved/unlicensed/unaccredited - which as you say is not allowed. Many of these states do case-by-case approvals for graduates of medical schools not on their particular list (i.e. Texas, which Leuko has inaccurately listed.) SGMD1 (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, in response to Leuko's repeated accusations of vandalism, admin User:Qwyrxian made the determination that both of our edits are not vandalism, and yet Leuko has continued to make that claim. I am concerned as to whether Leuko is abiding by a NPOV; in addition to his having attended a competing medical institution to Windsor, Leuko has a history of editing WP articles for several off-shore medical schools with negative (and by removing information about valid accreditation - inaccurate) information and giving them undue weight. As described in the NPOV wiki, topics are required to be given "due and undue weight" but by blanking basic sections about various aspects of the school, and creating a subsection instead for a single two year old unverifiable implication, I would argue that he is blatantly violating NPOV, and certainly has no grounds to accuse me of such (as he has repeatedly done.) The pattern of giving undue weight to negative/inaccurate information for various schools appears to violate the NPOV rule, and I feel that should be noted. SGMD1 (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree with you especially since LEUKO violates the core content policies: Neutral point of view, No original research and Verifiability. Each med school in the Caribbean operate based on the recognitions/accreditations given by local governments. Some states like CA or FL have strict rules on the FMG and don't approve foreign medical schools, however this doesn't mean that the schools are unaccredited. There are dozens of accreditations agencies around the world and just by stating that a school is not accredited by one of them doesn't mean that they are not accredited at all. His action is like accusing someone of a crime and requesting a proof of not being guilty. There should be a consensus reached about the default layout of the Caribbean medical schools wikipages, which applies to all of them where there is a section of proven lack of licensing ability of its graduates.Rlewkowski (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there are multiple WP:RS that state Caribbean Medical University is unaccredited. Let's take this to the article talk pages, as I am getting tired of repeating myself over and over on separate pages, and we aren't getting any useful input here that isn't on the article talk pages. Thanks. Leuko Talk/Contribs 16:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion pertains to Windsor University School of Medicine, not Caribbean Medical University. SGMD1 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ST47

    Resolved

    Perhaps it is a Huggle bug but I believe that ST47 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should be blocked temporarely due that he is reverting everything on the page 4 (Beyoncé Knowles album). Maybe that or I don't know what's happening. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, this looks really odd to me [84] (immediate reverts with no reply at their talk). Anyone knows a technical (HG-related) glitch which can cause this? Materialscientist (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the response on his talk page, and bug report filed, there's no need to block at this point in time, as he has aborted Huggle and stopped the immediate problem. Courcelles 05:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Billy Hathorn concerns

    For reference: Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs · count · logs)

    Through discussion at WT:DYK#Billy Hathorn and elsewhere (links to current and past discussions follow), it has become clear to me that this user is editing in a disruptive manner in the following ways:

    • Mass creation of articles on non-notable topics, mostly biographies.
    • Widespread insertion of copyrighted and plagiarised text, both cut-and-paste and close paraphrasing.
    • Ongoing uploading of images of copyrighted works of others marked as "own work".
    • Tendentious editing and refusal to "get the point" - Billy Hathorn has been active on Wikipedia for years, and across literally thousands of articles. Despite repeated warnings to his talk page and past discussions, Billy persists in adding copyvio and plagiarism, using unreliable sources, creating masses of articles on non-notable topics (mostly biographies), and uploading images of copyrighted works of others as "own work".

    Links to past discussions:

    I am not sure what the best solution to this is. Given that Billy Hathorn has been a long-time editor who has persisted in these disruptive behaviors despite years of requests and warnings, I think that at the least, he should be banned from article creation. To the extent that he wishes to create new articles, he should do so in userspace, and have them moved to articlespace by someone else (who should, in each case, evaluate them against all of the above concerns before doing so). If there are additional remedies to be taken, I leave it to others to suggest them. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He should certainly just be banned from DYK, where he has played a significant part in bringing the process into disrepute. I prseume this can just be done by local admins? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that he should be banned from DYK -- discussions there are ongoing -- but that just keeps his problematic "contributions" off the Main Page, not out of the encyclopedia. cmadler (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I note the CCI discussion is ongoing, which means it's already being examined by admins. My 2p is to allow that discussion to conclude. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree. There are no issues with Billy other than what's already been opened at CCI ... in my recollection he has never engaged in uncivil behavior, personal attacks, edit wars, sockpuppetry (to my knowledge) or anything else that usually gets people discussed here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Cmadler, thank you for taking the time to research and bring forward this chronic problem.

    @ Daniel Case: I don't see how what "usually gets people discussed here" is the issue; that there is no evidence of him not being uncivil does not make his editing any less disruptive or damaging to the Project. In fact, based on what I've seen, his editing is more damaging than an uncivil personal-attacking editor, as he has created possibly thousands of poor stubs that have flown under the radar and will not likely ever be cleaned up, and those have included BLP vios.

    And no, copyright is not the only issue, so waiting for CCI to finish (which may never happen anyway) isn't the solution. There is use of non-reliable sources, inaccurate representation of sources, padding of articles with irrelevant information, and more. It's not only a copyright issue, although that is the most serious. There are many other issues of relevance and requiring admin attention, including but not limited to a bad case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT after many, many warnings. Who gets to clean up all the messes if he continues editing? I get the impression that he is not a child, and not obtuse-- that he knows what he's doing wrong, and continues doing it anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am going to have to second Sandy here on two points. First, the CCI isn't going to get finished out anytime soon, it's one of several dozen CCIs, many of which are as large or larger than Billy's, and some of which originate as far back as 2009. We can't afford to sit on our hands for two to three years on this. Secondly, I am going to agree with Sandy's conclusion that this is a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I was the one that brought the PUF (possibly unfree files) case against Billy, after going though all of his files (he is the largest contributor of files, measured by bytes, on all of Wikipedia). Multiple editors tried unsuccessfully to communicate with him during the PUF, no little to no avail. I just recently left him a very clear explanation of the problem, explaining that he could not take photographs of other people's work and then claim it as his own work. His response, that he thought it was fair use, missed the point entirely. I've given up on getting though to him, sad enough of a statement as that is, and I think that it might be time for several strict sanctions to be levied against him; both the aforementioned DYK ban, and a ban on uploading photographs/images derived from other photographs/books/museum displays. He's done a great deal of good work photographing buildings in small towns, I say he should keep that up, but he's got to get out of his problem area (photographs of photographs/books/museum displays), and he's got to do it soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that, between the CCI and the topic ban discussion already underway at DYK (to which I will shortly be adding my support), there's no need for a discussion here unless we want to consider a block or community ban, and we do not seem to be at that point yet (as Sven above and Orlady below are implying). A link to the discussions and archival material, as already provided, is sufficient if we wish to have broader input into this discussion. I do not see what can be added by opening a separate discussion here of the same issues already being discussed at WT:DYK, by many of the same users. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Having read the multiple links above, which involve multiple problems being introduced into the encyclopedia, and taking into account the good work this editor is doing, my suggestion would be to block indefinitely pending a statement that the large number of problems will not be repeated. Too many editors are having to waste their time fixing his issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A topic ban from DYK (meaning all DYK project pages) makes sense to me. Although Billy has made some good contributions there (I've reviewed some bad DYKs submissions from him, but other of his DYKs that I reviewed were decent, or at least I was able to make them OK without enormous effort), it is now clear that his positive value at DYK is greatly outweighed by the problems created by his poorer-quality contributions.
      Beyond that, I don't think a block is appropriate. This is not a persistent vandal or a deliberate creator of junk. This is a good-faith contributor who does not behave badly within the community, but just happens not to be committed to quality control. (And, unfortunately, there are many users here who have far less respect for verifiability and quality than Billy does.) I believe that Billy's "autopatrol" bit already has been pulled -- that's good because it has reduced his ability to create new pages without minimal oversight.
      Instead of a ban, I propose that Billy be required to create any new pages and do his file uploads in user space, for review by others before the material goes to article space. (That plan wasn't acceptable to another productive user of my acquaintance who also has unusual ideas about quality and who is now blocked, but that's a different personality entirely. I have a hunch that Billy might accept the arrangement.) Having to work under that kind of oversight might motivate him to start policing his own work, which would be a good result. (I don't know, however, if it's possible to put files in user space.) --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If he'd go with that suggestion, it's clearly a better one than the block I suggested above. The files issue is more of a problem - files automatically go into mainspace, they'd have to be moved manually back into userspace, and non-free images are automatically disallowed as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Orlady's proposal is a good one. Running files through WP:Files for upload rather than uploading them directly might be a good alternative to "userspace files" since such a thing does not exist to my knowledge. 28bytes (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unresolved, so unarchiving. 28bytes (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've had problems with some of Billy's over-detail sometimes, but he's a good local historian, at least by Wikipedia standards. . His article on Louisiana and neighboring state politicians have built up a network of relationships, and the people are most of them at least technically notable. There's a question of whether Wikipedia is really the place for this level of detail; but one could equally say that the problem is whether the level of detail he's been adding should not be our goal everywhere. I do not think he has gone beyond the academic standards of fair use, though he may have gone beyond the much more restrictive (and, in my opinion, unreasonably restrictive, standards of Wikipedia fair use, at least for images. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Obama sanction vio

    Resolved
     – Block Issued for 48 hours. Phearson (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:John2510 has violated his ban from the talk page of the Obama article within the hour of it being issued. The issue he is having is that he wants to change Mr. Obama's Heritage from "African-American" to "Biracial". While this may be TRUTH. Consensus has determined otherwise. John2510 was sanctioned per ArbCom ruling, from the mainspace article, and then complained about censorship, in which his privilege to edit the talk page was then sanctioned. He then posted this [85].

    A block is requested. Phearson (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours. This was a very clear-cut violation, in my opinion. 28bytes (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How in the world is Barack Obama a Featured Article when it is that unstable? If we accept this as is, then we seriously need to rescind FACR 1. (e), as well as GACR 5 (both of which have to pertain to stability. –MuZemike 07:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The article's been put through WP:FAR seven times since it was promoted in 2007. The gist I get from the more recent reviews is that while it is controversial at times, it is still more stable and of a higher quality than most of Wikipedia. This is also only my likely-butchered summary based on skimming through them, and as always, if you disagree with its status you can open a FAR yourself. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the occasional hyper-partisan who hops in and edit-wars against an issue long, long settled can be said to unstable the article. It has been quite awhile since there was a legitimate row over that article's content. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, I don't know. I sometimes get confused with Presidency of Barack Obama, which I know that one is an unstable mess (also given that he's the current U.S. President). –MuZemike 17:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP violations in DYK on front page

    I can't believe Bitar Mansion is on the front page. A large proportion of the article is about the most recent owners and problems with neighbours etc (see WP:BLPGOSSIP). No way would this be considered appropriate in a biography on someone, yet it seems to be OK because they own an expensive house?! A new editor who removed this info ([86]) was summarily reverted. I'm guessing this editor might be the person involved as they also put some BLP violations on the page of Nigel Jaquiss, who wrote a not very complimentary piece about the guy. This is a low profile individual who has been in local news a couple of times, now having their problems broadcast on the front page of one of the most widely read websites in the world. Polequant (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's off DYK now. Polequant (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just yanked all the recent history as BLP coatracking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary editor restored the information, so I've started a discussion on the article talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for starting a discussion on the talk page. I was doing the same after I reverted your edit, hence the edit conflict. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit Warring w/ Sockpuppets

    User2005 has been banned for using two sockpuppets to undo my edits on Shirley Rosario, Steve Badger, Tiffany Michelle and many other poker articles. These accounts have also been used to give the appearance of consensus in a previous ANI about poker articles.

    I ask that user2005 either be permanently blocked, permanently blocked from editing poker articles or permanently blocked from reverting my edits. DegenFarang (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He's been blocked for three days, not banned. There is a difference.
    For any observers, HelloAnnyong has issued the block in question. This discussion seems to be for the period following this block. It seems kind of harsh to not give the user a chance to comment, however. CycloneGU (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake i see 'banned' and 'blocked' used interchangeably. Yes he is blocked for three days and I would like action taken to prevent him from causing problems like this in the future. At the very least I think he should be blocked from reverting my edits. He created two sockpuppets and cultivated the accounts over more than 18 months simply to undo my edits.
    I'll tell you right now what he is going to say. He's going to deny the sockpuppets were his and spew multiple paragraphs of ad hominem attacks about me and try to change the subject. DegenFarang (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be unwise. Right now the editor is facing a 3 day block for behavior that often leads to indefinite blocks. I'll leave a reminder of this on their user talk page. -- Atama頭 18:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexanderalgrim

    Please see this discussion for background.

    This user seems completely ignorant of our notability guidelines, and unwilling to learn about or acknowledge them, and has been constantly and consistently creating articles about non-notable BLPs. About 2 weeks ago, another user advised Alexanderalgrim about what was acceptable and what was not, but he has compltely ignored this (as he has indeed everything for the past few years), and recently created a fresh batch of non-notable BLPs. His edits are becoming increasingly disruptive, creating a lot of work for everyone involved who has to tidy up after him. Can an admin intervene please? And would a ban from creating new articles (or similar) be suitable? GiantSnowman 14:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I checked the first six of those. They're garbage. I'll check the user page and enact a warning on it. I'm not an admin. and can't block if it came down to it, so I'll let someone else take over if a block if eventually needed. CycloneGU (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Noticed a past Level 1 warning. Upgraded to a Level 2 warning. CycloneGU (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe slow down a bit... While there have been problems in the past, and the stubs are very feeble indeed, those players are notable. According to their zerozerofootball pages, all those players have played in this year's Portuguese League Cup, which is open only to clubs from the fully-professional top two divisions. The footballers notability guideline WP:NFOOTY says "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed here) or cup, will generally be regarded as notable." (my bolding) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed Alexanderalgrim's auto-patrolled status for now; given the concerns raised by others and his extensive deleted contributions, their article submissions need to be more closely monitored. It can easily be restored once the outstanding concerns are addressed. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good spot (the site I checked, Fora de Jogo, didn't mention any appearances, even though it is usually more comprehensive) but the wider issues still stand - refusal to discuss issues with other editors, and the repeated creation of non-notable and borderline notable articles. Look at Fábio Sturgeon for example, and use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE - he has played one minute in a pro-match! GiantSnowman 14:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My point wasn't about the quality of the articles, because they haven't got a great deal. They're one-line stubs, with external links for references, but there've been plenty of them created in the general history of football coverage round here. Or about the quality of the notability criteria, which allows consideration of articles on players with very limited playing time, though it's unusual when an article on an English footballer doesn't appear as soon as he makes his one-minute debut. My point is purely that in this particular case, the creator is being warned and further punishments requested for doing exactly what he was asked to do, i.e. waiting until players pass the notability criteria before creating articles about them. And he shouldn't be. Struway2 (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the warnings are deemed to need to be retracted pending this conversation, go ahead if it concludes before I'm back. I have to leave the house for a while and won't be monitoring. CycloneGU (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll remove the warning and de-PROD the articles, and assume AGF and believe that this user has (finally!) taken note of what we've been trying to tell him for far too long. Cheers everyone. GiantSnowman 17:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I hope he has... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ismail Javeri

    Resolved
     – Was tagged by Wildthing61476 one minute after this thread was created. CycloneGU (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Could an Admin do a speedy delete of this: Ismail Javeri. It seems to be a vanity article. Thanks, --Tovojolo (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been tagged for CSD A7. (Not by me.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It was tagged by Wildthing61476. Whether it gets deleted or declined, I daresay this is resolved now. It doesn't get speedied from this page, so no action needed from over here. CycloneGU (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: Wonder Girls

    Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#Wonder Girls

    I've just removed this personal attack on another editor by the same block evading editor mentioned in the previous report. Should this edit also be RevDel? —Farix (t | c) 15:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say so, and of course block the IP. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget to get the edit where Twinkle screwed up and only reverted SineBot instead of the whole comment. —Farix (t | c) 15:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Attack rev-deleted, both all 3 edits; IP blocked a week. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That page really needs protection. Any votes? StormContent (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already put in a WP:RFPP of Wonder Girls do to the ongoing edit war. Not sure of the talk page should be protected as well. —Farix (t | c) 15:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Wonder Girls is high enough visibility or traffic to warrant protection on both the article and the Talk page. (I've only come across one article that earned both, thankfully.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ClaudioSantos, socks, eugenics, and euthanasia.

    I'm not keen to start a thread on the drama-board, but this is probably the best place for it as it's not purely 3RR or purely socky...
    ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has a long history [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] of editwarring on subjects related to euthanasia, eugenics &c. Unfortunately, several blocks seem to have caused only one change to editing patterns; they now appear to be using an IP address in order to get around 3RR. For instance, compare these two edits to these two. And on talkpages, including the RfC on Talk:Planned Parenthood, 192.172.14.99 has turned up to provide one of the few voices in support of ClaudioSantos' mission to emphasise ties between Planned Parenthood and eugenics - right on the boundary of ClaudioSantos' topic ban from "Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed". There are many more examples in Special:Contributions/192.172.14.99. This kind of socking, editwarring, and votestacking is very unhelpful. ClaudioSantos has surely been reminded of the rules many times, and been given many extra chances. What's the best way to deal with this? I fear that another week's block would merely allows other editors to be productive for a week before the disruption resumes again. bobrayner (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "Right on the boundary" is generous. The lead of Planned Parenthood notes their use of abortion, and here's an opinionated source that says, "Abortion is merely prenatal euthanasia, as euthanasia is postnatal abortion". Jesanj (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't this put him afoul of the community-placed 1RR general sanction on abortion? Between that and the apparent attempt at end-running the topic ban, it looks to me like ClaudioSantos is earning the heavy end of the hammer. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is harassment and false accusations of bad faith on alleged use of a sockpuppet. I am not editing warring as I have constrained me to discuss the thing in the talk page about the inclution/exclution of a see-also link at Planned Parenthood linking to Eugenics in the United States. I was also commenting as a RfC was called. This is an abusive use of the ANI in order to force a point of view through excluding an user. It is proverbial the Jesanj efforts to imply that abortion is euthanasia, a point of view that surely he will not include at those articles, but solely in order to extend the ban for me. -- ClaudioSantos¿?
    As I pointed out on my talk page, the only mention of abortion in our euthanasia article mentions that one definition of euthanasia "specifically discounts fetuses in order to distinguish between abortions and euthanasia". The mainstream doesn't equate the two, our articles don't either at this moment, and until ClaudioSantos expresses the same view or tries to modify our articles in an attempt to equate the two, I don't see that the topic ban is being violated. (Other admins can feel free to disagree with me on that point.) Eugenics has an even shakier tie to euthanasia, I see almost no connection between the two topics. On the other hand, if there is actual socking that is going on, regardless of any topic bans that shouldn't be allowed, though that should be proven before action is taken. As to the violation of 1RR, I haven't looked into that yet, that might also be sanctionable. -- Atama頭 17:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no opinion on the RfC and underlying content dispute (I think both parties have made at least some valid points), but the edit warring on Eugenics in the United States in not tolerable. I have fully-protected the article for 3 days. I have also blocked 192.172.14.99 (talk · contribs · block log) for edit warring (they were very specifically warned by me here). — Satori Son 17:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I do not believe that ClaudioSantos has edited using that 192.172.14.99 anon account. That address geolocates to Farmington, Michigan, US, whereas ClaudioSantos appears to be editing from South America. — Satori Son 17:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I already explicity sais that I am not that IP. And I am not using any sockpuppet to votestacking. Those are solely bad faith assumptions. And I also have to notice here that I am not involved in the claimed edit warring on Eugenics in the United States where I have not edited since days ago. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at Planned Parenthood, I only see 1 revert in 24 hours, which is not a violation of the general sanction. -- Atama頭 17:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FYI, 192.172.14.99 (talk) is a U.S. Army IP address, registered to the USAISC. It's likely shared by a number of users, although recent activity seems to focus on attacking Planned Parenthood. I suspect that blocks of this IP will involve collateral damage, as there are probably multiple users connecting through it, and so semiprotection of specific target pages might be a better approach if problems recur. Just my 2 cents, and to be clear, I am involved in the dispute at Planned Parenthood. MastCell Talk 19:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur that semi-protection of the article is likely the best approach. And I retract my earlier comments regarding ClaudioSantos; it appears that the episode is still too fresh in too many people's minds, mine included. I'll put the RFPP in now, unless someone else already has. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with semi-protection, and support the 72 hour block on the IP. The only active disruption caused by anonymous editors is from this single IP. I'm not worried about collateral damage because this IP has been consistent for the past 3 days, so I wouldn't be too concerned if it is blocked for the next 3 days. If another IP appears to continue where this last one left off, then semi-protection would be warranted, but we normally don't protect an article because of disruption from a single account. -- Atama頭 19:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Problems in balancing out an article.

    I don't know if I am in the right place to ask for help. I am trying to fix the article on MonaVie, which I find negatively slanted against the subject matter. A couple of people have been reverting my attempts to erase weasel words that make the article seem like a slam. Can somebody help on this matter? Thank you. Wefihe (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried to bring up these proposed changes on the article talk page? That would be a good first start to see if there is consensus to make the changes you request. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see an 'incident' here at all. Instead, the contributor seems to wish to force through changes without debate: he/she has already been asked to do so in an edit summary. The article topic is clearly controversial, and edit-warring is unlikely to be productive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment, you are edit warring against three editors who endorse the current stable version. If there are specific areas that you find problematic, bring up the issue on the talk page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Derp

    Resolved
     – Blocked, tagged, a few other accounts also found. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Blackmagic240843, User:Ziva 82, User:Saturn 56, User:Jill Tuck, User:SeanRose

    These accounts are sockpuppets of Kagome 85.

    Good Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.195.45 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hounded by an admin for the past six months

    I apologize in advance for the length of the post, it attempts to recount events over the duration of six months. To get right into it: User:Fainites does not like me very much. For the past six months, every single discussion I get involved in invariably results in User:Fainites following me there and, under the pretext of acting as the self-proclaimed "mediator", opposes me in every single issue of every single discussion. This happens every time, sooner or later, and if necessary I can provide diffs to that effect. You can imagine how its like being followed for six months, entering into discussions, only to have an actual admin arrive to invariably place his weight against you. This person, this admin, has thoroughly soured the Free Encyclopedia for me, and he won't let alone. In all my years on Wikipedia I've never experienced something like this, wherever I turn - the same person is there to harass me. I feel as though this person considers me something of a hobby of his.

    Recently he has stepped up the campaign to get rid of me for good. Up until I've met this person, the worst I've got a was a brief block at times when I go overboard and revert someone 4 times or something. Now I have my own "personal evaluation admin", that, while following me around on the Balkans articles, has seen it as his right and duty to evaluate me and my character as he can read it over the keyboard. Of course, being biased against me he sees everything I write as hostile in some way, and probably likes to "fill in the blanks" as it were. This has resulted, in two of these discussions I've spoken of, in an effective one month block, and now another six-month block. These are topic bans on the Balkans, to be exact, but as Fainites knows all too well, I don't edit anywhere other than in the volatile Balkans articles. So I imagine this fact is quite helpful in effectively blocking me while not seeming all that harsh. The ban was placed by the one admin who should not have placed it, Fainites, who is more personally involved and biased in this issue than any other admin I could name - strongly opposing my position on two simultaneous discussions.

    Of course, being an admin, the man is very skilled in hiding his personal resentment behind standard Wiki banter. Oh he will (and has) provide a long list of supposed "reasons" for his actions, and when he's done you'll think I'm the Antichrist. But the fact is, aside from not being very friendly - I've done nothing particularly worthy of note. Its just his personal "psychological evaluation", the same one that drives him to follow me and make sure nothing I support gets through, and a cherry-picked selection of everything not-particularly-nice I ever did.

    Wikipedia has turned into a bitter, unfriendly place for me because of this person, his hounding, his calculated sanctions and effective smear campaign (as you can imagine, if an admin arrives on a heated talkpage and eventually labels you as "aggressive" and "rude" - you are aggressive and rude, even if he only imagines you are, and the frustration makes you more aggravated in truth.) For the first time in five years, and after tens of thousands of edits, I am considering leaving Wikipedia. Not because I no longer think Wikipedia is an excellent place, I still do, but because I am being prevented from editing and participating like any other Wikipedian. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to say the topic ban was under ARBMAC]Fainites barleyscribs 20:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    DIREKTOR is accusing you of not being "uninvolved". Is that the case? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading this, all the things going in my head make it seem like you two need to be sanctioned from making contact or something. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 20:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At first sight, I do share a concern that Fainite's content involvement in the Mihalovic mediation, which clearly extended to regularly expressing his personal opinions on content matters in disagreement with Direktor, constitutes a degree of involvement that may be incompatible with enacting Arbmac sanctions against him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Having now checked the closely related Talk:Serbia_under_German_occupation, where Fainites' role was definitely that of a fellow editor involved in content debate, not that of an uninvolved administrator, I'd now strongly tend towards saying he shouldn't have taken Arbmac action here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are, then, two seperate issues which need to be considered here:
    • Was Fainites "involved" with regard to WP:INVOLVED with these topics?
    • Does the substance of the ban still apply to DIREKTOR.
    The second of these points is very important as well, and we shouldn't gloss over it. That is, even if we determine that Fainites was involved, and should not have enacted the ban, we also need to determine if the facts of the case justify the ban anyways; if so it should not invalidate the ban. I am VERY concerned with DIREKTOR's statement "These are topic bans on the Balkans, to be exact, but as Fainites knows all too well, I don't edit anywhere other than in the volatile Balkans articles." If DIRECKTOR's only purpose at Wikipedia is to push a point of view in controversial articles, and serves no other purpose at Wikipedia, I am not sure the ban is unjustified. --Jayron32 21:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's nothing wrong with having an editing profile concentrated on the politics of a certain region. That doesn't automatically mean you're a POV-pusher. From what I've seen over the years, my impression is he's certainly opinionated, but so are 99% of all other editors in the area, and his commitment to quality sourcing and academic integrity is well above the average – the issue is that his opinions tend to be minority positions, against the more typical entrenched "national" viewpoints. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)- I think that you make a very good point there. If DIREKTOR is only here to push a POV then of course the topic ban is appropriate. However his statement alone (whilst concerning) is not evidence enough of POV pushing. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Vikingman69

    Resolved
     – Blocked 1 week by Tnxman307 --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    VIkingnab69 said, "THIS PERSON IS A PATHETIC FICKLE NARROWMINDED WORM & SHOULD BE DELETED FROM WIKIPEDIA", "Brainless fuckwit who hasn't got a clue. Should devote his time to shagging sheep", and moved my user page to User talk:I'm a crap wikipedian. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User already appears to have been blocked a week by Tnxman. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That was quick. Joe Chill (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He should have been indefinitely blocked, especially after this. This person has displayed zero willingness to work with others and egregiously displays an article ownership attitude. Not to mention the disruptive pagemoves. –MuZemike 21:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well time will tell. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=443246086"