Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive802

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Unfair and biased topic ban imposed[edit]

Discussion metted some good venting it seems. It's going nowhere as of now, and some advice has been left on the OP's talk page. NAC - If I'm overstepping, please revert. Dusti*poke* 23:59, 24 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.

Bear with me.

  1. Context: There is a pair of very controversial articles, namely
    2002 Gujarat violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Godhra train burning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User Darkness Shines is pushing an obnoxious agenda supporting a version which I think is a blatant violation of wikipedia policies in each one of them. He created Anti-Muslim pogroms in India as well as category of the same name and vehemently defended both of them in the AFD, DRV as well as CFD, blamed the closer, even when multiple editors tried to make him understand the issue. Darkness was blocked and then unblocked and that unblock was controversial to put it mildly. Let's not forget I told that this editor will not only lead to his own block but also others'. Now, it's no secret that because of some recent changes in his proclivities he has managed to garner a few hardcore sympathizers who would want has supported him in his struggle to see an exclusive and utterly one-sided focus on only anti-Muslim violence in India, who incessantly strive to blindly label every anti-Muslim violence in India as "pogrom". For more on Darkness Shines see this temporary repository.
  2. I expanded one article few weeks ago, added literally hundreds of sources, 116 to be exact, but later it was reduced down to 3 sources with an allegation that I have turned it into a political screed by none other than FPaS. And with warning that seemed to me more like a threat that if I try to restore any of it again I will be banned no questions asked, and I didn't because I was scared I didn't want to be banned. I obviously felt bullied. I didn't like it even one bit. Save me all the repetition see this. I have asked him to explain what the problem was, I thought I was working inside my boundaries. Maybe that I could have handled it more finesse but he didn't even bother to explain anywhere what the issues were. Still I refrained from reinstating sourced content into that article because I respect the warning. I don't believe that I have IDHT yet. But when you're met with absolute silence you cannot but here nothing.
  3. What happened in the past 24 hours has really managed to put big doubts in my mind about the whole establishment. Now in a separate article 2002 Gujarat violence added other sourced content which I think is pertinent enough and none of the involved editors protested against it (even the extra-scrupulous Darkness Shines let it stay). Again, maybe I am wrong in some subtle way but that is not a ground to assume bad faith on my part? I did not misrepresent the source, I encourage you to check it. I don't believe Wikipedia is censored but that belief is steadily languishing. Instead of talking with me or discussing with me, FPaS deemed it okay to ban me based on a subjective pretext interpretation of my actions for SIX months from any India-Pakistan related article. I have been editing that article for weeks, what happened this time that triggered the ban you may ask, I can only point to this banality. Note What Admin Spartaz wrote:

    ″I'm seeing 4 separate edits and this isn't report worthy. I have more than had of you two guys knocking spots off each other. I'm going to leave you separate messages on your talk pages.″

    And he did it properly. I have no complaints against him.
  4. BTW it is only me who is banned, not Darkness Shines whom FPaS himself recently warned by saying, [1],

    ″That new article of yours, Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, displays forms of blockworthy tendentious editing and source misrepresentation. If I see you editing like that again, I will ask for a topic ban for you via WP:AE.″

I have in past in this very venue see things that have boggled my mind and yet I am astounded. I was in the middle of a discussion with Dlv999, Sarvajna, DS and Dharmadhyaksha. I don't think I have acted in bad faith, or misrepresented any source deliberately, or behaved uncivilly or any other way tried to disrupt wikipedia in last 7 days. What is the problem that I'm creating? Tell me and give me a chance! Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


Note: I have changed some content above because of a request by Salvio here. I know it's bad practice to change a post after it has been met with responses but it's a double edged sword for since Salvio said below he might block me, and he did, if I didn't change it. I don't know if it is up to the par even now, but please understand that much of what I have written here have less to do with faith, more with empirical evidence, objective observation and common sense. Some of these, I think, are indispensable to the validity of my appeal. Most of us might not understand the subtleties of the situation, albeit some can. Mrt3366 07:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


  • I'm not going to pretend I understand the subtleties on this affair, but based on [2] the banning admin was WP:INVOLVED in editing the topic area and was in a direct content disagreement with the banned editor. So someone else should impose the ban if it is necessary. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
If you look at it carefully and in detail it is actually dead-simple. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Why was the appeal made here and not at WP:AE using the standard appeal template? The topic ban was issued according to discretionary sanctions for WP:ARBIP. Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Discretionary sanctions may also be appealed on ANI and, better yet, on AN (as a personal note, I prefer these venues to AE, but there are fellow Arbs who feel differently). That said, MrT, I'll give you a couple of hours to remove the various personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith from your appeal; after that, you'll be blocked. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
After that, I will be blocked? WOOW! The things you call personal attacks are observations that are indispensable to my appeal. Most don't get how critical the situation is. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Not that I particularly like this, but I have just blocked MrT for a week. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
*blink* You did whuh? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a clear assumption of bad faith by the admin who awarded a topic ban to MrT, he is very much involved with MrT in some other articles and was not happy with MrT so he banned him, and for what? Some edit made by MrT was given as the reason, so how many people felt that his edit was problematic? No one except that admin. I feel that we should not only remove the topic ban of MrT for this good faith edit but also there should be some action against this admin for misusing his admin rights. -sarvajna (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it seems to be some sort of background between Mrt and FPaS (I have no idea when/how it started) and probably FPaS should had avoided any administrative action towards MrT and let an uninvolved admin doing eventual actions against him. In any case these two edits are problematic but likely not even worthy of a talk page warning (even if I don't consider reverting both of them as a wrong action). And even if FPaS was correct in imposing a ban, a six month ban is absolutely beyond measure. However, waiting to hear FPaS'explanations... Cavarrone 20:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
In a normal situation what you say may be correct (obviously the details would need to be examined to determine whether "let an uninvolved admin..." is a reasonable summary). However, in a topic under discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBIPA), the situation is very different. Several major battles in real life are echoed in Wikipedia with editors on one side fighting editors on the other side over a wide range of articles for years. Little details such as the name of a town may seem incidental to the casual onlooker, but can have epic implications to those involved who recognize that one sequence of letters means their side is right, and another sequence of letters means the other side is showing their POV bias. In such circumstances, it is impossible for order to be maintained unless one or two volunteer admins adopt the dirty task of following the skirmishes, and every enthusiastic editor quickly becomes acquainted with the one or two admins who monitor the topic. If INVOLVED were hyper-applied, chaos would develop because it is not possible for completely uninvolved people (with no knowledge of the background and history) to follow all the details—that's why the problem went to Arbcom in the first place. Wikipedia is not an exercise in justice. An appeal should address the precise points mentioned in the topic ban, and should assume the admin is working in good faith—the purpose of an appeal is to show that the admin was incorrect in the particular case. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The admin FPaS who unilaterally decided this ban is unfortunately WP:INVOLVED in making content decisions in the topic area. I was uninvolved in editing this area before this thread started, but it was easy for me to notice his !voter AfD participation in [3] and his decision to twice-stub the other article sans discussion. (Mr. T's version of the article had a horribly unfocused prose flow, so I found it easier to expand/[re]write from scratch rather than try to massage Mr. T's text toward more NPOV, but that's obviously a content decision.) This is unfortunately another regentspark-like situation, with an admin being closely enough involved in content-making decisions taking actions which are normally reserved for uninvolved ones. I realize from my own experience the difficulty in getting uninvolved admins to look at cases of long-term problematic conduct, but this is unfortunately how Wikipedia's policies and admin community are currently structured. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I too had edited the article on Minorities in Pakistan and I think I too should present my perspective. I am concerned that Wikipedia is doing a piss poor job of noting human rights violation in Pakistan and I have been trying to correct the situation as much as I can. FuturePerfectatSunrise seems to be super-sensitive to negative content about Pakistan and had edited that article whitewashing almost all of the (well sourced) negative content about Pakistan. I had created a section on "Women" and FuturePerfectatSunrise has deleted that too (without any explanation). They had threatened to block (without warning) anyone who edits the article in an "obviously non-neutral" way but would not explain what that "obviously non-neutral" thing might be. (Mrt3366 has requested them to explain things several times.) So, the result is that if I edit the article at all, I am at immediate risk of being blocked for editing in that mysterious but "obviously non-neutral" way. I am afraid I cannot deal with an ed who is whitewashing an article and is likely to block me (by doubling up as an admin on the same article). So, I had given up editing that article. If FuturePerfectatSunrise had explained their concerns, I would have liked to work with them, and address those concerns. But FuturePerfectatSunrise remains completely uncommunicative and just keeps waving the admin-gun and shooting. Looking at the way Mrt3366 has been victimized, my impulse to edit that article has eroded even further. As a non-admin, I cannot be expected to deal with an ed who wants to whitewash negative content and can block/ban me. It is up to the community to see if it is OK for admins to block/ban eds that they have content disputes with. Thanks and regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Women, in general, are not usually considered to be a minority. So that section is probably off-topic in that article, unless only women of some religious/ethnic minorities face extra discrimination, and in that case the issue is better phrased in those terms and diffused in some other section. Human rights in Pakistan and Women in Pakistan is an appropriate home for the general issue of women's human rights [violations] in Pakistan. Better communication/explanation from the editor deleting that would have saved you some aggravation, no doubt. On the other hand, some level of WP:COMPETENCE is required in writing about such topics. I've seen other editors who I suspect are motivated by deep personal biases throw in everything and the kitchen sink in some article, probably attempting to make some entity look as bad as possible. That's not how an encyclopedia is supposed to be structured. And it usually ends up badly for editors who repeatedly don't get that point; see this case for an example. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have two thoughts for those concerned about this case. First, it would be great if there were enough admins prepared to monitor topics under discretionary sanctions so that each admin could spend an hour justifying each statement, but such resources are not available. Second, any editor wanting to show unfair treatment should start with a diff of an edit where their change was to the advantage of one side, and another difff showing an edit on the opposite side. Neutral editors in a contentious area should find it easy to locate material that expresses each side. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I obviously agree, let's focus on my topic ban for now please? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought I was working inside my boundaries. Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. If you go through my edits carefully you will see as a whole I have never blindly opposed something. Again, perhaps I could have handled the situation in Minorities of Pakistan with a bit more tact but I wasn't even told anywhere what the issues were. Still I considered the possibility of me being biased with regards to that article and refrained from reinstating sourced content into that article. Does it not mean anything? Does it not mean that I am willing and I don't out-of-hand disregard such warnings based on a perception of my biases? I am not saying I am 100% neutral editor, I mean who can self-certify like that? It may very well be that I am biased right now. If that is the case then tell me what did I do to get accused of bias? Bear in mind that without a fair hearing, accusations of bias is tantamount to personal attack. Silence is not admission of guilt. Did I distort a source? Did I obdurately refuse to listen to others? Did I delete sourced content? I am the one who constantly gets vilified for adding sourced content, yet I usually don't outright retaliate by attacking others; I simply ask them to focus on content. If I get cautioned by an editor/admin that I am attacking someone (even unknowingly), I pay heed to that and rewrite my comment almost immediately. I mean does it not freaking say anything about my character? I have been asked to keep it focused on my topic ban but amidst all the disparity it's gradually becoming very hard not to point to other cases where greater NPOV violations have been dealt with much much more leniently. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is the edit which according to the admin "the straw that broke the camel's back" for him. If you check that article, that content is still present in the article, it was not opposed by anyone, there was no discussion on talk opposing the inclusion of this in the article.I would consider this a good faith edit, did anyone try to explain MrT that there was some issue with that edit?No. Now the admin thought that it was some kind of tendentious edit, so he conveyed that with a topic ban. My conclusion is if an admin do not like my edits which were not opposed by anyone else then I run the risk of being banned. This is a very dangerous situation.-sarvajna (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that much-touted "tendentious edit" is still inside the article nobody removed it since then, it can mean only two things:
  1. My edit is not seen as inappropriate till now, by any involved editor (who I must say have been very, very scrupulous about almost every other thing)
  2. The banning admin's aim was not improvement of the article, had his goal been the improvement of the article he would probably have talked with me about it, at least reverted that edit. What was his aim then?
That means I am unilaterally banned for six months by an admin, who few weeks ago was involved in a direct content dispute with me on Minorities of Pakistan, for making an edit, in an article about a highly emotive subject, which nobody else (including those who were vehemently opposing me) deemed worthy of even a complaint? I am flabbergasted. Yet, I am expected to assume good and believe that everything is alright. And amazingly enough I am still assuming that people will see the inconsistency. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor: Given how this has unfolded so far, I think it would be appropriate to get an uninvolved admin to look over this specific situation, and either advise MrT on what he did wrong (he cant fix his behaviour if he doesnt know what the issue is, the point of any non-permanent ban is to allow time for reflection, and behavioural adjustment); and to check the banning admins' rationale and then extend/reconfirm/minimise/remove ban as necessary (if required). If MrT has behaved incorrectly at some point, without being made aware of what exactly is the issue, it is extremely unlikely he will be able to modify his behaviour, and hopefully return to the topic as a changed man. -- Nbound (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This is horrible! COMMONSENSE (or lets say ARBCOM, for people who follow book) would say that a non-involved admin should take up brooming tasks. We have like thousand admins and why do these same faces come up for imposing blocks and bans??? They are very involved as editors in these topics and they themselves, with a bit of dignity, should be avoiding using admin tools. Mr. T should not be banned as this admin is involved.
    In fact, various other admins should also rest their broomsticks when they are editing South Asian articles and at the same time acting as admins. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary sanctions says: "Administrators must also follow the Committee procedures set down at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions."
And Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Discretionary_sanctions

"4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;"

When Future perfect at Sunrise warned me he said, "You get the same kind of warning from me as DarknessShines did: this [15] edit is completely unacceptable. You guys all need banned, the whole lot of you, on all sides of this sorry mess of a POV cesspit." (my emphasis)
I didn't like the dismissive and angry tone of his comment yet kept my cool.
I later asked him specifically,

"I am trying my best to cope with your comments. I just can't fathom the reasoning is all. Please elaborate a little further. So far what you claimed makes me wonder many things. I ask again, What do you want to ban me from and based on what?"

His reply was, and I think this is the warning,

″Sorry, no. I think I have been quite explicit in explaining what is wrong with your editing. We expect a basic level of competence from our editors, so I'd expect you to understand what I said. Oh, and just so you can't say you weren't warned properly, the relevant Arbcom decision is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions.″ -Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he ever explained to me what exactly he saw that deserved a ban. He kept on harping on my intellectual incompetency but never bothered to explain anything. Read the thread. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Mrt3366 was requested by Salvio giuliano to remove the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith in his initial report. He was very briefly blocked when Salvio misread a response of his. Since his unblock, he has not modified his initial posting. Several editors active in the topic area covered by WP:ARBIPA have commented here. A block issued under discretionary sanctions is hard to overturn and almost certainly that cannot happen based solely on the views of a small self-selected group of editors. The advantage of WP:AE is that discussions are more orderly and must stick to the point; there is also guaranteed input from uninvolved administrators, usually familiar with both the topic area and discretionary sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The reason comments are so orderly at AE is because few watch it partially because input from outsiders to the AE in group are generally ignored. MR T is clearly getting agitated which isn't helping their cause but a very quick 15 minute review shows that the user is telling the truth about one thing, that there does seem to be some evidence that some admins where out of line. For example, I personally get irritated when I see notices like the one here that all non-admin's are blocked. A seemingly automatic assumption that if your an admin, you must be right or that since their an admin they'll just unblock themselves, neither of which is a good response. I also agree that discretionary sanctions are hard to unblock but a consensus here should be enough to over rule it on a case by case basis. With that said, the articles in question have massive NPOV issues throughout them, they should both probably be fully protected to ensure discussions occur on the talk page and are only implemented after a consensus is reached. Kumioko (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The edit that broke the camel's back[edit]

I see two problems with that edit [4]:

  • Ashok Patel is also identfied as a Bharatiya Janata Party member in the source, but this was left out in the edit. But, more importantly,
  • How does that hearsay of some phrases allegedely uttered qualify as "Post-Godhra violence"??? And how is Patel's opinion about who started the original event relevant in the section about post-event violence?

In light of the previous problems of a similar nature in the article on Minorities in Pakistan, I think this edit was a case of breaking the camel's back as far as WP:COMPETENCE is concerned. Whether willingly or not Mr. T is adding enough irrelevant, WP:UNDUE material to require some sort of remedy to relieve others from repeated/massive clean-up after him. That's my take on this. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And I also note the rather unsurprising edit-warring over that addition from another editor apparently deeply vested in this [5]. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't bring up Minorities of Pakistan I didn't repeat my edits and left it to others. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
First, this is the first time somebody has come to talk to me about it. Bear this in mind while trying to justify the SIX months ban.
Second, it was added as an opinion, not an assertion of fact. That article is fraught with such assertions. I was not the first one to add opinions. (WP:GNG doesn't limit the content of an article.)
Third, I attributed all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. (cf. WP:BURDEN) I added a source which I found on the net [6]. Since that was the only thing missing from the article, I was actually trying to balance it (cf. WP:BALANCE). Needless to say, it may seem offensive to some. And this is the problem.
Fourth, do not assume bad faith please, I didn't willingly leave Bharatiya Janata Party-member part out. In fact, I think, it makes his claims more significant not less. We should NOT sit on judgement on whether an witness, who is BTW DEPOSING before an investigative commission, is telling the truth or not. That's not our job.
Also have you seen the article Saffron Terror? Anti-Muslim pogroms in India? Was the creator of that article also banned? I made an edit, one wrong edit maybe for which I was not approached by anybody, yet basing on that edit I was directly banned. Another guy initiates WP:RM to move a page from a neutral common name to an utterly biased name, initiates RFC to justify illegal reports from unconstitutional commission (see this) as though it matches the credibility of the official verdict from a court of law, creates an utterly deceptive and derogatory article based on selective sources, biased comments, nobody asks any questions about it. He is blocked and then unblocked and then blocked within days and then unblocked by an involved admin. Nobody cares to reblock him. That is bias. Yet, I make one edit, one edit, just one single edit that is not a contravention of any policy that I know of, I am right away banned for six months by an admin who clearly angry at me and was involved in content dispute with me. WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
You're posting in bold, allcaps, and have a template in your signature? What on Earth is wrong with you people? Any goodwill you have built is pretty much being torn down very quickly by the above - well done. You're effectively ensuring your topic ban continues, and putting huge walls up against any future complaints. Well done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
And your signature has some symbols that i dont like. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Dharmadhyaksha I think BWilkins is trying to help. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but his attempts to help are not actually helping. That observation about my signature was uncalled-for here. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
You still haven't changed upper-case to lower case, and as I said this place isn't for those who are sensitive to criticism especially when when they are the subject of a discussion. I know it is difficult, but that is the only thing that will work. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, goodwill and all. Yeah. This is your first comment and that too when I am starting to loose my calm. What is the use of such goodwill, if it can't make you comment on the right time at the right moment on the right thing. HUuuuuH? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Mrt3366, you will recall that I have on several recent occasions predicted that topic bans would soon be enforced for various people contributing to articles such as these, Narendra Modi etc. You, DS, Dharmadhyaksha, OrangesRyellow and others are all going at it hammer-and-tongs, you are all displaying huge amounts of POV and the number of times that you were appearing on this board were bound to draw attention. The only thing that surprises me here is that the ban is not indefinite and that it has not been imposed (yet) on others. Go contribute to some subject matter where you would appear to have less of a vested interest and/or less of a battleground mentality. There must be at least 4 million other articles you could work on. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget to count yourself as one of us, Sitush. [7], [8], [9], [10] Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Mrt3366 railing and ranting is not going to get you unbanned, I suggest you strike off or rephrase what has been considered as "personal attacks", unbold the bold etc. I've been the subject of a ban discussion motion against me that was carried and trust me drama doesn't help. Keep your cool. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
What personal attack are you or anybody else referring to? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Savio wrote: "That said, MrT, I'll give you a couple of hours to remove the various personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith from your appeal; after that, you'll be blocked." You ought to ask him. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
So you mean you yourself don't know what the issues are? BTW, I implored Salvio to explain ABF issues on my unblock request, here, he didn't say anything as of now. I am not creating this "drama" intentionally you know. I have been forced to make strident and explicit observations. That's all they are, observations from my stand-point. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
No Mr. T, I don't know what is bugging Savio, I didn't say you were creating drama, I just said that drama doesn't help, my experience. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This topic ban could have been seen coming from a hundred miles away. Mrt666 clearly chose not to get out of its way.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for Mr. T. His responses above indicate that he isn't likely to change his approach. I would support topic bans for a couple of other editors in this area, but that should be proposed separately, I suppose. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on the edit that "broke camel's back"[edit]

So far only one edit [11] has been raised as justification of my ban. I have not seen any other edit (except "Minorities of Pakistan" which I already left because of personal fear).

  1. That edit was sourced.[12]
  2. I didn't misrepresent the claim/quotes, it clearly says "Pak flag was hoisted after Godhra carnage: witness" and also mentions the remarks by Bharatiya Janata Party member and municipal corporator, Ashok patel, a witness DEPOSING before the investigative commission inquiring about the riots of 2002. We should not sit on judgement on whether an witness is telling the truth or not. That's not our job. If the reliable sources mentioned it ought to be included.
  3. Only one issue about that good-faith edit might be that I, perhaps, miscalculated the weight of that statement. There was no discussion after that, I was directly banned!

May I know what the issue was? Mr T(Talk?) 13:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom[edit]

While I think Mr. T's edits are biased, Future Perfect seems to be acting in an extremely heavy-handed manner when plainly WP:INVOLVED. This is not the first time it has happened with regards to the India-Af-Pak topic area either: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive124#Future Perfect at Sunrise. It is also not the only topic area where he has had this issue. Given that Future was previously subject to a temporary desysopping by ArbCom in the WP:ARBMAC2 case, I think one recourse to consider is simply taking this all up to Arbitration for a general review of Future's administrative actions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The claim that I have an "involvement" here is plain wrong. I have followed the current set of disputes involving DarknessShines and others from a neutral distance, and my engagement in it has been in an administrative role. I warned Mrt the other day, as an uninvolved administrator, and now I followed up on this warning. That was, as best I can remember, my first ever interaction with Mrt. I have given such warnings to several users, on all sides of these issues. In a small number of situations, I have also addressed and corrected issues of obviously bad use of sources and obvious tendentious content editing, including a handful of content edits on some of the disputed articles. These were "tie-breaker" edits, made in situations where I felt the opponents were so much entrenched in their POV squabbles, and their understanding of NPOV writing was so poor – on both sides – that it would be unreasonable to wait for them to work out a reasonable solution among themselves. These interventions fell on both sides of the dispute, but most of them were, if anything, in favour of Mrt's side. The claim that I somehow have an ongoing dispute with Mrt is ridiculous. (I do consider myself "involved" with his main opponent though, as I had the bad luck that Darkness Shines at some point chose to meddle in a content dispute I had with another, unrelated editor some time ago. This is the only reason I have not also sanctioned Darkness Shines – who I otherwise consider at least equally to blame for this whole situation.)
As for the objective justification for the sanction imposed, as I clearly said here [13], the individual edit I pointed out was merely the "straw that broke the camel's back". Other admins had been making it equally clear to Mrt that his behaviour was unacceptable and that possible sanctions against him were being considered. The particular edit in question then made it obvious that Mrt was either unwilling or unable to subdue his urge to misuse these articles for political advocacy regardless of sourcing and academic consensus. This is sanctionable, and Mrt's repeated claims that he doesn't understand what he did wrong doesn't really make things any better. Fut.Perf. 20:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The proposal for an arbcom case centred on Future Perfect at Sunrise is not new. A similar proposal was made in late December 2012. That proposal was fairly speedily rejected by the arbitration committee. Given the comments from informed parties like Bwilkins, Sitush and Maunus, a similar case would almost certainly be rejected now. RegentsPark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has not commented so far. He is an administrator who has an in-depth understanding of the POV-pushing going on around WP:ARBIPA. His comments would be valuable in interpreting the cumulative edits On Minorities in Pakistan.[14] (In his only actions on the page, FPaS protected the page on 7 June, returning it to a previous state prior to the large number of changes mainly by Mrt.) As I wrote before, it would have been better if the appeal had been made at WP:AE, where it could have proceeded in a more orderly way. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not see why people like RegentsPark, Sitush and Maunus should get greater weight in an arbcom case. Except for Bwilkins, you can see all the people you name on one side of the fence at talk:Narendra Modi and its archives. Giving paramount importance to comments from people with a particular orientation would be disastrous. It would be like giving paramount importance to people from palestine on Israel-Palestine affairs. If you do that, the effect would be same as when you get Nazis to lord over Jews. You may also want to keep in mind the point that RegentsPark may look like a Westerner to everyone, but may actually be Pakistani POV. If you think RegentsPark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is Western POV, instead of looking at his username, you should look into the type of articles he edits constantly. Does that look like a Western ed to you?OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
You have already been warned about making these kinds of comments at WP:ANI.[15] You have also seem to have misread what I wrote. I am not suggesting a fresh arbcom case to handle editing problems connected with WP:ARBIPA. That case has already happened. The problem is in enforcing the arbitration committee's decisions. Those problems are created not by administrators trying to do so but with editors pushing entrenched nationalistic POVs either in articles or in project space. There is no indication of any such problem with the edits of Sitush, Bwilkins, Maunus or RegentsPark. Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I have just blocked OrangesRyellow for that obnoxious attack - I shall post a review request here at ANI in a moment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
(1) Madhu Kishwar an activist and scholar has referred to false propaganda that has been the feature of the coverage of the incidents in Gujarat in 2002.[16] (2) I draw attention to the report presented by The Council for International Affairs and Human Rights headed by D S Tewatia, a former chief justice of the Calcutta and Punjab and Haryana high courts" that Godhra was an "act of international terrorism planned and executed in connivance with jehadi forces based there",[17], Arvind Lavakare quotes an India Today report alleging that 157 riots were started in retaliation to the violence sparked in response to Godhra.[18] (3) How different are statements in (1) and (2) from what Mr. T has written, described by Future Perfect as the proverbial last straw[19] "After nearly 10 days of the train carnage, Pakistani flags were unfurled on top of a public tank in Ramol area and Muslims shouted slogans like 'Pakistan zindabad [Long live Pakistan]'... According to Mr. T's edit riots were sparked off by Muslims who instigated the Hindus "with an intention of spreading fear". Mr. T's edit is well sourced,[20] and is written in the manner Wikipedia wishes views to be reported. (4)The Tewatia report whose excerpts are available in this Arvind Lavakare post and which is available in its primary form here and here reports as mysterious incidents like: (a) Very high traffic of telephone calls from Godhra to Pakistan (mainly Karachi) before 27.02. 02. (b) Holding of istema - religious gatherings - at Godhra that were attended by foreigners in large numbers. (5) This looks like nothing but a content dispute and not a candidate for being described as "The particular edit in question then made it obvious that Mrt was either unwilling or unable to subdue his urge to misuse these articles for political advocacy regardless of sourcing and academic consensus."; Future Perfect's, argument regarding why he banned Mr. T isn't convincing. (6) https://toolserver.org isn't working for me at the moment, but as far as I remember I've had no major contribution to the page, so if I'm missing any fine points it is all my fault. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yogesh Khandke, you are still topic-banned from all edits about Indian history. You shouldn't even be here. Fut.Perf. 06:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Is 2002 Indian history? These are contemporary events. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I had once asked YK to get the terms of his topic ban clarified and an editor had told him that he can safely edit articles about the stuff that happened less than 25 years ago, I do not think that he has breached anything.So Future Perfect at Sunrise, stop bullying every editor here. -sarvajna (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
You edit-warred with Mr. T over the Minorities in Pakistan article. Saying it was "obvious tendentious editing" doesn't change the fact that you blanked a huge amount of sourced content, removed many constructive edits, and emptied four different sections all while threatening to block anyone who reverted your action.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I recommend asking arbcom to put FPaS and regentspark under administrative supervision. Under this scheme, their admin actions in the area would need to be approved by another ArbCom-approved admin. While this area is undoubtedly dogged by editors who engage in non-neutral editing and who either lack WP:COMPETENCE to take feedback on board or persist by sheer WP:IDHT, the problem is compounded by admins taking action while clearly WP:INVOLVED and then denying it with a straight face. I guess all regulars editing this area, admins and plebeians, fall in MastCell's 85% by now. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Going to ArbCom is always an option, but it's very doubtful you will get the result you are looking for. FPaS is one of the few administrators willing to be involved in these cultural disputes, and they're not going to do anything to stop him from helping out when no one else is willing to do so. AniMate 04:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
What you're basically saying is that no uninvolved admin, i.e. who isn't also editing in the area, is willing to reign in the POV warriors, but (according to Boing! below) the uninvolved admins are willing to give barnstars to the involved admins who do the policing. That doesn't bode well; in the long run it will promote admin fiefdoms (over content) and increasingly biased, arbitrary or self-serving enforcement actions. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Your statement misconstrues AniMate's use of the word "involved." When he writes "willing to be involved" that means (to me) "willing to take administrative action" not WP:INVOLVED. Mathsci (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I know you consider FPaS not WP:INVOLVED in this area (as an editor besides admin), but let's agree to disagree on that. Unlike most others who edit in this "WP:ARBIPA" area, FPaS has shown little bias per [21] [22], but that's not the same as being completely unWP:INVOLVED in content editing, in my opinion, of course. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs both unbiased (as humanly possible) editors and unWP:INVOLVED admins in difficult/controversial content areas. However, the two classes of Wikipedians are not equivalent. The latter class is much more easy to determine, and rightfully so, because of the need to avoid even giving the appearance of impropriety; this was emphasized in some ArbCom case, but I won't bother hunting down the WP-namespace link given the generally accepted notion in ethics. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Mrt's editing did not leave the article Minorities in Pakistan in a neutrally written state. In nationalistic disputes—Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, India-Pakistan, etc—many administrators at WP:AE look into the basis of disputes, take into account content added, and make some kind of evaluation. It is not an easy matter, but often that seems to be the only way to resolve matters. Future Perfect at Sunrise is not a regular editor of the article Minorities in Pakistan (he is more probably more interested in plainchant), but could nevertheless identify a previous stable version of the article based on its editing history. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a very difficult area to work in. As others have noted, many of the editors who take part are entrenched nationalist and/or political POV-pushers, on both sides - many resort to personal attack at the drop of a hat, and some will even sink as low as making racism accusations against those who try to uphold Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and sourcing. In this current dispute, both sides have acted very badly, and some continue to do so in this very discussion. That FPaS is willing to try to administer this poisonous topic area is cause for recognition, gratitude, and praise - not censure. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
By blocking out only one side of these so-called "entrenched nationalist and/or political POV-pushers" you're encouraging the other side and that I think is a bias. Okay I won't mind it even a bit, if you protect the page and force people to list arguments on the talk before one uninvolved admin and let the best suited assertions in the article. I would also not mind it if you banned everyone from both the "sides" as you see it. Nope. Yogesh Khandke, a good editor, is already banned, you blocked OrangesRyellow, I am banned by Fut.perf. It seems there is only one side who is actually getting the hit for the accusations which are applicable to both the sides. With all due respect, THAT is bias. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Plenty of sanctions have been handed out to *both* sides in this long-simmering war. The *only* long-term solution is for both sides to step away from the brink - and if that does not happen, sanctions will become more frequent and more severe, against *both* sides. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Future Perfect has consistently been abrasive and domineering in many of these topic areas. He has made several supervotes on content issues, which he casually admits in his own defensive way, and seeks to enforce them with threats of admin action against any who reverse him. In essence your argument is like saying we need corrupt, abusive cops to handle all those horrible gangsters. Except, you generally don't get rid of the gangsters, but just end up with a group of cops little different from the gangsters who then become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. No admin should get a pass for persistently bad behavior on the basis that a certain topic area is "toxic" as most topic areas where admins are needed get pretty toxic. Having admins who are excessive or vindictive makes those areas more toxic, not less, increasing the battleground mentality and compromising the integrity of the content.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Please could this section be archived? So far one editor has broken a topic ban and another has been blocked. It has become a free-for-all either to complain about "us and them" in WP:ARBIPA or to cast aspersions on administrators volunteering at WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Not everyone agrees that two wrongs make a right, but since we're WP:IARing left and right, let me say that this thread was good WP:BAIT. Since admins generally can't or won't do much about actual content problems (see Bishonen's sub-thread here), at least we got some of the usual suspects into getting blocked for incivility. For great justice. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
      • ...even though the block was already lifted, per promises to behave. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
      • But 3 lefts make a right. (sorry - couldn't resist that one.) — Ched :  ?  21:48, 24 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:Number 57[edit]

Yawn... Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 21:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
THE TROLLS
Do not feed them. <3, Writ Keeper  16:30, 24 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.

Keep an eye on User:Number 57, this user is not confirming his edits, and may be disruptive in the future. --Toothache from Asidiciale (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

??? Number 57 16:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You warned a Wikipedia Administrator at 15:54 that his edits arn't "confirmed" (who the hell knows what that even means, please explain) and came here 10 minutes later? You might want to retract this and spend some time figuring out where you went wrong.--v/r - TP 16:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, My mistake, I thought all Wikipedia admins had to confirm the edits they make. Confirming edits ensures the edits are not made in vain, in violation of WP:AP and other articles relating to the organization. Please messege me to discuss further. --Toothache from Asidiciale (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Um, what do you mean? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? WP:AP has nothing to do with confirming anything. Made in vain? Not trying to be rude, but is there a language barrier here by chance?--v/r - TP 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
He's an "American writer" according to his user page, so unlikely. Has the account been compromised? GiantSnowman 16:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
He just created the account so I can't see how it'd be compromised. I saw you blocked it, did someone find a sock?--v/r - TP 16:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

C L O S I N G. O F. T H E. D I S C U S S I O N. --Toothache from Asidiciale (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

@Toothache from Asidiciale:, you really need to clarify what you are trying to say here, and you really need to do it ASAP. GiantSnowman 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought he was saying people had to get consensus before editing, but now I have no ideas. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Guys, I've just clicked when I saw the account's first edit was a lengthy bio to their user page, combined with the trolling of Admins/noticeboards - it's almost definitely a sock of Technoquat (talk · contribs), CU will confirm. Blocked. GiantSnowman 16:27, 24 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.

194.89.228.106[edit]

BLOCKED
This pointless ANI close brought to you by Writ Keeper  14:22, 24 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.

194.89.228.106 (talk · contribs)

This IP address is constantly writing in languages other than English on talk pages. I believe that a 24 hour block should be in place, and if that doesn't work, then a permanent block. buffbills7701

Blocked for 48 hours. I think the language is Finnish, and that in itself wouldn't be a real problem if they were asking for help, but the posts appear to be disruptive so I have blocked for that primarily. GiantSnowman 12:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The posts are signed "Risto Pöllänen Koneteknikko-ohjelmoija Lappeenranta"[23] (Risto Pöllänen Machine Technician Programmer Lappeenranta) or "Risto Pöllänen koneteknikko - ohjelmoija"[24] (Risto Pöllänen a mechanical engineer - programmer). Some sort of ranting.--Auric talk 12:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This is either a professional spammer or someone obsessed with Risto Pöllänen. I have revdel'ed most of this IP's contributions as far back 2012 as purely disruptive material and copyvios of previously published text by Pöllänen: [25], [26]. De728631 (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There was another IP or named account recently with a similar obsession with the same name, fyi. — The Potato Hose 04:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I've tried a search for the name but didn't find it. Do you have any diffs? De728631 (talk) 14:31, 25 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.

Richard Matheson[edit]

Reliable sources have been added to the article. RIP Mr. Matheson. De728631 (talk) 12:37, 25 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.

Needs to be semiprotected two hours ago. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you post a request at WP:RFP? Dusti*poke* 22:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes. My experience is that any admins online pay more attention to this page, though. Reports at multiple noticeboards never hurt anybody. :) Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's sourced now; never mind. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:30, 24 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.

Attempted outing of Edward Snowden[edit]

BLP policy and our civility guidelines apply everywhere so if Edward does have any publicly acknowledged accounts, they need to be kept free from inappropriate comments and behaviour. The same care and attention will need to be lavished upon any accounts discussed in the press, regardless of whether they are confirmed to be Edward's accounts. Please do not attempt to identify any anonymous accounts Edward Snowden may have used to edit Wikipedia though - it's against policy for very good reason - it very rarely ends well - wrong accounts being identified, different people with the same names being mixed up and so on. Nick (talk) 11:35, 25 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.

Despite warnings that the discussion may be problematic wrt WP:OUTING, a high profile admin is trying to find which Wikipedia users may have been accounts of Edward Snowden here. Connecting the real life identity of a person to account names used on Wikipedia is not allowed (unless the person has made the connection on Wikipedia): "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name,[...]" is the start of WP:OUTING. The editor started with " It seems highly likely to me that he would have edited Wikipedia - most people who fit his profile (tech savvy, internet activist types) will have done so. Do we have any evidence of that, or suspicions about that?" and continued with posting usernames used by Snowden on other, unrelated forums. The information is not needed for any admin- or office-reasons, the attempted outing is done because "I'm just curious".

Any action I would take against this section on his user talk page would be instantly reverted as trolling anyway, so perhaps someone else can take a look and remove the offending section? Speculation on which accounts may be used by named (notable) persons, for the sake of curiosity, have no place on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm criticising you, but I'm wondering why you neglected to mention that the "high profile admin" was in fact Jimbo? — Richard BB 10:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
An open discussion of matters widely discussed in reliable sources with respect to how it may impact Wikipedia is in no way shape or form "outing". It should be emphasized that Fram has been asked to stay off my user talk page in the past, and that I consider his repeated appearances there with manufactured and implausible complaints like this to be harassment. I am not currently seeking that any sanctions be applied to him for this behavior. The reason that I'm curious is precisely because there is intense press interest in his online activities, and we may rest assured that reporters are already looking for any connections. It would be wise for us to understand the facts completely before hyped up news stories begin to circulate.
There is little doubt that Fram is more interested in causing trouble for me, than in Mr. Snowden's privacy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Based on her behavior now and in the past, I'm surprised no one has blocked her yet, or at least taken away her powers as an administrator. Dream Focus 10:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea nor interest in what's going between Jimbo and Fram, but the complaint has some merit. In the case Snowden is an editor, and could continue to edit, outing him seems a bad thing to do, just like for any other editor. --Cyclopiatalk 10:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Fram's concern has foundation, and I am concerned with Jimbo's removal of her talk page posts, as well as his dismissal of them as "trolling." GiantSnowman 10:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think there's a lack of good faith going around here. I can fully understand why Fram was concerned about outing issues, especially there were no initial mentions about how the editor could affect Wikipedia (especially given the "I'm just curious" remark), and so I cannot say that Fram is doing this just to harass or troll. Although I disagree with Jimbo when he says that this isn't a case of "outing", I do have to agree with him about concern regarding how the media might connect him to us. Perhaps if there is going to be a search for any accounts that Snowden might maintain on Wikipedia, it should not take place in a public forum such as Jimbo's talk page. — Richard BB 10:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Given that the usernames are openly discussed in the mass media, there can be no concerns about 'outing'. This is all in the public in a very major way already.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the concern lies in attempting to connect the username to a real person's real life identity. Unless Mr. Snowden has made the connection himself, it seems as though administrative efforts to publicly connect the real person and his Wikipedia username would constitute outing. I'd support a high-level behind-the-scenes examination of these edits as a form of preemptive damage control, though. -Thibbs (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I fully support Fram's concern here. Journalists are entititled to investigate whether Snowden had an account on Wikipedia (and if so; which account/s; Wikipedians are not entitled to speculate on Wikipedia about real-life identities. If journalists are able to reveal Snowden's account on Wikipedia and make a notable point of it in their writings; that may be notable in Snowden's article, but we are not there yet, as I understand. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Per Giant Snowman. I've no interest/knowledge in Fram v. Jimbo, and fully agree that Jimbo's posts are very concerning. DeCausa (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to relay your concerns to me directly at my talk page. All but Fram are welcome to discuss it further. I am not asking anyone to reveal or hunt for private information - I was just asking a very simple question: has there been discussion already in Wikipedia of various accounts that might be identified as his in the press. This is not about outing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
As an aside Jimbo, I find your comment that "All but Fram are welcome to discuss it further" concerning and at odds with Wikipedia's slogan of "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." GiantSnowman 11:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
If someone has a long history of arguing with you on your talk page, you have the right to ask them not to post there. I remember seeing the Will.i.am arguments there, so I can understand not wanting her on his talk page. Dream Focus 11:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo, as long as you're asking purely about stuff in prominent reliable sources, that's one thing, but it sounded like you were asking for gossip and speculation ("original research" in WP parlance), which is inappropriate on BLP grounds (I'm sure you can imagine the type of impact it could have on the subject) besides being outing. I'd say the privacy issues are amplified considerably because if Snowden is identified with an editor here, then if the PRISM stories are true, the folks looking for him will know not only what he's been writing, but what he's been reading. I can't post on your talk page because it's protected. GiantSnowman: re Fram, I think Jimbo just meant that due to past conflict, Fram is not welcome on Jimbo's talk page. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Jimmy, I don't think you were trying to out him directly, but your comments are what some might call a "red flag" comment, an indication that a user is trying to connect dots. If you weren't "Jimbo" and were instead a <5k editor, I would have given a polite notification and a pointer to WP:OUTTING. The comments as they are might be seen as you encouraging or condoning others outting him, even if that isn't your intention. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 11:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I, too, am curious why the OP neglected to mention the name of the "high profile admin" but choose to name the supposed victim's name (in the title of this thread, no less) whose identity they're supposed to be protecting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I just saw "high profile admin" as an attempt to depersonalize the incident and keep it about protecting Snowden's privacy, rather than drama it up with the ongoing conflict between Fram and Jimbo (I don't know or care what that conflict is about). I think it sort of worked, though obviously not perfectly. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't find Jimbo's comments about Fram concerning at all. Fram has time and again levelled unsubstantiated claims at/about Jimbo on his talkpage. Fram has been aggresive, domineering, and flat out rude. Jimbo more than once has instructed that Fram may not post on their talkpage - something every editor is permitted to request. Posting on Jimbo's page (or any other editor's talkpage) is not a right. Yes, we all know that Jimbo's talkpage is ANIv3 ... but we also know that Jimbo is typically pretty patient about what goes on there (he even allows Forum Shopping!). If you've pissed off Jimbo so much that he doesn't want you posting on his talkpage, that shows just how far past a line you went - not once, but multiple times. The only reason Jimbo hasn't blocked Fram for posting there is probably some warped version of WP:INVOLVED, but seriously - Fram SHOULD BE BLOCKED if they ever post on Jimbo's page - period (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the history between the two, thanks for clarifying. GiantSnowman 11:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Please provide evidence for "time and again levelled unsubstantiated claims at/about Jimbo on his talk page". Fram (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the history between Jimbo and Fram but editors are allowed a great deal of latitude in controlling their own talk page. If Jimbo has indeed banned Fram from his talk page, then Fram has violated this at least 4 times in the last 24 hours.[27][28][29][30] This is harassment and possibly a 3RR violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Jimmy has already said he isn't seeking sanctions. We don't need to beat the drama drums here. If Jimmy wanted Fram blocked, Fram would be blocked. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 11:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec)A quest for Knowledge, since none of these was a reversion, it can hardly be a 3RR violation. The first three were normal replies to remarks, the fourth was a NPA warning. This has absolutely nothing to do with 3RR... 11:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talkcontribs)
If any other editor was speculating about someone's real life ID on Wiki, they'd be told it constitutes outing. How about any discussion about Snowden's ID (if it exists at all ) on Wikipedia cease on Wikipedia. Off the 'pedia, we can speculate all we'd lik, just keep it off Wikipedia, otherwise , it's outing.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Closing extended discussion. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 12:43, 25 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.

(ec)I am uncertain as to what is, and is not, "outing" in this specific case. Clearly Wikipedia has rules against connecting a Wikiname to an outside name - the basic premise is that such would be done to discredit the person with the Wikiname. The problem here is quite the reverse - that an outside person (Snowden) has been suggested by reliable sources to have had multiple online accounts, and thus it is highly likely to be a case of "In-ing" rather than "Out-ing" and it is likely to be something pursued by parties outside Wikipedia. F'rinstance - suppose a US Attorney seeks this information - should Wikipedia co-operate or not? I suggest Wikipedia would, in fact, have no choice at all, and it would not surprise me if Jimbo were not cognizant of this (IMO - I think if I were investigating Snowden it is a query I would pose)) likelihood, and desirous of getting the information out before the legal process makes a hash of it. All of the rest of the above discussion is mot if this is the case. Cheers. (I am leaving this after an ec because I am far from sure the close is "correct" here, and quite certain that Jimbo did not violate Wikipolicy here). Collect (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis: Just because Jimbo isn't seeking sanctions doesn't mean that we tolerate ban violations, harassment or 4RR violations. AQFK (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Try to keep the "Fram" issue and the "Snowden" issue separate please.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes the best thing that an admin can do is stay out of a dispute between two established editors, such is the case with Fram and Jimmy. Just because we can "justify" a block or sanction doesn't mean that it is the best course of action. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 11:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
AQFK, could you stop with the 4RR accusations? To have 4RR, you need to have at least 1 revert. I made none, nothing that comes even close. Fram (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Collect, the outing and BLP issues were because it sounded like Jimbo was asking people to air their private theories about WP accounts Snowden might have used. Jimbo later clarified that he was only asking about stuff in published sources, which is ok. I thought Nick's closure was correct and well stated. Obviously if the WMF got some kind of official disclosure demand, it would consult its lawyers and figure out what to do. I think Fram's concern was about preserving the privacy of info that's not in the WMF's hands. And yes it's outing even if it's not to discredit. For example, if a show biz celebrity were editing incognito as a way to have a hobby outside of the public eye, we should not out them. Snowden is a celebrity of a different sort. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

How about a trouting all round and then we re-close this debate, as it seems to be overflowing with drama-fuelled debates about 4RR and interpretations of Jimbo's statements. — Richard BB 12:17, 25 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.

112.213.197.18 Keeps Removing CSD Tag[edit]

112.213.197.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This IP keeps removing CSD tag on Hey Presto Magic Studio without providing any reason.(Diff1;Diff2;Diff3)I have left a message on thier talk page,but it doesn't work.I can't undo again because of 3RR.So,besides dealing with the IP,please also consider deleting the article in question if you think it meets any CSD criteria.Lsmll 12:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The likelihood of that being the same editor that created the article but logged out is very high. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 13:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the IP for 72 hours, reverting his edits and warned User:Pidzz, as the timing of the edits makes it brutally clear they are the same person or acting as meatpuppets. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 13:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • And I've deleted that page. De728631 (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

50.98.36.108 evading block[edit]

I saw a non-suer undo a edit I made to his talk page because he was replacing all the content all that page with "blackhawks suck". I know he had been blocked for 23 hours and I went to his talk page and it still said he was blocked. I think he is avoiding blocking somehow. ~yougo1000

  • Taken care of. Please see my note on your talk page regarding signatures. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 14:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

New IP editor 74.65.170.32 unconstructive deletionist?[edit]

Since becoming active on 2013-06-07T23:25:32, 74.65.170.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has performed over 70 edits; every single one has been a deletion. Some have been summary removal of valid WP:REDLINKs, without apparent regard to policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beinecke_Rare_Book_and_Manuscript_Library&diff=prev&oldid=561476077). Other deletions have been of likely valid and relevant assertions, including an associated WP:Citation needed already calling for a reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radium_Girls&diff=prev&oldid=561303599). Although some of the edits are probably useful, it does not appear to me that the majority of them have improved the quality of Wikipedia; instead, the IP editor seems to be removing already flagged visible deficiencies, rather than correcting or flagging any of them.

I will place an ANI-notice on the IP editor's talkpage, but really don't know what else to say, or even if any action is warranted. I prefer to get back to editing, but felt that I shouldn't just ignore this IP editor's behavior, so I am calling attention to it here.

Apologies if my report here is not formally correct, or if this is not the correct forum to bring this up. This is my first encounter with this type of situation, in which I feel a need for the participation of more-experienced editors. I do not have extensive experience in analyzing an IP user's edits, and don't know what (if anything) should be done about them. I defer to the judgement of more-seasoned editors and admins. Reify-tech (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP address is pretty stable. It averages about 5 edits per day—50 in the last 10 days, so I don't see a big reason to panic. Have you even tried to talk to them before rushing to ANI? (Apparently not.) I have seen rapidly changing dynamic IPs engaging in much more problematic editing, e.g. mass controversial MOS changes. Most editors probably don't know how to check for IP range contributions, or else we'd see a lot more panicky reports.... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with him/her deleting statements which have been WP:CHALLENGEd for more than a year. I don't have a strong opinion about those red links either way. Sunken courtyard? Some architecture expert better chime in. Anyway, this is something that should go through the normal WP:DR process. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Also [31] is from the same ISP, so this is probably someone on a dynamic IP on an ISP with several huge IP blocks. You're just unlucky to see only deletions from that IP, but the same editor likely made additions too. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warrior[edit]

User:Darkness Shines is starting edit-war on the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). I did a few constructive edits to that article by restructuring, correcting links, removing/replacing images with relevant ones, and removed some off topic content, and then she comes and began reverting my edits completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22 Male Cali (talkcontribs) 19:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You might want to rethink this report. By the technical definition of WP:3RR, you're the only one who has reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hours period.--v/r - TP 19:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Darkness Shines has over a dozen blocks for similar behaviour [32]. I'll try not to do this again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22 Male Cali (talkcontribs) 20:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realize that a dozen blocks gives you more leeway to edit war with him. Curious, do you have a previous account? In 88 edits, you've managed to jump into a contentious topic, target a user, and bait him into an edit war, then rush here to get him blocked despite your own behavior. Is this a throwaway account that you intended to use to get DS blocked?--v/r - TP 20:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
What's even more interesting is you have exactly 11 edits before you went directly to the page in question. Almost like you intentionally were trying to get to that very important confirmed status so you could edit the semi-protected page. User:Mujhideen101 perhaps?--v/r - TP 20:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I was not going to bother with this but I only have 2 reverts on the article. And I am pretty sure this is another account for Pestcamel I am looking into it now. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Btw, DS, you need to learn to stop warring and discuss/report stuff sooner.--v/r - TP 20:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
What, you mean like starting a section on the talk page immediately following the second revert? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I mean like realizing that you can let a bad edit sit while an administrator sorts out behavioral issues instead of reverting. Discussing while reverting isnt the idea behind WP:BRD.--v/r - TP 20:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the B part of BRD was when someone removed a shedload of content from an article? My bad. Have filed an SPI BTW. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You assume, incorrectly, that the cycle is BRD-BR-BR-BR and that's why you keep getting blocked. The cycle is BRD. If the other party reverts again, it's not another "bold" edit of theirs. It's a revert. The only bold edit was the first edit. Everything after that is a revert and reverting reverts is edit warring. Stop at the "D" and you won't get blocked in the future.--v/r - TP 21:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not overly fond of essays being used as a reason to block people to be honest tom. I will apologize for my snark, had a crappy day. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for administrator at WP:COIN[edit]

This isn't a new dispute but instead a request for administrator assistance in an existing dispute at WP:COIN#Fairleigh Dickinson University. I began the discussion on June 13 concerning the behavior of Mfuzia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Since then there's been little movement. In particular one editor (not me) has called for administrator intervention.

(Although this isn't a new dispute I'll still send Mfuzia an ANI notice just to be on the safe side.) --Nstrauss (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made a detailed analysis of the material there; it is indeed inappropriate, regardless of whether the ed. is an employee or a student Mfuszio's editing is essentially identical to that of another editor, Crcorrea, who has made similarly promotional edits over many articles ; I assume they are sockpuppets, for I think it unlikely that even two separate employees would use the same exact format. I have proposed blocking both of them for an extended period. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I've reviewed enough of the material to trust your judgement on this. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 22:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible 3RR vio by Djapa84[edit]

User:Djapa84 seems to have violated WP:3RR at [33]. Could an admin please either admonish Djapa84 and/or issue a block if required? Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe my reinsertion of a POV tag was reasonable as three other editors had joined me in questioning the bias of the file in question and a discussion of the issue was developing. The two editors arguing against the four of us kept removing the tag which I think is in itself disruptive editing. If in this argument about whether open discussion of the issue is acceptable I have inadvertently violated WP:3RR then I apologise for that and will avoid doing so in the future. As a result of the disruptive editing I have called for an RFC on the issue and in future I will do that earlier rather than falling for the trap of revert warring against a tag team. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
AFAIK - Removing a POV tag shouldn't be done by anyone involved with the article. It seems you've both got a COI on the issue and need to take it to 3rd Opinion. Surturz - you do realize that you also engaged in the edit war taking it as far as you have. You're both guilty here. I'm not so sure a block would be any more helpful than full protecting the article at the last stable version and forcing a discussion on the talk page would be more beneficial. Dusti*poke* 00:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I note the reinsertion of the tag by an account with only three previous edits. In as many minutes. How odd! -Pete (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Mind the Boomerang Pete. Hard Men are Good to Find (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to accuse me of sock puppetry then do it directly Pete. Don't make snide allegations without justification - that is defamation. Launch an investigation. It will not bring anything up. You are the first to complain when someone else does not follow policy and there is a policy on sock puppet investigations. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll do it directly. You've got form in this area and there's a whole bunch of similar accounts that all talk like you do and share your political views. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I think this may have been solved pretty quickly... o_O Dusti*poke* 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You miss my point Dusti. I do not deny that the edits of "Hard Men" are dubious, that is as given. However there are procedures and IP checks which can be done to investigate such things and it is not acceptable to ignore those procedures and throw wild accusations around, especialy making things up like "you have got form". That is nonsense and while investigating the issue is warranted, defamation is not. I have invited Pete to do things properly because I have nothing to fear ducks or no ducks. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I've filed a second sockpuppet investigation, in line with procedures, as per your request. IPs are easy enough to get around, but behaviour stands out. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for all errors on my part, I shall re-educate myself on POV-tagging policy. I think the file page now needs to be briefly locked as the edit war is continuing. --Surturz (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Pete I have asked you to put up or shut up. Do not make baseless allegations like "You've got form in this area". That is a lie. My editing history is not perfect, but I have never been accused of sock puppetry. Any more defamation from you without showing evidence and I will lodge a complaint. Enough now. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Previous sockpuppet report here. The WP:OUTING behaviour is also repeated. Quit it, please. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that unless the editor says it's okay - you just outed an editor - and personal attacks will not be tolerated Djapa - regardless of accusations. And creating new accounts to continue an edit war is sock puppetry and I'm pretty sure you'll be blocked soon enough. Dusti*poke* 01:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I do not follow. Who am I supposed to have outed and how? Djapa Owen (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I had forgotten that you had accused me before. I was not guilty then and I am not guilty now. I have had one account since I first joined in early 2011 and have never created another. Not everyone who disagrees with conservative rhetoric is a sock-puppet. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Djapa, I'm going to assume you forgot about this policy, so I'm not even going to mention your above comment. I'm going to walk you through how experienced editors and even Checkusrs spot a sockpuppet. First, we notice a new editor who makes a Bee line towards a page (where an obvious newbie wouldn't). We then watch and wait for the account to do the usual sockpuppet stuff. Familiarize yourself with this page, and if you have questions about how to be civil and not edit war, come back to us.

OK Dusti, first I am aware of the policy WP:ATTACK but fail to see how I can be accused of maintaining an attack page? I have asked Pete to justify his accusation by going through the proper procedures with checkuser etc. as I have done nothing wrong, but he continues to accuse me of having 'form'. I was accused back in November 2011 and was not found guilty then. This means I do not have 'form' as that would require guilt last time. Anyone can accuse anyone they want, but that does not imply guilt without conviction. Secondly you have accused me of outing someone. I have said nothing about any editor's private life because I know nothing about any other editor's private life so how can I be guilty of outing anyone? If you are talking about using Pete's name instead of his username, it is in his tagline so he has outed himself. You still have not pointed out how you consider me to have outed anyone, and since I have stated twice now that I do not understand your accusation it would be civil to explain. Djapa Owen (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It actually looks like I may have made a mistake. In looking at your edit, I saw that you used his (what I'm presuming to be) real name - which would have been an "outing" - however, he's done so himself. I'll strike that bit. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "attack page" - however, I do know that using terms such as "put up or shut up", "conservative rhetoric", etc etc etc. is attacking someone and being childish. Both of you go your separate ways and stop looking for a babysitter. Dusti*poke* 02:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
If that's all it was - using my name "Pete", that's fine. However this user has previously - and no, I'm not going to provide links here - made carefully-worded allegations linking me to all sorts of identifiable personal details. The intent to go against the spirit if not the letter of the wikilaw was obvious, and I'm seeing the same behaviour here with a request for IP checks. Anyone can find a proxy service. --Pete (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Pete for going through the proper process with your allegation so that I could clear it from my name. I would really like to know what details you feel I have alleged you of before as I do not actually know who you are outside of Wikipedia, but I understand you would not want to re-post things you are not comfortable here as that would only make the situation worse. If you would like to email me directly that would be really good because I would honestly like to know what I have done which makes you feel this way. I assure you I will not share anything you tell me.
I know you are right about proxies and IP masking, but I have never felt the need to look into such things. Djapa Owen (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Death Threat Made By 202.20.5.122[edit]

IP BLOCKED
IP blocked for one week by Ironholds. Diff RevDel'd Dusti*poke* 04:56, 26 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 202.20.5.122 just made a threat on Talk:Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand after a previous edit was reverted by a bot. Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My bad - the bot was simply signing an unsigned comment. Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The edit is here Dusti*poke* 00:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Ironholds beat me to the block button by mere milliseconds...again.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
For the sake of... I don't know - but shouldn't that be RevDel'd? Dusti*poke* 00:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Done :). Ironholds (talk) 00:39, 26 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.

173.219.160.230 - nonconstructive edits to Wendy Davis (politician)[edit]

IP BLOCKED
IP Blocked for three months by Materialscientist Dusti*poke* 04:52, 26 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.

Multiple problematic edits posted from this IP address in the last 15-20 minutes. The subject of the article has met with controversy today, reflected in some contentious editing, but this IP address has been the most problematic. Diffs. EricEnfermero Howdy! 04:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

To quote the notices placed on this page regarding ANI discussions that you ignored, "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion". Please do so. RetroLord 04:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Dusti*poke* 04:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Retrolord! When I left this page and refreshed the IP's talk page, I could have sworn that I saw a block notice and I thought the ANI notice was superfluous at that point. I must not have scrolled all the way down and must have been looking at the old block notice. I know that I wouldn't like to be reported anywhere without notice and I can't believe I messed that up. Thank you again for letting me know. EricEnfermero Howdy! 04:38, 26 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.

84.193.228.7 (quite likely some sock) running rampant[edit]

I stumbled upon this sock only today (it has only edited back in April), but I have a feeling that this merits an investigation. If you check out some random diffs of his edits, you can see that the only intention of this user was trolling. GeoIP lookup traces this IP to "Hasselt, Flanders, Belgium, Europe" so I believe we have another open proxy (or a toll from Belgium, but given the fact that only Hungarian articles were affected it's quite unlikely). Although the IP account hasn't been used since, if it's a(n open) proxy, it might get "reactivated" at any time. -- 92.52.45.96 (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Damn, this crappy CMS has logged me out despite the fact that I logged in just ~30 minutes ago. Nevermind, I'll log in later on..... -- 92.52.45.96 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
One of the edits looks like sneaky vandalism or in the AGF case like he pasted completely irrelevant text by accident. The IP has only edited on April 21, so this is not administratively actionable because it's far too stale. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

More eyes, perhaps, on Australian Labor Party leadership spill, June 2013[edit]

Hi all. Apologies for using WP:AN/I as a centralized "Wikipedia Noticeboard for Teh Dramahz", but there are any number of cans of worms being opened up, even as I write. I'm online, please feel free to message me if there is anything particularly egregious that needs admin intervention. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, false alarm. I'm happy to deal with any content disputes about Australian constitutional and parliamentary procedure about this or any other matters, starting with a discussion on the talk pages. In the interim, there is a very important match contested by eighteen men in maroon I'm now at liberty to follow.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:LordZebedee ignoring consensus[edit]

BLOCKED
I'm pretty sure that doesn't count as irony. funny, though. Writ Keeper  14:12, 24 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:LordZebedee has been repeatedly adding trivial/pop culture mentions at Welrod despite consensus that they should be removed and refuses to discuss the issue. He has, in one form or another, added this material 1234567 times over the past 2 weeks. The section is discouraged by WikiProject Firearms pop culture guidelines as well as WP:POPCULTURE as the source is an open wiki, not anything we would consider reliable. I have explained why he's being reverted, invited him to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Pop culture section at Welrod (where further consensus is to remove the material), and issued a warning, none of which have helped. An IP editor created a section at Talk:Welrod#Layer Cake Reference explaining why the mention isn't appropriate and User:Trekphiler has assisted with reverts as well, so it's not simply me vs. him. I'm wondering what more can be done. Woodroar (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  • One more time and it's a block for edit warring/disruptive editing (editing against consensus): the next admin can take their pick. I've issued them a templated edit warring message for good measure, and will leave a note as well. Thanks, and keep us posted. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm with Woodroar on this one 100%. This is so trivial an add, it beggars belief, & the refusal is so pointedly willful, I'd have smacked him before now.... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
And he's done it again... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've undone his fifth revert in as many days. Although I admittedly am unfamiliar with the subject of the article, it does strike me as trivial information he's attempting to add and the source appears to be unreliable. user:j (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked for 24 hours - maybe that will get some attention -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (no relation)
Ironic. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:39, 24 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.

Nope; did not get attention! They are still edit warring! PantherLeapord (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours by Edgar181, and a clear warning about an indef to follow has been issued by BWilkins. De728631 (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Scottie Pippen[edit]

Resolved. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 13:09, 26 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 I please get some assistance at the Scottie Pippen article? A user insists on restoring a poorly sourced section on a reported assault incident. One of the claims, that Pippen was being questioned for use of a weapon, is simply not mentioned in the article used as a reference: [34]. Also, several sentences in that section are copied verbatim from TMZ, so it's mostly a copyright infringement, anyway. Zagalejo^^^ 01:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for? If you'd like, you can go to 3rd Opinion to get some help. Dusti*poke* 01:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
There are BLP issues and copyright issues here. I need more help to prevent those things from coming back into the article. It may be possible to discuss the alleged assault in a policy-compliant manner, but the material being added is far from appropriate. Zagalejo^^^ 01:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The user has been warned not to reinsert gossip from TMZ. I think that's all that is necessary.—Kww(talk) 02:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

An IP reinserted the material. Semi-protected. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:20, 26 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:Bmotbmot[edit]

Bmotbmot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is adding making a lot of inappropriate edits (some in Chinese) and is creating new non-notable articles, some of which are complete gibberish (see Feng (family name)). User is refusing to open dialogue with anyone. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits appear to be intended to be helpful; but the issue is a clear lack of English understanding and I doubt the editor is aware of anything. It looks like this has been run through a translator... the intention may be good, but the result is bad. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support block until uses Talk page to communicate - it's unfortunate, but he's been left repeated messages in English and Chinese and must be aware of the orange bar appearing each time. The disruption to existing articles generates significant hassle in fixing, and addition of non-notable surname stubs (no Baidu article, let alone zh.wp article, not even in the appendices to the 504-name list of "Hundred Names") are just heading to AfD anyway. If he/she would communicate, in any language, then unblock. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per @In ictu oculi: He ought to have gotten at least 15 notifications, and refuses to even acknowledge other editors' existence.  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually they did contact other editors [35], but the communication problem remains in form of very poor or virtually non-existent skills in the English language. WP:COMPETENCE comes to mind. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
@De728631: Actually, they hadn't as of when I wrote that. Still, yes; WP:COMPETENCE. "your new page is nothing, just blank if your merge page and other page, must creative story in page, [...] i can see a sub page in page" isn't helping anything.  — TORTOISEWRATH 17:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be lack of English, agree with WP:COMPETENCE, surprised this disruptive editing has not been blocked yet. Widefox; talk 15:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per the above reasoning. The block should stop the disruption (hence preventative) and force discussion. Dusti*poke* 18:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

User:TParis questioning WP:Goodfaith and possible bias[edit]

There's nothing that TParis has said or done that is actionable here, it appears that Casprings is upset at what they've been told and are now trying to question TParis right, as both an editor and an administrator to comment on their behaviour and suggest potential administrative actions that may be needed. Neither this nor the extensive thread above are actually helping to solve any of the problems raised by Casprings, so I'm closing this and asking Casprings to put their effort into resolving the dispute discussed above, rather than opening up another dispute. Nick (talk) 21:01, 26 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 am posting this mainly because the user is the administrator and should be held to a higher level of conduct. However, I am troubled by several of the edits by User:TParis both here and here. In edits such as: 1 2

That caused me to post this. These question my WP:goodfaith ,without any demonstration of evidence. I think it is warrant to ask for further examination of his actions, given that he is an administrator. Casprings (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the problem with his edits. He is an admin but that doesn't take away his right to opine. I don't see anything that is a personal attack, or even ad hominem here. I don't have an opinion as to whether or not his conclusions are accurate, but he wasn't disruptive in how we outlined his conclusions. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 18:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    Than perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of attack. I thought calling another editor dishonest would be considered an attack. I also thought stating that "You want an article written the way you want it, promoted to FA, and hailed as a authoritative piece to push a worldview" would be questioning another editors motivation behind their posts. Thus questioning WP:goodfaith. If I am mistaken, so be it. The thread can be closed. Casprings (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    How many ANI threads do you intend to open in 1 day? As many as people who don't agree with you?--v/r - TP 18:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    Why not address what I said, instead of making non-relevant statements on the number of threads.Casprings (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    Dennis has already said enough. You have a problem with folks disagreeing with you. You see them as opponents. That's demonstrated by the three threads you've opened today. Nothing I've said to you has been a personal attack. I've pointed out where you've contradicted yourself and said it's evidence of dishonesty. Besides, you're required to discuss this with me on my talk page before opening a thread. Moreover, I've addressed exactly what you've said. That's my entire point, you're talking out both sides of your mouth to try and cover for previous misstatements you've made that you now know were in error. All in all, I don't think you're wrong. As the patrolling admin in the 2012 elections, I saw first hand Arzel's POV pushing. I'm saying you're no better than he as far as edit warring goes. I'm also saying that you, as well as everyone living and breathing, hold a point of view and yours is different than Arzel's. You two should work together. As far as "number of threads," quit opening a number of threads and I wouldnt have to opine as the only uninvolved administrator in those threads. Anything else?--v/r - TP 18:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If someone thinks you are misleading them, they can say so. There is a large difference is saying "I won't discuss this with you if you intend to be dishonest." and "You are a fucking liar". WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact, and if someone genuinely thinks you are being dishonest, I'm not likely to sanction them for simply thinking so. Those were heated words, but not a personal attack. Sometimes things get heated, and I loathe when any admin gets involved where he isn't needed, particularly since this is a content dispute, thus he is acting as an editor. We hold him to a high standard of conduct because he has the admin bit, but that doesn't breach it by any means. Admins are human, too, we are allowed to disagree with you. Dennis Brown |  | © | WER 18:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
      It's not only a content dispute. There is edit warring going on and I've suggested that Casprings acknowledge his own warring before it boomerangs and that he go back to the article and try and behave so next time Arzel edit wars, he has a leg to stand on. It was pretty good advice, I thought, instead of blocking both of them.--v/r - TP 18:37, 26 June 2013 (U