Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive690

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


P.Ganakan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is continually adding copyrighted material back in to the article at Kaniyar Panicker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Removals: [1] [2] [3]. There looks to be other issues with content the user is adding. I point this out because the copyright holder is not happy at all and sent in OTRS ticket 2011042710014166 requesting removal after seeing it appear on the page more than once. – Adrignola talk 15:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added the IP address to the report. P.Ganakan's last edit today was at 14:45 UTC; at 13:26 and again from 15:30, the unregistered account started adding some of the same text that the registered account. He may not have realized he was logged out, but I've given notice that such actions are abuse of multiple accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • P.Ganakan blocked for 72 hours, copyright violations. After all the warnings, he added infringing text to Kaniyar Panicker again.[4] Hopefully the 72-hour block brings him to the table (well, his user talk page) to discuss the issue. If he goes back to the same practices again without discussion, I wouldn't hesitate to block him indefinitely. —C.Fred (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    Somebody want to RD1 that diff? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    I deleted the revision, hopefully I did it correctly (I haven't used revdel in months). -- Atama 18:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    There are others still in the history. This was a multiple insert-revert cycle. I reverted the stuff twice, a bot did it once & then C.Fred stepped in. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"This should be obvious to a semi-lobotomised chimpanzee"

Remind me again why we allow insults and badgering in AfDs? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Insults and badgering - are blockable, even in AFD discussions. User:TreasuryTag has made thirty eight comments to that Doctor who AFD and already has a Wiquete report about it, which appears to have resulted in no improvement of civility - I notified the user that one of his contributions has got a mention here. Off2riorob (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Say, just out of curiosity, is notification of a user being discussed here necessary when the username is not mentioned explicitly? Guoguo12--Talk--  13:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned his name so I notified him. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
But what about before you mentioned his name? Guoguo12--Talk--  13:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It was clear for everyone about whom the initial complaint was concerned. He should have been notified. I agree that this is a civilty problem - AfD's can get heated enough without people acting like that.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  13:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I should have notified him, and have apologized on his talk. Thanks, O2RR. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Replying to everyone in a debate is not necessarily "badgering". We generally disapprove of it in RFAs, but at AfD it can be the case that while only one person passing has a reasonable argument there are plenty of people with poor ones. And if anyone can find an AfD on a fictional subject which doesn't have at least a half-dozen terrible arguments to keep I'll be amazed. Nevertheless, TT went overboard here. I've left a note on his user talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Your friendly note does not appear to have addressed and warned the user about the civility issue raised here? Personally I am of the position that the time is almost upon us to ask the question of this user due to continued repeat patterns of incivility, disruptive ANI reports as mentioned recently and general rudeness, is the user under current levels of contributions a net positive to the project? Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I like my ANI discussions to be short and to the point. The point here is that an AfD is being disrupted by OTT comments from one user. My proposed solution was to ask him to drop it. If there is a wider problem with TT's conduct then so be it, but that should be addressed separately (in a new section, or at RFC/U or the like). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, it appears that subtle hints are not taken to heart here. I'm not sure what the huge deal about deleting one page is, but I consider it a possibility that the continued arguments to so many "keep" votes could persuade even more people to vote "keep" just out of spite. Perhaps my original suggestion should have been phrased a bit stronger. Agree with Chris that it's OTT. — Ched :  ?  13:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I thank Sarek for notifying me. My 'semi-lobotomised chimpanzee' comment explicitly did not refer to any Wikipedia editor. Taken out of context, I agree it looks incivil. But the second half of the sentence, "...let alone to anyone of your intelligence," shows that it was being used merely as a hypothetical comparison. ╟─TreasuryTagperson of reasonable firmness─╢ 13:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As experienced contributors to the project we are requested to help other contributors to move in beneficial directions and as such not pointing out to you that multiple users are seeing repeat issues with your contributions would be a rejection of our responsibilities, as would your not accepting that there are issues with your contributions that are in need of correction. Hypothetical claims or not users have real time, not hypothetical issues with your current contribution patterns and you would do well to address rather than reject those good faith comments. As such - in lieu of an editing privilege restriction, keep your hypothetic lobotomized monkey comparisons to yourself in future. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Given that you have a significant (and almost notable!) history of cropping up to object to things that I do, Off2, you'll excuse me for completely ignoring you and your hollow threats of blocking me. ╟─TreasuryTagChancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 14:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) "This should be obvious to a semi-lobotomised chimpanzee let alone to anyone of your intelligence." This says to the other editor that, although he has higher intelligence than a lobotomized monkey, the other editor is for some other reason neglecting to behave better than a lobotomized monkey. As such, it is a serious insult.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Firstly, let me apologise for posting after having "officially" retired. I can assure you it will be the last. I filed the WQA mentioned above against TT after a series of personal insults and attacks levelled against me and others at this AFD. Read it if you like -- apparently nobody there cared about TT's egregious incivility, which he has continued after snubbing my attempt at resolution, and which is the subject of the present disciussion, and so I decided to calm down and take a break. TT actually had the gall to ask an admin to caution me because he said he felt upset by the message I left explaining the break, (I don't believe that, and certainly at least one other statement in that post is demonstrably untrue.) The admin concerned didn't oblige, I'm glad to day, but advised that I ought to "learn to be tolerant". Well, I decline to learn to tolerate insults, bullying, bad faith, provocation and dishonesty. Do what you like with this person, it won't bother me any more. There is something badly wrong with the Wikipedia culture. Goodbye. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    Cheerio! ╟─TreasuryTaghigh seas─╢ 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you really do get off on taunting people as they decide to bow out of confrontations with you don't you. And at an ANI concerning this behavior no less. Maybe you should refresh yourself withthis, especially subsections d of sections 1 and subsection a of section 2.Heiro 22:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Unrepentant gloating after driving off another editor with gratuitously insulting comments...stay classy. I share the sentiments expressed by SarekOfVulcan at the outset. Skomorokh 01:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  • wow. Grave-dancing TT? I try to be gentle, make allowances for your childish remarks1 due to your long tenure and contributions, diffuse a tense situation, and this is how you respond? Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, so it's fortunate for you that I didn't see this at the time it was posted. (else you would be sitting out for a week) Consider one more person pushed into the SoV camp, and yourself given a final warning. I'll elaborate on your talk page. — Ched :  ?  05:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    1 The term "childish" being used here to clarify "the remark/contrib" rather than the editor.
Kids in kindergarten aren't permitted to abuse their classmates in this way; there's no reason whatever that adults who volunteer their valuable time here should have to tolerate such immature behavior in order to contribute. As Hyperdoctor put it on Ched's talk page, "I'm sorry to say that I don't care to learn to be tolerant of personal insults, personal attacks, false statements and bad faith." There's simply no reason he, or anyone else, should have to. Treasury Tag has made it clear (even here) that he sees nothing wrong with his behavior, and he thus has no motivation to change it. Someone needs to give him that motivation.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Well spoke. I believe this is normally a WQA issue, but the relevant discussion there has died. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted, however, that blocks cannot be used in a punitive manner (WP:CDB). Guoguo12--Talk--  20:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
So, what should happen if their incivility continues? Say, if an admin had to warn them for it yet again? Heiro 09:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, according to Wikipedia:CIV#Blocking for incivility, "Editors are generally not blocked for minor incivility. Civility is a goal rather than an objective standard. Wikipedia editors from around the world may have different cultural standards of civility, so a certain amount of tolerance is required. When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies." So essentially we wouldn't be looking at a CIV-block. If I make personal attacks (which, by the way, I don't) then it would be a block as set out at WP:NPA, and so on. ╟─TreasuryTagstannary parliament─╢ 09:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
So by your reading of this, an editor may be as incivil as much and as many times as he feels like and need not fear a time out block to reconsider the detrimental effects of this behavior on the project at large? Is this correct?Heiro 09:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
My interpretation of all this is more or less irrelevant. The civility policy is there for you to read yourself; all I did was quote the passage which began, "Editors are generally not blocked for minor incivility." ╟─TreasuryTagsundries─╢ 09:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Luckily, we have WP:CCC and the fact that the civility policy uses the word generally, which means there are exceptions, which community consensus can employ. SilverserenC 18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of consensus, what is the consensus right now? It seems like discussions on this topic are split between AN/I, WQA, and TreasuryTag's user talk page. Also, TreasuryTag, I'd say your interpretation is relevant because it seems to be affecting your editing. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there particularly is a consensus/result is there? The several threads just kind of petered out... ╟─TreasuryTagsecretariat─╢ 19:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
At least three admins who were formerly ambivalent to TT's low-level hostility here have expressed their dissatisfaction with his apparent understanding that this absolves him from any wrongdoing here. The likely result is increased scrutiny on TT's future actions and blocks if he fails to get the point. Worth noting here that grave-dancing should that happen would very likely be met with immediate administrative response. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Expansion: Murder of Meredith Kercher

No admin action is needed or requested here. WP:ANI is not the place for resolving content disagreements. See WP:DR for how to do so.  Sandstein  21:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:Wikid77 here (joined May 2006). Experienced admins are needed at "Murder of Meredith Kercher" (Amanda Knox case; appeals re-trial underway November-July 2011) for general oversight during expansion (starting next week) to expand details, while explaining convictions, and prepare for results of appeals trials, in a contentious editing environment where details have been suppressed for months. As you might know, WP founder Jimbo Wales (acting as an admin-editor) was asked on 21 March 2011, by an outside forum with a 270-signature petition (talk-archive: #Open letter), to help investigate expansion of details and WP:NPOV neutral balance of text formerly based upon "British tabloids" and similar incorrect sources. Upon preliminary investigation, he discovered some editors had been blocked by admins for minor disputes, and 1 admin resigned and the other has backed away. Jimbo has consented to help, having read 3 or 4 books about the case (talk-page: 26 April edit), and to make suggestions for NPOV balance and WP:Reliable sources. Meanwhile, external forums have challenged that Jimbo's influence will fail to expand the article to explain convictions or reasons driving the appeals (or other details), based on the notion that "Wikipedia's structure is incapable" of allowing, even him, to overcome the censorship of the article and allow details. I think all that is needed is some helpers. Currently, some 3 or 5 editors are still preventing expansion of the article (claiming WP:UNDUE details) to explain why the court(s) initially found 3 suspects guilty, and on what specific grounds the suspects filed appeals. There is a significant rejection of text based on WP:PRIMARY sources (2 trial summaries in Italian), even though most broad details have been mentioned in hundreds of news reports (2007-2011), as secondary sources supporting primary. However, much of the suppression of new text is based on claims of "needing to prove" that it is important (enough) to describe why the 3 suspects were judged guilty. Also, some editors are monthly taken to the WP:ANI noticeboard to seek indef topic bans against first-time editors of the article who become upset. Hence, this article needs experienced admins, who know the ropes of contentious battles, but would be willing to help Jimbo and others guide expansion of the article, perhaps starting 3 May 2011. If everyone takes turns, I think it can be done during May-June. If you wish to discuss privately, I can be emailed at Special:EmailUser/Wikid77 (all confidential; no slurs). The MoMK article has become one of the Top 1000 most-read articles of 2011, so results will be read by over 1 million readers. I have also notified WP:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, but they will likely be scared without support. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Advocating for convicted criminals, or anyone else for that matter, is not the purpose of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Clarification: The readers want details about both viewpoints: why the 3 were judged guilty during their trials, and for the appeals trials, what specific issues were considered to overturn the convictions, reduce sentences, or increase sentences. All forms of details have been suppressed from the article. Please note that guilt or innocence cannot be determined by Wikipedia, and in this particular case, all 3 suspects frequented nearby city pubs, where any, or all, of the suspects could have made enemies who framed them for the crimes. The expansion of text is intended to accurately describe the court verdicts and grounds for appeals, not to advocate for guilt or innocence, nor to match fingerprints to someone else in a pub. -Wikid77 09:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
From the above it is clear that more eyes, admin or no, will be needed on Wikid77's planned expansion. pablo 11:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Currently, some 3 or 5 editors are still preventing expansion of the article (claiming WP:UNDUE details) to explain why the court(s) initially found 3 suspects guilty, and on what specific grounds the suspects filed appeals. Yesterday, you argued for the inclusion of two suspect clauses dedicated to a certain drink whose name I have long since grown tired of mentioning, when it added nothing at all except insinuation regarding a subject named in the article (more information here and here). If this is the sort of worthwhile, much-needed, trivia-obsessed "expansion" to which you are referring, I'm afraid that I will indeed be resisting further such proposals. It's also nice and considerate of you to drag our names through the mud over at Jimbo Wales' talk and at WikiProject Crime in a thinly-veiled bid to drum up support for your cause, but neglect to breathe a word about this discussion at the topic talk. SuperMarioMan 11:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Wait a while, SuperMarioMan, I missed the connection between what I wrote, above, and the comment of "drag our names through the mud" but that comment sounds like tabloid sensationalism of text, which is what some readers of the article have feared. In fact, I did not think you were among the 3 or 5 editors resisting the expansion of text, because your involvment had seemed, to me, to be within the limits of neutral comments, but now I am thinking you have had more influence than I realized. Also, I am wondering if some editors adopt sensational news claims as, somehow, acceptable, with news reports saying phrases such as "drag names through the mud" so that is another reason to find objective sources which are more centered on actual details, as contained in the Italian primary court-trial summaries. I am not saying that tabloid sources are evil, but rather the readers want to know actual details of why the 3 suspects were judged guilty rather than sensational smears about them. -Wikid77 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
That's all rather evasive, and it doesn't actually provide an answer to the numerous concerns raised regarding your proposed use of sources, does it? Subtle attacks on other users do nothing to alter the fact that both ErrantX and OhioStandard have left some eloquent criticisms at the talk page, which remain unanswered. SuperMarioMan 15:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never edited or been involved in this article or (as far as I know) been involved with any of the editors who regularly edit there. Having looked at the Talk page it's pretty clear that there is a group of editors who are using the article to advocate the innocence of those who were convicted, with quite a sprinkling of original research. The "expansion" referred to above needs to be kept under close scrutiny by admins. One thing in Wikid77's original post which is clearly correct is that in the next few months (appeal etc ) this article will be high profile and has the potential of seriously bringing Wikipedia into disrepute if it goes wrong. DeCausa (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

... in a contentious editing environment where details have been suppressed for months ... There is a significant rejection of text based on WP:PRIMARY sources (2 trial summaries in Italian) ... Perhaps refuting valid points made against blatant cherry-picking of text from WP:PRIMARY sources (as noted here and here) would be a more sensible course of action than bringing the whole topic to WP:ANI.
Also, some editors are monthly taken to the WP:ANI noticeboard to seek indef topic bans against first-time editors of the article who become upset. Are you perhaps referring to CodyJoeBibby (talk · contribs) above? That user has been provided with more than enough warnings about his misconduct, only to fail to sort out their attitude, so the label "first-time editor" and any implication of innocence are strained and tenuous.
Please note that guilt or innocence cannot be determined by Wikipedia ... The expansion of text is intended to accurately describe the court verdicts and grounds for appeals, not to advocate for guilt or innocence ... Really? I note that you have twice alluded to WP:NPOV in your opening statement. Unfortunately, I would have to argue that this comment on CodyJoeBibby's talk page leads me to doubt that your motives conform to the spirit of WP:NPOV. I'm not really impressed with the antagonistic, nationalist tone of this particular screed, which seems to demonstrate quite obvious anti-European and anti–British sentiment, nor with allegations that other users are "difficult people" and "haters". SuperMarioMan 12:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've made some limited forays into discussions at that talk page and it is a nightmare, and to be blunt, the filer of this An/I section is one of a handful of editors that are at the core of the problem. What we have here are several experienced editors and a veritable slew of redlink-name WP:SPAs who are doing everything in their power to exonerate one of the convicts, Amanda Knox. This case is a cause célèbre in Knox's home state of Washington, the local Seattle media's (particularly near-obsession with the case is cited on the talk page almost daily. Detailed evidence "debunking", testimonies from external advocacy groups, e.g. "Friends of Amanda" all bloat the article in an attempt to prove one convict's innocence. I'm not sure of what dispute resolution has been tried in the past, but some mediation, RfC, or ArbCom will likely bee needed at some point to pry the POV warriors out of the article. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
While I have great respect for Tarc and Baseball Bugs, I would like to say that I disagree with their assessment of the situation. There is a group of constructive editors of varying views working in good faith towards improving the article, after a period in which there was extreme imbalance in the article. I think Tarc, in particular, is mistaken in his view that information from external advocacy groups and which tends to "debunk" should be excluded from the article - doing so is extremely anti-NPOV and leaves the reader completely uninformed about key aspects. There are reliable sources which cover these matters, we are not talking about original research here, but information that must be included in the article so that readers have a balanced understanding. NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia should take the side of those who think that Knox is innocent, nor does it mean that Wikipedia should take the side of those who think that Knox is guilty. Our duty is to report faithfully on the controversy and the unfolding events.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
eer the sources involved are ultimately the italian legal system and a PR company. Which one were you suggesting qualifies as reliable?©Geni 14:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? I'm afraid you are mistaken about the facts here. I'm unaware of anyone advocating that a "PR company" be used as a source. I think there is general agreement amongst good-faith participants in the discussion, of whom there are many with varying views, that the sources that should be used in the article should all comply with WP:RS. In particular, there is widespread agreement that books from reliable publishers, high quality magazines and newspapers, are the sources that should be used. I think, too, that there would be widespread agreement that use of documents directly from the Italian legal system can be valid, if used judiciously and without inappropriate synthesis, for some of the basic and undisputed factual matter.
I'm sure you aren't suggesting that any information from reliable sources which may tend to undermine the readers belief that Amanda Knox is guilty should be excluded just because the family has hired a PR company. You aren't saying that, right? But if not, then please do be specific as to what you are claiming.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Tarc, in particular, is mistaken in his view that information from external advocacy groups and which tends to "debunk" should be excluded from the article - doing so is extremely anti-NPOV and leaves the reader completely uninformed about key aspects. There are quite a few forum and blog sites both in favour of and in opposition to the verdicts. Mr Wales, please forgive me if I have misread you, but are you suggesting that the article should start to include links to Injustice in Perugia, and other activist and advocate sites? This would seem to be a perilous road to go down if WP:NPOV is the ultimate goal. SuperMarioMan 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say that, and didn't mean that. I think that WP:RS is very important. Linking to blogs and personal sites can be valid in Wikipedia, as usual, in specific circumstances, and I think that normal policy should be followed as usual. I am not advocating anything unusual. What we have here is a group of POV pushing editors who think that any information about her potential innocence should be excluded, reliable sources be damned, and I think that's wrong. Wikipedia should not be used to "convict" this woman.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there should be any links to any advocacy site on the article, even in the EL section. I'd also really like to see them banned from being brought up on the talk page, to be honest. Frankly, I don't care about what's on any advocacy site. I want links to good, solid reliable sources. There are several books out (the ones Jimbo is referring to) that seem to be written by reputable journalists. If they happen to come out with a certain point of view, that's really irrelevant here. WP exists on the belief that a reputable author backed by a reputable publisher will fairly research, review and publish material. Honestly, I mostly agree with the books about the many aspects of this case. It was bungled pretty badly. End of story. The article needs to cover everything though, and I think there's an effort to make sure that Knox cannot look guilty in the article. There's also attempts to put way, way too much detail into the article - this is supposed to be a SUMMARY of what happened, not a blow-by-blow account! That's why we link to secondary sources that DO have the blow-by-blow! NPOV means we fairly tell the story based what the sources represent. If A was held to be true at point Z, then shown false at point Y, we need to say that, but do so fairly. Saying that A was false and never mentioning that it was, at one point, believed to be true is pushing a POV. Ravensfire (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ravensfire nails it here. There is controversy and crticism; that should be noted without providing a soapbox for the advocacy sites (per due weight). --Errant (chat!) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Notable advocacy sites and critics may be cited directly in the article with attribution. It depends on the circumstances. BelloWello (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
So far they are all blogs and SPS, so, no, at the moment there are no advocacy sites worth citing. --Errant (chat!) 15:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree that "information that must be included in the article so that readers have a balanced understanding", but more often than not extracts from sources (especially from WP:PRIMARY ones) are selectively cherry-picked to advance a specific POV, as is quite apparent here (edit made in the last 24 hours). Multiple concerns have been raised about Wikid77's proposed use of such text; it is disappointing to see that rather than refute those concerns, he has decided to bring it to ANI instead. SuperMarioMan 14:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the opposite is true. In the past, information has been systematically excluded from the article to make it appear that the conviction was uncontroversial.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I pretty much agree with Tarc's take on this. We definitely need more NPOV eyes on this mess to prevent WP:SPA editors with the assistance of a few well-meaning allies (sadly including our founder) from turning this into even more of an advocacy piece than it already is. The best way for folks to get a flavor of the madness that infects this area is to read the section on the talk page relating to my favorite breakfast drink. --John (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I will quickly clarify: in expanding text for NPOV balance by stating one murder/theft suspect's version of events (to offset the prosecution's version), one suspect had stated he entered at the invitation of the victim, who unlocked the cottage with a key from her handbag, then they entered at the kitchen, where he asked and got fruit juice from the frig, then he stated she went to her bedroom and noted significant money was missing from an open drawer (~rent money). Well, an uproar arose about mentioning "fruit juice" and the whole version of events was deleted twice, partly on demands to delete the 9-word phrase about the juice/refrigerator as intolerable, despite being mentioned in the trial-judge's summary of events as well as in other sources. Some people demanded a 3rd source was needed which ranked the "fruit juice" in importance. Major quarrel over a few words. -Wikid77 15:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tarc and John that more Admin eyes on the article should help, but completely disagree with their characterization of the board and the article. We have a highly controversial case: the convicted people are controversial, the prosecutor is controversial, the forensic evidence is controversial, the media coverage is controversial and even the TV shows, books and documentaries about the case and Knox are controversial (all of this is well cited in reliable sources). In the past, users like Tarc have discarded any edit that did not toe the prosecution line as a fringe theory or a conspiracy theory, and these editors, with the help of enabling Admins, conducted massive sweeps of the article to ensure that people who wanted to teach the controversy were muffled. The article is in a far better state than it was just a few months ago, and the tone of the talk page is vastly improved as well. However, we can still do a better job of expanding the article to include coverage of the controversial aspects of this case in a concise and NPOV manner.LedRush (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
However, there have also been readers who wanted the article to merely explain the 3 convictions, such as one reader who read a news report that 2 suspects were seen eating a pizza, days after the murder, and the police reportedly concluded then they were guilty. The article has previously not given "4 main reasons" why a suspect X was judged guilty, nor provided a few reasons why police determined which suspects to arrest. But, I agree other readers want major controversies to be noted. -Wikid77 15:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess that the entire situation could be stated in a more slanted and overblown way, but I'm not really sure how. More uninvolved editors are greatly needed on the talk page to help with this article. Since the petition from an pro-Knox advocacy site there have unquestionable been improvements in the article. There have also been more SPA's pushing a POV and a partially-hostile editor environment remains, but targetted against those that don't accept a pro-Knox edit. Kinda funny about that, when those editors where complaining about that happening to them, but have no issues being the source now. Ravensfire (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The realistic assessment of the situation sits somewhere between Jimbo and Tarc's viewpoints. There are problem editors on the page; partially from the perspective of POV pushing and partly from the perspective of a competence issue. This is to be expected, and nothing new for a contentious article. Wikid77 has been planning to "go to AN/I" (the purpose of which I never understood) for the last few days (and has informed certain editors as such on their talk pages sometime at the end of last week), he exhibits some misunderstanding of the WP process.. and I welcome any attempts to explain this to him. I am not sure exactly what he hopes to get from this; I, for example, joined the page a short while ago from an AN/I thread, and I fear that more editors like myself is not what he is looking for ;) Now, I got a bit pissed off with him yesterday because he tried to expand the text in Guede's section with material that was badly worded, not every neutral and included a lot of not-totally-relevany trivia. In the subsequent discussion I never really got the impression that he understood the concerns we expressed over the content - and instead I think he still views it as an attempt to suppress the content in general... During that discussion I (and others) successfully restored some of his proposals (with better wording), fixed a close paraphrase copyvio problem and fixed some weasel wording etc. It was very constructive and the text emerged with more detail and better phrasing than it had to start with. A few days later Wikid77 came back and, without responding to the outstanding issues,[disputed; see Talk:MoMK response] re-added a lot of similar text to the section. Text that suffered from the exact same un-addressed problems and restored all of the weasel wording and copyvio material we had spent a lot of time sorting out.[disputed; see Talk:MoMK response] This type of behaviour has happened before, and I expect it will happen again. Wikid77 has, in my opinion, demonstrated time and again that he simply does not read what people are writing[disputed; see Talk:MoMK response] (either on talk pages or in edit summaries) and jumps to conclusions that reflect the worst possible scenario (i.e. ABF). He has displayed problems with creating content of a high enough quality, and has not understood that this is the main basis for my resisting his additions. This AN/I pretty much sums up the situation, really, reflecting a misunderstanding of the system here. I do not have a solution to this problem. --Errant (chat!) 15:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, ErrantX, for revealing you would rather make unfounded insulting remarks against me, refuted by the evidence (see Talk:MoMK response), rather than focusing on improving the article. -Wikid77 16:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ouch, please do not edit other peoples comments like that. Not polite. this is my reply to the comment you cite above, which you have not addressed (except to post a reply that was not related to any of the issues I brought up). You have also failed to address or properly discuss my objections to the use of Italian words (which you added back in) and problems with the tone of the language. And as yet you have not fully explained your reason for re-inserting the copyright violation paraphrase and non-neutral language that you saw being discussed and resolved in that section --Errant (chat!) 17:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Please explain this violation of WP:REDACT, ErrantX. BelloWello (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I expanded my comment. As should be clear from the diff you presented. Correct typo's and clarified some points. I wasn't aware of your reply FWIW because I was called away in the middle of editing and it looks like the software conflict merged your reply in :) --Errant (chat!) 15:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Accusations denigrating one's reading comprehension, that the same assumes bad faith, etc., how does this fall under WP:CIVIL again? BelloWello (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Do not confuse criticising/explaining a problem and civility. --Errant (chat!) 15:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Reasonable criticism of another editor's conduct is not a violation of civility. WP:Civil simply requires that problems should be pointed to politely, not in the form of name calling. If I responded to your message by calling your comment "moronic" (it wasn't), then that would be a violation. But the mere fact of criticism is not. Paul B (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I helped write Natalee Holloway and that was a wild ride with people accusing us of various things. But the opposition was never organized like it is here. Frankly, I would fully protect a representative version until the appeal's over and require consensus for changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thing is... stuff is moving forward. Quite a few editors (myself included) have added improvements to the page that have bot come under any dispute. It is just that every now and again a not-brilliant-but-has-merit piece of content gets added, it gets reverted (n.b. not necessairily a move I agree with), there is some - slightly heated - discussion and then we usually end up with some workable improvements. With contentious BLP's this is a common work process *shrug* done it before, we'll do it again :) --Errant (chat!) 16:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Not one concern about that WP:PRIMARY text was addressed - it was simply re-inserted as if in the hope that no one would care or notice. Now, after its second removal, Wikid77 has opened another discussion here, which will certainly create much noise and confusion, thus escalating the tension, but will not help to advance matters at all. The whole affair smacks of disruption and tendentiousness - I'm also rather suspicious of the fact that, while Wikid chose to inform some users of his intentions at their talk pages, he made no comment on the article talk. In September 2010, Wikid came within an inch of an indefinite topic ban following the violation of an earlier, three-month restriction. Despite a promise then to reconsider his approach to editing, several months later his edits appear to have returned to their previous level of disruptiveness. I am also concerned about his continued attempts to have various policies and guidelines changed - this user talk page edit seems very dubious indeed with a mind to WP:GAME. SuperMarioMan 16:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)   – – SuperMarioMan, I hope I can clear the confusion, because I had notified those 2 users about a possible different ANI thread concerning them. Understand? ...those 2 editors would have been the subject of a separate ANI thread, not this thread. Same ANI, but different threads (not everything is a growing conspiracy to "drag names through the mud"). I did not realize that you had such repressed rage against me, because I have always believed your posts typically showed an even balance, even though many other editors have been annoyed by your comments. I am not sure why they see you as often "crossing the line" of acceptable behavior, but your severe reactions here have me concerned, now, about your attitudes toward other editors. Do you feel you hate Jimbo as well for wanting to expand the article? -Wikid77 17:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Splitting hairs. I take it from this latest round of attacks and innuendoes that you have nothing to offer in response to my or anyone else's concerns?
I did not realize that you had such repressed rage against me ... but your severe reactions here have me concerned, now, about your attitudes toward other editors. Do you feel you hate Jimbo as well for wanting to expand the article? That's nice to hear - but wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. SuperMarioMan 18:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The following editors operate in a tag team or 'pack' to maintain control of the MoMK article, and need to be topic banned for a period of a month or so to allow NPOV editors to prevail. Tarc, (not active recently but part of the group), SuperMarioMan, TheMagnificentCleanKeeper, Hipocrite, Errant, John. I may have forgotten one or two but it's the same little core group time after time which blocks any change to the article. Ban them for a month, and see how it goes. I don't mind if I'm banned as well for the same period. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The accusations aren't helpful, for now, Cody. Let's see how this plays out, by the way, could you go to the talk page and provide a reliable source for the juice comments if one exists (a book works as well..), I can't seem to find one. BelloWello (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently on a voluntary timeout from editing the article or posting on the article's talk page due to an attempt by SuperMarioMan to get me banned from Wikipedia, so i can't post anything there. The information about the juice is from Rudy Guede's own words. It should be in the Micheli Report which is already cited in the MoMK article. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Here's a guilter site which cites it. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not a reliable source in terms of proving due weight, per say. Do you know of any other sources which include it? (Books, mainstream news reports, etc.?) BelloWello (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? Which is why I would lock down this article. I'm too lazy to do it, but I'd vote to support any other admin that did. (p.s. I love that term, "guilter")--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

By "lock down", do you mean restoring full protection to the article, or restricting the talk page, or something else altogether? SuperMarioMan 16:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I mean full protection with all the trimmings.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'd be in full agreement there. SuperMarioMan 16:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
What's the big deal? It's a few words (Guede drank juice from the carton). There is no question the event happened and it's reliably sourced. What is the problem with including the words? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Like I said above, we need a reliable source to show due weight.. If you have one, I'm fairly sure it will go in. BelloWello (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
And I'm fairly sure by now that any such source i did find would be deemed unacceptable by the people i am not allowed to mention. Thank you for trying. I appreciate it. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
No, if there is a legitimate source, they cannot block it. Has the fact been reported in any news reports or in some book gathering dust somewhere? BelloWello (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Just the bare fact that Guede drank the juice or some kind of expert stating why drinking the juice was significant? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Yes, just provide a reliable source (CNN, NYT, a Seattle Newspaper, etc.) that mentions that he drank juice without asking or whatnot and it would become verifiable. BelloWello (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem, as I explained, is that it is trivial. So unless there is a decent reason for including it then it doesn't make a lot of sense to do so. --Errant (chat!) 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
If a WP:RS includes it as background or information, etc., there is no reason for us not to include it as background information as well. BelloWello (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no issue with being told I am in a tag team but I take extreme offence to the suggestion I am pushing a POV (or, not a NPOV editor). That is extremely rich coming from Cody! Neutral approach is key to participation in this topic, and I have taken extreme care not to take an interest or a view on the case of any depth. --Errant (chat!) 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Bello. Unsurprisingly I've been given different criteria by the invested editors on the MoMK article. I'll try to find another source which mentions the incident. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The incident is also cited on InjusticeinPerugia and Perugia Shock. Why is the Perugia Shock blog on the spam blacklist? Hwo do i find out who put it on the list? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that is still not a reliable source for purposes of proving due weight. We need a source like CNN, MSNBC, Seattle Pi, NYT, LAT, etc. in order to include it. BelloWello (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm strongly considering full protection until the result of this proceeding is announced and five days afterwards. Thoughts? My action would of course be subject to AN/I review, but I think some way has to be found of bringing the parties to a modus vivendi.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You have no consensus for any such action. The article is still in a contentious and fluid state due to fast-moving events surrounding the case. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Wikid is currently engaging in misconduct? Throwing around serious accusations like that is surely inadvisable. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Not worth responding to the usual false accusations.TMCk (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
What was your reason for bringing up Wikid's previous issues? It seems to me you were trying to imply there was something wrong with his current behaviour. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Look at his block log and you'll see that an otherwise valuable editor's problems are only in connection with the Murder of Meredith Kercher subject.TMCk (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Fruit juice noted as affecting forensic evidence of case: I found another major reliable source which mentions the fruit juice, in article "Bloody Footprint May Belong..." by Ann Wise, ABC News, May 9, 2009, web: ABCNews-38, noting, in forensic testing, that "luminol reacts not only to blood" but also reacts with various "substances that contain iron, such as fruit juices, chlorophyll, or rust". That could be why the Italian summary of the 1st suspect's conviction noted that he stated getting "fruit juice" (from the frig) upon entering the cottage, in his alleged date with the victim, on the night of the murder. The primary source was extremely brief in summarizing the suspect's version of events, but went into pages of text about other witness viewpoints of his movements at parties or nightclubs on the days surrounding the murder. I see the fruit-juice issue as what the suspect claimed to be doing, upon entering at the kitchen, just before the victim noted significant money was missing from an open drawer (Italian: cassetto aperto) in her bedroom (according to suspect's version of events). Perhaps that will end the wild debate about "fruit juice" in this ANI thread and allow mention in the article. -Wikid77 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
No-one disputes that he drank the freaking fruit juice. The dispute is about the relevance, and the fact that you keep spinning stories about it as if its some crucial plank of defence evidence. You need to show that a reliable source has brought the Great Fruit Juice Swig Incident up as relevant to the case, not that you have got it into your head that it somehow demonstrates something Deeply Significant that only you understand because of your unique insight into the social mores of Italian guests and forensic science. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it really won't, as the fundamental problem with the article is the bloc-group of editors who wish to turn it into a "Why Knox is really innocent" advocacy project. In an response to Jimbo's addressing of me earlier, with all due respect, your intervention into this article (at the behest of a blog run by one of the SPAs) really reignited most of the current debates. An intervention by some of the very same local newspapers and blogs that have themselves been advocating for this person's innocence. A bad situation was made worse, and continues to worsen the more the Wikipedia is used as an extension of a convict's PR team. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The opposite is true. There was a concerted effort by POV pushers to eliminate reliable sources calling into question the conviction, and since I intervened we now have a legitimate effort underway to carefully improve the article. I'm disappointed that you aren't supporting that process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
@jimbo: So who were those POV-pushers and where are the supporting links/diffs? Is that to much to ask for with all that "pro and anti guilt" nonsense you've joint from the beginning?TMCk (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Tarc, I'm really offended how you are blaming one side for all the problems. Were you around when a group or corrupt Admins blocked and banned anyone who tried to make the article LESS guilt oriented for months and months? How many editors did they ban in order to keep the article under their control? The result was a misleading article that completely failed the reader and did not even come close to a NPOV. It reflected very poorly on wikipedia. The article, in my opinion, has already improved a great deal since Jim Wales put an end to it. There is still a lot of changes needed in this article. Issymo (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Any real relevance to the fruit juice would be found in finding evidence consistent with the other breakins that Rudy Guede was involved in. In the law office that was broken into the bathroom was used and beverages were drunk. This is the same as in the cottage and evidence of a pattern of behavior of the burglar; a rock thrown through a window, bevergages drank and bathroom used. Sources may be able to be found for these similarites, however, even if the sources are found it will always be speculative because no DNA evidence was taken at the law office. Otherwise, are we making a section describing Rudy Guede's story? I'm not against including that detail of his story, but I also don't think it's all that important.Issymo (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have hatted this mess of a thread. If an administrator believes that there is a real request for an admin action here, they are free to undo this.  Sandstein  21:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Banned user Iaaasi is sending e-mails

Banned user Iaaasi is sending e-mails to myself and at least two other editors in attempt to get people to edit Wikipedia on his behalf. He says that if people don't file sock puppet reports and do his bidding in other ways, it means he is allowed to engage in sock puppetry. I have cut off his e-mail access but he already has the addresses of several users. --Diannaa (Talk) 20:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

People who receive emails from him are likely to visit his userpage, perhaps a notice there similar to our !vote AfD header warnings, advising people of the problem with accepting his instructions? S.G.(GH) ping! 20:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. {{ombox}} will do the job. How about "Banned user Iaaasi has been soliciting users by e-mail in an attempt to get people to edit on his behalf. Please do not act upon any instructions issued by this banned user." --Diannaa (Talk) 21:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this was necessary. If indeed you feel that it is, mind proposing that this be turned into a general-purpose template for future use in this case? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure either but better to let the issue be known. Some of his emails have been pretty aggressive. If people think it is useful it could be made into a template. --Diannaa (Talk) 23:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Started on a kinda' weaksauce generalized version at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/Banned user email alert. It's wanting for some things, so feel free to have at it and use it if/when it's ready. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought - perhaps it would be better to also ask them to report the contents of the email somewhere? This way if the user creates sockpuppets to evade his ban, we will be able to tell a lot more easily and revert/block appropriately. The Helpful One 01:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I like Chris's thoughtful idea, above.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
He already has behaviours that will tip us off to any socking, and his favourite articles are heavily watched. I noted on his talk page that e-mails soliciting edits had been received; if an when an un-ban motion begins, I can report the contents if required. Merely the fact that he has been behaving this way will not look good if he attempts an un-ban. Lifebaka, your template draft is good. --Diannaa (Talk) 02:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


An ongoing edit war regarding the flags on this article started several days ago:

BRICS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Chafis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Gnevin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
AlexCovarrubias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Fry1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Curb Chain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Jetijonez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
This is definitely a lame war. This is a fight over little pictures of flags in the infobox? I would suggest a full protection until the nonsense is sorted out. Let folks argue it out on the talk page, but the recent history of that page is a mess. I'd do it myself but I've got too many pots on the stove as it is. Let folks argue it out on the talk page, but the recent history of that page is a mess. -- Atama 00:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Article full-protected 3 days. Personally, I am surprised this wasn't done earlier. –MuZemike 00:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree w/MuZemike -- article protection in a manner such as this assists the warriors in directing their energies towards more productive ways of sorting out the matter.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A sockpuppet IP is active again

This IP, which has been listed among the suspected sockpuppets of the indefinitely blocked user Marknutley/Tentontunic [5], is active again in the Communist terrorism article, and continues to edit in the same vein [6].--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


I'm done with this, no admin action required. BelloWello (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Uploadvirus (talk · contribs)

  • I would like to enter into the record on this page, for possible admin action, that this user has been engaging in a lot of violations of WP:CIVIL lately. After posting this rant about an administrator (which was removed), he came to my talk page accusing me of being a sock-puppet, saying in part, "NANOGRAM of credibility! And worse still ... you're not even a convincing puppet!!! WHOAAAA - you're a scary person!," which I find unacceptable. I can only assume that the claim of sock-puppetry is in reference to this report made by a SPA who hasn't returned after a 24 hour block. BelloWello (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
And in response to BelloWello, I say I would not object to a short block, just to prove 2 points I've been TRYING to make - that Kwamikagami can get away with "edits of mass destruction" over a period of months or years with NO repercussions whatsoever - as evidenced by searching ANI archives - but let some of the aggrieved speak up out of frustration, and there's block threats and demands raining down on them like artillery in the Battle of Stalingrad! Also, that there is a cart and a horse, and that seems folks don't know which ones in front!
Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, mor accusations, little good faith. BelloWello (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Once again, BelloWello ... an incident or two or three, and good faith is of course assumed. After many, many extremely problematic and damaging incidents, good faith becomes arguably much harder to assume. The record is absolutely clear - do a search of the ANI archives, and investigate a little bit. Then please feel free to respond directly to my statements. You have, as yet, to respond to my evidence that is in the record, all that is very clear in the archives, and on his talk page. And as an aside, why did you start in on me, of all people? Where's MY assumption of good faith? And your accusation that I am being unfair to this editor, then how do you explain that A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER of other folks AGREE with my EVIDENCE AND POINTS, just not with the way I blew up. Are THEY crazy too? Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course, the accusation of my being a sock puppet full of sarcasm has everything to do with Kwami. I see a pattern of incivility, and it's not from Kwami. BelloWello (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm just going to let this go, although I don't appreciate having an editor of 15 months jump in with a sarcastic remark about socking because a SPA account chose to file a report. The purpose of any block, etc. is to prevent further outbursts, and he seems to to have cooled down significantly from when he started to personally attack me for my single comment on the previous thread. Once again, closing and hopefully this will be archived soon. BelloWello (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an established and knowledgable editor whose valuable contributions are regrettably overshadowed by his inability to work consensually. There have been many discussions with and about him on his talk page and at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but the behaviour continues; we are now at the point where admin involvement is needed.

Background information:

The background information shows a pattern of removing articles by all means possible. I first initiated discussion on his talk page soon after I first encountered him: he mass-nominated many semiconductor articles for deletion; the proposals were resoundingly rejected, but despite this he went on to try removal by other means:

  • AfD for BC548
  • Following closure of AfD: pare article down, tag for notability concerns and suggest merge of much-reduced article: [7]

This behaviour, repeated often, led to:

Both of those discussions (linked to in the Background information) give considerable detail of the editing patterns and the many attempts of editors to reach a consensual resolution. Wtshymanski acknowlendges that he cannot accept the consensus but rather than learn to live with it or move on, he continues to do all he can to delete content he finds inappropriate.

The pare-and-merge behaviour is particularly concerning, best illustrated by articles on batteries:

This merge was reverted and discussed at WP:Wikiquette_alerts#Wtshymanski_and_the_transistor_AfDs. I hoped it could still be resolved, however more recently we have:

Can an admin look into this all this? Thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) One thing that leaps out at me when I review the user's contribution history is an extensive list of edits that remove content from articles, attempts to delete or merge articles, and other similar activity. What I do NOT see is work that adds material or otherwise clearly improves article content. Further, the actual article edits pare content back to the point where context is lost to someone who is not conversant with the terminology or jargon, all in the name of getting articles to conform to IEC "standards". I'm used to writing tersely for some audiences, but the history described calls me to remind the editor that there's a huge difference between a precis and an article, and Wikipedia's goal is to provide informative articles, not terminology-laden precis that refer the reader to manufacturers' specification sheets or the IEC (if the IEC can be found online for free...which I doubt, although I haven't gone looking for it). Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Not to get technical here, but this sort of problem is the exact reason that WP:RFCU exists: What we have is a user who is asking for an assessment of another user's behavior, which is EXACTLY what a Request for Comment is supposed to do. Generally, admins need to see evidence that the problem is a problem for more than just one person before issueing any sanctions; unilateral requests by User A to sanction User B, with no corroborating support, don't get anywhere. I would try RFCU and other aspects of WP:DR before coming straight to admins; at least it shows you have literally exhausted every avenue before requesting formal sanctions; and that makes sanctions a more reasonable conclusion. --Jayron32 20:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"evidence that the problem is a problem for more than just one person"
Did you read any of the linked pages? 8-(
WQA is a pointless exercise. RFCU is an excuse to attack the person posting there, not the person complained of. ANI, for all its faults, does sometimes do somethign useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks for your comments, Jayron. For clarity: (a) See the Wikiquette link: bringing the subject here for Admin attention was discussed in advance because that forum seemed to have reached its limit; this is not a unilateral User A vs User B issue; (b) I made no request for sanctions - just for admin eyes on the issue. I have always hoped this could be resolved amicably and an admin's comment may well convey the wisdom and authority needed without the need for sanctions. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Re: "evidence that the problem is a problem for more than just one person", I have a big problem with Wtshymanski's behavior as well. Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm also concerned with his edits to Salsa (dance), where he merged the content of Lady Styling into the article. The editor didn't notice that Lady Styling was originally a promotional article whose only references were to the website of a professional dancer. These references were removed as spam leaving a completely unreferenced article, and no wonder: a quick Google search shows that the phrase "lady styling" has no specific connection to salsa dancing. The editor should have made sure before merging that the content had some basis in reality and wasn't the invention of a PR hack. It's obvious to me that he didn't do this; when challenged after the merge, he admitted that he didn't know much about salsa, then told the editor challenging the merge to "fix it" "if" there was a problem. (He also structured the merged content in a way that made it look like "lady dancing" was a specific type of salsa, like New York and Cuban.) It's not other editors' jobs to fix poorly thought out merges; editors should not merge articles until they have consensus and unless they know enough about the subject to avoid this kind of error. The editor should have PRODed or AFDed Lady Styling instead. --NellieBly (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The situation with Salsa (dance) is an interesting variation on Wtshymanski's pattern of behavior. Normally he concentrates his "delete by any means possible" behavior on engineering topics, an area he knows something about. Now he is branching out into other areas. I am guessing that this has something to do with the fact that he keeps a running count on his talk of how many articles he has tried to get rid of and how many attempts have succeeded. From what you write above, it appears that Lady Styling was a good candidate for a PROD, but has developed a bad habit of trying to get rid of articles in ways that avoid him having to seek consensus or collaboration. In essence, the part of Wikipedia that covers Salsa Dance was a victim of an isolated drive-by shooting, while the part of Wikipedia that covers Engineering is dealing with the same shooter acting as a sniper who targets multiple victims. If we solve one problem, we will solve the other problem as well. Guy Macon (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that W has been a continuing pain in the butt, at 2N7000 among other places. He's got a real negative attitude and behavior toward articles and editors that he disagrees with. Failure to work collaboratively is a good term for it. On the other hand, I'm not sure what can be done about it. It's probably not a blockable offense to be a jerk and hard to work with. An RFCU might be a chance to give him some community input, but it seems that he has had plenty of that, and just doesn't care what others think. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We aren't going to change him, and he is a net positive. The way we deal with disruption is a bit of a blunt instrument. We cannot make him play well with others, and his faults are less than his positives.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
How about a WP:PRESERVE parole. If he removes info (other than obvious vandalism, BLP/copyvios, etc) from an article he should transfer it to the talk page so other editors can decide what to do with it. Most of his editing that I've looked at is plain destructive, removing useful reference info indiscriminately. He's intelligent but seems to have an MPOV problem. It's possible that he's a net positive and that I just haven't looked closely enough to see that, but I think some changes are necessary. Note: I commented on some of the transistor afd's when they were going on. (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Links to "plain destructive" actions?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I cannot speak for which edits IP found to be destructive (though he said "most"), but in the interest of keeping the discussion moving, the links I submitted in the report serve as good examples. Re. "net postitive": I made it clear in opening that Wtshymanski is an "established and knowledgable editor [who has made] valuable contributions" and I agree with that assertion. A lesser contributor would have been templated, reported at WP:AIV and, I would hope, blocked for a while so they got the message. I am not seeking a block here. However, I am seeking that some message be given - I strongly disagree that the reported behaviour is in any way tolerable by being "offset" by positive contributions and it's a dangerous signal to suggest that it is. As a first step, Wtshymanski could simply be asked to desist. If that proved ineffective then topic bans or other carefully targetted sanctions would be a possible (but regrettable) "non-blunt" option - but there's no need to consider that at this stage. RichardOSmith (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yet another one of these? I guess I'll add my two cents. My one run in with this editor was rather poor, to say the least.[8][9] This editor has an absolute blatant disregard for other human beings.[10][11] They routinely blank attempts at discussion, telling editors to go away, accusing them of harassment, threatening to block them, or just telling them to take it to the talk page instead actually ackowledging the discussion that involves them. At the very least, you get an uncivil, snobbish, stuck up, I-know-everything-and-your-clearly-an-ignoramous response. Since this editor routinely chooses to avoid such avenues of collaboration, perhaps they should be restricted to a 1RR? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read all the above. I object to the characterization of most of my edits as "destructive" and to the statement that I don't add content. In addition to vandalism reverts that seem to take up between 1/3 and 1/2 my edits, I routinely add references, add links, expand stubs, merge fragments, copyedit loose prose - and hopefully I fix more spelling errors than I introduce ( see any 500 edits in my contribution history, it's pretty uniformly present, I think). I prefer articles to be compact overviews of a subject and I find lists of part numbers to be quite inadequate (although very popular) substitutes for real encyclopedia articles. I can't control what other people think of me, I'm astonished that some editors act as if emotionally invested in fairly minute subjects. I don't believe I'm acting at all in contradiction with the stated goals of the project, namely, writing an encyclopedia. I don't threaten blocks, though I have pointed out that people can be blocked for such things as repeated vandalism - I never make threats I don't have the capacity and intent to carry out. Disagreeing with people on the Wikipedia gets a lot of negative attributes projected; seems to reveal more about the projectors than the projected. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Checking about the last 500 edits in article space, I see about 39% general copyediting, 15% reversion of spam and vandalism, 5% addition of links, 3% addition of references, 32% other edits (such as tagging for PROD or merge) and about 6% merging and redirecting. This covers article space edits from April 8 to April 25, and is based on looking at my edit summaries. This has been an unusual time because I've been following up the deadend pages category and I seem to be reverting less vandalism than at some other times. The "other edits" category may include such things as tagging, nominating for speedy or prod, afd nominations, and any edit I didn't summarize as mostly belonging to the other categories. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Counting edits seems to be the wrong way to determine whether his contributions are a net positive. His positive contributions (like most edits on Wikipedia) are incremental improvements. His negative contributions consist of nuking articles and annoying other editors. All it takes is for one contributing editor to throw up his hands and stop editing the engineering pages to erase all of Wtshymanski's positive contributions. Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Remedy

The situation we are facing with Wtshymanski is this:

(1) Generally valuable contributions, knowledgeable on engineering topics. Very good at vandalism removal. Does good research.

(2) Moderates his civility level so as to make it clear that he has a low regard for Wikipedia and its editors without blatantly violating policy.

(3) Refuses to seek consensus, strongly believes that in almost all cases he is right and others are wrong.

(4) Maintains an attitude about what should be removed from Wikipedia that is against consensus; hyperdeletionism.

In my opinion, the usual remedies such as topic bans or total bans are not appropriate responses to the above. Instead, I suggest a ban on activities that delete articles (Speedy, Prod, AfD, Merge) and a limit of two non-vandalism reverts per article per day to address edit warring. He should be free to suggest Speedy, Prod, AfD or Merge on article or user talk pages, but not to initiate those actions himself. In addition, he should be reminded to seek consensus. In my opinion, this narrow set of restrictions would address the destructive behavior while leaving him free to make constructive edits. Comments? Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good summary. I don't want to divide opinion otherwise nothing will be done, but I don't see the point of a Speedy/Prod/AfD ban - those don't, of themselves, remove content; indeed, they draw in others so that any deletions or removal of content are considered first by the community. I would, in fact, encourage more use of these forums (at least, as an alternative to going ahead with an undiscussed mass removal of content) because of that. The prune/merge behaviour bothers me, but banning any merge actions will leave only the options of nomination for deletion and/or prune so I can't see that working. However, despite my having previously directed Wtshymanski to Help:Merging ([12]) he still has a habit of tagging articles he wants deleted without also tagging the proposed merge target or setting up a talk page discussion, and then just going ahead with a merge/redirect after only a few days, eg at Switched-mode power supply applications, Peg bar, Lady Styling. That's clearly wrong and he should be warned for it. Worse still is the kind of thing I originally cited where he does nominate properly, the proposal is rejected and he goes ahead anyway. What I would like to see is:
  1. Admonishment for the behaviour I cited
  2. Reminder of the proper merge proposal process
  3. Reminder of the severity of edit warring. I rather like the earlier suggestion of 1RR (or rather, the promise of it if the edit warring doesn't stop).
On the other hand, I don't feel we should force a restriction on Wtshymanski's editing at this stage - rather, he should be made very aware there's a line and he's crossed it.
Unfortunately, despite the evidence presented, there has been no rush of admin condemnation so Wtshymanski is hardly likely to be feeling any reason to change. I believe that of the people who have commented here so far, only two are admins and their responses were "try another forum" and "we aren't going to change him, and he is a net positive". RichardOSmith (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I want to just add that while this person's edits might be a net positive, Wtshymanski's systematic discouragement of other editors, especially novice editors that Wikipedia needs more of, erases the value of his edits. In many cases, the edit is fine but the edit summary is snarky and rude, driving away yet another new contributor. There is something wrong with Wikipedia that this level of offensive behavior is tolerated on the grounds that he is an old boy who has been in the club a long time. It ought to be the case that a veteran editor is held to a higher standard rather than letting them habitually bite the newbies. Wtshymanski needs to be given a substantive motivation to change his demeanor, and if his behavior does not improve, then stronger remedies should be used. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[13] -- Wtshymanski
Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
He seems to have added a lot of good content and contributed to the removal of a lot of bad content. I disagree with the characterization that if one editor quits because of his comments, then he is a net negative, we are not comparing equals. This is a highly active editor that has added a lot of useful content and improved a lot of content on this project. If his discouragement results in the loss of a semi-active editor who is attempting to edit areas where he doesn't have expertise, so be it. As an aside, he has also been the subject of unnecessarily harsh comments: [14]. BelloWello (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not just scaring off newbies that's a concern - there's also several more experienced editors wasting time clearing up the mess. But that is secondary to me - at the risk of labouring the point, the real travesty here is the total lack of of admin interest. It's one thing that there's an editor going round with total disregard for procedure and collective opinion (that's not of itself especially unusal); it's quite another that he's aparrently doing it with total impunity. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
And I don't believe it's about scaring off one editor. I suppose I'm guilty of that; anyone is. It's about biting dozens of newbies, year in and year out. Twenty? Thirty editors? More? An active Wikipedian can accomplish much in a few years. Wtshymanski was civil and mostly strictly business from 2004 to 2008. Somewhere around 2009, he started adding little personal attacks and AGF fouls in edit summaries and talk comments, at a rate of something like 4,000 edits a year for the last four years.

Realistically, it isn't asking much at all for Wtshymanski to keep posting the 95% of his contributions that are civil, and to censor the 5% of meanness, sarcasm, and non-AGF he adds at the end of his comments. I've done it too -- I know the temptation. But it's possible to do better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not just about scaring off newbies, although I am sure that is happening. Andy Dingley is a veteran editor with many contributions, and he said "This is not the working atmosphere we're supposed to have to put up with. This editor's behaviour is intolerable." Guy Macon (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Persistent editing abuse by User:TrackConversion

TrackConversion has recently registered and proceeded to cause utter mayhem to articles and categories associated with railway gauges. He has made changes to hundreds of articles and renamed dozens of categories without consensus and despite numerous warnings. Whilst he has engaged in the ensuing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, his approach has been aggressive and dogmatic - meanwhile he continues to make changes as if they have been agreed by the community, which clearly they have not. I have yet to see a more blatant disregard of Wiki consensus. I would ask that the following measures are considered:

  • A temporary ban (at least 2-3 weeks) while the community catches up with the chaos created and debates the way ahead. His view is already clear from the aforementioned discussion.
  • An investigation into sockpuppetry. For a newbie he is remarkably well versed in Wiki procedure and his username rather suggests he registered with one aim in mind - to change railway track articles and categories. May also be the same as a banned user on German Wikipedia. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
copied from user talk:Bermicourt
"Despite my initial comments at WT:TWP, TC was obviously not a newbie as he had knowledge of how to post links to interwiki articles. The comment about the edits to Template:Rail gauges led me to investigate editing history of that template. One doesn't have to go down too far to find TrackConnect (talk · contribs), who turns out to be a blocked confirmed sockpuppet of Schwyz (talk · contribs), and is suspected to be (and probably is) a sockpuppet of Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs), who is banned from editing Wikipedia per the decision of the Community at large. Reading the ban proposal discussion, I see many examples of the behaviour displayed there shown by TC."
Therefore I think it is probable that TC is another sock. As the sockmaster is banned, editors should be free to revert all edits without further discussion should this be proved. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Copied from user talk:Mjroots
de:Benutzer:Tobias Conradi was permanently banned for persistent trolling as well as vandalism. No recognisable intent to cooperate in working on an encyclopedia.
de:Benutzer:Tobias Conradi2 was banned for being the sockpuppet of a banned user.
de:Benutzer:Tobias Conradi4 was banned being a vandalising and trolling account.
de:Benutzer:Schwyz soft-redirects to the eponymous (and banned) account.
Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The TC username alone is enough to arouse suspicion (see his last several confirmed socks), and my dealings with another sock of his look similar to this, albeit in a different forum. His last confirmed sock was User:TopoChecker, for what it's worth. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tobias Conradi and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tobias Conradi Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. This seems pretty clear from the behavioral evidence above. Fut.Perf. 07:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, FP. Now, where' my extra-large mop. There's a lot of mess to sort out. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User(s) unclear on the concept

I don't want to be Bitey and am at work now so don't have the time to deal with this properly. Would another admin please take a look at these user/user talk pages and nicely instruct the editor on what not to do/post? See: User:Ramesh Heart, User talk:Ramesh Heart, and User talk:Favorite news channel. Thanks. Much appreciated. -- Alexf(talk) 12:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Multiple accounts and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ramesh Hart. lifebaka++ 12:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah. didn't know about this. Spotted it through UAA filters and saw it as too complex to do in two minutes which was all I had. Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 13:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for admin closure

Not really an incident, but I haven't found a better place for this: There has been a discussion on Template talk:Drugbox#Drugbox/Chembox merger vs. two infoboxes about a possible merger of {{Drugbox}} into {{Chembox}}. This being a rather big step, we would prefer an admin closure; but there seem to be no uninvolved admins left at WP:PHARM and related projects. Help woud be appreciated. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

edit violating worldwide U.K. injunction?

I'm not sure if this edit to Ryan Giggs whichseepotentionally libellous but the main issue is that it is suggested that he obtained a super injunction from the courts prohibiting a story regarding cheating, weather or not it was him, this might seen a bit dodgy if the acussation is right (or not). I wouldn't normally bring this up but I noticed there was another revdel on the article which I guess was regarding the same issue. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That injunction is from the British court system, right? The British courts have no jurisdiction over the USA. If it's a wikipedia BLP violation, that's a different story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Might I suggest that this be taken to the BLP noticeboard? Gossip is unverifiable undue weight to trivialities, but a new form of injunction with unique legal features (if this is indeed the case) might be notable in and of itself, whether it's related to gossip or not --NellieBly (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not the ((alleged of course) superinjunction is notable, by definition we're not going to have any reliable sources to back it up right now. Wikipedia != Wikileaks, and you can be absolutely certain that if we attempt to circumvent such (alleged of course) superinjunctions by ourselves that we're opening ourselves up for legal problems, Bugs's blasé (of course) conclusion aside. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Let's pull the curtain back from what is happening here, and it happens in every recent case of this "superinjunction" being mentioned at Wikipedia:
    • The U.K. courts start using this form of "superinjunction" whereby the papers are not allowed to report any information regarding pending legal action against some individuals, even to the point of not being allowed to discuss the existance of the legal action.
    • People in the U.K. are pissed off that this represents an unreasonable infringement on civil liberties, vis-a-vis freedom of the press.
    • People start editing articles about these people, putting salacious, poorly referenced, and inappropriate material which, by Wikipedia's long-time standards of WP:BLP must be removed immediately.
    • When this clearly inappropriate material is removed, they use it as an opportunity to attack Wikipedia: "See, Wikipedia, you're just a pawn of the U.K. courts, and are violating your own standards!" or "Look, Wikipedia is so scared of the superinjunction, they are censoring themselves!"
  • This is a baldfaced attempt to try to force tabloid journalism into Wikipedia articles by associating Wikipedia's vigilance against BLP-violations with the U.K.'s "superinjunction" thingy. It's happened by this exact method at least half a dozen times this week. We should just stop it. If the U.K. had never issued any superinjunctions, we would still kill these edits with fire. The News of the World (to take an example from the above link) isn't a reliable source, and even if by some outrageous stretch of the word "reliable" it could be considered so for whatever information it reports, that information itself is generally inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, regardless of its truthfulness or verifiability. --Jayron32 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't think en.WP as an organization would have any legal worryings since the servers are based in the U.S.. But does this Super Injunction only silence the media, or is it extended to individuals as well? For instance, if someone in the U.K. w/inside info blogged or tweeted or added info to a WP article about it, if identified, would they face possible legal action from the U.K. authorities ? If not, then the injunction is irrelevant to building an encyclopedia, and we should focus on the info/sources/policies like we do for all articles. But, if yes, then a larger discussion should probably be had about what WP's ethical responsibilities are (if any) to protect its editors from legal consequences outside of the U.S.. Quinn STARRY NIGHT 19:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia has any ethical responsibilities to protect its editors from themselves. If you post something that's illegal in your home country, and "The Man" finds out, then tough. It's your own fault and we can't be your babysitter. I agree with Jayron32 by the way, this is just another attempt to accuse Wikipedia of "SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH!" if people start to claim that Wikipedia is bowing to pressure from the UK's superinjunction. It should be treated as always; explain how it violates our policies, and if they keep crying, ignore them. -- Atama 19:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with above and Jayron as well. Just wanted to further the discussion toward what the concerns of the WP Community as a whole would be. The whole concept of this Super Injunction thing is actually kind of scary, and seems rather Orwellian. Quinn STARRY NIGHT 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Any injunction issued by the Courts in the UK applies to all in the UK. Any UK-based editor knowing posting details of an injunction risks being held in Contempt of Court. Any non-UK based editor editing from the UK is in that same boat. That said, The Courts in the UK have no jurisdiction outside the UK, and the rest of the world is free to report such matters should they wish to do so. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
That being the case, should there be some sort of notification at the top of the article alerting editors of the Super Injunction? Quinn STARRY NIGHT 19:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It is unlikely that you would find a reliable source about any injunction. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Super-injunctions are being regarded with alternate amounts of fear and loathing here in the UK. I'm not sure about the precise implications of a UK-based editor writing something into an article based on his or her knowledge or presumptions, but it does seem from what we know at least possible that they could end up facing harsh legal penalties for that here, including and up to prison and loss of property. The judges making these injunctions (the universal ones are now incidentally known in the press in the UK as "hyperinjunctions" as they are so swinging in scope) have been very clear that offenders brought before them will get short shrift. Wikipedia seems like a tempting place to get round them if you "know" or think you know "something". But of course in most cases few WP editors will "know" anything and anything they do "know" cannot by definition be sourced. I do wonder though if we shouldn't perhaps have some kind of tagged warning as this temptation could potentially end up causing some kind of serious harm to some hapless editor who is basically foolish. Note also that the article on the former BBC political editor Andrew Marr who has yesterday achieved fame by renouncing his own hyperinjunction is receiving injunction-related attention. Presumably BLP watch must specially be placed there and on similar future ones as these persons have by definition proved highly litigious. We have also had coverage in the UK from mainstream media organisations suggesting that these injunctions may well be used to take action against media organisations based, for example, in the US but in the UK courts - having gained a verdict in the UK, these could in turn be later used to extract property here or to apprehend persons named if they come to Europe on an EU arrest warrant. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see the catch. That would seem a flaw in the injunction itself. How can you prosecute someone if they can rightfully claim that they didn't know the injunction even existed? Maybe the solution really is to do nothing...Quinn STARRY NIGHT 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Instead of "truth as a defense" I guess it would be instead "ignorance as a defense." Seems a bit backward, really. Quinn STARRY NIGHT 20:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This probably belongs at the BLP noticeboard but see also at Mr Justice Eady (the slightly oddly named - in wikipedia land - David Eady) where someone has inserted the text... In April 2011, Eady faced press criticism following a case in which he granted a restraining order "contra mundum", effectively creating a worldwide and permanent ban on publication of details about a man's private life, which involved an actor who had allegedly paid a prostitute - the last part of that statement would definitely form a violation of the contramundum mega-injunction if stated in British media. One cannot even hint in print at the existence of the hyperinjunction here in the UK. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that is wrong. I added the contra mundum part to David Eady, and it is sourced to the Daily Telegraph, a respectable UK newspaper.[15] UK Prime Minister David Cameron also said that he was "uneasy" about the contra mundum injunction.[16] Neither of these sources goes anywhere near naming the person involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
What makes ANI the correct venue for such pointless wittering, exactly? We aren't going to block people for circumventing (alleged) superinjunctions. We may very well protect articles barraged with edits using nonexistent or unreliable sources, but that can be dealt with at RFPP as normal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that in most cases, the event that started it wasn't particularly notable (footballer beds sex worker, sex worker talks to press), the going to court wasn't particularly notable, the only notable thing is the demented attempt by some UK judges (who have clearly been on the cooking sherry) to issue injunctions that they imagine might apply to the whole world. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as ANI is concerned, the only notable thing is TRUTH-warriors intent on defying that. And as no immediate administrative action is required in this case to prevent that here, we can hopefully close this off. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This isn't new. Canada, for one, has sought a superinjunction as well from time to time. First point -- as with any injunction, one has to look at who it is directed at. Without more, it is quite likely that the injunction does not cover wp -- certainly, I don't see the evidence above. Second point -- jurisdiction is an issue. WP is governed by various US laws, but not AFAIK by UK law. WP guidelines could always choose of their own accord to follow UK law, but as a general matter they don't. Third point -- sometimes states say their laws apply outside their jurisdiction, but other states disagree ... but I don't think we have to sort that out here, as there has been no showing of applicability.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Joan Armatrading

Resolved: User blocked HalfShadow 18:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Could someone possibly have a look at this user and the repeated unexplained reversions to Joan Armatrading? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Only if you promise to notify users when threads are started about them ;) GiantSnowman 16:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The user's entire history appears to be to this article. Perhaps they think it's some sort of vandalism. I can't understand how, though; it took me seconds to verify this myself. HalfShadow 16:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree. And agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I certainly would agree. This time you seem to have done that job for me. Should I continue to reinstate or now leave it all to you? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, since he's reverting verifiable evidence (especially without a summary), that technically means he's vandalisng, so I'm not sure if 3RR would apply to us. HalfShadow 17:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have reverted the one removal of the text (@ 17:23) and warned the editor about 3RR as they have hit 3 reverts in less than 24 hours. (now passed 3RR @ 17:50) - 220.101 talk\Contribs 18:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

RevDel requested at Tara Reid

An IP recently posted some fairly sophomoric vandalism to the article, targeting a private person by screen name. The person using the screen name is active on social networking sites, and seems to have posted a great deal of identifying information on various sites. The person appears fairly young, though probably not a minor. Given the complete lack of encyclopedic value, and the intent to embarass a private person, I believe the edit should be suppressed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

ZOTed. And left a blp warning on editor's talk-page. DMacks (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Anglo Pyramidologist at Objections to evolution

AP is placed under an indefinite topic ban on evolution topics, broadly construed. He can appeal the ban on ANI after the passage of one year from now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is becoming a serious annoyance at several articles, but the biggest one lately is his editing at both Objections to evolution and Talk:Objections to evolution. I would put the diffs for the talk page, but there are so many, you would all get sore fingers from clicking on the links. His point, such as it is, is to claim that there's no observation of macroevolution. Several editors asked for reliable sources, and all we got back are a bunch of rhetoric and veiled personal attacks. You can read for yourself. Someone removed it to AP's page. In the meantime, despite no consensus on the talk page, he has made these three edits, all reverted: un, deux, trois. Both myself and User:Mann jess reverted calling it vandalism. Not knowing what MJ's reasoning, mine was that if someone spends tons of bandwidth making a nonsense point, gets no support or consensus, and still makes the edit, there is no good faith, and it's just simply vandalism. AP has been blocked 3 times. My position would be that a 4th is required. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Baseball Bugs, I'm notifying, right now. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
You rang? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand his objection. He seems to be objecting because there is no reliable source given, which is a valid objection, aside from the fact that there appears to be a wholly reliable source. Seems like a WP:ACTIVIST editor... I may try to provide an additional source if I can find my copy of The Greatest Show on Earth... BelloWello (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This is not vandalism and should not be called thus. Vandalism is deliberate damage to Wikipedia. This is somebody who believes that they improve Wikipedia, even though they are in fact not: they are trying to resolve an editing dispute via edit-warring, which is just as bad as vandalism. (They are also mistaken. There are citations supporting the contested assertion in the subsequent sentences.) I would issue an edit-warring block, but Anglo Pyramidologist has not yet been warned about this, so I've done it now. Next stop WP:AN3 if the circus resumes.  Sandstein  20:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added an additional source to the article, hopefully that will shut him up about there not being a source. If it doesn't, I would support a block for disruptive editing. BelloWello (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Sandstein that it is not vandalism. However, and especially if he's been invited to discuss the changes and has not done so (civilly), his edits are within the definition of disruptive editing. Per the instructions for dealing with disruptive editors (WP:DDE), AN/I is the forum to bring the concerns to. —C.Fred (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought this was ANI? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────(edit conflict)Sandstein is correct that it's not vandalism. It is, however, generally disruptive editing. There are persistent WP:IDHT and WP:POINT violations from this editor regarding evolution. It's abundantly clear that AP has a POV to push, against consensus, on these pages (e.g., [17][18][19]). I think some of the responses to AP actions have probably been over the top, but it's clear there's a general frustration with this editor's apparent obtuse persistence. I'd recommend Anglo Pyramidologist be placed under a topic ban on evolution topics, broadly construed, until it can be demonstrated that AP is willing to work within a consensus (Wikipedia and scientific) with which he does not personally agree. — Scientizzle 20:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely apologize for calling it vandalism (and I rarely apologize for anything, so take it as heartfelt). It just seems that an editor who goes overboard trying to make a point, doesn't, but still makes the edits is doing so intentionally. Oh well. I'll go with disruptive. Way too many rules, regulations and guidelines on Wikipedia. Seriously. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
There are other ways of disrupting Wikipedia that are just as bad as vandalism. To BelloWello, I think this is an activist editor. I gave him his third block for personal attacks (he's deleted those messages from this talk page [20]) and while I was researching the matter I found that someone with a very similar POV and style has been banned from other forums already.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban on topics related to evolution, and any controversy surrounding it (including pages like YEC, which may not immediately seem to be under evolution), as proposed by Scientizzle. Also support a warning regarding disruptive editing. BelloWello (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No source that macro has ever been observed was provided. A user called 'Jess' then told me to discuss this problem on the talk page, i did twice, but all my posts were removed. The problem with the evolution articles is that they are biased and the evolutionist fundies will not let anyone near editing them despite the fact there is a lot of unsupported claims on the pages. Oddly another user took my claims serious and added a link that macro has been observed, yet i click on this link and it says the following: We would not expect to observe large changes directly. This was precisely my point. Large scale phenotypic change (macroevolution) cannot be observed - i even quoted Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould and Jerry Coyne on this. All of them agree macroevolution is not observable. So we have the world's leading evolutioanry biologists etc admitting macro is not observable but the evolutionists who controll the evolution pages on wikipedia think it has. I can only presume the evolutionists on wikipedia are charlatans who don't know a thing about science. No evolutionary biologist in the real world (not even Richard Dawkins) admits large scale phenotypic macro evolution has been observed, the cyber-space evolutionists know better though? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see you right now, but I still trust that you exist... --Jayron32 21:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked Anglo for two weeks for this and some comments at his talk page. Despite three previous blocks for personal attacks, he hasn't stopped. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 22:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban, and suggest a week or two's block for referring to other contributors as 'charlatans' (above). Frankly, I doubt that Anglo Pyramidologist has anything useful to contribute to Wikipedia, but I suppose we should at least give him/her a chence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban, per BelloWello. This user isn't hearing anything that's being said, and his tactics for introducing his POV into the article are becoming increasingly hostile. With multiple formal and informal warnings on the issue, I don't see any other option than formal action. I would change my mind if Anglo demonstrated that he understood the issues being raised, and agreed to avoid disruptive editing in the future.   — Jess· Δ 21:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban on his return from a two week block. --John (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment by a lowly twig on the evolutionary tree: The cited item in the article certainly appears to describe examples of speciation. Does that really contradict Dawkins, Gould, et al? Or is it a question of how "macroevolution" is defined? Also, I find the article title misleading. "Evolution", or "change over time", is easily observed at both micro and macro levels in other areas, notably in languages. "Biological evolution" is what the article could or should be titled. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Just as Evolution is not titled "Biological Evolution", I don't think it's necessary to retitle this article. With that said, I may have misunderstood your initial question. I believe AP's contention is "how macroevolution is defined", but that's not a question within biology or within the article. The source initially provided did list examples of observed speciation, which falls well within the realm of macroevolution as defined in biology. I don't understand how this relates to the AP issue, however... so perhaps I've misunderstood you.   — Jess· Δ 22:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
AP's argument is that Dawkins, et al, say that macroevolution is not observable. The citation given in the article states that macroevolution has been observed. They can't both be right - unless they're using slightly different meanings of "macroevolution". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Do we actually have documentation of the Dawkins quote? BelloWello (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
That would be interesting to see, if it exists. It sounds to me like AP is cherry-picking quotes from these guys in order to refute macroevolution. The fact that he claims they "admit" that macroevolution supposedly can't be observed is a pretty telling comment about AP's POV. Those guys are scientists. They don't "admit" something like that, they merely "observe" it. And as scientists, I'm sure they would be happy to revise their comments in light of new evidence. But it sounds to me like "original synthesis" on the part of the user in question. Also, the "brother" IP noted below has some fairly gross personal attacks in his talk page history, which tells you a lot more about AP's POV. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. The claim that Dawkins "admits macroevolution is unobservable" is a dubious one, flatly contradicted by the fact that speciation is macroevolution as defined by biology, speciation has been observed, and Dawkins is a respected biologist who knows this. Until a ref can be furnished which shows that this is a position Dawkins actually holds, I think it's safe to say the sources are being misused. However, this seems like it really belongs on the article talk page, since short of an accusation that AP has willfully misused sources (which I'm not personally prepared to make), it doesn't appear to relate to his situation.   — Jess· Δ 23:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I hear that alot from creationists and last time i checked its a partially true statement to a degree However it is severely out of context of Dawkins orignal statement which is something along the line of Yes, Marco evolution is near impossible to viewed on the MArco level. This where the quote often chopped off for POV he continues his statement: For all but species who life spans are relatively short However do to cross generational studies of species, frozen samples, images, and the fossil record.. we have ample evidence that such marco evolution does occur. This was an interview with I wanna say the BBC relatively early in his polemical career. Mind you I am paraprasing from memory here and its been a while since I checked it out personally. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
If that's the essence of what he said, then it colors it quite differently, and compatibly with that source that lists observed macroevolution. The question then becomes, did the user know the context, or was he just parroting something from a creationist website? And maybe it doesn't really matter, as disruption is disruption. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, AP is blocked for 2-weeks. Wouldn't ya know it - his brother (User: has chosen to un-retire & is editing again. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • Comment I just want to clarify some comments above regarding labeling edits as vandalism. If a user is editing disruptively, willfully ignoring established consensus, and intentionally adding content into an article to make a point when his proposal is meeting objections on the talk page, is it frowned upon to tag the edit as vandalism in an edit summary? In this case, I didn't issue him a warning for vandalism on his talk page, however I did mark it as vandalism in an edit summary with Twinkle (intending it to mean "unconstructive/disruptive" and "potentially bad faith"). In this case, I believe the sources used were being intentionally abused (i.e. using Dawkins to cite that Evolution was unobservable), which bridges the WP:VAND gap for me. Marking edits as vandalism is fairly rare for me, so I want to be clear such that, if this is indeed against common practice, I can adjust accordingly. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Not vandalism as such - The very first sentence of the Vandalism writeup implicitly defines vandalism as bad faith activities. The user AP may be misguided or wrongheaded, but it doesn't seem to be bad-faith editing. I think of vandalism as stupid stuff, like vulgarities or "Hi, Mom!" randomly inserted in an article; or wholesale or random chopping of stuff with no explanation. Anything beyond that has to be considered "normal" editing, even if it's contentious or disruptive editing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Reply - Yes, it is definitely frowned upon. Vandalism is a very specific situation in which an editor is deliberately attempt to damage an article. There are numerous examples of disruption that aren't vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND for examples. -- Atama 22:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Comment As I mentioned above, some of AP's behavior bridges the bad faith gap for me. Perhaps it's just my view of the situation. In any case, if there's agreement this doesn't warrant a tag via edit summary, then I'll adjust to stricter standards. Thanks for the replies.   — Jess· Δ 23:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I think of "good faith" as "sincerity". Sincerity does not equate to being right, either factually or ethically. But it does equate to the user believing that he's right. Think of what vandalism is in real life (slashing tires or breaking windows or spray-painting vulgarities in public places) and that should be your guide. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc?