Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Logged out bot?[edit]

I think the RfC notification bot is currently editing while logged out; see [[1]]. Is that an error, or am I misunderstanding something? If I understand the instructions on that User talk:2A02:EC80:101:0:0:0:2:8, I'm supposed to softblock it to force the bot to log in. But I don't want to mess something up by doing so, so I thought I should ask here first. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Anomie has softblocked 2A02:EC80:101:0:0:0:2:0/124 which covers that individual IP. Legoktm (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

This is not a matter for ANI. If clarification is required regarding the BLP, for instance, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons is a good place to start. Opining on this or that edit without asking for administrator intervention is at best turning this into a forum and at worst a fishing expedition. Let's move on. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2013 (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.

I am certainly learning about what is considered proper behavior here and what is not. In the future I will never be engaging in debate about other people’s views, only making suggestions for better wording. I abhor a culture where attacking others is acceptable and refuse to ever fall into becoming part of that culture again.

For offending other editors, I am truly sorry. This should be a collaborative effort not a battleground. My intention in coming to ANI was to find a way to reduce conflict, not create additional conflict.

My reading of BLP seems to be at odds with that of some other editors on Wikipedia, but some of the editors most vocal about my understanding have been roundly criticized for their explanations of their understanding of BLP: [2]. I believe strongly that in all places (not just WP) people should not have negative things written about them unless it can be very well sourced and couched in appropriate language and that all people should be considered innocent until proven guilty. We also need to be very careful to accurately reflect subject's views and what they say. Misrepresenting a person's views (in an article, or those of another editor) is never a good idea. To the extent that I have not followed BLP as understood by most Wikipedians, I apologize.

For my further education, does anyone want to opinion on this edit [3]and this edit [4]. Is this how we improve articles? Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Those both appear to be the same edits, but it is never appropriate to discuss another editor on an article talk page, no matter what they might have done. That is what user talk pages are for, the article talk page is solely and only for discussing improvements to the article. Apteva (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Good catch Apteva, thanks. I just updated my post with the correct link (1st one) in the chronological order.Legacypac (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Same problem. On Commons it is absolutely forbidden to name an editor in a section heading. That entire section should be deleted, as it was, six minutes later. Apteva (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
And to which I made no objection. Thought I was providing a community service. Didn't know about that rule. Now I do. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
[That's a commons rule, and it is so blatantly a violation that it does not even need to be in our guidelines. Commons has next to no guidelines for anything.] Our Talk page guidelines do not say enough about the subject. They leave too much to expectation. Article talk pages are for discussing the article, user talk pages are for discussing user conduct and any content issues that are peculiar to that editor, like above. Basically there are two methods of group decision making, parliamentary and consensus. Neither allow directing comments to or about participants. Parliamentary directs all comments to the moderator/clerk/chair. Consensus directs all comments, even disciplinary comments, to the group, unless the subject is disciplining one participant, such as here. Why is it done that way? Because it works. All of us are participants and all comments are equally important to all of us. Apteva (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I am struggling to think how Apteva can possibly imagine that parliamentary procedure does not allow comments on participants. The UK Parliament certainly does, as does the Australian one. They occasionally require a degree of circumlocution (so that I might not be allowed to call Apteva a liar but could quote Winston Churchill and say that I suspect him/her of a "terminological inexactitude") and do require remarks to be addressed to the Speaker or chair, but this didn't bar Margaret Thatcher from describing her opponents as "Frit! Frit!", nor Geoffrey Howe from bringing her down with his resignation speech, nor Julia Gillard from her blistering yet thoroughly parliamentary criticism of Tony Abbott. I'm also not sure that Wikipedia would benefit from requiring me to use phrases such as "I am struggling to think how Apteva can possibly imagine that" when I could just write "Why do you think that". NebY (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2013 (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.

Request for a DUCK block of User:Jayakrishnan.ks101[edit]

Someone got blocked. Someone else will be more careful. --regentspark (comment) 19:04, 14 May 2013 (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.

Can we get a quick DUCK block of

as a sock of blocked

*Jayakrishnan.ks100 (talk · contribs) Thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  • a) I'm not blocked. b) This proves that disruptive users can take even senior editors for a ride through impersonation. JK (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done. And the masterblock for Gogdygody has been extended to indefinite. Jayakrishnan.ks100 seems to be the victim of an impersonation attempt, see this revert. De728631 (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done De728631 already took care of them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

      • Thank you for pointing that out. Blocked indef as possible sockpuppets of Gogdygody, and for misleading usernames. De728631 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2013 (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.

Coordinated vandals at Eugene V Debs[edit]

Eugene V. Debs is being repeatly vandalized by three editors (history here [5]). The edits of User:Elijah morton, User:PDavis Million and User:24.117.180.113 are similar and happen close together. I can't keep up with them. Please help. Howicus (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think they've stopped now. I warned Elijah morton again, User:Hmrox warned User:24.117.180.113, and User:PDavis Million didn't edit again. Howicus (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Elijah hasn't edited since their last warning while PDavis has only edited once without warning. The IP hasn't received a note either. In case the behaviour continues, an administrator can take action. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Legal Threat at Talk:Susan_L._Burke[edit]

editor blocked. --regentspark (comment) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (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.

IP made a legal threat here. Will notify IP and place notice on article talk page. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2013 (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.

Use of RevisionDelete on The Name of the Doctor[edit]

RevDel undone. Sanctity of policy preserved. --regentspark (comment) 18:04, 15 May 2013 (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.

Plot details for an upcoming episode of Doctor Who, The Name of the Doctor have been leaked, and an anonymous user posted a plot synopsis on the episode's article. This edit was subsequently reverted, and the page semi-protected by User:Black Kite. All well and good, considering the information is unverifiable. But does this really warrant the use of RevisionDelete, again by Black Kite? Keep in mind that this is not a copyright issue, and not a WP:BLP either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipedison1891 (talkcontribs) 17:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Does this really need to be discussed? Four days and the article will correctly summarize the plot. Let's just leave this with a "not to be considered a RevDel precedent" note and focus our energies elsewhere. --regentspark (comment) 18:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
(I've undone regentspark's close of this thread) I'd say it needs to be discussed, yeah. Tools like revdelete are used to remove serious policy violations covered by specific criteria, not because "ooh spoilers" - even if they're really popular or dramatic spoilers Or ones that if we prevent them, we'll get bonus extra clips c'mon Moffat pleeeeease. The revdelete tool removes non-admins' ability to track page history, and that's a really valuable element of the wiki software. That's why we use revdelete so sparingly and carefully in the first place, and I'm disappointed to see that going wrong and it being used casually here. I see that BK cited IAR in his deletion summary, but he also seemed to know that his action would be disputed, since he said to "trout him if we wish". IAR, as I wish more people would understand, is not for cases where one knows the action will be contentious and disagreed with - it's for cases where what "the right thing to do" is is so clear that you know that even if it's not in the rules, it's what everyone would agree is the common-sense choice. In this case, that's not true and sets a very strange precedent (even if we wag our fingers and say this isn't a precedent) wherein WP:SPOILER is suddenly routed around and we not only blank spoilers, but we send them down the memory hole. I would support the reversion of this revdelete, whether by Black Kite or by another admin. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness sake. I used revdelete not because what was posted was a spoiler (actually, it appears to be complete bollocks), but because there was such an internet frenzy off-wiki (involving multiple quite reliable sites posting "look at Wikipedia - it tells you everything!" and pointing to that revision) that all that would have happened was that the "spoiler" would have been re-posted over and over again, probably in even worse English than the first one. We can do without all that, which is why I (a) revdeleted the "spoiler", and (b) semi'd the article. As I said in the revdel summary, if you think I was wrong, undo it and smack me over the head with an enormous fish. But I think I was correct. (Incidentally, the same thing appears to have happened on Template:Doctor Who as well - also revdeleted by a different admin.) Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the revdel largely for the reasons Fluffernutter outlined above. Simply put, we don't revdel spoilers, unless they are sufficiently detailed to rise to the level of a copyright violation (see Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works#Avoiding_violating_copyright), which this one was not. There is also a very good reason for retaining it in this case: editors may wish to later base a plot summary on this prior content, and it also aids in investigating the activity of the editor that added it. We never remove content solely to assuage panic by people off-wiki who don't understand how Wikipedia works. I would, frankly, question that this material was removed at all, since it could be verified using the leaked video, but that's another matter. I will also restore the revision in the template. Dcoetzee 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
No, as I said, we don't use revdel for that reason, but (as I also said about 5cm above) I wasn't revdel-ing it because of that, I was trying to stop disruption of the article, but whatever. Fine. Is it a slow news day today or something? Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Although I appreciate that your action was made in good faith, valid uses of revdel don't include "there are confused (I'm being charitable here) people elsewhere on the internet". Sorry. — Scott talk 16:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The template edits were revdeleted because they were LTA trolling, not because they also happened to contain spoilers. That falls under RD3; good-faith spoiler-posting doesn't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
My mistake, I'll leave those ones alone. I don't support revdel'ing vandalism either, since it complicates investigation of vandal accounts, but those revdels are at least in line with policy. Dcoetzee 21:02, 14 May 2013 (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.

Problematic IP editor persistently adding incorrect information to articles[edit]

Over the last few weeks, IP user 2.219.140.198 (talk) has been persistently putting incorrect information into articles. In most cases, this has involved the annual passenger usage figures included in the infoboxes in British railway station articles. Station usage data is published by the ORR and is available on-line: [6]

As an example, the Excel data available at that link gives the official 2011/12 usage figure for Glasgow Queen Street railway station as 20,929,594 (i.e. 20.930 million), yet this IP user has added a range of different incorrect figures to this article alone, as listed below:

  • 21.310 million (edit of 15:38, 7 April 2013) [7]
  • 20.100 million (edit of 23:07, 7 April 2013) [8]
  • 20.100 million (edit of 23:18, 10 April 2013) [9]
  • 23.234 million (edit of 22:27, 6 May 2013) [10]
  • 23.340 million (edit of 22:52, 13 May 2013) [11]

I have corrected the figure in the above article and have twice warned the user against adding wrong information.–Signalhead < T > 18:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement (2nd nomination)[edit]

Discussion closed. Ironholds (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2013 (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.

without contacting a specific admin, this AfD has run over 7 days and requires closure. thanks LibStar (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll close it now. Ironholds (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Aaand done. Ironholds (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2013 (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.

Death of Tia Sharp[edit]

An RM discussion has been started (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 15 May 2013 (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.

Per Talk:Death of Tia Sharp, please could an admin rename the article to Murder of Tia Sharp, or lift the move protection. The trial is over and Stuart Hazell was convicted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong venue. That is what WP:RM is for. Apteva (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course, would-be Admins have to show knowledgability of the various WP Fora... but also are expected to be helpful Face-wink.svg Cheers! Basket Feudalist 11:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
...helpful AND friendly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the proper term would be "wanna-be". Thomas.W (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2013 (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.

POV pushing Greek users trying to cover up a Greek massacre of Turks during Greco-Turkish war 1919-1922[edit]

See the page Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres and its talk page, this article is constantly edited by POV pushing users who are distorting facts, source abusing, making false accusations against the sources and their authors.

The article is about a massacre and dozens of burned villages in a area in modern day Turkey by the Greek army. The users Alexikoua and Athenean are trying to cover up the events, first Alexikoua added the POV tag, I stated that this is not the case, the sources are neutral and based on a third party, the International Allied Commission, then he tried to blame the massacres on the Circassians, to do this he cherry picked a source (different book) where Circassians are mentioned in only one sentence, while in fact the entire report does not mention Circassians at all.

Then he tried to exaggerate the role of Circassians in Greek atrocities, but according to the sources their role was always minimal. Arnold J. Toynbee says the following about Circassian involvement : "At the end of June 1921, a few weeks after that report was written, some of these Circassian mercenaries assisted the Greek chettés and regular troops at Ismid in the massacre of Turkish civilians, on the eve of the Greek evacuation of the town. But so far as I could discover, they played a subordinate part, and there is no warrant for making them the scape-goats for either this or any other Greek atrocity."[1] He is basically trying to deny, justify and minimize Greek massacres of Turks, he shows very non neutral behavior and extreme POV pushing. He finally questioned together with user Athenean the death toll, according to the Turkish document the Inter-Allied report stated 6,000 people were killed, they now attack the author of the document and claim it is not neutral while they do not even can read Turkish, there are other snippet view sources which state 6,000 people disappeared. Still it is clear that hundreds of people were masscred but Alexikoua is now distorting a source and falsely trying to lower the number to 35 (see below for more information).


A longer explanation is written down here I hope admins will read this and stop their POV pushing edits.



Author of the Turkish document is Dr. Nebahat Oral Arslan and she is reliable and not biased at all, Turkish speakers can control the page and see it very clearly. Athenean is just trying to discredit the author without evidence, because she wrote "tyranical" about the massacres, but what he does not realize is that the Arslan source is entirely based upon an Inter-Allied Commission report of 1921, and the report of the war journalist Arnold J. Toynbee, which are online [12]. More importantly KILLING innocent people and destroying whole villages IS TYRANNICAL! So what are you trying to say Athenean? Are you saying those massacres were just? The problem is that there were massacres committed by the Greek army against local Turks in 1921, Athenean together with Alexikoua, are two POV Greek Wikipedia users who are trying to cover up the crimes by making false accusations. They falsely accuse the authors and sources (even tough I provided full English translation) [13], they distort and cherry pick sources (I have explained this in the talkpage: Alexikoua lowers the number of casualties to 35, which is based on an inquiry out of 177 people in a camp in Istanbul. I have explained this 4 times to him, but still he persists on distorting the facts by saying that this is the total number of casualties, which the source doesn't say at all [14] : It is the result of an inquiry out of 177 people. Furthermore we have sources in one individual massacre of a village already exceeds the number 35. But still Alexikoua is persisting on abusing the source and falsely claims that Toynbee puts the total number of casualties on 35 (see [15] ).

Now Athenean is attacking the Turkish author and source just because he doesn't like what is written in it (see [16] While at the same time he eagerly adds information about Greeks being massacred by Turks from an online pdf-document (see [17] which has no footnotes unlike the Turkish source, and which looks much less professional than the Turkish source (see [18] The Turkish document is actually a published study journal from the Ankara University ("TAED Cilt 10, Sayı 22 (2003): TÜRKİYAT ARAŞTIRMALARI ENSTİTÜSÜ DERGİSİ").
Why is Athenean not so skeptical about the French pdf-document? Because he likes the content? (Turks killing Greeks) see [[19]] and apparently this was also cherrypicking because the same pdf-document writes that these numbers were made up and that Gehri doesn't believe these numbers to be true since they came from Greek refugees who call their atrocities against Turks "Selon les civils grecs, l’occupation militaire «faisait le bien des Turcs» et, de toute façon le pays était à eux, car ils y étaient majoritaires, malgré les massacres. En répétant un discours «civilisationiste» qu’ils l’avaient entièrement métabolisé, ces populations tentent de se profiler aux yeux de Gehri comme un élément actif, industrieux et riche, apportant «la civilisation». Et ils ne font aucun mystère de leur objectif de chasser vers l’intérieur de l’Asie «cette race maudite qui, depuis des siècles, n’a pas fait un progrès, est incapable de progrès et qui pour le bien de la civilisation, doit être à jamais extirpée d’Europe et du littoral asiatique». Les autorités grecques ainsi que les populations civiles locales ne réclamaient pas moins que le nettoyage ethnique et l’extermination, le génocide, de la «race» turque."[[20]] (translation, the Greeks said that the massacre to exterminate the Turks were good and that their goal was to ethnically cleanse the Turks out of those lands)

Since from the beginning Alexikoua has used all means to disrupt the page (the page has a very long history, can't put all the diffs) They are doing source abuse, they are clearly pursuing a non neutral agenda to cover up/minimize crimes by the Greek army (and also to blame the Circassians). The source of Arslan states that M. Gehri stated that there were in total 6,000-6,500 people killed, there are other sources who mention that 6,000 people disappeared, still it is clear from all sources that hundreds of people were massacred and dozens of villages burned. Why else would the Inter-Allied Commission conclude that : "A distinct and regular method appears to have been followed in the destruction of villages, group by group, for the last two months... there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Muslim population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops."

So I ask the admins to please stop these POV users to non neutrally edit the page, they do not say the truth, they are distorting the facts, falsely accusing people, thanks in advance.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I first point out that it is not whether the events in question were BARBAROUS or TYRANNICAL or whatever that's important in compiling Wikipedia, but whether they are verifiable and notable? It looks like you do have sources to show that that's the case; so the thing to do is to link to those sources calmly, and keep the discussion tightly focussed on the reliability and relevance of those sources, rather than on who comes from what country, and what terrible things everyone's ancestors did. Hopefully an admin will be along shortly to see whether there's anything specific they can do to help you. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Alexikoua still insists on falsifying the sources. see [[21]] (I gave an answer to his source abuse/falsify)
I think he should be banned from editing on that page, since his disruptive vandalism has become clear.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note. Based on the report filed at WP:ANEW, I've blocked both editors for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone should also formally warn DragonTiger of WP:ARBMAC sanctions. Athenean (talk) 12:02 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Admin reinstates unsourced, very obviously false material, protects page[edit]

Nothing more to do here. King of ♠ 05:06, 16 May 2013 (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.

Admin reinstates unsourced, very obviously false material, protects page (from all non-admins!), does not take the time to respond to me on my Talk page, but instead issues a warning. He must be giving lessons in how not to be an admin. Also, I wonder what the warning's for if he's blocked me from editing the page, anyway?

Lfdder (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You waited a whole 15 minutes for the admin in question to respond to you before coming here. It would be for the best if you a) left a question on his talk page directing him to respond to your concerns, incase he doesn't stare at his watchlist for hours on end and b) waited some time for him to respond, in case he has something else to do IRL. Coming straight here as your first action, without trying to work out the dispute yourself with the person in question, is bad form. --Jayron32 19:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
My response to him was before he protected the page. If he had time to do that, he should also have had time to respond to me. — Lfdder (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Really? All I see in that page history is you trying to game the system by removing all the content of the article and nominating it for an A3 speedy deletion, so that you can avoid an AfD. Beware the boomerang; if you have an issue with an article, either submit it on its own merits at AfD or pursue dispute resolution; do not try to game the CSD system to sneak a deletion through. Writ Keeper  19:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
That is all you see, really now? Might be time to put hyperbole aside. Like I've said on my Talk page, AfD or not, the content on that page is absolutely not worth keeping. This is just a red herring. — Lfdder (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is no hyperbole whatsoever in my statement. Editing a page that does not meet a CSD criterion until it does meet that criterion and then nominating the article with that CSD criterion, in order to have it deleted while evading the scrutiny of an AfD is about as blatant an abuse of process gets. Your edit summary of "i'm a genius" makes your intentions quite clear. If you have a problem with the article that's not covered by a CSD criterion, AfD it. If it's so clear, why wouldn't you just AfD it? After all, who would disagree with something so obvious? Writ Keeper  19:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
My edit summary was obviously meant to be humorous. I saw no harm coming from it. If you think this is a blockable offence, or whatever, then fair enough—but let it go. I didn't speedy tag it again when I was issued a "warning" and the page was protected. I've no intention to go to AfD, if it matters. All I want is for false, uncyclopedic material to be removed from the article. — Lfdder (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • So why not actually do something novel, and follow the guidelines? You were told at the very beginning to AfD it. Instead, you nuked a whole bunch of stuff and tried to speedy it again. That's not a good-faith move. Not even close. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah ok. Bureaucracy isn't my thing. Does anybody disagree that the content should be removed? Is it not instantly obvious? Why do I have to go thru whatever convoluted alleys? — Lfdder (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
DGG does, obviously. Talk to him about it. It's all Greek to me (ha ha) so I can't tell. If you're not willing to discuss your changes, though, why are you even here? Writ Keeper  20:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As a non-admin user, I don't see a major issue here with DGG. Your comment about the version being restored being unsourced is ironic - because so is yours. You've removed a whole bunch of content without either consensus or any explanation on your side, so what did you expect? And you're very clearly gaming the system. BOOMERANG block perhaps? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    It doesn't look like DGG is taking action as an involved editor so there isn't much here for ANI. It also makes little sense to me to block someone for reverting twice, especially when the material being removed is unsourced.--regentspark (comment) 20:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    Histrionics aside, I agree; nothing here is blockable, though the blank->A3 thing would be a problem if it were a consistent pattern. A singular occurrence, not so much. Writ Keeper  20:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the best thing for Lfdder to do is to take this to Wikiproject languages (assuming that is active) rather than immediately to an AfD. Get some input into the validity of the material, perhaps find some sources (or not). --regentspark (comment) 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I'll do you all one better: is there a good reason not to mass-rollback this editor's recent edits? On a ton of articles they removed Template:History of the Greek language without giving any reason whatsoever, they seem to not know about talk pages, many of their edits are done without edit summary, and some of the edit summaries they give are possibly deceitful: "remove clutter"--they removed content. I'm somewhat hesitant since I saw a few helpful edits, but the bad outweighs the good, in my opinion. As for this particular article, I'd rather DGG had blocked the editor for a brief period instead of protecting the article, but that's not germane to this thread. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, I'd hate to use the "it's all Greek to me" pun twice in one section, but it comes to mind. Writ Keeper  20:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm totally in the wrong for removing 1 of 3 side- and navboxes in total. Burn the witch. — Lfdder (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
No one is burning any witches. Just take it easy with rapid and mass removal of material, leave detailed explanations as to why you're doing so, and don't edit war when your move edits are reverted. --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
edit war when your move is reverted Wait, what now? — Lfdder (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed that. What I'm trying to say is "an ounce of explanation at the front end is better than a ton of aggression at the back end". --regentspark (comment) 20:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reopening this[edit]

...in the light of this edit summary, this history, and the most recent batch of edits here. In regards to the latter, what concerns me is the removal of Template:History of the Greek language. It may well be that the templates overlap, it may even be so that one of them is redundant--but the removal of a template in all those articles should at the very least be discussed. Perhaps the other template should go. Whatever--this is disruptive. Lfdder ragging on DGG was in pretty poor form already, and the edit summary pointed at above, combined with their crappy comment on their talk page, plus the edit warring and the general contempt for other editors, well. Boomerang, incivility, etc. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

    • I've commented out my close because you were too nice to just revert it. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 21:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Wait. No. As an expert editor in this domain, I can fully confirm that Lfdder's edits on Chalkidiki Greek are valid. The page is worthless. Maybe speedy deletion was not the technically most appropriate way of trying to achieve this, but the fact remains, Lfdder deserves support, not a lynch mob, for trying to clean this up. The best course of action will be to simply redirect the page to Varieties of Modern Greek. DGG, please unprotect the page so this can be done. Fut.Perf. 21:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the issue was the validity of his edits, but rather his methods of gaming the system to get it to qualify as a CSD. I trust you on the content, but his behavior then, and since, is begging for sanction at this point. I even closed trying to help him not get blocked. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 21:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
IAR and all that jazz... Arkon (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Blocked for what, exactly? What is wrong with my behaviour? — Lfdder (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
DGG was forced to protect the article after you chose to all but blank it instead of taking his advice and going to AFD, that should be your first clue. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 21:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
What is wrong with deleting almost all of the content of an article, and then nominating it for speedy deletion because it lacks content? Nothing at all. Excuse me while do the same thing to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, Gravitation, Mollusca and Weston, Clevedon and Portishead Light Railway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Except I didn't "blank" the article just so that I could get it speedy-deleted. I blanked it because it was nonsense. — Lfdder (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I feel the same way about our List of Scientists... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of the subject, but i would do the same with respect to any article. If the people who do know agree that it doesn't make sense, we have ways to get consensus and deal with it properly. I request that there not be a block, unless it repeats. I warned, and that was sufficient for the situation. An expert is known here by the ability to make convincing arguments with good sources, not by taking unilateral action to defend their position, however correct it is. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I've got to present sources for unref'ed material somebody else introduced to the article? I hadn't realised. — Lfdder (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
While you guys compare the size of your "parts" here, would one of you admins kindly place the "subst:proposed deletion" label at the top of Chalkidiki Greek? As a linguist, this article is unencyclopedic and completely trivial in its coverage and sophomoric in its content. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
At least my parts don't dangle all over the place. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
(Many ECs) While you're likely right, there's no need to block yet, I do see a distinct WP:COMPETENCE and/or WP:IDONTHEARTHAT problem here. Because as of their most recent comment, it sounds like they still don't understand why deleting all the content of an article and then tagging it for speedy deletion because it has no content is problematic even after it was explained by two or more people. IAR and not liking 'bureaucracy' are one thing, but it shouldn't be hard to see why people don't like something that looks dishonest and why it causes unnecessary confusion and problems when if the decision is really that clear cut, a simple AFD will do. It may be mildly acceptable to not realise this even if you were told to take it to AFD before you did it, it's more problematic when even after doing it and being told in no uncertain terms by several people it's not okay you still don't get it. Here's hoping with the most recent replies above it finally sinks in. Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fut. Perf., a complete lack of communication, followed by a whollop of snark, that's the hallmark of disruption. Their work on Postalveolar nasal is clear evidence that they think they know better than anyone else, and won't stop to get their way. After this edit, and my revert, they should have taken it to the talk page. Instead, they reverted again, since that's what they do as a matter of course: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is of no importance to them it seems (same with the navboxes). Their argument was "only attested in one language"--well, they either had their head up their ass or they thought Wikipedia was a reliable source, since that's clearly not correct, as a few minutes on Google and a trip to the bookshelf proved. They may know more about Chalkidiki Greek than Socrates, but that doesn't excuse their behavior.

    And Lfdder, you can sneer at DGG all you like, but Postalveolar nasal proves that you don't like to look farther than your nose is long, as the Dutch say. We don't need any more uncommunicative edit warriors in this joint. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, your mass mechanical reversions of Lfdder's edits were at least as unexplained, at least as poorly communicated and at least as disruptive as their edits. You are way out of line here; cut it out. Fut.Perf. 22:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Fut. Perf, don't fucking patronize me. If you took the time to actually look you'd see that I did not revert all or even a significant part of their edits. You could, of course, point out that all of theirs were unexplained to begin with, not even with a boilerplate summary. You could also point out that maybe they should have discussed which of the supposedly redundant templates to remove. I'm still waiting for you to comment on Lfdder's lousy treatment of Postalveolar nasal and their disregard for the BRD cycle. Why do I get the feeling that you're being a bit myopic here? Drmies (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
DGG, there are now twothree topic experts here who agree the article needs to go, versus not a single editor who has raised any argument at all defending the contents of the article on its merits (other than a kneejerk reaction against a "blanking" whose reason people didn't understand). In the absence of any on-topic counterargument, there is no need to first create "consensus"; consensus already exists. Will you please now allow the necessary cleanup to go ahead? Fut.Perf. 22:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Then send it to AFD. Had the editor simply taken DGG's advice to begin with, it would be there now. That doesn't make it a CSD candidate, nor does it excuse virtually blanking an article after you have have had your CSD tag reverted. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 22:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Then will somebody finally remove that idiotic protection so we can actually do that? Fut.Perf. 22:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I agree, let us unprotect it and send to AfD. The atricle was around for several years, no harm is expected if it stays one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Since we've now found three experts on the subject, would it be too much to suggest that between them they might have enough expertise to at least come up with a stub? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, I'm not convinced it's even a valid potential topic to begin with, so there's not even a valid stub to be written. Fut.Perf. 22:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I've unprotected it so it can go to AFD, as going to AFD was DGGs suggestion and the threat of continued disruption of blanking has subsided. I would take issue with "idiotic" as a descriptor, as I agree that it was the right short term solution. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 22:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment You can't PROD a protected article because the process depends on being able to remove the notice. I also question the logic in taking the article to AfD if notability is not the issue here, since the AfD process will uphold the retention of a stub if the topic itself is notable i.e. the process does not exist to debate content. Quite simply, an editor is challenging the veracity of unsourced content (and content that seems to contain a high degree of original research), and clearly under WP:BURDEN the content shouldn't be restored without sources. We have a linguist here calling it "trivial" and "sophomoric", so lets return it to stub status. Hopefully the next attempt will be more valid. Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yet the original issue was a CSD tag, to delete the whole thing. So AFD is exactly the right venue to hash it out. Deletion is not the only option there. If someone else doesn't send it shortly, I will. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 22:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not calling it "trivial" because it is poorly written and unsourced ("sophomoric" covers that), but because the subject matter is completely unencyclopedic, uninteresting, and unworthy of the bandwidth. It is the equivalent of having an article on "Greenville South Carolina English" written by a local 6th grade teacher so that visitors know how to say "house". There is nothing notable about this variety of Greek (it's not even a dialect, really, just a local speech variety) that distinguishes it from any other variety of Greek in the area. --Taivo (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree completely. — Lfdder (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Folks, you're being unfair to Lfdder. Granted he was a smart ass with the "duck this and genius that" edit summaries, but the reality is that the article in question is completely unsourced and that means it is fair game for stubbing, whether or not it is being put up for deletion. What Lfdder should have done (imo) is to have removed the content and either looked for sources or tagged it as unsourced. Then, if no sources appear in a couple of weeks, a prod or afd would be reasonable. But what he actually did is hardly outré either. Talk about blocking is unwarranted. --regentspark (comment) 22:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Regardless of what happens in an AfD the content should still come out, since it would still be unsourced "sophomoric" original research even if the article is kept. The retention of the material is independent of the AfD. Betty Logan (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Regentspark, I'm not talking about that article; that's at the bottom of my list. Take a moment and look at the rest, including their attack on my competence. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Drmies, do you mean this edit summary?. I think I'm too old to understand stuff that isn't in English. It's all Chalkidiki Greek to me :) But seriously, I agree that this editor has a problem with edit summaries but let's look at the bigger picture. We have an editor trying to remove unsourced stuff (apparently the stuff is crap after all) from Wikipedia and is getting push back in the form of article protection and warnings (which, I think, DGG was not out of line in doing). Bit of a raging bull set up so, under those circumstances, forgive and forget is not a bad way to move ahead.--regentspark (comment) 00:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It's worth remembering that this discussion at ANI is not about whether the article should be kept, or stubbed, or whatnot; that discussion is *exactly* what belongs at AfD. This discussion is about the behavior of one editor in trying to avoid that process, nothing more. Rklear (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
No, the discussion was about an admin acting out of line. — Lfdder (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
And I think DGG acted perfectly within expected norms and your actions and reactions have been, at best, poorly thought out. I have dePRODed the article and sent it to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkidiki Greek Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 23:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
And that's fair enough. :-) I do not expect everyone to agree with me. — Lfdder (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Trouts all-round. I see tempers running short on all sides in this discussion. As for the main actors, both Lfdder and DGG have technically breached several policies, as follows:

  • Lfdder misused the deletion processes first likely unintentionally by using {{delete}} instead of {{prod}} [22], but then most likely deliberately by stubbing and then [23] A3ing the article [24] and finally he edit warred [[25] to stub the article again (but added no more deletion tags).
  • DGG edit warred to reintroduce unsourced content after it was challenged in good faith as unsourced WP:OR [26] [27] (note that Lfdder's 2nd stubbing only removed content, but did not add any more deletion tags) and finally DGG protected the page to his preferred version [28], a violation of WP:INVOLVED.

And to complete the circus we have administrators swearing at each other in this thread. 82.137.14.27 (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2013 (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.

Talk:Lucas Horton#Requested move[edit]

There was already a consensus to move article to Lucas Roberts. However, FrickFrack re-moved the article back to Lucas Horton without noticing the prior request. Now someone else created another request similar to my request without considering the WP:RM/TR. Hopefully, someone here can revert it back to "Lucas Roberts" and then close the recent request as "procedural closure". --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Sol1[edit]

I've just blocked new account User:Sol1, and I'd be happy for my action to be checked here - and for some other eyes on the issue, as I need to head off shortly. Sol1 has been making rapid-fire changes to Wikipedia's use of the names of well-known scientists etc. I first saw changes of the use of Galileo's name to use either his full name of "Galileo Galilei" or just the surname "Galilei" - [29], [30] and more. On further checking, I saw Sol1 is rapidly changing lots of uses of famous scientists historical figures' names to use their full names - "Goethe" to "Johann Wolfgang von Goethe" - [31], Kepler, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger to full names - [32] etc. And there are lots more - see Special:Contributions/Sol1 I left a couple of messages pointing out that we use common names and that he needs to talk if he wishes to make such wide-ranging changes, but I got no response and he was continuing at a fast pace. So I've issued a block to stop him and get his attention. So, can I please request the following?

  • Check my actions and see if you think they were reasonable
  • Have a look over Sol1's contributions and help revert if you think they are unreasonable
  • See if you think there is anything suspicious about a brand new user making such rapid-fire large-scale changes?

Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Weird. Good block. User is also misusing the minor edit flag. --John (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI the minor flag is automatically added for page moves. None of these were, and I really see nothing wrong with deciding that is better to remove a redirect, and that is certainly a minor edit – reverting this edit,[33] done by above user, was absurd. Galileo has been a redirect to the scientist's full name since 12 September 2011‎. Goethe has been a redirect to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe since 9 September 2008. I would suggest unblocking, with an apology. Apteva (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Note. The first diff that was reverted was I think changing Galileo to Galilei, which was correctly reverted, except that removing the second link should have been left. So some of the edits were questionable, but most of them just seem to be removing redirects. They used Galileo instead of Galilei for the pipe in the diff which I cited, but Galilei earlier. Apteva (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not have to check to see if our article is at Einstein or Albert Einstein. Apteva (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Both of you are admins and are making edits like this one?[34] Apteva (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
We actually have a guideline that discourages "fixing" redirects as Sol1 has been doing; WP:R#NOTBROKEN. John's reverts were perfectly valid, since they restored the status quo links. As regards the block, yes, seems fine to me - whilst discussion is obviously preferable sometimes the only way to get someone to stop is to actually stop them, and that seems to have been the case here. Yunshui  07:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I am aware that redirects do not need to be fixed, and that edits are very expensive, but that does not excuse reverting a perfectly valid fix, thus creating yet another edit that needs to be fixed yet again when something else warrants the expense of an edit. Best just to leave the edits that have been done, and only fix the ones that actually need fixing, like changing Galileo to Galilei. The editor was inconsistent with that one, sometimes using one, sometimes the other. But if someone has already removed the redirect at Einstein, there is no excuse for putting it back in without piping it instead. The article is at Albert Einstein, Sol1 changes the link from Einstein to Albert Einstein, the correction is not to put it back to Einstein, but if the article actually reads better using Einstein instead of Albert Einstein, change it to Albert Einstein|Einstein, instead of back to Einstein. A restore does not "undo" an edit, it is a new edit and is just as expensive as any other edit. Talk about biting the newcomers though, but it is pretty uncommon for a newcomer to do 500 edits the first day. Apteva (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:R#NOTBROKEN does actually say "It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]", so that does appear to support [[Einstein]] rather than [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] - and it gives reasons why a simple redirect is better -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
That section needs to be less dogmatic. I simply can not support the concept that writing [[Einstein]] is ever preferable to writing [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]], nor can I support any edits that change one to the other in either direction without doing something else as well. The situations where a redirect is good, is if there is no article about Einstein, and it is redirected to say Relativity until an article is written, but once it is, the redirect can be corrected. We move article names all the time, leaving behind redirects. We fix the double redirects, but I see no reason for not cleaning up the rest eventually. In any event it is clear that the consensus is against a user doing nothing but fixing redirects. Apteva (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I see that section is already under discussion. From the talk page "Replacing piped links with links to 'simple' redirects (alternate names, for example) is pointless, or at least not the point of WP:NOTBROKEN. Clarification may be in order, yes" Apteva (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not the forum for getting policy pages changed, but as it stands at the moment, it supports John's simple reverts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding brand new user: it seems they're quite experienced at dewiki. But that makes it even more worrying that they didn't discuss first, and didn't respond to talk page messages. — HHHIPPO 07:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And judging by the edit history he/she makes the exact same kind of edits there, including moving articles without previous discussion and marking virtually everything as a minor edit, whether it was one or not. So it's surprising that he's only been blocked once on de-wiki, for edit-warring in 2008. Thomas.W (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, maybe that explains why they have not given any indication of having seen the user talk page message (never mind the fact that the orange bar is gone). Maybe they understand little to no English, but do know how to click on "what links here" from a redirect, and how to cut and paste the article name in and hit save. That also explains why they likely did not know that in English, Galileo is commonly known by their first name, not their last name. Germans tend to like things well ordered and it is possible that redirects are frowned on more widely at de. I do know there are vast differences between the two wiki's. Apteva (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Good block. We'll have to wait and see if they are interested in a discussion on their talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
We'll have to see what happens, but I've noticed that his reluctance to reply isn't limited to English. He's been involved in five discussions on the German Wikipedia's Vandalismusmeldung (Vandalism report) page, and only commented on the most recent of them. The substance of the reports will require someone with better German than me. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I had a look (German is my mother tongue, but I have to admit German wikispeak is not). It's a similar picture as here, tons of edits, many useful, but also many at the edge of policy and many that should have been discussed before. In two of the six ANI cases he was only marginally involved, the others are somewhat similar to this one. I guess see what happens is the right thing to do. — HHHIPPO 22:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
...and only commented on the most recent of them. And my comment was that I commented on the talk page of the article. I had nothing to do with the further edit war which led to the temporal protection of the page de:Frei.Wild. In the other cases I was either marginally involved, or there were discussions on my talk page or the talk pages of the articles. --Sol1 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I left a couple of messages pointing out that we use common names and that he needs to talk if he wishes to make such wide-ranging changes, but I got no response and he was continuing at a fast pace. That is not quite correct. I was getting the first message at 19:06, stopped with the Galileo edits and got blocked at 19:16, probably for this edit which can hardly be considered unreasonable. So while I was willing to discuss the problem, if "Galileo" was preferable to "Galilei" or the other way, this massive reverting combined with a block immediately after a warning was to much for me, and so I left Wikipedia for one day to get calm again. If I was a newcomer then I would probably have left Wikipedia forever and I would never have read the postings to Apteva which restore my faith in this project. --Sol1 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I am guessing that was intended to be "postings by" instead of "postings to". Apteva (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • 19:06: Having seen your large scale rapid-fire changes, I gave you a friendly warning (in which Galileo was just an example).
  • 19:08: You replaced surnames with full names.
  • 19:08: I asked you to stop making undiscussed stylistic changes to the naming of historical figures.
  • 19:14: You did it again on another article.
  • 19:14: I asked you again to stop what you were doing and discuss it.
  • 19:15: You made another similar change to another article.
  • 19:16: I blocked you, making it clear it was intended to get your attention - I was concerned at your rapid pace of changes and decided that a brief block was the least damaging action.
All you had to do then was reply and agree to discuss things rather than carrying on at such a pace, and I would have instantly unblocked you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, I do not get the usual 'new talk message' template when someone replies to my talk page since echo went live. And it also takes 5~ minutes for echo to notify me in most cases, and even still its a tiny red number. Though playing cat and mouse is never a good matter, I think the notification system changed with the update and it doesn't work as it did a month ago. Maybe it applies to this case? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I think the new notification system is inadequate for getting a user's prompt attention. But in the absence of good-enough notifications and when a user has to be at least temporarily stopped from their course of action, a block is all that is left - and I thought I'd made it clear that the block was specifically to get Sol1's attention. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User keeps deleting sourced information[edit]

NovaSkola keeps deleting sourced information because he doesnt want to believe what it says. The article in question, Ibad Huseynov, is an Azerbaijani soldier who during the Karabakh war beheaded an Armenian soldier. Azerbaijani's, like NovaSkola, claim the individual killed was Armenian hero Monte Melkonian but evidence, that i posted from an Azerbaijani source (so its not biased towards Armenians), shows it wasnt. He keeps deleting my post and claiming the individual killed was Monte by citing from a movie about Huseynov. So i edited the page and left both sections, even though they contradict each other but he deleted my post once again calling it vandalism. I posted pictures which show the Huseynov with the head, which came from an Azerbaijani site, and a picture of Monte's funeral. He deleted it again. I believe action needs to take place as the individual keeps deleting sourced information. Also this user has done this on numerous other occasions. Regarding the article about Guba Mass Grave, i posted a sourced paragraph giving details regarding the grave and he kept deleting it claiming it was biased. If you look at the edit history for that page as well as this, he reverted my edits and classified them as vandalism just because he doesnt like what he reads.Ninetoyadome (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This article has many problems, and the source that is being removed, while possibly reliable is being used to state facts in wikipedias voice that should be attributed to a person. That's a no no.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
01:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree the article has many problems as this individual hasnt done anything except fight in the war so i dont know if that sould constitute a page. Many individuals will find this page, when searching for Huseynov, and be lied too when they see an obvious lie claiming he killed Monte Melkonian. The article I posted is citing an interview with an Azerbaijani General who fought during the war so he would know who killed who. NovaSkola keeps deleting it and adding an excerpt from a documentary about Huseynov, which is basically a propaganda film.Ninetoyadome (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have removed information due it contained a basic photo from some site, which includes photo of beheading and it can be seen as many people as extremist. As you see in here (last reference, clearly includes link to beheading photo, which is not confirmed by any sources as reliable or not)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ibad_Huseynov&diff=554953491&oldid=554944195 Ninyatoyadome without any warnings removed my edits and by knowing the extremist content of that photo, reversed my edit and added biased information from some blog. Therefore he should be warned/punished due he ignored Wikipedia's guidelines about extremist material.--NovaSkola (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Before the image i had posted a nonbiased interview which you deleted for no reason. You kept deleting it and then claiming both should remain. I left both and you still deleted my post. Can you explain that? I posted an interview with an Azerbaijani general, if it was an Armenian general i would say it was biased but it was an Azerbaijani general. You posted from a propaganda movie about him. Ninetoyadome (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually you removed my information prior me and you also edited the article I've created with adding some made up information from third source party. Information you got comes from random blog, which can be written by anybody. Furthermore, having checked your history, I've noticed you've been warned far many times before interms of vandalising Azerbaijani articles by adding biased information. --NovaSkola (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


Contact.az is not a blog, its a news website. You posted something from a movie as evidence and criticize my source. I had posted the interview on March 4, 2013, you removed it on May 12, 2013 without warning, only stating "return to normal state and removed biased information" which is hilarious as now Azerbaijani information that contradicts Azerbaijani information is biased information. No one had a problem except for you, apparently. I have never been warned for vandalizing Azerbaijani pages, the only warnings have been for dealing with a troll who constantly vandalizes Armenian pages and me restoring them (edit warring). You did the same thing on the Guba Mass Grave article, calling my additions "vandalism". I avoid Azerbaijani articles, unless they have to do with Armenia. Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Please don't use false allegations. I am not talking about contact.az, I'm talking about foto.radikal.ru that u used which contains beheading photo. I will let moders to decide who'se right or who'se wrong.--NovaSkola (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
http://www.contact.az/docs/2012/Interview/102300015729en.htm#.UZRO07WG2Sp also shows the same picture, i only posted it once. You kept revising my changes claiming them to be biased and just now you said "adding some made up information from third source party. Information you got comes from random blog, which can be written by anybody" so yes im making false allegations. Ninetoyadome (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
A lot of sites can have extremist material, that doesn't mean it is approved, especially in Wikipedia, where they have readers from all over the world, from various age range. Photo like that can traumatise child's memory.--NovaSkola (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Jono2013[edit]

This is probably best dealt with on the editor's page, which I will attempt to do, as I don't see a need for sanctions. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 13:20, 16 May 2013 (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.

Jono2013 (talk · contribs) seems to have some fairly problematic civility issues. They've written an article, Energetically modified cement, which has been AfDed twice; once it closed as nomination withdrawn, and the second AfD is ongoing. From the very first comment in the first AfD (diff: [35]), they've made inappropriate comments about people's backgrounds, false accusations of vandalism, and other very marginal remarks. A diff of the first AfD, following its withdrawal, but prior for it being blanked (probably due to Jono2013's remarks), is this [36]. It shows a lot of walls-of-text by this user, some weird formatting issues, and some absolutely insane accusations/comments, such as this gem:

  • I have no idea who Cloudyjbg27512 is, and whether he/she has any conflict of interest - for example, a "competing academic", a "paid-up member" of the Portland Cement industry, or even a person involved/"fronting" the litigation mentioned above (of which I have NO knowledge). All I know is Cloudyjbg27512 joined on April 26 of this year, well-after this article was first published, disregarded wiki policy twice over, and removed my request for a justification from his/her user page. Once again, thank you to everyone who supported the keep. And to Cloudyjbg27512, if you have no COI, then thank you for "seeing common sense" (a cornerstone wiki policy) and I hope you learn from this - I trust you had a very pleasant weekend, because you surely turned mine "upside down". Jono2013 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC) (not a full quote, but neither have I taken it out of context)

They also responded to pretty much every commenter, regardless of their vote, with the same aggressive manner. Anyway, let's get on to the current AfD, located here. This user has proceeded to use all-caps, highly aggressive replies, disruptive removals of the AfD tag (with incorrect allegations of vandalism on one occasion; [37][38]) and yet more aggressive replies, even though most people voted keep (including myself). Following my comments in the AfD, the user then came on to my talk page, informing me of their reply at the AfD,[39] to which I made some sensible statements on their talk page (I believe),[40], to which I received this wall-of-text,[41], after which I removed his remarks from my talk as trolling. A look at an AfD on a far less notable article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Ronin, shows identical behaviour by this user. Sadly, I'm requesting an indef under WP:NOTHERE: their editing style is promotional, which is fixable; but their methods of communication leave far too much to be desired, and leave people frustrated. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


I suggest that anyone caring to comment first read the extensive record I have posted on both AfDs. These were posted BEFORE the above user posted this.

There is only one principal author here: Me. Professor Ronin has no connection with the article. Yet again, the user is being rather too careful with his words. And, no, I dont have any "civility" issues at all. I just have a problem with people disregarding wiki policy and nominating for deletion without discussing first.

There have been many instances where I have thanks users for their input. My stance is for principled reasons - namely to ensure ACCURACY of the article. The extensive history to remove this article, together with the photos, together with the stub has been documented on the AfDs for both articles as a matter of record. Furthermore,

  • during the first AfD process for the energetically modified cement article, I dont recall there being a discard. In fact across both AfDs, I dont recall there being a discard.
  • I received a barnstar for the article, from a very experienced user.
  • Ronin has received an apology from Wikipedia for the attacks made against him and against me during the prposed images deletion.
  • The deletion of images was resolved with a "keep" with the following admonishment. I believe it is apposite here:
The result of the discussion was: Closing this mess / keep - a statement of permission has been received as OTRS ticket 2013051410005944. All involved are reminded to be civil and not bite inexperienced editors. We need to help those who have trouble navigating our processes, not make accusations. --B (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have made no "accusations". I have stoutly defended my work against changes made by those that do not have the requisite expertise in the subject matter. This is for the sake of accuracy of the article. I have tried to point out the "obvious" to such extents, but it makes no difference.
  • I have made one statement which I sorely regret, which the user misinterpreted as my calling him names. I was tired - very tired - after having my weekend turned upside down. But I apologized profusely, on the user's talk page, which he has not removed:
"It was not my intention to call you names, and for that, if I gave that impression I apologize. I have worked on the page for a month, and I have come to the end of my tether with users making the mistake that this is an "armchair lawyers" subject. The page itself is considerably "dumbed down" - and you will see in the talk page I have done my level best to contextualize. It is WIP and a highly complex one at that - more than 20 years of results and field data traduced into a "snapshot" page to appeal to all levels of scientifically-interested readers. But there are some subjects that no matter how much one tries, there is a limit to which they can be "simplified". So I certainly did not mean offense, I am just very tired and after a month of quietly going about building the page, I have had a torrid weekend of defending it left right and center all because a certain user posted it for deletion without even discussing first, on Friday, notwithstanding I am a new user, never done this before and the page is WIP. I have found the entire experience very very unprofessional. I am a retired senior life sciences professor - and in all my 58 years, I can tell you this will be the only page I ever contribute to on Wiki. I am appalled my the "gang mentality" that quickly surfaces and how those who take extreme actions seem beyond impunity, whereas the "best intentional" writer is placed against a wall.
I apologize for any offence. I hope this meets with your favor.
Kind regards 14:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)"


Jono2013 (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I fail to see where I said anything about the professor being involved. Yet again, you've replied with a wall-of-text, and one that smacks, once more, of WP:IDHT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Please stop using jargon and stop "firing back" simply because I seek "due process" - that is, AFTER you have taken the steps you have done, without consulting first. You stated "they" several time to imply there was more than one author. You have disregarded the email from Ronin to wikipedia itself, and the response. I gave you my time to give you some very polite advice in case you were considering an academic career. I even wished you all the luck for it - from a retired senior 58 year old academic to an 18 year old. Your "hatred" of my expressing myself is almost palpable.

Jono2013 (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm referring you to Wikipedia policies. I had already tried to discuss your actions with you, and got an absurd response. Most of the users in that AfD voiced concerns about your actions; at least one called for a block. The email from Ronin to Wikipedia is absolutely irrelevant, as ANI is about user conduct, not content disputes. Also, what on earth are you trying to say with that last sentence? That's yet another absurd statement for the pile, I guess. *shrugs* Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
From zero to Godwin in nothing flat. [42] EEng (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks to me like that the AfD is getting worse, and that Jono2013's aggressive behaviour has resulted in editors not giving him the benefit of the doubt, and actually calling for deletion of the article (so a more neutral one can be written). That talkpage message is, as usual, well out of line. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Jono2013 seems to be taking things quite personally. I think Jono2013 just needs to take a break and calm down. I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action would be since I wouldn't characterize Jono2013's edits as disruptive. Unless a user is being disruptive, being angry is not cause for a block per WP:COOLDOWN. Transcendence (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • They have been disruptive. They've previously removed AfD tags (which stopped after a warning), and their constant accusations of other users being employed by rival companies, having no knowledge of the subject, being abusive etc, is the definition of disruption, is it not? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Thought I'd throw my two cents in as well. Many, if not most, of us here should be familiar with the fact that Wikipedia often doesn't treat experts in their subject very well, particularly when Randys start to appear. Mind you I'm not accusing anyone in this case of being one, but it does happen a lot here. Given Jono2013's academic background (going on AGF here) it is common for anyone who has spent any time in professional academia to vigorously, even vociferously, defend one's work when necessary. Although that has its place in WP, those familiar with the AFD process, which Jono2013 obviously isn't, will know that this can rise to badgering of opposes particularly when ABF comes in to play. In my view, Jono2013, this is where you have gotten off the wrong foot with WP. He's approached WP with the view of WP as an academic debating ground and has yet to catch the nuances of how things are done around here and that lack of familiarity, to those of us who have been round the block a while, has all the hall marks of disruption. To Jono2013, one's academic background is irrelevant on wikipedia as we are not publishing our own research here, merely reporting on it. Yes, being a subject expert helps but it also blinkers one to how an article needs to be reported here. Whereas, those of us who are not subject experts but are familiar with how the various aspects of wiki works can be helpful in how the article needs to be formed to meet the expectations laid out in wiki policies and guidelines. Rather than barrage Jono2013 with wikijargon, which usually serves little purpose to a new editor other than to disillusion them, I suggest that we all take a few steps back and not get our hackles up. Blackmane (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Blackmane. I have opened what I hope will be a useful dialogue with the expert editor on my talk page in a quiet attempt to help them understand the challenges, unique challenges, that Wikipedia presents to an expert. What we non content experts have achieved is upsetting a potentially skilled and highly competent editor. Unless we can have a dialogue in a non confrontational manner we need to back away from the train wreck. I include him in this need for backing away. Our objective, surely, is to construct an encyclopaedia, not to upset and push away valuable new editors.
The article needs to stand or fall on its own merits. Here, and elsewhere, we should be smiling towards our new editors and encouraging them in to this weird world. Not everyone 'gets' it, but those who do tend to start to enjoy the bizarre way of working that is Wikipedia. So please smile a lot more and guide our new friend. Jono2013 is an asset here, if only we can persuade him to stay. He is worth educating in our peculiar ways. But like all new editors, he is still inexperienced here. Fiddle Faddle 11:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that he's unfamiliar with the Wikipedia ways not just because he's new here, but because he's refusing to listen and learn and reacts hostilely to attempts to teach him. A prime example is his reference above to "people disregarding wiki policy and nominating for deletion without discussing first" after I had specifically told him there was no such policy and that nominating for deletion without discussing first is quite normal. (And before you ask, in this diff he makes it clear he's read my comment and yet still goes on about AfD nominations without discussing first.) Sideways713 (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not an unusual problem, nor an intractable problem We've seen it before and will see it again. The challenge for us is to handle this in a decent (in all aspects of the word) manner. Calm, persistent patience tends to prevail in cases like this, even when it seems not to be working. Everyone gets upset at some point with the alphabet soup that is Wikipedia. We have to determine if we are big enough to handle it well and sensitively, or whether we meet inexperience with uncharitable acts. Fiddle Faddle 12:49, 16 May 2013 (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.

List of Wikipedia controversies‎[edit]

WP:RFPP is always the venue of choice for page protection just as WP:SPI is the venue of choice for sockpuppety. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 13:35, 16 May 2013 (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.

List of Wikipedia controversies‎ needs to be protected so that only established editors can edit it. User:Thekohser is breaking his indef ban here with impunity on this project.[43] Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser shows that this is the case. We all know that this article is a trolling exercise from Wikipediocracy.

On a sidenote, over the last month I have approached around 20 admins advising of the permaban evasion by Thekohser (all those IPs from Mount Laurel, NJ) and EricBarbour (all those IPs from Comcast, San Francisco) trolling this community, mainly by way Jimmy's talk page, and not a single one has blocked. The general consensus I get is that people are scared of becoming targets of these clowns and their fellow trolling sidekicks. Whilst I respect the position of these admins; getting harassed, outted, being libelled and the like isn't nice, it is high time that this community grow the cojones to do something about that problem. Russavia (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  • WP:RFPP is that-a-way ---> Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    Would you care to address the main issue of the post, that two globally banned users are editing with impunity? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to be flippant, but the only action I can see we can do right now, considering the complain, is at RFPP. It is already at SPI which is the proper venue for dealing with the socks, and where all the CUs are. I'm just not sure what we can do about it at ANI. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 20:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Common sense would dictate that you protect the article and block the IPS on the spot. If you are concerned that you will be targetted by them, just say so, and someone else can do it. Russavia (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, Russavia, I would let it play out at RFPP and SPI. If you don't get satisfaction there, I'd suggest bringing it back here to see if anything further can be done. Prioryman (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Russavia, you aren't new, so pardon me if I don't treat you with kid gloves, but you are a big boy and know that you have already filed at SPI, and that if you want a page protected, you go to RFPP. I've looked at your SPI report, I clerk there, and one of the those "socks" has zero edits and zero deleted edits, so I can't see how I can connect those dots. The other has two edits that really can't be connected either unless you can demonstrate some linkage. And the page shows no history needing protections. The other IP one one edit that wasn't problematic, and you have explained how that one edit is tied to the sock master. Changing quotes in one edit is pretty hard to link, after all. So like I said, it is already at SPI, it should go to RFPP, because I can't see a reason to protect or block anyone based on the evidence you have provided. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 20:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I ended up blocking the one for the Commons edit, but not the other, (again, this was at SPI) but the protection needs to go to RFPP. Personally, I don't see the need at this point since there isn't a log of edits going on. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 21:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree about the RFPP point. I'd suggest just reverting anything from those IP addresses and other obviously related ones from this point on. It seems to be a dynamic IP, unfortunately, so I doubt that Dennis's block is going to stick. Prioryman (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
You also have to remember, blocking for off-enwp isn't something anyone does regularly here. You can be blocked at Commons and allowed to edit here, for instance. This is why the proper venue is needed, with clerks who are familiar with the standards for that venue. It isn't like he is pounding out hundreds of contribs. It needs attention, but isn't a crisis. Its just one more sock. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 21:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
True, but in this case Kohs is globally banned. He shouldn't be editing anywhere. Prioryman (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
We can wring our hands about it ineffectually for a little while. That's always fun. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • For the record, RFPP would decline this request, as there isn't much in the way of recent disruptive activity to justify it. I see a single edit from the questioned IP address. We don't protect articles based on one single edit from one single IP address. That's entirely unreasonable and totally against Wikipedia's protection policy. This seems like a clear WP:RBI situation if anything at all. There's really nothing else to do here, and it seems like the OP is attempting to create Everest out of a small burrow of a blind rodent... --Jayron32 01:52, 16 May 2013 (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.

Improper use of alternate account[edit]

I (and others) have been involved in a content dispute on the talk pages of and in the articles about Aaron Swartz and Carmen Ortiz with User:Dervorguilla. It came to my attention this evening that, a couple of weeks ago, she tried, and failed, to enlist assistance by posting these edits on the Editor Assistance board, using an alternate account. I've read the policy on alternate accounts. This use of an alternate account seems to deviate significantly from the policy. After bringing this to Dervorguilla's attention and to the attention of the other editors on the Swartz talk page, posting notice about this deviation here is the only other thing I can think of to do. Can someone please intervene in whatever way might be approriate? David in DC (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The use of an alternate account is not in and of itself a violation of the sock puppetry policy. It is the manner in which the account is used that can run afoul of policy. In the edits you've linked to, Dervorguilla explicitly identifies herself when using her alternate account (J.K.Herms). Had Dervorguilla solicited outside support for her opinion using an alternate account and failed to identify the connection, that would certainly have been a violation of policy.
This seems to be a somewhat questionable attempt to avoid immediate scrutiny (WP:SCRUTINY, not fully disclosed) but it's not done in a manner that would lead me to block either account. I haven't looked at any other edits, but the one linked above does not strike me as horrendously problematic. I would find a warning that Dervorquilla should avoid such actions in the future to be sufficient unless there are other issues of socking. --auburnpilot's sock 03:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
On 24 April 2013 (21:19 UTC), sysop Ocaasi gave user Dervorguilla the needed schooling on WP:SCRUTINY. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. A little bot-bird hinted that I should chime in here after I had taken both articles of my watch list. I have mentioned before that Aaron Swartz and Carmen Ortiz should not be edited by Americans nor those that knew Mr. Swartz personally or as a Wikipedian. I had never heard of either before his death. Both articles could use clean up by those with no involvement at all. He was a very smart and notable person and was charged with crimes. She was on watch when charges were laid. They both had reasons for their own actions. They may have been right or wrong but ours is not to decide that. Ours is to create articles that are worthy of a Wikipedia standard. I could go into detail on both articles as to why this isn't working in this case but I won't. I think others should just look at these articles as articles only. Not a clash of ideals, consequences, and who did/said what/when according to this source or that. The other related articles I haven't even looked at yet but I can only assume they may be in the same state.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    The comment "I have mentioned before that Aaron Swartz and Carmen Ortiz should not be edited by Americans nor those that knew Mr. Swartz personally or as a Wikipedian." is silly. I'm not sure what actions need to be taken, but that comment should not be left intact as plausible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • For exactly what reason can you justify making the statement that Americans shouldn't edit a particular article? That must be one of the more absurd things I've seen here. (And I'm English, not a Yank...) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967 could have been drawing on comments by MarkBernstein and HectorMoffet:
“My employer’s house magazine, TEKKA, did publish some work by Swartz seven or eight years ago. I’d completely forgotten those discussions about getting teenage Swartz to write a book.” --MarkBernstein 07:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC).  “The TEKKA website presents you as more than just an ‘employee’. I think that your words on it suggest a stronger connection that you seem to imply here to the Swartz article.” --Collect 08:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC).  “Swartz was quite prolific, especially in circles that often overlap with Wikimedians. You couldn't swing a dead cat around here without hitting someone who has some sort of 'six degrees of separation' connection to Swartz.” --HectorMoffet 00:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
--Dervorguilla (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • For an alternate account to start referring to its alter ego in the third person is deliberately misleading as to independence, presumably to present such an alter ego as a poor slandered innocent, especially when canvassing for editor assistance in a previously unsullied location. This is not changed if there's a policy-complying footnote tagged onto the end!
Dervorguilla's conduct at Aaron Swartz et al has already long been combative, disruptive and destructive. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Dervorguilla does not agree. Remarks concerning pronoun usage. Dervorguilla’s use of the third person singular is rationalized at her User page as signifying the sovereign (not royal) “she” speaking in her official capacity as sovereign. Additional illustrations Analogies: “Her Gracious Majesty requests that Lancaster be delivered to...” (but “I/we request that a pizza be delivered to...”); “If Your Grace is disposed to having Lancaster pardoned...” (but “If you’ve disposed of the pizza...”). It distinguishes between one’s sole-corporate (editorial) character and one’s personal (human) character.
On occasion this usage can add a certain gravitas (or a humorous note) to an overly personalized discussion. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight. Dervorguilla says on her/his user page that he/she was "MIT Crime Club (project advisor 2005–12)". In 2011, Arron Swartz was arrested by the MIT police, and we use the MIT Crime Club as one of our sources on the Arron Swartz page. That sounds like a conflict of interest to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy Macon, this comment is strictly abuot the conflict of interest allegation you just raised, and not about the substantive questions of alternate account usage (raised above), nor about allegations of edit warring or edit/reversion improprieties, etc., etc.
I (unfortunately) am a little too familiar with the circumstances here, and generally would be sharply critical of all involved, but in this case the potential improprieties are more theoretical or superficial than actual. The two references to the "MIT Crime Club" on the Swartz page are (1) to an archive (they call it a "compilation") of police log information published by the MIT Police, and (2) in a URL to a PDF copy of some Massacusetts Superior Court filings. With respect to (1), the MIT Police do not publish those logs on the Internet in perpetuity, and the Dervorguilla's organization has taken steps to preserve what might otherwise not be available. While it would be better for Dervorguilla to not be referencing an archive of information created by his own entity as a secondary source, the alternative is pretty much equivalent: include the information directly in the footnote and provide a citation to the original source that is not hyperlinked because there is no Internet-accessible resource for it. Whether or not that change (or something else) should happen, the connection here does not rise to the level of a conflict of interest on the basis of this citation/footnote/source. Similarly on (2), the Mass. Courts do not make this information available electronically, so Dervorguilla's organization has gone there in person, reproduced them for a fee, scanned them, and made them available as a PDF on the Internet. In both cases he is serving as a conduit (albeit one with some reputational problems) rather than a source. If one were to argue that Dervorguilla had a conflict of interest here, I think the only basis would be to say that he is an individual who has a demonstrated habit of concern about crime at MIT and Harvard, and the Swartz article and case are about an alleged crime at MIT. Then the chips fall wher—e they may. jhawkinson (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
As someone involved in MIT network security ( http://www.mit.edu/~jhawk/home.html ) you (jhawkinson) also have a COI concerning the Aaron Swartz page, which I see you have edited. Swartz was indicted for larceny of electronic data and unauthorized access to a MIT computer network.(it appears that I was mistaken and that there is no COI. See below.)
Guy Macon (12:12, 16 May 2013) — (continues after insertion below)
Plz. use another section if you want to seriously discuss this, but while I am interested in network security, I am not employed by MIT and I am not responsible for its network or security thereof.jhawkinson (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Being the MIT Crime Club project adviser is far more involvement than "having a demonstrated habit of concern about crime at MIT". http://mitcrimeclub.org/public/details976/index.html leads me to believe that we are talking about a faculty adviser.
Guy Macon — (continues after insertion below)
Hi Guy Macon! The document you found on the MIT Crime Club site is the archived homepage of the former Harvard College Crime Club — more at CSI: Harvard.
As you mention, my special (personal) interests do include “MIT Crime Club (project advisor 2005–12)”. And yes, the involvement required was on occasion rather heavy.
My statement of financial interests is modelled after the APA Disclosure Form. Some aspects are (marginally) less permissive than the WP:COI guideline. “Dervorguilla declares that neither she nor any member of her immediate family has a significant financial interest in any … entity discussed in her edits or in any competing … entity.” In particular, I don’t hold any copyright, partnership, or other financial interest in the Club.
You can (and should!) confirm that I’m not MIT faculty by checking the MIT People Directory, which lists students and employees. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The MIT Crime club does far more than just publishing police log information -- they hire private detectives and investigate murders. Furthermore, they feature a document on their web page ( http://mitcrimeclub.org/Westlaw_Document_11_41_01.pdf ) which says things like "Ortiz's performance and fitness for the job are being questioned by a growing list of critics" and "The Swartz suicide and the sick culture of the DOJ: Some lawyers are joking when they refer to the Moakley Courthouse as 'the House of Pain.' I'm not. The ill-considered prosecution leading to the suicide of computer prodigy Aaron Swartz is the most recent in a long line of abusive prosecutions coming out of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston, representing a disastrous culture shift." Anyone who is part of an MIT-based organization that puts that sort of material on its website has a clear COI when editing the Aaron Swartz and Carmen Ortiz pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Guy, there are already too many blanket views about "no Americans" and "no-one who knew Aaron personally" as editors being excluded from this article. Look at the talk archives. If it wasn't for a few people who did know of Aaron personally, in 2005, 2007 and even earlier this year, the article would already have been deleted! MIT is a big place, not everyone there has any sort of COI with this topic.
How many actual COIs are there on this article, and how many people who's editing has been downright hostile to others (there are two obvious names here, one of whom has now switched to being an anon IP, the other changes their socks before canvassing elsewhere) are affected. It's far too easy for WP (an increasing trend, and very common around SemWeb articles for some reason) for uninvolved wikilawyers to turn COI into "anyone who knows anything about the subject is unpardonably biased" and to seek to exclude them on that basis. COI is bad, but let's just focus on real COI, where there are real problems, not go crazy and topic ban randomly. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
"Dervorguilla's organization has gone there in person, reproduced them for a fee, scanned them, and made them available as a PDF on the Internet."
Does anyone else see that as a rather ironic action for an organisation involved in the Aaron Swartz case? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with Andy Dingley that referring to yourself in the third person is often unnecessarily confusing particularly when posting under another account. While they did note the connection at the end, a simpler less confusing thing to do would have been to refer to the other account as 'my alternative account' or something similar from the get go. In addition, without commenting on whether or not the alleged scrutiny of their edits is justified, their stated reasons for using the account sound close to violating our policy on avoiding scrutiny. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I would caution the Original Poster that THIS kind of nonsense, edit-warring with hidden messages in the edit window in mainspace, is entirely unacceptable. Beware of the boomerang. Settle content disputes politely on the talk page. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Smohammed2[edit]

User:Smohammed2 seems to be an almost totally non communicative editor who make sometimes strange, sometimes server edits and generally edit wars.

Reverts at Firearm via IP 92.96.193.28 diff, diff, diff, diff, (Maybe another revert via IP 2.49.245.105 diff). Also many previous edits.

Same IP 92.96.193.28 / (probably Smohammed2) 3RR at Magazine (firearms) diff, diff, diff

Blanks Gun and redirects to Firearm without comment diff

Blanks Spud gun and redirects to Potato cannon without comment diff, diff

These diffs diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff and the fact that this editor normaly does not write prose copy (only seems to do technical edits), does not leave edit summaries, and does not participate in discussions diff, diff, diff, diff looks to me like this may be a non-English speaking editor using translation software. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The immediate concern is the Gun and Firearm matter, they are not the same topic, while one includes the other the use of cannons and such are not labeled 'firearms'. Though Potato Cannon's history did redirect to Spud Gun. The editor merely copied the page in, then re-blanked it and made it a redirect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
This user has a long history of disruptive edits. I don't think he's here to help. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Delaware Air National Guard[edit]

Done. Drmies (talk)
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.

This article is being vandalized from a government IP address, 199.208.239.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) assigned to the US Department of Defense. Apteva (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Not anymore. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The escalated warning may have stopped them too, but somebody's commanding officer might want to speak to them. Much of the vandalism was not even English. Apteva (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, it's English, sdrawkcab ti daer ot evah tsuj uoY. Very clever, probably a bored kid waiting in their parent's cube. Rgrds. --64.85.215.86 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Maybe it was the commanding officer. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2013 (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.

User:Anonymous209.6 tagging page for POV despite consensus on talk pages through RfCs[edit]

In the article Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, general consensus on WP:N can be found here and consensus on the other comments section can be found, here. Despite an attempt to ask User:Anonymous209.6 to discuss this on the talk page, he continues to tag portions of the article for WP:POV. II would ask for some assistance in facilitation of a discussion on the talk page and stopping his POV tagging of the article. Thanks for any assistance. Casprings (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply; No consensus on either. The RfC referred to only mentions Bartlett vis a vis the copyright on his photo. Discussion of King, if a consensus was achieved, is for removal. Casprings (in aa fairly typical tendentious behavioral problem) at the end of the King discussion claimed to be starting a RfC on King, but did not, instead starting a RfC on Bouchey, whose conclusion resulted in deletion on BLP concerns of the aforementioned section. The habit of Casprings of excessive filing of motions can be considered tendentious, and makes assessment by new editors of actual consensus difficult. Casprings has also stopped discussion of issues s/he does not wish discussed by claiming consensus where none exists; primary discussion needs to be on Talk. The discussions on the Article are a mess.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC) 02:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User:68.50.128.91 and Talk:Robert B. Bell[edit]

Everything looks copacetic. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 00:56, 17 May 2013 (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.

Can someone uninvolved take a look at 68.50.128.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Their current unblock request is asking "Please send this further up the food chain of admins" ... so, as a show of good faith, I am requesting a review of my actions - as well as opinions on how to get the user to stop the repeated disruption. Multiple editors have attempted to help them; but they ignore anything that does not serve their goal of inserting poorly or unsourced content into the article - so I'm not certain at this point what, if anything, could be done to help get through to them.

In short, the user has a serious case of "I didn't hear that". They have latched onto some advice they received in April that an edit request could be used, and despite being told by multiple editors in the article talk page and on their user talk page to not restore it until there is consensus for the change - they persistently re-open the same edit request.

They had been blocked twice before for their disruption at Talk:Robert B. Bell (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). When they returned this week and resumed the identical same behavior that resulted in the prior two blocks, I gave a single warning, and when they continued, I blocked them again.

Prior ANI discussions can be found at:

--- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:48, 16 May 2013 (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.

Please remove defamatory content from a BLP currently under full protection[edit]

This edit added highly problematic content to the BLP of Amiram Goldblum. It should be considered defamatory in relating the way a group of people called Goldblum a "PLO supporter". Unless there is evidence that Goldblum is in fact a PLO supporter, we should not be repeating the accusation that he is a PLO supporter; in the Israeli context, that accusation (particularly if false) would be quite harmful to someone's reputation and should therefore be considered defamatory. (Please note that I am not Goldblum and am therefore not in a position to take any legal action even if I wanted to do so.) There is also the fact that the edit manifestly lacks consensus on the talk page, particularly in relation to the way the source is being (mis)used. Per WP:PREFER, WP:BLPREMOVE and BLP in general, the material should come out until there is consensus for adding it properly (an unlikely prospect). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Wow, that's an unpleasant talk page. While I personally don't think that there is a BLP problem per se with that edit, it easily could be a serious WP:UNDUE problem. That is, reporting reliably sourced accusations isn't generally a BLP problem but may be putting an undue emphasis on a minor event. I'll leave it to the folks who do more with BLPs to comment. I _do_ see some fairly nasty fighting going on and believe it would be a good idea for a calming and authoritative influence to pop in. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not defamatory. We are not calling him a PLO supporter, some protesters did, and those critics got coverage from a newspaper on the other side of the world for their actions. However per http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=884181&ct=11757857 there may be issues with the original story, and additional sources should be found to verify the story. However that is not a WP:BLP issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
If it was defamatory for the the mob to call him a PLO supporter (an obvious point), then it is defamatory for us to give space to their accusation. And, if there are problems with the source, then WP:BLPREMOVE is relevant. And, again, the edit lacks consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
He clearly falls under WP:WELLKNOWN. It would be defamation to call him a PLO supporter. Saying others did so, if reliably sourced is not, particularly where he has replied to the accusations publicly and notably. However, as I stated, it appears there may be some doubt that the incident happened at all (and therefore the latimes article is repeating a rumor, rather than a fact) - We shoud get to the bottom of that and develop consensus on if it should be included or not, but this is not a WP:BLP violation to report other's opinions. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask for an admin response, please? I'm grateful to Hobit and Gaijin for their views -- and particularly to Gaijin for raising the point that what the LA Times reported might not have happened (so that the source & the way it is being used is a problem and WP:BLPREMOVE is therefore relevant here). I appreciate that anyone can discuss at ANI, but in the end the point of posting here is to request admin action. Thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The LA Times article itself does not appear to source its information from the Israel Project website and the byline mentions that the work has been submitted by a Times reporter. However, given that this is a biography of a living person and there is an amount of doubt as to whether the stated events actually transpired, I would recommend that the specific disputed content be removed by another administrator as per WP:BLPREMOVE. As an encyclopedia, we should show reasonable restraint in order to avoid undue harm to a living person. The content may be restored later depending on the outcome of the dispute resolution process. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd agree that given there is some doubt about the veracity of this info in a BLP, the material should be removed pending confirmation and consensus to restore. I am going to drop a note to User:Amatulic-who was the protecting admin. If they are active, then probably it is preferable that they remove the content. If they are not active fairly soon, and absent any admin objections, I will do it myself. Slp1 (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Since Amatulic is not editing at present and per the consensus at this discussion here, I have removed the section for the present.Slp1 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (