Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive821

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

Noticeboard archives


List of Jewish American fraudsters[edit]

WP:DRV is that way. Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of Jewish American fraudsters has been deleted. We have List of Jewish American mobsters, why not this? I had Madoff, Dina Wein Reis, Marc Rich, and Nevin Shapiro. MelangePasty (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the intersection of Jewish-Americanness and mobsterness is a relevant one; see Jewish-American organized crime. Jewish-Americanness and fraudsterness: not so much. Writ Keeper  08:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
As the deleting administrator, the article named a number of living people as "fraudsters" without evidence and implied a connection between their ethnicity and their supposedly fraudulent acts with no reliable sources supporting the claim. This runs contrary to our policy on biographies of living people (and given the lack of reliable sources establishing a connection, could be perceived as an attack on Jewish-Americans). TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 08:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The linked articles are all sourced. Lists of links usually don't have sources, if the target has sources. Why would you think there was a 'connection'? Is there a connection for list of UK murderers? MelangePasty (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
List claming that living people have done or are involved with something bad, criminal, contentious, ... should always be sourced at the list, sources at the articles are not sufficient. For most other lists including BLPs, it is best to source them at the list as well. Fram (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you link to the policy? What about List of United Kingdom criminals? MelangePasty (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is nobody deleting this as a 'G10 attack page'? MelangePasty (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Possibly because it's not one of those. Pay attention to the discussion and associated policies please ES&L 10:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Nobody has linked to a policy. MelangePasty (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) WP:ATTACKEpicgenius (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Thanks for pointing to that page, which I have indeed now deleted as a G10. It even included entries without an article, which is a rather terrible BLP violation (a lot worse than unsourced entries with links to articles that have good sources). As for the policy, the start of WP:V has "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately." Inline citations are required, not sources in another article. You can also check the "Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it" section of that page, with "Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly." (i.e. don't simply point to another article that is supposed to have the necessary source, but use the source directly in the article where a source is needed). Fram (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hats off for consistency. MelangePasty (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Nice work, Fram. bobrayner (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Upon reading about this subject, my first instinct is to agree with you. Both lists appear to be attacks on Jews. However List of Jewish American mobsters is also part of Category:Organized crime in the United States by ethnicity, which also includes Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, but surprisingly no Russian-Americans. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
…or of any other races besides Jews, Italians, Irish, or Hispanic. Epicgenius (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Criminal gangs are often organized along ethnic lines. There is no reason however to categorize fraudsters along ethnic lines, and doing so is offensive to those ethnic groups. TFD (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I just listed the recreated article at AfD. GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
And I was right in thinking I've got no good faith in this editor. The editor's rationale for keeping it is " Similar pro-Jewish lists exist. Appears to be unalloyed bias." So this seems to be intended as a anti-Jewish list. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality involves including pro (which I support) and anti. Bias involves just including pro. MelangePasty (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if any such list should not be at AfD. Maybe it's 'cause I'm sleep deprived, but I find the very notion repugnant. Ethnicity should not enter in. At any rate, I think the venue to decide this is the AfD. Two different discussions with two possible outomes could be confusing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I would disagree, alas; rather than being driven by personal feelings, we should be driven by sources. Do reliable sources produce lists like this? Do reliable sources pigeonhole fraudsters according to ethnicity? bobrayner (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
And even more evidence that this editor may be here with an agenda. When the AfD was added to " list of Judaism-related deletion discussions" MelangePasty responded "- I'm not sure editors from WP Judaism can be considered neutral. Why not inform WP Islam and WP Shinto? Surely WP Atheism would be the most neutral party? Or even WP Haberdashery? Surely everything except the input of WP Judaism is helpful here." In other words, no Jews wanted. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Why are we constantly discussing this and not blocking MelangePasty for violating WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
We don't have even have a list of fraudsters nor a list of American fraudsters. You skipped several steps. Honestly, I do not think a "list of fraudsters" is a good idea generally, never mind breaking it up by ethnicity. We do have a list of con artists, but that is a less inflammatory and more informative term.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not even sure if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a "fraudster" which sounds like a vague term for white collar criminals. I can see the potential usefulness of a list based on nationality (just as an organizing tool) once there is a clear definition of the term but I think an religious-, ethnic- or race-based list is misguided and prejudicial for this subject. Liz Read! Talk! 16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Based on that loose definition, not only should this article be deleted, but also the articles on any lists of fraudsters of any race. Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Clear definition or not, we do have a list of fraudsters, sort of: Fraudster#Notable_fraudsters Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
"Fraudster" suggests "character trait", whereas "mobster" suggests an "occupation", albeit a dishonest one. In one instance (fraudster) the character trait comes first, and from it flows the "occupation". In the other case (mobster) the "occupation" comes first. A character trait may or may not clearly be implied by "mobster". Some mobsters may be deceitful, as is implied by characterizations such as "fraudster", "conman", and "con-artist". But other mobsters may not deceive. They may quite "honestly" point a gun and demand money. Or they may pick locks and steal jewels. We are less likely to find inflammatory implications when we combine group identities (religion, nationality, "race") with somewhat objective designations, such as "mobster". We are more likely to find inflammatory implications when we combine such group identities with character traits. This is because character traits can be understood‚ rightly or wrongly, to be applicable to a whole group of people. The implication that a negative character trait is applicable to a group of people is what we should be trying to avoid. Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Lists of American Jews. Characterising any negative information as an "attack" is simple bias. Is positive information then biased promotion? Bus stop's opinion that any list must imply a group character trait is entirely specious. Does the List of Australian criminals mean Australians are criminals? Is that also an "attack page"? If not why not? And what if it is a group associated trait (I offer no opinion)? We can see West Africans overrepresented in sprinting. So what? What policy does it contravene to have a factual list which could possibly result in that opinion? Surely the solution would be to balance with European American Fraudsters or African American Fraudsters, rather than censoring facts which contravene no policy. The bottom line is that no policy is broken here and we have a mass case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MelangePasty (talk) 22:28, 2 December 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.

WP:TPNO violation by User:SPECIFICO[edit]

WP:TPNO violations and responses:

  • At this diff [1], User:SPECIFICO posted off-wiki blog links which identify and/or personally attack User:Carolmooredc.
  • The links were removed by me here [2] and a warning to SPECIFICO about WP:TPNO (personal details & NPA) was posted here: [3].
  • SPECIFICO reverted the removal of the off-wiki blog attack here: [4].
  • He received a second warning from another contributor here: [5].
  • The off-wiki comments were removed a second time here: [6].
  • Specifico has since responded to the warnings on his talk page, but seems utterly unrepentant for this gross violation of WP policy. (He also sought to change the TP remarks that I had personally made after I had removed the NPA material from his post.)

As he suggests, I seek Administrative action. – S. Rich (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This also is a violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles which I've mentioned to User:SPECIFICO before. I don't know if editors have to be warned for sanctions to be levied. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how this sanction applies as Specifico's postings were simply directed at CMDC. The NPA & BLP violation in itself is enough for admin action without this added wrinkle. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Incivility regarding the Israel Palestine issue is relevant at all times. Plus, see my necessary reply to SPECIFICO's charges above at this diff. We are not supposed to have to defend ourselves from anonymous smear-monger attacks on Wikipedia. (Thinking about it, I don't even know if these quotes are accurate!!!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Alas, it looks like another thread is going off-track. While AQFK may be the eventual outcome, it cannot address the issue of Specifico's blog posting (or whether my raising the issue is "specious"). Specifico defends himself only by saying that Carolmooredc's real life identity is known, and posits that he has somehow permission to post disparaging off-wiki blog links about her. How in the world such postings seek to improve her on-wiki behavior is beyond me. Come on, dear patrolling admins, please take a look at what was done by Specifico in this singular instance and comment or take action as appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree, Admins, please admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I went straight to the ArbCom discussion below and hadn’t looked into the diff here. I saw it now and we are in severe harassment territory here; the edit must be revdeleted/oversighted and at least a warning to the posting user must be issued. Iselilja (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Posting the link was inadvisable because it was uncivil. But user Carol has repeatedly "outed" and identified herself on Wikipedia, so it is highly misleading to insinuate that SPECIFICO was trying to bring Carol's "off-wiki" identity into the fore (she has already, repeatedly done this herself). Use SPECIFICO is of course entitled to his views on Carol's wiki behavior, including her statements regarding jews and transgender persons. (In response to my self-identification as a (trans) woman, Carol blatantly disparaged me by linking to a womyn born womyn, a page devoted to the proposition that trans women aren't women; she has also repeatedly referred to me with the masculine pronoun, despite my clearly stated wishes in this regard.) Steeletrap (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it my imagination or did I just notice yet another set of allegations against me, with nary a diff in site, where I have to search around and prove I'm not an evil bigot??? Should someone do an ANI on it?
Again, if I don't defend myself people will assume that it is true. I know the one on "jews" --as Steeletrap put it-- was nonsense but won't search around for diffs. See Talk:Bill_Clinton#Allegations, a discussion of removal of the section header on the discussion of sexual allegations against Bill Clinton where Steeletrap and SPECIFICO suddenly appeared and declared, yes, the section header should be removed. Steeletrap had not, at that point, clearly declared whether a proud M-t-F or F-t-M, and I was expressing my own pride. Later I looked more carefully at the Womyn-born womyn article and found it is poorly sourced and reflects the bias that feminists (or anyone else evidently?) are not allowed to question or debate any of the related issues and if they try they are bigots and must be shunned, fired, kicked off wikipedia or whatever. This is a problem on a number of related articles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You're not defending yourself, you're attacking others. This is not the first time you've crossed the line into bigotry against transsexuals. Any chance you could make it the last? MilesMoney (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


If there were any attempt at all by Carol to maintain her Wikipedia account as something distinct from her personal and online identity, then perhaps this complaint would have some merit. But she doesn't, so it doesn't. It would also help if she came here with clean hands. Instead, her report is obviously retaliation for Specifico's support for blocking her. This support is due to her ongoing personal attacks against him and others. On the whole, this is the aggressor attacking her victim, and should just WP:BOOMERANG. MilesMoney (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] - FYI, I'd love to change my handle to avoid personal attacks, but Wikipedia makes you admit who you were before, and people would go around searching to figure it out anyway, so why bother? Please don't make such false claims. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The two off-wiki threads that Specifico posted are from 2009 and 2011 – well before any recent contentious postings developed regarding Austrian Economics. Posting the links to these off-wiki comments from the get-go was improper. But repeating the posting after it was reverted and after a warning had been issued, takes the cake. And what's going on now? We see an accusation against Carolmooredc of retaliation. Is this supposed to excuse Specifico? – S. Rich (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
@MilesMoney. The linked site is vile it the extreme and even incluces a death wish for Carol and her family. Users who think it is OK to post links to blogs who wishes death over another user have no place on Wikipedia. That the link to this post has not been at revdeleted and a strict admin warning issued to the poster is the single most upsetting thing I have ever experienced at Wikipedia. I have previously seen CarolMoore get a direct threath on Wikipedia; it's very typically that these haters specifically go after women. As long as no action is taken regarding the post, Wikipedia is not a safe place for its users and in particular not for women. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone here claiming that Specifico is responsible for these posts? If not, then why are we blaming the messenger? Besides, his goal was to show how her off-wiki activity related to her on-wiki activity; anything else was incidental. As there was no reason to remove these links, there's no reason not to restore them.
I would appreciate it if your comments were a bit less over the top and instead complied with WP:NPA. There's absolutely no basis for trying to associate Specifico with unspecified generic misogyny, and it's quite clear that Carol's behavioral problems have nothing to do with gender. It's just as clear that Specifico isn't threatening anyone. What I see here is a shotgun approach to trying to associate various negative things with Specifco when none of them have any relation. I find this series of personal attacks against Specifico utterly disgusting and demand that you redact them immediately. MilesMoney (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
No, The links are clear NPA and BLP violations. They should not be linked to and the linker should know that. Yes he is responsible for linking to that crap. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Since when do NPA and BLP get enforced here? Nobody seems to care about Carol's repeated and ongoing violations of both, which is what led to Sitush's report and therefore Specifico's response, so why do we suddenly care now? Not much point pretending we're following the rules when we ignore them anytime they're inconvenient, is there? This is a pathetic joke and I call bullshit on it. MilesMoney (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes 'the devil made me do it' defense does not work out well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
@MilesMoney:, if you attempt to assert once more that I claimed personal attacks as my reason for reporting CMDC in the thread currently still visible above then I'll be asking the community to do something about you. I didn't say it, I've explained that I didn't say it and I do not consider CMDC's stuff to be either incivil or attacking - my point was the tendentiousness of it, which was resolved by her producing some diffs and thus moving things on. It is this sort of twisting of facts etc that is doing my head in and I'll quite happily !vote for the lot of you to be topic banned if that is what it takes to calm things down. There are times when the best thing for the project is to limit the involvement of all who are currently involved and let any issues regarding the articles be taken up as and when by a fresh group of people. Please do not use me as a way to achieve your fairly obvious aims. The same goes for Specifico and Steeletrap. I have no horse in this race but you lot are trying to stick me in there as a ringer or something. - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC).

Isn't Ms. Moore already outed? Through her edits* to her since-deleted Wikipedia page (and acknowledgement that this was her page), and her sharing of personal remarks she has made on Wikipedia -- not to mention her disclosure of her first and last name, location, website, and personal photo -- hasn't Ms. Moore already "identified" herself on Wikipedia? I think that the situation here is much different than it would be if someone with an anonymous name was "outed." (* I acknowledge these edits were many years ago, but I don't think that's relevant; she made the decision to out/identify herself on WP.) Steeletrap (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not a question of whether she has identified herself on WP or elsewhere. The violation occurred when the link to the grossly disparaging blog comment was posted by Specifico. He did not, did not have permission to post that particular personal detail about her. Reposting the personal comment made the infraction even worse. – S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
From what I can tell, he posted an article that very harshly criticized her views. It was certainly uncivil. But it didn't constitute outing, and really wasn't much worse than what we see from Carol on a regular basis. With the 48 hour block having been imposed, and the comment having been withdrawn, pushing for additional punishment seems punitive and gratuitous. Steeletrap (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Austrian Economics - Is it time for ArbCom?[edit]

A couple months ago (or so), the community enacted General Sanctions regarding the Austrian Economics topic space. However, the dispute continues to rage unabated as this thread and the thread above (WP:ANI#Tendentious_referencing_of_other_people.27s_motives) prove. The sanctions have failed due to a lack of admins interested in patrolling this topic space. I think it's time to ask whether the community is capable of solving this dispute, and if not, is ArbCom required to step in? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly specious ANIs such as this one by Srich don't help. Carol Moore has freely shared her real-life identity, her personal webpage URL, her photograph and other personal information since her first days here. Srich knows that because there was recently some discussion about whether she had a COI due to a failed relationship with the subject of a certain WP article and there was previously discussion about two WP articles about herself and her life and work. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Probably. It seems that there is a core group of editors who just can't play nicely together. Interaction bans and topic bans would seem to be in order.- MrX 19:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, SPECIFICO's insinuations are proved exaggerated or worse when one looks at the diffs. Please don't use noobie mistakes of the first year or two to condemn someone editing for almost 7.5 years. Plus my noobie mistake in first six months or so of working on a silly bio someone wrote of me that I was happy to see later AfD'd. Plus why hide the Conflict of interest noticeboard thread where I discuss knowing the subject of the article 30 years ago and Steeletrap discusses the fact that a faculty advisor suggested looking into these people and that they were a subject of a masters thesis for a while. What's more of a conflict of interest, 30 year old news or this year's masters thesis? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I've felt for some time that this is headed for Arbcom. I think we might be able to avoid that with proper use of the general sanctions though. They don't seem to have been used much, and I suppose that's as much my fault as anyone's. This is a hard area in which to act as an admin. In any case, if anyone does want to go ahead with this I would suggest waiting until 2014 to file due to the change in Arbcom's ranks. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I've always said more short blocks would wake editors up. I'm happy to take a 24 or 48 hour block for the actual relevant diffs that have been provided, if SPECIFICO and Stelletrap and MilesMoney get proportionate blocks fro their behavior on both these threads. It's much more likely to solve the problem than waiting for Arbcom. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep. I suspect this should be one of the first cases for the new ArbCom in 2014. The discretionary sanctions don’t seem to have helped much. The situation reminds me of the entrenched conflict that was at the heart of the matter in the Tea Party Movement case, and which the committee eventually solved by issuing a series of topic bans (not much activity in that article now). In some ways, I believe the situation in the Austrian economics articles is more severe and concerning than the situation in the TPM case because it to a larger degree involves BLP issues. While persistent conflicts always is a problem, it’s particular so when sensitive BLP issues are involved; it’s adamant that BLP issues are discussed in a dignified way that inspires confidence and not plagued by infighting among disputants etc. Iselilja (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking it reminds me of that other battle of the "entrenched experts," Sexology. Too personal. Too long term. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
If Admins are not willing to enforce community sanctions in clear areas like this, why bother to create them at all? Should I bring SPECIFICO's past pattern of accusations, my warnings to him, and current attack here to WP:ARBPIA because Admins do not want to enforce community sanctions with even a little warning? And let's not forget the Editing restrictions and log on those who violate BLP repeatedly. That's also been brought up repeatedly and ignored, despite existing sanctions.
I'm not blaming it on Admins per se who have to take a lot of grief when they warn and block people. I really think the Wikimedia Foundation has to find a way to pay admins to do the dirtiest jobs. The bad editors (or those who cause "controversy" by resisting the bad ones, dragging them to noticeboards, etc., as I have for a number of years) have driven off scads of good editors. At some point there will be a tipping point and the bad editors will so overwhelm so many articles that Wikipedia... well, leave it to your imagination. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Admins not enforcing community sanctions is why Arbcom is the only thing left. So, the only thing between festering for more months and some kind of working out is Admins stepping up, now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't want things to go this way, but I fear it's inevitable that Austrian economics will go to Arbcom. Personally, my greatest concern is not the core Austrian articles but the way it spreads out and infects other content. bobrayner (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I think after a topic has been brought to AN/I with an ever-expanding number of editors, 6 or 7 times, with no steps moving forward toward resolution, I think ARBCOM is the logical next step. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I have batted for both "sides" in this without ever really doing much at all on the articles themselves - I know nowt & so my role has mainly been as a neutral and very occasional outsider. almost a pseudo-admin role, in the absence of willing/able/uninvolved admins. The subject area is just becoming more and more toxic. That said, the transitional phase of Arbcom means that nothing will come of the suggestion for a few weeks. A few weeks is better than nothing but in the scale of this ever-expanding mess it really would help if some admin types could try to resolve some issues now using the sanctions system. All this said, if it does end up at ArbCom then please do not name me in the case - I have no intention of getting dragged further into the murk and I'm well aware that ArbCom decisions can be, let's say, surprising. By comparison, caste-related articles look like a walk in the park right now. - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I feel moving from ANI to ArbCom so quickly is undesirable and probably unnecessary. We should consider whether sanctions against specific editors are appropriate and can be imposed either through the general sanctions regime or just through a normal community process here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you volunteering to have sanctions imposed on you? Or are you helpfully volunteering everyone you disagree with? MilesMoney (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out to all concerned that most of these disputes are related WP:Biographies of living people policy (including the RSNs, NPOVNs, ORNs, ANIs, etc.) and not merely abstruse economic issues. So it does seem a bit counterproductive to ban people trying to correct BLP problems, as if they are equally destructive to the process, thereby leaving many of the BLPs as defacto attack articles, or articles containing big controvery sections filled with guilt by association/cherry picked/out of context quotes and criticisms whose only goal seems to be to denigrate the BLP subject and all the individuals even loosely association with the BLP subject. Rather like the complaint that is the subject of this original ANI posting. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
There are some subjects where editors can make useful contributions without a deep understanding of the subject. It does not appear that Austrian economics is one such subject. What we've learned the hard way is that well-meaning but ignorant editors just make a mess of these articles, particularly by treating deeply biased sources as unbiased. On the other hand, the knowledgeable but necessarily biased editors can't seem to come to a compromise that overcomes their unavoidable bias.
There are reasons for this, but it comes down to a content dispute that isn't particularly amenable to threats of blocks and bans. A scorched-earth approach would simply reset the cycle, only with more ignorance, hence more bias. Policy is of little help here due to the nature of the sources, which are sparse, insular and mutually hostile. Worse, there has been ongoing abuse of WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NOR to censor articles and harm editors. Still, the problem is rooted in the subject matter, not the people: WP policy simply can't handle Austrian economics.
I don't know if ArbCom is the answer, as I have no experience with them, but it doesn't seem as though regular dispute resolution channels, much less irregular ones such as "community" intervention here, are much good at this. I figure it's worth a try, since nothing else has worked or seems likely to. MilesMoney (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Continued attacks on me in ANIs[edit]

I see this ANI is still open, and that the admin who put the block on has not been online to answer my question about these continued attacks on their talk page. So before this ANI gets closed by someone else, I would like to note my objections to the continued attacks on me in this ANI (as well as in this closed one) by Steeletrap and MilesMoney. Such personal attacks and allegations (off topic and/or no evidence/diffs and/or manufactured evidence and/or trumped up allegations) are against both Israel-Palestine arbitration and Sexology arbitration regarding questionable or false accusations of bigotry. I guess I'll have to put such informal warnings on the two editor's talk pages in case these continue on article talk pages and else wheres and I have to open one or more cases at either. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the primary purposes of ANI is to facilitate personal attacks under the thin disguise of criticism. Eric Corbett 14:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Ditto ArbCom.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, ArbCom's potential involvement seems to be the main reason this section is still open. As for Carol's warning, I believe the response on my talk page says it all. MilesMoney (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
What's an attack, you ask? Your basically repeating "yeah, carol's a bigot just like my friends say" - especially when the alleged evidence lead to a block of an editor and the rest of it non-existent or trumped up - is a personal attack.
The notice I left on your talk page is a user official notice that these arbitrations exist. (That's the only thing I would post on your page.) I don't think there is a template for one like there is for admins.
However, such Arbitrations usually are not enforced unless there are a few blocks on ANIs for these kinds of attacks or an attack is really nasty. The sanctions might run from a 24 hour block, to a ban on ever working on articles about any kind of sex issues or Israel-Palestine issue (because the individual was making a false accusations related to bigotry in one topic area of articles and might bring that behavior later to Sex or Israel-Palestine related articles), to a permanent ban from Wikipedia. That would be up to admins, of course.
Anyway, that's what I can glean. In-the-Know editors, feel free to share a page that explains it all better, since neither of the ones I linked to above did a great job and WP:Sanctions and WP:General Sanctions also a bit vague and seem to have some inconsistencies. Ah, the joys of open sourced wikis... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


  • By OP (who opened this WP:TPNO ANI). In my opinion, this ANI is closed. A specific complaint was brought about specific editing behavior by a specific editor. Action was taken. As should be clear, the first sub-thread above is actually about another topic – the possibility of Arbcom action (which I do not want to engage in) coming to pass because of editor interaction. (It should be parsed out as a separate thread/section.) This second sub-thread has absolutely nothing to do with the original thread. But the same sort of bickering, unsupported by diffs, is occurring. I recommend that this entire section be closed at once. – S. Rich (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


Blocked indef. No, we're not going to have a 2 day vote on whether an indef block of a disruptive block-evading editor is too harsh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:33, 3 December 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.

MagicKirin11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Can an admin try to get this disruptive Israel supporter under control please as soon as possible ?

BLP violations so far.


Edit warring at United Nations Human Rights Council Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

...and maybe a sock of

Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not disruptive, I am trying to add balance to pages that have been taken over by anti Israeli posters.MagicKirin11 (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually you are exploiting a charity to attack living people and promote your personal views. This is not allowed here. It's inconsistent with the site's policies and guidelines. It's disruptive and wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
MagicKirin, what say you to these sock puppet allegations? --Jprg1966 (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I say that all three people Sean roland and Zero have a political anti semitic agenda they are pro Palestinians anti Israel posters who want a person who put evidence that contradicts Wikipedia issues related to Israel. This is just another example of Palestinians supporters censoring Jews. You should be addressing my complaint against Sean.MagicKirin11 (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sean Hoyland[edit]

Sean Hoyland is reverting my edits and claiming a Jewiush bias. That is anti-semetic which is no surprise.MagicKirin11 (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess I better start burning my Ben Katchor and Rutu Modan books and stop watching Natalie Portman films then. Damn. Being anti-Semitic has a lot of drawbacks. You need to stop attacking people. You are not helping Wikipedia or your cause. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
MagicKirin, your editing consists of going to article talk pages—often involving Israel—and arguing there that the page should reflect your point of view more. That's not really consistent with trying to build an encyclopedia. It sounds more like you want a soapbox for your views. Wikipedia operates by consensus, NOT by soapboxing. Personally, I'm an ardent Zionist—but my individual opinion needs to be deferential to the weight of other things, like what reliable sources say, and what other editors at Wikipedia say about something.
I can assure you that there is no shortage of editors here who try to make sure that pro-Israel viewpoints (where relevant) are represented in articles. The Gaza flotilla raid article, for example (which you said was biased), cites the Israeli government's Turkel Commission in arguing that the IDF's actions were legal. That does not mean that neutrality is guaranteed at these articles, but the overwhelming slant you perceive is unrealistic. --Jprg1966 (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, your baseless accusation of anti-Semitism on the part of Sean.hoyland is an egregious personal attack. --Jprg1966 (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
One struggles to find a single edit of MagicKirin11 that serves to improve the encyclopedia. Zerotalk 11:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of combining the two sections as they obviously relate to the same thing. I have also made the (obviously retaliatory) post about Sean Hoyland a subsection. Blackmane (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block[edit]

I propose an indefinite block of MagicKirin11 on the following grounds:

  1. They are likely to be a sock puppet of the banned user MagicKirin
  2. Even if they are not a sock puppet, the user's purpose of being here is fundamentally at odds with Wikipedia's mission. They have no hope for becoming a constructive editor with their current attitude. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I was led here by the report at WP:AN3. I've indeffed MagicKirin11 as a probable sock of MagicKirin. Even if I'm wrong, there's no real harm done as MagicKirin11 deserved to be indeffed even without sock puppetry. The evidence of sock puppetry was a bit hard because of the many years intervening between accounts. At a glance, the only thing I saw other than the obvious username intersection, was a pro-Israeli/Jewish bias and suspecting everyone of anti-semitism, all of which resulted in blatantly non-neutral edits and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support --Greenmaven (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why go straight to an indefinite block? I don't see enough support here for a block of that length. Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Overkill. No significant evidence of a sock. No behavior worthy of permanent punishment. MilesMoney (talk) 02:27, 3 December 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.

Does AGF apply to a situation like this?[edit]

Resolved: All accounts blocked as spambot accounts by NawlinWikiThe User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This has the makings of a sockpuppet farm in progress and an extreme promotional agenda..[[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]]. The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. The links just lead to his talk page and he did not make any contributions whatsoever, even deleted ones. Darylgolden(talk) 07:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
the usernames are all promotional and the nature of the multiple accounts indicate that they will be used to sock. I just don't think there is too many reasons to assume good faith in this situation. The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

<- Maybe this is clearer than the links.

Sean.hoyland - talk 07:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes it easier to check contribs. Dlohcierekim 08:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
AGF always applies a priori. We wait for someone to prove us naive. Anyway, none of these have made contribs. WP:UAA isn't my area, but I think they ask us to engage the user first of all. HiaB asked me and I suggested bring 'em here 'cause there's so many & I was otherwise engaged. Still, the shear number . . . . I used to know how to see when a user account was created. Maybe that would illuminate our darkness. What's your pleasure? Dlohcierekim 08:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
See the 'logs' links. They were all created today. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
D'oh, er, thanks. I needed the reminder.08:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talkcontribs)
Personally in a case like this I think that agf or not they should be blocked but I do understand that the block first think later thing is not a good thing for most..I just realistically don't see much good coming from this.The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I can agree with that. It's suspicious at the very least, possibly an attempt to use the user name system to do something with keywords. Like these all seem to be various typos of "BC part time offline jobs". I think this is exactly the sort of place where a preventive block is the appropriate action. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
And I'll note from that we seem to have even more accounts in this farm:
Given the time those two accounts were created, it seems possible if not probable that the same person spent quite a bit of time creating a lot of accounts. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) They were all created in the same day. Normally, unless one is IP-block exempt, one can't create more than six accounts in one day. Something is suspicious here. Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Here are some more I found going through the user creation log:

And many more. I'm not going to keep listing them, but they go back to around 0200 UTC on 1 December. They all seem to follow the pattern of ^Bc.+jobs?$, and not one seems to have any contribs. It looks like the oldest one is Bcfulltimmejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow...has anyone ever seen this? Am I overreacting in my thoughts? The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm keeping an eye on the user creation logs, but it seems like whoever this is stopped before this ANI thread started. The last one was Bcparttimeoflianjob created at 0547 UTC on 2 December. It's been a little more than 15 hours since then. Judging by the gaps between the blocks of account creation sprees, the person doing this is getting throttled by the 6-in-24 hours rule, but is probably circumventing it by hopping to a new IP (though at least once there are 7 accounts in a spree instead of 6). I haven't yet found any new patterns other than ^Bc.+jobs?$, but it seems likely that if a new pattern emerges it'll still fit jobs?$ (though it should be clear that any filter or rule based on the latter would probably generate an unacceptable number of false positives to apply automatically). One thing I've learned is that there are a phenomenal number of new user accounts created every day. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
One last thing: I see that all the accounts have been blocked now, some with talk page disabled. I know it's unusual to preemptively block e-mail (and WP:BLOCK frowns upon it), but considering these are pretty clearly intended to be used as spambots, shouldn't we disable e-mail on these accounts? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I would !vote yes, but has that been done before? In sockpuppet cases, seems like only the sockmaster's account should still have "Email this user" enabled. I would love to see the policy/guideline about this. --Lexein (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The only controlling policy I know of is WP:BLOCK which states that normally e-mail restrictions shouldn't be prophylactically applied with blocks, but that administrators have pretty broad discretion if they feel it is likely to be necessary. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving page[edit]

I would like to move (rename) the page for WWE Wrestler Sin Cara, to a page that reflects his name. Currently, he is listed as Mistico ( as that is what his ring name was in an old promotion. However he has been signed with WWE for a number of years now, and is more widely known to the world as Sin Cara. - Zalthazar_666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalthazar 666 (talkcontribs) 04:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Místico#Requested move. While it was a few months ago that this was last proposed, the universal opposition to it suggests that such a proposal would fail. Before seeking an admin to handle the move (since the redirect already exists) there needs to be consensus that a move is called for. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


This is a content dispute on a highly POV topic. The basics of WP:DR have not been pursued (yet). The request to ban the OP's target is frivolous. No administrator action appropriate at this time. Toddst1 (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is to report about the user Notabede who himself tells on his talk page (new link) that no content should be added back to the article Aadhar without proper discussion and consensus but has himself disregarded the arguments that I wrote to push his own point of view here. I would be highly grateful if administrators take a look & express their views. Links :

I request the admins to please read the entire conversation (even though it might be tiring & especially the newer ones) at both places before taking a stance. In some places RB has been used for the now indefinitely blocked user Ravishyam_Bangalore. I have notified the other user. Regards. - Jayadevp13 14:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It is incorrect that User:Jayadevp13 has notified me on my user talk page as is mandatory. Some reasons we could not discuss properly were (a) because he was uncivil and made personal attacks, (b) He was insistent that we must use the entire text contributed by the banned (for POV pushing) user (about 80,000 bytes of hugely controversial text) as the starting point for discussion (c) We work using a collaborative Sandbox -->> which IMHO violates intent of Wikipedia:About the Sandbox and the purpose of Article Talk pages. It may be carefully noted that as this article was stable for over 2 years with a redirect to UIDAI till the banned user began messing with it, my redirect was very much with the established consensus. It was also not "my" redirect, it had been twice redirected by others (including once - uncontested - by an anti-vandalism bot).Notabede (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
He edit warred against consensus and more than one editor, and then requested protection while it was on his version. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 16:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
What happened to blocking after WP:3RR? Epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
@Epicgenius. I was never under 3RR or even close to it. As suggested by User:Toddst1 on my talk page, I immediately requested and got page protection for this article to prevent edit warring.
@2Awwsome. The fact that it was "my version" (which in itself is wrong because I haven't contributed even 1 word to the article) is immaterial, as 95% of the article is the precise kind of blatant and weaselly POV pushing for which the User:Ravishyam_Bangalore is presently indefinitely blocked. You may also see that I did not revert the article after Toddst1 warned me but I immediately applied for page protection as soon as I could. It is also inaccurate and weaselly to say I edit warred against consensus with more than 1 editor. The single revert with the blocked user doesn't count since his POV agenda for Aadhar/UID was self admittedly against the spirit of Wikipedia - as more than 1 blocking admin has noted. [24] Notabede (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
If this kind of harassment of editors continues, perhaps Wikipedia:Anyone can edit needs to be amended to require that editing by schoolchildren be closely supervised/monitored by adults.Notabede (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, so much for the

1) It is your version, your version is the redirect.

2) He's blocked for a legal threat. And just because he's blocked for an unrelated issue it doesn't mean his opinion should be discounted.

3) Requesting page protection on your version is worse than edit warring. I'll go to VPP to propose that involved editors are not allowed to request protection during edit wars.

4) 2 v 1. The 2011 things - which you linked to on Aadhar's talk page - are irrelevant per WP:CCC, and that war shows the same consensus as this. Bots can't count for consensus. (Edited 20:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC))

5) Yes it does, and no admins have said that. The only thing he was blocked for was the legal threat.

6) WP:NPA. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 20:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I restored to a previous stable version (a redirect) by somebody else which was uncontested for over 2 years.
  • His block was confirmed by an admin in the following terms "Wikipedia is not the place for promoting or publicising anything, even an anti-corruption tool. The point of the block seems to be that you are pushing a point of view rather than certain things may or may not be true."
  • Yes, please go to the Village Pump on this.
  • I have not even violated 1RR for this article. "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". For over 2 years there was consensus that this article be redirected to UIDAI. A Bot is as much an editor as anyone else - more so actually.
  • Please see the previous text cited for why he was blocked by admin Peridon.Notabede (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
2) He was blocked for a legal threat
3) WP:CCC. And ClueBot just used an algorithm to decide, can't count towards consensus.
4) He was blocked for the legal threat
5) And please don't refactor my comments 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 20:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As the admin who blocked RB, the question I have for Jayadevp13 is, what are you requesting be done here? Please answer with a simple request. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


  • Even though I did not notify in your talk page, I had told about it here. Moreover the Wikipedia notification would have alerted you.
  • You are in an edit war indeed. Two times with RB (1st one and 2nd one) and one time with me.
  • If according to you the redirects are stable and hence they should never be expanded then let me tell you that all the articles in {{F1GP 10-19}} (from 2011 to 2013) were redirects once and were then expanded. There are many more such cases.
  • I am sorry but I can't be more civil than I have been. You are actually testing my patience wasting my time by saying the same thing again & again and not paying heed to what others are saying.

@Toddst1: What I wanted to report was that Notabede was completely ignoring other users view to push his own views (you can see this from his conversation with 2Awwsome & me). He in this way is stalling the development of the page Aadhar by giving completely fallacious reasons (like the page has original research which is wrong & had explained him the reason too). He again and again says that RB is blocked so should his work be. But he is completely ignoring the explanation given by other users. This is just one article. If he continues to do so with other would be articles in future then a lot of community time will get wasted. So I want him banned from editing for resorting to cheap & fallacious methods of explanation for what he is doing, going on an edit war to keep the page as he wants to and then asking it to be protected that way. Moreover he is not cooperating properly in a discussion and is trying to push his own point of view (and that too using the same reason again & again). He himself tells that a consensus needs to be achieved but is reluctant to participate properly in the discussion. Seeing his attitude I don't even think that he will change. - Jayadevp13 03:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There are absolutely no grounds for banning that editor. It's clear there are problems with POV pushers on several sides including Jayvadevp13, 2Awwsome, Notabede and RB. Please, each of you take this as a caution for civility and NPOV and perhaps COI. Editing different subjects would be advisable - unless that subject is the only reason you are here. Toddst1 (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
@Toddst1: A ban would of course be too much for what he has done it seems. But please tell him not to waste time by giving useless reasons. I and Notebede are of course here just for Aadhar and 2Awwsome is just giving his views. Now you consider both of our views (Notabede's & mine) and tell what I should do with Aadhar which can be edited now. Do not tell us to discuss since he is not cooperating. You tell a final binding decision (maybe in consultation with other admins). - Jayadevp13 06:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment I object to the statement made that I am here just for Aadhaar. My editing at Wikipedia is aligned to policy and includes several articles besides Aadhaar/UIDAI. I am perfectly willing to discuss with 'Jayadevp' as long as he works within the community standards. He should also realise that I am not a POV pusher, but its opposite - a NPOVer.
@Toddst1, please factor in the comments (with not a hint of regret) of the other editor to evade acknowledging that he failed to place any ANI notice on my user talk page about reporting me here.Notabede (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Note- By here I meant W:ANI and not Wikipedia itself. I wanted to tell that we both are here (WP:ANI) just because of the problems we are facing because of Aadhar. We don't face such clashes with other articles and hence it would not be good if we go from here without finding a proper solution. I believe I have discussed with you within the community standards by giving proof and details for every thing I say. But you are giving fallacious reasons like the article is original research (but 161 references were cited) and RB was blocked for POV pushing (I don't care about it and initially he was banned for making legal threats). I really didn't know that not leaving a notice on your talk page would hurt you so much. I swear that I didn't do it because of the reasons I told you (I thought that you would get to know and you did). I am sorry about that. - Jayadevp13 11:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Here's a suggestion: Get a discussion on the talk page. If numerous editors are in agreement that a change should be made, one outlier will not corrupt consensus. Once that is achieved, the article should be edited - even if it is protected. Toddst1 (talk) 12:05, 3 December 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.

Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013[edit]

I'm having a polite disagreement with several editors who keep removing content that they perceive as "non-neutral" or "not relevant". Specifically the section regarding the connections of the the initiative U ime obitelji with right-wing political party HRAST [25] as well as some other controversies surrounding it. Two of the editors don't speak Serbo-Croatian language so they can't really evaluate what is sufficiently notable or representative, and the rest are an IP and a single-purpose account User:OpusDbk whose writings are largely incoherent. I'd like to add more content to that section but it keeps being removed under absurd excuses. I keep telling them that 1) It's perfectly OK to present one side of the argument, if that side largely reflects the public discourse 2) even if the article itself is not completely balanced out, there is no reason to censor it by removing the undesirable content - slap a tag until eventually someone adds POV from the other side (if it exist, my position is that in many cases it doesn't so it's basically pointless to ask for it). It would be helpful if someone else would weigh in and advise how to proceed with this. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ivan Štambuk. I believe I am one of the otwo non Serbian-Croation users you are referring to. Just a formal note: I think you are supposed to notify the users you are complaining about on their talk pages. But you don't have to notify me now obviously since I am already here. I don't have so much to say about the underlying issue. There is a disagreement about the neutrality of the article, and I have tagged it for such. I will try to engage a bit more on the talk page again. Otherwise, I think the NPOV noticeboard might have been a better place to address this issue, and I will be happy to participate there. Best regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:DRN is also a venue that may be of some service to you. Blackmane (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


Review of deleted edits indicate this is a vandalism-only account. Blocked indef. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:24, 3 December 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.

Lizzzybennett1xx has repeatedly created articles with incorrect/misleading/nonsense titles, especially variants on Nicki Minaj's name, and has been repeatedly warned not to do so. She recently did it again (though the page has been deleted after I tagged it as a hoax, unsure exactly which CSD it fell under). The page can be viewed by admins at Niickkki Mirij. I am not sure where to post this, as it is not exactly vandalism, so I am coming here to request something be done. My apologies if I am in the wrong place. Jinkinson talk to me 00:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This sure looks to fall under the definition of WP:Vandalism#Page creation, illegitimate to me. The only saving grace is that she requested deletion of the page she created today (it was deleted CSD G7). —C.Fred (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Since I'm not an admin I can't see the content of the deleted pages, but for me much turns on whether the alternative titles were Lizzzybennett1xx's attempt to create legitimate articles on the subjects (perhaps because Lizzzybennett1xx didn't understand the concept of redirects), if they were hoax articles about nonexistent persons, or if they were articles about the actual subject that violated WP:BLP in some way. I think the first hypothetical is forgivable and calls for someone to work with Lizzzybennett1xx, at least until it can be determined that he/she is unwilling or unable to work constructively, at which point blocks should be put in place. The latter two hypotheticals call for stern, final warnings (even though I do see a final warning on the page already), followed by preventive blocks should the behavior continue. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
40 of this user's 42 edits are now deleted, usually because they were contributions to articles with nonsense titles. A review of those edits indicates this is a vandalism-only account. The same pattern has been going on since their account was created on March 10. She blanked one of her own nonsense articles today and that was taken as a G7 nomination. Except for that it is hard to perceive any well-intentioned edits. The G7 deletion could as well have been done as a G3 (vandalism) since the article itself was gibberish, being a section of prose cut-and-pasted out of our Britney Spears article and slightly reworded to mention Nicki Minaj. Would an honest mistake lead someone to create an article called Niickkki Mirij if the singer's name is actually Nicki Minaj? As a bonus, check their edit filter log. I recommend an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
In light of your logic, EdJohnston, I withdraw my argument that this user deserves another chance. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I should have blocked her back in October. That oversight has now been rectified. Yunshui  12:39, 3 December 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.

Lukeno94's lack of civility[edit]

...that making more accusations against more editors is a very bad way to tone things down? Looks like there's agreement that this isn't actionable, Lukeno acknowledged that they went over the top a bit, so let's just nip this in the bud, yeah? Writ Keeper  17:37, 3 December 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.

Having seen the comments made by Lukeno94 (talk · contribs · block user) at WP:DRN is one of the worst cases of violation of WP:CIVIL I've seen, and the editor refuses to change his ways from attacking editors to attacking the argument the editor(s) are making. While no one is censored from swearing, use of expletives and personal attacks directed at editors isn't something any editor should face, especially female editors.

His failure to follow etiquette guidelines and the above listed behaviour is clearly such that is blockable, I hope that an Admin can get him to recognise that he needs to change his ways. Bidgee (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your first diffs relate to above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#HiLo48_at_Talk:2014_Winter_Olympics and if nothing gets done in that situation, don't expect anything to be done here.-- (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • As usual, Bidgee is misrepresenting pretty much everything. I was not the one who started being uncivil in the first place; that would be User:HiLo48. Yet you're not chastising people for attacking a LOT of people by refering to others as obsessed soccer nuts (the post that the very first diff was in response to), and pretty much every single thing User:Clavdia chauchat has said. People have been flat-out lying about things I have said/done, things such as this, which is very clearly an attempt to make me out as sexist. Equally, the above diffs by Bidgee also ignore the fact that pretty much everything I have said has been in response to clear POV-pushing, WP:IDHT behaviour, and pure misrepresentation of other people's posts. Have I overstepped the mark? Yes, that's fairly obvious. But I am sick to death of having several thousand tonnes of bullshit thrown at me, where everything I say is clearly being manipulated and misrepresented by people with agendas. And the ludicrous comments about things needing oversight or RevDel... again, go and look at what Clavdia wrote on Talk:Australia national association football team (things like [26], [27], [28]), and try telling me with a straight face that I'm the least civil party here. If people had stopped deliberately misrepresenting things I had said, flat out lying about me, and making absurd claims of sexism/chauvinism etc, I would've withdrawn from the conversation a long time ago. The fact I'm still an active party is due to the above things. Again, this doesn't excuse the excesses I've gone to, and a couple of times I've redacted parts of my comments; but I'm not the worst offender. And whether a user is a particular gender, race, colour, sexuality or whatever is irrelevant in a discussion; if you read what I write properly, post reasonable responses, then I will respond in a calm manner. If you post rubbish that is based on a pure misrepresentation of my post - is it any surprise that I get annoyed? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • As for the "trying to prevent Laura from responding", that is blatantly rubbish. As far as I am aware, those sections are ONLY for the opening statements by said users; discussion shouldn't be occurring in there. If I'm wrong, well, then I apologize for being unfamiliar with DRN, having only been there on a few occasions. I would note that no one reverted me, however. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I think all that's needed here is for both parties to dial things back a bit and calm down. While some of the rhetoric has been unhelpful, I don't think there's need for admin action at this point. Some of the diffs listed above are kind of frivolous as well--there's nothing wrong with referring to a contributor by their first name. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I have to agree with Mark here, there really isn't anything actionable in this situation. It's hard to justify the block of one editor when there is general incivility all-around. I think it's time for everyone to take a break and have a nice cup of tea. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It may not be action-worthy for the time, but hopefully this doesn't happen again. I do believe Admins (despite being editors just like us) have the responsibility of having a cool-head at all times, after all, their admins. and the same thing occured with another editor that was deemed action worthy. so to me, i dont see the difference between the two.Lucia Black (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Lucia, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from; I'm not an admin, and to the extent of my knowledge, HiLo, Laura and Clavdia aren't either. That said, there have been admins involved in the debate; but they've generally avoided the biggest confrontations (sensibly so). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

then all the more reason to remember this event in case it becomes a pattern.Lucia Black (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Both 'sides' need to calm down, and both 'sides' need to be civil. To defend Luke, users such as Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs) have also been horrendously uncivil, with comments such as this, where she describes an entire WikiProject (which both Luke and myself are active members of), of being "chauvinistic and pathetic"; she also calls the Project a "circle jerk." That clearly violates WP:NPA#WHATIS, and how is that language and attitude helping anything or anybody? GiantSnowman 17:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Could Lukeno tone it down a little bit? Sure. But to say that it's one of the worst cases of violation of WP:CIVIL he's seen must mean he hasn't dealt with very much at all here on Wikipedia. Many, many editors are far worse than these difs. Like I said, he could use someone saying, "Hey, calm down a little", but certainly nothing actionable at this rate... Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Its definitely not the worst, but its not "acceptable" behavior. that should be the only point. it's not actionable "for now". but we should definitely give fair warning to both sides.Lucia Black (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Comment from uninvolved editor) (Non-administrator comment) You can't exactly block Lukeno solely because they are swearing. Definitely block them if they are willfully disrupting Wikipedia. However, this doesn't seem like disruption at all—just a lack of self-control. Epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

lack of self-control can be just as disruptive. its not vandalism, but it doesn't move the discussion along in a nice way. its not actionable, and i think part of the problem is thinking exagerrating how over the top this is. its not the biggest thing in the world, but like i said, it shouldn't be acceptable. User Ryulong has been noted in the past. opinions on ANI shouldn't really vary so drastically.Lucia Black (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, what about comments from your friends that are also uncivil? Why don't you find issue with them? You are portraying this as if it is a one-sided issue when it is anything but. As I've already said, both parties need to tone it down. GiantSnowman 17:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
well, that'll tone things right down. Writ Keeper  17:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure she'll make a big stink over me saying it, but quite frankly, Lucia has made some very bad calls in the past in regards to deeming other peoples civility. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 3 December 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.

Achievement Hunter[edit]

Since it was protected anyways, I took the liberty of undeleting as was originally intended. Thanks for the assistance. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:21, 3 December 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 closed the AfD as redirect and a user keeps reverting the redirection of the article. I undid his revert once and notified him on his talk page that this was not the proper way to contest an AfD closure and he reverted the redirection once more without replying. I adhere to a 1RR restriction and would appreciate a second set of eyes to make sure I am not perpetuating an edit war. Thanks. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

On it. GiantSnowman 17:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't tend to do it much, so I could be wrong, but couldn't you just fully protect/salt it? Or do you see it as likely to be rightfully un-redirected someday? (I'm unfamiliar with whatever this subject is about...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It was a good close - nominated for deletion, supported by two other editors with no one making an argument to keep. I have deleted the old article, leaving nothing to revert to. That should squelch the problem. The objecting editor can still appeal to deletion review. bd2412 T 17:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
In answer to Serge, I could've protected the redirect, but even though closing an AfD is technically a neutral thing (you're implementing the community's consensus and don't necessarily have an opinion yourself) and not a content dispute, I still consider it as involvement, and am uneasy protecting something I'm involved with to stop an edit war as that can easily be seen as protecting the right version (I can't find the essay/guideline that covers this topic right now). I know the close was good and my edit was right. I'm not sure deleting the previous revisions was the way to go (there's a reason the AfD result was to redirect, not delete & redirect), but I guess for now it's an appropriate solution. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha. Yeah, I've never done it myself, but I had thought that it was more of an extension, or enforcement, of closing the AFD, rather than a breach of INVOLVED. Your explanation makes sense too though. Anyone know which one is more commonly viewed as the way to handle it, for future reference? Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I've protected the redirect. I think that's generally the best way to go about things when dealing with this kind of thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 3 December 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.

Mass addition of unsourced content[edit] (talk · contribs)

  • To be precise, the user is adding information to dozens of biographies about artists' membership status in the National Academy of Design. This is useful information, but despite my raising concerns at the IP's talk page they have not attempted to add sources to their numerous edits. Mass delete, tag each edit, issue more warnings, or let the edits slide as uncontroversial? JNW (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    • It appears likely that the IP is using one source for all of these—some kind of list of membership of the NAD. It would be supremely useful if they could share what that reference is to allow editors to add a reference. --Jprg1966 (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
      • The list of all members of the National Academy of Design is here. You have to click on the appropriate letter to find each name. I randomly checked one of the IP's edits and Francis Chapin checks out [29]. I imagine all the rest do too. Voceditenore (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I think they'll all check out, and I've left a link to the Academy's listings at their talk page. It's immensely preferable that the account, who I presume is connected to the NAD, adds the cites, rather than leaving others to fill in dozens, and eventually hundreds of them. JNW (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Socking and inappropriate allegations[edit]

All socks have been sorted and put in the laundry pile. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:03, 3 December 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.

are obvious socks/meat puppet pushing seriously inappropriate allegations in the article Stanley Foster Reed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Page protected, accounts blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 3 December 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 Zyzzzzzy[edit]

This user has been making vast amount of edits without any sort of discussion. He also does not appear to have grasp of Armenian language, which are in any case not common usage. Many of his edits are not align with WP:COMMONNAME, which is also used for foreign languages. He has made so many edits that its going to be hard to revert all of them. I suggest a block. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please notify this user that their name has come up at ANI. Also, for reviewers: Zyzzzzzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) --Jprg1966 (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
@Proudbolsahye: Instead of a block, how about mass rollback? Epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Okay, I think that's a better option. It's going to be a real pain doing this. Also, the mentioned user knows about the ANI report due to a message on my talk page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry; for editors with rollback enabled it would be easy to revert the edits. I have just rollbacked Zyzzzzzy's past 10 article space edits. Epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh my! Thanks so much! :) Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Do you want any more of Zyzzzzzy's edits to be reverted? Additionally, consider applying for the rollback permission so that you can do this yourself next time it happens. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
As I have explained previously, there are few exeptions in the Armenian language regarding some consonants following the letter Ր (R). Hence:
  • Գ after Ր pronounced K and not G. (example: SARKIS/ՍԱՐԳԻՍ and not Sargis, GEVORK and not Gevorg)
  • Դ after Ր pronounced T and not D. (example: VARTAN/ՎԱՐԴԱՆ and not Vardan)
  • Բ after Ր pronounced P and not B. (example: SURP/ՍՈՒՐԲ and not Surb)

It is a matter of linguistics in the Eastern Armenian language (Հայերեն Լեզվի Հնչյունաբանություն). Please check ou this link Ուղղախոսություն և ուղղագրություն:

  • 7.ա) Ր ձայնորդից հետո լսվող ք հնչյունը գրվում է գ տառով հետևյալ բառերում. երգ, թարգման, կարգ, մարգագետին, մարգարե, մարգարիտ, միրգ, պարգև, Մարգար, Սարգիս:

Thanks.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This editor seems to also have issues with marking all edits as minor; I left them a note on their talk page but they haven't fixed it yet. VQuakr (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


Could someone please have a quiet word with the administrator User:Gryffindor who is currently stalking my edits and trolling by adding info boxes (full of errors) against consensus (even on a well known FA Buckingham palace) and generally being tiresome by making small meaningless edits and comments to other pages which I have heavily edited or begun and am known to be heavily involved with. It would be good if this could be nipped in the bud before it get's out of hand. Thank you.  Giano  09:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - User:Giano, perhaps you should provide some diffs to support your complaint? And have you made any other attempts at dispute resolution before coming to ANI? - theWOLFchild 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I haven't the time or inclination to go digging about and copy pasting diffs where trolls are concerned. They are easy enough to see in his contributions. If admins won't monitor their own kind here, then I am more than capable of dealing with the matter myself. I just thought it was procedure to flag up problem editors here first. My mistake obviously - it won't happen again.  Giano  17:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Motion to close. Leaving messages on talk pages and asking to discuss does not constitute whatever User:Giano is complaining about. Gryffindor (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) -