Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive704

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

Noticeboard archives



This new user is creating season team pages for college men's basketball teams for the 2010–11 season. That's fine by me. However, he keeps copying and pasting existing articles (ex: 2010–11 Colorado Buffaloes men's basketball team) into "new" articles that use hyphens (2010-11 Colorado Buffaloes men's basketball team). He's done this to tons of team articles, and I've told him multiple times to stop doing that. I have no idea why he's doing it; all I can surmise is he somehow thinks that's what you're supposed to do when the hyphenated version doesn't exist. I've had to manually move or redirect every single one of his article creations. Furthermore, I gave him a pretty stern warning back on June 4th to stop these practices. Not only has he not responded to anything I've written to him, he hasn't responded to anyone's concerns that have been left on his talk page. Since he clearly doesn't intend to stop duplicating articles into incorrectly titled pages, nor will he respond to inquiries/comments left on his talk page, is it unreasonable to enact a short-term block to try and get his attention? I've run out of patience with this user. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any incorrect edits of his since your June 4 notice. Maybe you did explain it adequately. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
He did it again with this, when the correct article was already made and in place (ironically by Lewisistheone1991). Jrcla2 (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible WP:NLT on Murder of Meredith Kercher Talk page[edit]

Resolved: RockSound is SockBound

RockSound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a SPA on the (somewhat infamous) Murder of Meredith Kercher article. This editor is somewhat aggressive in editing style. A recent comment is close to, if not over, the line for legal threats. I've requested on the article talk page and on their user talk page to strike the comment. Their response was polite, but reinforced their point. I would appreciate an admin taking a look at this and offering their thoughts. Ravensfire (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite how that discussion got so out of hand to be discussing if libel action could be taken over it or not. But that comment does not look like a legal threat, given the explanation. Best to just disengage and devolve that particular conflict. Berean was on a tangent. RockSound was responding to that. FWIW nothing in the article seems to me to be libellous, so there isn't much to worry about on that score. although, it would be nice for RockSound to specifically note he doesn't mean it as a threat of legal action --Errant (chat!) 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Errant, you are correct. And I expressly stated on my Talk page that I was merely discussing a point of law and never intended any threat of legal action. I never even imagined that someone would try to interpret it that way. RockSound (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal First of all, I am not an SPA as Ravensfire claims. Anyone who does not share the pro-guilt view is immediately deemed an SPA, harassed and constantly hauled before ANI in a most aggressive manner by the pro-guilt editors who control the article. Mr. Wales has tried to intervene in this article to sort out some of the problems. I posted some of his comments today on the Talk page. It is a horrible situation there with a dozen or more editors already blocked on trumped up charges, all victims being from the side that does not share the pro-guilt view.

This claim that I made a legal threat is not valid. I am an attorney and merely clarified a totally erroneous statement made by someone to the effect that nobody could be sued for calling Amanda Knox and Sollecito murderers under US law. That is false information. If a person is falsely painted in a bad light, there can be a cause of action under US law. That was my only point. I most certainly was not making a legal threat. I made that very clear to Revensfire before he/she filed this ANI complaint.

To haul this up to ANI is just more of the ongoing harassment that any editor faces who does not share the pro-guilt view. It appears that there are two pro-guilt websites that some of these pro-guilt editors are involved in and taking their direction from. An aggressive PR campaign painting Amanda Knox and Raffeale Sollecito as guilty of murder, before the criminal proceedings have been completed, is being orchestrated by these two websites, and they have their tentacles into this article via some of the pro-guilt editors now in control of the article.

I do hope that Mr. Wales will return and help us in sorting out this situation. His help thus far has been beneficial, but much more help is needed. RockSound (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and lovely labeling of any editor opposed to your POV as "pro-guilt", an accusation utterly without merit or evidence. Your response on your talk page dismissed anything not from an administrator, which left me with no other choice. As has been requested before here, I would hope for uninvolved admins to watch the page and actively work to mitigate the hostile tone (see RockSounds response) that seems to be returning after a week or so of helpful dialogue and cooperative editing. Ravensfire (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ravensfire, I don't appreciate the frivolous allegations of a legal threat. It is very clear that I was talking in generalities on a point of US law, not about taking any legal action myself. And I explained that to you on my Talk page. Here was the dialogue:

I am requesting you strike out this comment on the talk page. Making or implying legal actions in an attempt to influence other editors is absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia. I ask you to immediately strike your comment out. Ravensfire (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless you are an administrator, then I must decline your request as being misplaced. I made no legal threat whatsoever. I merely stated that the editor who asserted that there could be no cause of action over this article was wrong. I expressed my legal opinion as an attorney in the US that he is wrong that defamatory statements against Knox and Sollecito are not actionable. You should be able to grasp the fact that that is entirely different from saying that you intend to sue someone, which is what a legal threat is. I do not represent anyone in this case, nor have I ever said that I do or that I even know anyone connected with this case, so it is not even possible for me to make a legal threat on their behalf. I am simply expressing my opinion on the state of the law.

If it is alright for an editor to give false information that no legal action could ever be taken over this article even if Knox and Sollecito are falsely depicted as murderers, it is certainly alright for someone who actually knows the state of the law on this matter to say that he is incorrect, as a professional opinion. RockSound (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC0)

I am not an administrator, I am an editor like everyone else here. My hope was that you would see the request and strike your comment in hopes of the debate remaining somewhat peaceful. Alas, I was mistaken. Ravensfire (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you prefer that the false information about that state of the law of defamation in the US stand unrebutted? How does that help anyone? People need to realize that when you are writing about living people, the laws of defamation apply, which is what the BLP policies are aimed at fostering. The editor who wrote that no one could be sued for calling Knox and Sollecito murderers could not have been more wrong, and his false assertions need correction. RockSound (talk) 23:24, 10 June — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talkcontribs) 00:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Side-stepping the main issue here (because I'd rather jump in front of a bus than start editing the MOMK article), I don't get why RockSound repeatedly entreats Jimbo to somehow resolve the dispute at the article. Especially in the last AN/I thread about RockSound and MOMK, xhe seemed to be under the impression that Jimbo controls all Wikipedia content and he is the final arbiter of the dispute. Frankly, I find it a little unnerving as it goes against everything that I (and I hope others) believe about Wiki. There is neither an individual authority nor a "mommy" who will listen to tattling. The articles should be a product of the community; no disrespect to Mr. Wales, but I feel like we can resolve this without him placing his rubber stamp upon it. Chillllls (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The legalese-speak of Rock's original comment,[1] sounds like an intent to intimidate, hence it falls under the "legal threat" category. If he had simply issued a friendly caution against blatantly calling someone "a murderer" (as opposed to "convicted of murder", which is factual), i.e., to wit, e.g., in lieu, by reporting that there is in fact a risk of libel suit in the U.S., that would have been a different story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI, there is some unfortunate backstory to the repeated "appeal to Jimbo" seen in this topic area; the original open letter and the gleeful reception from activist blogs and a local Seattle media outlet. As for Rocksound, this user has been a resounding net negative to the Kercher article so far; we have repeatedly had to come to An/I to discuss this antagonistic, fierce behavior, now coupled with legal threats. Tarc (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Has he cited anything to support the claim that an American could be sued for calling the convicts "murderers"? Or are we supposed to take his word for it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
To claim that anything I said constitutes an intent to intimidate someone is outrageous. I responded with what you call 'legalese-speak" because if you look at the comment that I was reponsing to, it was specifically about points of law on defamation in the US. It is really stretching things beyond all reason to say that responding to a post on the legal requirements on defamation in the US constitutes "an attempt to intimidate". There have been many, many comments on this same Talk page about how certain comments about Rudy Guede (the man favored by the pro-guilt clique in control)could be seen as defamation, yet no one got hauled up to ANI over it. Double standards once again. RockSound (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Your comments continue to contain a threatening tone. I'd be interested to see an actual citation in support of your claim that someone could be sued for calling a convicted murderer "a murderer". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Watch out for that bus Chilllls was warning about! You're about to get run over by the pro-Knox clique! Ravensfire (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm not in either "clique", as I have no opinion on guilt or innocence of the convicted persons in that case. But do know that there have been many editors attempting to make the wikipedia article operate as an advocacy for the convicted, and as the notes to Wales indicates, they are very well-practiced at various levels of intimidation. Rock's threats are par for the course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
If you cared to follow the extensive discussion, a key point is that under the Italian Constitution they are currently deemed "not guilty". That is all cited on the Talk page, but the information has been kept out of the article. I am sorry if you find my comments "threatening". I am merely responding to the legal issues by typing at my key board. Any "intimidation" or "threatening tone" you detect is purely your own subjective experience, not my intention. RockSound (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not interested enough to read every last word you've written, I'd just like to see (or at least to be made aware) that you have citations for your claims and that you don't expect us to just take your word for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The citations to the Italian Constitution are on the Talk page, as well as the discussions about the current status of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as "not guilty" under the law of Italy. If you won't bother to read the Talk page to get the gist of my comment in its proper context then I am sorry, I cannot help you. RockSound (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you claiming they weren't actually convicted of murder? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • RockSound, a single-purpose account who is now more or less completely dedicated to the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic, has routinely used the article talk page as a platform for advocacy and soapboxing. His strong opinion about the subject matter has had an all-too-clear effect on his ability to edit the article in a manner that conforms to a neutral point of view. In the last 24 hours, the user has restored questionable text to the article that had previously been reverted, and then edit-warred to preserve his preferred revision of the content while initially refusing to participate in continuing discussion at the talk page. His incivility has recently extended to leaving a gratuitous 3RR template on my talk page, even though I have performed only one revert on this article in the last 24 hours. If consensus appears not to support his views, that consensus will often be ignored outright as the user continues to push his own strong POV. I fear that this quasi-legal threat, coupled with a refusal to understand the consequences of attempting to make such threats, is simply the latest in a lengthening line of incidents that have brought out the tendentious nature of the user's general editing pattern. SuperMarioMan 01:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for closure: I don't know if it is appropriate for the "accused' to request that a complaint be closed, but this one is particularly frivolous and is merely more harassment intended to waste my time and drive me away from the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. The pro-guilt editors have been conducting a fierce drive to get people banned or blocked on trumped up charges or just so tied up with ANI, or just so frustrated by deleting and deleting and deleting their work, that virtually only the pro-guilt editors are allowed to edit the article. This complaint is just more of the same. I rest my case now. Do with me what you will. I will not be returning to discuss this, since I have to get back to my real job's work. Thank you and Good Night. RockSound (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold the phone there, Mr. Lawyer. Your uncited claim that "...there is a cause of action in the US for defamation over this article" still stands. Until you either provide a citation or retract it, you're not off the hook here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Ravensfire opened by saying he/she'd "appreciate an admin taking a look...and offering their thoughts" as to whether RockSound should strike a comment that Ravensfire had chosen to characterize as "close to, if not over the line for legal threats." An admin, Errant, duly complied, taking a look and offering the thought that it doesn't look like a legal threat, etc. RockSound has assured that it isn't, and explained why it isn't. Nuff said. Writegeist (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the diff in isolation, I can see how it could be construed as something close to an NLT problem. While you did not threaten any legal action yourself, RockSound, your comment strongly implied that the current state of the article was such that someone (an editor? WMF?) could face legal trouble. Given you are very much a "pro-innocence" editor, it could be construed as an attempt to chill the input of those who are not advocates for Kerchner. It seems that was not your intent and taken in wider context I can buy that explanation. But it would probably be best to just go back and clarify that statement to be more reflective of your intended meaning. Resolute 01:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
koff!"Advocates for Knox", perhaps? pablo 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
lol. Epic fail! Resolute 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You're probably right. See my comment further down.TMCk (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Not true. Please stop hurling one accusation after another at me ( and the other editors who don't share your POV).

I have returned even though I really am gone for the night to do my real work, to say that I did comply with Resolute's suggestion about editing the comment on the article Talk page to make it clear that I did not intend any threat. Here is what I wrote, which explains a lot more than the original very brief statement:

Italian law applies to determine the status of the defendants. Currently, they are innocent of any crime. If they are currently presented as murderers or guilty of a crime that could be viewed as defamatory under US law. Even if some sources present them that way, it should be noted that their current status is innocent and all information about them otherwise correct. The claim above that "it does not matter that an appeal is ongoing" and that "there can be no valid civil or criminal recourse against the author" who presents them as murderers is wrong.

I also added a note below on the Talk page to make it doubly clear that I intended no threat or legal action. I hope that is sufficient. Now I really do have to go. Good night and thank you. RockSound (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Non-denial denial". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (Rock added the "not true" after I had posted the preceding. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC))
As you say. I'm a lawyer and an administrator, both of which is mostly irrelevant to the following: I don't like RockSound's edit because I believes it carries an implication that anyone contributing to the article could be liable for part or all of the defamation that RockSound Esq. opined existed. I think that has a chilling effect on people being willing to edit the article, benefiting her side (whichever that is, I can't recall off hand) on the question of guilt. Certainly it does not make people more anxious to edit the article. I would respectfully urge my colleague at the bar to consider well what he knows to be true because is is something a lawyer always watches: a legal pronouncement can have an intimidating effect.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Brother, as you wish. I have deleted my revised comments entirely from the Talk page relating to this Complaint, including my post above starting with "Italian law applies...". Thank you for your advice. Now I really am done for the night. Good night. RockSound (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I was getting worried, I haven't seen an ANI thread about this article for a few days and I was wondering what was wrong. -- Atama 07:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Rocksound is still under the mistaken impression that Jimbo has some sort of final say over what happens here. The last time he was brought to ANI, only a couple of weeks ago, he kept going on and on about wanting to get Jimbo onto the article again as if doing so will silence the critics. Personally I find that comments of this sort come close to a chilling effect on discussion. The other thing is that Rocksound, please use edit summaries more. I had a look at the MoMK history and the last 20 edits of yours had no edit summary whatsoever. Anyone wishing to see what was previously written has to open each revision up. --Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The style and content of RockSound's editing (especially the "pro-guilt" stuff and dancing on the edge of NLT) is very reminiscent of two indeffed users, Zlykinskyja and PhanuelB. Also the account was registered right in the middle of a batch of many other Kercher SPAs, as can be seen at User:Pablo X/spa. No doubt someone will suggest and SPI here, but we already know this gang are adept at fooling CU. Someone really just needs to step up to the plate and invoke WP:DUCK, really, enough editor's time is being wasted here. (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

To add to the duck case: user:Zlykinskyja aka user:PilgrimRose aka user:Darryl98 too mentioned in the past that they hold a law degree. Also their editing interrests lay close together: Criminal cases (not only MoMK) and focus on a certain geographical area and history. To top this off, user:RockSound's account was created and started editing the day after Zlykinskia's indef block and editing in the same time frame. The duck is running wild here.TMCk (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The Rock was also inactive between last August and this May. It would be interesting to know which user, if any, filled that time gap in a similar editing style. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Good question. If confirmed I hope there will be a swipe for sleeper accounts as well.TMCk (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I've opened an investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zlykinskyja.TMCk (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • They declined it due to the age of the presumed sockmaster. Were there any other self-declared legal-beagles dismissed around May 20th, when Rock resumed editing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • So we have an account that edits in exactly the same way as user:Zlykinskyja, was created the day after they were indeffed, uses the same language and terms, and hasn't been removed as a sock yet? Which bit of "completely obvious" is proving troublesome here? (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Meh. I only poke my head in here occasionally, but frankly why is no-one trying to fix the obvious problems with this article??. I've just indeffed RockSound as an obvious sock, and don't worry, I'm going to stick around to deal with any issues that might ensue. Seriously though folks, whatever happened to WP:DUCK? Don't faff around talking about it, if it's that obvious, just act. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I have to wonder if the author of that "open letter" is the sockmaster in this case, or if the sockmaster is merely a "fellow traveler". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • The "open letter" would definitely fit her editing style (while she plays nice).TMCk (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

PatakaZikatuna (talk · contribs)[edit]

We have a situation; this guy's been at it for over a year (including socking) with his obsession with a certain Vell Baria, an obvious vanity-page or possibly hoax. He's now again creating discographies, song-stubs, and whatnot. Can somebody explain to him (as others have tried before) that this persn isn't notable and that he needs to stop? Thanks. (see also Vellbaria (talk · contribs)) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

For added good measure, it's a biography (quite possibly autobiography) of a 16-year-old person with autism. I think we have BLP issues here. Favonian (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's a hoax, as the links on the page I just deleted shows. {I just went through each of them to make sure there was no new notability.} I am concerned about people avoiding page protection to recreate a deleted article. Which reminds me. Dlohcierekim 15:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dungeon Siege III leaks[edit]

Please forgive me if this is not the appropriate avenue. I am having an issue with an editor here, Jpheonix (talk · contribs) (ip User: are insisting on adding information about about a leak of a game, specifically torrent releases, basically little more than advertising the torrent (currently without links). They are ignoring consensus on the talk page, and failing to provide reliable sources for notability of the leak, they have seemingly disengaged from discussion completely. Kinda at a loss of what to do now, I'm aware I'm past 3RR (which makes reporting the user for simply edit warring a little hypocritical), but it can be seen from the section of the article and talk page linked above that these edits are of little to no encyclopaedic value. THe user's attitude on the subject is clear from their contributions. Rehevkor 16:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Jpheonix has continued to edit war, and has posted on his talk page that he is not going to stop. I can't see any alternative to a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Blocked 24h for edit warring, primarily, but they also need to understand WP:NOTNEWS and our copyright policies. —DoRD (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiHounding / Article ownership issues / Possible IP socks.[edit]

Yesterday I removed a line from the article Cláudio César Dias Baptista, which claimed one of his books contained a lexicon larger than the combined works of Shakespeare. The reference was a Portuguese dictionary definition for "lexicon" which stated Shakespeare's works contained 15.000 unique words. I took that as original research and removed it. The same article had a list of characters for the book Géa, which already exists in the article about the book itself, so I removed that as well. Today I noticed my edits had been undone by an IP that has edited the same articles a large number of times. The claim about the lexicon was also in the article Géa so I removed it there on the same grounds. The IP repeatedly undid my edits so after my third revert I stepped away and warned the user they were edit warring and risked violating WP:3RR. Then, looking at the Recent Changes page I saw that same IP (or one very close to it) had edited an article I had created. All they did was arbitrarily remove content. As I went through the list (which is in my user page), I saw several blanking edits by very similar IPs.

It's quite obvious that this user has serious article ownership issues. The user seems to be Mr. Baptista himself (who actively monitors his page on the Portuguese Wikipedia) or a student of his, as stated in Talk:Cláudio_César_Dias_Baptista.

Diffs from IP vandalism to articles I started: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

Diff for IP sock: [14] (IP user mentions they are the article creator), [15] (same claim of article creation, this time from User: Cláudio César Dias Baptista)

The user/IPs in question: User: Cláudio César Dias Baptista, User:, User:, User:, User:, User:, User:, User:, User:, User:, User:, User:

Any assistance or help in dealing with this would be appreciated. I was considering doing a cleanup of both articles, but it's difficult when you're being hounded by a dynamic IP. XXX antiuser eh? 23:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they didn't stop there. Here's more blanking, also on articles where I've had major participation: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] XXX antiuser eh? 23:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to put this together, antiuser. Looks like pretty clear wikistalking to me. I think a softblock of the range is warranted. It's fairly big (around 260,000 IP addresses), so maybe just a few hours to get their attention? — Satori Son 00:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I received an e-mail from En Wiki about this matter few minutes ago. The pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa were not of my authorship but, as it's told in the discussion of the first page, by one of my readers and later perfectioned by many different IPs. Mr. Antiuser has not a personal name to care, but I have and sign here and in Pt Wiki ever with my own name. If you see the list of pages created by Mr. Antiuser and the ones where he collaborated, you will note that there is a political polarization in that work, which polarization is "tropicalism", "socialism" and "comunism", the opposite of my belief. I think that polarization is the cause of his insistent deletion in page Cláudio César Dias Baptista of the information about my lexicon in opus Géa, from my authorship. That information is authentic, important and although the quantity of words in a vocabulary is not a proof of the quality of a book, it's a valid indication. The Dicionário Aurélio do not 'states' by itself, but present, in the enter "Léxicon" a citation of the book of Camilo Castelo Branco where the information about WS lexicon (15,000 words) is written. My lexicon in Géa is of 30,000 words and can be confirmed by its reading. The same book of Camilo Castelo Branco is mentioned in the page of his name, in En Wiki. That is the complete information which the reader of my books who created the page of my name in En Wiki put in that page and was deleted by Mr. Antiuser. I work in a computer that is accessed by many people, some of them are readers of my books, so, it's possible that one or several of them undid the edits of Mr. Antiuser. In the link '65' you will see that the author of the page Cláudio César Dias Baptista entered a section in my own computer and I myself signed the entering to confirm that the reader was in the same computer with me and that I put my e-mail there to everybody who would like to know more be able to contact myself directly and I would give then the e-mail of that reader, the author of that page, Rafael Konzen, who didn't want to expose his own e-mail in En Wiki pages because of the possibility of spam - more transparency from us is impossible. I also have many readers who access the books of my authorship via my site, 'CCDB Livros' section for on-line reading. It's also possible that one or more of them undid the editings of Mr. Antiuser. I affirm that I was not the author of these modifications; everything I do in En Wiki and in Pt Wiki I sign with my own name and only when logged in.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that this edit left on my talk page this morning has some of the same English idiosyncrasies as Mr. Baptista's post above, even though he said he always signs with his own name. I'm not even going to address the ludicrous claim that there's political bias in my contributions to WP. Mr. Baptista uses the fact that his book has an article on Wikipedia as a promotional point [23], but at the same time he hinders the collaborative nature of WP by effectively owning these articles and holding them hostage. I'm probably not going to touch those articles again, but hope that an admin might be able to do something about this. XXX antiuser eh? 13:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In full disclosure, there was an SPI case about this in the past two days. I protected the Claudio article and one other, but I held off on a rather wide IP block. If you guys feel it's warranted, though, go for it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I submitted that before I realised how wide their IP range is. Might have not been the best way to go about it, even though it is sockpuppetry just the same. XXX antiuser eh? 13:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I still support a range block, but I'm going offline for a bit so it probably shouldn't be me that implements it. — Satori Son 14:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

From my sixty six years old I invested ten in writting the opus Géa and almost other ten in creating the site where it is presented for on-line reading. My name is known in Brazil and in many countries not only because of that work but also as an audio and electronics expert, the creator of the musical group Os Mutantes, a musician and a special musical instrument manufacturer. Anybody with that name, or even with no name but to whom somebody created a page in En Wiki and in Pt Wiki, will monitor that page, specially if its content is modified and the page starts to produce misinformation. The cause for me to create an account in En Wiki and in Pt Wiki was, is and will continue to be only to monitor these pages. You who reads me, if you have a page with your personal name in Wiki would do the same, perhaps. I don't need promotion, in fact, I avoid it, as you may see by the history of my life - I am known as the "Hiden Mutante", because I never liked to promote myself and to be seen on stage (although I played there also with the other Mutantes) in the media. People write books about my life and write pages in Wiki also. This is not the good thing for me you may perhaps think. If you read Aeneid from Virgil, you will see how he describes the Fame: A monster with one thousand eyes. I think the same as him about Fame, so many years after his time. The only promotion I need for the book Géa is the book itself and its content. If you do not think I am doing 'promotion' here, I would like to kindly invite you to read that book, which is published by myself (in Portuguese) in my site, also created by myself, Then you will have a better perspective about the meaning of this discussion, the importance of the work Géa and the moral of my person. The "75" link above in Mr. Antiuser last paragraph leads to the page of my site where I present the opus Géa. I inserted there the information that the page Géa is published in En Wiki and that this is an international recognition, and that is not promotion, that is the simple truth. If you consider that that information is promotion for me, I would say that it's promotion also for En Wiki.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with your stature or status as a person, the importance of your work or any politics at all. It's simply about Wikipedia policy. It's within your right to monitor the page and to edit it when you believe it's necessary. However, repeatedly refusing to follow policy or even acknowledge the policy cited as the reason for an edit and then vandalising articles by the editor who performed the edit you oppose does nothing but disrupt and take away from the Wikipedia project. Please also be mindful that your actions in articles related to you and your work might constitute a conflict of interest, as it can be difficult to maintain a neutral point-of-view when you are that close to the subject. XXX antiuser eh? 15:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion 'should have nothing to do' but in fact it unhappily does with my person, because you, Antiuser, suggested that I was the person who edited the articles Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa and you are insinuating that I am such a person, when you say 'repeatdly refusing to follow policy'. I repeat that I was not the person who edited these articles and that my only purpose here in En Wiki and in Pt Wiki is to monitor them.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you say so, I will assume good faith and leave it be. However, I do find it uncanny that all of those IPs and your own account mostly focus on the same articles. Also, as you suggest, I looked deeper into your site and actually saw a reference to your pupil who created the articles on you and your book, one Rafael Konzen. On your website it's stated he lives in Manaus, yet all of the IPs that have performed the edits which I refer to are in the same range as the one who created the article - which is in Rio de Janeiro state, not Amazonas. Also, the same grammar/spelling idiosyncrasies are present in messages written by both your account and the IPs. That was what left me, as they say in Portuguese, 'with a flea behind my ear'. XXX antiuser eh? 16:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
You say you only monitor the pages, but now you are alleging that I am attacking your articles with political motivations on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cláudio César Dias Baptista. Please explain what political motivation I have for removing a piece of original research from an article which another editor whom I've never had any interactions with has nominated for deletion? This is a serious accusation you are making and unless you provide diffs to back up your claim, I will take it as a personal attack. XXX antiuser eh? 16:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Rafael Konzen lives in Manaus. He informed me that he created the page in his computer, but you know that computers are mobile things. What I know is that he didn't create the page in my computer. When he visited my house (distance from Manaus to Rio de Janeiro State is not a problem today), I logged in En Wiki and he wrote an answer in the talk page of Cláudio César Dias Baptista page, which I signed up to show everybody that there is a person who created that page who is not myself.

About the 'personal attack' you say that you can take my claim about your political motivation, I could see also as a 'personal attack' your suggestions that I am the person who made the attacks against the pages you mentioned. My claim that there are political motivations behind your movement against the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa is based in the fact that the pages you created in En Wiki shine with political colors and movements as "tropicalismo" which is in certain way a synonim of "socialismo" and even of "comunismo", easy to be noted by Brazilian people, but difficult to be noted by people of other countries. It's not necessary to have a flea behind one ear to see that your motivation is not constructive but destructive and that there is not 'original research' but real proofs in the section you deleted from the pages under discussion here.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please provide references of where you think I have acted with political motivations. I am doing nothing but acting in accordance to Wikipedia policy and you are accusing me of being a communist? Give me a break. By the way, I grew up in Brazil, so any cultural subtleties that you believe might be lost on me, be assured they are not. XXX antiuser eh? 16:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is an extract of the page created by yourself, Antiuser, named Paulinho da Viola: 'One step further, the leaders of the Tropicália movement - Caetano Veloso, his sister Maria Bethânia, Gilberto Gil, Gal Costa, Tom Zé and Jorge Ben a.k.a Jorge Benjor - got into trouble with the right wing dictators of Brazil in the 60's and 70's and some of them - Veloso and Gil - ended up incarcerated and then exiled. The MPB (Musica Popular Brasileira) movement that followed later is deeply respectful of the samba tradition it is rooted in, but is also politically active. ' - that is just one of the motives which led me to think that there are political motivations behind your deletions in the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa. The whole of your (meritable) opus in Wikipedia created also the clear idea that there are these political motivations behind your actions in these pages. I saw many people who were not born in Brazil like us constructivelly working during the growing up of the two pages - if you read the contributions to both pages you will find the names of these people. But it's painful for me, a Brazilian, a person who worked so many years to see our Language, the beautiful Portuguese Language, grow up with a work done in the best 'vernáculo', Géa, with really twice the WS lexicon, see the page of that work being deconstructed (!) exactly by a... Brazilian, who justifies that action behind the 'policy' of En Wiki!Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To use another Portuguese proverb, you're trying to find hairs on an egg. I'll withdraw from this conversation as I believe there's enough evidence of personal attacks and sockpuppetry for admins to take whatever actions they deem appropriate. I ask that you please refrain from making baseless personal attacks and read up on Wikipedia policy, especially WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:COI. XXX antiuser eh? 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you withdraw, Mr. Antiuser. Now... if not the great question, not for you, but to our coleagues and the administrators of En Wiki, here is perhaps a significative question: Why just a Brazilian (Mr. Antiuser) is so occupied in deconstruct the pages Cláudio César Dias Baptista and Géa about another Brazilian (myself), pages which were accepted and beautifully perfectioned by persons of other countries, who didn't find anything in these pages against any En Wiki's policy? Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You leave me no choice but to reply. You stated not long ago that you always post under your username. What about this then? An IP of the same range that you just claimed isn't you is making the exact same argument. Please stop making personal attacks and using sockpuppets to enforce your point of view. XXX antiuser eh? 17:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You withdrew byt I didn't. Here I see you again doing personal attacks against me, when you say that the IP 'of the same range' as mine wrote the same argument than I. Can you understand that 'same range' is not 'same IP'? And can you understand that I have many admirers, pupils, readers, all with access to En Wiki and which can read English, including my arguments, and also write their own comments utilizing the same or similar arguments? If the discussion is about a certain theme, of course the arguments will be similar! The number of persons who does the same argument is similar to the number of persons who vote for a politician - the vote is the same but the persons are not. You distorts the facts, saying that I am doing personal attacks against you, but the truth is exactly the contrary when you insist that I am the person who write all these entries in En Wiki.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The ip has also been adding irrelevant statements to the William Shakespeare and (bizarrely) William Shakespeare's religion page. BTW, it's not difficult or clever to have a bigger lexicon that Shakespeare if you just pile up words. It is not unusual for editors to concentrate on areas in which they have a specialist interest or knowledge. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Mr. Paul Barlow: Do you know the book Géa to say that it's a 'pile of words'? Please read it first, than do your comments based in facts. It's easy to pile words, but it's not to create twelve 250 pages volumes and a dictionary with 1,000 pages, as I did when I wrote Géa. The book is there in my site, - section CCDB Livros - to be read on-line. There you may also see the opinions of many readers. In the same site you will see links to reportings in important Brazilian magazines and many of these reportings copied (with authorization of the source) to my site. Your comment is one of those that anybody can do, because it's ever easier to underestimate things which you don't know than to expose a solid argument, based in facts, which you would have to invest your time to know. In fact, you do not know the book and is doing a mere superficial and ill-informed comment.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
This user has now created the sockpuppet account User:William T. Johannes to push his POV (along with his IPsocks) on the article deletion discussions. They have also added the lexicon information to a lot of pages relating to Os Mutantes. XXX antiuser eh? 10:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Psychoanalysis has, perhaps, a name for people who show your behaviour, Mr. Antiuser. You can find by yourself what name it is, if that name really exist. As I'm not an expert in psychoanalysis, I will not write that name here, or you would say that I am doing a personal attack. In fact I am just reverting the personal attack you are doing in this page and in many others of En Wiki, an attack that you're doing perhaps because, for you, 'it's forbidden' to have a lexicon twice the WS lexicon, as it's forbidden to exist a Brazilian 'Pai da Aviação' - Santos Dumont. Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


Note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cláudio César Dias Baptista‎ has confirmed Mr. Baptista's use of sockpuppets to fake a consensus on the AfDs for both his articles. XXX antiuser eh? 13:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

    • The investigations may say anything, but the Truth is other: I didn't use any sockpuppets to fake anything. As the theme of this destructive page is exhausted, as Mr. Antiuser is who he revealed to be and as I have constructive things to do (mainly writting new books), this is my last entering here.Cláudio César Dias Baptista (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


User vandalized three biographical articles and made false claims (including incest) to promote the non-notable article of the nonexistent person with false references that he/she created, and has only been edited by one user, him/her. Said was available for reading by people who might not have checked alleged citation and said might have been taken with them, them a possibility of being anyone, partners, investors, etc for redistribution via mouth or etc. Damaging to New York Jets corporation and Johnson & Johnson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop goes the weasel (talkcontribs) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diff links? Thank you. — Satori Son 15:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop goes the weasel (talkcontribs) 23:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • After confirming that the person is not referred to in the references given I have deleted Victoire-Eleanore Johnson as a blatant hoax. I'd like some other admins to confirm this, but I thought it best to ensure we did no harm, while we are checking. The editor involved has made no recent contributions, so I did not block, but notified them of this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I concur with speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. None of the references mention the person named, and a search finds only WP mirrors and Twitter/blog/social-network type sites - no reliable source for anything said here. The use of false references says to me that this is not just a new contributor who does not understand WP:Verifiability, it is deliberate deceit. Danielalex36 (talk) has returned to editing today, but has not responded to DGG's invitation to comment here. Unless he provides a good explanation, I think a block is in order. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Lying down game and persistent vandalism due to media interest / fad[edit]

Lying down game is getting plenty of attention due to its presence in the media and the Planking fad. It is getting a large amount of advert spam, drive by vandalism (both of the fake information and random profanity variety). Given that it is just myself and the bots watching the article at the moment, could we get the article protected against edits by IP and non-confirmed editors? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi'd for 2 weeks. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
As fads go, surely this is among the lamest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If planking was done while inebriated that would be excusable, but doing it while sober really pulls the other one.--Blackmane (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I like the one about the guy who did this on the edge of a building and then fell. He went from a plank to a slab. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree! I like it a lot when people die because they did something stupid, too. Wow, we're really good, superior people, aren't we? Kudos on living! (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's Darwinism in practical application. Here's another example:[24]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I think he went from a plank to stiffer than a board. Thank you evolution! I also took the liberty of wrapping your comment in small, Bugs --Blackmane (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Intimidating/Threatening behavior from User:HXL49[edit]

Resolved: HXL49 is blocked for 1 week. Quigley (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Earlier today, I benignly declined a WP:RFPP request from User:HXL49. HXL49 questioned the decline, and I calmly replied with this. HXL49 then aggressively retorts, which, in my opinion, is intimidating/threatening behavior. My question is, is intimidating/threatening behavior such as this acceptable? I must note that this is not the fist time HXL49 has been warned (here and here) for gross incivility and abrasive demeanor in the past. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say block one week for personal attacks, I thought consensus was rather clear last time around that we wouldn't put up with him continuing this kind of behaviour - and he's clearly ignored that and is continuing regardless. I'd block myself, but I'm just heading off. That said, you (Fastily) would have been wiser to not attempt to deal with the request opened by him. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Kingpin, I would be willing to take a 24-hour (or even 48) cooldown block, but not from you, and anything more than that can be construed as punishing, not preventative. Besides, the 60 or so of my past edits have been with AWB.
Fastily, if you are going to come here for every incident, especially when I had tried to restrain myself, then no one knows what to say of you. My last sentence of my reply at RPP had a point: don't process anything that I request. We will both avoid anything like what occurred at RFP/A or even what occurred at RPP again. And you should have learned this lesson earlier. Finally, I did not make a personal attack against you this time, contrary to the false statement, perhaps lie, of Kingpin's above, and I did not even touch Fastily's talk this time around; I did not even address you until the last clause of the 3rd sentence, out of 5 sentences in the reply. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't lie, a threat like the one you made is considered a personal attack, please read WP:NPA (specifically the section on what is considered a personal attacks) - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I blocked him for a week, there's no room for threats like this [25] RxS (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
If he's not going to get it then maybe a week's a bit short. That is an awful post and imo could be construed as a threat of harm. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 01:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I have absolutely no problem if someone wants to lengthen the block, I agree with you. RxS (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
This is particularly worrisome for HXL's future here especially considering it's only been a week since his last appearance here. --Blackmane (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
His 'last appearance here' also had to do with his interaction with User:Fastily, whose behavior towards HXL49 has not been angelic, to say the least. Quigley (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It may not have been the wisest move for Fastily to have responded to HXL's request, given their past history, but as he was acting within his admin capacity it is certainly within is purview to accept or reject the RFPP. My linking to the previous report was mostly to highlight the statement by HXL and his refusal to abide by WP:AGF. However, I believe that given he is now blocked, this should be marked as resolved. --Blackmane (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:DMSBel at Abortion[edit]

Looking for help Talk:New France[edit]


Moxy (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to stop certain Commons files from appearing here on english Wiki? I ask because I am involed in the article New France were we are have a problem that a French map keeps begin placed in the article (for over a year this has been happening). On english Wikipedia we have no clue what the map is saying - thus are having problem determining if its OR/Synthesis. . So I have brought the file up for deletion in hopes of a wider audience and received a very unpleasing response. Was here looking to get more experienced eyes on this problem before anyone gets blocked. I have tried many time to get User:Hypersite to engage in talks by way of his/her talk page and article page to no avail. Talk:New France#East Texas wasn't French ...What can I do ????Moxy (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It could be added to the bad image list with no allowed exceptions, but that's normally used for potentially offensive images that can be used to vandalise other pages. Exxolon (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
You might solicit the assistance of someone(s) from Category:User_fr to determine whether the image in question is, in fact, OR or synthetic. (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Have you tried running the French text through a mechanical translator? Won't be perfect, but might give you an idea of what it's about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The "very unpleasing response" is due largely to the fact that Moxy is treating the DR like an FFD, arguing based on en:wp policies such as WP:OR that don't matter at Commons. Commons is a multilingual project, so we shouldn't be surprised that other languages appear in its images. I've voted to delete, but for reasons unrelated to Moxy's rationale. Moxy, there's nothing you should do except seek to gain consensus at the talk page that it doesn't belong; if such consensus be reached, you can add a hidden comment of "DON'T ADD THIS IMAGE" and proceed to keep removing it if necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I read the link you provide on my commons page and understand that people can upload anything to commons (was not aware of this) - that's fine i guess. So how do we go about stoping it from being added here? As we do have policies here about OR and the fact our readers should understand what is being shown. If you were to read the deletion you can see that it being French is not a reason for deletion by why we dont want it here. I think we have consensus as its been removed by multiple editors multiple times over the past year. We also have the small talk going on over the past year (a small talk and is why I have tried here and other place to get more involved). Do you really think a note will stop the addition of this map knowing it's history? - do you have any other suggestion on how we can not have this here - as you can see we don't understand it or are interpreting it wrong. Moxy (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
" people can upload anything to commons" That's not the case. Commons is most concerned that images are free. They will not accept previously copyrighted material unless there is a specific waiver from the copyright owner, and do not support "fair use" images or files. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes thank you i am award of copy right issues - just surprise about OR maps - I see that the map will be fixed. Thank you all for your time - I believe it's all going to be solved over at commons so i will close this. Moxy (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[edit]

This IP needs to be indef blocked for personal attacks [31] [32] [33], changing other users talk page edits in a way which changes meaning [34] [35] [36] [37], and for the vandalism which the user is already temporarily blocked for. Ryan Vesey (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We can't indef-block IPs. I've revoked their talk-page access, hopefully they will get bored and go away. I suggest ignoring them if they mess about more when the block expires. If they vandalize again, somebody will block them again. --John (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please lift page protection on Santorum (neologism)[edit]

Editing at the page has been orderly until yesterday when a single editor, Avanu, launched an edit war, and at his third revert (against 3 different editors) spammed this noticeboard, and BLPN with a complaint, which was ignored at BLPN and dismissed, with some concerns expressed about the Avanu's behaviour, here. Fastily [protected the article at the request of an editor who, as far as I can see, has never edited or had anything to do with it.

In this discussion at the article talk page, Avanu received unanimous opposition to his edit, including from those on his side of the RfC discussion. I and another editor asked Fastily 9 hours ago to lift page protection, and our request was followed by one from Avanu to keep it (and his unanimously opposed edit) in place. An edit request for Avanu's edit to be reverted has not been acted on for 6 hours. Done 11:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at this article is robust but orderly and, amazingly, good faith collaboration from all sides means a consensus about the way forward seems to be crystalising. There has been no editwarring until Avanu started his nonsense yesterday. Would someone please lift page protection? We don't need it to protect us from one disruptive editor. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reducing to semi-protection, Martin. Would you please consider lifting protection altogether, because one of the prominent contributers is an IP, and the article is not being excessively vandalised or disrupted by new or IP editors? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Not sure if I should remove that "resolved" tick up there. 11:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The information above has several inaccuracies, and really accuses me of bad faith editing, using terms like "orderly until yesterday when a single editor, Avanu" and "spammed". In addition, the "unanimous opposition" comment is also inaccurate. Reo argued that other things were higher priority, and Tarc and Collect made statements that showed they agreed that bias is present. The sentence which has "our request was followed by one from Avanu to keep it (and his unanimously opposed edit) in place" is *ALSO* inaccurate because I only made a case for continuing page protection, NOT a defense of my edit. In short, a very biased and inaccurate picture was painted in order to get an admin to intervene on this again. If we're going to work on this together, editors cannot do this. -- Avanu (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm talking about opposition to your edit, not your stance. As for "keeping the page protection in place" = "keeping your edit in place", I wasn't implying you said that, I indicating that they went hand in hand, that one was the consequence of the other. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Martin. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Why doesn't that IP guy just register an account? -- Avanu (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Because she doesn't want to. You're all reminded, yet again, that if you discuss me on ANI, you're obligated to notify me on my talk. (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Considering that you've been blocked 4 times in the last 6 weeks, maybe you should just check ANI on a frequent basis and see if your "name" has turned up yet again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Please don't misstate my block log. I've only been blocked twice in the last 6 weeks. (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, gee, you're right.[38] Blocked twice, and in each case a second entry to shut you up for the duration of the block. Thanks for clarifying that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, turns out that IP editors are held to a higher standard than those of you with accounts. For example, had I exhibited the same degree of incivility towards you that you've expressed at me, I'd already be blocked. How 'bout you drop it, okay? (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Ha. As you noted on your own talk page,[39] IP's actually can get away with a lot of stuff that registered users can't. That's the real reason IP's won't create real user accounts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Um, did you even read that diff before you decided on what I'd said? (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you lighten up just a little? This wasn't really a discussion of *you*, but IP contributors being blocked from editing there. It seems like each time you weigh in, there's a hint of frustration/anger in your tone. To me, it looks like the editors above were just trying to do you a favor. -- Avanu (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If you were discussing IP editors generally, you wouldn't have used the phrase "that IP guy." Just saying. (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Looking at that IP's contributions, and the amount of disruption it is causing across the project, it's either already been banned in some other form (or subject to a long/indef block) or it is going to receive that sort of remedy in the near future to prevent further disruption. Best to keep an eye on it before it causes anymore exhaustion for (or disruption to) the project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to point out that calling an IP "it" is inappropriate, after all there is still a person (a self-identified "she"). Now, if Watson started editing under an IP, that would be a different story. Personally I think Watson would be a great help at the Reference Desk. -- Atama 16:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you want to call up IBM, or should I? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
What exactly would you propose then, some PC gibberish like "xe" ? Personally, I have always referred to IP editors as "it", and will continue to do so; if they wish to have a more cozy pronoun, then they can create an account. Tarc (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Instead of "he" or "she" or "xe" or "it", how about "ip"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with he, she, or xe. I'm not okay with "it" or words that aren't actually pronouns, and I'll consider it uncivil if you intentionally refer to me incorrectly in the future. (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
This is an online encyclopedia not a chat battlefield, your contributions are all the same, battle battle battle - do you intend to add any content or are you going to continue in the same vein? As a contributor currently you are a net loss, nothing but disruption at multiple locations would describe your contributions so far. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I have been very appreciative of the editor from an IP address' contributions. The above comment sounds very belittling and not in the spirit of civilly editing the encyclopedia. Gacurr (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Would it be ok to archive and restart this thread since its really been little but off-topic comments since the beginning? -- Avanu (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────────────FWIW, I think that this article needs to remain protected, for the moment at least. (talk)

I agree (and 24 and I haven't been agreeing so much on the talk page lately); I'm no admin, but I think the page should probably be protected until the RfC concludes, much as I hate to say it. It's political silly season, it's a controversial topic, and there's no shortage of editors who Act To Do What's Obviously Right without understanding consensus (or too often, bothering to actually read policy). // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The page should be protected and the neologism maintained. Fans of Santorum might not like it, but this is a real neologism that started with a hosts dislike for the politician. Not including information about the term (and its history) would be confusing. Because the definition is out there on the internet. People are going to be looking for the etymology of the word. (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


This flame war does not seem to have led to behavior that's administrator actionable, though it showed a number of editors in a poor light. As the discussion has degenerated as well, I am closing / archiving. A user conduct RFC could follow if the offended parties feel it necessary. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:58, 12 June 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.

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) has recently been making a large number of gratuitous personal attacks on editors [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin/Evidence, this is hardly a first offense. Users who treat discussions on Wikipedia like flame wars may need to be blocked. Chester Markel (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty funny stuff, considering Orange thinks abortion doesn't kill. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Provocative remarks that are utterly relevant to the immediate problem are always helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Always glad to be of service. The "immediate problem" is Orange claiming (in low-life language) to be much more intelligent than everyone else. Yet he doesn't know that abortion kills. If that's high intelligence, then goddess help us all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Once again, Baseball Bugs, please read WP: SOAP and quit posting irrelevant person opinions regarding politics on this page.-- (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You have all of 19 edits, so what do you know about anything? This much I do know: That abortion kills an embryo or fetus is not a political viewpoint, it's a biological fact. The political question is whether the aborted embryo or fetus is legally a "person". That has nothing to do with the biological fact that abortion kills the embryo or fetus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, and male masturbation "kills" millions of sperm. Your point? This is NOT relevant to the discussion at hand. As usual, you are trolling and making incendiary, uncalled-for statements when they are completely unrelated to the discussion. And, for the record, I have been editing here under multiple IP addresses for years. How you have managed to avoid being blocked indefinitely is beyond me.-- (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
This is off topic guys, let's try and maintain focus please. GiantSnowman 00:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Not completely off-topic, since Orangemarlin's competence is relevant here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
How so? (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Because he thinks abortion does not kill the embryo or fetus. He needs to go back and re-take Biology 101, because he obviously missed something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting that he appears to have both a left and right "nutsack". That's pretty powerful stuff, but what was that personal attack he made reference to in the second out of curiosity? Not saying that anything could have just have justified that... idk what to even call that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Given that this ANI refers to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin, and comments relating to that, I have notified jpgordon (as the report does not indicate that he has been approached recently about the allegations above). Not commenting in any other way at this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The arbitration itself was overturned due to procedural flaws, such as secrecy and no opportunity for participation by the defendant. As vacating the decision doesn't reflect any substantive exoneration of Orangemarlin, the evidence is still useable. Chester Markel (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I also understand that arbcom simply overturned the decision, rather than rehearing the matter publicly, with the understanding that problems with Orangemarlin's behavior wouldn't recur. Unfortunately, that obviously isn't the case. Chester Markel (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Orangemarlin's behavior is not just the personal attacks and unceasing profanity, but also the continued assumption that anyone who holds an opinion that differs from his is anti-science or a bigot in some way. This is delibrately (IMO) inflammatory and not productive to the project - to put it mildly. It needs to stop. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh goodie. I needed some excitement. Popcorn? -Atmoz (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Chester, did you happen to notice that no arbs have complained of OM's posts about FT2? That would be because they accepted what he said (whether unnecessarily forceful or not — that's a matter of taste), and saw the OM case as an embarrassment to arbcom, which defended and protected the dishonest FT2 for far too long. It's weird, to put it mildly, to see you setting up your own views on the Orangemarlin case, and on FT2, as believing yourself better-informed than these arbs. I suggest you read up on these things. You may be less inclined to attack Orangemarlin once you know more about what happened. Risker's post here would be a good place to start. About OM's page: I realise you had to alert him about this thread (though the thread itself seems unnecessary, and primarily a means of keeping the flames burning). But stop prodding him on his page right now, please. You're done there, per his request. [45]Wikipedia is not a battleground. You too, Michael Price: this is not your opportunity to bring the abortion war to ANI. I quote Chester M above: "Users who treat discussions on Wikipedia like flame wars may need to be blocked." That applies to you guys too. Bishonen | talk 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC).
Excuse me, Bishonen, the problems with Orangemarlin go way beyond the "abortion war". This is a pattern of abuse and incivility that has existed for years and across many articles. If you are not aware of that then perhaps you need to do a little research of your own. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 23:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Arbitrators' reasons for not sanctioning Orangemarlin for comments related to FT2 are obvious. There would be a perceived conflict of interest if they took action against editors for criticism of purportedly official actions taken by a former arbitrator, even when formulated as blatant personal attacks for which users would normally be blocked. But the community has no such COI. And many of Orangemarlin's most recent personally attacks are directed against editors having no affiliation with arbcom at all. The existence of a flawed arbitration case doesn't excuse severe NPA violations.
My starting this thread isn't "primarily a means of keeping the flames burning". AN/I or arbcom are the only available fora to request involuntary remedies for severe behavioral problems. The prudence of not starting a request for arbitration under these circumstances should be apparent. Chester Markel (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • While I see that some of those diffs are uncivil, I don't see a personal attack in the bunch. Everyone should be reminded that profanity is not, in and of itself, either uncivil or an attack, and, while profane/unflattering characterizations of another editors contributions may be uncivil, they are also not personal attacks. (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • If you "don't see a personal attack in the bunch", then you need to read WP:NPA more carefully. "You have the moral fiber of an ant"[46] "My left nutsack knows more than you"[47] and similar highly unfavorable characterizations of editors' personal qualities, ad nauseum, are obvious personal attacks. If these sorts of comments are tolerated, WP:NPA would lose meaning. While Orangemarlin's continual swearing certainly isn't helpful, that's not what I'm complaining about. Chester Markel (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Look, I don't really agree with it, but it's been explained to me in the past that an attack is more than just an unflattering characterization of another editor. WP:UNCIVIL calls out a distinction between "personal attacks" and "disrespectful comments." I would characterize the above diffs as more the latter than the former. (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_IP. Chester Markel (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What we have here is OM being WP:BAITed by a group of editors for making a statement that almost no one would agree with. If you believe that "abortion kills a foetus" you also believe that creating a stem cell line from an aborted embryo saves a life. In other words, what we have is a group of editors like Micheal Price and Bugs who are doing this best to provoke OM for making a statement that only a narrow fringe would disagree with. Either they're attacking him on purely political grounds, or they can't figure out the simple logic of what he said. So he's right, and the people attacking him are not smart enough to grapple with the problem, or this is nothing but an attempt by pro-lifers to censor inconvenient facts. It's always kinder to assume stupidity rather than malice. Guettarda (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. There are over 65,000 Google Scholar results[48] for the phrase "fetal death", and 2,500 Google Scholar results[49] for the exact phrase "death of the fetus" in the context of abortion. I've discussed some of the latter search results on talk:Abortion, and explained how these WP:MEDRS specifically describe fetal death as an outcome of abortion. So Orangemarlin's comments like "Abortion does not cause death. Seriously, how can something not living die?"[50] are totally without merit, your original research notwithstanding. If, as you propose, Orangemarlin should be given a free license to make as many severe personal attacks as he wants if he's right, he isn't, and he shouldn't. Chester Markel (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
All this bellyaching is over abortion topic editing? IMO if you're going to get yourself involved in a topic that nuclear, then you accept a bit of rough play, whether you're pro-or anti-. Toughen up the skin and move on. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should amend WP:NPA, then, to indicate that it's inapplicable to controversial subjects, for which severe personal attacks are par for the course. Or we could recognize that flame warring is especially inappropriate in that context. If you propose to modify the policy in this way, I don't think you'll get much support. Chester Markel (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I did not propose a change to policy, I proposed that you simply quit bellyaching when editing in a hot-button topic area. Perhaps there's a mild Pokemon article that could use some sprucing up. Tarc (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
If you do believe there's a NPA line even on controversial subjects, then what crosses it? Detailed insults about editors' purportedly diminutive genitalia? Legal threats? Anything? Chester Markel (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, Orangemarlin's disparagement of FT2 has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, or any other particular article subject. The "nuclear topic" NPA exception won't hold in that respect. The fact that Guettarda introduced the content dispute over the abortion article to this discussion shouldn't sidetrack it, especially as none of my initial diffs were from talk:Abortion. If you want to give editors free reign to make personal attacks on "nuclear" topics, couldn't we at least confine the disruption to directly related article talk pages? Chester Markel (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
You honestly don't have the slightest idea the history between FT2 and Orangemarlin, do you? Let me start you off with some reading material on a matter that was about this close from starting a intra-ArbCom/Arbcom-Community miniwar: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Orangemarlin and other matters, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee. Do take some time to read all of it. NW (Talk) 02:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it precisely on controversial, highly disputed matters that avoidance of blatant personal attacks is most important? Although acting in good faith, FT2 took extremely injudicious actions that had to be overturned, but nonetheless created a disruption. Does it follow that that "You have the moral fiber of an ant"[51] is an appropriate characterization? While I've been highly critical of some recent arbitration decisions myself, harsh criticism of perceived problematic actions needn't degenerate into gratuitous personal attacks. Chester Markel (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Note that FT2 has not strenuously objected to Orangemarlin's comment. I hardly think he agrees with it, but he is astute in observing that escalating the matters through the dispute resolution processes (WQA, here, elsewhere) would only stir up bad feelings and drama. If he wants to pursue the matter, he can. Otherwise, the matters relating to OM–FT2 should be dropped. NW (Talk) 03:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
If Orangemarlin weren't making additional severe personal attacks on unrelated subjects, his comments regarding FT2 never would have been an issue as a prior offense. I'm quite willing to drop the entire issue, if Orangemarlin adheres to a reasonable standard of conduct in the future. If we hear more comments like "My left nutsack knows more than you"[52], I don't regard that as a satisfactory outcome. Chester Markel (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
You'll notice that I said nothing at all about that diff, and only referenced the FT2 one. You really don't appear to understand the history there, and so long as the editor who that diff is actually being directed at isn't complaining, bringing it up here is unnecessary. NW (Talk) 03:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, then what's to be done about the other diffs? Simply ignoring the behavior hasn't worked. Taking no action now, and no action in the future if it happens again seems to weaken the NPA policy considerably. Chester Markel (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Chester wrote: "If these sorts of comments are tolerated, WP:NPA would lose meaning." Amen, I couldn't have put it better myself. Since NPA policy clearly applies quite strictly to certain editors, but not at all to certain others who are "favored" by the wiki-elites, what we have here is yet one more incontrovertible proof to the whole world that all "policies" on wikipedia are nothing but an empty, meaningless sham, and that the acceptability of your agenda to the elites is the only thing that really counts here. (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite that willing to give up on Wikipedia yet. Chester Markel (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Reading what precedes the first diff, I think Orangemarlin is venting some anger because the issue he raises is not taken serious. I've been in a similar boat some time ago (a totally unjustified advocacy restriction passed on the basis of a secret trial in which I had no opportunity to present a defense, and an appeal would be a violation of exactly that restriction); I found a way to deal with that differently, by not taking the system itself that caused the problem serious. In this case that means that you just declare that you do not recognize the authority of ArbCom as I've done on my userpage. I was actually blocked for making these statements, but Sandstein overturned that. So, there are ways to get the message accross without using strong words. Count Iblis (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment I have undone Chester Markel's close because he was involved as the initiator and added inflammatory commentary in the closing statement. Could Chester Markel please stop editing in this disruptive way? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. It seemed quite obvious that no action was going to be taken on the thread. But perhaps I'm wrong: would you like to suggest some useful resolution? Characterizing my comment as "inflammatory" is rather ironic, under the circumstances. Chester Markel (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems we have differing conceptions of disruptive editing. I believe that [53] [54] [55] [56] violates the guideline. Perhaps that's okay, but closing a discussion that has obviously become unproductive, and suggesting a technical measure to resolve a behavioral problem in lieu of administrative action is actually disruptive. Chester Markel (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The thread has run it's course, so either wait for it to be archived or let an uninvolved editor or administrator close it, if they see fit. Mathsci (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin has been repeatedly admonished, over many years, to clean up his language and stop abusing editors. Yet when folks actually bring specific complaints to AN/I nothing is ever done. What's the point of issuing warnings if no action is ever taken when such warning and admonishments are ignored? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 06:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

While it's possible that OM's ongoing behavior is in fact actionable, the particulars of this incident are not really favorable to anyone involved. I don't see anything for an uninvolved admin to do here. If editors want to start a RFC on behavior patterns then please feel free to do so. There's nothing actionable here and the thread is just causing more spite and vinegar. I am going to close the thread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.


Can somebody with a bit more knowledge elucidate on this post please? I've searched Wikipedia for moderator, and all it brings up is a redirect to Admin. I never knew that there was such a term in employ at Wikipedia, and suspect that if it does then perhaps it's esoteric and not in common use, or understanding. IP will be informed as soon as I've finished posting this. a_man_alone (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

IP appears confused. Administrators aren't employed; the Foundation has a limited number of staff who deal with the community, but the description given doesn't match what they do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. You can see all "positions" at WP:UAL, but they're more rights levels than anything. The vast majority of work on Wikipedia is done by volunteers such as ourselves. There are definitely no "moderators" or "regulators" anywhere on Wikipedia. Administrators might fit the closest definition, but even their actions are subject to potential review. I suspect the IP was trying to lie to give a sense of authority. elektrikSHOOS 11:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I figured as much. That's an interesting link - WP:UAL - cheers muchly. a_man_alone (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


Resolved: User indefinitely blocked, articles all deleted.

I suspect this editor's contributions may be entirely spurious, but wasn't confident enough to report at WP:AIV. If the articles created are all inventions of the editor's vivid imagination, they'll need to be deleted. Skomorokh 13:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm no moderator, but I don't think that this is a valid defence against speedy deletion... a_man_alone (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Formula One Beta is a copy of various other F1 articles. Exxolon (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
And Planet Samurai and The Ninja Kids Series are blatant fabrications. Can someone just indef him and delete all his spurious articles please? Exxolon (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Request block for two more editors continued editing of the same point by a previously involved editor without discussion, checking sources, or including mitigating point[edit]

μηδείς (talk, who was already involved in the edit warring on this point, has done so again without further discussion at the talk page. I request a block of this editor and some clarity from administrators about the fact that discussion and consensus and accurate presentation of material (if found to be relevant in the first place) is required in general, much less after all of this.

When this was reverted by another editor with the warning that it should be discussed on the talk page before any further edit to that point, another edit by Hashem sfarim restored the material yet again, TWICE, in defiance and denial of the issues here, fully aware of the edit warring and discussion.

(Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) has completely refused to discuss this issue, and now μηδείς (talk has ignored the central two points of the revert of this point out of the article: First, that suggesting this is part of the scandal implies it is improper behavior, and Second, that suggesting it and only printing Weiner's denial of impropriety, without the family's confirmation and the result of the police visit, is extreme POV.

Communications that were not part of the scandal were not part of the scandal. By "part of the scandal", just to be clear, as it seems to escape many editors at that page, I mean itself scandalous or germane to an understanding of the scandal. Aside from the fact that it shouldn't be here at all, placing this detail in the article with only the fact that Weiner "claimed" the Tweets in question were not illicit in an article about a man who initially denied Tweeting the other photo is presenting it in a way that suggests, "Eh, he could be telling the truth this time, but what do you think, reader? It is, after all, considered by Wikipedia an encyclopedic aspect of this scandal. But we'll let you decide." Well it's not up to the reader to decide based on that sort of presentation. Because the cited source for the material these two editors are insisting on putting into the article happened also to say that the girl and her family confirmed the congressman's characterization. They apparently don't want to mention that to the reader, or discuss it with me at that article's talk page, which is what one is supposed to do when one finds one's edit reverted out of the article.

A source I read this morning, but which has since been replaced, when I go back and click on it in my browser history, with an updated article focusing on congresspeople calling for his resignation rather than the exculpatory detail, actually quoted a Delaware police source that their investigation at the girl's home confirmed this. So I thought I would revert the section out of the article, post on the article's talk page my editorial judgement about the violations, and then go in search of a version of the article that confirms the police confirmation—not so that we could put in to our encyclopedia that for about an hour this morning the fact of a police investigation might have led some people to believe Weiner did something inappropriate in those Tweets, but now we have police confirmation that he did not, but to show why this shouldn't be in there at all.

WP:3RR explicitly states that one is exempt when the edits involve:

"Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

So, noting that I was given a 3RR warning on my talk page