Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive800

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Ccroberts123 back from block, resuming same behaviour[edit]

Indeffed by Bwilkins. Basalisk inspect damageberate 13:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC) With the understanding that "indefinite" != "infinite" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:00, 8 June 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.

After returning from a recent block by Kudpung for edit warring for persistently adding unsourced content to article Mattel and edit warring over it, user Ccroberts123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) made this and this edit again, as if nothing happened. - DVdm (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User notified. - DVdm (talk) 12:30, 8 June 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:Cluckwik[edit]

Has apparently opened an account for the main (sole) purpose of declaring an edit war on me and Chongkian. I have asked him or her to cease, and the only response is to harass me on my talk page with two irrelevant, if hypocritical templates. Cluckwik has continued a short pattern commenced by an IP. FYI, this may be of interest and bears some similarities. GotR Talk 06:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Chongkian made en masse changes about the name of Taiwan/ROC without disscusion and I was reverting them.

GotR attacked me in Edit summarys [1](shabi means "stupid cunt" in Chinese),[2]etc. so I added the NPA templates.Cluckwik (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No startup user should begin by combating established editors, period, since the edits were not unconstructive (unlike your edits). The wording here is coarse, but not at all an attack. And let me remind all that Cluckwik added the stupid templates (two of them, in fact) before the edit summary (s)he was referring to. Typical dishonesty from Taiwanese anons/edit warriors. GotR Talk 07:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
There was another edit summary calling me "sihaizi", which means child that should die, before the templates.Cluckwik (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Another shameless attempt to dodge the subject of this thread, which is YOUR conduct. GotR Talk 07:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not up to you, who is notorious for pushing anti-Taiwan independence POV in articles, to decide which edits are constructive.Cluckwik (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Whose sock are you? You sound horribly familiar to this set of IP ranges. How else would an otherwise seemingly novice editor be so rash to jump the gun and falsely claim, with not an iota of evidence, that I am "notorious for pushing anti-Taiwan independence POV in articles"? GotR Talk 07:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see obvious problems about the IP range's edits and there was no consensus in that discussion. However, Hilo48's comment in the thread about the IP range proves my claim. Cluckwik (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
There was a silent consensus by Rschen's (or whoever the blocking administrator was) to block that IP range. That you don't "see any obvious problems" is worrisome. Harassment is the most undisputed of them; WP:POINT in a clearly disruptive manner. Perhaps you yourself were the operator of that range? GotR Talk 08:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything about harrassing in the thread and there was no consensus about which point of view is more neutral. By the way, Rschen, with the last name Chen, seems to be Chinese. It is clear that what point of view he holds about this issue.Cluckwik (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The point of the Nov. 2012 AN/I thread was NOT to establish consensus on which POV is more neutral, which is also NOT the purpose of almost any AN/I thread. The aim was to clamp down on that clearly disruptive IP range, which may be continuing to manifest under the name of Cluckwik. The surname "Chen" implies Chinese by blood, which most people in Taiwan are. But does it imply (mainland or PRC) Chinese? No. You rebels' beloved Chen Shui-bian is a marvelous counterexample.
That you continue to (pretend) not (to) see anything harassing in the thread flies in the face of clear evidence in the form of relentlessly stalking my additions or corrections to DAB pages (links later...I'm going to bed soon). If you are indeed connected to this IP range, then your recent actions and rhetoric show that you are wholly unrepentant and deserve severe sanctions. GotR Talk 08:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Socking accusations belong at WP:SPI. For the record, though my ethnicity is obviously Asian, I don't really care about Asian ethnic wars; what I care about is NPOV. --Rschen7754 10:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I know that. But that is not the appropriate forum for the time being. This behaviour has only recently surfaced and CU use is not yet apt. GotR Talk 22:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

ip user 80.255.199.135 repeated vandalism after final warning - can you block?[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

repeated vandalism after final warning. most recently to The Voice UK where incorrect and unsourced information was added, as well as irrelevant speculation on Simon Cowell's sexuality.

Diffs
Link to final warning
Thanks for your assistance, 31.54.144.215. Unfortunately it's a dynamic IP, but I've blocked for 24 hours to begin with. For the future, please consider Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for vandalism reports. Bishonen | talk 12:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

User:GagsGagsGags[edit]

Despite being warned for creating 3 similar hoax Beyoncé Knowles tour DVDs, User:GagsGagsGags has created another: The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour (album). —JennKR | 18:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Indef-blocked per WP:NOTHERE. JohnCD (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit comments over the top[edit]

I've never posted here before. Was patrolling recent edits and came across IP User 207.207.28.141 who left unnecessarily inflammatory edit comments on this diff [3]. Is this the right place to go? Should I use the ANI notice? --Godot13 (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for two weeks. --RA (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we get that summary suppressed? It really shouldn't stand in the history.  davidiad { t } 03:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs) already took care of it. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Efforts to impeach Barack Obama‎[edit]

A second set of eyes would be welcome here. As an involved editor, I don't want to press a revert war with an anon who obviously feels quite passionate about this topic. I may have already gone a bit beyond the pale in reverting. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP-violations by IP. Besides their disruptive editing and warring, they're adding unsourced and unreliable sourced content in violation of BLP. Some admin please look into this. Thanks, TMCk (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP, then removed their talkpage access after they started using it as a soapbox. Several other editors have exceeded 3RR, but given the IP's battleground attitude and use of the article for soapboxing, the IP was the locus of disruption. Their edits after blocking confirmed my view, and I'm semi-protecting the article for a month. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
That just proves you're part of the Wikipedia tree-hugging liberal pansy conspiracy, I think. (Thanks for the assist.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Geebee2 & Murder of Travis Alexander[edit]

Geebee2 indeffed by User:MastCell.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 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.

user:Geebee2 is a WP:SPA and has serious COI, see this talk page section foe details. issues on the Murder of Travis Alexander article. Quite simply Geebee2 is engaged in advocacy as she believes the woman convicted of killing Alexander is innocent. She has used her own wiki as a source, even after being told she cannot. She uses her own wiki and her research on it to support her arguments on the talk page. She is a regular at the jodiariasisinnocent.com and has used that as a source[4] Her most recent edits show she is incalpable of following NPOV, here she says in her edit summary "Moved media interview information to Discovery and Investigation section, removed summary" What she has actually done is remove that Arias had give nthree different stories over the killings. Here she removes the section on the discovery of the body which according to GeeBee2 "it adds nothing to article" I request she be topic banned from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I will support a topic ban for the user as the user has proven it can not objectively edit material about the subject. The user is ofcourse entitled to their opinion about guilt or unguilt but it can not be the users aim to remake the article into a pro-Jodi article a Wiki article should remain neutral. The user has so far been unwilling to change even though several users has tried to reason with it and an admin has warned the user. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You are very badly informed.
(1) I am male not female.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
(2) I have not removed any content, other than minor tidy up with no semantic change. I have simply re-organised to make the article clearer.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
(3) It is you who has repeatedly vandalised the work I have done.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
(4) There are issues which I have probably got wrong, related to the use of primary sources. The wikipedia guidance on this is extensive and ambiguous, so I make no apology for that.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
(5) My POV is certainly that the article is wrongly titled. There is nothing whatsoever notable about the death of Travis Alexander, and everything notable about the trial.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
(6) Notwithstanding (1), there is a misogynistic double standard at wikipedia. See the Trayvon Martin article, which is nothing other than a defense website.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Per my note further down in this thread, and because of Geebee2's belligerent and uncollaborative attitude in this very discussion, I'm changing my support for a ban to a proposal for an indefinite block. Please don't let's stand by and see constructive editors worn out by trying to contain this timewasting disruption. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC). I agree with the descriptions above by Darness Shines and BabbaQ. I'll also note that Geebee2 is clearly an overwhelming contributor to collaborate with. Apart from his large demands for detailed talkpage discussion on every point, merely reading the history of Murder of Travis Alexander is exhausting. (Unfortunately that'll probably also affect people here who try to get a grasp on the issue.) I was in fact asked to help on my page recently, but had to (whinily) decline because of time constraints.[5] The trouble is Geebee2 makes a myriad edits with extreme rapidity, most of them small but with larger removals intermixed, and that method makes it hard to pinpoint the problems. He started editing Murder of Travis Alexander two months ago and has made 468 edits to it since then, accelerating all the time. The last 36 edits were performed in the space of three hours.[6] I'm not suggesting he's being deliberately overwhelming in order to OWN the article, but it's in fact impossible to keep up with this. Darkness Shines deserves our thanks for giving diffs to some problematic edits hidden in the jungle, especially this removal of important material with a misleading edit summary. That edit alone makes me worry about GeeBee2's claim above that "I have not removed any content, other than minor tidy up with no semantic change. I have simply re-organised to make the article clearer." Incidentally there also seem to be problems of advocacy in Geebee2's editing of David Camm.[7] Possibly all BLP-related articles broadly construed should be included in the topic ban? Finally, Geebee2, please don't be so free with your accusations of WP:vandalism, here and in edit summaries; they're baseless and uncivil. You see how nobody's accusing you of vandalism? Bishonen | talk 11:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC).
  • I suggest the burden of proof rests on the person making the accusation. I repeat, I do not believe I have removed any significant content, certainly not within the last 24 hours. The page history is available. Please substantiate, and we can discuss what was removed, otherwise Darkness shines should withdraw his false allegation. The edit Bishonen references is because I resourced that material with proper dates today Note, one part went into the pre-trial section where it logically belongs. Geebee2 (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe the "burden of proof" lies with the user that makes 36 edits on a single article within the space of 3 hours and over 400 within a 2 months time span. Also you bring up discussions but from what I have seen everytime users try to discuss with you, you simply say they are wrong and you justify your edits and are not interested in discussing it further. When I contacted you, you stated that I should remove my comment. You need to realise that if you want to have discussions you have to be willing to have discussions and not see them as people "attacking you" at every given time. And all of this combined with you throwing accusations around against Bishonen and Shines who is just trying to reason with you makes me think a topic ban for you is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I said you should move the comment out of that section, as it was not relevant there. I have been subject to multiple attacks, but none of these people are contributing to the article, and generally the attacks are non-specific. I'm sure I have made mistakes, for example, yesterday someone supplied source, and asked for that to be included somehow, I went ahead, but it turned out the source was not appropriate, and the detail was not appropriate, and now I get the criticism. Other criticisms I get are completely non-specific. e.g. Darkness shines "I object to everything you do to this article". It is not possible to respond to such a vague charge. Geebee2 (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • See how you edit too fast? Why would you include something somebody else requests, without even checking if the detail is appropriate and the source is appropriate? You're simply making work for others. Yes, you will "get the criticism" for edits that you do to the article, it's no good blaming the person requesting them. Don't add anything you can't take responsibility for. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC).
  • Support. This is very difficult to sift through, but it seems to me that Geebee's only real objective in editing that article is to obfuscate any hint of criminality directed at Arias. Some of the removals performed to further that goal, such as fundamental information about the finding of the body etc. are particularly damaging. Basalisk inspect damageberate 13:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  •  : Can anyone say what was actually wrong with the article when it was reverted by Darkness shines? [8]. My POV was (and is) that testimony belongs in the trial section, that was why I moved it there. There seemed to be some kind of violent objection - so I offered to move it back, but that was rejected, and 2 hours of hard work is lost. Sure I work quickly, and I make mistakes, the antiquated user interface at wikipedia is frustrating. I do make small edits, this is intended to allow people to see what I'm doing, not obfuscate. Where is the wikipedia policy on this? If there is one, why doesn't an experienced editor direct me to it? And by the way, have any of the critics actually contributed to this article at all?Geebee2 (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I support a topic ban. In fact, I support an immediate block for every edit that even smells of advocacy. It is indeed hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in those many edits; the edit pointed out above I did see yesterday, but it was one of many and I wish I had looked more carefully to see what it was sourced to (I believe that edit was reverted as a BLP violation?)--that edit alone, after a week of such voluminous editing and warnings/discussion, is probably blockable already. Geebee is active on a few other articles as well and those articles and Geebee's edits are very problematic. Given the evidence of external interests I think it is established well enough that this editor is here to make a case, and it's not an encyclopedic case. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd support Drmies's edit absolutely - the material removed was nothing but WP:OR and advocacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Andy, does your account need to be blocked for being compromised? No cussword, no disagreement? :) Thanks, BTW. I pondered doing this yesterday already, and having slept over it I was sure that it needed to go. Pity there's little left right now of what could be a decent and important article. I wish we could require "only academic articles and books" as sources for some articles. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That re-insertion is a big problem, but I believe the burden of the editors to prove their accusations still remains. The ongoing edit war alone needs to be stopped as that alone is blockable.[9][10] Edits like this also show unacceptable POV pushing. But other edits seem to be acceptable, and useful.[11] Other additions to articles like Trial by Media push POV; which Drmies just took care of. [12] Over 150 revisions to that article made for one huge BLP concern. Geebee needs act within BLP policies or else should be blocked; the speed of the edits aren't the problem, its the edits and POV pushing itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks. I see the point at "Trial by Media", I would point out that when I came across that article, it was already a list of cases, I just added some extra cases I happened to know about, and thought it would be interesting to do a comparison, looking at things like motive. Sure there is some kind of subjective selection here, the cases added are obviously cases that people for whatever reason perceive as miscarriages of justice, whether rightly or wrongly. Are there not places in wikipedia where lists get built in a collaborative way? I did ask a talk question about it a day or so in advance, and got no response. But Drmies thinks that is unacceptable, fair enough, I'm not going to argue, I think the article may as well be deleted entirely, there is nothing left except a single dodgy reference to the Bill Clinton case and an external reference to India.Geebee2 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Geebee2, this is the administrators' noticeboard. It's primarily for getting comments from uninvolved, neutral, users, so you're shooting yourself in the foot with your repeated complaints that people here haven't contributed to the article. That's the way it's supposed to work. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a battleground, it's a collaborative site, and your response to the complaints about your editing methods is the last straw for me. "Where is the wikipedia policy on this? If there is one, why doesn't an experienced editor direct me to it? I want to change my "support" for a ban, above, to a proposal for an indefinite block. Over the years, it's been my invariable experience on this site that when new users are urged civilly to avoid editing in a way that inconveniences others and they respond by demanding to be directed to a policy that forces them to comply — then they're not here to write an encyclopedia, they're here to wikilawyer and get their way by tiring everybody out. Never fails. Go ahead, Drmies. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC).
    • Bishonen, I can't make possibly controversial decisions for a few weeks, you know; it hurts me in the ratings (in the court of public opinion--Trial by media, you know). I am not yet at the point that Bbb apparently is, but also I have not yet seen what I'm hoping to seefind--a commitment to encyclopedic editing and an acknowledgement that they haven't been doing that so far. And I must say, Bbb makes a convincing case in his latest post. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I support an indefinite block. I realize that jumping to an indef without any preceding blocks is unorthodox, but a review of Geebee's edits warrants the sanction. I have been reviewing his edits since I read Basilisk's support. During that time, Drmies posted his views, which largely coincide with what I found in my review. I spent a fair amount of time working on the David Camm article, which Geebee extensively edited (280 edits, or almost 75% of the total edits to the article). Putting aside sloppiness, there were a significant number of copyright violations, which I have removed from the article, and Geebee committed at least some of them (I got tired looking). This edit is a copy-and-paste from the source. this massive edit (220 consecutive edits) includes other copyright violations as well. This edit is absurd. Geebee copied text verbatim from the Indiana Court of Appeals opinion, didn't give it any attribution, and incorrectly cited the Indiana Supreme Court. I don't believe it's a copyright violation so I left it in as a long quote and attributed it properly - probably should be done differently. Then, on top of all this, you have the edit removing the death section, which has already been mentioned, and this edit, which removes negative material about Arias in the guise of summarizing. Then, there's the off-wiki blog, which was started by Geebee at roughly the same time as he started editing here again after almost five years of inactivity. If others are still uncomfortable with an indefinite block, then I propose broadening the topic ban to any pages on Wikipedia that are law-related, broadly construed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I did not remove negative material about Arias, it was either moved to another section in the article or expanded giving more detailed date information derived from CBC News timeline ( and possibly redistributed elsewhere in the article to the most logical point ). It might look that way looking at a single diff, and maybe I did it the wrong way, but that's the truth. Geebee2 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That's false. It's true that some of the material you moved to other locations, but you often removed material at the same time as you moved it. Moreover, some of the moves shifted the emphasis. Thus, for example, where there had been a separate section about Alexander's death, now his death was deemphasized by being put into a much longer section about the investigation. I'm not saying that I disagree with every single edit you've made. You've made far too many for some of them not to be problematic, but the bigger picture stands out that you have a clear bias and an agenda, whether you want to admit that or not. The diff I noted above was part of another of your infamous series of consecutive edits (32 of them in this instance) and is here. Interestingly, the article was reduced by 3,410 characters - hard to say that would be an expansion, isn't it? After you removed the material, you edit warred with Taroaldo and Darkness Shines about it until you realized you were in danger of breaching WP:3RR (DS left a warning on your talk page), although you already had.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, let me describe what I believe I did. Yesterday, I found an updated timeline, which gave dates for the televised interviews. Next I added these dates, and then thought these items belonged in the discovery and investigation section, so I moved them there from the media section. I think I also added another interview with "The Republic", and did some other minor changes. The 2009 interview went into the pre-trial section. Now, as a result of these changes, the "summary" (which has a hint of OR about it I think and also differed in style from the other entries in this section), was redundant, since the information was in the adjacent paragraphs, so I removed it. As a result, the number of characters in the article was reduced, but the information was increased. I also did some other changes to the discovery section, putting things into chronological order, but with Arias and Alexander treated separately. Finally (and I admit this was probably a mistake) I thought Dr Horn's testimony belonged in the trial section and moved it there, with the result that the "Death" section had no information left in it.Geebee2 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not real keen on endless back-and-forth. However, I'll reply once more. Let's assume just for the sake of argument that everything you say in your last comment is true. You have't addressed the edit warring. You haven't addressed the self-righteousness with which you edit, either ignoring other editors' warnings or at least pushing it to just one step before you might be sanctioned. You haven't addressed the major changes you make to this and other articles without any real discussion with other editors (I've read some of your intense quibbling on the article talk page, driving most other editors crazy). You apparently plunge ahead. You haven't addressed the copyright violations in the Camm article. It appears to me that you are very biased and that those biases impel you to contribute in the fashion that you do, including occasionally apologizing so as not to appear to be a fanatic, as well as generally keeping your cool. We need neutral editors, or at least editors who try to be neutral as we all have our biases. You came here to edit in a certain way, and it's unacceptable. You eat up too many resources. You cause too much disruption. Whatever positive things you might contribute are far outweighed by the negatives. And I see no likelihood you'll change.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • On the copyright issue, at the time I wasn't properly aware of the need to reword. I hadn't noticed your post on the talk page previously, I will go and attend to that now.Geebee2 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Based on the discussion in this thread and a review of Geebee2's editing, I have blocked him indefinitely for tendentious editing. MastCell Talk 21:39, 8 June 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.

Excuse my tardiness.[13] The thread is closed, but I want to say a few things. I originally used gender-neutral pronouns for Geebee2, but I changed to using female pronouns because I had reason to believe that Geebee2 is female.[14] Geebee2 didn't correct me on using female pronouns in the thread that Darkness Shines linked to up higher. So it's suspicious that the correction was suddenly made in this thread. And up higher, Geebee2 asked, "have any of the critics actually contributed to this article at all?" I have. I agree with the indefinite block placed on Geebee2. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Karlwhen[edit]

Karlwhen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The above named user is using their main userspace to hold material that is excessive unrelated content.

  • I notified the user on 16 April 2013 about this, and also provided links to WP:UPYES and WP:UPNOT.
  • On the 7 June 2013 the user stated on a different talk page "Why can't I have my own material and data on MY own page? It's MY user page. I don't see how I'm breaking any rules.". To which I responded on Karlwhen's talk page explaining that his user page is property of the Wikipedia Community, and should not be used as a social media/blogger page.
  • An administrator further explained to Karlwhen regarding this issue.
  • Karlwhen appears to be ignoring requests to remove the content from his userpage, by doing actions such as blanking talkpages, without responding to comments or taking appropriate action to remove the content that he has been asked to remove by 2 editors.

Please could someone look into this matter, and perhaps take whatever necessary steps that needs to be taken. (All persons mentioned have been notified of this ANI). Many thanks, WesleyMouse 13:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Karlwhen has now removed the excessive content that against WP:UPNOT as well as removing the ANI notification that I had sent to him. Looks like the issue is now resolved, unless of course someone feels the urge to still notify Karlwhen about userspace. WesleyMouse 14:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the user has now understood the point. Unfortunately I have lost count of the number of users using their userspace to as free webspace to host tables for fictional online song contests, and the issue has the potential to get out of hand if not dealt with. However, most users will remove the content when asked to do so. CT Cooper · talk 16:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

IP 75.114.222.69[edit]

An IP 75.114.222.69 is adding a category to John McEnroe Category:American sportspeople in doping cases and Category:Doping cases in tennis here and it was reverted by me and another editor who also reported the IP to AIV but think it has been declined and recommended taking to ANI.Being a voluntary follower of 1RR ,I do not revert it again.This appears to be a case of clear violation of WP:BLP to say John McEnroe was involved in doping when there no clear WP:RS in this.The edit needs to be reverted.This page is very highly viewed page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is quite the issue you're making it out to be. The article contains a paragraph about McEnroe taking steroids, and is referenced to a reliable source, in which McEnroe himself admits he took steroids. Whether or not the category is really necessary I don't know, but I don't think it's a clear-cut BLP issue. Basalisk inspect damageberate 15:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply.Sorry the report is about the IP as per this recommendation. Actually the IP has been blocked twice in in April and has violated the 3RR rule and has adding information in WP:BLP and edit warring in Shane Carwin in addition to John McEnroe the information is very controversial and it has been reverted both in Shane Carwin and also in John McEnroe by another editor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Confession[edit]

Email a WP:Functionary. Dennis Brown / / © / @ 18:20, 9 June 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.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

i want to confess about new socks that i have made but the editing filter blocked my list of users, can someone help me? 37.250.25.139 (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

6 accounts are involved in this confession 37.250.25.139 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 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.

Alarming sockpuppet[edit]

Sockpuppeteer and sleeper accounts blocked by admins. ElKevbo (talk) 19:11, 9 June 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 please (a) block User:Kevin R. Guidry as a blatant sockpuppet and (b) use checkuser tools to see if you can figure out who is behind that and if other accounts or IP addresses need to be blocked? I ask for these extraordinary steps because it's quite alarming that someone would register account in my own name and edit my employer's article using that account. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You should make a report at WP:SPI. AzaToth 18:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks but I'm hoping to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy given the obvious facts in this instance. ElKevbo (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked him for vandalism only account. AzaToth 18:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but you can only have a "check user" done by doing an SPI. This might reveal what other accounts this person was using.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This is Mangoeater. I blocked a bunch of sleepers. T. Canens (talk) 19:02, 9 June 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:Weatherbell at Joe Bastardi[edit]

User:Weatherbell has been used to delete sourced material at Joe Bastardi. WeatherBell is the name of the company where Mr. Bastardi works. It may be Mr. Bastardi himself. . . Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 00:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, he edited only twice and was reverted both times. He hasn't edited in a couple of days. I blocked him for his user name.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Anatolii_Alexeevitch_Karatsuba#Petition_the_Wikipedia_administration[edit]

At Talk:Anatolii_Alexeevitch_Karatsuba#Petition_the_Wikipedia_administration there is a petition gathering signatures. I'm posting this to ANI as a good-faith attempt to put these people in touch with the closest people I can think of who count as "the Wikipedia administration". Stuartyeates (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:May122013 and issues at Rob Ford[edit]

May122013 (talk · contribs) - Rob Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For clarification, I have not edited the Rob Ford article or talkpage, I was made aware of this issue via BLP/N.

The facts: in May, Gawker reported that a staffer had seen a video, allegedly of Toronto mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine, and making homophobic and racist statements. The Toronto Star picked up the story, and two of its reporters saw the same video. Since then, the story has been picked up by approximately every single news outlet there is, been discussed on talk shows (Leno, Letterman, Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, Stewart, if my memory is correct), and generally become Kind Of A Big Deal. The article as written at the time of this post is neutral, sourced, and reports factually on what has been said in media outlets.

User:May122013 has tried everything they can to remove this information from the article, including:

  • At least a dozen outright removals of the content, all of which were reverted quickly, with multiple edit summaries telling May122013 that there was no consensus for the removal
  • Many attempts on the article talk page to remove the content, starting here with an attempt to paint it as unreliable when Gawker and The Star had a minor difference in one thing that was said about the video. Then a claim that the video is a hoax. Then attempts to (mis)use policy to remove it, different attempts at BLP/N to have the material discredited, most recently claiming that Gawker and The Star are primary sources. I could go on but I'm tired of combing through diffs. Just see the user contribs and the talk page. Basically May122013 wants the material out and will use everything and the kitchen sink to try and remove it.
  • And has wrapped it all up with accusing me of sockpuppetry, refusing to offer any proof of the accusation, and refusing to retract. (Including an attempt to evade responsibility by saying they only said 'possible', and they suddenly have 'time committments' until June 18 which do not allow them to address the accusation. Which is without merit, by the way. I removed the accusations after telling May122013 twice to do so. An admin has also told May122013 to provide proof or retract.)
    • User has retracted the above accusation. — The Potato Hose 04:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In summary, May122013 is essentially an SPA, is editwarring (in slow motion), and refusing to listen to consensus. I suggest either a topicban or a block until s/he agrees to stop disrupting the article and talkpage and wasting everyone's time. — The Potato Hose 16:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment on the sockpuppetry accusations, I did indeed ask May122013 to retract or take to SPI, which has been backed up by Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) here. GiantSnowman 16:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
BLPN link - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rob Ford. GiantSnowman 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I had already warned the user previous that a WP:BLPBAN or block may soon follow if they continued to edit war against consensus. There is a lot of wikilawyering going on with this user, and a single-mindedness that smacks more of agenda than neutrality. Dennis Brown / / © / @ 16:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
It would be a lot easier - but some of their concerns are, indeed, BLP concerns. I find it hard to totally dismiss a person who is right on something at least -- too many are right on seemingly nothing at all. <g> Collect (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Currently the article is in decent shape [15] and a number of editors have ensured it is neutral and not violating BLP concerns. Then we have an editor who many times a day shows up and reverts and wikilayers attempting to expunge a neutrally reported incident. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I striked [16] the "possible sockpuppet" comment. 2 editors suggested that I do that on my talk page and I do regret saying that. I right now publicly offer my apology to User:The Potato Hose. May122013 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I have a lot more than usual work activities over the next 10 days which severely limits my access to the internet, so please allow me at least 12 hours to respond to any other matters that anyone wishes to discuss. May122013 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with the delay. Having editors with different views is our strength here, but you have to know when to pull back and accept when consensus on an edit is against you. We all are sometimes on the short side of consensus, you aren't unique in this. Calling someone a sockpuppet is disruptive and looks as if you are trying to undermine their argument using ad hominem. If you think they are socking, by all means, file at WP:SPI or ask an admin for assistance. There is a fine line between spirited debate, and wikilawyering and disruptive behavior. I don't think that blocking you is a done deal here, but it is on the edge. It is up to you. You need to demonstrate a willingness to work on these issues by both your words and deeds, or you may force us to consider other actions as a last resort. Dennis Brown / / © / @ 22:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
It's worth noting, given the ad hominem attacks, that the user in question has repeatedly complained about them, while happily using them him/herself. Without devolving into ad hominems myself, it's useful to consider that someone who complains about others doing something, while doing the exact same thing themselves, is probably therefore not acting in good faith. — The Potato Hose 04:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support BLPBAN May1222013 has been arguing and edit-warring against consensus using poor arguments, as mentioned above. Also, in his two previous accounts he was tendentious in arguments about including rumours that the American president Barack Obama was not born in the U.S. and that his autobiography was ghostwritten by a former radical left-wing terrorist. He also argued for including salacious details of allegations of sexual assault made against a former president of the World Bank. While he claims that the Toronto Star is not a reliable source for Rob Ford, he presented the far less respected Canada Free Press as rs ifor another article. He appears to apply different standards for BLPs, depending on his perception of the subject. TFD (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Response to TFD :TFD I want to also apologize to you for having been un polite towards you. I'd also like to address your points above, which you have caused me to think about intensely. It is reasonable for you to be saying that I apply different standards to different BLPs, as that may well be how it appears. But in actuality I apply the same 3 standards to all BLPs; which may be standards that I may have to drop in order to be more objective here on Wikipedia. Those standards are "consider the source"; "no censorship when it comes to public officials", and NPOV.
  • With Ford those standards conflicted in my mind, yet I could not get above the fact that all of the "smoking crack" allegations originated with anonymous drug dealers and also the general perceived bias against Ford in the BLP ( as has been mentioned by dozens of other editors over the past 3 years ), so I thought exclusion of the crack allegations is the best path.
  • With the Obama birther event, that's been about 2 years ago and please note that I even received a barnstar for my work on that subject: see User_talk:Mr.grantevans2. That event, to me, fell into the category of "no censorship" because the origination for those allegations came from several elected and high profile politicians and established business leaders like Donald Trump.
  • With DSK, the head of the IMF at the time, the details of the alleged assault originated from New York City police investigators and had been published by RSs so they fit into my "no censorship" standard as well. In that case, I feel the details were important because they painted a much more of a predatorial attack than most of the mainstream press pictured. Also, DSK at that time was an employee of all of the taxpayers that contribute to the IMF, like you and me.
So, ironically, as you perceive that differing standards are my problem, I think, now that I've had the night to "sleep on it", that my main problem has been applying any of my personal standards when editing Wikipedia. So my objective, should I be permitted to continue editing Wikipedia, is to leave all of my personal standards out of my thinking about how an article can be improved. That may not be ideal, but I think that in my case its necessary. May122013 (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The fact remains that a good number of people take exception to your methods and for good cause. The previous warnings stand, and if there are future issues, I would still be inclined to use the BLPBAN or other methods to prevent disruption. I'm hopeful we won't have to revisit this. Dennis Brown / / © / @ 11:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand and I can assure you this will not have to be revisited. May122013 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly disrupted the editing of this article by reverting completely what consensus has decided, by each time simply repeating unproven "WP:BLP" arguments. [17][18][19]. His arguments are based on his own original research that Gawker editor John Cook and two Toronto Star have fraudulently reported that they witnessed a video of Rob Ford smoking crack and that the video is a "hoax." Ironically May122013 is breaking WP:BLP by making such claims with zero sources to back up such claims. His disrupted editing is based completely on his original research that is not supported by any source.

He keeps on starting new sections on the Rob Ford talk page of red herrings like the Gawker editors no longer have access tot the video somehow meaning the reporters magically never viewed the video [20], there was once a casting call for Rob Ford lookalikes [21], there's a "doppelhanger" of Rob Ford in Toronto [22] and even the graphic Gawker used in its story as reason to delete all content of this controversy. [23]

No matter how much it's explained to him that the content does not violate BLP (as he does) and that consensus is against him, he simply employs WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and repeats his same original research "hoax" arguments and reverts all content of other users about this allegation.

And as for his WP:NPA violations, I'll leave an example of when he was asked if he had a conflict of interest in editing this article: "No conflict at all; can you please inform us if you are under 14 years old ?"

This person has shown nothing but disruption and a lack of respect for other editors and consensus and needs to be banned from editing this article, if not all articles. --Oakshade (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In this edit, the user has undertaken to not make this a problem in the future. I think without evidence to the contrary we should probably believe that. But probably a good idea to keep an eye on things. — The Potato Hose 04:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:KfyTopal[edit]

KfyTopal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This person keeps editing Fenerbahçe S.K. (football) into turkish and putting some obvious fake info into player squad. Here are some of the examples:

I also belive that the same guy has made this changes with his IP:

Hasn't really edited since the warning for translating the page. I'll leave him a note on his talk page; if this carries on let me know and I'll block. Basalisk inspect damageberate 08:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Lucia Black[edit]

OP blocked as a Jonathan Yip sock. Closing before dramah ensues. Blackmane (talk) 08:32, 10 June 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'd like to propose a topic ban for Lucia Black targeting Anime, Manga and Video Games. The reason for this proposal is an ongoing pattern of behavior that has stunted growth and development of articles in these catagories.

A - Lucia Black operates as an owner of several key articles in these topics in violation of WP:OWN. Many of the user's revisions stem from his/her personal opinion rather than concensus or RS.
B - Said user often edits tenditiously and makes frequent use of personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA.
C - Said user often makes edits that contain numerous typographical, spelling and grammatical errors. Such errors require time to correct (often in addition to the time required to verify the info edited into a given article).
D - Said user may have ties to notorious sock puppet masters/trolls with whom he/she may be cooperating in order to harrass other editors.

These behaviors have a chilling effect on wikipedia and are responsible for intimidating new users from contributing in a meaningful fashion. In full disclosure, I was a registered, confirmed editor involved in cooperating on the Anime/Manga articles, but felt compelled to leave Wikipedia due to harrassment from Lucia Black. I have since abandoned that account and am nervous about disclosing who I was due to the possibility of on and off wiki harrassment in retaliation. She repeatedly reverted additions with little or no real justification and has accused me of being a troll.

I'm not sure if it is the nature of the topics, but perhaps it might be best if Lucia Black were given a break and encouraged to edit other topics.

User has been notified. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A brand new user account arrives to propose a topic ban? Quite clearly either an invalid WP:CLEANSTART or as a minimum an improper alternate account as an attempt to distract attention from their regular account. I'm sorry, I can AGF for days, but not for something like this (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, it doesn't sound like you've AGF'd at all. I have never been banned or blocked. My regular account has been defunct for at least six months. I gave up on account of harrassment from the above user. I'll assume good faith and not accuse you of being in cahoots with the above mentioned user. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose- A) You need to show diffs that demonstrate this behaviour. B) Ditto. C) This problem seems to be related to Lucia Black's editing in general, not specific to anime and manga, therefore a topic ban will not solve it. D) Unsubstantiated innuendo. Reyk YO! 00:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to show the diffs if someone can walk me through how to use the coding involved (I've never done so before). if you bear with me, I'll post them. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
See Help:Diff - take note in particular of the section 'Linking to a diff'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
In the meantime, you might want to check out TheSyndromeOfaDown apparently had communication with her on her/his talk page (since deleted, but the deleting admin can provide a copy Writ Keeper reverted it on 3 June 2013).Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI, the thing I revdeled had nothing to do with Lucia Black. Writ Keeper  03:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Support as proposer Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevent Diffs

[29] - example of ownership
[30] - example of tenditious editing
[31] - overt hostility
[32] - WP:HOUNDING

Also, take a look at the pervious two AN/I topics focusing her (one is at AN/I archive 798). Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming this editor is ChrisGualtieri, I have had it with this destructive behavior of this user. The first link shows absolutely no sign of WP:OWN. The other 2, this editor is involved and has been hostile and poison the discussion. Why else would this editor need to make an alternate account out of fear?

Also, this editor isnt afraid of me because of my hostility, its because of my wrongfully ban that in which if I bring it up to the highest power in wiki, will see a bunch of inconsistencies and will get this editor blocked too for his poisoning.

Idk why some user would feel the need to be a sock just to get a third opinion known. I smell conspiracy against me. I would NEVER use a sock. And I would never need to make one just to prove my point.

I cant bring links, but I have witnesses directly involved with ChrisGualtieri who can provide links for me and verify his destructive behaviour.Lucia Black (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Lucia stop being trolled. It clearly isn't me and your personal attacks are wearing thin. Admins, please check the revdel versions of my talk page.[33] I do not know their content, but I suppose it may be enlightening if the edits of User:KuroiNekoko-chan aren't.[34] Considering the last history the SPI will be obvious and I'm going to cross-post this. Not sure where the obsession comes from but Jonathan Yip made clear an effort to focus on both of us in the rev del from KuroiNekoko-chan's last talk comments. This trolling is really lame. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Close and SPI please - I have zero interest in Anime, nor familiarity with the names above but "My regular account has been defunct for at least six months. I gave up on account of harrassment from the above user." = "I created a new sock to get back at an editor, but I'm not telling you who I am"? ..... surely this ANI should closes here and next should be an SPI, shouldn't it? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugh...im far too tired for this stuff. How am j suppose to know when a sock is coming up.Lucia Black (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - While I object to many instances of how she handles herself in discussions, there is no way this warranted. She does good work when she's not tied up with arguing with people. Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is at SPI. I just posted the evidence there. Sorry, I've had a rough day and I come home to this. And Lucia, don't take it seriously, that's the intent. I'm going to watch this, but work on a few things in the mean time. But just to be clear, this "topic ban" thing is nonsense, Lucia does good work at WP:ANIME and has opened up to the community; I intend to back her in her efforts; past issues are as good as forgotten. Though let's end this "topic ban" with a snow close just to make sure its not taken seriously in the future; even if the nominator is not a sock. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Chibi Kusanagi is confirmed as a sock. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 10 June 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.

Persistent copy violations from User:Gunkarta[edit]

I was checking out a series of bilateral articles created by Gunkarta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and found a persistent and serious pattern of blatant copy violations. Gunkarta is an experienced editor so there is no excuse for this blatant violation of WP rules. I would suggest a topic ban for creating bilateral articles but leave it up to the community to suggest a course of action. Below is only what I believe is the tip of copyright iceberg:

LibStar (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Libstar, I examined [47] for numbers 31 through 69.  The pattern I found is that articles you create with over 1000 bytes are copy and pastes that are missing attribution history.  #30 is a special case which I have addressed here.
Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste#How about copying and pasting from one Wikipedia article to another?Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thanks for letting me know. I will use an edit summary in future, but I am curious why you are not commenting on the serious copyvio in my original complaint. Is there a reason why not? LibStar (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a copyright attorney, are you?  In your edit comment you identify [57] as a "blatant" case of copyvio.  The text transformation is not cut and paste.  What criteria did you apply to determine that there was a copyvio?  What criteria did you apply to determine that it was "blatant"?  Point 4 of Copyright#Fair use mentions "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work".  Have you developed an opinion about the change in the potential market value of the copyrighted work?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What is your goal here? Are you looking to catch me out? The point I am making is that this user has a history of copy violations, yet all you are interested is trying to paint me as the bad one. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks Crisco for your wise words. Unscintillating has gone off on some tangent trying to pursue me for some unknown reason and ignoring the extent of user gunkarta copy violations. LibStar (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Again with going off on your own vector, Unscintillating, particularly since any Wikipedia editor can (and should) report possible copyright violations - even if they are not lawyers. Yes, this is blatant copy-pasting, in violation of copyright. I note, however, that it is not uncommon for Indonesian editors (particularly those raised on the Indonesian Wikipedia, which has much more lax copyright policies), so the assumption that he understands that it is wrong may be faulty. Has Gunkarta been notified and/or adequately warned? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys.., currently I've been working on expanding articles on countries of Indonesian bilateral relations as my own personal project. I did not realize that I have caused such problems on copyright stuff. Surely I'm not a master in this laws matter (and certainly not the fan of it), and yes Crisco.., I think Indonesian wikipedians are somewhat not quite that good (or rigid) on "grasping" the idea of copyright stuff and tends to lax in this department. But one thing I know is at least the things written in wikipedia articles should be verifiable. Of course during my work, I referred to respectable trusted sources such as embassy websites, foreign relations office/ministry, and news. I did not realize that the referencing, citing and quoting I did was a copyvio (too much of them perhaps?). I think I need to work my senses to know a healthy balance between a good citing and the so called copyvio. One thing I can sure you all, that this is not my intention or some deliberate actions on my side. I'm not really familiar with this copyvio rules in articles. I only familiar in copyvio on wikimedia commons materials such as images and photographs. Let me know where did it went wrong. I think the wise decision is, to tell me which parts where there is too much quotations that could be considered as copyvio, and let me try rewrite it in my own words (despite my weaknesses in grammars, vocabularies etc). Any contributions and helps to improve the Indonesian bilateral relations articles are welcome and greatly appreciated. Thanks... Cheers.. Gunkarta (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Gunkarta, glad to see you here. The issue is with how close the wording is (close paraphrasing, if you will). Compare, for instance:
Source:
The Goethe-Institut Jakarta organises and supports a wide range of cultural events to present German culture abroad and foster intercultural exchange in Jakarta. As the regional institute for Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand, the Goethe-Institut Jakarta increasingly exploits the potential of the regional relationship networks that are borne of both its cultural history and the effects of globalisation, in its regional projects and current plans. ... the Goethe-Institut Jakarta has a national network of representatives who promote German as a foreign language in Indonesia ... We provide language courses, workshops and seminars for teachers in teaching German as a foreign language, not to mention a comprehensive examination programme. ... The info centre at the Goethe-Institut Jakarta provides information on current aspects of cultural, social and political life in Germany.
Article:
"It organises and supports a wide range of cultural events to present German culture abroad and foster intercultural exchange in Indonesia. It promotes German as a foreign language in Indonesia by providing German language course, also provides information on current aspects of cultural, social and political life in Germany. As the regional institute for Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand, the Goethe-Institut Jakarta increasingly exploits the potential of the regional relationship networks."
Bolded elements are verbatim from the source. We need to reword it, extensively to, make this information useable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, thanks for pointing and explaining the problems. I think summarize or rewording would be good. I don't mind to reduces the information (details) from the sources as long as the points is made, which is "Goethe Institute provides German course in Indonesia and promotes their culture".Gunkarta (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Summarizing or rephrasing would be perfect. For example, "It focuses on cultural events which present German culture and language to Indonesians. Indonesians who wish to learn more can take language courses and also read about aspects of life in Germany." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

section break[edit]

I've found a few more:

LibStar (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the scope of this, perhaps it's best that a copyright investigation is opened over at WP:CCI, since we've found quite a few issues. Wizardman 23:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Done: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Gunkarta. MER-C 10:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I'm following this, go ahead investigate all my edits. However I can sure you, I did not breach this copyvio rules deliberately. I just did not familiar with how much citing sources could be considered as copyvio. Do what you can to repair the articles, I understand wikipedia have sets of rules to follow.Gunkarta (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

8i347g8gl[edit]

This person is intent on adding material which is obviously inappropriate, and has restored his edits each time they have been removed. He does not interact at the talk page despite several invitations. This is the old section and this is the new section. The talk page has a sample of bizarre quotes so you don't have to read it all. He appears to be doing original work, citing scientific papers while making "God" and "morphogenetic field" connections on his own. E.g. "The gravitoelectric field (God) is also known as the quantum potential." Tahknis (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked for one week (edit warring, disruption, repeated OR). I suggest you try and engage him on his talkpage during the block, to see if you can at least get some sort of discussion underway. Yunshui  10:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Greg Bahnsen[edit]

Request, best suited for RFPP, sorted. Doc talk 13:57, 10 June 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.

This article has been vandalized for years, and been protected on-and-off for the same period of time. The vandalism is usually the same edit. Is there no better solution than the current pattern of waiting for the vandal to hit, revert, report, protect the article from anon editing for a short time, block offending IP address for a short time. Can we please just block anon editing on this article, period? --HighKing (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Not worthy of this board. This is kind of lame. And, of course, it seems to all stem from a "British Isles" thing.[65] Lucky guess. Doc talk 11:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest indef block IP per WP:NOTHERE. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
We don't indefinitely block IP addresses. Doc talk 12:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The rest of that sentence doesn't belong anyway, regardless of the name. I've removed it, semi-protected the article for a month, and will watchlist it. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 10 June 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.

Editor who thinks "People in Wikipedia care too much about sources" being disruptive[edit]

User:Lguipontes, who thinks "People in Wikipedia care too much about sources" [66], keeps reverting in Template:World homosexuality laws map for no valid reason whatsoever. All countries in yellow enforce anti-gay laws (see ILGA map: [67]), yet the editor keeps reverting to this version [68]. I warned him already [69], but doesn't seem to work. Cavann (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Deus meu, por que tive a impressão ontem à noite de que seria HOJE de que eu iria para a AN/I?! (Oh, my God, I had the impression just yesterday at night that TODAY I would go to AN/I?!) I may only be a witch... And I thought I would never be exposed to teh dramaz since I'm lazy, slow and pacifical like that animal I put on my page and talkpage and I forgot the English name but I can't look at it in another tab because exactly in the last 10 minutes I lost my PC's mouse (I remembered!) a slot so I would solve anything with civilized talk... It only needed a small amount of irony and bad mood due to headache. If there's a God, he's laughing at me now. -.- Lguipontes (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
For those wanting to see my reasoning of why it does include countries which do not have it always enforced, please see the historic of the usage of the file on Commons. Yeah, I thought we don't depend solely on a single source to build Wikipedia consensus, I didn't even went to check this out as I thought Cavann had the perspective of one who just found out that map as it was the first time I got him passing by that area... I'd be happy to 'obey' if it was already known Ron 1982, Kwamikagami, L.tak, Chase1492, Flyer22 or any other editor to the map or person otherwise involved in discussing it or interpretations on LGBT rights changes across the world before. I'm sorry for the slow edit war and anything, I will not revert him back. See, for Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake, no need for reporting me to the administrator noticeboard on incidents. Sorry for the bad English, I'm too nervous, too stressed and too busy right now to revise it. Lguipontes (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    • This appears to be resolved with Lguipontes' promise not to revert again. But it has to be said that if you really believe the "People in Wikipedia care too much about sources" line, you might want to either reconsider your position or consider a different website to edit. Wikipedia doesn't need another editor who's clueless about the ethical and legal importance of strong sourcing, and people who act accordingly tend to find their stay on Wikipedia very short indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
You better not care about me. There's an army out there to un-edit specific parts about Brazilian culture, language and whatever that are obvious to Portuguese speakers and can be found in a due search in minimal sources by ourselves, and that are silly things not demanding scholarly work, but still, they will get reverted. Still, Rio de Janeiro is the kind of article that keeps being changed to non-acceptable points by anonymous users, but no one cares. Doubtlessly, the way Wikipedia policy on sources is applied is bad.
I was scared of this thread because I don't want to find another website, and I know well how to behave here. It is just that some users take what they don't agree with or just doubt to a very exaggerated point, even if we know what we are talking about, we are productive, or they are the solely ones doubting an old consensus and other reputable, knowledgeable, working editors didn't challenge me in the first place. Just as you may see that L.tak supported me as being 'nice and civil' and that this whole AN/I thread over this minor issue was wholly unnecessary. Also needless to say that the context to which I said people "care too much about sources" here, a statement to which I agree but in various different senses (and I don't want to challenge the status quo of them all), was taken to a different context by Cavann because, well, just 2 or 3 reverts over more than 27 hours or so with good faith reasonings made him seemingly irritated. Lguipontes (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked user Mhazard9 editing as IP user[edit]

User:Mhazard9 was blocked for 48 hrs yesterday for edit warring, after being blocked a few weeks ago for repeatedly removing copyright tags. Mhazard9 was also blocked twice, in 2010 and 2011, for abusing multiple accounts. They're going for the jackpot now with this edit [70] --editing while blocked, restoring an obvious NFCC violation, long-term edit warring on the article, and an abusive edit summary. The IP's edit history is limited to articles where Mhazard9 is involved in disputes, the edit summaries are distinctly in Mhazard9's style, the edits match Mhazard9's -- in short, the quacking is so deafening that no formal SPI should be necessary. Significant block extension is called for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As the editor who made the AN3 complaint leading to Mhazard9's current block, I'd also like to register concern. To my knowledge, I've only intersected with Mhazard9 at one article, Pathetic fallacy, where no one has yet undone the changes inflicted by that user. (Although I wasn't anywhere near 3RR myself, I just feel weird about reverting edits other than blatant vandalism when the user who added them is blocked.) My concern stems both from the user's behavior, which included both edit warring and a refusal to communicate, and from the substance of the edits themselves, which led me to muse (to myself) about competency issues or, given the length of time the user has been around, a possible compromised account. (See my diff above. Improper capitalization is the main issue.) Without reviewing the user's earlier contributions more thoroughly, which I have no time for today, I have no idea whether these problems have been ongoing or are new. In any event, block evasion is a serious offense and merits an appropriate response. Rivertorch (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The evidence that this is block evasion is overwhelming. Even before being blocked, Mhazard9 has used the same IP (not logging in) to edit the same articles (at least once in the midst of an edit war at Edward Said), sometimes within hours of each other. I have inceased Mhazard9's block to one month, and I have blocked the IP for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I rolled back the edit and semi'd the article for a couple of days before I read your extension of the block; I might as well leave the protection there, it's not doing any harm and will prevent any obvious IP hopping for a couple of days. I will watchlist, regardless. Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Looking at his block log, this is the third time they have been blocked for obvious socking. In light of that I personally would have indef blocked, for now I am going to decline their current unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Harassment after formal dis-invitation[edit]

Closing to avoid mutually assured destruction. Each has violated WP:NPA here and if either continues I'll happily block. Get back to productive work, please. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:22, 10 June 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.

User and I have previously disagreed (See also WikiProject United States scope, WikiProject United States absorbs WikiProject Texas, WikiProject United States attempts to absorb WikiProject Dallas/Fort Worth). After I commented on an ANI in which they came to my talk page and began to significantly annoy me with baseless complaints, I formally dis-invited him from my talk page (diff of dis-invitation). Today when I tried to give, what I considered a semi-friendly, nudge to remind Kumioko on how to get more positive reactions from other editors, only to have him come on to my talk page again denigrate my comments at AN and to claim that they have more investment based on their tenure and quantity of contributions. I responded somewhat intemperately as was presented to me by their intemperate initial posting. I dis-invited them again from my talk page, and they then persisted in maintaining their "Last Say" on the talk page after I exercised my rights under User Page policy (specifically WP:UP#CMT) multiple times and warned regarding harassment. After I gave a warning via edit summary that the next post would invoke a request to AN. What I want is for Kumioko to respect my wishes and leave my talk page. In addition I'd like Kumioko to be stronly suggested to that their conversational style (including insulting other users, random admins, and unregistered users) is fundamentally incompatible with standard operating procedure. Hasteur (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you want admins to do? Just give this strong suggestion, or do you want something in addition? Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I want the admins to remind Kumioko about the best practices regarding user pages, user talk pages, and in general making himself to be an entitled user on behalf of his quantity of edits and length of membership with the project. We're all supposed to be editors. Some have been entrusted with additional privileges based on the community evaluating their need, whereas others have been restricted in their privileges based on the failure to adhere to the standards that the community has judged. Hasteur (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not discluding any other options, however based on this editor's history I think the time for cautions and warnings has already passed (See also their recent POINT RfA attempt). Hasteur (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hasteur made a comment which was obvious trolling on my request for an edit above (Facepalming). I left a notice on their talk page telling them it was innapropriate trolling and to knock it off. They further insulted me and told me not to come back. Then when I opened up a verbal asswhooping they stomped their feet like an impetuious ppouting little child and reverted my comment. Hasteur made the inappropriate comment and since no one else told them it wasn't appropriate I did. The only think I did was what an admin should have done and didn't. I hurt hasteurs feelings for being a dick. That's all it was. There is nothing worthy of ANI in his request and this discussion is a waste of everyones time. I would also like to add that I am not insulting to anyone who doesn't insult me or another user first. Certainly not an unregistered one (I would like to see an example if I have). If another user or admin wants to insult me, then they should expect that I will have somethign to say to them about it. I am not a sheep and I do not act like one so to assume that they can say whatever they want about or to me just because they are an admin or whatever is an incorrect assumption. Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
So, you (Hasteur) made a snarky comment, you both retaliated at each other in escalating degrees of stridence, and then there's a childish edit war over whether a certain comment gets to stay on your talk page? Sounds like another day at ANI. Neither of you distinguished your respective selves here, and you both have made it quite clear that your talk pages are off-limits to the other. So let's all stop being utter jerks to each other, respect the mutual talk-age bannination, and leave it at that, shall we? (By the way, for anyone curious: I silently reverted Kumioko's post on Hasteur's page in the forlorn hope that it would somehow go unnoticed and that this dispute would die the quick, silent death it deserves, but it was not to be. If we want to play the blame game, my blameometer puts the blame on Kumioko at 70% and Hasteur at 30%; not evens, but nothing to write home about.) Writ Keeper  16:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko, it's very simple - if another editor removes your comment from their talk page then you should not re-add it. GiantSnowman 16:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd made the attempt to head this off by pre-emptively doing an NAC as I have previously seen that Hasteur and Kumioko don't get along, I see that failed. Quite frankly, interaction ban the two of them and move along. Blackmane (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
You all can call me names all you want. The fact remains you failed to call the users attention to the inappropriate comment so I did. You don't like how I did it, next time do it so I won't have too. This also would not have happened if I could have implemented the changes I spent hours doing rather than wait a month for you admins to do it because I can't be trusted. And then have you ignore the request for edit because you don't understand it. You don't trust me, then make the changes you don't trust me to do. I should not be doing them if I cannot be trusted to implement them. Kumioko (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
And after waiting a couple hours for a response from Hasteur about how I am being abusive to new users as suggested above he/she can provide no examples. Because they don't exist. Their just another editor who is mad because I'm not an admin and called them out for acting inappropriately. This thread should be closed as a pointless waste of time. Kumioko (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, a couple hours is enough time to formulate a response. No, I've just elected to leave this tombstone on the trail of tears that you leave behind you whenever you don't get your way. I bet that true to form you won't leave this as is and instead will DEMAND the final say in the conversation so it appears that you had the upper hand in the debate. Prove me wrong. Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
A couple of hours is more than enough time to provide a couple links of how I am abusing unregistered or new users which you specifically mention above but you can't because its just madeup by you. And I'm just responding to your comments hasteur. Although your comments above are basically gibberish without any coherent meaning as usual so there isn't much I can respond to really. Someone needs to close this thread as the obvious waste of time it is. I would but someone would undoubtedly fuss about it being innappropriate. Hasteur is just wasting everyones time here and he knows it. So does everyone else. He's just spouting crap trying to get me blocked or something and doesn't have anything other than his own bad behavior to prove I did anything wrong. If he wasn't being such a child about the whole thing it would be funny, as it is its just irritating and sad. Kumioko (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko, please find a quiet spot in your house and read your last response out loud. Then ask yourself how successful that response is going to be at defusing this situation. It might be a baseless complaint (I don't know), but responses such as this do nothing to help prove that point. Please calm down. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I really don't see anything. The user accused me of being harassing to new/unregistered users which is patenly false. The user was being a dick and leaving snide comments in a discussion which were clearly negative in nature and of no use. No one said anything so I did. There is nothing to see here. The user submitted a baseless complaint to get my into trouble and you and others are so focused on my comments you don't even care about theirs. It should be obvious to anyone that the user is just being shitty. But no one except me seems to care. That's why I am irritated. You will let the user say anything they want and be as dickish as they want but if I say something to them about it, I am the asshole. You want me to drop it, fine. But don't get mad at me for telling the user not to be an asshole because you and your fellow admins didn't have the time or inclination to do it. And contrary to the users comment about us having a disagreement 2 years ago we don't have any "history". Their just some random user that felt compelled to snipe a worthless comment at me because they knew that no one, including you was going to do anything about it and I'm sick of it. I'm not sorry I responded only disgusted at you, yet again, singling out my comments and completely ignoring the comment from the user who I commented about. That is at least the second time you have done that to me so my suggestion to you Ultra would be to tkae a couple minutes while I find a corner in my house and look at all the facts before passing jusdgement. Its a rare thing for admins to do these days but you'll be the better for it in the end. Kumioko (talk) 21:18, 10 June 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.

Barelvi[edit]

these two users need to be blocked..i wasn't going to take this to ani but tag teaming,personal attacks & possible wp:own is getting out of hand..mezzomezzo has escalated matters from calling me a racist on another article.[71] (which i mentioned at ani before) to now a "bigot". [72] he resorts to personal attacks when he doesn't agree with my discussion.

also ever since i entered discussions at Talk:Barelvi this user georgecluster happens to jump into discussion to side with mezzo mezzo..after mezzo calls me a barelvi and POV pusher..george jumps in to claim mezzo is a good faith editor [73] george even posted on his talk page that he would support him consistently [74]

this is nothing more then tag teaming…george reverts my edit here back to mezzo's version [75]

george then completely turns down my proposal on the talk page but when mezzo makes a similar proposal he seems to agree with it. [76]

he arrives out of nowhere between me and mezzo's dispute as well to make supportive comment [77]

note also that a user has recently been banned from editing this article and these two users were involved in pushing consensus at ani for it to happen. Baboon43 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm confused here. Baboon43 used to primarily agree with MezzoMezzo's edits (although not always), and since the aforementioned topic ban for a user, suddenly they don't. That's rather weird. All 3 users need to calm down, stop edit warring, and stop attacking each other. Although I haven't seen that much edit-warring in my watchlist. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The user MezzoMezzo recently attacked another user as well [78]. he has been warned by an admin to halt the personal attacks and continues it [79] Baboon43 (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This looks a heck of a lot like sour grapes for the improperly-filed (yet sadly and sorely needed RFC/U) above. Tit-for-tat maneuvers rarely are successful, and usually add more kindling to the existing fire (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Incivility from User:Amd9012[edit]

(non-admin closure) Editor blocked for 48 hours for making personal attack. Lugnuts is suggested to write edit summaies, see WP:FIES --Tito Dutta  (talkcontributionsemail) 18:43, 10 June 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 made this revert on the article for Mud, as it was unsourced and looked wrong (a score of 105.184% for a review?) and got this response from that user on my talkpage. This user doesn't make many edits, but the little they do make seem to be disrputive, as per their talkpage. This comment on my talkpage is not acceptable. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You should really have used an edit summary to say why you were reverting, but the response is indeed unacceptable - I have blocked for 48 hours. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 10 June 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.

I feel I am possibly being bullied by 4 admins over SPLC material in the Men's Movement page.[edit]

Not going anywhere; time to go back to article space. Copyvio warnings are not personal and the best way to respond to them is to stop making copyright violations, not file ANIs. Basalisk inspect damageberate 06:11, 11 June 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 made an edit on the Men's movement page and included material from the SPLC. The discussion has been here [80] and was taken off the page here [81],[82]. My good faith was seriously questioned by Binkersnet [83]

The material is certainly contentious, but I should add that RSN has repeatedly discussed the reliability of the SPLC and RSN also declared fairly unanimously that articles of the SPLC are the the voice of the SPLC and not the author, (with a few dissensions). The SPLC has been used frequently in the past to criticize the Men's Rights Movement, but seems out of bounds when the larger movement is discussed. I seem to get blocked at the drop of a hat and need help here. CSDarrow (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I feel like CSDarrow is not responding well to being warned for a copyright violation, something that I feel they don't seem to be mentioning at all in this thread which should end with a block for disruption and wasting time--on this page, on Bbb23's talk page, and on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh my that is a very serious-looking matter! For what it is worth, I think it would help you if you linked to the diffs of the actual material that was reverted or removed. As far as I can tell from the chat page communiques only, it is not so much that the SPLC material is controversial but that you (according to your detractors) copied and pasted it directly from the site which is considered to by a copyright violation regardless from the source unless it is attributed in a specific and certain mannerism as detailed in WP:COPYVIO. I personally do not feel that if you are being bullied based just on those diffs but if you had the diffs of the actual edits that were reverted I could revise my opinion and stick up for you if it turns out that you were being accused unjustly of copying material from a site wholesale. DrPhen (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
CSDarrow's outrageous behavior in his handling of this matter warrants a block. Please see this discussion on Bbb23's talk page and this disucssion on CSDarrow's talk page for context. Thanks. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The diffs are this one with copyright violation, and this one with attributed quotes. The material that CSDarrow wishes to add is without context, difficult for the reader to understand. It makes a statement about some not-very-respected types of men who can be found in the men's movement, but it does not set a larger context about what the main types of men are, what the main demographics are of the men's movement. The CSDarrow text is not encyclopedic; it does not help the reader. I cannot tell what he was trying to communicate to the reader, and I would like to have him explain it. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I fail what your comment has to do with this issue. However the argument you present is beyond belief and could be used to remove anything you so pleased in Wikipedia. Similarity I am still waiting for you to withdraw your accusation of bad faith, when I fact I truly do believe these quotes to be VErY significant from a VERY significant organizationCSDarrow (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
this one this one seems like it was sourced and quoted appropriately; the other (second) one wasn't - but it was simply a matter of adding quotes around the correct sections, I don't think CSDarrow was trying to plagiarize, he just didn't quote it the second time as he should have. I think this matter is best discussed at the correct talk page, I don't see any need for admin action here, the revert was proper but could have been more gentle.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
CSDarrow committed a clear copyright violation (taking material from this webpage and inserting it without quotation marks or paraphrase into an article here). When he was called on the copyvio, CSDarrow responded unconstructively and cast himself in the role of victim. I don't see any bullying here. I see someone who's committing copyvios and then reacting obnoxiously when called on them. And I'm considering blocking CSDarrow until we can be sure that he understands what a copyright violation is and that he will not insert any more of them into our articles. MastCell Talk 03:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
There was essentially no discussion when all that was needed were quotes as now I know. I was simply issued with a very officious warning and 3 other Admins jumped in. The question of Binkersnet questioning my good faith I trust will be addressed. Let me be clear, I truly believe the SPLC commentary is significant, it is a VERY controversial statement made by a VERY significant organization. The material has now been removed for reasons that are also imo opinion entirely spurious.
Frankly I think the links I have presented concerning the discussion speak for themselves. I also find suggesting sanction for those who attempt to use a dispute resolution system troubling. CSDarrow (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
CSD, I warned you previously about the boomerang. You report at your own risk. Frankly, I find it absolutely outrageous that you find it inappropriate that editors would suggest you be sanctioned. Do you think that someone who reports other editors for improper behavior, especially an allegation as serious as bullying, should be immune from receiving any adverse consequences for their own inappropriate actions? I would now ask that you please provide diffs that support your claim that four editors have bullied you? If you are unable to provide such proof, then I concur with Drmies' recommendation that you be blocked. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Confidence in safety from unreasonable sanction when making a complaint to a justice system is one of the most fundamentals pillars there are. Sanction should only be used for the most egregious of incidences, else it becomes a tool of the totalitarian state, (forget who said that). Talk to those who lived in Cold War East Germany. CSDarrow (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry CSD, but this is Wikipedia noticeboard, not a court of law. We don't give immunity to anyone who feels like making an accusation against someone. Again, I clearly advised you about the boomerang effect after you continually were calling editors bullies and threatening to report them here. Do you think that falsely reporting a a crime is acceptable? Or legal? And let's be clear... leveling an allegation of bullying against four editors without any proof whatsoever is egregious. So show us the diffs that support your claim. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I can see why he chose not to provide that diff of the actual material. That is clear and unambiguous copy violation and I do not quite clear understand why he construed the reminders on his talkpage as bullying. this ANI report reminds me of boomeranging... DrPhen (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Obi, I appreciate your good-faith effort, but CSDarrow's edits were not positive and the aftermath is just a waste of time. Here we are again at ANI, with the MRM, and a conflict caused by too much zeal and too little know-how, coupled with a temper. The copyvio charge was not a matter for the article talk page, and why CSDarrow didn't just accept it is a mystery to me. I called for a block because of that disruption on a number of pages, accusations and all. For the record, I believe the IP likewise suffers from a high zeal content. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I find it very difficult to understand what CSDarrow is trying to accomplish. He seems to be getting increasingly irrational and confrontational. If I understand right, CSDarrow is sympathetic to the MRM and is frustrated at the approach to sourcing by the other editors of those articles (who emphatically are not). His perception is that sources are judged suitable or unsuitable according to whether or not they back a pre-determined political position. At the heart of the issue is that most of the sources come from feminist literature and it is true that stuff published in those kinds of journals must adhere to a particular ideology, so I can't say that CSDarrow is completely wrong; and I have no respect at all for that attitude- it is not conducive to honesty or academic integrity. However, the material CSDarrow is arguing about on Bbb23's talkpage is indisputably a copyvio, and it was not "bullying" anyone to remove it. He is putting himself in the wrong through this misbehaviour, and I urge CSDarrow to stop shrieking so much. Reyk YO! 03:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't think even CSDarrow himself knows what he was trying to communicate with that edit. He simply copied and pasted two sentences, verbatim, from the SPLC website and slapped them into the article. I showed the comparison of the sentences from the source vs. the article in this thread. Beyond the blatant copyright violation, the other major concern of course is CSD's use of material from the SPLC website as a reliable source. Although I'm not saying I disagree with SLPC's positions on matters, they are clearly anything but neutral. CSD was told that if a truly reliable, independent source - newspaper, magazine, etc - has encylopedic information about an SPLC position, then it could be added and sourced to them. But, as another editor told CSD, "posting an insulting quote from the SPLC, cited to the SPLC" is inappropriate.[84] In any case, I think the content issue is simply a huge distraction from the real issue at hand. We have an editor here making outrageously bogus claims of other editors bullying him, when the fact is that everyone has told him he is wrong and all he wants to do is argue with them and hurl baseless accusations. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The worth of the SPLC's word seems to vary depending on who wishes to use it, which is the deep deep root problem here. Lets not pussy foot about this. Any pejorative it cares to spew about the Men's rights Movement is the Word of God CSDarrow (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Slow down! I feel like the temperature on this is getting turned up way too high. CSDarrow, please, listen to me, as I am not an admin and didn't revert anything you did. All you have to do is apologize, and say "Ok guys, you got me, I shouldn't have copy-pasted". OTOH, everyone else, please take a chill pill, this is not the place to discuss sourcing of materials or MRM (but the IP may be interested to know that CSDarrow is absolutely right, SPLC and their blog posts are taken as highly reliable sources over at Men's rights movement.) Frankly, I think an aggressive copyvio tag (and then a bit of ganging-up) for a minor error which could have been easily corrected goes a bit too far. I would have settled it through a revert and a gentle note on the talk page explaining, rather than a direct attack on the editor who, it must be admitted, has demonstrated zeal for this material in the past (the admin in question may not be aware of the history of this material being added/removed/etc). So let's start by turning down the temperature, everyone, nothing dramatic or dangerous or terrible has happened here, mostly just a misunderstanding and hurt feelings. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I think my violation of copyvio was more against the letter than the spirit of the rule. When I was aware I adjusted it, but now another reason has been found to exclude this material. CSDarrow (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Obi, it is not reliable in the context that the content was inserted. Further, the content is not even encylopedic. The fact of the matter is that the admin made a proper revert and issued a proper warning based on CSD's prior editing of the article and his recent two blocks. And the admin did so with absolutely no malice. I'm sorry, but when an editor goes around making an allegation as serious as bullying against another editor, let alone four editors, s/he better have the proof to back it up. If not, they should be blocked. Otherwise, editors could go around making baseless allegations with immunity any time they feel like making someone's life miserable. So unless CSD shows proof of the alleged bullying, or issues an apology, s/he should, as Drmies recommended, be blocked for a bit. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not getting into content discussions here - I was just making an aside. Yes, the revert was "proper", but then everyone got all fired up and there was a bit of a beating administered in various talk pages which was not helped by CSDarrow playing the victim. I suggest that everyone drop the pitchforks, come down out of the castle, relax, and have a beer. CSDarrow, you violated the law and the spirit, as you copy/pasted text. Yes, quote marks are small, but they matter. What Binksternet did afterwards, I wouldn't have done (e.g immediately revert) given the temperature, but whatever, *that* should be dealt with at the talk page, not here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (