Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Sigh...you know it's a bad day when you have to open 2 ANI threads. Could someone please look at User talk:Lovelightlaugh, and review the comment I posted there, which was copied from an email sent to me by that user? I believe it could be a legal threat, and the fact that the user refused to withdraw it ("I sincerely do not know what I will choose to do but will base my decisions of whether this is fairly addressed based on all that which was discussed. I have the right to choose based on fairness, equality, being in the know of what I am making my choices based on. "). This is regarding the article Anastasia Fontaines which I deleted under A7. If anyone thinks that deletion was wrong and/or I'm completely misreacting to the whole situation, feel free to undelete and or trout me w/o asking. I'm off for a bit. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked him to clarify after advising him that it was perceived as a threat and that the threat would lead to blocking. User explicitly refused to clarify and reiterated a specific condition required to satisfy him, which appears to reinforce that he is still threatening the legal alternative if he does not get his way. Indef-blocked. I left his talk-page unlocked for now should he choose to clarify an intent not to go legal as part of an unblock request. DMacks (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How could you delete an article on a woman responsible for undying wisdom such as "If you take the time to look, you may find that somewhere next to every joke lies the truth." And there's more where that came from... [1]. Paul B (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes cartooney threats are bad but IMHO the article in question wasn't an A7 candidate. The text Some of Anastasia's works include the award nominated Comcast Cranky commercial, the controversial "Viva Viagra and her ensemble lead role as Ms. Dora in cult film Director Gregory Hatanaka film Violent Blue is a credible assertion of significance. This should have gone to AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with the NLT block, but I also have to agree with Ron that AfD might have been more appropriate here. This seems to be a case where the subject isn't notable but the article does make a credible assertion of importance. 28bytes (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, was on the border as to whether there was a credible claim of importance. There was no solid info about the film, and so wasn't sure if it was a sufficient info for starring in that movie to be "important". In fact, I explained to Lovelightlaugh (by email, because that was how xe was communicating with me) that if we could show that the movie was notable, then that would be sufficient to keep the article past speedy deletion, but would still likely end with the person's article being deleted by AfD (I ran a WP:BEFORE search myself). The editor even gave me enough info by email to make the me think the movie is notable enough for an article, and I encouraged xyr to write it. So, given the comments here, I'll go ahead and undelete the article on the actress and take it to AfD; maybe someone else can find some news articles about her that I couldn't find. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that IoS is "borderline". The "cult film" Violent Blue she stars in doesn't have an article but the director does and so does one of his other movies. It may be that the movie is indeed notable but nobody has bothered to write an article about it yet. Notability is not inherited but "importance or significance" can be in some cases. However, it may also be that neither the director nor the other movie is notable but nobody has bothered to nominate them for deletion yet. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ironically, punishing someone, or threatening to punish someone, because they have threatened you (or Wikipedia) with legal action is criminally unlawful (obstruction of justice, contempt of court, etc) in most Western countries. I'm rather surprised that such a policy exists, let alone is enforced so ruthlessly. I have no comment on the present case itself. Deterence ^Talk 09:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks aren't punitive, they're preventative. In the case of the WP:NLT policy, the rationale is explained on the page. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and being locked in a prison cell is not punitive, it's preventative ;-) Deterence ^Talk 09:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly prevents that prisoner from repeating the acts that got him in prison in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Deterence, if you don't actually understand a policy or if you lack perspective -- and characterizing being barred from a private website as a "punishment" certainly demonstrates that -- perhaps you should be less free with the advice. You have less than 600 edits and yet here you are all over this page giving advice. Or, I should say, TRYING to give advice. Not the best approach. --Calton | Talk 13:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, I casually gave an accurate legal observation as I was passing through. Which was significantly more constructive that your patronising and uncivil use of a ruler to measure our contributions. Deterence ^Talk 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange new meaning of "accurate" I was previously unaware of. You see, "accurate" implies that the words were not only factual, but have some relation to the topic under discussion. Your comments didn't have the slightest relevance -- making them not in the bit constructive -- and hence my correction intended to discourage even more casual and uninformed commentary from you was perfectly constructive. If you don't know what you're talking about and don't want to take the time to find out, you shouldn't comment: THAT is constructive advice. At least one long-term contributor was barred by ArbCom from commenting here after a long series of uninformed responses were deemed disruptive. Yours can be excused because you're new, but that defense isn't going to last all that long. --Calton | Talk 22:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, was looking for my case. Deterence, you are not correct. Businesses have a right to admit or deny admittance for any reason what so ever, even if a person has a purchased ticket for entry. Its English common law and possibly dates all the way to Roman times. Today the only exception is the Federal discrimination laws against race, sex, religion, etc. US Supreme Court ruled on this in 1912, feel free to read, its 2 pages long Marrone v. Wash. Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633, 636 (1912).

Subsequently this ruling was reaffirmed by every single Federal district, and state courts for the last 100 years, and was last used in March 2011, by Senior Judge Roger L. Hunt of Nevada District Federal Court. In the case (Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr v. Harrah's Entertainment), a card counter sued to get into a casino that mailed him an invitation. Judge Hunt could have used specific laws aimed at excluding card counters, but instead he went back to the 1912 SC decision and as he wrote in the opinion "At common law, a proprietor of a privately-owned entertainment establishment may exclude whomever he wishes for any reason, or for no reason whatsoever. Marrone v. Wash. Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633, 636 (1912). In addition, Nevada and California courts have long since established that the "right to exclude others" is a "fundamental element of private property ownership."" (quote i used from section: Discussion-A-1 of the above link). Please do not take this as a legal opinion or I will have to bill you. ;) Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems like a tangent to me, but businesses in California cannot necessarily exclude customers from entry based on the principle articulated in Allred v. Harris (the case cited in the Nevada federal case). Allred involved the intersection between picketing on private property, trespass, and the first amendment. California businesses are not allowed to discriminate on many bases (far more than the federal bases) and therefore can't "exclude" people from patronizing their business on any of thoses bases. See Unruh Civil Rights Act. And, naturally, each state in the U.S. is different.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how my casual comment came to this. --Calton, all I am seeing in your "constructive advice" is a whole lot of argumentum ad hominem - four of the six sentences in your last post (above) began with the words "you" or "your", and one of the remain two was nothing short of a threat to have me "barred", (for what, I'm not the least bit sure.) And you didn't even try to show how I am wrong or how you are right. Constructive?
• Meishern, my comment clearly referred to "most Western countries". In most Western countries, deliberately harming someone who has taken legitimate legal action against you, solely to influence their willingness to take that legal action against you, is considered an attempt to subvert their right to seek justice before the courts. Such behaviour is described in many ways, and in many languages, but include variations of "contempt of court" or "obstruction of justice". I'm not the least bit surprised that the right to exclude patrons for (not quite) any reason is significantly stronger in the United States, where private property rights are considerably more entrenched into the legal system, but, I do remind you that most Western countries lie outside the borders of the USA. Deterence ^Talk 05:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You're misreading WP:NLT. The way I understand it, the point of the policy is not to "influence their willingness to take that legal action against [Wikipedia]". It's meant to avoid disruption and chilling effects on other editors while legal action is in progress. Think of it this way: if you worked for a newspaper, and filed a suit against them, you'd no doubt be put on "indefinite leave" while the suit was in progress, to avoid disruption in the workplace and to avoid "poisoning the well" through your actions potentially influencing the newspaper's position. Same thing here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Bushranger, I'm not sure your analogy is comparable. If the "indefinite leave" is unpaid, then, most Employment Court jurisdictions would tear the employer a new one for placing the employee under such economic duress while the case remains sub judice (it may be different in the USA, but here in New Zealand the Employment Court would have zero patience for such coercive conduct by an employer). If the "indefinite leave" is paid leave, then the employee is still receiving the predominant benefit (an income) of his/her relationship with their employer. Is a blocked editor still receiving the predominant benefit of Wikipedia? I guess that depends on whether the predominant benefit received from Wikipedia by the blocked editor is merely the freedom to read Wikipedia articles or whether it is the ability to interact with, and contribute to, Wikipedia and its community. Deterence ^Talk 10:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't this now getting a bit off topic? What it is analagous to is irrelevant. Wikipedia has a NLT policy that we all abide by. Anyone making a legal threat is blocked until such time as the legal threat is removed or legal action is ended. If there's some misgivings about how the policy is worded, the Village Pump is that-a-way. --Blackmane (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blackmane, we're just shooting the breeze at the water cooler. Deterence ^Talk 11:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You are not just shooting the breeze Deterence, when you make statements such as "punishing someone, or threatening to punish someone, because they have threatened you with legal action is criminally unlawful in most Western countries." That statement is false. Thus you are attempting to influence an Administrative board decision by providing non factual, false information and abstract opinions without anything factual to back up those statements. It is not criminally unlawful in all Western countries for a private business to bar entry to a visitor who threatened to sue them (with the only exceptions being cases covering extremely rare need based (not based on want) circumstances). Wikipedia does not employ this particular editor (no employer/employee laws involved) nor is it the editors landlord (tenant/landlord laws), nor is there a signed contract between the parties. If you go to a New Zeland restaurant and tell the owner that you will sue them, based on your statement, the restaurant must continue to admit you, and can not ask you to leave, nor bar your future entry and if they do, there will be a criminal case filed against the restaurant by law enforcement? The restaurant is under no obligation to feed you. They will bar your entry if you threaten a lawsuit as their legal adviser will ask them to do, as a preventive measure from you possibly planting evidence, influencing witnesses and customers, and creating additional incidents to back up your original claims. NZ legal system is also based on English common laws as is the US, which value property rights. Its not a right but a privilege to edit on Wikipedia, just as it is a privilege to eat at a privately owned NZ restaurant and not a right. If you want to be helpful, use facts backed up by references as I have above, otherwise you are the one who is attempting to obstruct justice by providing false information (even if you believe it to be true). Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is actually why we have to block this user. We have a policy that is blind to the editor's membership in any group. If you make a legal threat against anyone in the community, you are not allowed to edit until the legal issue is resolved, or the threat is rescinded. The policy is simple, and is based on the first amendment right to free association, and does not take into account anything except the presence of a threat. The easiest way to run afoul of the law is to take into account an editor's race, religion, sex, perceived sexual orientation, veteran's status, marital status, creed, national origin, immigrant status, etc. etc. when applying these blocks. The fact that we routinely and consistently apply the rule is actually the key to legal protection. We don't discriminate. We are not required to provide full access to anyone, and nobody but Jimbo Wales and a select few others have it. All access is granted based on a member's actions, and by applying the rules consistently, we protect ourself from legal claims that we deny access because of prejudice. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this has been resolved now, but is it worth just mentioning that although Jimbo does have full access, that doesn't exclude him from the NLT process - it could be applied to him as well as anybody else; hence no discrimination. a_man_alone (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I was actually simply referring to the "founder" permission flag. Every member of the community has access that is a subset of Jimbo's access, and the amount of that access is dependent on your behaviour on-wiki. If you don't follow the rules and decide to act in ways that are contrary to the health of the community, then your access will be limited to simply viewing content. The fact that we have decided to grant greater access to just anyone who walks in the door does not change the fact that we retain the right to protect our community from those who harm it. It's analogous to refusing entry into your store for shoplifting, except we still let those people view the merchandise from the street. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 01:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the list op Topic Bans ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has a topic ban for al Euthanasia-related articles. As stated on the mentioned page: "ClaudioSantos is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed,...". Knowing his habit of connecting the nazi atrocities with eugenetics and euthanasia, I was wondering if he crossed the line. The contested sentence is Although it was not the ideology underlying Nazi atrocities that Sanger found regrettable, it was the methodology.. Violation or not? Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the section "Eugenics" at "Margaret Sanger" article, and that paragraph does deal explicity with "nazi eugenics" not with euthanasia. And clearly my edit and the cited source was referring to "Nazi eugenics" related to "Margaret Sanger" and my edit did not relate nor even mentioned at all euthanasia. And this issue has been discussed and resolved already 3 times, here at the ANI and at one admin-talk-page. And all the times it was concluded that editing eugenics topics is not a violation of the euthanasia topic ban. This user NotBW certainly know this as he has been directly involved. I think he is abusing the ANI and stalking me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, there is the traditional smoke screen and counter accusation. But, my dear Claudio, you are referring to earlier questions in relation to other articles. And here you clearly make the connection nazi atrocities vs. eugenetics movement. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has six prior blocks for edit-warring, several of which stem from his relentless efforts to link Planned Parenthood to Nazism and eugenics by any means necessary. He was unblocked early last time because he supposedly understood the error of his ways. Now he's moved on to edit-warring at Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood), pushing the exact same agenda.

  Obviously he's repeatedly trying to force in contentious material and earned a number of blocks, but he's still at it, still refusing to gain consensus on the talk page. How long does this go on? (That is not a rhetorical question - it is addressed to any uninvolved admin reviewing this thread). MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell is another user who has been involved in this attempts to look for an excuse to ban me. My last edit at Margaret Sanger has not violated the 1RR and the prior cases are NOT the case now. Actually my edit was reverted 1 time by NotBW arguing that "he does not believe that I have read the source"; thus clearly baseless assuming bad faith due my edit was almost literally taken from a source which was already accepted as a reliable source for that article. Now, NotBW is trying to abuse the topic ban to enforce a broad ban against me, as it has been attempted 3 times up to now. If it was a content dispute at any rate MasterCell did not even complaint about the phrase but he just came first here also to attempt to enforce a ban against me. And MaterCell was also involved in the prior attempts to extend the euthanasia topic ban to the eugenic topic. So it seems MasterCell is always looking for any excuse to try to resolve the dispute contents by forcing punishments and bans against me. Is he stalking me also?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing your POV-pushing and creativity with the truth, I still do not think I was overly distrustful to you. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that the sentence is really there in the source. But crucially, the context is totally different. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this guy edits dishonestly and in bad faith, and has problems understanding written English that severely undermine his ability to edit effectively. Worse, he seems uninterested in improving himself in this regard. When challenged on any of the above, he reacts with hostility and claims of persecution, and rarely sees fit to discuss the actual substance of a dispute.

Take this for what you will; I am apparently risking a permanent ban from Wikipedia just by saying this, as you can see from my talk page. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[To clarify, I am not familiar with this topic ban or the previous incidents that led to it, and don't take any position on the topic ban itself. I added the above comments because they tend to support some of the things NOTBW and MastCell have said, and also, partly, out of sheer frustration.] Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factcheker was warned two times because of his proven personal attacks and rude uncivil comments against me. At any rate, for Factchecker I am just a "fucking idiot" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did, in fact, say those things, and was indeed warned twice, with the second warning appearing to imply that any subsequent block would be permanent. This really has no bearing on the complaints that I and other editors have raised regarding your actual editing conduct. Regardless of how inappropriately I acted, has it occurred to you that the frequency of personal attacks against you, real or perceived, may have something to do with your own behavior? And has anyone ever made a criticism that you found to be legitimate or worthwhile? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factchecker, you are simply attempting to legitimate your continuous and very rude personal attacks against me. I have to ask also if you are looking for a revenge against me because you were warned by an admin to stop insulting me?. At any rate I have not to tolerate nor to condone you calling me "fucking idiot" with "stupid reasoning" speaking "gibberish", etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"[R]eacts with hostility and claims of persecution, and rarely sees fit to discuss the actual substance of a dispute." Yeah... that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] As you already asked for an excuse for your behavior then I solely have to hide it because the above comment is just another personal attack dealing wiht nothing else than me and my alleged reactions. Thts is its content. But you already promised not to repeat that. So let me add, at any rate: I am not able to understand anyone expecting answers from me about any content when it is asked with insults. And let me overreact and exagerate: I also can not support nor undertsand if an inquisitor demands to those tortured to stay focused on the matter of question and not in the brutal manner it is asked. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last time the issue came up, the limited consensus appeared to be the topic ban didn't cover eugenics in itself. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#ClaudioSantos_and_eugenics. Has the topic ban changed since then? If not it was suggested last time there may be merit to expand the topic ban, or if his behaviour is too bad, just banning him completely would I guess be an option. However I wouldn't suggest his editing the topic in itself should lead to any action (his precise editing may be a different matter), particularly since he was aware of the previous discussion so even if a new consensus develops, it seems a bit unfair to take action when he was possibly relying on the previous intepretation. Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem that he is seeking the borders... Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, you NotBW are the one seeking the borders. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. My point is that it's time to expand the topic ban to include abortion, Planned Parenthood, and eugenics. He's racked up three blocks for edit-warring on these very topics in the past few months. And that's on top of his prior blocks for edit-warring that led to the topic ban from euthanasia. People who edit these topics constructively shouldn't have to deal with this sort of relentlessly tendentious editing. There are actually general sanctions on abortion-related articles which are supposed to prevent this sort of thing: "Any uninvolved admin may impose a topic ban or blocks on disruptive editors for actions including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Such topic bans or blocks may be of up to three months duration." MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell you always attempt to use any excuse to try this, I believe you are stalking me and less concerned about the disruptions in this wikipedia. Proof: Factchekcer (the user who believes that I am a "fucking idiot") violated the 1RR rule at the same articles more than 1 time during the last weeks and he even got an incredible patience although he insisted on edit warring after being warned[2]; but his clear disruptive behaviour did not deserve your attention surely because he is usually at your side of the disputes. So it seems you are not really concerned about the disruption at those articles but you are trying to eliminate an user who does not agree with you. Another proof: if you were just concerned about my alleged contentious last edit why did not you revert it or attempted to discuss it at the talk page but you just came first here to the ANI? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Factchecker violates 1RR and doesn't self-revert, I think he should be blocked. If he gets blocked six times for edit-warring, as you've been, then I think he should be topic-banned. Does that sound fair? MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I violated 1RR once because I had never heard of 1RR before and didn't know any such restriction was in place; I violated 1RR a second time because I simply forgot it was in place. I am now wary of the existence of such strict measures. In the meantime, I also participated in the discussion and implemented the resulting consensus even though it was contrary to my own feelings on what was appropriate. This last part is a very crucial step that Claudio is missing and I'd suggest that this is the chief reason this discussion was initiated. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No MastCell, as I said, your attempts to ban me are not a fair way to resolve your contents disputes with me. And my last edit was far from become a edit warring, so you even lack of a pretext to try this ban again. It seems you are stalking me. Factckeer I am not missing nothing not even one of your words referring to me, such as "stupid reasoning", "giberish" or "fucking idiot" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I said you're missing is, among other things, the need to accept consensus when it is contrary to your own conclusions about what is best. I am aware that you noticed the profanity I directed at you on one occasion, as you've now repeated it in this discussion five separate times, as if to distract from the substance of the complaints about you. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a discussion on whether or not the topic ban should be extended is warranted. The continued and tedentious behavior exhibited in order to try and create this link has gone on long enough. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "tendentiouslink tendentiously inserted" are you talking about Falcon8765? That Margaret Sanger supported eugenics, coercive sterilization of sick people, ban for sick immigrants based on eugenics grounds is not a "tendentious link tendentiously inserted" but a fact that was even accepted and included into the Margaret Sanger wikipedia-article since long ago and actually not by me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "tedentious link". I said "tedentious behavior". Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate it is not a link tendentiously inserted but a fact already inserted since long ago into that article and not by me. And actually that link has nothing to do with the current discussion here. But you are another of those users who always came to the ANI looking for a ban against me based on off-topic things. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question Glancing at ClaudioSantos' edit history, I see a near single-minded obsession with eugenics (and, lets be fair, it is pretty horrifying) and related sanctity of life issues such as euthanasia (again, many people find it pretty horrifying), and a lot of chatter that seems to involve an aggressive attitude and getting into edit wars. What am I missing here that makes a topic ban make sense as opposed to a plain old, and rather long, block?--Tznkai (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So an "obsession with life" is your reason to push a block against me? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second Tznkai's question. ClaudioSantos has been topic banned (once) and blocked SIX times for tendentious and obsessive POV pushing and shows little promise of reform despite numerous unkept promises. An indefinite block seems reasonable to me. Patience is a virtue, but only up to a certain point. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been topic banned solely 1 time and I have not violated that topic ban ever. Dominus Vobisdu is clearly lying and misleading misled or he just mistyped, but his comment could mislead other users to my detriment. And the reason to open this thread at the ANI was baseless: solely one edit -already reverted and which did not drive to any edit warring- which at any rate also did NOT violate the topic ban. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the phrasing for which you are searching, Claudio, is "Dominus, if I have been topic banned as you say, could you please provide diffs of those bans? Thank you." I am almost certain you were not calling another editor a liar in a thread about how combative your approach has been. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps Dominus mistyped and meant to say "blocked six times" not "banned". This is a common mis-type. KillerChihuahua^?!?[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice] 01:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did. Sometimes my keyboard freezes up for a moment and ignores input, as it did in this case. I've added the omitted words in bold to my post above, as well as added the word once so that no one can interpret it as meaning that he was topic banned six times. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then let correct my last comment. Here I also have to add that the user (NotBW) who opened this thread already admitted that the reason he argued to revert my edit was also baseless due my edit was indeed explicity in the source. So his confessed assumption of bad faith ("I do not think you really did read the source") was nothing else than that. And this edit did not violate the topic ban as it was already stablished, because a lot of times it was told that editing eugenics topics does not mean editing euthanasia topics. This thread lacks even of pretexts but not of hostile and sedulous supporters who have called me a "fucking idiot" with "stupid reasoning" writting "gibberish", included some other users bordering the personal attacks referring to my edits with psycho(patho)logisms such as "obsessions", etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be; its irrelevant to the issue of your behavior. Its clear from your posts here that you have a problematic approach to working with your fellow editors. Regarding Factchecker atyourservice, you keep harping on a past transgression which has been handled and therefore there is no reason I can see to bring it up unless you're trying to refute his statements not by refuting them directly but by the ad hom approach of character assassination; Mastcell, you accuse of stalking you and "looking for excuses to ban you"; Dominus, you accused of lying - and yes, I appreciate you refactoring that statement, but in the future you'd do much better if you think before you post, and refactor before hitting the "submit" button. Meanwhile, you've caused a lot of disruption and don't seem to be at all open to the idea that your approach is causing any problems. I'm leaning strongly towards supporting Mastcell's suggestion we widen the topic ban; my main concern is that we'll have to keep widening it until it encompasses all of Wikipedia if you don't start reconsidering some of the advice you've been getting and taking it to heart. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And at the end of this long and quite not-so-nice discussion, I still have no answer on the question "Did he violate the topic ban". Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; no, he did not. The topic ban was quite narrow; hence our discussion about whether it should be expanded to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, and Eugenics; I would also add Nazi related topics. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear! Thank you for your opinion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The topic ban is explicitly broad, and I quote: "ClaudioSantos is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed". I don't think that Euthanasia sections of any article could be considered outside the scope of that topic ban. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 13:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics is not euthanasia, no matter how broadly one construes it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right. The altered paragraph, however, is focused on euthanasia in eugenics. No matter what the title of the article or the section, he is editing regarding the topic of euthanasia - that's a violation of his topic ban. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding sentence, which he did not edit, mentions euthanasia. The sentence he edited has no reference to euthanasia at all. I'm willing to call that a non-violation. Right now, I'm more interested in trying to see if he understands why he got that ban, and realizes he's engaging in the same behavior, and looking at increased editing restrictions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have not edited any euthanasia section of any article. And after my last 1RR block I also have not broken any rule nor engaged in any edit war.

KillerChihuahua, let me ask: so it is fair for all the mentioned users to refer about what they consider my behavior to re-open this ANI-thread but it is a fault of my part to refer to their behavior toward me? and it is fair to reopen this ANI-thread harping things which were already "handled" and which happened weeks and even months ago, but it is a fault of my part to refer to some very rude personal attacks and disruptions continuosly happening (and the last PA took part just 1 day ago) for whereby I think they are stalking me? KillerChihuahua, if that is your concern, certainly I was not the one who opened this ANI-thread to deal with already handled things, I came here to defend myself. So I find this unfair, given the fact that this ANI thread was opened because of one single edit, whereby I have not broken the current topic ban nor I have broken any 1RR rule nor my last edit even became an edit war nor a disruption, so precisely it seems here I am going to be re-judged and re-punished for already handled and past things. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand why you got the first topic ban? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do. And currently I am not editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user. The case with Factchecker is an example: instead of answering his very rude personal attacks, I have invited him to disengage from me and as he did not, then I have reported him to an admin to handle the thing. If this is your concern, let consider that I am not harping in Factcheker-s PAs here but the fact is: 1 day after he was warned because of his rude behavior calling me "dishonest person", then he came here to this ANI calling me again a "dishonest person". Actually I have not mentioned his PA-s here before he came here again to call me again "dishonest". Perhaps I must not ask if some users are stalking me, but the fact is: this is the 3 or even the 4 time the very same users open this ANI-thread using the very same pretext ("by editing eugenics I have broken the euthanasia ban"), and after that pretext is rejected then they bring again already handled and closed cases against me. So, I have to repeat: Indeed I have not edited any euthanasia section of any article, so I have not broken the ban. And after my last 1RR block I also have not broken any rule nor engaged in any edit war.. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just so you know, I was strongly temped to ignore everything you wrote after "I do." I read it, but it was useless and spammy and repetitive and I wish you hadn't wasted the text. Please don't do that again. Second question: WHAT led to your topic ban? Please be brief be concise and stay on topic this time, thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think I have already answered: currently I am not editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user which were the reason for the ban. And yes, I have understood those reasons. Proofs> certainly I have not PA any user although I have received some very provokatives comments. Certainly I have got my last blocks because I broke the 1RR rule as I was not used with that rule but I was being very careful not to engage in edit wars but discussing my edits at the talk pages. And you can check that after the ban most of my edits are at talk pages discussing the changes instead of editing the articles. A -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So short version (which I would have very much appreciated you sticking to) would be "editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user" - yes? And then you claim you haven't done that. Because accusing other editors of stalking, and lying, and so on, is not being rude??? A simple yes or no will do. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No and yes. I have expressed my concerns and I asked if opening 4 times the very same thread with the very same wrong pretext is not stalking me given the fact that the user who opened this thread was warned by one admin, because the non-involved admin also found in the past that this user was stalking me. If I wrote that some user was lying, it was due the very hard pressure that means to be answering this very same thread to the very same users once again, but I have refactored my comment. And at any rate I also think that it is not fair to let some users to continuously PA me and let other users to re-open this ANI thread using the very same wrong rejected pretext, again and again and again and again, whereby finally it desperates me and I write a wrong word which is then used as an excuse to punish me. I have patiently answered those concerns again and again and again. You can check that I have not written any PA against any user at any of the mentioned ANI threads dealing with the very same thing. So, finally, perhaps deseperated I lost a word ("he is lying") that at least is less rude than some words I have received also here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He asked a question. That's not a "wrong pretext" no matter how much you ABF. He got a short clear answer, too, which is more than I'm getting. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this same question was already answered 3 times and he was aware> editing eugenics is not breaking the euthanasia topic ban. Why to ask here again? Will any edit, I do at eugenics, trigger this very same thread again and again? Should I keep quite each time it happens? At any rate if that is not a pretext this time I was invited to came here to answer again the same question and I was put again under the same pressure. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph in question did mention euthanasia, and moreover, mentioned it in direct comparison to eugenics and as part of a general eugenics program. Just because I decided to cut some slack and not treat this as a violation does not mean it isn't very, very borderline, and another admin - or even me on another day - might have ruled that it does violate your ban. Every single time someone thinks you might be violating your ban, they can come here and ask. And if they ask 100 times, you should come and respond here, by explaining how your edit did not violate your ban. NOT with what's wrong with the other editor, or who is stalking you, or who is lying, or any other speculations or attacks on other editors. Simply with whether you violated the ban, and why or why not you think that. This is part of being under a topic ban. You are under this "pressure" because your behavior and editing have led to sanctions, in this case a topic ban. It is not the fault of the person asking the question; it is your fault, for your poor editing behavior previously which led to your topic ban. Do you understand? A yes or no will suffice. If the answer is no, then a brief question here about what you do not understand will be answered. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have patiently answered the question, the past 3 times it emerged, without any PA nor even asking if it was stalking. I also rejected to answer a question of some user who openly asked me if I considered euthanasia to be a form of eugenics or viceversa and then he came to the ANI to ask if eugenics could be part of the euthanasia topic ban if I thought that eugenics is euthanasia. I also have been very patience rejecting insults like "fucking idiot", "imbecile", "stupid", "dishonest". If I deserves that sort of pressures at any rate my patience should be considered and not solely two wrong words at this thread because I thought the question was already answered enough times and the criteria was enough clear. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any new insults to report? If so, provide diffs. Otherwise, your beating of this dead horse is not helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this same thread Factcheker call me "dishonest" and diqualified my reading and language skills[3], while one day ago he was warned to stop calling me precisely with the same very terms. But given that a ban is being triggered because of my alleged "combative attitude" it should be noticed that you have not mentioned nothing at all about me being really so patience about those rude insults and aswering very patiently 3 threads asking if euthanasia topic ban includes eugenics. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean "In this very thread Factchecker called me "dishonest" and disparaged my reading and language skills. I believe he may have a point; it is clear your English language skills are not quite to the level we expect of editors, if your posts here are any example. I am sorry you find this information painful to read; however your lack of skill at written English is quite plain. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the thing and being unfair. He was warned not to refer again to my language skills for he used that excuse to call me "fucking idiot", "stupid reasoning", "giberish writer" and he abusively and repeatedly edited my user page although he was warned to stop doing so. If a ban against me is now considered because of my past, it is proverbial how these past insults and disruptions are now being forgotten and you simply say: "he has a point".But let aside the language skills, are you legitimating him to call me "dishonest" also?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that your difficulties with English may be contributing to your problems here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio, I only began calling your editing "dishonest" after our most recent discussion which revealed conduct which I consider to be clearly dishonest. To be specific, you deleted an article sentence with the edit summary "that is not siad by the cited sources". When I discovered that it was, in fact, stated verbatim by the cited source on the cited page, I chalked it up to the language barrier, although in retrospect that seems to have been too generous to you, as no failure of reading comprehension by a reader who uses the Latin alphabet could explain a failure to see an exact replica of the article text in the source itself.

The picture got much worse when you revealed your actual motive for removing the material. I quote:

The source does claim that Sanger would not tolerate bigotry in her staff. That phrase is preceded with another phrase written in first person: "...I (the author)..." . For me it was quite evident that the author was presenting her own opinion about the matter, but it was published in wikipedia as a fact. An opinion should not be presented as a matter of facts, while it is not what the source does. If you differ from my comprehension of the matter then you are still not welcomed to (dis)qualify my reading comprehension but it is still an hostile, uncivil and unproductive manner, moreover given your proven hostile and rude personal attacks from you against me during the last months.

Leaving aside the question of whether you were right in claiming this (which I really don't think you were), it became clear at this point that you had misrepresented your edit. To be specific, you were making the edit based on a very thin (and I think, questionable) argument; but instead you pretended that you had a rock-solid justification (because surely, "it's not in the source" is one of the most rock-solid justifications of all for removing article text). I find it impossible to believe that this was not a fully calculated attempt to disguise the nature of an unjustified and very POV-pushing edit. There's just no rational explanation that I can see that would explain why you acted the way you did.

So, that's why I called you dishonest, and you have not even attempted to prove me wrong. Instead, you go on and on about how I'm persecuting you and shouldn't be believed because I cursed at you. This, too, seems a bit dishonest, though not in the unambiguous sense that the other conduct I just described appears to be dishonest. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factchecker, after you referred to me using expresions such as "fucking idiot", "stupid reasoning", "gibberish" and "someone who does not deserve friendly manners", I have decided that chatting with you would be a waste of time and a occasion for unproductive and uncivil discussions and for more personal attacks against me. Ironically my efforts to disengage from you and to keeep away from uncivil discussions were not seen here but solely my sole rude word asking if I was being "stalked". At any rate, my edit was finally reverted by you and I did not restore it to avoid any edit war, thus another of my efforts to avoid edit wars but also an effort not considered here in favor of me. At any rate I explained to you that I could not find that claim was in the source because for me it seemed a matter of opinion while in the article it was presented as a matter of facts. Perhaps the matter is that I can not understand how can be said that Sanger does not tolerate bigotry with some people while at the same time this Sanger expressively and openly considers this people to be an inferior race. Surely I have a different comprehension on what does mean tolerence. For me just saying and admitting that some people is inferior is a matter of bigotry. That was my "stupid reasoning" which led me to think that it was not a fact but an opinion, while the WP was presenting it as a fact. At any rate, instead of discussing the thing and instead of using the existing means for an eventual content dispute, the thing was bringed immediately here at the ANI. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really saying that you think "that is not siad by the cited sources" was a clear and honest way of saying that you think the source was stating a matter of opinion which should not be reflected as fact in a Wikipedia article? Do you see how an editor who simply took that edit summary at face value would likely refrain from investigating further—rather than logging in to Google books and reading through pages of some obscure text—whereas if you had raised the "opinion vs. fact" rationale then that would have given other editors a clue that the issue was not quite that cut and dry?

It seems to me that this was either just as dishonest as I think it was, or that the language barrier is a bit steeper than I had thought. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me the source does not say that "Sanger does not tolerate bigotry", but for me the source says that "for the author Sanger would not tolerate bigotry". So I summarized: the source does not say that. If it was a mistake at any rate I answered your concern and explained my reasons and I did not restore my edit when you reverted it. Thus another overlooked effort from my part to keep away from unproductive and uncivil discussions and to explain and let correct my edits. Another effort also not considered here in my favor. So unfair. For the rest: you assuming my bad language skills and my defficient moral, is something I still reject once again to discuss due improductive. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment, was reply to Factchecker in the Alternate proposal section. As it has ntohing to do with the proposal, I have moved it here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Since the ban I use to explain any of my edits which emerged to be disputed by any user. My blocks have to do with breaking the very strict 1RR rule for I was not used to it (and you also admitted to break the same very rule for the same reason). Despite your rude comments, I have even explained to you my last edit which triggered this ANI thread, and I did not restored it once you have reverted it. And you reverted it concerned not about the grammar but about the reliability of the source. A source that I have taken from the very same article as it was used as a reference for another phrase. But at any rate I have not restored it once you have reverted me and you opened the discussion at the talk page. And, I already said that I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from the less mechanical native language I speak, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering any rude comments. So, these are some proofs that I have shown disposal to discuss my edits and to avoid unporductive uncivil discussion about the users, so I think that extending my ban is unfair. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Do you remember your first reply on me in this discussion? For your information, you have stated there: "I think he is abusing the ANI and stalking me". I call that an, to cite you, "unporductive uncivil discussion about the users"! Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken into account the very large amount of times included the last 3 threads asking if I was breaking the euthanasia topic ban when editing eugenics, a lor of thread for which I have answered very patiently to anybody? It is unfair to judge me here because I used here a the word "stalking" because I thought your question was alreay answered before a lot of times. If that was a wrong word at any rate certainly I have shown a lot of disposal to avoid uncivil and unproductive discussions despite of very rude insults against me and I have discussed every edit that emerged to be disputed. My last blocks were because I have broken the very strict 1RR rule for which I was not used. So, things in my favor should be also considered, do not you think so? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked a normal question about the article Margaret Sanger. It does not matter that the same question was asked in relation to other articles. But every article is judged on his own merites, so checking on every article is possible. Unfortunately, you reponded by kicking and screaming, sparking an ugly discussion. You could also have waited to see what the answer would be... Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could ask me about the thing instead of coming here to the ANI or you could just warned me about your concern and perhaps I would have reverted myself, or you could advise me to keep quite here at this thread to avoid any misundertanding. Unfortunately you did not. If there are no innocent, at any rate I am not incorrigible but elimination may be. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

grin Up until now you have most words of advice used as toilet paper! Do you really expect me to have hope for an improvement regarding your behaviour in the near future here on Wikipedia? Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not expected from you nothing, not even about my behavior. I have demanded to consider not only proofs against me but also proofs in favor of me. That is something that is claimed to be guaranteed at any modern court, or for example the guarantee that the accuser is not also the judge, but I also realized that those nice procedural legal guarantees are used to be used as toilet paper. If that happens in the courts what do you think you can expect here at this community? But I remmeber that you have strong confidence in the legal guarantees around euthanasia there where it is legal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest expanding the topic ban for ClaudioSantos to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all BLPs biographies of notable persons involved (however remotely) in such subjects. This would include editing any BLP where any of these subjects are mentioned anywhere in the article. Editor has combative attitude, a bad case of pointing fingers at others rather than discussing problems with his own behavior. Removing him from these highly charged topics, about which he clearly has strong views, may enable him to learn to approach collaborative editing more civilly and productively. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP, or Biographies in general? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. All biographies relating to the topics, I should think. I welcome any feedback or other ideas. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with some reservations. I think even with an expanded topic ban we'll be back here again, so I would advocate an indefinite block here. If a topic ban is put in place I think restricting all edits to biographies in his problem areas is warranted. AniMate 16:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We can always indef if the expanded parameters don't have the desired effect. I have changed the proposed sanctions to cover all biographies in covered topics, not just BLPs. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Topic ban for user with long term civility problems and an agenda. N^oformation ^Talk 17:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In line with my comments above. If you're going to topic ban him/her from the only places he/she is interested in writing, why not just block or siteban outright?--Tznkai (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Removing him from these highly charged topics, about which he clearly has strong views, may enable him to learn to approach collaborative editing more civilly and productively. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Currently it hasn't been mentioned whether this is keeping the current timeline, extending it or making it indefinite. Also have a problem with the Biography wording. With the wording now if he edits ANY politician page whether he is editing the person's view on abortion or not, someone can say he is violating his ban.Marauder40 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re: canvassing: Just FYI, Claudio has canvassed at least 4 other editors requesting their participation in this discussion, all of whom were apparently chosen on the presumption that they would view him favorably (NYyankees51, Haymaker, Marauder40, Qwyrxian). MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  addendum: he has already been warned and has not canvassed any more since. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And I have invited also users who support the ban against me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Not on Wikipedia you haven't. You've only asked those listed by Mastcell. After you received the note about WP:CANVASS, you told the editor who cautioned you that you had "asked by email some usred who are against me and who have asked for ban me"[4] which is conveniently something only you and the recipients can verify, as it is not available for the rest of us to view. I'm left wondering why the difference in venue? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  How convenient. Please provide proof of that statement, or else explain why you should not be blocked for it. NW (Talk) 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to Tznkai, ask him to verify. And I did sent an email also to Marauder, but while Tznkai answered here the ANI supporting the ban against me, Marauder did not commented anything so I also left him a message at his talk page. I also left a message to Qwyrxian an uninvolved admin in the articles here mentioned (Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, eugenics, etc.) but who have a vreal and good understanding to differentiate and reject PAs and insults. He already commented this proposal and it should be noticed that he did not supported nor rejected the ban but mentioned some points about it. Marauder and the other 2 users I left a message were users previously involved in all the content disputes I have been dealing with the topic eugenics including the article Margaret Sanger, so I think they could be interested in this thing. I thought it was not canvassing given that I did invite not only people who could side with me but people uninvolved and people against. At any rate, once I have been warned that it could be cavassing I still did not invite anyone else. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - An outright ban seems unproductive, seeing his prior sockpuppetry. But a wide topic ban seems fair if it includes biographies of everybody actively involved or member of any related movement but excludes national politicians (if not involved/member). Half a year or a year looks a good term. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm one of the canvassed editors. As far as I can recall, my involvement with this crew so far has been the person mentioned above several times as having warned Factchecker for personal attacks. I have no opinion on whether or not this ban is deserved, but I do think that the phrase "however remotely" needs to be removed. "Broadly construed", as already used, is the standard wording, and "however remotely" would render this topic ban into an unintentional trap. That wording would almost guarantee that CS would cross the ban, because someone could say, "Hey, you edited an article of Person X; he used to work for Company X whose ex-CEO once gave a donation to Planned Parenthood,so that's remotely related, so you're in violation of your ban." Also, I'd like clarification on whether or not this ban extends to user space and/or article talk space. My opinion is that article talk space should apply, but not user space; I would like for the user to be able to safely ask someone whether or not a given article falls under the ban, since the limits may be difficult to see. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This seems too harsh. I might agree with a short (i.e. one month) topic ban to allow for mentorship or adoption, as I proposed below. I think what Claudio needs is a full appreciation of Wikipedia guidelines and rules. As someone who has been down this road before, it is entirely possible for Claudio to reform without drastic measures being taken. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is now serving a 3 month topic ban. Why just a month? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still like to have an answer on that, Mr. NYyankees! Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an editor doesn't have an appreciation of Wikipedia's guidelines after the multiple discussions brought here, a topic ban, and multiple blocks for edit warring; you'll forgive me for being skeptical that they'll have a sudden change of heart. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am an advocate of second chances, as well as an adopter. I would like for this editor to have the benefit of adoption before we start seriously considering indef banning.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: The expanded ban proposed by KillerChihuahua is the very least that can be done to stop the constant disruption this editor has caused. Personally, I consider it lenient and would prefer an idefinite ban. The editor has a severe case of battleground mentality and there is little, if any, hope that he will improve, as his topic ban, his six blocks for edit warring and his statements here confirm. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No reason to believe that Wikipedia would benefit from any such major expansion of a topic ban. In fact, the expansion would make this one of the broadest bans in the entire history of Wikipedia entirely. Collect (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if I have edited any article related to abortion or nazism it was related to euthaNAZIa or eugenics. For instance, Aktion-T4 nazi euthanasia program and sections related to eugenics roots of Margaret Sanger at Planned Parenthood. All users here demanding a ban for me were very strong opponets to mention the actual links between Margaret Sanger and eugenics and racism but I wonder why they also support to protect from me the articles related to nazism as a whole? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rephrasing to add time; address concerns - ClaudioSantos is to be topic banned for a period of six months to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all biographies of notable persons involved in such subjects, broadly construed. This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects. - Please comment below; if there are any tweaks or fixes to make please discuss. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally think one year may be a little harsh, unless you do something like one year if he doesn't agree to mentoring, 3 months if he does and abides by his mentors suggestions during that time. As for the biography section, I don't like the wording from this point on "This would include editing any biography where any of these subjects are mentioned anywhere in the article..." I am terrible at legalize editing but can it just be simplified to say something similar to "including portions of any biographies that deal with said subjects." The way he could edit say (just as an example) the Barack Obama page but he can't touch the subjects on abortion, eugenics, etc. contained within and/or add something about that to the page. If he just goes into a page like that an bashes the person or something like that, that can be dealt with separately.Marauder40 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've changed it to "This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects, with the exception of politicians who merely mention their stance on Abortion, but including those who are active in listed causes/fields or are members of related organizations or have worked for same. " - basically using your verbiage, but changing "portion" to "section". Regarding the time, what about adding that he can apply to have the restrictions lifted after 6 months? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally think you can just end it at "This would include editing any section of any biographies that deal with said subjects." The rest of it would be included in that sentence and the sentence before it covers all cases, both the cases of biographies that directly deal directly with the said subjects, and any sections of biographies where the person isn't directly in the "industry" but deals with the subject in some way. As for adding applying after 6 months, technically someone can apply at any time. Not sure adding it will help. Just think 1 year may be a little harsh. In effect this is an escalation from 3 months to 1 year, figuring it would be better to go from 3 months to 6 months for this type of infraction, but violation again would cause indefinite topic ban. Marauder40 (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: With the updated wording. Arguments that this is too harsh don't take into account the repeated pattern of combative behavior even after six blocks and a topic ban. I highly doubt it improves. The copious fingerpointing and deflection in this thread serves as a good example. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - based on the behavior seen in this AN/I thread, this seems an appropriate action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — Again, I'd prefer to abstain from judgment on the actual topic ban, but I think it's important to state the following. My repeated core suggestion to Claudio, which has unfortunately both gone ignored and has provoked hostility in response (which I admit I have subsequently matched), can be stated as follows:

If Claudio finds himself locked in a dispute with another editor, and resolution of the dispute promises to hinge on either of the following:

1. Analysis of English text in a source, or

2. Understanding of WP policy as expressed in written statements of policy,

Claudio should consult with a native or other expert English speaker, and preferably one with very extensive WP experience, before persisting with a disputed edit, or even a drawn-out talk page discussion, which can be equally unproductive given a significant language barrier. If he does not do this, his good but still problematic English language skills will negatively impact both his reading of the source and his understanding of the applicable policy. These two manifestations of the language barrier would seem likely to feed off of each other and multiply the problems that result. The other perceived qualities that have led to this ANI, the topic ban, and other blocks, are a significant enough problem without this complicating factor. And it just seems that the language barrier problem would be the very easiest one to correct—if not in the way I suggest, then in some other way that leaves the door open to a productive editing future.

Barring that, it's not my opinion that editing English WP should be open to any and all. Some baseline language ability, or at least a willingness to work around a very real language barrier, should be required, IMO. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Factckeher proposal: Since the ban I use to explain and discuss any of my edits which emerged to be disputed by any user as proposed by Factchecker now, so I am not against doing so. My blocks have to do with breaking the very strict 1RR rule for I was not used to it (and Factcheker self also admitted to break the same very rule for the same reason). For example, despite some rude comments, I have even explained and discussed my last edit which triggered this ANI thread, and I did not restored it once Factcheker have reverted it. And Factchecker reverted it concerned not about the grammar but about the reliability of the source. A source that I have taken from the very same article as it was used as a reference for another phrase. And, I already said that I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from the less mechanical native language I speak, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering any rude comments. Due the ban I strive not to get involved in that sort of discussions despite the commenter deserves an answer about the content despite of the manners. So, these are some proofs showing that I have shown disposal to discuss my edits and to avoid unporductive uncivil discussions about the users, so I think that extending my ban is unnecessary. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more arguing about language skills and civility. Not helpful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow, excellent example of a statement that flies in the face of the 5 pillars and founding principals of WP.Marauder40 (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] Have you ever read WP:CIR? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] Sorry to offend, Marauder, but how so? You've got me curious. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] Many of the best editors of WP may not speak English as a first, second, or even third language. I have been on several pages where someone that obviously had problems with English made an edit to a page that was correct, but may have had grammatical issues with it. I have been in talk page discussion with people where this also happened, including issues where cultural or grammar issues had to be explained. It seems like this pillar is being forgotten "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit...Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others.", yes WP:CIR exists, but language problems can be worked with with people that are welcoming, but not by people that are failing to AGF or give second chances, etc.Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] However, according to WP:COMPETENCE, an editor may be working in good faith, but if their language skills prohibit them from properly contributing then that's simply something we can't deal with. I'm not saying that this is the case here, just putting it out there. Noformation Talk 20:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] It seems some are making more of the language issue then there really is. Instead of taking things to talk pages and discussing it there, things got into a slow moving edit war with multiple people. People (on both sides) seem to be claiming language issues that aren't really there. IMHO, the language difficultly section of WP:CIR refers to people that barely understand English repeatedly inserting horrible English into the actual articles, not people that may have minor interpreting issues or being sloppy on the talk page/edit summaries. Marauder40 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] Marauder, your previous comment is all well and good, but the scenario you envision presupposes an editor who is both able to recognize, and willing to work around, his language limitations. Claudio, on the other hand, reacts with negativity and even hostility at the mere suggestion that he is perhaps not Bill Shakespeare. Further, the existence or non-existence of other editors whose language limitations don't get in the way of their editing is really quite irrelevant. My suggestion offers a perfectly reasonable way that Claudio could work around his language issues and keep them from coloring disputes (at worst) and constantly making extra work for other editors (at best). FWIW, I have yet to see an edit by Claudio that didn't introduce broken English or at least very very bad grammar into an article. If every single edit he makes requires significant-to-massive copyediting, and if he can't understand the sources he is reading, or the policies he's supposed to be observing, it seems the simpler and more practical solution that Claudio himself make the effort to avoid such problems. Finally, this could foster the sort of mentoring relationship that we all need at one point or another. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] I assume you are exaggerating to make a point here, because I have seen edits he has made that don't have major grammar errors. The edit that brought this thing to ANI is an example. Approach can also help in the situations, instead of wholesale reverts, just correcting the grammar, or saying on the talk page, "Hey, you might want to phrase it this way instead." Don't attack with, "Grammar Nazi" (not an attack, directly from your user page) style attacks. I admit my grammar on talk page stinks, but I try to get it right in actual articles, but realize that sometimes people need to correct me. The example that brought this to ANI is a content dispute, not a grammar problem. Marauder40 (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] No, I'm not exaggerating, but it's not as if I've looked through his edit history. I'm talking about the edits he's made at articles at times when I was watching them. And actually, the edit that brought this to ANI helps prove my point. The sentence he added was only grammatically correct to the extent it was copy/pasted from the source; he added a single word and a comma which then rendered it in need of copy editing. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I would wholesale revert for grammar. I reverted because he seems to have been lying about the source. And this is something I've brought to his attention before when he claimed something was simply not in the source when it clearly and obviously was right there in the cited source at the cited location. And you're way off-base with the suggestion that I am being a "grammar Nazi", too; we're talking about basic reading comprehension that has a critical impact on the way he reads sources and policies. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] First off, I got the fact that you are a "grammar Nazi" directly off your user page. I was using the example as an item that doesn't have a MAJOR grammatical error in it. Claiming things like that he is introducing "Broken English" or "very very bad grammar" in every article he edits doesn't hold up here. Like I said the reason for this coming to ANI isn't a grammar issue but a content issue. I personally think the language portion of this ANI request should be a non-issue.Marauder40 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] That doesn't mean that my suggestion here is grammar nazi-ish. Indeed, the complaint about introduction of copy-editing workload (and some of it is, indeed, incredibly bad) is at the margin of what I've been talking about. Rather, it's Claudio's understanding of sources, understanding of policies, and the way he then reflects that understanding of the source and states his policy rationales to other. These are at the core of editing even where no content disputes exist, but become almost the only thing that matters when a dispute must be resolved. And I'm not even saying that some kind of sanction needs to be placed; but if anyone but me thinks this is a reasonable idea, I think they might be able to persuade Claudio to seek this sort of constructive advice on his own initiative. I have tried, but failed. That's it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] Factchecker you insulting me is far from being productive or an attempt to improve my language skills. I have never rejected to improve my language skills and I take a lot of care when editing an article, but I certainly have rejected your very uncivil manners against me. And due the ban, I have to keep away from unproductive and uncivil discussions such as those you proposed to me. Actually, these my efforts to avoid uncivil and unproductive discussions, have not been considered in favor of me in this ANI thread. Well, at any rate, your very first comment to me at one talk page was expressively saying that people like me should not be allowed to edit at wikipedia. Surely, we have a very different comprehension on what is productive and what is unproductive. Well, I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from my less mechanical native language, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering your very rude comments Factchecker. Above I also explained my last edit reasoning. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: mentorship or adoption for ClaudioSantos. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This editor should be offered the benefit of mentoring/adoption. In the instance the disruption continues we can always revisit more stringent sanctions.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Feel free to offer to mentor him. He could use some help. The two are not mutually exclusive. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Plain useless. Subject has rejected all earlier issued advice, al least in deeds. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now I remember that once after you read my position against this really noxious capitalistic reality, that for me deserves to be helped to die and to be abolished forever and replaced with a real Human Species, unlike me, you were so optimistic on people, you said. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i hope you don't mind that I skip the gibberish part and reflect on "unlike me, you were so optimistic on people, you said". In a certain way, that is true. I think I have said something like "I trust people until they have proven to be untrustworthy." Let me be clear: I don't trust you and you will not get an invitation for my birthday party. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There's nothing to suggest that Claudio is at all interested in mentorship or adoption. It's also worth noting that Yank and Lionel didn't show up here until they were canvassed. PhGustaf (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also worth noting that NotBW who opened this ANI thread did not show up at Margaret Sanger or to Eugenics at the United States, until I edited there. I do not believe in coincidences, do you PhGustaf? At any rate, actually I do have asked one user to adopt me so I am indeed interested in the adoption. I did not canvass Lionel nor asked him to adopt me, I have never interacted with him. All about an alleged canvass was responded above. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely the combative behavior we are talking about. Fingerpointing and accusing another editor of waiting in the wings for you to edit so they can report you. A bit silly. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, are you talking about PhGustaf concerns about Lionel showing up here allegedely because I have canvassed him? I have not canvassed Lionel, although I was fingerpointed and accused of that. A bit silly, I do agree. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not when I responded to your comment. Regardless, that's quite enough interaction with you for me. Don't have the patience for the behavior you got brought here for int he first place. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Very unlikely to have any effect on the combative behaviour that has caused this editor to be topic banned and blocked for edit warring six times. If anyone wants to try it, feel free. But that is no substitute for expanding the topic ban. This user has consumed an incredible amount of time and attention already. I also have concerns about the canvassing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe and practice adoption instead of abortion, even if I have to "waste" my time. But that's me who have nothing at all to lose than chains. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Very much doubt this would do any good, given the lack of behavioral change after previous blocks. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sadly - won't fix the problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Sharkey, who's primary account User: Jonathon The Impaler has been blocked in the past for making legal threats, was later unblocked after recounting his legal threats. Now, however, it looks as if Jonathon has returned to his old litigious ways, according to this letter he wrote to the POW Network:

"Wikipedia, which should be pulled down, already posted your BS lies - I will thank you for this. As you can see, they questioned my ever being in the Army. At least you helped with that. Thank you. My advise to you is, check with your attorneys, and ask them do they think you will win a Libel Per Se lawsuit. If they say yes, keep your stuff up about me. If they don't, you better recant and take it down."

That sure sounds like a NLT violation to me. Should we block Jonathon the Impaler again? Difluoroethene (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I read that legal threat, it was directed at the source, and not at Wikipedia or any contributor. Why does that justify action? Monty₈₄₅ 22:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the phrase "...which should be pulled down" a veiled legal threat? Difluoroethene (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the phrase as an expression of disgust with Wikipedia, but not a legal threat. Monty₈₄₅ 23:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't even making these comments on Wikipedia. How would the administrators even take action against him? Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Alpha Quadrant brought up, these threats were not actually made on Wikipedia. Is this in violation of WP:LEGAL or not? – Richard BB 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't threatening Wikipedia, just the POW network. On that note, however, I don't think we should be using the POW network as a source for a clearly controversial statement about a living (... err ... undead?) person. I think we need to remove that claim until a more reliable source has published it; a newspaper, for example. --GRuban (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Talk:Jonathon_Sharkey#Ph.D._Claims. Sharkey just e-mailed William S. Saturn and told him that Wikipedia had a "legal obligation" to post what Sharkey wants us to post. If that isn't a legal threat, I don't know what is. Difluoroethene (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:DOLT. This is exactly what it is about. Sharkey is not acting as an editor, but as someone rightly concerned about his reputation. Give him a break. "Don't let policies like no vandalism and no legal threats lead to your editing cluelessly and adversely affecting some innocent person's life by your thoughtless action. Wikipedia has real life consequences; Wikipedia is not a video game." We don't have a legal obligation to write about his PhD, but that's beside the point, we do have a policy obligation not to write that he lied about it without truly excellent sources. I'm going to remove that poorly sourced highly controversial claim from the article per WP:BLP. I haven't done that often, but this is clearly called for. Don't restore it without a better source, please. As a side effect that should make the legal threats issue irrelevant, but that's not the point. --GRuban (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For what its worth (which given WP:OR isn't much, true), but I have been involved in military imposter investigations in the past, and the POW Network is highly regarded in this area. I'm looking now to see if their exposure work was ever covered by something that may pass a reliable source. Tarc (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this new editor appear and start editing some of the more common target articles, such as The Rescuers and The Rescuers Down Under. At Rescuers Down Under, this editor specifically undid changes made just before by an anon IP. This is a pattern that Bambifan101 has exhibited in recent attacks, as well. I'm posting notices on both the IP and the editor's pages. --McDoobAU93 04:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are correct McDoob. A quick looks that this pages history [6] shows an edit made by an IP from Alabama here [7] that had a spelling error that was corrected by Victorious fan 2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a couple minutes later. That combined with the redirecting of pages that did not exist looks to be an attempt to get enough edits in to be autocomfirmed and that is the kind of thing that Bambifan has done in the past. Hopefully your quick notification will nip this in the bud before things get out of hand. MarnetteD | Talk 04:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's not necessary to post on every help desk or noticeboard. Please report any strong suspicions of sockpuppetry at WP:SPI. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First there is no reason to have removed my post. Second The only noticeboard that McDoob has posted this at is this one. Most importantly BambiFan is a long term problem who is also banned by the community. Action to stop this person from editing should occur ASAP, thus, reporting it here is just as viable an option as SPI and, experience shows, is often much quicker. MarnetteD | Talk 04:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Per WP:LTA/BF101, new abuse actions are to be reported here. If that is not the case, then I'll make sure to edit the long-term abuse report for BF101 accordingly. This was the first noticeboard at which I posted this notice, with the new SPI case being the second. Need to go post the SPI notices on the two suspected sock accounts. --McDoobAU93 05:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to mail Bambifan a gift box containing a boxing glove mounted on a spring. Night Ranger (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason that no admin action has taken place since this thread was started last night (my time.) Both Victorious fan 2011 and this IP 12.171.79.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from Alabama have continued to edit in an unproductive manner. Since the WP:LTA/BF101 specifically states (in red letters) that editing by socks of this banned editor are to be reported here it would be nice if some response from an admin would occur either here or at the SPI filed by McDoobAU93. Thanks ahead of time for looking into this and for any action that you can take. MarnetteD | Talk 15:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the lack of response simply means there's nothing to respond to. With an open SPI, there's really nothing for this board to add. SPI can take a day or so, so just be patient. If you see more out-of-bounds editing by this editor, please post the diffs - if the SPI is negative, we'll still have a record of what's going on, and it might invite some more commentary.. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's back. This needs to be taken care of as soon as possible. --McDoobAU93 19:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More proof, as he's attempting to call out his own socks, per his M.O. Immediate assistance requested. --McDoobAU93 19:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you all haven't been around long enough. Bambifan is a long term problem who has been banned by the community. As stated at WP:BANNED "Accounts which are reincarnations (sockpuppets) of banned users may be blocked as soon as it's obvious who they are". We have given you the examples of the editing patterns that prove that this is the return of BambiFan. All you have to do is click on the contributions links that I have provided as every single edit is an example of "out-of-bounds" editing. Swift action usually makes him go away for a time whereas sitting around waiting for the process to play itself out simply encourages him to edit further and create more socks. That is one of the reasons that WP:LTA/BF101 (has anyone actually read this yet?) tells us to come here to report him when we see his kind of activity start up so that swift action will occur. Among the current nonsense occuring is his tagging of IPs from states other than Alabama as Bambifan socks. AGF is not just for newbies and you might trust editors who have been dealing with this for a number of years to know what they are doing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now [8] he is requesting a block. Could someone please fulfill that request so that the rest of us can get back to the editing that we want to do? MarnetteD | Talk 19:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FINALLY the sock's been blocked. Will update the long-term abuse report accordingly. --McDoobAU93 20:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)My thanks to User:zzuuzz for blocking this pest. The last half hour of nonsense could have been avoided with some response to our concerns yesterday. MarnetteD | Talk 20:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for deletion of the Wikipedia:BLP2E essay that was created by administrator User:Toddst1.

At the top of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna article, there is an extensive discussion about how notable prior press coverage is complicating the BLP1E determination. The nominator redlinked to Wikipedia:BLP2E in what I believe was an attempt to acknowledge the issue and also an attempt at humor. This discussion is still in the article, but the wikilinks to BLP2E have since been removed.

Toddst1 subsequently created an essay by that title. The essay seems to be tailored to the substance of that particular debate and I judge its future value at zero. I believe that the essay has a POV slant that needs an NPOV edit, but editing this essay as part of a deletion discussion seems silly. The essay is a joke about a joke and severely misses the point. Moreover, by putting his POV comments in a redlinked essay when they should have been on the talk page, Toddst1's injected his POV into the deletion discussion in a way that is unavailable to other editors and in a way that I believe contravenes talk page guidelines.

I think that the creation of this essay by Toddst1 is an excellent example of gaming the system and I asked him to revert himself: User_talk:Toddst1#BLP2E_article. I think that he should delete this essay.Jarhed (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what WP:MFD is for. I don't really see any "gaming of the system" here; I have no opinion on whether the essay should remain, but I don't see how it harmed the AFD discussion, or "injected a POV" into the discussion (what does this even mean?). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By making his opinion on the deletion issue in the form of an essay rather than by placing it on the talk page, his edit was not normally available as part of the talk page discussion. It is unreasonable to expect deletion discussion participants to have to discuss a standard deletion in such a non-standard way. In addition, putting his comments in an essay gave them a color of authority, especially by less knowledgable editors.Jarhed (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with the view that the subject of the article under discussion actually has notability for more than 1 event, I don't see a problem with the essay. Nor do I think its existence is problematically impacting the AfD discussion. In any case, as Floquenbeam says, the appropriate venue for discussion deletion of the essay is WP:MFD. Rlendog (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I suggested. Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I would like to get this difference of opinion cleared up. I believe that creating this essay as part of a deletion discussion was an instance of gaming the system and that this type of edit should not be done by anybody. If this was a reasonable edit that anybody including I should be able to do, then I would like to know that.Jarhed (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the creation of it was rather pointy, and would cheerfully enter in an opinion to delete if it goes to MfD. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of going to MfD, but I think that allowing editors to create and edit essays so that they are tailored for particular talk page debates would be a disaster.Jarhed (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it happen a couple of times, the idea/need/desire for an essay arises out of a discussion. Its not against any policy I have heard of - it would only be an issue if it was like naming users or attacking in nature or something like that but this one Wikipedia:BLP2E is none of those things. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know more about the essays you cite. Were they similiar to this one, so tailored to the argument that they could have appeard in a redlink?Jarhed (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What administrator action are you requesting here? It's not an attack page and isn't speedyable. If you think it should be deleted, send it to MfD. Otherwise, a discussion regarding the value of the essay should probably happen at the Village Pump or on the essay's talk page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examples I can think of offhand are mbz1's Properly follow a proper policy essay created in response to an Arb Enforcement discussion, deleted as a bad-faith essay creation. Also, JClemens' Wikipedia:What is one event is created in response to a common point of contention in AfDs and DRVs, but its actually not so bad of a point. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To get pointy myself, any good point made in BLP2E properly belongs in BLP1E and was created as a separate essay precisely to insert an essay into the deletion debate. If the BLP2E essay has any value as a separate essay at all, the administrator could have waited until after the debate closed to create it in order to avoid improperly influencing the debate.Jarhed (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if administrator Toddst1 action in creating this essay as part of influencing a deletion discussion was an instance of gaming the system, or if this was a reasonable edit that anybody including I should be able to do. If this is not the correct forum to ask that question then please point me to the correct one.Jarhed (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essays express the opinion of the creator - it would be no different if he'd posted the screed on his talkpage, as long as it's just expressing his opinion, and not attacking people that's OK. Now drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the above. If somebody has something they feel is essay-worthy, as long as it isn't attacking somebody, what made them feel it was necessary is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, it is a bad idea to say "administrator so-and-so" when talking about purely editorial actions. It gives the impression that you are attacking the editor rather than commenting on the content. Editors have broad latitude to write essays about Wikipedia. It can help them sort their thoughts and share ideas. We do not want to cast a pall over that activity. Jehochman ^Talk 18:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inks.LWC (talk · contribs) is attempting to change the essence of the essay despite a discussion on the talk page citing Improving existing essays that recommends "When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it may be best to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view." The changes appear to be a thinly veiled case of sour grapes as s/he had weighed in on my comments in the AFD referenced above. I'm not going to edit war over it but it's clear to me from the discussion above and the actions here that this is another attempt to silence/neuter the essay and not at all constructive. Toddst1 (talk)

A revert is hardly edit warring - this whole issue is totally pointy and trivial. It arose out of a minor misinterpretation of policy or a keyboard error - blank the essay and move along is imo the most creative way forward.. FWIW - Imo - Inks version is much less pointy and is the more useful version of the essay - Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to "pile on", but in retrospect User:Inks.LWC is a pretty BITEy editor with respect to WP:DELetion. S/He surely came across to me that way the first time I met him. So, his/her action on this essay is not an entirely isolated incident. More likely it reflects on his/her philosophy. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created WP:BLP2E should be policy as a place for the opposing viewpoint using Inks.LWC's wording. I'm optimistic that those opposed to the essay I created will respect it and work on that essay in accordance with the advice in Wikipedia:Essays. I want to respect the opposing views, but I object to having the original essay co-opted.

Wikipedia:BLP2E is now the subject of an edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your missing the point Todd - that isn't the opposing viewpoint of your pointy creation at all, I don't think there even is an opposing veiw. Your pointedness here is incredulous. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the wording from Inks.LWC' [9] in the best of faith. If I haven't captured the opposing viewpoint accurately (I think it does exist), I apologize and encourage you to fine tune the opposing essay. Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Italy. Editor's who disagree with Todd's essay don't have a right to just go change essays to how they feel the essays should be written. Yes, contributions (including essays) are irrevocably released, but that isn't a reason to change the spirit of any essay.--v/r - TP 20:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of the essay is pointedness. All of this just laughable - go on enjoy yourself, no one is fine tuning what only exists in your thoughts. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Elen of the Roads stated above, drop the stick. Toddst1 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your the one waving your pointy twig around. Off2riorob (talk)

I'm note really sure why this was taken to AN/I. A single revert isn't edit warring - I simply reverted it in hopes that Todd would see my point of view that having the essay the way he had it in such a biased way was not beneficial, and if anything, harmful to Wikipedia. I had planned on reverting it once, and if he disagreed, then I would take it to MfD. I just didn't want to come across as an a-hole for immediately taking it to MfD and wasting everybody's time. I think the essay was written to try to make a point based off of disagreements in the AfD, and having that essay titled as BLP2E is misleading to people. The Anthony Bologna article where this all started has attracted a lot of non-Wikipedia attention, and users have linked to WP:BLP2E in his AfD. So having that essay gives an impression to people who aren't used to Wikipedia that the nomination of Anthony Bologna may be against Wikipedia policy (when I first started editing, there was a period of time that I thought essays were somewhat like policy/guidelines, not just opinions, and it may confuse people who aren't used to Wikipedia style). It certainly wasn't my intent to start an edit war, and I don't think that I did. It was a single good faith revert to avoid wasting time taking the essay to MfD if it wasn't necessary. I don't see the harm in moving the essay to Todd's userspace, but having the WP:BLP2E essay as such a biased article, where the opposing viewpoint is banned from even being slightly defended seems somewhat ridiculous. The whole thing just seems like it was made to try to make a point, and I find it done in bad taste, especially from an administrator. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting this because I'm starting to lose my temper and I know this is an edit-war waiting to happen. I really don't know what more to say to User:Timbouctou. I used to think this was a case of antagonism towards myself solely, so a while ago I tried to settle any bad blood that might exist between us [10], but I'm starting to think this is more of a general behavioral issue. The fella arrives on the Social Democratic Party of Croatia article, removes perfectly correct and valid infobox entries without discussion or consensus, declaring that they "don't add anything valuable to the article" [11], and then just continues to revert-war to no end until his (new) version is on top [12][13][14]. He demands that I show a reason to oppose his removal of (undisputedly) valid, accurate, and quite certainly related information from articles, throwing-in a few unprovoked PAs into the pot [15]:

“

..Your block log probably looks like Al Capone's rap sheet :-) 4. Please report whatever you feel needs reporting here. Please do it now if you think you have anything other than rants to offer to a interested audience. 5. You reverted my edits first, before even attempting to raise the subject here (notice who started this fucking thread). 6. You offered no argument whatsoever. 7. You offered no argument whatsoever. 8. You offered no argument whatsoever. 9. You offered no argument whatsoever. 10. You offered no argument whatsoever.

”

I guess the question is whether the "audience" will find my rants interesting. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I used the f adjective because I was annoyed by your crap. You posted two posts on article talk page (after I started the discussion) without offering any argument whatsoever for keeping redundant crap in the party infobox and instead taking the ad hominem and patronizing route just telling me like a broken narcissistic robot with WP:OWN problems that you are that "this is not for me to pass judgement on" and that "I do not get to remove infobox parameters simply because I myself judge they add nothing valuable to the article". I invite any admin to take a look at the talk page and see if they can detect a trace of an effort on DIREKTOR's part to even begin achieving consensus before he came running here.

And for the record - the "perfectly correct and valid infobox entries" also described as "valid, accurate, and quite certainly related information" consist of list of four standard party wings which pretty much any party has, none of which has an article on Wikipedia; plus his own little inventions of putting in current chairman's predecessor, insisting that the party's non-notable spokeswoman must be listed and insisting that the party must have two foundation dates (unsupported by any source). NONE of the "valid, and accurate" information was referenced, and NONE of it is notable. When asked to provide reasons for the inclusion of such unreferenced, non-notable crap, he simply reiterated that I don't get to decide about it. Lovely.Timbouctou (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Timbouctou, unfortunately you do not get to unilaterally decide whether something is "non-notable crap" or not. And it is not. Making use of an infobox party wing entry to mention a party wing in an infobox is perfectly normal and notable information. But I guess since you've decided its "crap", its ok to revert-war to make sure the crap stays out. As for me, since I disagree I'll just take your "f adjectives" and be off then, shall I?

Can one really just edit-war and have his way? Or have people been doing things the hard way for the past couple years? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me. You've spent more time edit-warring on Wikipedia than Mick Jagger has fornicating with teenage girls. Did it work for you? Oh btw, define "unilaterally". You keep screaming how other people are doing stuff "unilaterally" but whenever someone asks you for any kind argument-based discussion you just turn to name-calling and distortions. You've currently written four (4) posts about this topic and NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS OFFERED ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR OWN OPINION as to why redundant crap that no other Croatian party has in their infobox needs to be in SDP article. I'll take a wild guess and assume that you won't offer anything new in posts that will surely follow. Timbouctou (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Back to your corners, both of you. I just looked at the article, and I see absolutely no effort on the part of either of you to obtain consensus. What I DO see is that you're both at WP:3RR, and you're both way over the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA lines. Seafood all around, with an admonishment to follow the dispute resolution procedures for what is clearly a heated content dispute. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have to agree with Alan above. I've read over the entire dispute in question and both of you seem to be unable to engage in anything resembling dispute resolution. Seriously, you are both long time editors and excellent contributors, you both should be able to show more ability to collaborate than this. Have you considered possibly taking this up a level? Perhaps informal mediation would be of help in this case? I have already read over the whole damn thing, so if either of you wanted to file and both parties agree, I would pick it up. Trusilver 19:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked both editors There is some serious edit warring on both sides as well as personal attacks from Timbouctou. I blocked both for 72 hours as they both have previous blocks for edit warring.--v/r - TP 19:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goldblooded recently engaged in repeated attempts to insert primary-sourced ad copy into the highly contentious British National Party article and levied insults in edit summaries against anyone who reverted him. This user refused to engage in discussion before reverting and continued attacking me (careful, it's long) and attacked Cameron Scott. He was blocked and, as a result, used the unblock template to not request an unblock per se but to state his case and attack Binksternet, who reported him to the edit warring noticeboard, and the ed17 and Parsecboy, who were incredibly patient and helpful with him back in July and as near as I can tell had not encountered him recently. (He accused the ed17 of bullying him and "treating him like dirt." If you've spent one second of your life dealing with Ed you know there's no way that's correct.) He received an indefinite block for attacks in July from Ed and it was only lifted when Goldblooded accepted mentorship. I didn't know about this block until I glanced at his block log several hours into his 48-hour block. I approached ed17 about reinstating Goldblooded's indefblock since he blatantly did exactly what he was told not to do; Ed declined since he considers himself too involved and suggested I take this here. He was unblocked early by admin Fox, who used reasoning, essentially "you get one more chance," that I strongly disagree with since Goldblooded is still attacking me by demanding I assume good faith after Ed specifically, plainly told him that I had not attacked him. Admin Spartaz, who imposed the 48-hour block, also disagreed with the reasoning behind the unblock. CityOfSilver 21:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait--unless I'm missing something, the editor has apologized to a lot of editors, including Ed (who couldn't hold a grudge if it were ducktaped to him), and from what I can tell the only violations they committed since being unblocked have been against grammar and spelling rules. Please show specifically where they have gone wrong since being unblocked, because right now it sounds like you are disagreeing with the unblock based on pre-block performance. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(The timing isn't great, I admit, but I haven't been around since Fox did the unblock.)

Telling someone to "assume good faith" as a general comment is fine. Telling someone to do so after this nasty back-and-forth is an insult since it implies I didn't extend good faith very, very far. (I still consider GB a good faith editor when it comes to content.) I don't know if this diff is up there in my first comment, but calling my behavior "cruel and cold" when it was neither was also something I can't help but see as an insult, especially since such claims are blatantly false, as Ed plainly said in his reply. CityOfSilver 22:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for that matter, in Goldblooded's reply to me in this thread, he orders me to "Also please check out the FULL conversation not just part of it." I did read the entire comment. I did not check out "just part of it." GB cannot claim I just checked out "part of it" because he has no idea what I did and did not do. That's textbook failure to assume good faith. And as for "Also it seems paticulary odd how your going round informing everyone about this, even though this doesnt really affect them", that's more guessing at my motives. I notified all those editors because I mentioned them in my edit that started this thread. I admit that as I sent out those notifications it looked like I was rallying GB's antagonists, but I truly, honestly can't find anyone involved in this who supports his behavior. CityOfSilver 22:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear it appears to have been an edit conflict so ill have to type this again,

Im sorry kind sir , but ive been blocked already for that reason (you cant report users twice) and i have subsequently been unblocked and ive just been apologising to everyone; and it was merely my opinion as it seemed (in my eyes) you were assuming the worst so i calmly and politely said to check out the WP:EQ as it says in the rules to assume good faith wherever possible, and if you check out my talkpage; Spartaz later admitted that he was not going to "reblock" me. Also i apologised to ed if i have had any disputes with him in the past and right or wrong , he said we should move on. If you want that evidence check out his talkpage. I really dont know why your making something out of nothing. Also please check out the FULL conversation [16] not just part of it.

And really quite frankly , as ive previously stated i still dont see why your reporting me; I was blocked for my edit warring and ive learnt my lesson , So why are you reporting me again for something ive already done my time for? Im sorry if you feel the need to report me but on a personal note All i want is some peace and as you may or may not know a lot has happened in my life, Including the deaths of many of my relatives and family friends and my father nearly going bankrupt. And as i've said on Ed's page while many of my peers tragicially turn to drink and drugs i have turned to things such as work and studying history (which is my passion) in search of a better life. I dont want any trouble. :( Goldblooded (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also it seems paticulary odd how your going round informing everyone about this, even though this doesnt really affect them. But anyway if you feel we should bring the whole town here i dont mind , the more the merrier mate :) Goldblooded (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to go off to bed actually, since i have to be up early for church. But anyway as youve pointed out you said that me telling you to assume good faith is a personal attack, which it isnt and you know that. Also i said in my humble opinion i found it slightly cold you would try and get me permanently banned; i didnt force it on you in anyway and i think you are taking this all the wrong way/too far anyway. :( Goldblooded (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry , cityofsilver i didnt make myself clear; i meant for an investigating admin to check out the full convo not yourself, sorry. Also thats cool , if you feel you should ask a number of peoples go ahead; dont get defensive im merely saying my point. Goldblooded (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if there was any way to get across my belief that your constant reminders of the AGF guideline were not appropriate since I can't seem to manage to do so. Found this. This is exactly what I mean. It's an essay, not a guideline, but it nicely states what I've been trying (and failing) to get across. CityOfSilver 22:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some others to review User talk:Fluffbi. I'm just not inclined to unblock this editor, but can't find any concrete reasons aside from the feeling that he's just saying what he thinks I want him to say.—Kww(talk) 21:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User is not being clear, so if you unblock him ban him from uploading anything. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I thought I remembered it on the website" with regard to copyright details. Um...wow. Just, wow. Like, no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in a protracted dispute with what I think is one person under a small range of IPs and user accounts. Since September they've continually readded a link that doesn't meet WP:ELNO (first diff, most recent [17]). I've invited discussion, but that doesn't seem to be helping. They've recently taken to calling me an asshole, amongst other things, both on and off wiki. The most recent edits have removed all of the external links from the article. Some of those removals may well be warranted, but some are not.

What I don't want is to escalate the situation. There's not a lot of regular traffic at Judicial Activism so I'm one of the few people regularly watching it for ELs, etc. It's already a contentious enough topic. I'd like to disengage from dealing with this individual, and I wanted others to 1) evaluate if I am correct in whether the link fails WP:ELNO, and 2) which of the other removals are appropriate if any.

I'm not here looking for a block on this individual. I believe what they need to see is the consensus process working and unfortunately there's been too little traffic for many others to get involved. There is some disruptive behavior going on here but hopefully it can be turned around. Really what we need is a new set of eyes, and also this helps protect against if I've been overreacting to the editor's additions. Shadowjams (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see there's been no recent discussion on Talk:Judicial_activism re external links. Nor was there any notification that the topic was being brought up here. As the section is now tagged, I hope discussion can take place on that page. Sorry to hear that personal attacks are taking place -- they must be on your user page. But please point them out and I'll be happy to tag the IP with appropriate messages. --S. Rich (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the relevant IPs and account, and the discussions associated are on those talk pages... are: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. Shadowjams (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to stumble across this article because I like seeing what User:Rikster2 is up to (he and I cross paths constantly for WikiProject College Basketball), and to make it clear right away, my issue is not with him.
What I want to bring to the attention of administrators is the worst case of WP:OWN I have ever seen in my 5 years on this website. The article Basket Zaragoza 2002 is watched like a hawk by some anonymous person who refuses to set up an actual account and seems to use IP proxy to dodge possible punishment for his ownership. If you look at the history of the article, there is evidence of many IPs over the years making countless consecutive edits to the article and then disappearing for good. These IPs, which would take too long to list (going back as far as May 2008 from what I searched) have only ever edited Basket Zaragoza 2002.
User:Gonzaka and Rikster2 have both tried, in vain, to make constructive edits to the article, only to have every single one of them "undone" by this cowardly IP-range "editor". See the contributions for 83.63.159.109 as well as 88.22.171.176, for example. In this edit by Rikster2, he was clearly improving the links so that they would link to actual articles (e.g. Joe Crispin). Within a day and a half, inexplicably, an IP reversed the edit (Joseph Steven Crispin does not exist, even as a redirect, and that's just one example).
When User:Gonzaka basically pleaded for this anon to quit being disruptive, the anon used one of his many IPs and added this defamatory message on Gonzaka's user page, claiming that Gonzaka "destroyed" people's work. Say what?
Now, look at the article's talk page history. The IP 79.154.125.50 tried blanking it—twice—because Gonzaka asked for him to stop the disruptive editing. A few days later, 83.63.159.109 made an hilarious attempt at seeming like he wanted to collaborate by posting this gem, when clearly (given the article's edit history) that exact person thinks he owns the article and will not accept any contributions by anyone other than himself.
I have no personal attachment to this article or any of the players on it. I'm merely an editor who is greatly disturbed by how long this jerk IP's monopoly on it has lasted and I want it to cease immediately. My request, which is obviously up for discussion (since I'm bringing it here) is this: permanently semi-protect this article so that anyone who wants to edit it (a) cannot be an IP, and (b) it will be immediately apparent if sockpuppets are being used so indef blocks may be issued. I implore the administrators (and casual ANI perusers) to strongly consider this suggestion. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs involved since the beginning of August are all allocated to the same ISP in the same country. With the ranges involved, a rangeblock would be right out. Depending on how frequently the IP decides to play around in the article, some period of semi-protection might prove more effective than endless Whac-a-Mole™. The only fly in the serum is that I don't see any activity from the IP, in any guise, in over a month. My 2p is to watchlist the article. If the IP pops up and starts diddling around in the article, that's the time to either go to WP:RFPP and ask for protection or take the IP address to WP:AIV. With the age of the most recent activity, though, I'm afraid this is a non-starter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just corrected some links on the article, per my example above, so that there are now blue links to players. I have a feeling doing this will be like holding a steak out in front of a hungry dog, and it won't be long before our friend bites. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]