Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive709

• I'm the admin who closed the AfD. I did so based on the arguments made in favor of deletion and keeping, and not based on how "dubious" the nomination may have been. However, if I might comment on that, I do believe there is some merit in criticizing your nomination. Not because I feel that you have been waging a campaign against the article, or that you had been forum shopping, but because the nomination itself was flawed. Your stated reason to delete the article was because you wanted to create a better article about the subject. That does not fall in line with our usual
  reasons for article deletion. Essentially, you wanted to improve the article by rewriting it, which can be done on any article without need for deletion. It can be argued that a request for deletion is not necessarily in good faith when you intend to immediately recreate the article as your preferred version. I'll add again that my opinion on that matter did not influence the way I closed the discussion, but I felt compelled to mention this to help explain some of the reasons why people objected to the nomination itself. If someone has a problem with the nomination of an article at AfD, it's appropriate to bring that up during the discussion itself. When you declare in your nomination statement that you intend to recreate the article (which "this article's deletion will pave the way for an article of arguably encyclopedic to be tentatively created" is explicitly saying), you can't say that others' objections are unfounded. They're going by your own words. -- Atama頭
  19:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the well-thought-out, helpful, and even-toned reply, Atama. Apparently the nom was phrased poorly. My intention was to say something along the lines of "Hey, IMO this article fails Dicdef (that is, unless moved to a topic that might pass muster)."--

talk

) 15:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that rationale was rejected, largely because you failed to take into consideration the point repeatedly made to you that the title of the subject was intimately linked with its perception in modern culture. Having

thus failed to understand why people opposed the page move, you proceeded to try to simply have the page in question deleted. Editors were perfectly entitled to voice concerns about that your apparent determination not to comprehend the opposition to your proposal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk

13:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The complaint I've raised here has to do with the most basic of

talk

) 20:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Good blocks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Following complaints of disrupting editing on Triple Entente on the part of an anon IP User:212.13.86.194, I have blocked the IP, which has previously been reported as a sock of an indefinitely blocked user, User:Eddie1kanobi, for block evasion. Also added another IP, User:79.125.225.32 to Eddie's sock drawer. Blocked that IP too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! :D

I think that, instead of describing what is happening, links to the two precedent episodes are more meaningful : Part I Part II.

Here we are : Today, the Part III begins : [5][6]

This is incredible...

• Omar, it's probably time to start an SPI. I've blocked the IP for a week and User:KAMTCHO for a bit longer. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Toddst1 (talk) had originally page protected Teo Ser Luck due to Edit warring / Content dispute from June 5 2012 to June 12 2012 [7] due to edit warring between Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} and 218.186.16.10. Editor had already been warned previously about 3RR on the same article [8] and then a second time warned more explicitly against repeating this [9] that the page was being protected in lieu of a ban. However, Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} was still able to edit the page and revert it to the version she preferred on June 8 [10], 4 dys before the page protection expired. Is some loophole being exploited or does the editor have some higher editor/administrative rights to the article? Even if the 2nd scenario was true the editor should keep out of the article during the page protection period as one of the warring parties. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I notified

The article should be deprotected, in that case. I asked the other party to repeatedly use discussion avenues to discuss the issues; the said party hasn't replied on the noticeboards (ANI / BLP / TSL talk page) on the issue itself; indeed, the discussion on ANI expired without a single rebuttal to my claim of the source being an RS. As I stated before the discussion expired, it's not my tendency to edit war; however when an anonymous editor with a known conflict of interest, who jumps several ISPs and occasionally posts from Ministry IP addresses, repeatedly removes criticism and does not give any further explanation when asked, I am extremely suspicious. Silence when I ask for a reply seems to say this anonymous editor isn't really here to build an encyclopedia or build consensus -- whereas I am. I would readily re-comment out (or remove entirely) the disputed section on my own accord if the editor actually discussed the merits of the source. I also said to the protecting admin that reversion within 72 hours if there was no reply seemed reasonable, if only to motivate the disputing party to more discussion. The party has the strange habit of not participating in discussion when his/her aim is achieved and only coming back to discussion under reversion. As I said, I don't really have a "preferred version" -- I simply do not want government-linked editors being allowed to remove whatever criticisms of the government they want with impunity to community rules. Government-linked editors (as I readily proved in an archived ANI discussion) have been removing other criticisms without explanation in other articles, have been behaving rather maliciously on the internet against the opposition overall, as well as writing heavily promotional articles about their government ministries and programmes. Allowing reversion without discussion, seems to me to reward such anti-encyclopedic/anti-consensus behaviour. You will note that the Singapore government ranks #151 for press freedom. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

From page protection policy: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." i.e. the goal of page protection is to promote discussion. However when protection encourages silence rather than discussion, then perhaps protection should not be used. No one replied to me on recommendations of suitable courses of action when I asked for advice on BLP or ANI; it is my deepest desire to avoid COI as much possible; however when the protecting admin did not reply (he is semi-retired) and when the other party remained silent for 72-96 hours, it was my desire to restore the source (of which I am fairly sure is a reliable source, given that Yahoo News! Singapore is a professional news service; SingaporeScene as I wrote would be counted as having the same editorial control as Yahoo News! Singapore per

WP:RS). Had the editor ever addressed WP:RS claims -- ever -- I would have readily reverted myself, to promote discussion. This is my deepest desire -- what I do not want however, are COI parties, especially those employed by a government with low press freedom -- to be allowed to remove criticisms without discussion. Thus after a notable absence of discussion, I saw it fit to reinstate the deleted criticism, in hope that the editor would come back and use the talk pages so I could gain greater insight into his claims. That editor has not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free

) 23:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

They are listed as blog authors, not journalists. You just want to keep harping about it so you can keep your trivia piece of news, instead of keeping it factual. You even reverted the office posts I added in, which you don't even care about updating. And then you proceeded on to harp on and on about government conspiracies taking over the Wiki world. I think you are the problem, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So your did it deliberately, edited through another administrators full protection - placed there because of an edit war you were involved in - I realize you are a returning user after a lengthy time but surely you understand

Off2riorob (talk

) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but La goutte de pluie does not seriously believe she can justify all her actions based on Singapore's media freedom ranking, can she? Perhaps the next step should be an RFC on her admin actions. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That is part of it, but I am trying to ensure the spirit of the project. Many government-linked editors do not care for the community or for encyclopedia-building -- they only wish to use Wikipedia to make their superiors look good, as can be told by the way they callously avoid discussion.

La goutte de pluie, I do not appreciate that you go around smearing and insinuating that I'm part of government board or of a certain Ministry doing damage control. If you even know how Starhub IP addresses work, which apparently you don't, you would have known IPs don't get issued the same all the time. In fact, I am having problems doing edits as I'm blocked from editing whenever I'm on a certain IP address. I have tried appealing but for some reason, it brought me to another IP address's talk page. You have been going around challenging me, making claims I remain silent even though I have told you so. Like I said earlier, if you cannot stay civil, don't edit. Clearly you don't know where to draw the line between factual info vs whitewashing. I worry for future Singaporeans who have to read up the nonsense edits you have been writing just to deface people's wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And you, Mr Anon, need to lay off the

attacks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont

) 13:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the Ministry IPs in question are 160.96.200.34, 160.96.200.35, 160.96.200.36, 160.96.200.37, which are shared IPs, but sometimes have the editing patterns of the above editor and seem to engage in potential COI editing and participating in the edit wars of the above editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yingluck_Shinawatra&diff=prev&oldid=430947999. This anonymous editor (while using Special:Contributions/160.96.200.26) kept on using officious government language which I took out specifically to avoid a promotional tone and any copyright issues; these anonymous editors have a tendency to make Wikipedia pages on Singaporean policies, programmes and politicians look like another copy of Singapore government web pages, down to the way sections are titled. Note that this editor, while editing under a Ministry IP, would remove free images from articles and replace them with copyright violations such as File:VivianBalakrishnan42.jpg, perhaps to comply with some sort of online policy of making their politicians look as sharp and officious as possible. Reversion to this copyrighted image, and removal of the free image, happened repeatedly on Vivian Balakrishnan. Interestingly, this very image was uploaded onto commons as a super high-resolution image several megabytes in size and uploaded with a free license with the claim that the uploader was the copyright holder; this copy does not exist elsewhere online, further confirming suspected links that this editor (or his allies) has with the Singaporean government -- otherwise, why would that editor be in possession of such a humongously large image? There are many, many other telling clues that I have noticed over the past months that support the suspicion of conflict-of-interest editing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, StarHub never changes addresses that frequently; that is, StarHub addresses are metastable -- it usually takes several weeks between IP changes. Such quickly changing addresses either suggests that someone, perhaps someone with influence, has asked to give you highly dynamic IP addresses from StarHub, or that you can request new addresses at a whim, or that you edit using open proxies. In fact, one of your IPs -- a StarHub IP -- was detected as an open proxy -- which is highly suspicious. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor above now desires to provoke edit wars with me again, without discussion, and calling good faith edits "vandalism". [11] The reversions the editor just did includes my edits which tried to avoid language the government used in their web pages (for copyright/npov issues), as well as removal of perfectly good citations from government-linked newspapers. Note that in a history now at Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (checking admins can look), this same editor (under several IPs) would have simply removed the entire elections section outright. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't a user named User:Dave1185 explain how Starhub IP works? Or are you acting dumb about it? What's with bringing up the IP addresses 160.96.200.xx ? And I caught you rephrasing Vivian Balakrishnan page again. Couldn't keep yourself neutral as usual I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A reversion this editor carried out is found at [12]. I have partially rephrased part of this edit because of a potential copyright violation from the official PAP website. Perhaps the editor thinks that copying from government websites is OK and not a copyright violation, because his/her employer, is that of the government. Dave1185 explained that "Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature" [13], but perhaps you are a rare StarHub "customer" indeed! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed out Dave's point of how it is not impossible to happen due to how close HDB flats are. Aren't you a Singnet user? Are you working for the government then? Dave and others in the other discussion told you that government IPs come from Singnet. Did you purposely miss out that part? So how am I, a starhub user even related to ur stupid theory that I'm doing my 'job' ? Your warped logic disgusts the hell out of me because you are stooping so low to accuse me of all sorts of nonsense, while trying to be this saint doing a holy job of 'cleaning' people's pages. I think you are trying too hard to discredit Vivian Balakrishnan by changing all the words from "his contributions" to "contributions of men under him". Personal agenda? You should just be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, 218.186.16.226 has now managed to talk himself into a range block, related to an issue farther down this page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I speak? In case you are not aware, La goutte de pluie complained about me again here after i reverted his edits (I had to copy back from Zhanzhao's version since La goutte de pluie weren't undo-able)here, here, most importantly here about Vivian Balakrishnan, making claims I was responsible that all the edits reverted and that I was trying to keep copyrighted source. How was his/her edits making it less different from the copyrighted source? A change of words from "he" to "his subordinates"? I've been told if it's copyrighted material,you can't just tweak a few words. So why am I getting blame for this? Please enlighten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and Administrator privilege issue

Going back to the edit warring issue: When I protected that page, I was unaware that one of the warriors was an admin. I seriously considered blocking La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs) at that time and in retrospect, I am sorry I didn't. Protection or not, had this edit been brought to my attention, I would have likely (and correctly) blocked La goutte de pluie. That the edit warrior is an admin makes this worse and that it was done through page protection compounds the issue. This should have been dealt with one one of the noticeboards rather than unilaterally by La goutte de pluie. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

One way would be to simply topic-block registered users/editors who are obviously involved in the edit war which would keep them as well as the anonymous IPs out, but it was really unexpected that an admin would bet so involved in the first place (then again look at hot topic issues like Meredith Kercher....). But the block is due to expire soon so the current block will soon be a moot point. I have already commented on the nature of the admin's edit on the article's talk page so there are more opposing voices to what the editor considers a credible addition to the aeticle so his arguement of no discussion is moot as well (though that means I am potentially identifying myself as an involved party but so be it). Plus she has been informed of the proper procedure of how to request edits on a page protected page (based on her edits its unlikely she did not know the page was not protected). What we need to see is what happens after this block expires. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, as Todd and Rob and others note here, an abusive act by the user/admin La goutte de pluie - who is "open to recall". Perhaps that should be seriously considered. Meanwhile, I have taken the liberty of reverting to where it was when Todd semi-protected it, as the matter is in dispute and the added material was questionable, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I wholly agree, there has been a spate of similarly very concerning actions regarding the Singaporean elections recently by this admin. This cannot continue, government "whitewashing" or otherwise. StrPby (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the admin about his/her recall criteria. We will see what he or she says. In the mean time, I have extended full protection. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If this issue were over the Santorum page or any other high visibility article we'd probably have emergency ArbCom desysoppings by now... Let's see if recall pans out. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I first met the user when I opened an AFD after some request somewhere (at BLPN if I remember) and La goutte de pluie commented strong keep (he said americans did not understand the candidate) and said if no more reason was presented he was inclined to 'speedy close' the AFD.diff - this set of my spidey senses in regards to

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, btw, that moving the talkpage to archive it is documented at Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure, with sigificantly fewer downsides than the cut-and-paste method that most of us seem to use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the real issue here. Edit warring through page protection is. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I had never seen that before. Thanks for the detail and for replying to my query Sarek.

Off2riorob (talk

) 09:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) excuse me but actually, how did La goutte de pluie actually get the sysop bit, searched the local and global log. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

She was renamed -- see

[majestic titan]

19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So is nothing going to be done about it just because La goutte de pluie is keeping quiet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.241 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Anon, I would strongly suggest that you stop IP hopping and stop hounding La goutte de pluie. Action will be taken in time to come, but it will be progressive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Does it seem strange to anyone that the user in question was nominated for adminship by someone who ended up being community banned for abusive sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism? (edit) Actually, the RfA appears to have been votestacked by multiple accounts that were later community banned or else turned out to be socks of previously banned users. One was User:172 (a sock of User:Cognition), another was User:Freestylefrappe. User:Jossi was also blocked for sockpuppetry. User:Izehar was a purpose-made votestacking puppet. Something isn't right. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, Izehar signed off as that humourously. I appreciate constructive criticisms, but I cannot tolerate completely unfounded slander. Please check your facts? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that seemed strange to me when I saw that. When I first encountered this returning admin we had a dispute and this account came from out of nowhere to defend the admins position and attack me via a worthless wiquette report User:Ougro contribution history - I stated then that account was a sock or a meatpuppet.

Off2riorob (talk

) 17:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This all makes La goutte de pluie look very suspect. The sheer number of banned users and socks involved in the RfA is very suspicious. As for the account that attacked you, obviously someone's sock. Is it recent enough for a checkuser? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Last edit from May fourth. I was directed to go to SPI but I would have been fishing so I put it down to experience, although I thought there was some connection to

Off2riorob (talk

) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've sent to SPI [14]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had time to draft a recall procedure, or even follow up on sources I have shortlisted on various talk pages. Give me a few days. I'm a university student doing biochem research, and I am in fact in lab right now. Btw, it's my personal belief that the SPI request is spurious, but I will assume good faith about it. I was actually rather annoyed by Ougro's admin shopping -- I don't bear grudges, it offended me that Ougro thought that by merely disagreeing with Off2riorob that he could recruit me to his "request". I only offered my opinion very reluctantly. I am sorry that Off2riorob thinks that I have some vendetta against him. I don't. He is a valuable contributor and discusser, if I wish he would be a little more amicable sometimes. Karmafist, 172 and Freestylefrappe were all prominent community members. Such was the community back in 2006 -- many people have now left because of disagreements with the direction of the project of course. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Should we start another RfA because of excessive socks, suspicion? In general, misuse of RfA. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this prejudice against old contributors. I was about to voluntarily draft a recall page, where I can also explain my actions, which has been difficult because I am acting on outside information. I do not wish to hold any tools against consensus (which I have always stroven to uphold), but if spurious accusations are being made like I am using an offical talk archive method (officially endorsed! -- and the copy and paste method should not be used at all) as though I am purposely trying to conceal messages or that I made all these socks for my RFA, when those were perfectly good contributors (RFA was very well-policed even in 2006), then I am not so sure. User:Izehar was an administrator for goodness sake. His user page history --a very rich one -- lists 260 deleted edits alone, and his contribution history is very rich.

With all due respect, I am not sure I can respect recall requests from users who make such misinformed accusations without investigation first. Accusation without proper investigation is in fact, the basis of my old disagreement with Off2riorob and some other afd nominators. I have disagreements with the "hyperdeletionist" culture -- that is, with nominators who will tag an article for deletion without so much as a google check, and seem offended when I question their assumptions. The most recent article I saved was Geiser Manufacturing, a historically notable firm that was tagged for speedy deletion. I believe in careful, conscientious editing, not knee-jerk button pressing responses. Perhaps if that CSD page (as I found it) had been found by another admin it would have been deleted rather than salvaged.

I am sorry for editing through protection. Normally content dispute page protection -- especially without prior history -- lasts 24 to 72 hours, not 1 week, so after 72 hours without discussion -- as I told Todd -- I saw continued reversion as acceptable, especially because I had it on good suspicion that the IP-jumping editor had a conflict of interest. And I edited well over 4 days later, respecting the page protection (that I had no idea lasted 1 week. isn't this against policy?). I am also not sure I can call it a content dispute if the anonymous user refused to use the talk pages despite repeated entreaties. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebe, are you serious right now? "Misuse of RFA"? If nothing else, let the SPI determine if there's actually a socking problem, and in the meantime, assume good faith. Obviously over the last six years there are going to be people who are now known as socks, people who blew a gasket and left, or people who decided to retire. Dragging Elle's name through the mud with absolutely no evidence (socks !voting in her six-year-old RfA isn't even circumstantial evidence) is insulting and degrading to a long-term productive contributor.

As I was the one who highlighted the "edit through protection" issue I would like to clarify why I raised it all the way here. As mentioned by other editors/admins above and in her talk pages, Elle's edit behaviour had been noted by some to have been questionable, especially where it concerns Singapore politics. While Elle has made many useful contributions in other areas, she seems to lose her objectivity in the problem area I mentioned. Accusing editors who make edits that are less than critical of the government as party representatives is not very nice either. There will always be people who wiki during company hours and ride on the company's free wifi to do so (I speak this with great experience:P) which could explain some of the close IP ranges identified; some may be doing so to clear misconceptions or to balance anti-government sentiment views. Another questionable behaviour is over-reliance on sources which are known to be less than reliable/neutral such as

Temasek Review Emeritus

for which I (and other editors) have repeatedly cautioned her that the source was a blog/SPS, not a news site, and which has been described by other non local media as leaning towards the opposition.

In any case, this report is not the first time that Elle received feedback that her edits on political articles have been less than neutral; there are more instances of this on her page and even a June 2 entry that specifically questioned [[15]] her involvement as an admin in an edit war, but it was apparently ignored, and escalated to the incident that led to this report. My greatest worry is that while it has not happened here yet, I would not like to see a situation where an administrator is able to protect a page from other editors just to protect his/her own version of the article in a moment of edit passion. I am not suggesting that she stop editing political articles, just that she takes care to ensure greater objectivity when doing so, or at least with the same level of care she has taken with other non-political articles she has contributed to. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not support any consideration of a new RfA because some of the prior supports may have turned out to be socks. The numerical results were not a close call, and it could set a precedent we may regret. I have no problem with an SPI investigation if warranted, I'm simply disagreeing that identification of sock support six years after getting the bit is good reason for a new RfA.--SPhilbrickT 20:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but the call for a new RFA, at least by recall motion, is because of the admin's actions, and hopefully not related to her original RFA. It would be ridiculous to think we'd make everyone who Freestylefrappe or Karmafist supported have to run a re-RFA. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving before this issue is settled. StrPby (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

New concern about La goutte de pluie has been raised on my talk page by the anonymous editor, saying that earlier in the edit war before page protection, LGDP might have logged out and reverted the anon as an IP. I'll quote in full the concern below.

During the "edit war" with User:La goutte de pluie, I noticed another anonymous IP popping up to help La goutte de pluie to revert back to his edit. Also under the Talk Page, it was the same person who added the questionable content about MCYS. If you asked me, I think that guy is also La goutte de pluie and I'm saying that because during several exchanges with him, that's exactly the same things he said to me over and over again.

Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone investigating the issue with the IP? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor has explained that this was due to her editing on her Iphone and forgetting to log on[16], so I think we can ignore this. Also that she had been busy for the past few days hence her recent silence on the matter [17]. But now that she is actively editing again lets hope she can clarify her stand on this. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I only recently edited because of egregrious copyright violations by editors on

home owner associations

editing Wikipedia to remove criticisms about them. Our system seems very good at detecting simple cases of COI editing as well as businesses who create pages about themselves, but not particularly more elaborate cases especially concerning the non-western world. Singapore's case is unique (and to a lesser extent, India and Malaysia) because it falls outside the western world but uses English in everyday life; hence certain entities have a strong incentive to improve their English-language public relations.

I do not know why I am the only administrator to notice such egregious incidents as wholesale copying and pasting being inserted from copyrighted websites; it is for this reason that I have been acting

unilaterally and then seeking consensus

. I previously sought requests for advice on this board twice on how to deal with this problem, including continued conflict of interest editing, and when I received no response for several days -- except for an editor who recommended that I block them all, I went ahead with my proposed remedies -- and I didn't block anyone at that time. The impression then I got is that a) I was still alone in noticing the problem b) I would have to take care of it myself. I do not know why this concern is raised against me when it could have been raised much earlier; why did people ignore my previous requests for help and advice?

As a young administrator in 2006, I issued my willingness to be recalled based on the idea that the recallers would be (like editors generally were in 2006) informed, rational Wikipedians who would approach issues rationally in the Jeffersonian spirit. I cannot respect recall requests from people who make such accusations that I used sockpuppets in my own RFA, or from people that cannot be bothered or informed enough to even look at the rich user contributions of retired admin User:Izehar before calling that user a single purpose account, or from editors who are willing to block someone for reverting an egregriously explicit copyright violation on the grounds of "edit warring". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the "copyright" content which you are talking about are actually content from government websites, which are essentially public domain for all intent and purposes. I.e. see [18] where "Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works, provides that "Copyright protection is not available for any work of the United States Government," defined in Title 17 USC §101, as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties." for something similar. So "copyright". You are free to copyWRITE the language if you think it is POV though to make it neutral (though that may introduce further subjectivity) or keep the same tone to avoid intruducing subjectivity. Your edits included additions like [[19]], "Government officials are eager to point out that all Singaporeans should hold this obviously highly talented minister in the most greatest esteem" which should be avoided.

What concerned me about your reply is your claim above that you had apparently rangeblocked on an article which you have COI issues with. This should NOT have been allowed considering the concerns raised here about possible abuse of administrative rights, and you should have instead raised your concerns to other uninvolved admins to action on it rather than doing so yourself.

PS Although I am not familiar with it, but there a free Internet service called Wireless@SG in Singapore locally, could this have caused some of this similar IPs to keep surfacing?

(Update: Apparently Singapore also allows that under Fair Use [20]) Zhanzhao (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Breaking my wikibreak here, but worth doing so to point out that only US Govt works are PD. SG govt sites are copyrighted. StrPby (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

But they have a fair use exception [21]. Toddst1 (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out, my worry is that copyediting to prevent copyvio is one way by which subjective bias to the article could be introduced [[22]]. In which case it may be safer to stick to the government site content which when viewed objectively seems to be just a choronological list of the subject's portfolio. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus (by accepting the anonymous editors' edits) seemed to say that content should generally promote Balakrishnan wherever possible and avoid all criticism; it was not a POV edit in so far it supported consensus, and I was only trying to be reconciliatory. Zhanzhao, I mean this in the most respectful way possible -- but I don't think your interpretation of copyright law really flies. The assumption that all government works are public domain (this doesn't even apply for U.S. state governments' works!) or that wholesale copying is allowed under fair use (when fair use is justified for things like critical commentary and so forth) worries me somewhat! Wikipedia's burden of proof in order to use fair use is very strict. In any case, copyright violations cannot be tolerated. It is not at all safe to stick with a copyright violation revision! This is in fact, even an exception to

WP:3RR. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free

) 04:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, Singapore's copyright laws do provide for some exceptions under its fair use clause. And as I also mentioned above, my worry is that you have snuck in some NPOV wording like [[23]] which I feel is the more worrying issue here. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note here on copyright: Singapore's approach to fair dealing is not the issue here, as the Wikimedia Foundation is based in and governed by the laws of the United States (see

transformatively. That's got nothing to do with the other issues in this thread, but I want to be sure we're all on the same page with this one. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

13:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am all for summarizing that section, I am just SERIOUSLY adverse to Elle being the person to edit it down. As mention, she had been cautioned a few times on her own page that she had apparent COI issues with articles concerning Singapore politics especially where it concerns members of the ruling party. And this reason she gave for knowingly adding a NPOV statement into the main text of an article "That statement was to invite discussion, especially since no one appeared to be paying attention to the copyvio issue." is unbecoming of an administrator. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I know nuts about all the rules in Wiki but the edits that La goutte de pluie made are not even rephrasing the copyrighted paragraphs. She just makes minor edits like "He contributed" to "his men contributed" in Vivian Balakrishnan page. That's not even the main point, just rephrasing of the nouns and not even correctly. I refer to ocassions when she couldn't help add in her own sarcastic opinion here and here ("While sometimes ridiculed by the youth ") and still got the cheek to argue back that people are white-washing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.234 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Going to draft an RFC on the issue of astroturfing

After spotting an IP-hopping editor -- the one with a similar editing pattern to the editor who would restore copyvio revisions at Vivian Balakrishnan deleting references wholesale at Tan Cheng Bock -- rather than attempting to rephrase and salvage material, which is the Wikipedia Way to go), I am alarmed at the proliferative extent of a possible astroturfing problem. I will be drafting an RFC for this reason. I invite the community to look at the blatant extent that copyright violations from government web sites are introduced without anyone barely winking an eyelid. It is not merely Singaporean politics I am concerned about, but other non-western articles as well. It is my concern that these pages are poorly watched, and what happens is that different editors of different views never collaborate on articles as desired. Because these edits pass through the bot filters quite well, no one notices a potential problem.

I actually do not have much concern about what actual material actually remains after discussion and consensus; what matters is that there is discussion and consensus. I am neither on the government or on the opposition -- I am currently a Singaporean college student attending a well-known college in the US -- I have no stake in the dispute. Some anonymous editors however, do -- I consider blocking COI-editors at government ministries justified. It simply irks me when anonymous editors with possible COI problems remove previous (sourced!) content (with legitimate uses) wholesale on petty grounds, rather than trying to salvage or revise the material. This is the Wikipedia Way, as I knew it. Often the removed content does not have an issue at all. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to the main issue

I note that the Elle is still actively editing [24] and even personally exercising administrative powers[25] on the article in question. Granted there seems no problems with the recent edit per se, but the fact that she still doing so while recall is in limbo on the article where her actions have been called to attention is questionable. (In fact, personally range blocking a edit warred page with potential COI concerns on this particular page was the example I raised as a concern). As mentioned, her contribution history as raised by me and other editors (registered ones, not IP hoppers) throws doubts on her claims of being objective in regards to being an objective editor in matters relating to Singapore politics, specifically with regards to PAP representatives. To Elle, could you please withhold from actioning personally and placing any concerns you have to the relevant boards where actions can be taken by uninvolved editors? Thats one of the reasons Wikipedia has such notice boards in place. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This thread should imo be closed. While there has been a few users involved with editing articles with the user and such like and an admin stated that they would have blocked the user if the editing through protection had been seen at the time, there is only a limited request from a few users for recall ( recall requests have weight usually with over six users requesting ) so this has not been met imo and the user has rejected the request so that all to see here unless new related reports occur I imagine from their comments the user will move forward a little more cautiously and take the issues/complaints on board.

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be the best. Ultimately as long as wiki procedures are followed, which in this case means the editor in question abides by wiki policy when editing, I see this report as having achieved its objective. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Elle's abusing her rights to delete Vivian Balakrishnan's page again. Is there a need to delete his background and the schools he attended... Come on, can someone stop her nonsense... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.236 (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I only removed the section because of the blatant copyright violation (copied from other websites); this is a hard and fast rule for Wikipedia. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 09:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a whole chunk of edits and their details had been deleted recently [26] which makes it hard to evaluate the quality of those edits... Cant seem to find any discussion or reason on why those edits were removed so no clue from there either. In any case, lets just make sure that whatever is added adheres to wiki policy, be it on the grounds of objectivity or copyright.Zhanzhao (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add anything. Since the editor seems to dispute my revisions the only way I could adhere to policy was by removing the entire problematic section until it could be discussed. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you start a discussion for it? It must be hard for you to rephrase the section on which schools he attended. StrangePasserby requested for unprotection here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.238 (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) Rob quoted me at length, above, about potential admin abuse on Elle/LaGoutte's part. But if you look at the AfD from which that quote was drawn, you'll see a different picture emerge. Once I saw what motivated Elle's comment about a possible speedy keep, and saw RS to document that motivation, I agreed with her. The AfD did result in a "keep", btw.

It turns out that all of Singapore was in an uproar over a grossly unqualified "yes man" candidate that the government meant to shove down their throats. Rob made some remarks about the issue on his talk page to Elle that I thought were unduly aggressive and quite offensively chauvinistic toward the entire country. I asked him to retract, and he refused. Anyway, Elle's initial comment was injudicious, but entirely understandable once one learned that the entire country was vocally angry over the situation. My first response that Rob quoted to her initial comment shouldn't be taken as evidence that she was guilty of any admin abuse. She wasn't.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What uproar? Don't assume "all of Singapore was in an uproar". By the way, we are talking about locking of Vivian Balakrishnan page , not Tin Pei ling. Elle is not even based in Singapore. What does she know about the country? She got the cheek to say people are whitewashing. What's with her smearing of politicians on their pages and abusing her tools everytime people do not agree with her. Till date, I still see nothing done about her and she just goes on pretending nothing is happening and that she is too busy to reply. She certainly was very free when she was busy doing edit wars over at Teo Ser Luck page to come back everyday. Each time she would say that since I did not reply within a certain number of hours, she has the right to lock/revert back to her version. So why is she keeping quiet about the recall of her tools on her page and avoiding the issue? Is this just going to drag on forever?

Seriously the articles Elle wrote about Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, Tin Peiling, Vivian Balakrishnan are just crap. There was never a neutral stand. It's always with sarcasm. Even the image uploaded on The New Paper was meant to be sarcastic. She seems to just want to magnify negative issues and downplay postive aspects (if any). Aren't Wiki articles supposed to be neutral? Seriously the article on Tin Pei ling is just long and draggy like a grandmother's story. I didn't know it's so hard to summarise everything and why there's a need for very insignificant bit to be written in. Tay Ping Hui's 8 Days issue must be such a HUGE deal and of greatest most importance that Elle had to write it in. Oh wait. Isn't the photo copyrighted material? Why is Elle allowed to post it then? Double standards? - from the anonymous IP above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.245 (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely and talk page access revoked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A "new" user, FindersSyhn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has made repeated personal attacks at Talk:Hebron and has repeatedly added BLP violations to Carlos Latuff. As I do not want to waste the time determining what the prior user account is (my first guesses are JarlaxleArtemis or Runtshit) and filing an SPI, I am bringing the matter here. The user is likely related to the accounts Anonehf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Jorogin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). nableezy - 00:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't Jarlaxle's MO, speaking from experience. He specifically targets those users who've dealt with him in the past on their own talk page. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 14:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nor, I am sure, is it Runtshit. This account displays none of Runtshit's characteristic tics. RolandR (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-serious death threat from FindersSyhn

I don't take this too seriously, but it's serious enough to report here. FindersSyhn posted on my talk page "If I could, I'd kill every single one of you pieces of shit." The diff is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInks.LWC&action=historysubmit&diff=436764924&oldid=436474120. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"If you are reporting a serious threat of violence, suicide or death threat, bomb threat, etc., please also email [email protected] with the relevant diffs" - GiantSnowman 00:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've already done that as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff :) GiantSnowman 00:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have indefblocked for the (now repeated) threats to kill people. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

...and talk page access is now revoked, as they did it yet again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

After conferring with a couple of CUs on this, this looks like Grawp again, folks. –MuZemike 03:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

How many years will this continue? Why does the WMF allow determined vandals to operate with impunity for years and years? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest doing about it? There's a certain level of determination at which stopping the vandalism would do far more damage to the project than allowing it...Grawp rose to that level a long time ago. Bobby Tables (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there really anything that CAN be done about it? Would an ISP respond to a request from the Foundation? If so, would it have any real effect? Internet access is becoming well-nigh ubiquitous, and blocking one point of access will only redirect a user to another. Frustrating as it is, the only real recourse I can see is

WP:RBI, as often as necessary. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk

) 18:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Complaints to his ISP in the past have been unsuccessful. Bobby Tables (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there must be some sort of legal recourse. Yes, this is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", but that doesn't mean people can use it as a vehicle for harassment and hate speech. If there is truly nothing the foundation can do to protect their most famous entity, causing damage to it and driving off it's volunteers, then there is something wrong with this project. If someone was standing on the sidewalk in front of a volunteer organization and threatening to kill the volunteers as they walked in, using hate speech, then the police would be called in about 5 minutes. Yet, because this is the "internet", it's somehow different? I say it is no different and the foundation should do something to protect itself and its interests. Night Ranger (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Returned

The account is back, "editing" as Gytuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). More admins watching Hebron would be useful. nableezy - 20:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Racist e-mails

"Hey, Arab vermin. You are subhuman Arab scum. Get the hell out out America and go back to your shithole country, idiot." and "Anabta was an Israelite city before you Muslim savages invaded it." are some of the racist e-mails that I have received from the banned Captain Thoster I am guessing that these accounts are related. In the meantime, can the e-mail function be disabled for Captain Thoster? -asad (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Email removed. I trust that you did not respond, since they will then have your personal email and WP cannot stop them sending mail to that address (although you can block them from being received thru your mail provider). The same goes to anyone receiving hate/harassing mail via the WP system; never reply, just report it to get the facility removed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And no, I didn't reply. -asad (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have received 85(!) exceptionally nasty emails from this account, all of them ending with the statement "I know where you live and what you look like. I will make sure your death is prolonged and exquisitely painful." I'm not overly concerned, as this is an obvious lie. But I wonder whether some sort of filter could be introduced, to prevent such flagrant (and presumably illegal) abuse of the email facility. RolandR (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I am getting the same sort of bigoted crap. Could someone please disable the e-mail function by default for all the users associated with this nonsense. The latest user is User:My password is poopvomit. -asad (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

email blocked for this new account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) And I have just received a further 29 from this account. RolandR (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have no problem getting these e-mails, it is pretty much a throwaway account and wiki mail gets put into it's own folder. It might be better just to keep my e-mail enabled so we can know all the accounts the person intends to use and disable the e-mail one by one. -asad (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Latest Mikemikev sock got blocked a few hours ago, 200.198.42.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is now continuing the conversation started by the sock with out missing a beat. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

another 86.176.7.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The IPs are geolocating to different continents. Either Mikemikev has a handle on an open proxy somewhere or it's two separate users. Either way, though, obviously disruptive IP is obvious. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The first one carries on the same conversations without missing a beat. IIRC Mikemikev had his usual local ip harblocked so a proxy would be expected. The second already has a block log associated with Mikemikev. I think we caught one a while back from Indonesia associated with him too. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is the most effective route, then? Whac-a-Mole™ or just semi the involved articles for a while? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Article is semi'd but we dont block them i suspect they may simply move to our next Racial theorist or theory The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mikemikev has been enjoying a non-dormant period; it's only worth identifying the named accounts (Nam84 on

University College, London when he edits from there. He has also used proxies, etc, from China and Brasil. There was a three month block on a range of vodafone IPs which has lapsed by now. Mathsci (talk

) 22:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is just a thought, but those two colleges sound like institutions that would rather not have their computer equipment put to the use mike has chosen for them. Is there any future in contacting them and asking them to revoke his access? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Mathsci (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

200.198.42.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is  Confirmed as a Proxy Server in Brazil The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest block per

WP:PROXY. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk

) 17:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

At my talk page [27] under the current heading "Census Issues, Parr II" (item 89) a user has called me a racist and threatened to block me if I continue to edit. This user [28] (the link is to his userpage) is an administrator who seems to be using his position as such to threaten and force compliance with his will. I do not really care that much about the specific way in which the demographic data from the US census is reported. However his high-handed use of his position as an administrator and calling someone who wants to reflect the fact that non-Hispanic white is the figure most close to how people in general talk about race, and so report that figure and ignore the figure of all whites when that larger figure is half Hispanic a "racist" and threten to block them if they continue to edit just makes any discussion on the matter impossible. This is not an issue about content, it is an issue of threatening people for editing at all and such. I feel this is the best example of bullying I have seen on wikipedia ever. Such high-handed unilateral threatening of people should not happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have notified Carlossuarez. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Heh, you just beat me to it. I'm concerned at the least about the language left on JPL's user talk page, from an admin no less, and I'd be interested to see an explanation. -- Atama頭 21:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Me too. I don't have much to say on the ins and outs of the debate, but those are strong words. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • This editor has repeated introduced racist cuts of census data and I have warned him that if he continues to do so, he'll get blocked. He, for whatever reasons, believes that Hispanics and Latinos cannot be White or African-American according the census data. Our consistent approach, like the census, is to report race separately from ethnicity. John Pack Lambert insists otherwise, that Hispanics and Latinos can be everything but White or African-American so he puts in data, to serve his purpose, of non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic African-Americans, and then various other races, apparently Hispanic included. He also points out in several edits his purposes "updated to reflect the more close to how people actually think of thins non-Hispanic white figure" where by he removes Hispanics and Latinos to make Whites more close to how people (like him?) think of white or otherwise qualifies the data by pointing out (only where it suits him) that Whites includes "Iranians and other middle easterners". There is a link to how
    White (U.S. Census) is defined, why the unsourced added language? The pattern is unmistakeable, his editing is tendentious, contrary to the Wikipedia norm, and in furtherance of his agenda. It should stop. This was a topic I broached here with another editor, which alas got almost no attention. Carlossuarez46 (talk
    ) 21:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • I've already commented on JPL's talk page. Having delved extensively into the 2010 Census data, I think both JPL and CarlosS have valid arguments. The Census data do allow for some surprisingly detailed statistics on ethnicity to be reported, and JPL has been pulling out some valid statistics on groups like "White," "Non-Hispanic white," and "Non-Hispanic Asian." However, JPL is adding his own
      original interpretation in edits like this diff, where he described the non-Hispanic white population as "including Iranians and other middle easterners." That's not something the Census reports, and it does not belong in the encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk
      ) 21:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• So it's possible that JPL is wrong. But it's one thing to attack the validity of a person's edits, and another to attack the person directly and call them a racist. JPL may be guilty of original research, but attacking a race? I'm having trouble accepting these racism allegations as anything but a personal attack. Is there any more evidence of his "agenda"? Racism is a pretty strong word to throw around. -- Atama頭 22:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• What rationale is there to remove Latinos and Hispanics from the Whites and African Americans ONLY?? Nowhere does the census in its reports eliminate people by Latino and Hispanic ONLY by these races; either its all in or all out. Show me otherwise. With comments like how people think of white (absent Latinos and Hispanics), is that for real? Is that how Wikipedia thinks? how the people reading this thinks? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In another of his edits, he presents data carved differently than anywhere else in reporting census data Where people who reported partial Asian ancestry are broken out from the 2 or more races for what purpose? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Census allows us to report our race, and then whether or not we're of Latino or Hispanic ethnicity - that's the census. This editor thinks that Hispanic is a race, not an ethnicity; without succumbing to Godwin's law, needless to say that others have had differing views on race, but we report what the census reports not how we may think. And as this editor says himself "Thinking that Hispanics are not white is not racist." (his emphasis). Naturally, I disagree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Carlos, can you imagine the possibility that he might be wrong about this, while not being a racist? Can you imagine how offensive it would be to be called a racist if you are not one? If you can, then you should apologize. If you can't, then you really shouldn't consider taking any admin actions with this user anyway. It shouldn't be that difficult to find someplace appropriate (I would have thought there'd be a Wikipedia:Wikiproject U.S. Census, but I guess not) to discuss this calmly, without assuming you know each others motives, and getting outside input if you need it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • An uninvolved admin should block him if he continues to degrade Wikipedia with his edits reflecting his thinking unless it's Wikipedia's coordinated belief and NPOV that Latinos and Hispanics cannot be White or African Americans as the Census Bureau defines these terms, and then someone ought to delete Black Hispanic and Latino Americans, because there's no such thing apparently. Imagine how humiliating it would be to have your ethnicity pulled out and classified as not White, African American, Asian, or whatever enough for inclusion. Those views found currency in the past, are clear POV, with a bias that is clearly reflected in the editing from this guy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll support the suggestion that JPL's edits aren't helpful, and any editor who continues to violate
      WP:OR despite warnings can and should be blocked. I don't question your concern with JPL's contributions or warning him that continuing the behavior can lead to a block. My problem is only with the racism allegations. You said before, "What rationale is there to remove Latinos and Hispanics from the Whites and African Americans ONLY??" You shouldn't conclude that any rationale must automatically be racism. Let me ask you, is a person racist because they are mistaken? If a person believes that a white person can't be Hispanic, he is a racist? Do JPL's actions or comments in any way suggest that he dislikes Hispanics or any other ethnicity, or considers one race to be superior to another, or made derogatory remarks about race or ethnicity? I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. I would have to agree with JPL that thinking that you don't have to be a racist to have the (mistaken) belief that there are no white Hispanics, and strongly, very strongly disagree with you. Your insistence that a person's disagreement must constitute racism unnecessarily creates a hostile editing environment, and you should retract your allegations. -- Atama頭
      23:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • My allegation: that the view that a White person (as defined by the census) cannot be Latino or Hispanic is racist stands - it's no different than substituting "Jew", "Italian", "Russian", or any other religion or ethnicity for "Latino or Hispanic". I'm surprised that you agree with that position. Apparently, the millions of Hispanics and Latinos who checked the box that they are White or African-American were wrong and that you and JPL are right? His view has no basis; in fact, practice, or other than his POV. The Census Bureau, whose data he links to and their definitions which he links to all say that White people can be Latino or Hispanic. His edits appear to further his belief that despite the position of the Census Bureau, to which he cites as the source for his edits, Whites and African Americans cannot be Hispanic/Latino. Let him or you defend that position and why that view is not racist in denying Latinos and Hispanics a race figure from the Census, and why his straying from the Census Bureau and its definitions while linking and citing them is proper editing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the lead from our article on racism Racism: "Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race, however defined, and that, as a consequence, justify the different treatment of those people, both socially and legally. Moreover, racism is the practice of the different treatment of certain a group or groups, which is then justified by recourse to racial stereotyping or pseudo-science." Did this user in any way allude to hispanics being inferior or different than white people because of their race? According to this ANI report I see nothing of the sort. Saying that his attitude is racist shows a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of what that word means. It seems this user doesn't really get race vs. ethnicity, but that doesn't make him racist. N^oformation ^Talk 01:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, as an admin you should know better than to threaten blocks like that. If he had actually

vandalized the page you could have left a vandal template...4 times and he's blocked. But he wasn't vandalizing; this is a content dispute and you threatened a block because you didn't agree with him. He may be wrong, but he clearly isn't racist nor a vandal. N^oformation ^Talk

01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's not a content dispute; its removing POV from editing and replacing inaccuracies with sourced accurate data. Anyone who continues to edit tendentiously and adds inappropriate material is liable to be blocked. He should know that, he's been blocked before here. And as for "racism", wiktionary's 1st definition is thus: "The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes." [29] He has admitted that he thinks that Latinos and Hispanics cannot be White, nor can Whites be Hispanic or Latino. So in his view, one attribute of White is non-Latino and non-Hispanic; he's entitled to that opinion, but not to edit Wikipedia to promote that view. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to comment here, but it appears that Wiktionary's first definition is inaccurate. I checked 7 dictionaries that I have access to and the closest wording to what appears in Wiktionary was from dictionary.com, which states "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others".

Identification of distinct or intrinsic attributes of different human 'races' is not racism, in the same way that acknowledging 'boys have penises, girls have vaginas' is not sexism. A key element of the definition is the presence of prejudice, that these distinctions determine capability and achievement. To refer back to the sexism example, 'boys have penises' isn't sexist, but 'boys are the better sex because they have penises' is.

talk

) 05:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What if one of the penises has "Hammer of the Gods" tattooed on it? As for the matter at hand, sorry Carlos, but while I understand that this is an important issue that easily calls up lots of emotion, I do think you came on a little strong. What I'd like to see is a wider input in this discussion on another forum than this one by knowledgeable editors--without ascribing motive. A discussion on what is and isn't racism (or racist) will not help solve this problem. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to get my head around the idea that someone whose ancestors came from Spain or Portugal can't be white. Is this some sort of 'one drop' concept?

talk

) 17:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

At least in the US, it seems to me that there is a not uncommon perception that the term "Hispanic" or "Latino" would only apply to a person who is of a mixed European and Native American ancestry, and is a separate race in itself, considering that there is a significant population of resident immigrants from Mexico and other countries from Latin America (see Mestizo). This misconception is often reflected in the media as well. An educated person knows that this isn't the truth, and the US Census clearly reflects that view as well. I'm not suggesting that the majority of US residents believe this, I honestly don't know if it's the case, but in my personal experience this is too often the case (unfortunately).

Just to give an example, I had a friend in high school who was an exchange student from Spain. He was born and raised in Spain, as was his family for as far back as he knew. In appearance, he was white, nobody would call him anything else. Most people I knew wouldn't consider him to be Latino or Hispanic, even though he's about as Hispanic as you can be.

An encyclopedia is meant to inform people about what academic sources have to say about a subject. So I soundly reject the assertions that JPL has attempted to make in article space. I'm just saying that such misconceptions aren't that unusual. -- Atama頭 18:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Peryeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, there appears to be an unapproved bot adding links to drugboxes at a phenomenal rate (~7 edits per minute, and it is already over 500 edits in less than an hour). It did not reply to my query, so I am taking this here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

He posted this to Project Pharmacology: "That's me. The UNII is a code for defining substances. It's used by the FDA, NIH, Martindale, USP, and soon the EPA, primarily for defining food/drug/health related substances. We added a lot of the UNIIs as a first pass a while ago. I'm adding all the new ones that are linked to INN approved terms, but weren't originally caught. Note that the UNII is a part of the Drug and Chem box. Peryeat (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)" Looks like he's acting in good faith but it still could be a bot, though 7 edits per minute is doable if you're just doing the same thing over and over again. N^oformation ^Talk 01:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is ranging up to ten edits per minute, and I can barely ever make that even using an antivandal tool when ClueBot NG is down and I am the only antivandal person online. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, isn't Delta restricted to 45 edits a minute and still there's a thread about him breaking that limit? 10 is seriously pushing it, but 45, just wow, impressive. N^oformation ^Talk 02:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think I might have misunderstood his edit restriction, so scratch that. Up above he was accused of 115 edits in 10 minutes, so I was way off. Still impressive though. N^oformation ^Talk 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as the data is right, I'd say let it run. It is a simple task that would easily get bot approval anyway. Just leave a note to the user to be sure to use an edit summary, perhaps go a bit slower, and consider whether bot approval might be helpful. Prodego ^talk 02:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI, if you open up multiple tabs in your browser and switch between them often, it's not that difficult to make a lot of edits quickly. I've made a lot of really menial edits quickly that way (not sure exactly how quickly but 10 a minute wouldn't be hard at all). It doesn't require any special software or anything, you just need to be doing something simple (like copy-paste), know what you're doing before you do it, and use multiple tabs or windows so that you're not waiting for a page to load between each edit. -- Atama頭 03:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that's how I do relists at AFD. I spend 15 minutes or so lining up all the relistable AFDs in Firefox tabs and start pushing "submit" buttons at 0:00GMT. I'm surprised some people don't think I'm a "bot". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another FYI. As I understand the bot policy, that makes no difference. If you're using an automated process to make edits so fast that it appears that a bot is doing them, as far as the policy is concerned, you're running a bot. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well. -

Aaron Brenneman (talk

) 05:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If we're so paranoid about the running of "unapproved bots" by merely looking at edit rates, why doesn't someone propose a hardware limit on the number of edits a user can do in 1 minute of time, if that is possible? –MuZemike 06:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad idea -- that would prevent rollbackers from quickly cleaning up messes that might not have been caught for a while. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a case of

Given the many cases of misused and malfunctioning bots in the past, I think many people do care. That being said, there is a bit of paranoia regarding people who might be using unauthorized bots when, in fact, they are not; that was why I made the suggestion above. –MuZemike 21:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Some slow edit warring at Yadav has now turned into a legal threat by Sumitkachroo. Needs a block, I think. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, we edit conflicted on this one, I saw the legal threat and have blocked him for that. —SpacemanSpiff 08:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this appears to be linked to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive708#Veiled_legal_threat_from_an_IP_at_Yadav also, and it doesn't look like the named editors are different (as well as the IPs), the edits appear to be the same to the casual eye. —SpacemanSpiff 08:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)This[30] is clearly a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up, at least one regular and (IMO) sensible editor has felt it necessary to cease contributing to Indian articles here in the last few days as a direct result of this spate of legal threats on such articles. I have the details if anyone should need them for some reason. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? If so, just been quite busy and behind on India issues. Also hadn't jumped into the SPI debate since I'm not really familiar/comfortable with that process and didn't want to go barging in trying to get involved in investigations. The legal threats don't bother me at all on a personal level, as I don't live anywhere near India and I rather doubt I'd be extradited for quoting PhD scholars on these topics. I do regret any hassle the WMF goes through due to this caste silliness, but it is inevitable that as WP expands in India various parties will be POV fighting back and forth, and then running off to declare "hate speech" when they don't get their way, so it might as well be now as any other week.MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir, we're all behind on India issues; who can catch up? I wonder if it isn't caste-related wikistress that made Spiff give up a perfectly ordinary existence and become a bohemian. Sitush and Matthew, please don't throw your life away like that. Follow the example of User:RegentsPark, still plugging away heroically. Signed, honorary Tamil Drmies (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a bit of a loss as to what is going on with this user currently, thus I am posting here briefly. I first encountered the user at RfD, where they nominated their own implausible redirect for deletion. Fair enough, I deleted it under CSD R3 and CSD G7. I then, by pure coincidence, later bumped into the user nominating an article they had created at AfD for being "non-notable." This one was more odd, as the user created it, then sent it to AfD all within 60 seconds. I deleted as G7 again, closed the AfD and posted on the users talk page asking them what was going on.

Since then they have not replied to me, but I assume they have read the message as they have replied to later posts on their talk page. I also noticed that this user seems to be going around creating categories for various WikiProjects, only to tag them for db-g7 a couple of hours later. Sometimes he then recreates them identical to how they were pre-g7. Some pages deletion logs have him creating and then requesting g7 on the page multiple times. He also makes edits to assessment templates (grade/importance), undoes himself, then redoes himself within quick succession.

One recent create and g7 however caught my eye: Fucktoon Network redirecting to Cartoon Network. There are several instances of him making disruptive edits before undoing himself in his contribution history: [31]. I've found several edits like that in his contributions which are disruptive, but he usually immediately reverts himself.

As the rest of his edits other than these are constructive, i'm wondering what should be done here. The disruptive edits obviously need to stop, regardless of him undoing himself, but I also think that the creation of pages only to g7, AfD or RfD them immediately is borderline disruptive. As he won't reply to me ([32]) I would be grateful of others views on this somewhat odd situation. (I initially thought the account could be compromised, but the mixture of normal editing between the disruptive stuff makes me think otherwise.) Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

User notified at this diff's timestamp. [33] --Taelus (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am here again, and it is considered offensive like "Crap" and "Shit". Well, I been nominating some for deletions, including WikiProjects that have died from 2006 and 2011. Well, I don't take no offense, the Courage Wolf isn't notable yet, and it is getting some hits Google. Also, I tired nominated myself for deletion like Portal:Cartoon Network, and kept. Usually, I don't make disruptive edits myself, and I got blocked before for messing around the images, while I am been editing the Courage the Cowardly Dog article myself. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the account is compromised, or at least semi-compromised - compare the semi-incoherent response above with the user's much more sensible/understandable user page... GiantSnowman 23:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I found the two had at least a certain consistency. But maybe I'm jumping to some conclusions.

Jj98, your reply above doesn't seem to answer the concerns that Taelus has raised. Creating pages or categories just to ask for them to be deleted seconds later, is disruptive. Repeatedly asking for the same page to be deleted, for no good reason, is disruptive. Making random pointless changes and then changing them back, on a regular basis, is disruptive. Perhaps you could agree not to keep doing that. OK? --

talk

) 00:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but my account not yet compromised, and I am not hacked. Sorry, I just been busy, mostly doing some animation related stuff, including

WP:ANIMATION which I am member myself. I don't want end up getting disruptive. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions

) 00:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Jj98 has been asked in the past to slow down with the creating/nominating for deletion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cartoon Network (2nd nomination). He has also been advised to use the sandbox for testing rather than rapidly undoing/redoing his own edits on talk pages. Assuming there is no compromise here, I am still concerned about the creation of Fucktoon Network and the inserting of "Cartoon Network sucks" into talk pages and the like. After all, his immediate reverting of such edits/tagging for deletion shows he is fully aware they are disruptive/vandalism... yet he does them anyway. --Taelus (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• The erratic deletion behavior and failure to respond to discussion attempts is ongoing. I noticed after closing two of his AFDs in a row as "redirect" (
  alternatives to deletion. He responded to that rather substantial comment with merely "Yes, I see that, I remember that next time"; when I asked him to elaborate, he instead archived it the same day rather than respond. postdlf (talk
  ) 01:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)