Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829

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

Noticeboard archives


IP adding references to self, contrary to recently closed RFC[edit]

Ohnoitsjamie semi-protected page Firewall (physics) until march 11.non-admin closure.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2014 (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 was the uninvolved closer at a request at WP:ANRFC on the Firewall (physics) article. The RFC was heavily socked and meatpuppeted. I closed as "no consensus for inclusion" regarding giving credit to a particular scientist (Winterberg) for the original idea of the discovery. An IP claiming to be Winterberg is now repeatedly reinserting refs to himself in the article claiming credit, and saying that the consensus is irrelevant because it was done by non-physicists. Could someone semi-the article and block the IP? [1] [2] [3] Gaijin42 (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Article protected by Ohnoitsjamie. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2014 (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.

Repeated addition of factual inaccuracies[edit]

User:Moderate Intensity Operations has repeatedly added fake information to The British Soap Awards:

...and several more of the same variety. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify a bit, the user continuously adds a table for 2014 award winners, but there have been no awards in 2014. The source given is simply the 2013 winners and the info in the new table seems to be completely made up. -- Fyrael (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Have you considered using Twinkle to Welcome them using the one specifically related to requiring reliable sources? I see a crapload of warnings, but not a single welcome and introduction to the rules. Have you even tried discussing rather than templating? ES&L 12:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
When the user is intentionally adding information that they know to be false, it seems like it goes a little beyond informing them that they need proper sources. Also, yes, I created a section on the talk page of the article to enable discussion, albeit a little later than I should have. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, not all of this user's edits are bad. This edit was a good one, correcting the year the awards began (infobox had said 1998; he brought it into agreement with the prose of the article as 1999). I've thanked the editor for that one. —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Newbie quickly racking up to deal gently?[edit]

The issue has been resolved. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:09, 12 February 2014 (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.

A newbie, User:F.Tromble, is engaging in a number of both subtle and obvious personal attacks, edit warring and forum shopping. Within only two weeks of account creation, they have fallen into conflict with four established editors.
However, per WP:DONTBITE many more serious solutions may be unfair at this point. Upon review, WP:AN3 and WP:RFC/USER seem too harsh this early while WP:3O and WP:DR/N seem geared solely toward content disputes. Arbitration is a last step and per WP:DISPUTE, asking for guidance at ANI seemed the least painful solution. To avoid making this too long, I will post the diffs showing the behavior in question in a collapsable table.

Now, the editor seems intelligent and has made positive contributions to some areas. The main issue here is that, within only two weeks, they have already committed the infractions mentioned above. Since it seems too early for more drastic measures, what would the protocol be in this case? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Am I allowed to respond to these accusations against me one by one please? THere is some misrepresentation of the facts here. F.Tromble (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

By all means do, but I recommend you be brief. There are a lot of diffs to look at. Blackmane (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. In an area in which I have absolutely no interest or knowledge, I see an editor challenging the status quo in a contentious subject and his apparent "newbie" status being somewhat resented by established editors. Far, far worse passes as civil, non-abuse in most every other area, every single day. Leaky Caldron 10:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
User:F.Tromble, I wasn't trying to phrase these as accusations. You do make positive contributions and that should be recognized. What I am saying is that you've had some problems early on, and trying to discuss matters with you on your talk page didn't work out. This is an attempt to find an easy solution to the conflict areas as rough early spots like this can snowball; I've seen it happen to new editors and this is an attempt to avoid that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. I will be as brief as it is possible to deal with 7 allegations numberer 1 to 7 to make it easier for reference. Perhaps in haste, or maybe just accidentally, Mezzo has skewed the chronology a bit, but things become clearer if we look at things in the correct order of events which would be 5, 6, 2, 7, 4, 1, and finally 3.

5. In this edit I tried to distinguish "the Great" from the other Babai who he opposed by referring to "the Great" the Monk in the text and then as an afterthought before saving I inserted the same phrase at the top of the page to make my edit easier to understand. I only hoped to make things more clear further down the page so that readers would not get confused on such a technicality. I work in the field of religious studies and the confusion between the two Babais is common to non-specialists. If I had intended a name change, surely I would have re-named the page and moved it, but this was absolutely *not* my intention and in fact I get very frustrated by such moves and name changes. Naturally I was upset by the things that user had started to spread about me [10] and perhaps any comment I have made concerning that user which might have hinted at irritation is my reaction to that. If he wants to apologise I am happy to work with him in a supportive manner to improve the very poor conditions of his articles. I did try to re-insert the fact which was removed along with the ill-considered insertion of the alternative name at the beginning but did not kick up any fuss when I was rebuked for my poor solution a few days later after he initiated the campaign to watch my edits having (apparently) been upset by my edit on Shapshal, as will now become clear...
6. Although the second "incident" chronologically it began in response to an edit on Shapshal which I had made prior to the Babai edit.
2. You can see I had previously asked for more info on this POV [11] and had tried to make the related passage in the article more readable [12]. It was immediately reverted by a user [13] accusing me of a dishonest edit summary and making POV changes. He could have chosen to engage in the discussion I had initiated on the topic here but instead immediately started to throw false allegations at me in the edit summary. Seeing he was clearly upset at my attempt I simply assumed that he must have been the one who inserted the POV in the first place and I returned to the discussion board to ask him to talk about it. Mezzo Mezzo says that there was no previous interaction with that user, but as you can see this is simply not the truth of the matter.
7. I think very general comments have been taken too personally here. I ("the guy") just wanted to offer him peace.
4. I naturally thought he was talking about the Template talk:Sunni Islam because I had not interacted with him anywhere else at that point.
1. Is it possible to "accuse" someone of belonging to a religion? I did assume, apparently wrongly to my embarrassment. I did not imagine it would cause offence since it is the religion he was championing. I have apologised for my assumption.
3. I had been thanked for mentioning fish [14] in my last question at the teahouse and thought I had to mention some food item in every question there, hence I started with a Biscuit. The term Big-wig is not defined as having any negative connotations [15] and does not refer to anyone discussed here. Again my very general comment is being taken too seriously.

I genuinely thought MezzoMezzo and I were getting along quite well until after this comment [16]. It seems there is a small degree of "paranoia" or at least suspicion over socks which might be the origin of problems users are having with my challenges. Nevertheless, Mezzo was still being very gentlemanly and cordial with me [17] prior to the other User's comment stoked unnecessarily the embers of Mezzo's bad past experience [18] to make a fire which wasn't there. As I am about to post this message I see a big orange notice about informing other users being discussed if I am starting the discussion about them, since I am not starting the discussion I am assuming all users mentioned by Mezzo have been informed. But if I am interpreting this notice wrongly please be gentle enough to let me know and I will do as I am instructed. I hope this report against me will be seen as a case of misunderstandings and not have a negative impact on my future reputation here at wiki. Many thanks for this opportunity to explain things the way I see them. I am open to advise and do hope to be able to patch things up with Mezzo. F.Tromble (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

  • The best way to deal with this would be mentoring. F.Tromble, why did you decide to respond to things in such a higgledy-piggledy manner? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I would very much appreciate a mentor. Yes please! May I ask why you thought my response is higgledy-piggledy please? I have a small amount of legal training and was always taught to present facts in a chronological way. Thus I sorted out the chronology for readers to better understand the precise sequence of events. Is that what you are asking about sir? F.Tromble (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, in some cases a chronological response is desirable, but in this case, it is simply confusing, and it would've been better to respond to the evidence in the order that the evidence was presented. As you have had legal training, surely you should realize that the best way to present a case is to make it as simple as possible? If you want further information on finding a mentor, you will find Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area and Wikipedia:Mentorship to be a useful read. (And no, I'm not offering my services as a mentor, as there are only a few less suitable people out there for such a task!) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry you found it confusing. In answer to your question, if I did not get the chronology right from the outset I would have become persona non grata for at least a month lol. The first thing in any case was always to establish the correct sequence of events. Anyway it was not the career for me. :) Thank you very much for the links Luken94. F.Tromble (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
A third editor elsewhere has spontaneously mediated some of these issues elsewhere. Based on discussion here and at User:F.Tromble's talk page, the issue seems to have been resolved and the answer to my original question - what to do in this case - seems to be outside involvement but in an informal setting. This can probably be closed now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2014 (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.

Longterm disruptions from IP[edit]

On the above articles and more: same IP range that was active last year, edit warring at a series of articles about Swedish films. Account is again adding unsourced content and removing appropriate templates. Never engages in discussion, never uses edit summaries, never adds sources. In the past one or more of these accounts was blocked, and several articles were protected. Will request renewed protection if that's advised. JNW (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Triple jump[edit]

Fram Semi-protected Triple jump for 7 days.(non-admin closure)--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2014 (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.

Please protect Triple jump. There is a streak of IP and new editor vandalism happening there. Trackinfo (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected, thanks. Fram (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2014 (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.

Disruptive editing in Michael Grimm (politician)[edit]

Closed and withdrawn. No action necessary. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2014 (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.

Background: There is a section of the Michael Grimm (politician) article which includes (or rather included) an incident where said politician threatened to throw a news reporter off a balcony, and "break him in half". The article attracted some problematic attention since the event was described there.

Not long ago, User:Collect deleted sections of the event's description, including the actual quotes of what the politician said to the journalist. The title "Threats against journalist Michael Scotto" was changed to "Scotto interview" by Collect, despite that Michael Grimm has been described by news media as threatening Scotto.
  • Before the edits:

After I restored the section, User:Collect came back and reverted me, referring to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I don't see how it's a violation of NPOV to describe a notable incident which has been described by many sources. Can someone here come with some input on this situation? I see a history of edit warring in Collect's block log, and I don't want to participate in one myself. - Anonimski (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Examine the edits. No substantive material was removed -- the need for extended quotes, use of anonymous sources etc., pointed section titles etc. appear on their face to violate WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

For example: Criminal Investigation v. "Campaign investigation noting that zero criminal allegations about Grimm have been made.
Threats against journalist Michael Scotto v. Scotto interview which appears to assert that a person made actual threats against a person. It is better to leave it up to the reader.
After Scotto had "tossed it back to the studio," the camera—which was still rolling—recorded Grimm quickly walking up to Scotto and leaning in toward his face, while audibly saying, "Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again, I'll throw you off this fucking balcony." When Scotto protested that it was a "valid question," Grimm replied, "No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy." v. Grimm then appeared to intimidate Scotto, saying that he would "break (Scotto) in half." appears to contain the salient facts without breaching WP:UNDUE.
And of course the wonderful An un-named former staffer for Grimm and NY1-TV political director Bob Hardt have reported that Grimm has intimidated reporters on previous occasions.[1][2] which is pure innuendo ascribed to an anonymous source. Cheers. In the case at hand, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violations are clear -- I know Silly Season has started -- but this sort of innuendo pushing and overstatement is absured -- oh and one last bit
a Houston-based former girlfriend and fundraiser of Grimm's was inserted as a parenthetical claim about a donor who was charged with improper donations ... and the "girlfriend" bit has no place in the BLP at all. Grimm again has faced no charges or allegations of violating the law per the source. Collect (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Have you discussed this with Collect prior to bringing the issue here? Please remember that ANI is for matters requiring administrative action, and not for content disputes (though BLP issues may at times require administrative attention). I don't see evidence that you've attempted to discuss your edits with Collect. Acroterion (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
He made no comment other than his "edit summary" of Reverted a disruptive edit that user Collect did in three steps. Grimm has been described by media as threatening the reporter. As for the deletion of the related quotes and other info: Wikipedia is not censored.. Which appears to be quite clear as to his position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
That's all I saw too, which was an inappropriately aggressive edit summary to use when another editor has reverted on BLP and NPOV grounds. "Not censored" is not the same as "anything goes." Acroterion (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to see that this was brought here to get wider attention. Collect's version should be held up as a great example of how to summarize controversy in an NPOV way and not putting in undue weight. Maybe these diffs can be added as an example to a policy page?.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I am sorry that you interpreted my edit summary as aggressive, but I tried to be brief. Anyway, I thought that the statements we made in our edits was sufficient discussion for the issue to be brought here. As for User:Cube_lurker's feedback on it really OK (and NPOV) to remove the quotations that directly relate to the incident itself? As for the WP:BLP issue: how can it be violation of the "Biography" policy to describe when someone threatens a news reporter? The statements came from Grimm himself, in front of a camera, and were notable enough to be covered by lots of media outputs. Is that "likely to be challenged"? - Anonimski (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    We sumarize. In the article about his appology he has 4-5 sentences of quotes. We also don't use all of those either. We present facts in an encyclopedic fashion and let the reader draw their conclusions. Individual matters may be debateable, however when you compare the 2 versions in whole, One is far more NPOV than the other. One is far more what a wikipedia article should be.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)--Cube lurker (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I fully endorse Collect's summary. I don't know if it's "textbook", since the words "implied" and "appeared to" are still in there. Anonimski, leaving quotes in or not is a matter of editorial judgment. We shouldn't overdo it. One could quibble over the "fucking balcony", which has taken on a life of its own--but as Collect implies (!), when the cucumber season is over this won't be so important anymore. Let's face it, reliable sources also report things that are of no lasting value whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • ANI is a poor forum for such discussions, and a couple of edit summaries do not constitute substantive discussion. I don't think you've quite assimilated how NPOV and BLP are applied in practice: I encourage you to use the article talkpage to discuss your concerns, bearing in mind that Collect has provided a detailed summary of his concerns and their basis in policy. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not the news: you seem to be approaching the subject from a news-based and somewhat sensationalized point of view, not a biography-in-an-encyclopedia position. Acroterion (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I retract my notification then, but I still think that much of the editing was tendentious, especially the title change where "Threats against journalist" was removed. - Anonimski (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • For the record, there's another thing (in general, not necessarily to Anonimski). We like to use words like "threaten" as if they're always clear; they're not. The other day I told an editor, "I'd hate to see you get blocked for taking this too personally", to which they said, "Are you really threatening me?" Well, maybe, maybe not. I didn't think I was, since I wasn't necessarily going to do it, and I didn't literally say "I'm going to block you unless..." But they interpreted it as a threat (they wouldn't have interpreted it as such if I weren't an admin, of course). In other words, the statement that something is a threat is frequently a matter of interpretation or, to state it incorrectly but fashionably, "a POV term, dude". And one consideration is, is it to be taken seriously? Not just, would this guy literally break me in half or is that a metaphor, but also, is he really likely to go and hurt me in this public space in front of the camera? So there may have been a threat of sorts, but most likely not that someone would be broken in half or, really, thrown off a balcony (let alone a fucking balcony--another metaphor)--or even physically attacked there and then. If this is too long and boring and you don't see the point of it, you shouldn't use words like "threaten", unless it's in the form of "according to the NYT, X threatened to throw Y off the balcony". There. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

While I have everyone's attention - I suggest looking at Talk:Chiropractic wherein I suggest that when an opening paragraph of an article has a readability worse than 95% of all Wikipedia articles, that improvement is to be sought - and keeping the salient material results in a readability at the 26th percentile (a leap of over 20% of Wikipedia articles) -- not too bad for a technical/medical article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and should be closed. If there was edit-warring, that is a matter for the edit-warring notice board. I don't know anything about Grimm, but incidents like this deserve little attention, unless they are seen as part of a pattern, receive on-going extensive coverage or have significant consequences. None of those conditions apply, and if Collect has cut the coverage down to one section of two paragraphs, then he has probably left too much in. TFD (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I’m going to provide a good bit of background because I think it’s necessary to understand the situation. There exist within Wikipedia a group of POV-pushers who take issue with the word American being applied to the citizens of the United States of America. Their POV-pushing has mainly focused on Names for United States citizens and Americans, but also has extended into other articles. I have undone some of their actions, and I have also (successfully) sought administrator assistance in opposing them.

The POV-pushers in question are a group of bigots who wish to inflict Spanish linguistic norms upon the English language. They contend that North America and South America are one continent called America, and that the word American should not be used to refer to the people of the United States of America, but rather to all the peoples of the new world. In talk page discussions they tend to make up novel expressions to refer to the people of the United States.

On the 7th of February an IP editor with no other editing history inserted a completely un-sourced paragraph into Names for United States citizens which contained the claim that the new world came to be known as America. The paragraph gives no additional context. For example: It doesn’t say that it came to be known as America in Spanish, nor does it say that it came to be known as America until it came to be called North America and South America. Because the labeling of the entire new world as America is one of the core tenants of the POV-pushers I described earlier I became immediately suspicious. However, because I assume good faith (when appropriate) I didn’t accuse the IP editor of POV-pushing. Instead I reverted their edit for being un-sourced. I figured that when they provided a source I could use that source to give their claim the necessary context.

Instead a small edit war ensued with User:Coquidragon, User:BilCat, and User:The Bushranger trying to war the paragraph in without a source while I attempted to refer them to WP:BURDEN and WP:V. It ultimately culminated in User:The Bushranger inserting a source.

Now that you know the background I would like to explain that I am not here because of a content dispute, and I am not here to complain about User:Coquidragon and User:BilCat being a couple of Randies. I am here because of a particular comment that User:The Bushranger posted on my talk page.

He said: “Please remember that according to WP:V, "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article."”

This is the first time I have ever seem an administrator engage in Wikilawyering. Bushranger is well aware that the text he quoted is from the portion of WP:V that addresses original research. He is well aware of the way that WP:V is routinely applied to remove un-sourced statements from Wikipedia. He is well aware of the fact that the removal of un-sourced statements is an essential part of maintaining Wikipedia’s integrity. He is well aware of the fact that using the wording of a rule to subvert the meaning of a rule is prohibited. And he is well aware of the fact that the way I interpreted WP:V is the way that WP:V is meant to be interpreted and is interpreted by the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors.

I am here to ask that User:The Bushranger be sanctioned for willfully misrepresenting Wikipedia policy. An administrator should not be permitted to take the attitude that “the rules say whatever I want them to say right now”. (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

[[19]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

  • My statement is, in fact, the way WP:V is interpreted; the section of the WP:V page it was on is irrelevant. The policy is simply that a source does not have to be in an article, unless the article is a BLP, it need only exist, and while it's unfortunate that 76* was previously unaware of this, it doesn't change that that is accepted consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hm. Well, on the face of it, The Bushranger is right: statements that aren't supported directly by an inline citation don't have to be removed simply because they don't have an inline citation (other than BLP issues, of course). They can be removed, but they don't have to be; that is indeed what {{cn}} is for (not to mention that you don't need to cite that the sky is blue). Things that are self-evident or clearly and easily verifiable without an explicit source don't actually need an explicit source. Basically, what Bushranger is saying is that, though all facts on Wikipedia need to be verifiable somehow, they don't all need to be backed by an inline citation, which is true. His quote of policy was perhaps not the best one to support his statement, but the statement itself is true.

    However, if it has in fact been removed (i.e. challenged), it needs a reliable source before it should be inserted back in, which is what WP:BURDEN (a subsection of verifiability) says: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source, so IP76 was right, too. I think it was a bit silly for IP76 to remove such a seemingly common-knowledge paragraph (and perhaps that's why the other editors didn't immediately provide a source); a citation needed template would've been better imo, but maybe that's just me: they were well within their rights to remove it. There's nothing that obligates them to go through the intermediate steps. In an ideal world, what would've happened after either the tag or the removal is: instead of edit-warring over the paragraph without a source, Coquidragon and/or BilCat would've raised a discussion on the talk page, presumably something to the effect of "Hey, this paragraph seems like it's pretty much common-knowledge to me, I don't think we need to directly source it." IP76: "I don't know about that, I'd like to see a source for it, per WP:PROVEIT." The rest: "[grudgingly:] *sigh* Okay, fine, let's dig up a source." Source is found, paragraph reinstated with the source cited inline, everyone's happy. Here, instead, an edit war happens, which is distinctly not ideal, but it ends when The Bushranger steps in and reinstates the paragraph, and more importantly adds a source for it unprompted five minutes later.

    So, really, I'm not sure what your case against Bushranger is; they didn't really do much edit-warring and in fact complied with your request, and their statement about verifiability wasn't wrong (though perhaps not apropos or quoted particularly well). I'd say trouts to BilCat and Coquidragon for edit-warring, a trout for the IP for making mountains out of molehills (you really should've discussed it with The Bushranger before coming here), and The Bushranger gets maybe a minnow for not including the inline citation in their initial edit. Writ Keeper  23:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

    • I guess I've learned what to do (or not to do) for the future. "Strout" is received as a learning opportunity. Nevertheless, I read the accusation from the IP, the explanation given, his comment on my talkpage which starts with "What the hell are you doing?," and I see that there is much baggage behind its edit, baggage which was not know to me at the time of the edit. I only saw an anonymous IP delete content which is common knowledge (there was no POV-pushing intended), and I restored the info, adding the "Citation needed" tag, and explaining the "not-necesarily" needed mid-step of adding a tag before deleting content, step that I assume would be received in good faith. Thanks to the editors for the explanations here given.--Coquidragon (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems the simple way to resolve this is to find a source and craft a line or two that reflects it. Best one I know of is...
The Fourth Part of the World: The Race to the Ends of the Earth, and the Epic Story of the Map That Gave America Its Name by Toby Lester (Simon and Schuster, 2009)
That source's Preface gives a good overview of what was called what and when, especially with regard to the name "America" and what that was used to describe at the time. The e-book is available (free) at the above link so everyone involved can read the source for themselves. There are other sources but that one is a particularly good book - well written, well researched and professionally published. Everything subsequent is a content dispute. Stalwart111 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The sourcing issue is already done, actually. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Then I have nothing further to contribute! LOL. It's actually a very good book - well worth a read. Stalwart111 02:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
And my impression was that everything else was a content dispute. Am I wrong? Stalwart111 03:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


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

Would someone please review this user's actions in repeatedly adding comments to my talk page when I've said that I don't want them (either there or directly in my archives) and threats to harass me, on- and off-wiki, if I don't stop removing the comments? Diffs:

HectorMoffet seems to think that I have to keep messages from him on my talk page or in my archives as a matter of public record, no matter who points out to him that I can remove them if I wish (something he has done for messages to him, I note). I don't see why I should have to put up with threats of on- and off-wiki harassment because I won't bow to his demand to have his criticism of me in my user page archives. After all, he's already called me the "TFA fuhrer" and taken his criticisms of me not just to Jimbo's talk page but the talk page of a Signpost editor and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bencherlite, so it's not as though he hasn't made his views widely known already - there is no need, apart from harassment, for him to carry on editing my talk page like this. BencherliteTalk 15:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The supposed RFCU is straight up harassment by HectorMoffet. As Crisco notes in it, he seems intent on committing suicide by admin. Resolute 15:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't call it suicide by admin, necessarily, i assume he's just pissed off about something. He's apparently not listening to advice from several other people, so I've blocked him until he agrees to knock it off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Floquenbeam. While I've got everyone's attention, can I just spam ANI to point out that WP:TFAR is open for business 24/7/365 for suggestions for "Today's Featured Article". If nobody makes suggestions, then your friendly neighbourhood TFA coordinator/czar/fuhrer has to choose something anyway, so join in today and share the criticism with me! BencherliteTalk 15:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


N.B. This was originally posted at WP:AN, but since this is much more of an incident, I've moved it here. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User Khabboos has continuously and knowingly violated and attempted to violate Wikipedias stance on neutral point of view and rule on editing originally on four pages (Talk:Karachi, Talk:Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush). He has already been warned by other editors that this is not allowed. Even though knowing this he continued to request to have mine and Inayity edits reverted on the Sindhi people page. Following his recent edits on the Hindu Kush (here and here) with his deliberate disruptive editing of a quote in a attempt to push his "agenda" I had personally come to inform him that he is severely risking being banned.

Despite being clearly informed of this, he completely ignored my message and want on his normal ways on the Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush pages. He would again violate NPOV on Hindu Kush, restoring his edit after being told its not allowed and again even after being told by 3 different editors that his edits are not neutral and unsourced. He also claims that the sources provided say "flee" instead of "migrated" but on the contrary both sources say "migrated".

Other disruptive edits include:

Claiming to have "found a good reference" for the Jayapala page even though none of his edits related to the source provided.

Using original research on the Hinduism in Pakistan page (here) which is also not allowed on Wikipedia.

Using original research on the Persecution of Hindus page (here and here). The references used are the same as the ones used on Hinduism in Pakistan.

Adding a reference to the Sindhi page (here) to citation a needed. Though he provided a source it does not mention the numbers given on the article. I have already and several times before have told him to make sure his edits are supported by the source he has given and to make sure the source he gives is relates to the citation needed.

Providing a "dead" "sourced" link to the Hinduism page (here); which called Hinduism "a way of life" which would also conflict with the fourth and fifth word in the first sentence of the first article which are "a religion". AcidSnow (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You tried WT:INB, or WP:DRN? Noteswork (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Noteswork, please do not give misleading advice on noticeboards - WT:INB is not an appropriate place to raise a contributor's behavioural issues, dispute resolution is only of use where there is an active discussion, and page protection is unlikely to solve a problem spread over multiple articles. I've not looked at the evidence in detail, but from Acidsnow's comments, it appears that admin action may be needed - in which case, this page is exactly the place to raise the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
And BTW, editing your posts long after initial posting [20] is confusing and unhelpful too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
While I'm new here, I have been taking advice from friends who are active here. They tell me that I can ask for a senior to tutor me, that I can write anything on the Talk page and it is counted only as a discussion, not an edit. I also asked questions at the Tea House. I was also told that if more than a week has passed after I posted something, I will not be blocked/banned for it. Please tell me how to proceed.—Khabboos (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I have never heard of this, who said it? I have warned you before that you were risking being banned if you continued, yet you ignored my message and continued. Anyways, even if it was true it does not mean much. As for the talk pages I said "attempted" since you were warned that these break NPOV and were clearly showing "to be advocating your point of view".
*Sigh*, once again you have added original research on the Persecution of Hindus page (here and here). This also has been said by another user too (here and here). Why are you still doing this when me and other editors can see your edits? How many times must you be told to stop before you stop? AcidSnow (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Some links that may be helpful. This is only for the Hindu Kush portion, which I happened to see at the teahouse (I don't know anything about the rest of the articles). Here is the teahouse thread, WP:Teahouse/ Here is my request for some savvy folks to take a peek, if they could, User_talk:Drmies#Talk:Hindu_Kush. Here is the article-talkpage thread, Talk:Hindu_Kush#Possible_edit_war. Note that dispute over the "literal translation" sentences in mainspace (albeit not between AcidSnow and Khabboos I hope! :-) has been going on since 2005, see Talk:Hindu_Kush#Miscellaneous. Khabboos claims to be getting information straight from the 1957 national geographic article, if I understand the article-talkpage conversation. Hope this helps. (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, you asked a question at the Teahouse on January 27, but a review of that discussion does not show any such advice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I have already asked him who said it and to come back to the ANI on his talk page, but he has yet to do so. Hopefully he stops ignoring it so we can end these types of edits. This user appears to have a serious problem with Islam (see his most recent talk page discussion). Not just those but he has also continued to lie about his references then post them all over Hinduism in Pakistan (here and here) and on the Umayyad Caliphate page (here). AcidSnow (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I had made some edits to the article Hinduism in Pakistan that can be seen at, but User:AcidSnow has formatted it, removing the sentences that say there were forced conversions back in time, that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005 etc (the references say that). Please tell me what to do about it.—Khabboos (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you just ignoring all of my messages especially the edit summaries and the talk page I have left? None of the sources you provided support your POV. Are you simply Google searching books on the history of Pakistan without even reading them? As for the mob I have said this twice before it was a response to an alleged Quran desecration which you continued to ignore in your edits. It was not out of hate against Hindus but rather and attack out of anger. You have also ignored the questions previously asked you, but raised a question on what to do with my edits that have broken no rules. AcidSnow (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', but you removed it, which means you did break the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. In the article on Sindhis, you removed the names of 2 Sindhis, stating that they were not Sindhis, but the surname, Vaswani (see and Vaswani, J.P.'s, 'I Am a Sindhi: The Glorious Sindhi Heritage - The Culture & Folklore of Sind. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 129–135. 9788120738072.') is a truly Sindhi surname (your edit summary can be seen here), which is again a breaking of the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war.—Khabboos (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Block proposal[edit]

I am not sure if I am allowed to do this as I am not an administrator, but this appears to be the only solution to deal/stop with this user. Following his countless POV edits, disruptive edits, use of original research, lies, ignoring messages when told to stop and to rejoin the discussion (see my other comments above) I have request to have this user to be blocked form editing on Wikipedia. AcidSnow (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a strong claim, and needs substantiation; please post specific diffs to show that the user has lied. (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
He has and very clear ones would when he said, "I was also told that if more than a week has passed after I posted something, I will not be blocked/banned for it." (he is referring to the Teahouse and I am not the only one that called him out on it). He has also claimed to "have found a good reference". AcidSnow (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You said that the user has lied.
Please can you show me where he has lied. Thanks. (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
For the rule he stated, theres nothing at either Teahouse discussion that says anything like it (see here and here for each one). There's also no other discussion about it in his contribute history (had to make sure so I don't make false accusations). As for the "good reference", none of the edits he made are related to it, so he lied about that too. AcidSnow (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, so, you're talking about Khabboos (talk · contribs), right? Got it.
Next, can you show some specific diffs that require admins? Thanks. (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I am confused as to what you mean by that and what you are? You know a lot about Wikipedia's policies and have made many edits so far in your first day. They range from articles edits to blocking discussion; these are not normal for a first time editor. Have you been a user before?
Anyways, I have already listed all the things he has done up above. This discussion needs administrator intervention since this user could careless what others say (has been warned countess times). I was also guided here by a helpful user. Another user who has also glanced at this section also see it as such. Since you appear to have missed the issues stated about this user please reread this discussion.
EDIT: It appears that you have been a user here before since you claim to have made "over 100,000 edits". But than again "everybody lies". AcidSnow (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', but you removed it, which means you did break the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. In the article on Sindhis, you removed the names of 2 Sindhis, stating that they were not Sindhis, but the surname, Vaswani (see and Vaswani, J.P.'s, 'I Am a Sindhi: The Glorious Sindhi Heritage - The Culture & Folklore of Sind. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 129–135. 9788120738072.') is a truly Sindhi surname (your edit summary can be seen here), which is again a breaking of the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. I therefore request the administartor/s to block AcidSnow instead of me.—Khabboos (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Your going to try to block me for going against your NON NPOV? You do realize since you keep on failing to mention that it was an anger attack not a hate crime that you are once again pushing your POV (which you have been told countless times that it not allowed? This is not breaking a rules if I remove it since it misrepresents the source. Also its not an edit war if you revert it once (once again I have not broken any rule). Dispet knowing this you continue to readded it (here) I removed it because they are not sourced being Sindhi. You know many Turks have the name Yusuf which is an Arab name, but they are not Arab? So the use of the surname does not help.
You also added an unsourced comment to the Babri Mosque (here) about Pakistani Hindus which has nothing to do with the Mosque. This called Original Research, find a source next time (really, I still need to tell you this?). You also added another reference to Temples to the lead that have nothing to do with the mosque once again (here). AcidSnow (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Could you also tell us who told you the one week rule? You have already been asked twice, so you might as well as do it now. AcidSnow (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
My offline wikipedia friends told me that if an edit goes unchallenged for more than a week and it is backed up by references that say the same thing, it is acceptable.—Khabboos (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Name? "unchallenged" and "backed up by references", odd, you did not say these before. Anyways this has nothing to do with the issues you have caused as they were challenged and not backed up. This also has been a continues problem too. AcidSnow (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear admins, In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', which said the same thing, but AcidSnow is continuously removing it, so please tell me what to do.—Khabboos (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Why are constantly saying this? I have given you 3 legitimate reasons why its not needed, yet you keep on asking for Admin assistance? You are wasting time.

─────────────────────────AcidSnow Could you explain to me why the sentence "Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera" is not relevant as it appears to be sourced? Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 00:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You are now forumshoping: (request for medition, asking at ANI which you did more than once, making your own section at ANI, asking Smsarmad, and at the teahouse). AcidSnow (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your a 100% right Flat Out that it "appears" to be sourced and if that was the only thing the source said or that it was a "hate crime" or anything related to it than it would also be ok to add. However, the article goes on to say they were out to "avenge an alleged desecration of Holy Quran by a man here". As you can see it was done out of anger and nothing to do with persecution. It is also a miss representation of the source as the section it's being used is discussing persecution of Hindus. This is just another one of his attempts to push his POV. Those were the three reasons: nothing to do with persecution, miss representation of the article, and POV pushing. AcidSnow (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, AcidSnow. It's important to remember that not everyone has the benefit of all of the details of the disagreement and that you will need to be specific both here and at arbitration. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 02:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Understood, Flat Out I have edited my response at the Request for mediation.. Could you close it now since it's now pointless to have it open? Also do I continue too wait for assistance? AcidSnow (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I cant close. I will review your additions at Arbitration - Good luck Flat Out let's discuss it 03:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you anyways. AcidSnow (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I restored this discussion because it is still ongoing. If it was removed due to lack of discussion, it is because Khabboos has staled it even though I have asked him to return to it. This is not about a "dispute", but rather his inappropriate behavior. All Khabboos is trying to do is shift the discussion from his inappropriate behavior to this "dispute" he is "trying" to "resolve". In fact he would rather see me banned. When he responded to me, as you can see here, he has no desire to discuss his continues inappropriate behavior and even denied the discussions existence. AcidSnow (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
There can be no mediation because: (1) "the mediation process is unsuitable for complaints about the behaviour of other editors" (see Wikipedia:Mediation); and (2) because User:AcidSnow has not agreed to mediation. We need to discuss the behaviour issues.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


AcidSnow has said that Khabboos provides citations that did not contain the information that they were claimed as a source for. I have looked at three of the citations that AcidSnow has complained about, and his/her complaints are justified.[21][22][23] Khabboos, do you have an explanation for these?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There are also cases where Khabboos has provided a genuine citation, but the citation only supports part of what he/she has added. This example happened today.[24] The citation is completely accurate for the second sentence, but does not support the first sentence.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Toddy1, thank you for trying to keep this discussion going, but I doubt he well bother responding. As I have asked him to return, but he would ignored me and denied the discussions existence. AcidSnow (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Two-day old account from Santiago,, stumbled upon the Holocaust in Poland with absolutely no interest in the subject.[25] Began by removing names of historians and citations,[26][27] almost from the get-go using abusive edit summaries (please look around, he writes abusive summaries with virtually every other edit he makes: "laughable", "horror show", "subjective waffle", "pointless", "preaching", "puffery", "completely absurd" and so on). Now, when reverted,[28] becomes hysterical, starts screaming,[29] and removes even the {{cite journal}} formatting, blanket-reverts quotations from reputable historians etc. I can clearly see an agenda, but would not go as far as to suspect a sockpuppet of an established user. However, if you look closely at the nature of his edits, they are borderline disruptive almost all the way through, and very standoffish.[30] Poeticbent talk 06:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Just checking some of these edits, I get the impression that this person is trying to slim down the article by getting rid of chaff. For example, the Bryan Gaensler edit ("laughable") makes a good point, and it is rather ridiculous to make the claim that he's removing; this isn't abusive. Regarding Yad Vashem (this edit, he has a good point about this being opinion (unless I'm missing something, "Righteous Among the Nations" isn't something with strict criteria), and the later edit makes a sensible comment about not everyone getting recognised. Here he removes something that, in all fairness, really doesn't belong — good encyclopedia articles just say that something's the fact, or they say that it's disputed, but when they can use footnotes like ours, they don't mention specific authors in the text unless they're focusing on the authors themselves, which isn't the case here. Nyttend (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Summaries are abusive, not the edits. Poeticbent talk 06:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Pointing out errors in articles is not abusive. Correcting mistakes is not disruptive. What is the agenda that you clearly perceive? (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
In what way are the summaries abusive? I've put "rmv puffery" in an edit summary quite often. ES&L 12:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm, Nyttend, am I missing something here? You refer to a comment the IP supposedly made about Yad Vashem, but then link to an article about Bryan Gaensler (what's he got to do with this request here?). ?. And *there are* actually pretty strict criteria for "Righteous Among the Nations", although I guess one could say that "there are no strict criteria for winning a Nobel Prize" just as well. It is not up to Wikipedians to judge what is "opinion" and what is "fact", but rather to report what reliable sources say. If there's some issue with WP:UNDUE or something that's one thing, but this does not appear to be the case here. It's more just that the IP doesn't understand/doesn't like standard Wikipedia policies (personally I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the edit summaries, but letting them know what the policies are would be a good thing). Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Two mistakes by me. (1) I meant to link this diff, which is definitely about Yad Vashem. (2) I always thought it was a general term for non-Jews who opposed the Holocaust, and the intro to righteous Among the Nations, "an honorific used by the State of Israel to describe non-Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust to save Jews from extermination by the Nazis", seemed to confirm what I was thinking. I didn't scroll down, so I failed to understand that it's a title that's officially awarded to specific people. Just please note that the Bryan Gaensler edit is somewhat relevant, since it was one of the diffs that Poeticbent raised, and I still agree with my original statement about "laughable" not being abusive in this context. Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak for Poeticbent, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't care about the edit summaries. It's the edit warring and the refusal to engage in meaningful discussion that's irking me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the IP (not an account, obviously) on The Holocaust in Poland and warned them for edit warring. Whatever the truth (or the right thing) may be, they do not have consensus on the talk page for their edit. I don't see how this needs to be an ANI thread at this point. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3‎ edit warring[edit]

It seems to me this thread has gone past the point of being in anyway productive. Yes, this is an non-admin close by an "involved" contributor so if you simply must revert feel free, but I ask you to consider what possible good continuing the activities will do for Wikipedia-the-Encyclopedia before choosing to do so. NE Ent 16:18, 12 February 2014 (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.

Would someone uninvolved please step in at this current RFA talk page? Multiple users have spent the better part of two days repeatedly reverting one piece of commentary back and forth. Since this concerns an open RFA, it's a potentially sensitive issue; perhaps a crat is willing to step up and figure things out? There are a number of editors to notify about this post; please give me a few minutes and I should have them all covered. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That crap was originally posted by an IP....likely a ban evader...that is why I have been removing it.--MONGO 18:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to remove someone else's comments, you need a damn sight better reason than "likely" ban evasion. — Scott talk 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Like hell I do...there are only two probable explanations...the IP is a ban evader and or a chickenshit that doesn't want to use their real username.--MONGO 19:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Fail to see what this has to do with me. I have reinstated material because WP:TPO requires a discussion for material to be removed where there are clear objections to it being removed. I do not accept that the entire 59k of material is as it has been characterised. If there is content that clearly breaches WP:TPG it should be identified and selectively removed. There are clear objections to the content being censored en masse and it therefore should be discussed, not edit warred over. I was incorrect to state in my edit summary that the author had self-identified. That was an error and I apologise. For the reasons stated above I have reinstated the material once, I will not be doing so again. Leaky Caldron 18:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Once an editor suggested using Encyclopedia Dramatica as a reference, I had a feeling the dramu would only escalate. How about I withdraw my candidacy now and we just close this mess now before someone gets blocked? No point to give the author(s) hiding before the IP even more satisfaction. I'd appreciate a courtesy blank of the anon's post once the discussion is archived; if possible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've moved that post to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3‎/Statement by, since it's so long. Epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I see Future Perfect at Sunrise just protected the page. Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
And, sorry, while I see your motive in doing this, I have deleted that page, and removed the posting from the main page again too. The way I see it, there is simply no room for rational doubt that this is from an old participant in the EEML conflict with a heavy grudge and very deep personal involvement in the conflict. Why is that person posting from an anonymous IP? Either because they are a banned user and can't post otherwise (in which case it obviously has to be removed), or because they are an established user and don't want it connected to them – in which case it's an equally obvious breach of WP:SCRUTINY. In either case, it's obviously abusive and should not be allowed to stand. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact; where it's plain obvious that something comes from a *** sock there is no reason to bend over backwards to accommodate the ***. I've protected the page for a few hours to stop the unacceptable edit-warring too. Fut.Perf. 19:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Could you please explain why it's abusive? The comment was mostly a succinct account of some of the candidate's behaviour in relation to the Eastern European Mailing List and its members up to late 2013, supported by diffs. I looked at about half the diffs and found that they did support the claims they nominally supported, so they were not a breach of WP:NPA. Of course the IP was probably an enemy from some past conflict - but we don't know if they're banned, and they may have a valid reason to not disclose their identity. I know nothing about Piotrus, so I found the information helpful in deciding whether to support his candidacy.
Also, since it is clear that you believe the IP's comment should be hidden, and were a party to the edit war, was it appropriate for you to use your admin tool to lock the talk page in your preferred version? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
No idea what this is about. No recollection of interaction with the individuals involved. And no idea of the relevance or truth of the material posted. But if someone goes about writing a piece that long (whether a diatribe or otherwise) it warrants remaining on an RfA talk page. There's nothing overtly abusive about it, and if it's meaningless people will see through it, but a lot of RfA lies with someone character and history.
(And having someone post a diatribe about some long, long past drama does no hard to someone's chances during and RfA IMO. It can be a test of someone's suitability. Or it can settle minds that any concerns they have belong with ancient history.)
As a separate issue (so far as it can be separated), I don't agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise admin actions. He/she first removed the material, then locked the page, and deleted the material from a subpage. That's a scorched earth approach that goes beyond merely locking a page at The Wrong Version to prevent warring. A sufficient numbers of editors are involved in the dispute to demonstrate the issue is not cut-and-dry enough to warrant unilateral admin action of that force. --Tóraí (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I fail to see how your obvious view above on the content you deleted does not conflict with this explanation at WP:AN, "See my rationale here: [48]. – By the way, before anybody starts speculating about "involved" admin actions, I had resolved to protect that page in the state I found it (without the comment), as a perfectly uninvolved administrator, but then saw that somebody had beat me to it by a matter of seconds, reinstating the comment while I was preparing to hit the protect button. I think it is legitimate in such a situation to revert to the state I initially meant to protect. " You knew exactly what you were doing and why. I suggest you reinstate the sub-page at let others be the better, neutral judge than you can be. Leaky Caldron 20:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What "view about the content"? I have not expressed any. In fact, I personally would probably agree with many of the views expressed by that IP, but that's neither here nor there. Just because the IP may have been right about some things doesn't stop it being an abusive sock post in breach of – at least – WP:SCRUTINY, or – much more likely – WP:BAN. I see with some sadness that most of the people who rally against the removal of the sock posting are just those who are critical of Piotrus, and those who want it removed are those who are supportive of him. I, at least, am utterly free from suspicion of being Piotrus' friend or ally; in this sense I am certainly more qualified to take this decision from a neutral perspective than anybody else who has been involved here so far. Fut.Perf. 20:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Your "view" for example, "that there is simply no room for rational doubt that this is from an old participant in the EEML conflict with a heavy grudge and very deep personal involvement in the conflict." Maybe, but even a broken clock is accurate twice a day. No reason to remove all of that stuff without discussion. Leaky Caldron 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Why did you remove the comment and then protect the page? Why didn't you just protect the version that existed when you clicked "Protect"? It's clear from your comments here that you think that, because the IP is a banned user or has no good reason to hide his identity when criticising this person, their comment should be removed. You removed it, becoming a party to the edit war, then protected the page. Isn't that WP:INVOLVED? What am I missing? (I'm not looking for sanctions, admonishments or anything, just either a sensible explanation as to where I'm wrong in my analysis here, or an acknowledgement that you made a mistake.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Future, did you consider that the poster may have been someone who left Wikipedia of their own volition? They may be someone who never had an account. Or they may be someone who has lost access to their account (forgotten password, no email or disused email). The options you lay out are not the only ones.
I'm just as uninvolved and I don't see any evidence of a banned user or a sock (just someone who holds a grudge). Are we to consider all unflattering IP posts with suspicion? Should we assume they are all socks or banned users? --Tóraí (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Taken over protection I've taken over the protection. I was about to protect the page myself and I was doing research into the edit war first. When I went back to push the buttons, Fut Prof had already done so. However, had he not done so and only reverted, I would've ended up protecting it in whichever state it was in at the time and that would've been exactly as it is now. So, I've taken over the protection since there are questions about his revert. I don't consider this to incriminate him at all, I'm simply doing it so the question about whether the page should be locked or not are answers: yes, it should be locked. The appropriateness of the IP's comments have no bearing on whether or not protection was appropriate. It was.--v/r - TP 20:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Good move. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I was also trying to sort through the mess (I wasn't going to jump straight to full-protect, but whatever, stylistic differences I suppose) when FPaS protected. However, I'd say that if you feel strongly enough that there is a right version to wait for it to appear, you are almost certainly not impartial enough to protect it. If you feel strongly enough to revert back to your right version right before you protect, then you are definitely not impartial enough to protect it. Good end, bad means. Writ Keeper  21:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence the IP is evading a ban. I don't think there's any doubt that the IP is someone with an account that has been in conflict with the EEML, but that is no reason on its own to remove the listing. And MONGO, for you to complain about the piece and then to call the IP a "chickenshit" is hilariously hypocritical. The post was very relevant to the entire RfA, particularly given Piotrus' actions in this very RfA, and was fairly lacking in any personal attacks; everything in it was backed up by diffs, and they were fairly accurate as well - I know, because I checked a lot of them. Calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack, particularly not when backed up by the weight of evidence that there was. FPaS' decision to remove the post and then protect the page is, to be blunt, an abuse of their tools, which is disappointing for an admin I usually respect (I wouldn't have cared which version was protected, as long as the protecting admin didn't supervote; I requested protection in the hope that this wouldn't happen, and evidently I was wrong to expect it to be protected as it was.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Had the chickenshit used their username to post their diatribe I wouldn't have removed it.--MONGO 05:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, and given that FPaS deleted the subpage whilst doing their supervoting, can someone restore that, with full protection active please? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Fully agreeing with Lukeno94. Perfect summary and conclusion.--Razionale (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't necessarily have seen a strong need to delete that subpage. As such, I left a note for the deleting sysop, but obviously I respect his judgement on the delete. I can't say that editing immediately before protecting is something I'd have done. Pakaran 22:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
That is precisely the problem here, too much respect for an Admin. who has provided not one piece of evidence to justify removing a bit of controversial research and protected a page to his preferred version. How about respecting the editor's who want it restored. Just do it. Leaky Caldron 22:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • To echo this, and Anthonyhcole's similar comments, please take a look down this page at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Betacommand-related_drama.3F where Future Perfect is acting very similarly on another matter (and now that thread has been closed, he has been straight back to John Nagle's user talk: to repeat the same action, despite very clear requests not to).
AIUI, admins have extra tools but have no privileged voice in discussions. Editors are equal, and equal with admins. I believe this to be an absolutely fundamental part of how WP is constituted.
When we have an issue like this, it is thus a perilous action for an admin to start using admin tools to remove or hide parts of a discussion, good or bad. Editors making decisions or commenting on RfA or SPI should be allowed to remain in full possession of the facts. It is even worse when such actions are being carried out by an admin who is deeply INVOLVED themselves. For an admin to then start threatening blocks of GF editors who object is simply unacceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, how is this WP:NOTCENSORED? I genuinely don't see how the post falls under that category. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • That's the way I see it .... His post & actions were in essence being hidden so thus I viewed it as censorship .... (Perhaps i'm wrong but agree to disagree and all that.) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand now, thanks for explaining. But then, any comments removed from pages, or modified, would also technically have to fall under WP:NOTCENSORED, even if it is not obscene at all. What I was basically doing is moving the text to a new page so that people don't have to scroll through 59kb of text to get to the bottom of the page. Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • As one of the participants in the edit war, I was not in a position to protect the page or vaporize the subpage which was created to house the IP diatribe. However, it should be noted that (alone among all of the other edit warriors) I have not !voted in this RFA (and am likely to not do so, as I have too many conflicting views on this candidacy). Excepting FPAS and EpicGenius, all of the other people who removed the section were people who support Piotr's RFA, and every single one of the people who restored it (or have cast aspersions at FPAS) have made their dislike for Piotr clear. The IP editor (who geolocates to a university in Gdansk) has *0* other edits, and (from the polished look of the section) is obviously not a new editor. It's blindingly obvious that he's a ***, and more than likely not is a banned editor looking to extract a pound of flesh from Piotrus for his role in the EEML debacle. I gave the IP post all of the consideration it deserved (very little) and deleted it. When I was reverted, I had intended not to delete it again, and attempted to discuss it with the editor who reverted me. [31] When that was discarded out of hand ("not interested in hearing defense for censorship, sorry")[32] , I proceeded to revert it twice more (and the same editor undid my edits while screaming about "censorship" and a general how-dare-you-disagree-with-me attitude which I found offputting. I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I don't like *** from banned editors. Horologium (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
However, it should be noted that (alone among all of the other edit warriors) I have not !voted in this RFA (and am likely to not do so, as I have too many conflicting views on this candidacy). Excepting FPAS and EpicGenius, all of the other people who removed the section were people who support Piotr's RFA. Nope. I haven't voted in the RfA, or (IIRC) the last one either. Harassment is harassment regardless of whether one supports or opposes the candidate, and it should be simply removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
...every single one of the people who restored it (or have cast aspersions at FPAS) have made their dislike for Piotr clear. Nope. I don't know the guy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Marek, given how clearly the post exposes your abusive actions, you shouldn't try to paint yourself as even remotely uninvolved. And I don't really know Piotrus either, but the evidence is both overwhelming and not "harassment" - that's the response of people involved trying to cover their arses. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Luke, you seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension and a propensity to respond to figments of your imagination rather than the actual situation. At the same time you appear to be easy to influence, apparently because you're lazy and not particularly... astute. If you actually paid attention you'd note that I never "tried to paint myself as even remotely uninvolved". You are imagining things or you're deliberately misrepresenting things. Either way, doesn't speak well of you. Second, if you think that cowardly anonymous rant was anything but a bunch of bullshit upon bullshit, with irrelevant and false "diffs" sprinkled throughout to give it a semblance of legitimacy, well, what can I say, some people are easy to fool. It didn't "expose" any of my "abusive actions". Again, you are imagining things or you are deliberately misrepresenting things. It was harassment. It was bullshit. It was posted by some anonymous coward. And you, crying "notcensored!" like some twelve year old who doesn't get his way and calls his mommy a fascist, want to enable the harassment and humiliation by anonymous IPs of editors who have done more for Wikipedia than you a hundred times over. Editors, who, frankly, you are not even fit to comment upon (and no, I am not referring to myself). Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Marek, I read quite a few of the diffs, and normally I would be one of those reverting such a set of evidence - but normally it is invalid. Everything I read backed up what the IP said, and none of the diffs I read were even slightly misrepresented. Your desperation to cover your arse is fairly amusing, and fairly pointless. I do not have "a serious problem with reading comprehension and a propensity to respond to figments of your imagination rather than the actual situation" - you are blinded by your own abusive actions, and are desperate to hide them by any means necessary. How sad. Truly, who is the coward here - the person who didn't use their account because they knew of how much abuse they would get (and yes, I've seen the Encyclopedia Dramatica page), or the person desperately trying to cover up overwhelming evidence that shows they should've been banned a while ago? Hmm? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Wait. You're saying that this poor person didn't use their account "because they knew of how much abuse they would get" and then refer to Encyclopedia Dramatica? Essentially implying that if they had posted under their real name either *I* or maybe Piotrus or someone else would've... done a hit piece on them? Look you moron. It was Piotrus and me and others who were harassed on ED by these people, not the other way around. I really hope you're just sitting there lying because it's hard to believe that anyone would be that stupid. You don't have a single, not one, not a shred of evidence that *I* ever "abused" anyone on or off Wiki, outed them or otherwise harassed them. (Criticized them? Sure). So don't make accusations like that, and at least - please! - think a second or two before you write this stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk)
  • Still trying to cover up, I see. I never said that it would be you that made the abuse on ED, did I? No, that's what you wanted me to have said. Nor did I say that you had abused anyone - I said you had gamed the system, and the EEML ArbCom case categorically proves that. Nor do you have any evidence that this person ever had an account - it is not implausible that they have always edited as an IP. The diffs were not "fake", so that's just you lying through your teeth (whilst accusing others of lying). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
No, you just implied it, in your usual slimy way. As to whether this person ever had an account... please. No, they just popped out of the blue with an IP address talking about stuff that happened in 2006, with a super-nicely formatted bordered and aligned text, digging out diffs on stuff that nobody, not even me remembers, and thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policies! Stop being daft. (Actually, personally I'm pretty sure it wasn't just one user behind that post but that it was a "group effort" but nm) Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Implied it in my usual slimy way? What utter bollocks you spout in your desperation to try and continuing gaming the system, revealing you have no idea what I do here, but that you're just trying to discredit anyone who opposes you. The IP address may be new, but it doesn't mean that the person behind it wasn't using a different IP. There are several other reasons why they may be using an IP without just jumping to the "OMG they must be banned viewpoint"; someone who has retired from Wikipedia, someone who lost their password and has since changed emails (which is far from uncommon), someone who has undergone courtesy vanishing, or anything along those lines. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
If they had been "courtesy-vanished" they would not have been supposed to be editing at all, most certainly not in an area in which they were involved in disputes – as this person must have been – before they vanished. If they were simply retired or had lost their account, but were otherwise in good standing, then their very first words in that posting would have been: "I am former editor so-and-so, posting in this way because ...", or at least "I once met Piotrus during a dispute over article so-and-so in 2010". Any reasonable editor with the wiki-experience that this person undoubtedly had would have known that they would otherwise have been immediately suspicious; the fact that they nevertheless did not volunteer this information is proof enough of foul play. Simple common sense. Fut.Perf. 14:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Except that they may well have not wanted to disclose their account for the very reasons that have become obvious; the abuse they would get from the likes of Marek, and, given the various underhanded tactics that this group of editors have engaged in, if their account easily leads to the finding of their real name, they may well be very nervous of real-life repercussions. So no, not "simple common sense" - you're just seeing what you want to see. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Keep digging Luke, you're making yourself look more and more ridiculous. First you claim, or excuse me, imply, that the anon IP posted his attack as an anon IP because they were afraid that I or Piotrus would make attack pages about them on Enclycopedia Dramatica or something. When I call you out on your bullshit, you desperately call that "bollocks" and proceed to argue that ... the poor anon IP lost his password or something. So which is it, where they posting their attacks as an anon IP because they were scared because of what I might do to them or because they lost their password or something? And then when Future Perfect points out that you're talking nonsense you ... switch back to implying that they posted as an anon IP because "the abuse they would get from the likes of Marek" and because they were afraid of "real-life repercussions" from something I might do. And this after you originally denied that you were implying exactly that. Calling your behavior "slimy" is putting it very very very mildly. I have never outed, abused, harassed ANYONE you little twerp! If you had any decency you'd strike those accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Even in that case they ought still not have edited. WP:SOCK is quite clear on this: pursuing interpersonal disputes is never among the legitimate exceptions justifying posting under undisclosed identity. Or, if they felt there was some exceptionally serious justification for an exception, they ought to have privately contacted Arbcom or some administrator so that they could have vouched for their legitimacy. Fut.Perf. 14:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Marek, you claim you've never harassed anyone. So, explain to me how your comments to both the IP and myself aren't harassment? There are a multitude of legitimate reasons as to why the IP was posting as an IP. One reason is the existence of off-Wiki attack pages, and Encyclopedia Dramatica has been used in this case before (irrelevant of which side; the fact is, it is a well-known location for that sort of abuse to occur). That is a reason for them not disclosing their identity, and a reason for them editing as an IP. I gave other reasons as well afterwards, all of which are potential reasons. "The likes of Marek" is a reference to your clique, which has been proven to be an extremely abusive one, with editors having a history of sockpuppetry and a multitude of other violations. The irony of you calling other editors "slimy" is quite strong, to be honest. As is the irony of you accusing users of bullshitting, because that's all you've done since you first joined your clique/cabal. And you're pretty lucky that DangerousPanda hasn't yet found these latest edits, given that you were warned several posts ago to stop making personal attacks (which you make whilst accusing other people of making attacks... ironic yet again). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
explain to me how your comments to both the IP and myself aren't harassment? - you seem not to understand the difference between "criticism" and "harassment". They are not the same. Worse you have a twisted sense of morality, as in *you* appear to believe that if you belittle someone else, if *you* make false bullshit accusations against someone else, if *you* enable attacks and humiliation of Wikipedia editors then that's all hunky dory. But as soon as someone points out to you how messed up this behavior is OMG! THEY IS HARASSING ME! Do you have some special dispensation from God, the United Nations, or your local knitting club which says that "it's okay for Lukeno94 to act like an asshole on Wikipedia but no one is ever allowed to criticize him for it, because gosh darn it that's "harassment""? No? Then quit it with the double standards and take back the false accusations you've been making.
existence of off-Wiki attack pages, and Encyclopedia Dramatica has been used in this case before (irrelevant of which side; NO. It is NOT "irrelevant which side". It is central here. Attack pages and ED have been used to attack and harass *myself*, and Piotrus, and others (in some other vile ways which you are not even aware of). *I* have NEVER used attack pages and/or ED to attack or harass anyone. The fact that you seem to think that because someone else used these venues to attack me somehow proves that I would do the same... honestly I don't know how to describe that except "so stupid it hurts" (not to mention bad faithed but nm). Blame the victim much?
And you can throw the words "cabal" and "clique" all you want but that's pretty much in the same vein as you accusing me of planning to make attack pages on people. I don't have a clique or a cabal, sorry to disappoint. Again, you're full of shit and you're lying.
Finally, I didn't see any warnings from DangerousPanda (and jeez christ, can that guy PLEASE stick to a single account, legitimate alternative accounts or not, it's annoying and confusing as hell, and... unbecoming of an administrator) but I'll be damned if I let you sit here and lie about me, accuse me of some vile stuff without any proof, without any evidence, without any decency. You know, given the circumstances I've been quite restrained in telling you what I think of you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a warning at the bottom of this thread. And if you think that calling someone mentally unstable is not harassment, then quite frankly, you aren't worth talking to. I'd say "you don't belong here", but the EEML case proved that years ago. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure the poor anonymous IP who posted an attack on a Wikipedia editor is feeling very harassed. Will have to get counseling. In my opinion the level of obsessiveness with Piotrus and others, displayed by that person (more likely persons) definitely qualifies them for my description. Digging out obscure innane stuff from 2006? Yup. And buddy, I was here long before you showed up, and I promise you, I'll be here long after you're gone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Whether the IP's diffs were correct or not is of no relevance whatsoever. The post was abusive not because it was wrong, but because it was made from a position of illegitimate socking. No matter whether the original editor behind that IP is formally banned or not, or whether they just opted to "not use their account" for some reason you consider understandable – it doesn't matter a bit. Our rules are very clear on this: if you want to involve yourself in a matter of wiki-politics, you do it openly and under your legitimate account name. There is never an excuse for hiding your face in this way, even if you are otherwise an editor in good standing. That alone is compelling grounds for treating the IP as abusive, period. Fut.Perf. 10:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Show me the proof that the IP was originally a user with an account, and hasn't always edited as an IP? That's right, there isn't one. You're just making up policies to justify your supervote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh for fuck's sake. You can't seriously think that this is just some random passer-by, who just happened to get curious about Piotrus and then spent what must have been days digging through six or more years of wiki-history to compile evidence against him? Obviously this is somebody who has been closely following Piotrus and his disputes for years, and had intimate knowledge of the internals of these disputes. Now, show me one long-term IP editor who used to be active in that area and fits that profile. No, of course you don't know such an IP editor, there is no indication at all that this is the case, and I, having followed these disputes from some distance for much of this time, can confidently say there never was one. Sock judgments on Wikipedia don't rely on judicial methods of "proof", see WP:DUCK. If an anon IP or new account pops up out of nowhere and immediately jumps into an old dispute, revealing intimate knowledge of long-past situations, but doesn't volunteer any information about how he came to be so knowledgeable about it, then they are, always, without exception, a sock. Period. And then, every time, some boring old busybody on ANI comes by and starts obsessing about AGF and "show me some proof he's not a legitimate IP editor", bla bla. Yes, he might be a little green Martian too, show me proof that he's not, what the hell. I'm sick and tired of this boring old ritual. Stop insulting our intelligence by playing this stupid game. Fut.Perf. 12:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @FP. You have summarised WP:SOCK policy in a very simple way. The problem I have is that the policy as documented does not support your ruling that "No matter whether the original editor behind that IP is formally banned or not, or whether they just opted to "not use their account" for some reason you consider understandable – it doesn't matter a bit. Our rules are very clear on this: if you want to involve yourself in a matter of wiki-politics, you do it openly and under your legitimate account name." It would be great if the policy actually stated that, but it doesn't. Which heading of WP:ILLEGIT should I be looking at? Leaky Caldron 11:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Huh? It's plain as day: "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections". Obviuosly that also goes for editors choosing to edit logged-out without disclosing their link to their prior edit history (whether that prior edit history be itself through IPs or an account). Fut.Perf. 12:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
But editing the Talk Page at RfA is not included in the list of prohibited areas. It expressly lists voting at RfA, not adding to the RfA TP. Leaky Caldron 12:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. I didn't expect anybody would sink so low into wikilawyering. With this, you have finally lost any claim to being taken seriously here. Learn this: on Wikipedia, we read policy texts for their intent, not for their letter. Now go away, I'm no longer interested in having any discussion with you. Fut.Perf. 12:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
That's completely uncalled for. I didn't write the policy. I take it as read that those who did included everything they did (and didn't) for a good reason. Leaky Caldron 13:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I've been looking on to this for some while, and was in doubt whether I should say something here, but now here it goes: First: Further down Razionale quotes policy: "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." Thus, after Illraute reinstated the text on February 11 at 5.02, the text should have been left on the talk page. There was absolutely no justification to remove it anymore. The text itself is well written, shows evidence and uses no abusive language. To call a statement of fact a "personal attack" is preposterous, and not supported by any policy or guideline. The reader has to make up his mind what to make of it. And Piotrus should take responsibility for his actions, instead of trying to hide that there ever was anything going on. He would have gotten more support if he discussed his past freely instead of having removed it which led to his being swamped with opposes. Second: To protect a preferred version, after removing the content contrary to policy/guidelines, is conduct unbecoming an admin, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and I admonish you to avoid such actions in the future. Kraxler (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
1. A statement can be abusive even if it doesn't use "abusive language". Outing, lying, etc. 2. Piotrus did take responsibility and didn't try to hide anything. He mentioned the episode in his candidate statement both in this RfA and in the previous one. 3. He didn't "remove it". I did. Because it deserved to be removed. He didn't try "having it removed". 4. Future Perfect acted correctly, both in terms of Wikipedia policy and basic decency. Is it really too much to ask that people actually bother thinking and checking before they come here and talk nonsense? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Kraxler: you are mistaken about the "reinstating" policy. When it comes to talkpage postings, there's more to "reinstating" a sock's posting under the socking policy than simply to revert it in. You need to revert it in with the explicit aim of making it fully your own, taking full responsibility for it – that usually involves at least an explicit note in an edit summary, more commonly a note on the page itself, telling readers that you fully endorse every word of the posting and wish it to be read as if you yourself had written it all along. Once you do that, you will be held responsible for everything that's in it – if there's a personal attack in it, you will be the one who made the personal attack; if there are negative judgments, allegations or accusations in it, you will be judged as having made them. None of the editors who reinstated the anon's posting indicated that they wished to take this responsibility. And since none of them have so far claimed they in fact investigated and checked every single claim in the screed and verified every single diff, I dare say that it would have been hugely irresponsible for any of them to have done so. Making negative accusations about people at RfA is not a thing to be done lightly, so if even a single diff in that screed had turned out to be false or a single judgment to have been questionable, that would have seriously backfired on the person who reinstated it. But as it is, the way I read the edit history, nobody did do this, so it is still the IP's posting, and the IP's alone. Fut.Perf. 14:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is this turning into a huge drama-fest? Do people think that there is going to be another 65 support votes, which with no more opposes takes the RFA to ~70% support, without that information on the talk page? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Why the love of drama? Why the need to restore this attack on Piotrus by some cowardly anon IP ? Unless... the purpose really *is* just to humiliate him. Plenty of folks around Wikipedia, and especially RfA, who enjoy that kind of thing way too much. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose to TParis's unannounced and authoritarian offer of brushing-under-the-carpet. It aims at suppressing over 200 evidence diffs without any consideration. While the only claim remains that it could be from a banned user, which is possible but a speculation, this is long irrelevant because even if it were, then other users have already taken over the responsibility for the material [33] ("Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content."). Yes, taking over material exists, but "taking over protection"s is bizarre and some way to undermine the objection to super-voting. Since the report contains pieces still actionable, anyone trying to suppress it must be held to blame for it. Piotrus is in my opinion an impressive and productive Wikipedian, but his RFA was already lost before the report. The only result from brushing it under the carpet is that Pioturs could and would continue the totally unacceptable tag-teaming, EEML business, misrepresentations, misleading of voters, disregard for checking copyright and so forth. Any reference to the evidence would be shredded as something courtesy blanked.--Razionale (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's necessary for FPaS (whom I don't know from Adam), when he's back online, to explain how he didn't breach WP:INVOLVED, or acknowledge his breach. My concern obviously is that if he breached WP:INVOLVED but thinks the rule doesn't apply to him or doesn't see that he breached the rule, or doesn't think he has to address this reasonable request, then we have a character or competency problem with this editor.

To be very clear: I'm not asking FPaS to explain why his preferred version was superior - that's something about which reasonable people may disagree - but to explain how he did not breach WP:INVOLVED, or acknowledge it was a breach. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI for anyone who might not know, the RfA has now been closed (although that doesn't necessarily make the discussion moot). Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 04:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Should MONGO be blocked for personal attacks? They've made their third "chickenshit" remark, despite knowing full well it is inappropriate. I agree with Anthony that FPaS needs to explain themselves. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Nope, "chickenshit" is precisely the word that is appropriate here. There's a couple of words that come to mind in relation to your little agitation games here but I'll refrain. FPaS is one of the few people here who has shown some decency, and honestly, you and a few others... are behaving like the stereotype of an immature adolescent internet bully who revels in humiliating others for the fun of it and gets their kicks by exercising petty power in petty fashion. Oh, wait a minute, you don't even have any power, you're not even an admin, just another drama board groupie wasting people's time. Find better places to hang out than ANI.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • So you trying to censor and bully people who point out how much you've gamed the system over the years is somehow appropriate? Note that two editors have 100% supported my assessment of the edit war situation, and two editors whom I've barely interacted with anywhere, so I'm clearly not "an immature adolescent internet bully" if I'm talking sense, am I? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeeeeaaahhhh, I'm trying to "bully" an anonymous IP coward with obvious mental problems, who posted a long super creepy, obsessive attack hit piece about another editor. Poor anonymous IP editor. Bullied by the evil Volunteer Marek. Good thing Wikipedia has valiant defenders of the truth, always ready to scream "notcencorsed!" who are here to speak up for the rights of anonymous IP editors to harass and humiliate others. What would this place be like without you? Oh my god! I just realized what it would be like. It would be a place where anonymous IP editors might not be so inclined to harass and humiliate people who have the courage to edit under their own names. The horror!
Yes, buddy, that's on you too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Wow Marek, that's beneath you. 8-( Now Luke and I have had enough run ins before that no-one is likely to characterise me as simply leaping to the defence of some wiki-friend here, but your comments on him are uncalled for, unhelpful and awfully close to NPA. Especially the implication of "No non-admins at ANI". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm about 1/4" off of clicking the "block" button for VM's personal attacks on the IP right here in ANI. "Obvious mental problems"? Seriously? You consider that even remotely appropriate? I'm still not sure why I'm delaying the inevitable DP 11:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose close[edit]

This is descending into a shitfest. The RfA is closed. The point is moot. And I'm sure the IP is pleased. There are community issues, maybe, but the village pump is the best place to discuss them IMO. They are not going to be resolved here.

Any objections to closing this thread to prevent further misery and rancor? --Tóraí (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I am formulating a follow-up question for FP. Please leave it a while. Leaky Caldron 11:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. --Tóraí (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Just because the RFA is closed, does not eradicate the surrounding behavioural issues DP 11:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
And it doesn't stop people from perpetually arguing over trivial facts, either. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Did User:Future Perfect at Sunrise break WP:INVOLVED? A simple question I've asked a couple of times above. Here he explains,

"I had resolved to protect that page in the state I found it (without the comment), as a perfectly uninvolved administrator, but then saw that somebody had beat me to it by a matter of seconds, reinstating the comment while I was preparing to hit the protect button. I think it is legitimate in such a situation to revert to the state I initially meant to protect."

This strikes me as the very model of involved: engaging in an edit-war with numerous others in good standing and locking the page in his preferred version. Although in this instance the behaviour was inconsequential - the RfA outcome was inevitable at that point - I'm worried he doesn't grasp the meaning of "involved" and may be doing this kind of thing in other situations. Anyway, it is a reasonable question from an involved editor in good standing (it was my edit he reverted before locking the page in his preferred version) and I think he should address it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I think he needs to address his blatant abuse of another editor (me) and whether their understanding of the WP:ILLEGIT policy, which they have quoted, is actually defensible. Leaky Caldron 13:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look into the entire RfA, but a glaringly tendentious 58K rant from a previously unknown anonymous source is a clear sign of a lack of good faith, and the intervening admins were perfectly within the limits of discretion by stopping its repetitive insertion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

We're not children. If it's "glaringly tendentious", then we can be expected to judge it on its merits. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
While the content is overly long by Wikipedia standards, it's reasonably well written, formatted well, and extensively supported by diffs. It is WMF policy that IPs can edit except for very narrow exceptions and although Rfa voting is one of those exceptions, Rfa talk is not. While the reversion may have fallen within "the limits of discretion" it has not exemplified wisdom, as the resulting ruckus (i.e. this thread) has only Streisanded it into getting a much larger audience that it likely would have otherwise. NE Ent 14:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that assessment would be spot-on if the IP user in question were a genuinely new contributor, but this was obviously the input of someone familiar with the subject and the surrounding issues. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, and honestly, common sense and a bit of background knowledge here strongly suggests that we're not talking about a "someone" here but rather "someones". With an "s" at the end. That post was a group effort. Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly because we're not children, none of us should expect that people will be tolerant of everyone's time being wasted on bad-faith rants. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course the assessment is spot on. The post was clearly a political act by the author(s) to increase the probability of the Rfa failing. That goal has been achieved -- whether it would have been without the IP post is of course unknown and unknowable. Nonetheless a mature adult assessment of the potential effects of contribution removal should include making predictions as the to probable outcomes. Will the reversion stick, or will other editors reinstate it? Will more or less attention to the post be made by reverting it or ignoring it? In this case with hindsight it should be obvious removing the statement attracted far more attention to it than ignoring it. NE Ent 15:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Honestly if tangentially, I'm almost unsatisfied enough with FPaS' rationale that I'm tempted to take the subpage to DRV, except that it would probably be just as symbolic as the deletion. If someone else chooses to do so, I'll comment there. I don't see a compelling case that the IP was in any fashion involved in the EEML scandal, but I admit to not having closely followed the case even at the time. Pak