Jayron32 writes above: NIM is a blind user who uses a Screen reader to help them work within Wikipedia. But I see little if any sign of work; I just see blather. For those who want to tell the world about their catchphrases, their little jokes, their housemates and their other domestic circumstances, the gods have provided Blogger and WordPress. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely was I was referring to when I said "cut the crap and contribute". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And all of said "blather" may have a real-world impact on the living person named in NIM's username (about which I agree with the concern expressed by Franamax above[5] and at RFC/NAME. (I ask at Franamax's talkpage how I might most appropriately go about re-opening that issue for further discussion, if that is still possible after the "Allow" closure of the discussion at RFC; comments on that by others would also be welcome there). WikiDao ☯ 00:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so I suggest blocking the user and replacing the content of the user page and user talk page with the usual terse templates. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly ad hominem post directed at me by N.I.M. It seems that N.I.M. is willing to cease quoting the name of the living singer Elena Apostoleanu in signatures. What remains is for N.I.M. to indicate in few words an understanding that it was unacceptable. I have no objection to the words "Go behind the line." in N.I.M.'s latest signature. Their distraction would be less if they were put in ^{superscript font} like Baseball Bugs does with ^{What's up, doc?}. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i can't do the fontie wontie thing, I don't know how, and I can't always rely on others to do that for me. You can't block me just because you think i'm not contributing, look at some of the articles i have contributed to rather than what i haven't contributed to. Besides, you can't block me just because of your point of view, then someone will unblock you and critticize you for irrational blocking or something like that. It's not like what it used to be when users could be blocked mearly for little reasons, like being annoying. I wish i could change the faunt but i can't, sorry. If hoary tries to block me then they may be critticized and i'm sure they woulden't want that. I don't have time for their nishnash about my supposed issues. I feel they are overreacting and need to tone it down and quit trying to gang people up on me. I don't need people ganging up on me. This is how i feel Hoary is treating me, "I'm hoary and I want everyone to gang up on N.I.M. and oust him! Come on everybody, get him out of the sight because he is a useless piece of s***!" Even if it isn't true, that's how their comments are making me feel, so hoary, you need to also cut some crap out as well. I mean that in the most civil way possible. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Go behind the line. 10:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so maybe the Elena Apostoleanu was wrong, it was a good intention though, you know that right? and i still go by what i am saying to hoary about the critticizing they will get if they block me for being annoying. I don't like seing people being critticized, but when it needs to happen it will happen. By telling Hoary that they are not to block me over their views, i'm trying to save them from criticism because i believe in world peace. We all believe in world peace, right? N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Go behind the line. 10:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New signature = N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. I'm still getting the message to her, just in a more vague way. N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. 11:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Per this, I request an immediate indefblock of the above editor. It's the end of the night for me so I won't act when I can't respond. I'll enact the block if necessary between glass of water and cup of coffee tomorrow. Enough is enough. Franamax (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't block me, i said i realize that the Elena Apostoleanu thing was wrong, and what i was pointing out was that Hoary's idea of blocking me would trigger critticism, and I feel there is enough war going on in the world. I don't believe in leaving people in the dark, which is why i have said many times, If you have any questions, ask me and i'll be happy to help, but a block? that's a bit of an over reaction here, especially as i said i realize the E.A. was a mistake. I just want to save someone from critticism, is there something wrong within that? if there is let me know. If there is a rule against trying to save them from critticizings then let me know, i can't follow a rule i have no idea about, regards, N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. 12:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so sig is changed. I think the only remaining thing is to emphasise to NIM to cut the crap and get down to contributing to the wiki, with the proviso that if we see any more drama and no content work it is not going to go well for them. Also to strongly suggest a name change given their non-credible claims about really being "Isen's Man". --Errant ^(chat!) 13:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She has no problom with that, so i don't se why you do, however, I am currently trying to find a source for something i found out about new episodes of the show Biz Kid$, when i find out where to find it i'll put that in. I really am Nissae Isen's man, she has no prob with it, i'll be back after school to see if i can find out more about season 4 of biz kid$ N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. 13:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well you just changed my mind. You cannot claim associations like that, now supporting some form of block if you do not stop. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block. (BTW please note that this user is quite adept at eating up a lot of time and attention.) Again, please consider this diff mentioned by Franamax above. User is an obsessed fan claiming an intimate connection with a minor voice actress. Because that voice actress's name is part of NIM's username, and because this user has been signing with "I miss you {actress's name}!", NIM's userpage is steadily climbing the hit-list in google searches for that actress. Given NIM's activity at WP -- which rarely involves anything like contructivly helping to build an encyclopedia -- we are contributing to having a negative impact on this actress's real-world reputation by continuing to permit NIM's activity here, which, again, is not constructive, is regularly complained about at the RD, and ought to be dealt with conclusively as soon as possible. WikiDao ☯ 15:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block - the user ID amounts to stalking, and he should not only be blocked, but his user ID should be deleted and salted... and watch out for recurrences. And another thing: I don't believe, for one minute, that this guy is blind or whatever. The behavior reminds me a bit of the user ItsLassieTime, though that could be a coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block. Protecting a real life person from from an obsessive and/or deluded fanboy should be the priority here, and these nonsensical claims are getting too close to cyber-stalking - and those Google searches are getting way too creepy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify - it's his user name, claiming he has a personal association with Ms Isen, that is the problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the signature is only half the issue here; the other half is this user's name of "Nissae Isen's Man" - again, Nissae Isen is a BLP, a minor Canadian voice artist and actress, as confirmed by a brief IMDB page about her. An article about her was deleted by AfD on 16 March 2008. GiantSnowman 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think if he simply had "[whoever] fan" as his user name, that might be acceptable, as I've seen it elsewhere. The implication that he "knows" her somehow reminds me a little too much of well-publicized news stories I'd rather not name specifically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your discretion BB, I mark that you are a good chap, man. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Even a blind squirrel, such as I, finds an acorn now and then. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. N.I.M. has removed the singer's name and that is slow progress. I can help N.I.M. with the font of his slogan. N.I.M. you have to type "tags" before and after the slogan. The tags look like I show here but without the spaces: < s u p >Go to the end of the line. < / s u p > Then people will see ^{Go to the end of the line.} and not be so distracted. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question (sorry, I can't easily find the answer in amongst the tl;dr from a certain editor above and elsewhere). Has NIM been explicitly asked to agree to a username change, and either refused or not answered? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franamax raised the concern about the user's name with the user when the user chose it, but then took it to RFC/NAME before explicitly asking the user to change it (the result, ill-considered in my view and discussion-closed before I saw it, was "Allow"). WikiDao ☯ 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm a little late to the party here, but I've left a simple request at NIM's talk page here. Maybe it's too strongly worded, but I agree with comments of several people above that we should take the possible impact on the actress seriously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Block We are here to build an encyclopedia. This user seems to be more of a hindererance then a help. Their signature seems to be WP:POINTy though i can't figure out the point they are trying to make.--Guerillero | My Talk 00:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've indefblocked the account (at least) until they can prove their association with the named individual. I think that eventuality rather unlikely, rather I think we're dealing here with a plain old competence issue, possibly one that can be solved by the route of waiting until one is a year or two older. As far as cleaning up the BLP issues, I'm thinking the best approach is to change and/or remove the use of the two living names (NI and EA) from talk pages and {{noindex}} the user and user talk pages. That way renaming the account won't be necessary. I'm interested in other thoughts on the issue though, and the availability of a bot to make the changes. Franamax (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be prepared to consider an unblock of the account if they fulfill all of, (1) agree to immediately request a rename of their account, and (2) agree not to discuss NI or EA further, and (3) agree to attempt to edit more constructively? I share others' views on the inappropriateness of the username and the claims related to it, and I don't enjoy reading the blathering either, but I do feel we've jumped quite quickly to what is effectively a permanent block based on what we expect they can't prove. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that (3) is the most important here. Keeping in mind Arthur C. Clarke's comment on magic and technology, there comes a time where sufficiently incompetent behavior becomes indistinguishable from deliberate trolling, and this user is perilously close to that line. There's not much point in having them change their name only to have them continue to suck up time and resources with more "blather". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you fully reviewed the account history? I don't think I'm acting too quickly at all, there are several months of recurrent problems, it's just come to a head in the last few days with BLP issues that have to be acted on firmly. In any case, I'm not going to unblock the account at all, I'll leave that for a reviewing admin. They do have an alternative on the first condition and that is to state that they were telling a story, which can then be viewed against the pattern of story-telling coming from the IP address/account. There are additional troubling issues, here are two: they state vision-impairment and problems with their JAWS screen-reader, yet JAWS apparently has no such issues with Wikipedia content; and their former T.A. (whose full name I revdeleted) who is such a good friend that she was at their computer at 1 AM, making the same type of spelling mistake as N.I.M., used to tell him to step behind the pink line on the ground - seems a rather unfair thing to do to a blind person, dunnit? On that last, it is certainly possible their vision-impairment was acquired later, but it becomes very difficult to keep track of all the stories. Look again at what actual article edits they've made, and all the other activity. If you can construe a possibility of "net-positive" editing from that, perhaps you can make a more detailed case for them. Me, I just don't see it. Franamax (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Nor me. I don't think we need to spend yet more of our time wondering why it is that NIM contributes so little that's worthwhile and has already wasted so much of others' time. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but there are certain implicit assumptions about the "anyone" that NIM violates. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The block seems a sensible move. I'd already noindexed^{diff1, diff2} the user and talk pages. pablo 21:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block. Since being blocked, NIM has said: I also want to keep my name. I just feel proud of who I love, is there anything against that? I don't think I need comment here on this; I suggest replacing the content of NIM's user talk page with a template. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now they're working on revealing their own name. I'm starting to think of a full shutdown as they don't seem aware of the full implications of revealing personal information. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may not appear it, but I'm trying very hard to AGF here. Even so, the whole thing just does not hang together for me, the gestalt feels all wrong. I'm concerned that we're being played, and I'd like to reiterate my suggestion that a CU would be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CU doesn't work that way though. Name your suspected puppetmaster and show your evidence. Otherwise they'll just send us trotting along to go fishing somewhere else. Franamax (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still like my dumbass approach of asking them to change their username, and, if they say no, treating it as acceptance that they don't want to come back. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The person that I've been trying to defend (I'm so silly), either thinks that Judge Judy is a court and they can threaten editors with it, or thinks that some editors might think so. Either way, we seem to have WP:NLT violations here. Someone may wish to lengthen their block, or something. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone ought to have at least some representation by an experienced editor here (ie., at ANI), so thank you for serving that purpose in this case, Demiurge! :) However, please see my current assessment of this case on the user's talk page, here. There is a very reasonable likelihood, in my opinion, that this user is not a physically disabled child but is in fact a troll. WikiDao ☯ 05:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls and physically disabled children and confused people and invaders from outer space who make legal threats should all be treated exactly the same. This is because the reaction is not for the purpose of WP:THERAPY or legal defence of Wikipedia or intergalactic war or some inspired moral purpose; it's because legal threats, if even vaguely plausible, can have a significant negative effect on the ability of other users to express their views. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a remotely credible legal threat, it's just the last TV show they watched. Another attempt at bargaining will likely be next. Eventually they will come to terms with being blocked Franamax (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently posted my NLT concerns to NIM's talk page. My understanding of NLT is that it's closely tied with the notion of chilling effects -- it's not whether the threat is credible or sustainable but simply that it is made. Granted, this is a borderline case, but threatening the project with a bizarre set of demands (however ridiculous the premise) is unacceptable behavior. I feel that a retraction should accompany the rest of the unblock conditions -- again, however, unlikely meeting those conditions may be.

On a related note, I've been considering whether the removal of NIM's talk page permissions is appropriate (which is the NLT consequence I had in mind, but conflating the two may be a bad plan). Given that much of the concern is the widespread use of others' real names, is NOINDEX a sufficient precaution? I'm not up on the technical details of how it's implemented by MediaWiki, but there seem to be WP:BEANS issues. Franamax has email enabled, as do I and several others here, so moving the appeals process off-wiki may be preferable. — Lomn 15:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to get the name-change through if at all possible. They were oh-so-close. Franamax (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose I should reword to "not credible as a legal threat". Judge Judy is not the legal system or anywhere close to it. If they contacted the show they would be told that both parties must consent to participate. A legal threat has to involve the actual legal system. There are lots of other threats intended to have a chilling effect that don't fall under NLT, such as threats to contact major donors, Cade Metz of The Register, etc. We don't block for those, at least not under NLT. Franamax (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although it might be interesting to see what Judge Judy would say about this situation. Several colorful Yiddish metaphors come to mind. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user NIM wants to change his ID, but continuesd to profess the fantasy that the actress in question is a friend of his. This cannot be good. For more info, check out the most recent ramblings on his talk page. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see this editor being productive any time soon. Now it seems he is getting his 13-year old 'girlfriend' to send an e-mail to confirm that blah blah blah.^diff YHBT. pablo 14:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13, allegedly? Yikes. There's more trouble right there. I noticed that under his IP 204.112.104.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (pointed out by WikiDao earlier) it was the same kind of rambling nonsense before he got his ill-advised ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, someone needs to shut down the talk page access and blank it off given the new bunch of text on there. If true it is a pretty bad outing, if untrue it is just trolling and not worth worrying about. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That text about the age 13 and age 18 thing is wandering close to coming under the second sentence of WP:CHILDPROTECT. I'm not prepared to say out-and-out that they're a troll yet, but I really do start to wonder. But I think it'd be nice to get the account name changed anyway. Since they've explicitly requested it, is it possible to just go ahead and do that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[comment voluntarily removed per request] WikiDao ☯ 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have serious concerns about violations of WP:CHILDPROTECT, contact ArbCom rather than making vague accusations here. Please consider removing your comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[comment voluntarily removed per request] WikiDao ☯ 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should really read the policy again, more closely. From the policy: Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel. You should raise your concerns only by email; questions or accusations directed against a particular editor in project space may result in a block for the editor who posted them. Can someone please revdelete all above comments pertaining to WP:CHILDPROTECT? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. I did indeed not read that closely enough. I'll step back now and let proper procedure take its course. WikiDao ☯ 19:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a good time to end the legal threats portion of this thread. If there is an ongoing issue, or question whether a particular diff violates WP:NLT, please email the legal queue and it can be resolved there (send it to info-en@wikimedia.org). Thanks ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The user has requested account renaming to User:Comet Egypt, I am trying to shepherd it through. If any passing 'crats happen to read this, giddyap! :) Franamax (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The change of name would resolve one suite of problems, but it does nothing about the behavioral concerns that have arisen during this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that well-meant but patently obvious remark. If you read beyond just this single page, you'll see that I set two conditions for unblocking. The second will be much harder to satisfy. However we do need to reduce the amount of unsolicited dating advice [6] which is also no doubt well-meant but not our place to give out. Renaming will let us get on with cleaning up the gsearch problem. Franamax (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that wasn't meant as criticism of your efforts, which have been above and beyond. But, yes, I have read well beyond this AN/I entry, and, to me, it remains a distinct possibility that we're being trolled. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered that possibility, but for one thing they have always used the same static IP. I'm not able to match it up against any other troll-models of which I'm aware (which is why I think CU would be unproductive) and if that's a returning troll, well I appreciate good craftsmanship and I would just like to meet them to shake their hand and congratulate them on their work and hope to gain some insights into how they go about things. There are definite and major problems with the account, but I'm reading it as genuine. Not necessarily the explanations given, but a unique individual. Franamax (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is still a possibility. BTW, the name change is done; good luck with the next phase. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You are not the only one with that suspicion, Beyond My Ken. Many of the editors who have interacted with this person at the RD have long suspected that this is a troll, plain-and-simple. After quite a long time of stretching my own assumption of good faith, that is now my firm opinion, too.

Franamax, your patience with NIM is indeed admirable. And you will recall that I supported your defense of him when he first began claiming to be blind. User:Kainaw, and even you yourself recently, have found good reason to doubt that claim. I think now that we have been being trolled all along. And that is particularly offensive because of the amount of tolerance for disruption and time-consuming assistance NIM has been given by well-meaning folks such as you and I on the basis, at least in part, of that claim of physical disability.

It is very disturbing that NIM is still claiming an intimate relationship with the child actress named in his present username. It is very likely that that relationship is either imaginary or inappropriate or both, and we have done that child actress a disservice by permitting this editor to edit for as long as we have with the use of her name in that way. We should get that cleaned up as soon as possible; let me know if/how I can help with that.

Finally, your first condition for unblocking was that N.I. convince WP:OTRS that the relationship is real and the outing of it in the way it has been here is acceptable to her. Now that NIM has claimed to be an adult (disturbing in itself, given his areas of interest and activity here) and that NI is a minor, I think that it should rightfully be required now that her parents contact WP:OTRS and convince them that they are aware of the relationship, are okay with it, and okay with that relationship being made public in the way that it has been. I do not think NIM should be unblocked or permitted to edit again under any username until that condition is met. WikiDao ☯ 03:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we are not a nanny. They no longer use the other name, that is all we care about. I will let you know on your talk page how you can help with cleaning up the past record. Outside of some very narrowly-defined areas, we simply don't care what our editors do in their spare time. You should forget all about any claims you may have read, we have absolutely no way of knowing if any or even one of them is true. You can pursue whatever you want as a private individual, but barring some cleanup, Wikipedia doesn't care. If problems come up in future, they will be dealt with oh-so-swiftly. Franamax (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mean I do not really think that relationship exists at all. And given the problematic and unconstructive history of this editor, the likely impact (professionally and personally) on the child actress of the gsearch issue, and the fact that the editor is still insisting that this at-most-thirteen-year-old girl is standing right there with him at the computer and is refusing to contact OTRS to clear this matter up: I do not think this user should be unblocked, unless at least your first condition is met, regardless of name-change. I do not think that will happen, which is as it should be imho. WikiDao ☯ 03:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referring back to the 2nd post in this sub-thread, no we can't set an unblocking condition that is impossible to satisfy. If you posted repeatedly the moon was made of cheese and I blocked you for it, I can't insist you go to the moon and bring back some cheese to get unblocked. And although I certainly can, nor should I force you to admit you were lying about the cheese, humans have this thing about being forced to humiliate themselves. We don't care about motivations or underlying character here, all we can do is to judge actions and outcomes on-wiki. The editor's actions have resulted in an outcome of an undesirable BLP situation. Renaming and appropriate modification of existing sigs will remedy that problem. The initial actions will be countered and the outcome will be neutral. For me, this is an acceptable resolution to my first unblock condition. None of this goes down the memory-hole, it is still in the various histories and you'd be surprised at how long the institutional wiki-memory is. And as I said, the second condition will be much more difficuly to satisfy, the user is still indef-blocked and both myself (at minimum, probably others too) and another wholly uninvolved admin will have to sign-off for an unblock. Franamax (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor's continual posting of that imaginary tale, since the rename, illustrates the reason to keep it blocked. I still wonder if we've got a reincarnation of ItsLassieTime, but that one's probably way too old to check. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor is blocked, aren't they pretty much supposed to confine their editing to properly-worded unblock requests and low-key, non-controversial comments? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the trolling thing, this was an issued raised on WT:RD a while back. For me this is one of the iffy cases where it was not clear if they're trolling or just genuinely showing behaviour which doesn't fit well in the community. My eventual personal conclusion at the time was that they are genuinely fascinated with voice actors and many of the things they keep asking about although this doesn't mean none of it was trolling at the very least many of their claims seem hard to believe. Note that they had a small amount of activity in other wikis primarily wikia under the IP where they showed similar interests as here. (Am I the only one wondering why whenever we get someone 'highly fascinated' with a certain celebrity on RD there seems to be a Canadian question?) Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While this isn't something I know anything about, from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive the old socks are stale. I think it's unlikely there's a connection since from some self revealed IPs it appears ILT uses Michigan, US based IPs. Also some alleged socks were blocked after CE appeared. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think NIM is a troll, his behavior seems pretty much consistent with a child who doesn't realize that they're not interacting in a mature and adult way. There's no reason to assume he's being intentionally childish, there are plenty of real ten year olds in the world. APL (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I've certainly thought that, too. But some posts seem more childish than others. And in this recent comment NIMCE says: "Quit saying i'm a child, i'm [an] 18 year old, and in Canada, 18 year olds are not children." I see no harm in our assuming that particular claim is true. And at this point: the behavior is pervasively "trollish", whether the person himself is intentionally being a troll or not. WikiDao ☯ 16:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding like an obsessed stalker myself, is this anything to do with Wiki Brah, who seems to have re-emerged further up the page? The resemblance is uncanny; lengthy, rambling replies that seem to be written "in character", a complete inability to edit the encyclopaedia effectively, and a strange ability to soak up huge amounts of other people's (and claims to have a girlfriend who leads him astray). I admit this basic description fits a wide range of people, but the user has re-appeared with other sockpuppets, and this kept ringing little bells in my head as I read through it. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to ANI because an unjustified deletion. Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) commented me that the correct venue was WP:DRV, in which I'll take it as well, but I'm posting here because this is an admin issue.

Kww deleted the page Freakum Dress with the justification of WP:G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). G4 states that "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy," and "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I cannot see the article in 2007, and I really don't think that the current vesion is sufficienty identical. It was deleted twice in that year: because it was a nonsense "Freekum Dress is the rumored fifth single from her CD B'Day", and in a more serious second AFD, were the article maybe was a stub, I don't know.

The article, which is almost a copy of Jivesh's sandbox User:Jivesh boodhun/Freakrum Dress, pass WP:GNG: Significant coverage, Is reliable, Has sources, Independent of the subject and it is presumed, but according to Kww, it fails WP:NSONGS (a subtopic of WP:N) because it never charted or had a cover. The true is that many articles which never charted nor have covers, exist in Wikipedia, as an example: D.S. (song).

I am here because Kww, with a cocky attitude, commented me Have fun... my deletion will probably get upheld (90% chance or greater). This is untrue, assume that all people share your POV is an arrogant attitude, specially from an admin who does not understand what is WP:IAR (admins can read my comment when I reverted one of his edits) IAR states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Jivesh cleary improve the article against what NSONGS states, but Kww insist that this is not correct and re-create the article for people comment in a third AFD would be irresponsible. If this is not the correct venue, (beside DRV) where I can comment about the abuse of his admin tools. Sorry for my bad English. Tbhotch^™ and © 22:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stand behind my G4. This article was deleted three times before. The second AFD specifically calls out the reasons for deletion as the fact that it hasn't charted or even been released as a single. Those facts have not changed. Nothing in the information added by Jivesh addresses either of those issues, and nothing in the relevant guideline (WP:NSONGS) makes those issues unimportant.

I do fully understand what WP:IAR is about. Unlike Jivesh, I wouldn't consider a Wikipedia that had articles about every song ever released by every artist and improvement. WP:NSONGS reflects current consensus about what songs received articles, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freakum Dress (2) clearly indicates that this topic doesn't contain anything to make it an exception.

WP:DRV is where this should be discussed, if it must be discussed at all.—Kww(talk) 22:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that Tbhotch has opened this discussion at both ANI and DRV. As a side note, is there any problem with claiming a trademark and copyright on a username? I obviously won't act on that today due to WP:INVOLVED.—Kww(talk) 22:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And how about WP:GNG, it passes the 5 points, and I told you If you really believe this will be deleted in any AFD, re-create it and wait for it, Wikipedia won't stop existing just because of this. For the trademark symbol (™), Use of this symbol does not mean that the trademark has been registered as registered trademarks. Tbhotch^™ and © 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's sure a lot of original research and unsourced claims in that userfied article, as well as stuff that has nothing to do with the song. Corvus cornix_talk 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said "which is almost a copy", not "is the same". Tbhotch^™ and © 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) I neither agree or disagree with the decision. I'm indifferent. but in this instance as the deletion was carried out it should have been taken to WP:DRV. I believe the main issue is the deletion of the article not Kww's deletion of it. (read that last bit carely... there's a difference). Thus this ANi is actually inappropriate because this is effectively a glorified content dispute. I recommend this ANI is closed and allow the DRV to run its course. If Kww's actions are proved wrong he will be scolded through that for deletion but ANI is not a place to discuss whether deletion was correct or not. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, DRV is the location for this. FWIW, I'd say that when every link on the "Critical reception" section is a review of the album this track is on, and not this track itself, that pretty much points to it being non-notable. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly... independent coverage means independent of the album as well as 3rd party. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of full disclosure, I also did a speedy on File:Freakrum Dress Beyonce.jpg. It was a montage of six separate images from the music video, with a fair use claim that didn't give credit to the creator of the montage. Improperly licensed, and no way to ever pass WP:NFCC.—Kww(talk) 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't comment on the article as this is being discussed at DRV already. If you feel this is part of a pattern of poor use of admin tools Wikipedia:Request for comment/Kww is a redlink. Turn it blue. If you simply disagree with this one deletion the let DRV handle it. I would suggest you two just avoid each other, you don't seem to get along very well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, until today, I don't think that Tbhotch and I have had any serious disputes. I know he monitors my edits, because whenever I forget a semi-protection template he slaps one on an hour or two later. I've never been certain if that's something he looks at in general, or if I'm part of a group of people that he monitors.—Kww(talk) 02:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As Kww stated, this is the very first time he and I get into a conflict, so I don't think this will be frequent. But no Kevin, I do not watch your edits, most of time. I use the protection log for the pp-semi. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 07:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The song didn't receive a conventional physical release as a single, but it was given promotion independent of the album, so the statement "[i]t wasn't released as a single" is rather misleading—particularly given that digital downloading is redefining the definition of a "single" (see Billboard). Also, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and songs states, "A separate [song] article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I'm not sure how "reasonably detailed" is defined, but I'm pretty certain that the article isn't a stub. The B'Day article is already very long, and though at a glance it appears to be in need of a little tightening, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for content containing information specific to the song to be included in the album article. In any case, AFD is for proposals for deletion, not merging—if you think the article should be merged somewhere, please follow the instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger. Notability is rather the issue here. But notability does not mean a song should be released as a single. Also, maybe in other place the song is not notable enough but in Europe, it is. I was thinking also of merging; B'Day was just revamped by me and I personally assert that its long and need professional copy-editing. Everything important in the article is already mentioned in the mother article. 11:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Article restored

User:Theuhohreo took it upon himself to recreate the article yet again. I consider his intent obviously disruptive, and would appreciate someone else talking to him about the inadvisability of bypassing WP:DRV.

That said, I've restored the history and begun the AFD cycle for the article. Hopefully we can just salt the thing this time and avoid repetition of the problem.—Kww(talk) 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tbhotch's sig

Tbhotch's signature contains both a trademark symbol and a copyright symbol. These symbols have specific legal meanings, and should not be used otherwise -- this is not a social network site, this is an online encyclopedia. I request that Tbhotch remove them from their sig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't now which is your country, but we use the word "please", hope you someday use it as well, and this is not the correct place for talk about how I sign. Reserved signature: User:Tbhotch 00:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Oh and Wikipedia:Signatures talk nothing about using symbols, you just must not use images. I agree with the CC-SA-BY license of my edits, but I still being the holder of my edits: "Attribution". Reserved signature: User:Tbhotch 00:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• And again, wrong venue for that request. At the top of the page it says "To report improper usernames, see usernames for administrator attention." Try somewhere else. This noticeboard is not a dumping ground for general complaints. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it's in response to a comment that I made above, and it isn't about the username: it's about the signature. Signature complaints don't have a specific noticeboard, and WP:ANI is where they are normally handled. I note that Tbhotch has modified his signature, so hopefully the whole issue doesn't matter anymore.—Kww(talk) 00:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I was wrong about the noticeboard, thank you for correcting me. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well the ™ symbol does lead to User talk:Tbhotch, where this should have been written. Try talking directly to Tbhotch. Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with that but just as a point of procedure a signature is not something UAA would deal with. The name itself needs to be a problem, and there sre no symbols in his actual username. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC) (all rights reserved)[reply]
• This is ridiculous and has absolutely no business here. Unless a person's sig is disruptive, it's no business of the admins. And it's Tbhotch's own business what sorts of design aspects he adds to his signature. Corvus cornix_talk 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the sig had come to my attention elsewhere, I would of course have brought it to Tbhotch's talk page, but as it came to my attention here and had already been mentioned here and the user was obviously monitoring here, it seemed perfectly reasonable to deal with it here, where other folks could comment on it, and a sense could be found if the sig was disruptive or not. Folks have got to stop being so damned bureaucratic and territorial about where stuff goes and apply a little common sense. I've seen it much too often that someone comes here with a problem that could be fixed or explained in less time than it took someone to blow them off with "This is not the right place for this, take it somewhere else". Obviously, big problems that need considerable input are better off going where people are acclimated to specific problems, but, come on, if you can fix tghe problem, fix it, and then tell them where they should go the next time the problem comes up.

    @Tbhotch: I apologize for not saying "Please". As I just snapped at my 11-year old son, I believe I must be a bit cranky for one reason or another. Thank you for altering your sig, I sppreciate your collegiality in doing so so promptly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • You have this backwards. It's being "bureaucratic" that has people posting requests to a general audience on a noticeboard addressing the person concerned indirectly, rather than just talking directly to that person. It's exactly the sort of bureaucratic style that has people bringing-things-to-the-committee, in the third person (just as here), instead of just talking to people straightforwardly.

      In fact, one can find linguists talking about the tendency for bureacratic and legalistic speech to employ the third person over the simple and straightforward second and first person of everyday discourse. (Christopher Williams is one, but there are many others.) Far from other people being the bureaucrats here, what you did was exactly bureaucratic in style and form.

      And you didn't think your "I've seen this many times" rationale through. Only Tbhotch can adjust xyr signature. The rest of us cannot. Again, talking to Tbhotch directly, rather than bureaucratically posting a third-person request addressed to people who couldn't even do anything about the issue, was, and is, the right thing to do. Uncle G (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did address Tbhotch directly, I merely did it here, because it came up here, rather than on his talk page, where I would have brought it if it hadn't come up here. As it is, the effort to shut down this discussion by stamping a "resolved" on it prematurely has not been helpful, as Tbhotch has said on my talk page that his change to his signature is only meant to be temporary until it is determined whether it is disruptive or not. That conversation needs to take place here and not on one editor's talk page, as it involves commuinity policy matters, and this is where discussions about sigs take place.

My feeling is that the copyright symbol and the trademark symbols have legal meaning in a publication' (of which this is one), and should not be screwed around with. That the sig policy doesn't mention not using them is an oversight, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't act in the best interests of the project and let Tbhotch know that he needs to make the change permanent. We're not someone's weblog, we're supposed to be a serious online reference resource, and we can't be throwing around use of symbols like that just for the hell of it. 02:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In which way this affect your life, or Wikipedia, tell me, just tell me 1 problem, Legal issues? Are you saying I'll sue someone for use my username without my permission, or someone will sue me becuase of trademark laws? I commented you in a polite way, giving you 6 points of why those symbols are not problems, what exactly are you trying to do here, block me? ban me? Tbhotch^Talk and C. 02:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that we are a publication, that copyright and intellectual property are issues that we take very seriously, and that we should not be using the copyright symbol and the trademark symbol as if they were random non-meaningful symbols. Your explanation of your use does not in any way negate that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem are the 4 copyright symbols, this is the wrong place, go to WT:Signatures instead and make it a rule. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 02:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of a "rule" saying your signature is specifically prohibited does not mean it is therefore automatically appropriate. I would have to agree that the symbols you were using (and seem to be indicating you will use again unless prohibited from doing so) have very specific meaning, a meaning that is somewhat in conflict with some very fundamental policies of this project. I think it's a relatively minor issue, but one that you could avoid very easily. Are you refusing to do so because you were asked to do so impolitely? There are a whole host of other symbols that you could use, including a very versatile alphabet. jæs (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jæs, do you do not get mad if someone one day suddenly see your name and arbitrary comment that "æ" is wrong, because he cannot typeface it, and ask to the community for your username change WITHOUT taking it with you, NOR give a reason for it (Note that Ken never commented why this was an issue before I requested him why this was an issue)? Tbhotch^Talk and C. 03:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I somewhat anticipated that could be an issue from time to time, and have User:Jaes as a doppelgänger! That being said, this isn't a matter of your username, but rather your signature. I realize you obviously put some thought into utilizing the ™ and © symbols. But there are other character possibilities which pose no potential for causing confusion regarding the ownership of your work here on Wikipedia. Sincerely, please consider these alternatives? jæs (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Kbdank71 pointed, we do not sign in articles, this in any sense will "confuse" anyone, we irrevocably agree to release our contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. We follow rules and community consensus, and if there's any of them, why I should consider to user others symbols, if there's any about a "TM" and a "C". It's the first time this is an issue, and maybe the first time an user use legal symbols as decorative letters and someone consider it a legal problem. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since we don't sign our content additions, I'd have to say this isn't disruptive. --Kbdank71 03:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. It's not disruptive in the least. Beach drifter (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised he had "Tbh®tch" or other variants, when the most obvious is "Tbhot©h". But we shouldn't have disruptive signatures. :) ←8@$é6@!! 8V9$ ^{VV4@+'$ VP, Δ0©¿} ©@®®0+5→ 12:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "resolved" tag, as Tbhotch has said that his removal of the symbols from his sig is temporary at this time, and permanence is contingent upon the outcome of this discussion. Further, this is the place to discuss specific sigs, not WT:SIG, which is where the sig policy is discussed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As an outside observer, I'll chime in and say that the trademark and copyright symbols in the sig are not a good idea, and should stay removed. Even if it's just for style, there's too much chance for confusing new editors or giving the wrong impression to experienced editors that a claim is being made. Copyright is a delicate issue here, and not one we should be taking lightly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recall some weeks or months ago there was a complaint about the user called ""Access Denied", for somewhat similar reasons, that it was confusing to newbies. However, they let AD keep his name. I wonder whatever happened to that user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with HandThatFeeds. These symbols should be reserved for the legal claims which they assert, and not used as decoration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look at this userpage and tell me if it's alarming? In my mind, it's okay to out yourself as a 13 year old by name, but not other 13 year olds. tedder (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was deleted. FYI, in future it is best to take things like that to WP:OVERSIGHT via email due to it being an outing (i.e. to avoid the risk of publicising it more :)). --Errant ^(chat!) 23:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and will do. I couldn't remember if it was a problem or I would have started with that (or an admin-level revdelete at least). tedder (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, anything which may be considered personally identifiable information directed another wikipedia editor should go straight to oversight, especially when minors are involved. If you're unsure, contact oversight. It's better to be told by an oversighter than it's not oversightable than to spread an outing further. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight requested. Skier Dude (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time I'm reporting Superpolochile (talk · contribs · logs) This is a WP:SPA. He has been warned several times against deleting sourced content and adding promotional giant pictures[7]. Can anything be done about this? I don't know if a page protection will suffice.Likeminas (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 31 hours for disruption. He's been over-warned and knows what he's doing isn't acceptable. KrakatoaKatie 04:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We may have a sock Ceolider (talk · contribs · logs) - is there enough similarity for a DUCK block? Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to note last night that Superpolochile uploaded a bunch of copyvio images to Commons, which he tagged PD-self, that were easily found with a simple Google image search. I tagged all of them for speedy-deletion as copyvios. The Ceolider sock did the same thing, uploading copyvio images, but there are only two. I'm tagging them now. It would be a good idea to check the Commons contribs of any future socks. Sorry about making a bunch of work for Commons admins - if they can block him indef for these copyvios, I'm all for it. :-) KrakatoaKatie 01:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a banned editor whose specialty, before they were banned, was articles about higher mathematics? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Review editor "Johnny Cache"? I cannot recall his WP username. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of user:Likebox? I know he worked in advanced math topics and he's indef blocked, though I don't if he's banned. Fluffernutter, previously known as Chaoticfluffy (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likebox may indeed be the user I was thinking of, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is engaging in an edit war at Richard I of England, repeatedly removing sourced information ([8] [9] [10] [11] [12]) against consensus (consensus demonstrated: [13] [14]). Nev1 (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a clear case of one-sided edit warring: one editor deleting material and being reverted by multiple others who have a talk page consensus to include the material. A recent comment from Twobells seems to indicate that he will be seeking outside dispute resolution, which is a better approach. Hopefully that means his deletions will stop for now, in which case a block seems unnecessary. --RL0919 (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on Twobells' user talk page[15] to encourage him to pursue dispute resolution rather than continue the edit war. I have the article watchlisted now and will block him if he repeats the deletion again. --RL0919 (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you PLEASE give me a moment to make my case without constantly causing an edit conflict here.Twobells (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am twobells and suggest that two editors are practising homophobia, there are only two historical figures having a 'sexuality' entry both of which are English kings. That there is even a 'sexuality' entry at all seems bizarre and out of place not only on wikipedia but in the 21st century. These two editors suggest that removing the entry is 'censorship', I say that they want to re-enforce intolerance. A administrator (Adam Bishop) even suggests that homosexuality didn't exist in that period, so my question is why are editors promoting that description in a suspect entry? @ RL0919 As for 'one-sided', that is ludicrous as an edit war takes TWO sides which suggest you as a administrator are biased and that you might learn from being a little more objective. My argument is that any mention of sexuality belongs in the main article, examples:

Philip_II_of_France who was said to have been the lover of Richard, no entry.

Or Marcel_Proust a great lover of homosexuality?....no entry.

Or Jean Cocteau a great promoter of homosexuality.

or Roland Barthes a devout homosexual yet NO mention.

or Jean Genet no entry.

or Marie Antoinette where are all these entries?

They do not exist because they are written into the body of the main article as any good piece is but when I want to delete the entry and rewrite it into the main entry I am threatened with a block.Twobells (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did you say that, you simply removed the entire section and made accusations of homophobia. Moreover, the choice of section vs integration has been discussed before. Consensus can of course change, but your belligerent behaviour isn't an attempt to work on consensus but to override it. Nev1 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that it suggests homophobia, how else can people perceive it when viewed together with the balance of the vast majority of wiki articles?

That you have been unable to address my central point about other entries and wiki best practice is telling.

As for the previous discussion on the entry and whether Richard actually WAS gay it was suggested that Flori's work was preeminent over John Gillingham who is by far the leading historian of Richard the 1st but was ignored in favour of Flori, Flori never actually communicated with any contemporary historians and ask their opinion but read their work (none of which suggested Richard was gay) then declared Richard a homosexual which reflects exactly the same problems that originally existed with the Agincourt entry in that a single French historian was considered premier against the vast majority of contemporary international historians because it suited the French editor's world view and I see the same sort of partisan approach here.Twobells (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh what's a devout homosexual? Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One who prays a lot? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or one who prays while, y'know, *kneeling* 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I made a point here that I am not allowed to edit on pages related to Britain, I stated some facts and I even got blocked by an Admin. Now it's the same again. Not even discussions are allowed. Those Admins who were batting for constructive discussion must visit the page and understand what constructive discussion means[17]. What I can see is, only personal attacks, original research, the so called synthesis and more personal attacks to block a discussion from taking place. EyeSerene where are you.Bcs09 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One can consider EyeSerene where are you and your continued vociferous protesting as further harassment, which can land you another, and longer block. Please watch yourself. –MuZemike 17:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting you are not allowed to edit articles related to Britain, simply that some of your edits aren't agreed with. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your post is a complaint about my actions Bcs09, it would have been polite to have notified me rather than leaving me to chance across it. I can understand that you were upset that I blocked you. What I can't understand is how you're completely and consistently missing the point in all this. For clarity I'll set out what struck me as I read up on the background before responding to—and ultimately blocking—you in your earlier ANI thread:

• You were unhappy about the removal of the Indian navy from the Blue-water navy article and posted a number of comments about how at some point in the future it will have various capabilities (see Talk:Blue-water_navy/Archive_2#Indian_Navy). This is a subject that has also concerned you on Indian Navy ([18], [19]).
• With your suggestions rejected by other editors, you then propose the removal of the British Royal Navy from the article.
• When other editors decide to remove the entire "Navies with limited expeditionary capabilities"section (which included the Indian navy) from the article, apparently because it has become a bit of a magnet for original research and nationalistic puffery, yours is the only dissenting voice of the seven or so editors that commented. A very clear consensus emerges. You challenge it without providing a single reliable source (and only one source of any sort that I spotted) on the talk page to support your position. Unwilling to accept the verdict of your peers, you then post a vague complaint to ANI, insult the editors who've been working with you, and accuse the uninvolved admin (me) who responds of covering for them.
• As an adjunct to the above, on Talk:Great power you started the threads Talk:Great_power#Britain disputing Britain's inclusion; Talk:Great_power#India advocating India's inclusion; and today Talk:Great_power#Removal_of_Britain_from_Great_power_list which is self-explanatory. When referred to the sources by other editors you complain of "wild accusations, personal opinions and unwanted comments"[20] and return to ANI with the same vague complaints as last time.

To me there's a clear pattern in the above and frankly you're skating on very thin ice at the moment. Part of the role of administrators is to protect Wikipedia's most valuable resource—our productive editors. This includes preventing their time and energy being wasted in endless tendentious argument and repeated explanations of policy with other editors who "just don't get it". You've shown no indication that you understand why I blocked you or what the problems were and are with your content suggestions. Unless you adapt to the way Wikipedia operates and show some sign of being able to comply with our content and editor conduct policies and guidelines—especially WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:NPA and WP:OR—I wouldn't be surprised to find your time here prematurely cut short. EyeSerene^talk 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bcs09 appears to possibly be permanently banned user:Chanakyathegreat, who was banned permanently for the very same editing warring as Bcs09 was temporarily banned for. Quite vivid blur (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No "appears to be" about it. Checkuser for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat/Archive confirmed it. The admins let Bcs09 continue on despite being a sock of a disruptive user. That was based on "good behavior". Evidently the behavior has slipped a bit since last summer. Technical note: Chanaky was indefinitely blocked, but not banned. Likewise, Bcs09 was temporarily blocked, recently; not banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bcs09/Chanakyathegreat block review requested

Based on the above information that Bcs09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an alternative account of indefblocked Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and the recent disruption caused by Bcs09, I've blocked Bcs09 indefinitely (autoblock enabled). However, I'd like a review of the block for two reasons:

1. As explained by Baseball Bugs and set out in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat/Archive, Bcs09 was a known sock account of Chanakyathegreat and had apparently been behaving reasonably well. IMO they've now blown their second chance by returning to their former ways, but I may be being over-harsh.
2. I discovered after blocking Bcs09 for the second time that I'd also issued one of the blocks on Chanakyathegreat. To avoid the appearance of hounding I try to avoid blocking the same editor more than twice; Bcs09 plus Chanakyathegreat makes three.

Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 09:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can someone look at the article Fort Plank, the articles history since the 6th of january is just one long edit war, its heavily unstable and i don't know what the right version is any more, User:Brianm2484 has been deleting as an account and possibly as an IP, today he reverted an experienced user, the when i reverted his IP he deleted the reference! whats going on over there? --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copyright violation of the provided reference, in either form, and I have marked it for speedy deletion as such. Note that dumps of multiple long paragraphs of unwikified text are always copyright violations - there is nothing that compels this to be so, but it is true in every case that has ever happened in the history of Wikipedia. Note that having an edit warrior edit war to omit changes attributed to a second source is also typically a big hint. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how did something like that, survive from the 6th of january? why did no one think to delete it? --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I bring the matter up because I mark such things as obvious copyright violations all the time, and administrators (and others) should be aware of the general principle here: such an editorial syndrome always represents a copyright violation from some source, and "at best" it is just undetected. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

okay so if this article gets re created with the copyvio, just keep speedying til it gets salted--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that with my revert I tried (but failed) to warn the user to use the talk page to discuss the article. I remember having typed an edit summary to explain what he should do, but the summary somehow got lost (in Huggle2's engine perhaps?). Anyway I clarified (and put a welcome msg) on the user's talk page. DVdm (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see some outing in the edit summaries. (The article is now deleted so non-Admins can't see this). I'm not sure what to do about that and about the editor doing the outing, who is exploding on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him indef. I was about to revdel the edit summaries, but that was obviated by the article deletion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also redacted the mentions of other editors' names on his talk page and asked Oversight to look at it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New User:Ludovica91, first action was to open an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EmirKaraman - valid, but it doesn't look like the actions of a genuine newcomer. Then proceeded to get into tendentious editing at Western Asia and Georgia (country). Also apparent attempts at ownership, with edit summary comments like "leave us Georgians out of this mess of a group. We had enough of this western asia" [21], and "this article is about us Georgians and it is not your personal webpage. You have no right to insult us like this" [22]. There is some discussion happening at Talk:Georgia (country)#Lede again but Ludovica91 isn't really acting very collegially, and there's a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, but I thought I'd bring it here in case anyone shares my thoughts that this might be a bit sockish and might recongnise the MO. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into this. I think their edits today may have provided a useful link to other editors, but I'd like to contact the other checkuser who was looking into the situation. TNXMan 18:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks - I see they've breached WP:3RR at Georgia (country) now and have received another edit war warning for it, and I have a message at my Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor tells me they're not autoconfirmed and can't edit this page, so I've suggested they make their comments on their own Talk page - so need to keep an eye on that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has added comments at User talk:Chipmunkdavis#Edit-war? and at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Georgia "POV" editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That one is blocked, and we immediately get another one registering and making the same changes - User:Mikhailfr. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive vandalism... requesting pending changes protection and/or protection from anonymous IP editing. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is case of repeated COI editing. It's all by IPs. I was considering posting this on the wp:COIN or wp:RPP, but it doesn't quite seem to fit.

To summarize, the subject, Jim Bowden, is a former general manager of a few baseball teams. He's a radio personality now. He was a controversial general manager, and was being investigated by the FBI when he left the profession.

There have been quite a few repeated edits removing sourced negative information from the article. Some are blatant (changing sourced "he was universally disliked" to "fun loving character" [23] and strange changes to his age [24].

I noticed that all the IPs originate from Los Angeles. Which brings up to Jim Bowden's current job. http://twitter.com/jimbowdenxmfox. I suppose it is this connection, and the persistence of the similar edits that led me to post here.

Diffs:

general tidying up of sourced negative info, inserting unsourced/promotional: [25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32]

more of the same removal of negative info, changing disliked to fun-loving appreciated: [33],[34],[35],[36]

Thank you, --CutOffTies (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "he was universally disliked" is a serious allegation against a living person; it's potentially seriously defamatory, and needs multiple reliable sources. What you call "sourced" is a single opinion piece that quotes a single unnamed person, that doesn't come close to supporting the claim it purports to cite. The best that single article could be said to support would be something like "a Cincinnati Enquirer story claimed that Bowden was unpopular with his peers", but even then it doesn't belong in the article without corroboration. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "universally disliked" mean anyway? That even his own mother doesn't like him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the wording in the article should be improved, but that's not the issue I was bringing up here. If there's no further input on thelong term pattern of IP/COI editing, then please resolve this as a stupid post by me. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right to be concerned about the IP's edits (they're also unacceptable, not least because they're unsourced too), but the COI policy does allow individuals to access pages about themselves, and some of the stuff they've removed certainly should have been removed. If there were an acceptable article which someone was replacing with encomium, that would be an issue (whether done by the subject or not); but right now there's some bad stuff and fixing that, belt and braces, should be our concern. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the universally disliked. I suppose this would be different if the IP editing didn't put things like "His fun-loving character was appreciated" and removed the sourced FBI investigation. Regardless, this doesn't appear to be an issue for ANI. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why has no one linked to WP:PAYWALL yet in this discussion? It specifically states that ease of access to a source (or lack of ease) does not make the source unreliable. We are allowed to use sources that require a payment to access and other users should [WP:AGF|assume good faith]] about the information used from those sources unless there is an easily expressed, genuine reason not to assume good faith. I'm not seeing that here. It should be listed as Irish, Northern Irish is Irish. This isn't a North Dakota vs. South Dakota type of thing. Northern Ireland is still a part of Ireland. (Now, if people express themselves as British in that region, I suppose some case could be made, but the subject of this discussion clearly expresses herself as Irish). Silverseren^C 23:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, you closed it as I was typing. I wonder why I didn't get an edit conflict. :/ Silverseren^C 23:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had that happen occasionally. I have to assume or guess that when you hit "save", there's a certain amount of behind-the-screens work that has to occur, and while that is happening, the database record for the page is locked, and if someone else hits "save", they'll get an edit-conflict message. But if the timing is just right, you might hit save just after the page is unlocked, so no edit conflict occurs, and it looks as if two edits occurred at the same time, which they really didn't. (Techies, feel free to jump in here if you're reading this.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a bug in the software (failure of ACID) and the bugzilla item has been posted a few times before. I don't feel like digging it out but it's a known issue. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Vague memory (it has been some years) tells me that it's not actually a bug, but a feature that works too well for people's expectations. MediaWiki does edit conflict merger, and sometimes manages to merge in cases where people expect to see conflicts and are surprised when they don't. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [38] appears to be one student naming another (a minor) as having accessed porn on school computers. Goes well beyond the level of vandalism we should tolerate concerning private individuals, especially children. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I revdel'ed a few more revisions as the name was not removed until several edits later. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding the Momo page; an Asian food. Momos are part of Newari cuisine in Nepal. I edited the page by including the Newars in this page. The user Channarichan deleted the Newars from the page. When I asked her/him through the talk page as to why he deleted The Newars from the page this was her/his response on my Userpage' "too bad....ur race is mixed...so you are excluded....only the mongolian race allowed....you are not one of them...you are different...go edit some curry wiki page...not here..." This is a racist statement. I was offended by this statement so I wrote back, "You need to stop your ethnocentrism and racism.

Whether you like it or not, momos are part of Newar cuisine. Too bad for you. http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/detail.php?article_id=14534&cat_id=10 Your exclusion of Newars based on them being a "mixed race" is racist and ethnocentric. Your statement "..go edit some curry wiki page...not here..." is offensive. http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue/2003/08/29/Leisure/3918 If you exclude the Newars from the momo page and make any more racist, ethnocentric and offensive statements to me and/or any ethnic groups, you will be reported."

Her/his response in my Userpage is this, "u r pathetic...have u ever seen ur face...please, go eat some curry...and leave us alone...momo is originally tibetan....so im doing a favour for the other ethnic minorities in nepal....its the same as excluding bahuns associating with momo...newars are mixed-race, so they are excluded from momo....anyways, if i wanted to, i can erase the word nepalese from this momo wiki...since it is TIBETAN FOOD. PERIOD."

This person has been attacking me repeatedly with a racist attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyCtkr (talk • contribs) 02:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have given the guy the last warning (and also reformatted the references to Momos being Nepali food so to make it clearer Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. As of 21:48, 5 January 2011, somebody hidden behind a German proxy 82.199.137.20 placed a {{subst:afdd}} template onto a page International Delphic Council.

This template is used in Russian Wikipedia to set up a common article deletion procedure. In English Wikipedia this template does not work (since local syntax is {{subst:afd1}} etc.)

2. 3 minutes later, at 21:51 (same diff, right part), this mistake was corrected by an anonymous user from Moscow, Russia (IP 85.140.130.136).

3. At 21:55, 5 January 2011 the same quasi-„German” user (82.199.137.20) saved the text of his application for deletion at the relevant page. This text was anonymous also in the sense that an applicant did not sign it with ~~~~: a bot Sinebot did it next minute at 21:56.

At 08:05, 6 January 2011 admin KrakatoaKatie found out, that 82.199.137.20 was a proxy and blocked it (ports 22, 25, 3128, 5666, 5910) with an expiry time of 3 months.

Evidences show that all three abovementioned edits are logically and technically the consequent chain links of the same "consubstantial" procedure.

From a formal point of view, there are two IP's — BTW is this a reason for this fraudly published application was not deleted together with blocking its "source", a proxy?

Actually, step No.2 (template correction from Moscow) was a prerequisite for the proper completion of step No.3, since it is the only means to provide publisher with a correct link to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Delphic Council page. An assumption that there’s another way (to open this discussion, one may type this link manually) does not fit with the fact that at his first step somebody from behind 82.199.137.20 preferred to use the template. Coincidentally — in a syntax, well known in Russian Wikipedia.

Minor indirect evidences of the Russian origin of a fraudly published application

1. The syntax and the style of the document. Multiple usage of quotes around the words intentionally used in the opposite sense is also rather Russian than English specificity, but what is more important here is a
2. type of quotation marks. These are not ASCII-34 (") straight quotes, as Arial font shows. The quotes used in this application originate from MS Word — which substitutes straight quotes with the paired ones. Also coincidentally, the defaults for this substitition for the Russian version are the same, as one may see in the in the application text: ASCII-147 (“, HTML &ldquo;) before, and ASCII-148 (”, HTML &rdquo;) after each word.

The present application concerns "Russian" exclusively in the sense of an origin of an IP 85.140.130.136. An assumption I hereby request to confirm, is that

• whether the edit No.2 performed at 21:48, 5 January 2011 from Moscow (85.140.130.136), may be treated as originating from the same source, as edits No.1 and No.3, tagged by German proxy 82.199.137.20?

Presumably, 85.140.130.136 (or IP near it, in 85.140.0.0÷85.140.255.255 spread) may be logged among the users who clicked at the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or another pages, looking way to correct the syntax for a {{subst:afdd}} template. His possible clicks at International Delphic Council shortly before 21:48 may also be treated, as a sign of sock-puppeting in this fraud action.

Note 1: The severity of this specific offense is aggravated by the fact, that actually English Wikipedia was attacked by a hacker from another namespace. I know that apart from IP’s there are other technical means of identification (browser version, computer name, screen resolution etc.), and that cookies we are required to accept may also be helpful in this case. One successful case of investigation of such fraud may have a synergetic effect in strengthening barriers protecting honest users of Wikipedia from cheaters, no matter which were the incentives of their fradulent activities.

Note 2: a local request in ru-wiki for further investigation of activites from Moscow IP was posted by me yesterday. Cherurbino (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the merits of the AfD, but that one was definitely incorrect. I removed the AfD template and restored the AfD to the version that the closer of the first discussion had. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sarek. I did not notice any traces of your edits in the pages concerned. Which template replacement do yo mean, and where? (mb a diff here may help). Cherurbino (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did not touch with the merits of the article itself here. These shall be the subject of a separate motivated objection which shall be posted in AfD section in a short time. Here, at this noticeboard I consider only fraud, as an improper method. Also, references to the 'coordinated activity' (sockpuppeting) here are merely an alternative treatment of what is seen as an "activity from 2 IP's". IMHO closer explanation of this phenomenon is that a 'hacker' may have opened another browser to look for a proper template, and this browser was not set to work via proxy, thus disclosing the original operator. Cherurbino (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing from a proxy is not a blockable offence, and neither is using more than one IP necessarily a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. Had these IPs gone through and vote stacked at an AFD, that would be another matter, but they didn't. So where is the fraud that needs to be investigated? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someguy1221, it depends on the type of proxy. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 06:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think editing from an open proxy is. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Open proxy IPs are blockable on sight. If unsure if an ip is an open proxy, they should be reported to the open proxy project. The use of open proxies by an account is not necessarily a blockable offence for the account, unless used for sockpuppetry. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that open proxies should not be blocked on site. Rather, I am pointing out that if an editor uses an open proxy, but then stops, his actual IP address need not be blocked as well. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: «Editing from a proxy is not a blockable offence» (Someguy1221): there are different reasons for using proxies. This specific case, when an author, presumably sitting in Moscow, intentionally pretends that he is from Germany — is fraud. He 'pretends' not only by using a forged IP. He 'plays a role of a German' also in the text of his application: here he writes: "7 links lead to Russian press (?) which I can’t properly analyze". I can't beleive that a person who knows how to reset a proxy and a port in his browser to look like German knows nothing about translate.google.com and other online translating utilities. You see, guys, he 'overplayed' here. So this action cannot be treated other like fradulence.

Re: «if an editor uses an open proxy, but then stops, his actual IP address need not be blocked as well» — what he did, is already done. So I agree that blocking a specific IP (and, blocking proxy, as well) is of zero importance for the future. So, what I am asking for, is not to block, but to confirm, that the original source of the entire action (setting AfD) was computer(s) which originally accessed Internet between 21:48 and 21:55 on January, 5, from IP 85.140.130.136 in Moscow. Cherurbino (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - I'd be really, really appreciative if administrators in a content dispute didn't show up on my talk page making vague threats without evidence, despite requests. And a side note - I'm willingly hands-off all the Sarah Palin articles (I've tried to help with them since before this insanity) but it would be super-duper awesome if, at the very least, ONE SINGLE ADMIN would step up to deal with issues at these articles. It would be hard to find a bigger nest of BLP violations and POV-pushing. Kelly ^hi! 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a bit baffled by Will and his recent actions surrounding the Palin articles, but his "warning" Kelly and then responding that a request for a "careful" explanation of his reasoning would be accompanied by "formal" action is beyond inappropriate for an involved administrator, let alone relating to an article subject to probation. The Palin articles are regularly subject to anonymous and single-purpose drive-by pov-pushing, and the editors (from both "sides" — or no particular side — of the political spectrum) that do their best to try to ensure the end result is neutral and reliably sourced deserve a tad bit better than careless accusations and threats from an administrator that ought to know better. (I've left Will a note regarding this discussion.) jæs (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

warning you that you are making a lot of reverts i did not realize there was a limit? approaching the 3RR limit, should we lower it to 2 reverts? Will would you consider a voluntary break from this topic? after reviewing your contributions, i am concerned there is a chance you are pushing a pov. the best/easiest solution to this issue, is maybe if you refrain from engaging this topic. i think the amount of time of your absence should be decided by you. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to join the other contributors in this thread in a break from the Palin articles. However I don't see what POV pushing you might be alluding to. Could you please provide diffs that show a pattern of POV pushing behavior on Palin-related articles?   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a number of reasons, Sarah Palin articles draw a lot of attention, and a lot of that attention is detrimental. She is constantly in the spotlight, and makes news seemingly almost every day. So, unfortunately, the obvious solution - full lockdown of the article - is not possible. The only alternative in a case like that is for a small number of BLP defenders, such as Kelly, to stand up to the constant flow of editors who want to post every freakin' negative thing they can get their hands on, in defiance of any article probation and of the BLP rules. Keep in mind that BLP matters are of paramount importance to the wikipedia owners, much more so than concerns about edit-warring and the like. The fact that Palin is a media lightning-rod does not exempt her article here from the BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think admins like Will Beback are an asset to wp - the detractors above hypocritical, worthless POV pushers. Sayerslle (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, howabout that reasonable people can still disagree and come into conflict, and there's no need to demonize either side in any dispute, especially not with baseless, rude personal attacks as you just did... --Jayron32 06:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Sayerslle was referring to the "toxic authoritarian Right," which is apparently how he defines any editor who does not agree with him on the content that he wants or believes must be inserted into the Palin article(s). This would be a good dime a dozen example of why users like Kelly are pretty damned invaluable, and pretty difficult to come by at the various Palin articles — and a good demonstration of why Will being careless in his accusations in the midst of a content dispute (and stifling any questions about his behaviour with threat of "formal" action) is a very bad thing. jæs (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've never before been accused of being a TAR baby. It almost makes me regret having voted for Obama. :) You're right, Kelly is vital to trying to keep political articles neutral, and has kept this up valiantly while many of us long ago gave up on trying to fight the mongrel hordes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mongrel hordes? Buster Seven Talk 06:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first and most important steps in dispute resolution is to raise the concern with the editor. See WP:DR#Discuss with the other party. I have made no threats, vague or otherwise. My post was to raise a concern that Kelly is perhaps exhibiting signs of ownership of Palin-related articles. I don't believe I'm the first editor to do so. I do not suggest that any sanctions or remedies be imposed on Kelly. Rather, I was trying to give a heads-up to avoid anything like that happening. If Kelly would like to have other editors or admins help by taking up the slack in watching the Palin articles, then picking fights with or reverting those who show up won't encourage more participation. Further, I believe that Kelly's editing has tended to promote a pro-Palin POV, and to minimize other POVs. While I think everyone endorses vigorous enforcement of BLP, BLP does not require or sanction the routine deletion of negative material which is properly source, relevant, and necessary for NPOV. To avoid ownership concerns, it would help if Kelly could be more accepting of edits that don't breach BLP, but which don't fit Kelly's POV about the topic either.   Will Beback  talk  06:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I have made no threats, vague or otherwise." I don't know how else to define the response you gave when Kelly asked you to provide evidence of your accusations: "If you like, I can make a more careful evaluation, but if I do that then it would no longer be an informal warning."^[39] Not only is that a pretty clear threat, but it sounds like a veiled threat of administrative action. Given your heavy involvement in several content disputes at various Palin-related articles, tossing around threats of "formal" action is highly questionable, let alone when someone is asking you — in good faith — to explain an accusation that several other editors here also believe to have been uncalled for, no? jæs (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, I see no justification for bringing this complaint, based on my own review of the edits that Will was responding to. For example, your removal of the url in the ref for the After Health Vote, Threats on Democrats NY Times story at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/health/policy/25health.html seems to me enough of a red flag all by itself to support Will's polite expression of concern on your talk page, even without consideration of your other edits. Regardless of anyone's view on this, though, a moment's reflection will make it obvious to any experienced editor that there's no action that's going to be taken against anyone on the basis of this thread, so I'd respectfully suggest we close it and all move on to more productive activities. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how long does a through review of the article history take one? perhaps less time than it took to write this. i just did and could not find anything of note. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the diff, I would doubt that was an intentional "removal." God knows I'm still terrible at remembering the proper format for cites, and frequently copy, cut, and paste from other live edit areas. Since Kelly was adding several other references in that same edit, that seems like a plausible, good faith editing error to me. Kelly did not remove the reference, and I'd hardly call the edit, otherwise a productive one, a "red flag." The threat of administrative action by an involved administrator, however, is a very big red flag. jæs (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a related aside, I really don't know what's going on with Will, but I'm beginning to seriously question his editing and tactics at the Palin-related articles. jæs (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns have been raised by other editors over Will Beback's treatment of BLP articles. So, this instance isn't the first time. In my opinion, he might need to stay away from BLP articles for awhile. Cla68 (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no serious accusation of any BLP violations on my part, here or in any other context. Please don't make unsupported accusations. Doing so repeatedly is a form of harassment.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I don't see Cla68 alleging BLP violations on your part. I don't remember ever hearing anyone else make such a claim either. He instead seems to be saying that your approach to managing issues related to BLP articles is less than optimal (despite your good intentions) in other sorts of ways. I've felt the same way at times and might leave a note on your talk page sometime if you want to discuss it. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he is sincerely suggesting that talkingpointsmemo.com is an acceptable reliable source, no less for an article subject to wp:blp, then I have to agree. jæs (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I made any such suggestion. Instead, I was asking for more information. Please assume good faith.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't assume anything other than good faith. You said: "In general, sources from big companies [like TPM] are assumed to be reliable, because they're likelier to have an editorial process and because they have a business that can be sued for libel if there are errors." jæs (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here's what I wrote:

• I'm not sure what aspect of TPM you're asserting makes it unreliable. In general, sources from big companies are assumed to be reliable, because they're likelier to have an editorial process and because they have a business that can be sued for libel if there are errors. OTOH, gossip rags like the National Enquirer have a bad reputation and are not accepted despite having a large editorial staff. Could you clarify the nature of your objection?[40]

I wrote that after looking at the WP:RSN and failing to find any recent discussion of TPM, a source I'm not familiar with. If asking for more information about a vague objection is a violation then I'd like to see the rule on that. The person who posted the original question, of whether TPM was reliable or not, never responded.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Talking Points Memo is a news/commentary blog with professional editors and reporters, that has received significant recogition for its journalistic work.[41] As such, its views should be represented as a POV source under WP:NPOV, maybe about the same way as salon.com which sometimes gets brought up. Jaes is coming across as slightly tendentious in this discussion about it. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The blog self-describes itself as: "Commentary on political events from a politically left perspective..." which does not make it a reliable source for our purposes, like any of the many other right-leaning or left-leaning blogs that add their opinions into the mix. I don't know how to put that any other way. jæs (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Jaes, do you understand of Wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view? Quote: "This page in a nutshell: Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Are you saying the right-leaning and left-leaning points of view are insignificant? That is silly. WP:RS says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." It doesn't have exclusions for being right- or left-leaning. We have tons of stuff sourced to the Wall Street Journal, whose news reporting is generally considered pretty reliable, even though it is very right-leaning editorially. What remains is the assessment of due weight according to the significance of the point of view being expressed. Secondary sources for significance like the NYT article about TPM, the Columbia Journalism Review about other outlets, etc. are also helpful. We don't exclude sources just because they're right- or left-leaning. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss TPM. Suffice it to say that its reliability is open to question and that I engaged in the discussion without ever suggesting that it was or was not reliable. In my following comment I discovered that it was being used as a source for a frequently quoted line from Giffords which is repeated in many sources.[42] So the whole thing was a dispute over nothing. The original questioner could have simply searched on Google and fixed it in 2 minutes instead of starting an unhelpful thread. Maybe some folks just prefer the more dramatic route.   Will Beback  talk  11:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly's editing

Claim that Kelly "may be approaching the 3RR limit"

Kelly is complaining that I warned her about ownership and 3RR. Here are four reverts to one article in just over 24 hours. None of the reverted material appears to breach BLP clearly or be obvious vandalism, nor does she make any BLP or vandalism claim in her edit summaries.

1. 01:08, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Approach to campaigning */ expand, rework some existing language for NPOV")
2. 12:51, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Use of martial language */ rm Twitter link per WP:PRIMARY")
3. 21:42, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Health care */ rm misleading quote")
4. 01:40, 13 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Response to the 2010 health care bill */ fixing tenses and grammar, removing ^[who?] (the sources say who, and we really don't need to expand this)")

I'm not saying Kelly violated WP:3RR. I warned her that she seemed to be making a lot of reverts and also said that I was not interested in pursuing it. "I haven't counted, but you may be approaching the 3RR limit." Rather than saying something like, "Thanks, I'll be more careful", she responded by accusing me of accusing her of violating 3RR and demanded proof. Since I wasn't "pressing charges" and was only making an informal request, I didn't see the need to do so. She went on to write, "Accusations of 3RR and "repeatedly removing sourced material" - evidence, now, please, or retract."[43] So here's evidence of her possibly approaching the 3RR limit. There are more diffs available for deletions of sourced, relevant, and neutral material from this and other Palin-related articles if she wants to make a bigger case out of this now. Kelly is to be commended for deleting BLP violations from Palin-related articles, but a different standard applies for non-BLP violations. This is not a formal complaint, and I would not have brought it here. I raised it on Kelly's page as informal advice. I hope it won't come up again.   Will Beback  talk  10:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. #1 looks like adding material? Is #2 a revert? Certainly it is a good solid removal. #3 is also a good removal. #4 looks an excellent POV removal. One thing to remember is the spirit of reversion - I don't see constant reverting of the same material. I see an active editor on a highly active article making good content choices. It might be worth checking Wikipedia:OWN#Ownership_and_stewardship before making comments on ownership. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) At least two of those edits are clearly not reverts, with at least one of the other two being quite appropriate per wp:blp. jæs (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If one editor adds a {who} tag,[44] and then another editor removes it, that's a revert.[45] There's no BLP reason for that.   Will Beback  talk  10:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a strawman, no BLP was claimed. But reasonable rationale was given for the removal, and under WP:BRD nothing is wrong with that process. The next step is to discuss the problem on the talk page. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no exception to 3RR for deleting clean-up tags. But notice the main change that Kelly made:

• Representative Gabrielle Giffords who was one of the victims of the 2011 Tucson shootings had expressed concerns about the crosshairs on a [map]...
• Representative Gabrielle Giffords commented on a [map]...

Does anyone think that deleting all mention of 2011 Tucson shootings and Giffords' concerns from a section discussing of the now-famous map is a neutral edit which corrects a clear BLP violation? Further, she doesn't even allude to this significant deletion in her edit summary, which is misleading.   Will Beback  talk  10:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little misleading, Will, if you cut off half of the actual sentence, which provides much more context than you were indicating: "Representative Gabrielle Giffords commented on a national midterm election map on Sarah Palin's campaign webpage denoting targeted congressional seats including Giffords'." The shootings are already mentioned or linked three other times in the article, and wp:undue is a wp:blp issue. jæs (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant difference in implication between "expressed concerns about" and "commented on". After than edit,[46] the 2011 Tucson shootings article was not linked to at all from that section or anywhere else in the article. The section in question was discussing the map and Palin's rhetoric. Kelly has put effort into deleting the map and the all examples of rhetoric from the project. That's not neutral editing.   Will Beback  talk  11:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I;d have removed it to, pure POV pushing synth nonsense. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. There was considerable criticism of Palin for the map and rhetoric prior to January 2011. Removing the assertion that Gabrielle Giffords expressed public concerned about being placed in a crosshairs is not "synth nonsense" - it's history. Other people also warned that Palin's language might lead to violence. It really happened. Notice that we're not even talking about adding this to the Palin biography - this is buried in an obscure sub-article. It's hard to say that a paragraph on the matter is undue weight, considering it's been all over the news for days. If anything, the matter is probably receiving far too little space in proportion to its notability in her political life.   Will Beback  talk  11:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that context it was pushing the idea that Gifford made those comments (pre-shooting!) and then was later shot. That is inappropriate and not overly neutral. Looking at the article, that has it the correct, chronological way, i.e. Gifford made this criticism, then was shot, then the media picked up on it and made a tenuous link. Certainly such material is not due in the Palin top level article, only recent ism indicated that. It's hard to say that a paragraph on the matter is undue weight; If I had said that, you would be right to criticise. But I definitely did not... I was commenting on that specific removal of text. *shrug* --Errant ^(chat!) 11:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errant, I'm not sure where you get your news but the link between Giffords' 2010 comments and the shooting was not invented by Wikipedia editors.[47] It may be original research by the media, but the article in question is about media coverage of Palin so media speculation is relevant.   Will Beback  talk  11:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm I am talking about the single diff you provided which removed part of a sentence that was a POV push. I really do not know how much more clear I can explain that :P But I will try; the sentence which was removed by Kelly presented the facts of the matter in a way which pushed a point of view and was entirely inappropriate --Errant ^(chat!) 12:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this statement. The sentence does not, to me, present a point of view at all. It is correct that this edit removed the only link to the TS page. Further, the existing Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Campaign_imagery section's second paragraph, the "after the shooting" bit, reads to me as highly biased. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence does not, to me, present a point of view at all.; tyhe thing that would have concerned be about it is that Giffords comments were made way before her being shot. So throwing that statement into the middle of the valid sentence is, I feel, definitely pushing a point :) Now, the fact that Kelly did not then re-introduce the content at the right place is potentially a problem, but unpicking the history is a mess and I can't pin down a reason why that was not done. It is correct that this edit removed the only link to the TS page; agreed, and it should have gone back as better content - as it now has done. Further, the existing Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Campaign_imagery section's second paragraph, the "after the shooting" bit, reads to me as highly biased.; I'd probably agree there. But once again, I am not commenting on that at all here ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we cordially disagree, can we agree then that the removal of that sentence is not an unambiguous "BLP edit"? As there is tenable difference of opinion between reasonable editors? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely. There was no BLP issue --Errant ^(chat!) 13:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editing concerns

My concern about ownership is that it looks like Kelly has a POV regarding the subject. These are her significant recent edits to Public image of Sarah Palin:

• expand, rework some existing language for NPOV
• add SarahPAC response
• rm Twitter link per WP:PRIMARY
• rm misleading quote
• Persona: trim derogatory trivia
• fixing tenses and grammar, removing {who} (the sources say who, and we really don't need to expand this)
• death threats
• per concern on my talk page

Every one of those edits, except the last, either added what could be considered positive material or deleted what could be considered negative material, all of which was sourced. None of them correct clear BLP violations. Several of them include inaccurate or incomplete edit summaries, or even inaccurate material. It's not my intention to make a full blown RfC out of this. But since Kelly has complained that I didn't provide evidence and diffs, there they are.   Will Beback  talk  11:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks fine, a normal part of the editing of a highly active article. This is what happens on active and contentious articles. Accusing of a POV on such tentative grounds is not really a good faith accusation; Will, we've edited together in the past and got on, but I think you are wrong here. Palin is always going to be a seriously difficult subject to edit and I think Kelly is helping rather than hindering. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, looking at 2011 Tucson shooting, Kelly's work to resist the temptation to insert a lot of content about a media conspiracy theory is commendable. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly's POV is WP:BLP and this is exceedingly clear when one looks at your "examples" of reverts. In fact, it is against WP:BLP to allow some of those claims to be in any BLP, even if the person were the most evil person on earth. Other examples are simply establishing further proper context for claims made in a BLP - which is also fully proper. I recall editing an article on a despicable person with you where you felt it was "proper" to include a press release from the government saying a person could get a gigantic sentence (- and where the actual sentence was 30 months. [48], [49], [50], [51] all indicating a particular attitude towards the biographies of such despicable people. My only goal is proper and vigourous enforcement of WP:BLP and it appears to be essentially true of Kelly as well. By the way, all articles relating to a living person are fully subject to WP:BLP - "a different standard applies for non-BLP violations" is a simple misstatement about such. Collect (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly's POV is WP:BLP... Oh? Kelly showed how deeply she cares about keeping tabloid accusations out of articles about living politicians by writing John Edwards extramarital affair from scratch.   Will Beback  talk  13:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here she insists on using AccessHollywood and TMZ as sources to add material to the biography of the mistress of another Democratic politician.[52][53][54][55] Here she is urging its expansion.[56] It looks rather like her approach to BLPs depends on the political affiliation of the subject. If they're Republican then any controversial material must be excluded. If they're Democrats then pile on the sleeze.   Will Beback  talk  13:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I was involved with those articles years ago when I was still fairly new. I hadn't looked at them in a long time, but they seem to have stood virtually unchanged since then. If you think there's a problem with their neutrality or sourcing, go tag them up. Kelly ^hi! 15:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it seems like there is a political divide within Wikipedia, of which Sarah Palin is one of the boundary markers.

Which claims are you talking about? Could you be specific.

As for my edits to Bill White (neo-Nazi), I don't think I've even come close to breaching WP:BLP, despite editing that very difficult article for years, including with the participation of the subject. If you'd like to discuss my editing, let's do it at #Will Beback, above.   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at Will's diffs and Kelly's other edits in more detail tomorrow if this thread is still active, but his criticism of Kelly's editing looks convincing to me on a quick examination. 12:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.209.190 (talk)

I'm building up this section as I look this over, but so far:

• On this provided diffs: While I have not as yet seen the entirety of Kelly's edits to the page, the set provided by Will appear on the surface to represented biased editing. I'm concerned enough to go and look further, and am quite surprised at the responses.
• Looking over the discussion at Talk:Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Criticism.3F, while I have not seen all of Kelly's comments, those in this section read as biased to me. There she's asking for sources that not only say that the criticism existed, but that this criticism was correct.
• I am unable to see the four diffs provided higher up as reverts.
  Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a truism that you shouldn't be able to detect an editors POV through their edits. I think in some of the diffs here, Kelly's POV is fairly clear. And in some cases using BLP as a shield. Just my opinion...RxS (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, but not necessarily true. An unbiased editor editing a heavily biased article might well make edits solely in support of one side of the debate, simply to redress the balance. Taken in isolation, their edits might seem POV, whereas infact they were not. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but just worth remembering that biased edits do not have to imply a biased editor.--Korruski^Talk 14:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the case here. I normally don't edit those articles at all, and I certainly don't, on my own initiative, add praise or puffery to Palin articles. I'm pretty sure that normally the only times I add anything to those articles is to present the other point of view for NPOV. Strangely, it seems many/most of the editors who insist that material appearing in RS's MUST appear in the biography, never seem to include or argue on behalf of RS material that is neutral or positive toward the article subject. Kelly ^hi! 14:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership issues

I think a key factor in determining whether an editor is exhibiting Ownership issues is how they engage discussion. Some comments from a recent (and related) BLPN thread may be relevant here. Note these comments come after repeated attempts to openly discuss the BLP questions:

• ...I can't participate in a discussion with Kelly if she won't answer my questions. Banana 04:43, 9 January 2011 [57]
• Kelly is not attempting to reach consensus. AndyTheGrump 04:45, 9 January 2011 [58]
• Indeed. The relentless intransigence, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and misdirection from Kelly have made principled discussion impossible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris 05:03, 9 January 2011 [59]
• There is no point saying "wait until ongoing discussion is resolved"; one side is petulantly shutting its ears. ... Ericoides 08:16, 9 January 2011 [60]
• User:Kelly has been battling this criticism towards Sarah Palin 24 hours a day. As it's evident, User:Kelly as it is visible in this Talkpage has been defending Sarah Palin and her article in this encyclopedia from any criticism. ... Camilo Sanchez 08:51, 10 January 2011 [61]
• You [Kelly] removed important and well-cited information that reflected badly on Palin. ... JamesMLane 05:27, 12 January 2011 [62]

Furthermore, I think that editors like Jaes and BBugs are overstating Kelly's value as protector of Palin articles, thus giving Kelly too much credit. This may unfortunately serve to encourage Kelly's resistance to article balance as well as discourage other more neutral editors from participating. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been warned multiple times and continues to vandalize Talk:2011 Tucson shooting - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Teh Truth. –MuZemike 07:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frantzedward.cha (talk · contribs) seems to have some competence issues and repeated disruptive edits. To wit:

• Microstub on a person notable only for one show; no categories or sources. This was just one of several, most of which were A7'd.
• Repeated changes in very short periods of time, often to fix a mistake
• Changing a voice actor credit from the right name to the wrong one despite IMDb and other sources confirming that the character is indeed voiced by William Salyers; history shows other additions of similar inaccurate/unsourced info
• An mess of a stub article with no references or categories about a non-notable TV movie.
• Repeated creation of unsourced BLPs on voice actors (Jeremy Shada, Matt L. Jones, etc.)

I see that in February, this user got up to a level 3 warning from now-retired user Baa about creating repeated unsourced BLPs; said warning went entirely unnoticed. After that, the user was uploaded about a dozen images with bad copyrights, and got a 31-hour block for doing so. Immediately upon unblock, the user added inaccurate info to The Penguins of Madagascar and Ed, Edd n Eddy, getting up to a "final" warning.

After that, yet more bad images which got deleted, and repeated addition of unsourced material to The Suite Life Movie. They have since escalated to outright hoaxing on The Chowder Movie, an article about a patently nonexistant movie related to the cartoon Chowder.

In short, it looks like this user seems to be more than a little short on WP:COMPETENCE. While some of their edits are useful, there's just so much crap amid what little positive contributions they make and it's causing everyone headaches. They are not responding on their talk page, nor are they showing any signs to become a better editor. Nothing at all has changed in their edit history in 11 months, which is more than enough time to learn how to do things right. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. I noted this user around a month ago, and was somewhat disturbed by the lack of clue, but was quite busy at the time and so didn't try and address it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds very much like this chap. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, after looking at the contribs (and especially the deleted ones) it so obviously is this person that I've blocked per DUCK. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not so sure now. Article interest - check. Unhelpful edits - check. No edit summaries or communication - check. But some others aren't quite the same. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as CheckUser is concerned, everything else is  Stale, so I have virtually nothing to go off of, except approximate geolocation data, which shows the same metropolitan area as the long-term abuser in question. –MuZemike 07:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. that was from the LTA link Black Kite provided above. Otherwise, I cannot conclude anything else. –MuZemike 07:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is he still blockable for his low quality edits? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rich Farmbrough is again creating pages based on some script (I hope, it is the only decent explanation for the mindlessness of many of the creations), which generates a lot of incorrect stuff. This is the same thing that happened with previous script based creations he did (see the ANI archives for other examples of this).

In its current incarnation, this lead to the creation of categories like Category:Ice T albums (we already had Category:Ice-T albums), Category:Siouxsie and the Banshees albums) (there was Category:Siouxsie & the Banshees albums already), Category:Booker T. & the M.G.s albums for Category:Booker T. & the M.G.'s albums, and so on. Some have been redirected yet, some still need to be cleaned out. Thirteen categories he created between January 11 and today have been deleted. But this isn't a new problem, he created a number of similar categories in December as well, e.g. Category:Records albums. Over 200 were created and deleted at that time, but he doesn't seem to have learned from that experience.

The Category:Various albums was created, deleted, and recreated, apparently because some infoboxes list the artist for albums as "Various". We now have three articles with this stupid category, with the category explanation "This category contains albums by Various."

This is the umpteenth example of this editor creating a mess for others to clean up, because his scripts aren't tested enough and his edits aren't checked manually (or not good enough).

Can we please have an edit restriction on any automated, semi-automated, or appearing-to-be-automated page creation (articles, categories, templates, ...) for this user? Fram (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am finding this all a little bit insane. I have had to delete a fair number of duplicates—overall, there is a gross amount of duplication going on through this process. Nearly every category I check has some sort of problem—either a duplication, or an incorrectly spelled name, or something. The user is also creating categories for labels that do not have articles on WP, while consensus at CFD has generally been that if a label has no WP article, it should not have a category for its albums. More care and/or thought needs to go into the creation of these categories, so please, yes, no more of this category creation via script. It's creating more problems than it is solving. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation technically only applies to articles; I'd suggested extending it to categories the last time this happened, but didn't make the effort to really push it as a proposal. In any case, given that existing policy and Rich's existing editing restrictions, it seems entirely sensible and a small step to amend those restrictions and declare that for Rich, the policy covers mass creation in any namespace. In addition, somebody might make the effort to propose amending the policy, which seems a sensible move to me. Rd232 ^talk 11:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good ideas, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:
  • December The creations in December were all of categories that had members and yet were non-existent (red-linked categories). They were done in such a way that if the category became empty it was categorised as such and could be dealt with. In most cases that meant deletion.
  • January Some of the categories created needed emptying, which has been done by an assiduous user. I deleted those that were emptied, however many had been created before, and I therefore re-created them as category redirects. There is an automated process that moves articles between cat redirects and their targets, since people have used these categories before it seems wise to have the redirection.
  • Note: There is a lot of inconstancy over naming of record label articles, also there are notable labels (e.g. Compost Records) for which there are strangely no album articles, and (e.g. Authentik Artists) for which there are album articles but a persistent deletion of the label article. Also Category:Siouxsie and the Banshees albums is the correct location, (speedy rename being requested). Rich Farmbrough, 12:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    

• Comment. I don't think it's much of a defence to say that the December creations were just "red-linked categories" and thus it was OK to create them. Some of the categories were obviously inappropriately named, and many were misspelled duplicates of pre-existing categories. Users need to use judgment and put some thought into creating categories—like making sure a category does not exist for the same thing already—as opposed to just creating something because it was red-linked. When you see two categories—Category:Ice-T albums and Category:Ice T albums on the same article as I did earlier today, you know someone's putting close to zero thought into the application of what they are doing. This type of problem was repeated many numerous times. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The creations in December were all of categories that had members and yet were non-existent (red-linked categories)." So why did you create and delete e.g. Category:Universals Records albums twice in two days? Someone repopulated it between the first deletion and second creation? Or wasn't your script list updated yet? Or the misspelled Category:Warnern Music Group video albums, which you created, modified three times, then deleted one minute after your last modification, only to recreate it three hours later and redelete it one hour after that again? Anyway, if categories are redlinked, the answer is not to automatically create these ctageories, but to check whether they are actually needed or just e.g. misspellings. That would avoid the creation in the same minute of Category:Switchblad Symphony albums, Category:Swithcblade Symphony albums and Category:Switchblade Symphony albums... No one has a problem with you generating a list of potentially needed categories, such a list is useful. But the automated creation clearly leads to many problems which could be very easily avoided, like the creation of misspelled categories. Fram (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as you can see, as part of that exercise, extensive tidying up took place. The remaining categories from that exercise are

1. Category:1971 live live albums 0
2. Category:1976 Christmas albums 3
3. Category:1978 studio albums 0
4. Category:1997 (band) albums 1
5. Category:22-20s albums 5
6. Category:Alternative albums 0
7. Category:Anti-folk albums 24
8. Category:At the close of every day albums 0
9. Category:Christian alternative rock albums 46
10. Category:Northstar hip hop albums 0
11. Category:Samba albums 29
12. Category:Slapstick albums 0

perhaps you would like to resolve these flawlessly. Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

No thank you, I have cleaned up after you often enough. Fram (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well these categories are nothing to do with me, I did not create or delete them, nor did I categorise anything in them. I was just suggesting something positive for you to do. Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, but I have enough positive things to do here, like creating articles and so on. I guess that most people who have had to tag, correct or delete your incorrectly created categories also have enough positive things they would rather do, but maintaining an encyclopedia doesn't just involve creations and additions, but also removing the mess created by others, and making sure that they'll create less mess the next time around. Your latest category creation of this type, Category:Chikayo Fukuda albums is already up for deletion (not by me, by yet another editor who seems to have problems with your creations), so you are still continuing this mess, despite the obvious objections of many people (and who in his right mind wouldn't object against the creation of a category like Category:Spigot Records, In-Effect Records albums? Fram (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A particularly brutal example from today: Category:Mr. Bear Records, reissued on Spigot Records albums. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 14:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough has now recreated Category:Yngwie J. Malmsteen albums, which was deleted at CfD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 23), created by Rich Farmbrough yesterday, and deleted by Good Olfactory this morning. He added it to the article Rising Force[63], which already had the correct Yngwie Malmsteen cat as well, and removed it again from that article some minutes later[64], at the same time changing the correct link to Jens Johansson to the redlink Jenshansson (presumably by trying to remove all instances of " J" from the article). That same removal of " J" resulted in changing the correct French interwikilink to an incorrect one as well. Note that all this happend with the edit summary "(Correct caps in section header.)", which was one thing that didn't happen at that article. Can someone please just stop this loose cannon now? Fram (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese has been an occasional editor here for some time, mostly writing about operas and making small improvements. In November she drastically increased her number of contributions and became involved in many politically contentious articles, mostly involving abortion. Roscelese has made repeated personal attacks in the last few months, is perennially uncivil and unceasingly sarcastic.

Roscelese has been made aware of the policy on personal attacks [65] and has been warned many times by concerned users and asked to cease her personal attacks and uncivil behavior. [66], [67], [68] and [69].

But she just keeps rolling - [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87] [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]

Among the more notable;

• On the talk page for abortion; "Also, very sneaky, you are, claiming that it's an "argument" rather than a fact only slightly more complicated than "the sky is blue."",
• On a AfD "I found this article because I was searching on a particular grammar error that you made in writing it, Mr. Special Snowflake Writer",
• On the talk page for abortion; "Don't worry your pretty little head about that",
• On the talk page for Crisis Pregnancy Centers; "As for your personal beliefs, though - like I said in talk, there's more than enough evidence. That means you're either ignorant or malicious; I personally think ignorant is the kinder option, but you seemed to take exception. It's not like you have any actual policy reasons for suppressing this information, so I kind of have to conclude that it's a bias thing.",
• Another talk page; "Aren't you cute. Since your opinion is so clearly authoritative, as substantiated by dozens of reliable sources, how about you try adding "Cat:Libraries that LAEC thinks are committing fraud" to the articles and see what happens? Maybe you'll get an A on your school project.",
• On the talk page for Crisis Pregnancy Centers; "Then you do need me to parse it for you. It's okay to admit it.",
• On the talk page for Crisis Pregnancy Centers; "Making things up out of thin air doesn't make you look smarter, it makes you look stupider. I recommend against it.",
• On a abortion-related discussion; "Why don't you read the sources and then get back to us? Don't worry, you shouldn't have too hard a time - they don't use very big words.",
• On an RfC with yours truely; "If you can't read, you shouldn't be editing articles here",

I don't know much about opera, her contributions there seem valuable but I have no reason to believe that this user is capable of civil interaction on politically charged articles in general, abortion-related articles in particular. - Haymaker (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't looked at every single one of the diffs here, but I have reviewed about 20. Some of them clearly cross the line of incivility, although at times this is in response to others' somethime intemperate contributions (not an excuse, of course). However other diffs show no incivility or attack, just the robust debate I would expect on articles such as these. What admin action is being asked for here? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A short-term block to see if NPA sticks, if it doesn't a community sanction to stay away from the topics that have been problematic so we can keep the worthwhile contributions while avoiding the drama. - Haymaker (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK a block is meant to be protective, not punitive. Also, a block would not permit us to see "if NPA sticks" because for the duration of the block she would be unable to edit anything; we would have to wait for events after the end of the block to see if NPA had "stuck". Personally I agree that there have been unwise elements of incivility in the conduct of this editor, who at other times is obviously capable of well-sourced and intelligent argument. My own preference would be a well-worded statement from an admin advising her to tone down her worst excesses (I would be happy to draft that), following which further recurrences might be cause for a short block. But I'd like to hear what she (or other editors) think. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above repeated flaunghting of NPA warants some sort of acting, though I would prefer it to be as productive as possible. I thought about leaving a notice on the talk pages of other users who had interacted with roscelese in this manner but I worried that that might border on canvassing. - Haymaker (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this belongs in WP:WQA but in any case, a clear warning by an administrator against civility violations should suffice at this point, unless the editor starts warring. Likeminas (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally that's all I would be after but several warnings have already been issued in the last couple of months and the behavior persisted. Can't hurt anything though. - Haymaker (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God, I hate to sound like a broken record, but...Haymaker, you're leaving out some salient information. If you've come here with the intent to come clean about your own personal attacks, then I admire your candor, but you seem to have forgotten to link them. In particular, I'm sure everyone here at AN/I would find your comment that I should be fired from my job for using gender-neutral pronouns (and the rest of the "I really like strict gender boundaries" saga) absolutely fascinating from a psychological standpoint, if not quite within the scope of the board. (Although incidentally your comment that gender-neutral pronouns were dehumanizing was what prompted my "Making things up out of thin air doesn't make you look smarter, it makes you look stupider. I recommend against it," so perhaps it is relevant after all.)

Civility unfortunately has pretty much totally disintegrated at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center, as of the last couple of months, with Haymaker and his buddy (possibly sock? but I'm not going to start that discussion) Cloonmore removing things cited to dozens of sources with no argument other than that they don't like them, and then blatantly making stuff up about the sources in order to justify their actions. Cloonmore has been inactive for a while, but Haymaker has continued to remove references after a discussion took place with no consensus to remove them, to claim nonexistent consensus in his favor, to insert untrue information, and to continue blatantly making stuff up in talk. Admittedly my temper has been a bit short on occasion, but I'll be honest about the fact that I think mockery in non-article space is less of a sin than deliberate bad-faith attempts to make articles worse.

(Also, for things that aren't related to what Haymaker seems to see as a personal feud with me - the Waldman AfD isn't really worth it because the guy implied that he could sue me for libel after I said that he wasn't notable, and I consider mockery a less harsh alternative than calling down AN/I...you know, I started explaining all the other diffs but most of them aren't relevant and it isn't worth it. If there are any other specific things you'd like me to explain, here I am.)

Oh, and by the way, Haymaker...Thanks for the laugh. It really was terribly amusing to see some of what you considered "personal attacks," and it's always nice to start the morning with some humor.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone look at this IPs User:84.148.50.198 edits and decide what to do. I'd do it myself except it's me he's insulting! Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, in future block users like that yourself, per WP:INVOLVED (esp. paragraph three). Don't come to ANI giving them the attention they seek. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i) It seems that whenever I make attempts to 'help' clear image backlogs, I manage to cause any number of complaints, most recently.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sfan00_IMG
• User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#This_is_not_just_craziness_but_insanity

It would be much appreciated if the administrators here ( which would have to perform the relevant media deletion) could provide additional commentary either way on the issues raised above.

ii) At the moment I'm in the process of reviewing the most recent-batch of tags (for no-license), and I'm finding some that could be rescued. I'd therefore like to suggest that in time CSD is deprecated in favour of a PUF system, so that there is an appropriate disscussion process for ANY media deletion.

iii) Once the current review is completed, consideration is given to some kind of limitations concerning User:Sfan00_IMG on the grounds that the linked items appear to show that I'm either repeatedly misunderstanding things, or as stated lacking in competence or qualification to carry out something that should be simple to do like checking images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can an uninvolved admin please close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden? It's been running for nearly 5 weeks, and is decidedly over. Thanks. SnottyWong ^confabulate 17:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Working on it. --Jayron32 18:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. I did my best to summarize the discussion and to capture all viewpoints which had significant support. --Jayron32 19:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks SnottyWong ^chatter 19:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would request that an administrator quickly apply BLP and WP:PERP and apply a merge. Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner#Proposed_merge Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and redirected the page, as the above pages pretty clearly suggest that a page on this individual is premature. I'm going through the rest of the archiving now (it's crashing my browser.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David has been reverted, and I agree it was an arbitrary decision. There was no consensus to merge/redirect the article. Diego Grez (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP clearly states that in cases of ambiguity, we protect the individual while discussions are ongoing. And WP:PERP is clear and unambiguous "Note: Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured. " Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should read consensus before doing that again! --Hinata talk 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think people are glossing over the "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured." part there; editors havegiven serious consideration to the matter, and the general trend of the merge-or-not discussion on the page is towards the "not" side. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "serious consideration" discussion is still in progress, but the community has not yet come to the conclusion that the stand alone article is appropriate. Again, in matters related to living people, we err on the side of protecting the individual. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Since the vote was not going their way, the OP tried this end-around. Not appropriate at all. He also tried to suppress the mug shot. Another thing to consider is that no one is questioning that this guy is the perp. The question at trial is not going to be "Who?", it's going to be "Why?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. just wow. We do not and cannot presume someone is guilty. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say he was guilty? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this appears to beWP:GAME The system because it is not going his way. --Hinata talk 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was between a Redirect or a Keep and was not a merge discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect was discussed, and the closing admin decided the consensus was keep. The merge discussion needs to be allowed to take its course, and the consensus judged by an uninvolved admin. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"BLP1E and PERP clearly don't apply". Really? If you mean that the application of those policies in this instance is under discussion and awaiting an uninvolved admin to judge consensus while giving little weight to any view that is not (at least in part) based on those policies, then fine. But if you truely mean that they do not apply, then further explanation will be required. _wjemather^bigissue 20:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no compelling BLP or other policy arguments that I can see that would mandate a merger without editorial consensus. Whether the subject is (inappropriately) portrayed as guilty does not depend on whether he is described in a dedicated article or in a subsection. As such, editors and especially admins should abide by consensus and the processes dedicated to bringing it about.  Sandstein  20:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on what's meant by "guilty". I have yet to see any news source that suggests he was not actually the guy who pulled the trigger. But that doesn't mean he'll be found "guilty" in a court of law. There could well be a plea of insanity or diminished capacity that could result in a "not guilty by reason of..." verdict. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PERP clearly states "convicted", which is your latter definition. I would be interested in hearing how the page does not apply to the bio. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]