Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
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. 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

Doncram on Indic communities

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone please take a look at the recent contributions of Doncram to List of Other Backward Classes and various related articles. They do not have a clue what they are doing, they are making a complete hash of things and they are doing so in a subject area that is permanently toxic anyway. There is an AfD here and there was much discussion and explanation of the difficulties in another recent Afd here. I've pointed out a couple of problems on their talk page but, really, this is going to spin out of control very fast. Whether accidental or not, of the source material are incredibly disruptive and there are not that many people who can do the inevitable and substantial cleanup.

I can't keep warring with him, obviously, but nor can the poor contributions stand: we'll have some sort of Armaggedon in the Indic sphere of WP if they do. - Sitush (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That notice sounds concerning, but I don't have the subject-matter expertise to evaluate it. I suggest that someone post a neutrally worded notice on some relevant project pages asking for some knowledgeable users to take a look at this issue. And it might be best for Doncram to temporarily put a hold on these edits until we can get more input on them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I will hold for a bit, yes. Discussion can take place at Talk:List of Other Backward Classes. About one matter of there being two different groups called Koli, but only one Wikipedia article that Koli links to, I also opened discussion at Talk:Koli people. I seriously wish that Sitush and others would csuch distortionsontribute to content discussion at appropriate Talk pages like those. Sitush has outright refused, at my Talk, to respond at Talk:Koli people, and rather has proceeded with threats of ANI proceedings (now carried out) and vile language. I am truly dismayed, seriously. --doncram 23:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I would like to contribute toward solution of great difficulty in Wikipedia by strictly using available, official sources to begin to make sense of India's castes, Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, etc., and have started List of Other Backward Classes and List of Scheduled Castes, now both under AFD.

However, I am horrified at Sitush's vile language directly at my Talk page, at Talk:List of Other Backward Classes, and in edit summaries at List of Other Backward Classes. "crap" "fuck" "bullshit" "twaddle" are Sitush's words, within the past hour or two. This is inappropriate, entirely unprofessional badgering, IMHO. --doncram 22:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I am losing my rag, yes, but not directly at you. All this stuff has been explained in detail by people who do know the subject area and you are not getting it. After many hours of discussion, it is no wonder if someone starts to get frustrated, even more so when they are faced with someone so clueless who is barging around. The content is crap, is twaddle etc. That you cannot even interpret the lists correctly and have been linking to incorrect communities (same name but completely different) + inserting statements on the articles for those incorrectly identified communities is particularly worrying. I really do not think you appreciate just what a timebomb you are creating here, although you have been told often enough. - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be one of those pot-kettle and a certain lack of colouring (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know much about Doncram but Sitush's tirades and personal insults seem quite outrageous, being contrary to WP:OWN and other behavioural guidelines. Warden (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• And I would add this is a very consistant form of conduct by Sitush. A little surprised there isn't some slight boomarang for his behavior on the involved articles. This seems to be something of a pattern I have noticed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, here we go with TLDR. I spend a phenomenal amount of my time on WP dealing with caste stuff. It is a complex subject area and it is prone to POV edits, vandalism, puffery and, well, you name it. And that is just from contributors who generally appear to be located in the Indian subcontinent. I have regularly been brought here and to other venues such as DRN. Far too often for my liking but if people want to try it then that's their prerogative. What is particularly odd about this episode is that it originated with a deletion discussion (linked above) relating to List of Indian castes. That discussion appeared to attract the interest of people associated with ARS who - put bluntly - had no clue about the topic and were seemingly arguing that various guidelines could over-rule various policies. The AfD discussion was lengthy and, broadly speaking, amounted to ARS vs people who knew the subject & have had a heavy involvement in it. The list was deleted and subsequently userfied.

Doncram took part in those discussions, as did Warden. From that, they should be aware of the numerous problems surrounding such lists, although they chose not to recognise them at the time. I'd asked Doncram to stop, I'd presented some diffs, and I'd made some suggestions but, no, off he goes ... and kept going until I raised the issue here. At some point, I am going to blow up when faced with a situation such as this. As the original AfD discussion noted, there are in excess of 20,000 recognised communities in India We have articles on only a fraction of those, and there are many instances where a community called X in, say, Maharashtra is not the same as a similarly-named community in, say, Goa. Given that the subject area is so toxic that WP:GS/Caste applies, it is unbelievable that people with no obvious prior knowledge suddenly weigh-in with "this is easy, we can just transcribe a list" etc solutions. It isn't easy, and just transcribing a list can be highly problematic. Even more so if, as Doncram was doing, he then links that list and makes changes to what he thinks are the valid articles for this or that community.

It isn't as if all this stuff has not been previously explained, and when - for example - he links the Dhangar community of Goa to Dhangar and says that the source indicates they are an Other Backward Class in Goa, well, expect some fireworks. Not necessarily from me, although it was in that instance. If Doncram seriously expects me to continue what amounts to the same discussion across potentially > 20,000 articles then they have another think coming. The discussion needs to be centralised and not turned into some sort of micro-issue. It is not a micro issue: Doncram may be well-intentioned but has no clue and needs to back off. Since they were continuing to make poor edits, I brought it here and - lo and behold - in the glare of ANI they announce a willingness to do so. I'll admit to knowing that Doncram has had issues elsewhere but this report was focussed narrowly. It is difficult enough dealing with this subject area without someone starting WW3 due to their ignorance. If you want to get involved then you're more than welcome, but I'd suggest beginning with an article about a specific community rather than a top-down approach. Do a few of those and you'll begin to understand the issues. Doncram was writing "twaddle", "crap" etc and was doing so despite this having being explained. Patience runs out eventually and, believe me, there was a lot of patience shown by the numerous !vote "delete" contributors in the recent AfD. - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I honestly have to disagree. Sitush puts up with so much bullshit that I'm not so much surprised he's exasperated as amazed he's been able to deal with it so long. This is one of these situations where people who don't know what they don't know refuse to listen to someone who does. We don't expect editors to have infinite patience; and if you don't believe how rough it is in this topic area, I'll invite you to follow either of us around to see. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Lets face it, we all put up with a lot of bullshit. Does that mean we have a right to threaten disruption as Sitush just did by saying he is going to blow up? No. I see a lot of this as a contnet dispute and frankly I really do not care what level of expertise they claim to have. This project is for everyone, not just experts. I have real expertise, but I don't lord over others and become uncivil at the very addition of content.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please correct me if I'm wrong but, iirc, somewhere in all the recent drama, Sitush indicated that his interest in the topic of Indian castes dates back about 18 months. Checking his edit history, this seems to have started in April 2011 when he switched from working upon Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer) to Kaniyar Panicker. It appears from this that his knowledge and interest in the topic is quite recent and amateur. This is no bar to his working upon the matter but it does not entitle him to insult anyone else who cares to work upon the matter in a similar way. Sitush attends Manchester meetups and that group seem to have established a common way of working. This seems to include obtaining and working from good sources and then vigorously insulting anyone else who dares to challenge their opinion or work. Malleus Fatuorum is the most notorious exponent of this school and it may be that the meetups encourage others to copy his robust style. Admins should please note that their indulgence of such types may encourage such copycat behaviour. Warden (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That analysis is unconvincing, particularly the comments on expertise and the conspiracy theories about those attending Manchester meetups. Mathsci (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well.....it answers a number of questions I have had.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm from New England, not England, so I can't comment on that, although I have to agree with Mathsci. I also don't see what Malleus Fatuorum has to do with any of this. But more importantly; I've spent maybe 1/10 the amount of time in the topic area as Sitush, and here are a few samples of what's been launched at me. If these people are to be believed, I'm perpetuating ethnocide, I'm an imperialist bent on destroying all of India and reinstating colonial rule (somewhat incongruous, given my nationality...), I'm a brahmin chamcha, a gandoo, and a white supremacist chodha boy (if you really want to know what they mean, the definitions are readily available elsewhere). Sitush gets a hell of a lot more of it than I do. I spend a lot of time in a lot of the other most toxic places on Wikipedia, and the Indian caste situation isn't really like anything else; when you're under siege like that for as long as Sitush is, you're going to have occasional intemperate remarks, especially when, as here, you're dealing with uninformed and unwilling to be informed people. I'm not saying it's good, but it has to be seen in a broader picture. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This "analysis" by Warden is really, really odd. I got to see up-close how explosive these Indic issues are at James Tod; one does not need to be a Mancunian to lose one's patience. The Colonel's lack of good faith here is maybe no surprise but should be noted regardless; if Sitush is an "amateur" (that's not the pot calling the kettle: I rate Sitush higher than the Colonel when it comes to expertise), he should rather be applauded for the speed with which he has acquainted himself with the subject matter and the patience he has had in this minefield. Finally, the suggestion that a bunch of Mancunians get together with a book and a few articles and then hammer out some sort of strategy to own some caste's article--well. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Warden, I suggest you do a bit more research before making wild accusations. Malleus has attended one Manchester Wikimeet and, IIRC, I've attended either two or three. Boing! said Zebedee has apparently attended more than me and, unlike Malleus, does indeed have involvement in matters caste. The other principal contributors to the sphere are Qwyrxian, MatthewVanitas and perhaps Utcursch - if any of those have ever even visited Manchester then I'd be quite surprised. Aside from Boing!, I cannot recall anyone at the Wikimeets I have attended making any edits at all to articles concerning caste. It is, of course, possible but they are certainly not frequent flyers. I think also that around 18 months - a figure that I mentioned myself & thus needed no research on your part - of pretty much day-to-day involvement, conversation and reading counts as a fair amount of experience. Certainly so when contrasted to Doncram and yourself. I'm not always right, obviously, but it was not only me who has been explaining the problems to you and Doncram etc of late. When you persist in barging around this really troublesome subject area, however well-intentioned, then you are likely to cause some fireworks - and if you think that my admittedly intemperate language (calmer now) was an example of that then you ain't seen nothing yet: wait until you get the death threats, the off-wiki harrassment etc. Off to notify various people. Sitush (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My exprience of Sitush is that he is a user with some highly specialised knowledge who dares to tread in areas (I'm talking caste in particular) where single-issue POV-warriors abound. He's likely to persist diligently in correcting errors but is also not afraid to stand up - sometimes robustly - to POV-pushing, COI-laden members of special interest groups. Doncram doesn't, I assume, fall into that group but seems to be editing in a highly specialised area that he knows little about and which has the potential to stir up unnecessary conflict and resentment if edits there are inaccurate or indefensible. I myself would not use the language that Sitush uses but it seems to express personal frustration more than personal attack. I don't know enough about caste to say as an outside expert who is right, but my instincts are to trust Sitush's judgement on this. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The language was ill-advised, I admit it. It is also not very commonly used by me but temperance was getting me nowhere. Someone was lighting a series of fuses and refusing to throw away the match despite being advised by several people that playing with fireworks can be dangerous. It is possible to be uncivil without ever using phrasing that some people consider to be beyond the pale. In persisting with their poor contributions, ignoring recent consensus etc, that is what Doncram was doing and, as I said somewhere, I'm willing to bet that when the real explosion happens as a consequence of those contributions, Doncram would likely be far away and neither interested or equipped to fight the fire. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting like the mad hatter's tea party. Sitush makes a simple statement that if he's pushed hard enough he will eventually lose his temper (or 'blow up' to use his colloquialism) and another editor takes that as a threat. Do you really think he's threatening to become a suicide bomber? Then Colonel Warden comes along and decides that the Manchester meetups are a place where we sit around plotting to 'use good sources' (shocking crime!) and then tell everyone to 'fuck off' when we don't agree with their edits. I'm afraid I have to admit that I once was dragged in to one of these dens of iniquity and, although they bought me some beer, they didn't manage to persuade me to use more intemperate language than I normally do. I have to say though that I now realise I have been dragged down to their level with the promise of the wanton pleasures that come from the use of good sources - mea culpa! Ok, this is difficult but I'll say it - "My name is Richerman and I once attended a Manchester meetup". Richerman (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

... Mad as hatters

They do no more for Christés sake

Than you who are helpless in such matters.

“That this is not the judgment-hour

For some of them’s a blessed thing,

For if it were they’d have to scour

Hell’s floor for so much threatening....

— Thomas Hardy, Channel Firing

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm only going to make one comment here, and then I'm off on a Wikibreak. Sitush is absolutely right here regarding the complexity of the caste issue. The naming is horrendously confusing in itself, partly because the same names are used in different places for unrelated social groups, partly because different names are used by different sources for the same groups, and partly because the names in English are only transliterations anyway and there is no consistent standard of transliteration. It simply doesn't work to take lists of castes and link them up just by name - you need to do some proper research (ideally on one caste at a time) and *understand* the subject - which is exactly what Sitush and a few others have put a lot of work into doing. Much as I respect what the ARS does (I'm a vocal supporter), there really are times when you need to do the research and listen to the experts (rather than insulting them) ahead of a near-blind urge to simply create articles and lists about subjects you don't properly understand. You need to read that AfD properly and listen to what people are saying rather than seeing them as opponents to be beaten, and benefit from their knowledge and experience rather than ignoring them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

@Amadscientist. Going through this discussion, it transpires that Sitush has been dabbling in Caste issues for about 18 months now. During this period, sanctions have been applied to the area and the area seems to be an infamous minefield. Did the area carry the same level of notoriety in the pre-Sitush period too? I too have been subjected to vile treatment by Sitush and ascribe his behavior to a particular POV (and something else). Amadscientist, taking a stroll through my talk page may provide some more answers to you.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply. At the moment I have only the recent history of how Sitush treated me and a few others over an RS situation that I feel the editor took far too aggresive a stance with insulting comments and horrible civility issues. I try not to hold this against them and yet I cannot help but understand why some may wish to hurl the kitchen sink at them. The main reason why I cannot see Doc as the singular problem here is exactly because of the horrible way Sitush has interacted, with others...not just me. However, the fact remains that the editor filing this ANI has issues. Whether or not that ammounts to a reason to not sanction Doc remains to be seen but yes.......Sitush has issues they need to address and I belive they are a part of this current situation. I have alwasy felt this was going to catch up with them and for the moment....that time could well be now.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What is my POV, in your opinion, and what is the mysterious "something else" to which you refer? - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Just one more comment... No, before Sitush et al started work on them, Wikipedia's caste articles were not anywhere near as controversial. But that's simply because they were mostly just horrible vanity articles, written by people glorifying their own castes with masses of ridiculous puffery, not sourced to anything even vaguely reliable. They were embarrassingly bad. To misquote someone (with apologies), if you believed all the unmitigated crap that those articles were full of, you'd be forced to conclude that everyone in India has only ever been a king or a warrior, descended directly from gods - and nobody ever worked the fields, built the roads, wove the fabrics, made the clothes, did the cooking, worked as labourers, etc. Since Sitush et all have been improving those articles, removing the puffery, adding material supported by reliable sources, etc, they have been victims of a lot of abuse from those same caste warriors, Hindu nationalists, etc, who can't bear to see those caste articles written in a sourced encyclopedic way, rather than continuing to exist as caste-glorification puffery. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue we have here is much larger than the rudeness of single editor .The issue really is when several editors join to browbeat and overpower other editors , drive them to the brink and get them blocked banned with active support of an admin and in this case it is Boing! said Zebedee . Several really good editors have been lost due to this . The uneven application of civility by the admin Boing! said Zebedee in favor of Sitush Vis a vis other editors is dreadful .These are the editors that work together Utcarsh ,Sitush, MatthewVanitas , Qwyrxian , JanetteDoe ,Fowler and Fowler , and the admin Boing Said Zebdee . The recent decision to Ban Apostle Von Colorado was unbelievable on the article Caste .The discretionary powers to ban editors have become a tool to be misused . I have had to face the combined and different combination of this dexterous team of editors continuously . See my talk page , talk pages of various articles where I have contributed , edits to articles continuously deleted , rude comments . Here is one specific example ,of the cynical combination ,of collaboration , that I posted on the admin BSD,s page. [Section-Misuse of Admin Powers to ban me repeateadly]. Broad brushing all editors as POV Nationalist warriors , calling the topic toxic ?? when you have made it toxic yourself . If Boing said Zebdee would stop giving unfair cover to Sitush , I believe Sitush's own actions would change . In the larger context though collaboration is best , but the cynical collaboration of this team has been really dreadful . The mother article on caste and what has taken place after the banning of Apostle is emblematic . Puffery is bad but so is lacerating articles. Painting all editors and edits that do not agree with your viewpoint as unreliable (and then having the presumption to use the very same sources elsewhere is atrocious .Intothefire (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Good timing, Intothefire. You have been advised repeatedly that if you have any complaints about Boing's actions then you should raise them here and you have consistently failed to do so. Then, within minutes of Boing! posting his wikibreak message, here you are. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hereunder an editor has been blocked for profanity,[1] I had brought the issue up some time ago but it was rubbished and closed[2]. Blade of the Northern Lights has shared the expletives he had had to endure. I just ask him to share a few examples of editors who used these abusive words in relation to him and are yet editing Wikipedia. The incivility matter needs to be looked at by those who do not belong to the "I scratch my back and you scratch mine" club. Civility is one of the project's pillars.[3] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

BSZ appears to say that the trouble on caste articles is due to repeated attempts to insert unsourced puffery. Do you think that is correct?OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Oranges, is the above intended to be a response to my query timed at 12:43 today, above? Or are you asking Yogesh something and, if so, what relevance does your question have to either Doncram or the various lists of Indian communities that are or have been at AfD? - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Oranges I'd pass that if the question was for me, I've a topic ban which is wide. I'm here as civility issues are discussed here.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's right Yogesh--"widely construed" means what it means. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have independent knowledge of the complexities of the "castes" situation. However, because I dipped my toe into this situation by opening an AfD calling for two of Doncram's list-articles to be moved to user space, I should provide my perspectives. My experience with Wikipedia articles about topics related to the Indian subcontinent (mainly from reviewing DYK nominations) has made me very aware that reliable sources about the subcontinent are scarce, that even seemingly reliable sources can be biased or self-serving, that (largely due to the biases embedded in various sources) different reliable sources may be wildly contradictory, that there often can be multiple transliterated spellings of the same word, and that many Wikipedia articles about the subcontinent are poorly written and of doubtful factual quality. Furthermore, I became acquainted with Sitush (and watchlisted his talk page) some time ago in connection with a query he made about a fascinating U.S. sidebar to a Manchester history topic he was researching, and I have been impressed with the quality of his research and his tenacious devotion to verifiability -- and, indeed, factual accuracy. With that background, and knowing that Sitush has been extensively involved here with improving articles on topics related to India, I am inclined to trust his judgment regarding the intricacies of the topic of castes. Furthermore, having followed the AfD discussion that concluded with the userfication of List of Indian castes, I was convinced that it is foolhardy for an American who is (much like me) not thoroughly informed about India to attempt to create and defend articles like List of Scheduled Castes -- and that the conclusion of that AfD on the master list of castes should also apply to these lists.
  I see this as one of those occasions when a wise person needs to be willing to acknowledge their ignorance. Neither Doncram nor Colonel Warden nor I knows nearly enough about the contentious topic of caste to constructively edit articles on the topic. This is a time to acknowledge our ignorance and refrain from creating articles about topics we don't understand, particularly when those topics are as explosive as this one is. Sitush has been immoderate in some of his comments, but I've seen enough of the negative comments people leave on his talk page to believe that he has very good reason to be very upset about when people who fail to recognize their own ignorance become involved in such an explosive topic. --Orlady (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add my voice to those in support of Sitush, who I found to be very balanced and knowledgeable during the always-difficult process of FAC for the James Tod biography. If Sitush is flustered then that indicates a serious problem with the behavior of others. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There do seem to be problems with doncram's approach. "Sourced eventually" n the caste articles?. And the reluctance to allow a centralized discussion.[4][5]. That, in conjunction with the attitude demonstrated in the diffs provided by Nytrend and Ryan Vesey, give the appearance of a combative editor who would rather do things his or her way and who tends to take content objections personally. I don't see a 1RR restriction as solving this problem because the editor will likely just keep moving on leaving a trail of problems and it doesn't look like there is much support for a preventative six month block but, hopefully, doncram will take note of the concerns expressed here and will try to take a less combative approach and will try to see what his/her edits look like from the point of view of others. --regentspark (comment) 01:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Point of information: RegentsPark and maybe Sitush had it completely backwards: it was editor Sitush, not I, who added unsourced information to the List of OBCs article, which I removed from an "Official names" column to a new "Notes" column. The info was subjective comments meant in good faith by Sitush to be clarifying, I presume, but which in fact deviated away from official language in the government source, and could arguably be exactly the type of wp:OR and worse that Sitush is saying will launch Armeggadon(sp?). I asked Sitush at the Talk page a) to obey a rule to use only the official language in the column labelled "Official names", and b) to provide sources, either immediately or eventually, for what Sitush cared to add in any different lnaguage. Sitush did not reply there but rather opened this ANI about 6 minutes later. Then 10 hours later Sitush replied there, chastising me as if I was adding unsourced information: "Sourced eventually? No chance: you source such claims immediately or make no claim", and RegentsPark picked up on that, I guess. Oops? Never mind?

And, I don't get RegentsPark asserting "reluctance to allow a centralized discussion" by me...with links to central discussions that I opened and sought Sitush to comment at.

And, I don't get Sitush's assertion that "I am losing my rag, yes, but not directly at (me)" This ANI proceeding, with yet another provocative title giving my accountname, and comments elsewhere seem like pretty clearly targeting me. Perhaps Sitush perceived me to be a weak and/or incompetent editor, subject to past ANI proceedings, and that it would be okay to blow up at me? Also I don't get people suggesting Sitush merely threatened to blow up. Sitush did blow up, here, and in edit summaries at articles, at me.

I assume Sitush and RegentsPark may have genuinely misread what happened, perhaps from too-quick reading and their projecting what I would do if I were stupid and obtuse. Sitush alludes to previous criticism of me and NRHP articles at ANI, and I recall Sitush joining in once before with what I perceived as uninformed comments in that area, and I think from that and other past ANI proceedings they can have a negative impression of me. I appreciate that Sitush backed down slightly in condemnation of me, here. I don't expect it, but your seeing your way to an actual apology would be appreciated. And how about turning to actual development of the OBC and SC articles, which Sitush has stated support for, and calling for end of the AFD, ongoing. I do believe that Sitush could do a better job of setting links to caste/OBC/SC articles than I can. Why not just develop the lists of OBCs and SCs, using official language exactly, and proceeding. --doncram 03:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Doncram at lists of various churches

Taking Doncram's comments in mind and the direction of the above discussion, I've moved this into a subsection Ryan Vesey 01:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unrelated to Indic communities, there have been a number of other disruptive edits by the user. He has been displaying a lot of ownership at Talk:List of Methodist churches including telling Orlady, an editor who nominated the article for deletion, not to edit the article or to reply on the talk page. Later, he continued to edit war to restore red links (which are now blue) to the see also section and to add an out of process note to the bottom of a section that duplicated the see also message. He refers to any edits he disagrees with on the article page as disruptive "If any more editors want to claim credit for identifying some small criticism of this new article, please do claim credit here on the Talk page, or somewhere else, rather than disrupting the article itself". He furthered that with

Another editor, apparently also attracted to causing disruption, has repeatedly removed links from See Also. This editor, Nyttend, hasn't even bothered to check the contents, and has deleted bluelinks as well, e.g. in this edit which i have reverted. The point I take from this is that a few editors are dedicated to disruption and hatred and so on. If you are not part of developing this article, please go away. And, either if you are dedicated to disruption, or if you seriously think you have a legitimate issue, be civil and discuss it here, at the Talk page of the article. Repeated disruptive edits by administrators. without any explanation and demonstrating ignorance of what is blue vs. red, seem more to be about exerting control and bureaucracy and hatred, than anything else. If you are a real communicating person, Christian or otherwise, or at least Human / humane, use your words, please

In this, he attempts to depict Nyttend as not being human, which was furthered with an edit summary where he referred to Nyttend as an "idiotic non-person". On another page, List of Methodist churches in the United States, Nyttend removed empty coordinates which caused an error message on the page. Rather than thanking Nyttend for the help, Doncram accused Nyttend of disruption and pointiness on the talk page. Nothing individually has been beyond the pale, but Doncram has become disruptive in his claims that any edits he doesn't like are disruptive and his misuse of Wikipedia policies. Combining this with edit warring and the personal attack I mentioned has become disruptive enough that some type of discussion is needed on the issue. During all of this, Doncram has still been very productive in improving the encyclopedia. I'd like a solution that can change some of the behavior without discouraging content production. I think the best option would be to limit Doncram to a 1 revert rule and possibly find a mentor who can help him deal with disputes but who would also be free to impose sanctions for violations of 1RR or any further personal attacks. Ryan Vesey 23:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with several characterizations by Ryan Vesey here. Can we/you keep this ANI to be about concerns about Indic community characterizations. If you or someone wish to raise a lot of what you admit are unrelated issues, there are other forums for that, and ANI is highly unsuitable for a full discussion. --doncram 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not say they were unrelated to the topic of your acitons, I said they were unrelated to the Indic communities-showing that there have been problems in more than one area. Considering your block log, it seems that edit warring is an important part of the problem and that mentoring and a 1RR should help. Ryan Vesey 23:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there are some complicated interactions here that I can't explicate all at once, and which are not suited for ANI, anyhow. I have to sign off now due to other obligations, can't comment further. Addressing Ryan Vesey's immediate interest in pressing on matters, though, see recent additions at Talk:List of Methodist churches. Maybe that will address some of Ryan Vesey's concern, anyhow. --doncram 23:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

{Edit conflict} Ryan Vesey has made some very good suggestions for preventing this situation from spiraling out of control and leading to another block. However, as I see it the pattern of edit warring is only one of the issues needing to be addressed.

After years of being a target of personal attacks by Doncram, I see his habit of personalizing content disputes as a problematic behavior that he needs to reverse for his benefit and that of Wikipedia. The recent comments that Ryan Vesey cites above are good examples of the pattern of Doncram blaming his own ill-advised behavior on others (for example, he created those problematic church lists as a proactive measure to prevent me from doing something to prevent their creation; Nyttend is driving him into edit-warring over red links in "See also" sectoons; and now it's somehow due to Sitush that he's creating these problematic Indic lists). I'd like for him to be required to expunge/revise any future talk page comments in which he blames other editors for his own foolishness, particularly but not only when he describes other users with terms like "evil," "hateful," and "dedicated to disruption". A focus on the substance of the content debates, rather than the personalities of the other participants, would be a big improvement. --Orlady (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This may well be true, but I don't see this an excuse for any editor to threaten to blow up and expect others to take their side. Sitush is a well respected editor and should not behave the way he is and has no matter what the excuse is. We need civility more when things get heated, not less.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sitush was not involved in this conflict, which is why I split the section. Ryan Vesey 03:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll make no further comment in this section then Ryan. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Don, I've been watching this closely after being asked to. You need to step back, friend. You are taking a minor scuffle and turning it into a war, taking this all too personal. Others may have been blunt, but you are the only one that insists on getting close and closer to the edge of this cliff and it isn't necessary or helpful. It is fine to be pissed off, we all get our feathers ruffled from time to time, but being you keep ramping it up and won't leave well enough alone. Again, for your own sake, you need to step back a little, let others have their opinions and not turn every disagreement into a personal battle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

[Written before Dennis came along] Besides the personal attacks noted above (is it ever appropriate to say that someone's pattern of editing amounts to "long term harassment, bullying, evil"?), Doncram's accusations are demonstrably based on factual errors. See the Baptist, Congregational, Lutheran, and Catholic page histories; none of them existed in mainspace when I removed them, but Doncram still maintains that I'm doing this in "ignorance of what is blue vs. red", and when told that these links were red at the time, the "response is "No, I do not know that...i did not look up what time Nyttend edited vs. what times the various linked articles have been moved in and out of mainspace", but my edits remain "shoring up some kind of ridiculous disruption". It's bad enough to say that someone is "dedicated to disruption and hatred and so on", or that he's only editing to "interrupt, to harass, frankly, and to cobble up a situation of contention", but when you repeatedly restore technical errors (even reverting a bot when it dates a maintenance template), it's quite different. The same is true with edit warring to retain links that are at variance with a basic guideline; I don't know about other elements of this discussion, but editwarring to force guideline violations is not a new thing, as can be seen in the histories of this page and this page, where Doncram defends his edit warring by saying that the guideline page to which I referred was nonexistent and by admitting to following me around, which makes it quite curious that he objects at the Methodist list to Orlady following him around. Finally, I must question whether Doncram see this as a collaborative project or as a battleground; when you defend your actions with "that is only a temporary result of my not being able to fight battles with disruptive editors on every front at once", are you attempting to be working with others, or are you simply seeing this as a fight? Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a relatively long (for me) break from Wikipedia of about two months after being fed up with Doncram's editing. Although I haven't edited since then until now, I have been occasionally checking back in on things. It's no surprise to me to see Doncram's name popping up here again. I mean, his name shows up in 64 different archives of this page for Christ's sake! Shouldn't there be some sort of limit to that? Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice 64 times, I have a mental disorder. If there have been 64 different incidents involving Doncram that have required attention from other people, that should tell you something. Sure, several of them may be Doncram reporting other people, or they may have been very minor things (Being 64 of them, there was no way I was going to check them all), but the sheer fact that there are so many of them and Doncram is still allowed to edit here is ludicrous. As I said in my "resignation letter" I linked above, there isn't one single event that one can point to and say "there, that's it.. you're blocked for that." Well, to me, these 64 incidents taken as a whole are more than enough to support a block. Why is this guy still here?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Your metric does not seem helpful because, if we use it with other distinctive usernames, we get even larger scores:

Sitush = 89

Orlady = 90

Nyttend = 208

Newyorkbrad = 514

Warden (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Only 64? My name appears in 201, which surprises me a little; I thought it would have been 'way more than that. Malleus Fatuorum 13:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Orlady and Newyorkbrad and I are admins, so we're responding to lots of things and appear in the archives because we signed our comments; for example, any time that I block someone in response to a report at WP:AN3, that results in my name appearing there. A better standard of analysis would be how many times our names appear in headers: for me that's 8 of my 208 (including 3 times that I was processing AN3 by reporting someone or mentioned there as levying a block), Orlady 4 of her 90 (none processing AN3), and Sitush 32 of his 89 (21 times processing AN3), and I didn't look through Newyorkbreak's appearances because there are so many. In contrast, Doncram gets 35 of his 64 appearances with 12 processing AN3, one of which resulted in his being blocked. In other words, about 1/8 of Sitush's appearances are potentially problems with him, 1/20 of Orlady's are potentially problems with her, etc., while more than a third of Doncram's are potentially problems with him. Nyttend (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Could this possibly be handled more efficiently by a request at WP:AE under the July motion allowing discretionary sanctions for articles related to India? I am not sure of the scope of the those sanctions, but might it not be worth a try to avoid the chaos here? Mathsci (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Solutions

I do think that don is causing enough frustration that we can't just walk away this time. This is a long time pattern. I don't think don realizes the damage he causes. It has even become an editor retention issue. This kind of editing is much more damaging that other crimes du jure like incivility and I'm not willing for us to keep paying the price. His last block was for 6 months[6], is a repeat needed? I can't see 1RR helping, as his talk page edits are as damaging as his warring. Who has a solution? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram happened, but nobody really appears to have paid attention to it. That being said, the issues at that page, nearly three years ago, were virtually identical to what's going on now. Before the 6-month editwarring block, he had a 3-month block for general disruption; see here for the discussion at WP:ANI. This incident was sparked by the fact that he was driving out Elkman in a manner comparable to what Dudemanfellabra is talking about. Note the concluding statements in the page that I link: "I think the only thing that has a chance of changing anything going forward will be a full ArbCom case" and "I he comes back after a three-month block and does this again, I'd say OK, straight to ArbCom". Unless we impose a yet longer block right here and now, I'd say OK, straight to ArbCom. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need for ArbCom, as this is a problem we can deal with at the community level. It may be best if a solution was proposed and voted upon, then acted upon here at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there are too many editors commenting with vested interests and agendas for any realistic outcome to occur here. Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose a 6 month block for a continuing pattern of various disruptive behaviors that is detrimental to the project.

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Arbcom is the way to go as past blocks/RfC are argued to have failed. Disclosure, my account has had recent brief productive dealings in Wiki process with both DonCram's account and Orlady's account, so this is all unfortunate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

For ArbCom to take it, it has to be shown all other venues have been exhausted. His last block was last year, so I tend to think they would be reluctant to the be "last resort" when there are other options. I would hope they would, anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

They may or may not take it, but the basis for this proposal is long-term ongoing behavior issues, that have allegedly not been reformed by community action. The lack of Due Process on AN/I where it almost always becomes an !vote, is what we should all hope AN/I Users take into serious account, when asked to act in such matters. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I have seen enough of Sitush's extreme behavior, including the starting comment on this thread, to think that Don's behavior could be the problem here.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Huh? LadyofShalott 06:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY
Question Block for who? No, seriously, you need to spell it out here. Thoughnot (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• As this is a subsection of solutions which are specifically related to Doncram, it's a block for Doncram. Ryan Vesey 17:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't like the idea because it would put a stop to the helpful work Doncram has been doing on the lists of various churches articles and would leave us with the lists in their unfinished forms, but I'd support if nothing better can be offered. I understand that just a 1RR rule won't fix the problems on the talk page (although mentorship might), and I also don't think this needs to go all the way to ArbCom. I'm interested in seeing of Doncram can think of a solution. Ryan Vesey 17:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question: For whom is the block proposed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Oranges above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Since now I know a little more about the case, I strongly oppose his blocking, details are as discussed by me in the next sub-section.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• But the rationale of OrangesRyellow makes no sense. They seem to be saying it is down to me and are opposing the proposal, but saying Doncram's behaviour is the problem. Eh?- Sitush (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Doncram already came off one six-month block this year and went back to his old behavior. Is there a reason to think another six-month block now will fix anything? Is it worth considering a one-year block or an indef (open-ended)? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. After a previous ANI last summer, I undertook to review all of doncram's comments for a month. During that time, I saw a significant improvement in the quality of his work and in his interactions with others. The reason I undertook that task was because I believe doncram is one of the most dedicated and hard-working editors we have. Doncram clearly rubs some (many?) people the wrong way, but the project benefits from his contributions. Cbl62 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Sitush's complaint is a blatant violation of WP:OWN. And the objections to lists of churches seem equally weak. As it happens, I was in the Methodist Central Hall Westminster recently and the idea that we shouldn't have a list of such outstanding buildings seems absurd. Lists are perfectly valid Wikipedia content and it is the editors who disrupt their construction who should be warned off. Warden (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing in this is related to the idea that we shouldn't have lists of these. Ryan Vesey 22:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of local Methodist churches, for example. That was nominated for deletion by Orlady but was closed as Keep. The relationship seems clear and, in that case, Doncram seems to have been on the side of the angels. Warden (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems there is a very complicated history of mutual misconduct and I would be remiss to support sanctioning one editor on the say-so of an opposing disputant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose a 1 year one revert restriction as well as mentorship from a willing administrator who is given latitude to invoke any sanctions deemed necessary without bringing the issue to ANI. This would leave open the potential of a 6 month block at the mentor's discretion, but would allow for the possibility of mentorship combined with 1RR having a positive effect.

• Support: As nominator. Ryan Vesey 17:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too harsh and targets only one party of the dispute. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Do you not see that this is related to an entirely separate dispute? Ryan Vesey 18:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• If problems in a narrow spectrum are being addressed why a block? Also why not wait for the original ANI to close before discussing another issue? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• My proposal is specifically not a block and was made as an alternative to the block above. If you read the section about Doncram at lists of various churches, it is obvious that a problem exists. Is there an alternative that you would like to suggest? Ryan Vesey 18:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  What about chopping off Doncram's bollocks and burning them in front of him? Slightly more seriously, is there no way that an editor can have a pending-changes like sanction? As in every edit has to be approved before it goes public? Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any technical implementation available for that. Could do something in a special sandbox somewhere, but it would be pretty unwieldy. Monty₈₄₅ 19:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing reviewer rights would do that, if we were using Pending Changes in all articles like a handful of other Wikipedias are. As it stands, I think Monty's correct that there is no technical means of doing that currently. Jafeluv (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• • "List of churches" is a tiny part of English Wikipedia, why discuss the issue when an AN/I is on for an unrelated subject? Do you suggest 1R for the "lists" where you say there is an "obvious ... problem"? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. For reasons noted above. If there were to be a consensus for something along the lines of what Ryan is proposing, the designated mentor should IMO be given the discretion to impose blocks for incivility, etc., of no more than 1-7 days at a time, unless that person returns to an appropriate forum to gain consensus for a longer block. Cbl62 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It takes two to tango and, from what I've seen, Doncram is as much sinned against as sinning. Warden (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I do support mentorship in general but not sure how much good that may have in this instance. The one year revert restriction also seems a bit harsh for this. I wonder if the best way to discourage any problems in this situation would be a simple short term topic ban.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I find it astonishing that others find Doncram innocent in calling me a non-human, in edit-warring to force violations of our page layout standards, and in various forms of personal attacks. We will be back here before long unless we impose extensive sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, with the caveat that it may be impossible to find an administrator who has enough time available to take on the assignment of mentoring a user as prolific as Doncram. I don't like the idea of issuing another long-term block against Doncram, because he has good intentions and he can be very productive, and because history indicates that blocking him won't cure the problem. However, something needs to be done (1) to convince him that his work is not entitled to an exemption from Wikipedia policy and guidelines and (2) to prevent him from driving away other productive users and persistently attacking other users (such as Nyttend and me) who have so far tenaciously refused to be driven away. When users are blocked or banned for using words like "fuck" that are merely dirty, Wikipedia should not blandly tolerate Doncram's persistent use of hurtful terminology like "evil", "hateful", "nasty", "non-human", and "malicious" to describe other users. The mentorship effort that Cbl62 undertook had positive results, but they didn't last. The temporary success of that effort does, however, lead me to think that a new period of restrictions and mentorship is worth trying. --Orlady (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Of all the comments thus far, this is the only one that has got me reconsidering my oppose of Ryan Vesey's proposal. Well worded and with a good deal of thought. Yes, something needs to be done to discourage some behavior but, I wonder if we are taking a one sided approach to this.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose For the reason I give above.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I really don't understand. How are any of the issues that I detailed a kind of mutual misconduct? How is anything that Dudemanfellabra mentioned a kind of mutual misconduct? Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I was thinking more of what I saw when looking into the discussions Doncram has had with Sitush and Orlady.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• That still doesn't explain why we should give Doncram a pass for calling Nyttend an "idiotic non-person" and for edit warring to violate MOS:SEEALSO. It seems like editors are ignoring the actions of Doncram because they dislike the actions of Sitush. Ryan Vesey 22:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• My comment is not to suggest he should be given a pass. Rather, I just think that ANI is not the place to hash out a complicated conduct dispute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no doubt that incivility is hurting the project, more so because standards are not applied evenly. Why is the proposal silent on the other side's abuse? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support for one year of 1RR under mentorship with very long block the next step. I prefer indefinite block to six months. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support although I think we are only solving part of the problem here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support (see my rationale somewhere above.) I"m not sure this will work because the editor tends to move around but if it helps manage the problem and helps doncram 'see the light' so to speak, then yes. --regentspark (comment) 01:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It is ignoring greater problems with another user's constantly extreme behavior. Don is ignoring to defend themselves. The thread was originally started for another reason and discussing other issues in the same thread can lead to a situation where the user being discussed becomes overwhelmed and ignores defending themselves simply because they cannot find the time and energy to engage in multiple issues. I don't think it is fair to apply sanctions in this way.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The current disputes are just the latest examples of a pattern of behavior that has existed for years. One of the reasons it persists is that almost every time a specific issue gets raised, it looks like an incredibly petty dispute between a couple of editors. The only RFC/U about Doncram that I recall was attempted nearly 3 years ago, but failed to get traction, mostly because it was very narrowly framed. Doncram gets involved with complex and acrimonious wars about extremely trivial matters, such as whether he should be allowed to include redlinks in the "See also" section of an article, or whether Poquetanuck, Connecticut should be treated as a place or as a historic district, or whether the fact that a property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places database justifies the creation of a stub article with text that reads something like "The Jones House is or was a house in Anytown, Pennsylvania, that was built or has other significance in 1857", or whether a historic district with buildings built over the span of a century can be included in a category for architecture of a particular year. If Wikipedians insist on restricting discussion to whichever of these individual "issues" happens to have come to a noticeboard most recently (none of which ought to be worth more than a paragraph of talk-page discussion, although some of them have led to multiple megabytes of acrimonious talk-page interaction elsewhere and occasionally the departure of other established editors), we will never succeed in addressing the pattern of behaviors that is actually the real problem. --Orlady (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• I appreciate your concerns and I think I understand what you intend to convey, I would suggest ignoring trivial fancies of constructive editors, especially if they don't hurt the project. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Allowing editors to ignore policies does hurt the project. We don't allow red links in the see also section for a reason (in one of the most recent examples). In addition, this is an editor retention issue and we've seen an example that Doncram's behavior has driven a user away from the project. Ryan Vesey 06:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You are right, but isn't something relative, to me, in view of the gross rubbish that exists on Wikipedia at many places, (I have presented one below) editors could put stylistic issues on the back burner, I for one hate red links anywhere, but I don't let my fancy bother me too much.[7] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support, basically for the 1RR, since I don't believe that Doncram is the kind of person (as viewed from his on-Wiki behavior, obviously) who will be able to control his nature and follow a mentor's advice for any length of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• I can't comment intelligently on Indian castes, but I can on such questions as"whether the fact that a property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places database justifies the creation of a stub article with text that reads something like 'The Jones House is or was a house in Anytown, Pennsylvania, that was built or has other significance in 1857.'" Don was defending established standards and the basic guideline at WP:STUB, that such can indeed be created and are fully justified, against the the small but active minority who disagree about stubs and try to enforce it at AfD when they know they would not be able to change the policy that allows them, a policy under which about half of Wikipedia was created. Even were this the only available content, it would be justified, but it never is, because designation on the national register is always accompanied by extensive reliable documentation, from which anyone can later expand the article. When faced with attempts to remove such content, sometimes stubborn resistance is constructive. I am very far from taking the attitude that adding articles with possibilities to Wikipedia is a extremely trivial matter. We should be glad for his involvement, and I think in this instance at least the appropriate course is to commend him. If the indian castes is a problem, perhaps a simple agreement for him to avoid the area would solve that one. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • At Indian castes articles Don was faced with abuse (as he presents above), considering the pathetic state in which Indian caste articles are, Don with his experience and Wikipedia expertise would be in my opinion an asset, especially since he is not a part of any established club in that area. We need to discourage coteries, such as the ones formed around Indian caste articles as an example. Editors like Don would break such structures, and that would be great for the project. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I present Koli people, a more horrible article[8] you would have difficulty finding, please see the article division history, Don's well cited addition of Kolis to OBCs is correct,[9] as some Kolis are OBCs, Sitush's reversion of his edit was wrong.[10], Don then goes to the talk page citing a source, the only wp:RS used in the article to support his edit,[11] he has not warred and is patient. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My concern with don was more with the churches and his attitude in working with others. I don't have any aversion to stubs, but I do with people who can't get along with those that agree with them. It is this digging in and battlefield mentality that is detrimental to the project, not any stub, and this isn't the first or sixth time we've had this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

(1) Sitush be reprimanded for being incivil and bringing this issue here. (2) Don should also be dealt similarly for being incivil to other editors. (2) Action could be in the form of a token small duration block, say a few hours as a matter of record, for both editors. I suggest the small block to communicate the community's displeasure with their resorting to incivility and not to deprive them of their editing privileges.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC) :Per wp:BLOCK#DETERENT Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support: As proposer. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not support a block at this time for either parties. But would support a topic ban for the two for a short term. Say......one month.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose There is never a situation where a block for the record is appropriate. Ryan Vesey 06:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a "punishment" block, designed solely to force the editor to wear a scarlet letter in the form of a block log. This is clearly a violation of policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• No support for any blocks. Would support a t-ban for both upto three months.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Kindly quote relevant policy, additionally how else do you think the community could get across its opinion that their incivility is unacceptable? I am open to changes in how the proposal is worded and implemented as long as sanctions are not severe but the message is strongly conveyed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose obvious punishment block.Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Yogesh, the issue was brought here because Doncram showed no sign of cessation. I understand his position: the lists were minimalistic in content and were up at AfD, therefore he wants to demonstrate their potential to offset the AfD challenge. That, however, is not an excuse for making the numerous poor edits which occurred. Since Doncram seemed to be continuing the list expansion despite being advised (not just by me) that such lists require some thought, and since he was beginning to insert potentially fallacious statements on related articles, I had little option but to raise the issue here. You are as aware as I am that there is a lot of rubbish in the caste articles and a lot of fighting goes on - adding more fuel to that fire was not a sensible option.

  Doncram has now agreed to postpone expansion pending clarifications etc, and I've commented both at the AfD on the article talk page since then. I was never opposed to the concept of such lists as these and had already said as much. That I lost my temper - which I've acknowledged - relates to some knowledge of how Doncram has a tendency to work in other spheres + the obvious lack of clue about this sphere. There is no need for topic bans, interaction bans, reprimands or anything else in connection specifically with the caste list issue. It is done and dusted, for now at least, and we've both acknowledged our inappropriate actions. You'll note that I have deliberately not commented in the discussion on the various proposals nor on the rights or wrongs of the NHRP-related problems. Right now I'm too close to be impartial in forming an opinion based on the facts, as indeed you are too close to form an opinion of me because of our well-known past problems that resulted in your topic ban, blocks etc. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose and a trouting Doncram's behaviour is most certainly problematic, and it concerns me that you cannot see it. Sitush's bringing it here was the right and responsible thing to do. The rest of the stuff about "we don't do punishment blocks" has already been said, and recognized by you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with your description of Don, however another admin DGG seems to have another view, "Don was defending established standards and the basic guideline at WP:STUB, that such can indeed be created and are fully justified", I based my opinion of Don on such comments which are numerous at this discussion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wow, how shocking.</sarcasm> YogeshKhandke has taken advantage of the slimmest of opportunities to attempt to remove Sitush from the caste topic, one of literally a handful of editors capable and willing of applying WP:NPOV to this topic—a topic on which you, I might remind everyone, are indefinitely topic banned. Maybe we should look for advice from somewhere else. Mind you, sometimes I wonder why Sitush doesn't just walk away from the virulence yourself and others attempt to aim at him, but so long as he's willing to put himself on the line (both here and in real life) to face this topic, he deserves our thanks, not criticism. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No Qwyrxian, my topic ban is Indian history-broadly construed, not topics like OBCs which is a modern Indian 21st century positive discrimination category. More importantly I've made no edit in any caste article post-ban, except the one during this AN/I which was related to modern India and not its history. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose 'for bringing this issue here'? Right or wrong, there do seem to be broad concerns about doncram's approach to editing and quoting 'bringing the issue here' as a reason gives me the impression that YK has completely ignored the entire discussion above. --regentspark (comment) 13:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• 'Comment: It is wrongly alleged that I have an interest in "caste articles", my contributions list will demonstrate that there isn't any, thanks to my vote against Sitush I've received warnings from an editor,[12] and a more serious one from an admin[13], I have earlier made it clear that my comments are related to behaviour and not content, even examples of Koli people were provided to enable those here to judge Don's editing behaviour at caste articles which was not known to DGG. Qwrxian you are free to idolise any one but don't create a strawman and attack me, I've not suggested Sitush or anyone for that matter be removed from caste or an other topic. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  You have two respected and experienced editors telling you on your talk page that you are doing something wrong, plus others here at this ANI. Have you considered that you might be doing something wrong? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  I see this going the wrong way for me, yet I ask you, regardless of my lack of respect and experience, would someone take a little time to check whether I may, against all odds be right? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well

This is a train wreck.

1. Commentary on doncram's participation at various caste articles. This is a legitimate complaint, and a new one; however, it was quickly derailed by two prominent sets of negative responses:
   1. In response to Sitush's "blow up" comment, naively interpreted as a precursor to disruption. Sitush's block log is clean and he has a very good reputation for performing thankless work on caste articles; at worst, this should met with a request to remember that angry text inevitably inflames difficult situations around here, and that this is one reason to avoid it even if one is uncontroversially right about a given situation.
   2. Colonel Warden, because apparently something might be deleted. If you've been around here for any length of time, you'll know how many neurons to devote to this.
2. Commentary on doncram's work in an entirely different area which deals with a different set of common doncram tropes (in this case, the unpersoning of editors doncram disagrees with). This really shouldn't have been subheadered.
3. The usual Royal Rumble of tit-for-tat ban proposals.

Let's discount #3 for now as unworkable. Let's also discount #2 for the time being as it's a well-worn road. #1 is new. I can't see anything other than "I disagree with Sitush" and "Sitush has offended me" from doncram which covers the basis of the dispute in #1 (leaving aside those parts which stray into #2, namely Orlady's participation in an AfD). If we're going to move forward with that particular matter at all, this is where doncram should be justifying it. How about a temporary injunction on editing by doncram of articles under the domain of WP:GS/Caste until such point as he's responded to the substance of the dispute? if none if forthcoming, that will result in a de facto topic ban from that area, which will at least resolve the new bit of the dispute. Comments? ("Comments" meaning "this isn't a bleedin' straw poll, guys.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with #1 and only here because of the Methodist Church edits, which was something I had investigated a day before this ANI was filed, at the request of Ryan (my talk page). I don't have any desire to labor the issue, but I think that the behavior exhibited there is worth considering as part of the overall pattern of disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "The overall pattern of disruption" is a broad spectrum of behaviours that, for better or worse, ANI is terrible at dealing with (far too many people will jump in having read only 1% of the background, and the gamut of possible sanctions runs from "none" to "siteban"). This is an attempt at getting something done here given that once an ANI thread reaches the "three different ban proposals" stage the probability of any action being taken at all is nearly zero. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    I sort of agree with Chris here. For anyone unfamiliar with doncram's history, it is hard to figure out whether what we have is a dedicated but tone deaf editor worth retaining or whether we have a consistently problematic editor who would be better gone from the project. ANI tends to have a short attention span and is not well suited for figuring this out. Editors here have the tendency to issue limited bans which don't address long term probles one bit, and often just make the problem worse. I see that there was an RfC on doncram a while ago, perhaps that's the best next step to gather evidence, both positive as well as negative, before pushing this up the chain. --regentspark (comment) 16:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    I'm willing to bend in any direction that has a possibility of the problem(s) being solved. What I don't want to see happen is a lot of words wasted and nothing come from it. Patience I have. A willingness to ignore, I do not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    I hear you Dennis. But what Chris is saying, and looking at the discussion here I have to agree with him, is that you're not going to get it resolved here, not with this particular report anyway. The best you're going to see is a 1RR restriction that, if experience is any guide, will not do a whole lot. --regentspark (comment) 17:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    By all means, someone provide a better alternative and I will be happy to give it a try. Like I said, I'm open minded to any solution and not going to labor the issue if someone wants to try something else. I'm not invested here, but we are all tired of the revolving door at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    You and the others discussing this on your talk page are more familiar with doncram's issues but, looking solely at the stuff presented above, I'd suggest a targeted approach. A complete ban on creating new articles, including redirects, along with the 1RR restriction that seems to have weak support above. That would be clear enough to enforce and, I suspect, an admin sanction would be enough to get it going. --regentspark (comment) 18:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    You're an admin. If you want to do something immediate about it, you've got the tools, and FWIW I reckon most sanctions by fiat would actually stick. But if you take the above trainwreck and call any result consensus we'll be back here tomorrow. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    It is precisely because I don't want this ignored that I'm proposing limiting the scope for now. With the present state of the thread, no general sanctions on doncram are likely. However, we can at least address that part which isn't at ANI every three weeks or so (the new forays into caste articles) pending more formal discussion of the big picture. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    I'm in and will trust you on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    Doncram seems to have heeded suggestions made by Newyorkbrad and Dennis Brown (that he "put a hold on these edits" and "step back" for a while), in that his last edit was a couple of days ago. That's good -- I expect that a little time away will reduce his aggravation level, making it easier for him to work amicably with people who don't see things the same way he does. As I indicated on Dennis Brown's talk page, an RFC/U might make sense at this point (I say that in spite of the fact that I find it difficult to work within the RFC structure), if it is broadly enough defined. The previous one (in February 2010) never really got started, probably because it was narrowly focused. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    • • • • • • Would it be possible to simply consider this a solid, emphatic, clear warning w.r.t. caste articles (placing a clear notice to that effect on doncram's talk page is probably a good idea), and that the next piece of activity which any uninvolved admin saw as disruptive would result in a topic ban to be applied per the discretionary sanctions? This handily removes it from the A/NI circus, and also makes it clear that, at least within this topic area, we won't tolerate any problematic editing. Then, we have a whole plethora of possible positive results: doncram decides to step away from the topic; doncram decides to act more responsibly within the topic; doncram is unable/unwilling to act more responsibly, is reported by another editor to an uninvolved admin of their choice (it seems like both regentspark and Dennis Brown might be a good place to consider, given their responses here), and are immediately topic-banned. Regarding larger issues, unfortunately, we have no tool to address a wide-ranging concern about editing style other than RFC/U, since, as others have pointed out, this would likely be rejected by ArbCom due to a failure to exhaust all "options" (even though many of us believe that RFC/U isn't particularly worth exploring). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) I have seen one caste article Koli people edited by Doncram, he was right and displayed good behaviour, even when his well sourced edit was reverted. (2) Caste is an area where I have almost no edits, that makes me an uninvolved person. Doncram's statement below "I do think it is obviously helpful, in the problematic area of Wikipedia's coverage of India's caste system, to have completely sourced lists and to work back and forth about corresponding articles being categorized with the same term. Developing on the OBCs and SC lists seems like a positive way forward" is potentially a positive approach. Doncram would bring his Wikipedia expertise and experience to an area which is presently a morass or should I say Augean stable like, I see a loss to the project by keeping Doncram away from that area. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, you have repeatedly used the Koli edit as an example where Doncram made a good, sourced edit, and Sitush reverted it anyway. While Doncram's edit was in good faith and the mistake perhaps understandable, the Koli he added are a different group than the Koli of that article: the ones he added are the Kharvi, who live around Goa. The Koli people live in more Northern states, up to the Himalaya. Fram (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I know exactly what I am saying, कोळी/कोली - Koli means a fisherman in Marathi, Hindi, Kokani, and is a generic term also for the occupation group. See entry no 6 in the Central govt. list for Goa, it includes Kolis in OBC.[14] Doncram's edit , "The Koli have been designated an Other Backward Class in Goa since 1996." Is factual per source cited[15] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is factual for the Kharvi, not for the Koli of the Koli people article. These are weavers, laborers, not fishermen (in origin, they probably have all kinds of occupations now). I haven't found any source indicating that the Goa Koli (better known as the Kharvi) can be equated to the "hill" Koli of Northern India. Everything so far points more in the direction of Sitush being right, and Doncram being wrong here. Fram (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression, Yogesh, that you were on the last of several final warnings to disassociate yourself from general troublemaking when it comes to Sitush. You appear to be making a significant effort here to involve yourself in a dispute with Sitush over content with which you are both self-admittedly and demonstratively not familiar. If you are under the impression that you are coming across as a disinterested third party merely keen on helping an editor improve a new area of the project, then I'm not sure who you think you're kidding. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by doncram

I'll make several comments and responses here in several edits. If you don't mind, I would appreciate some courtesy, including others not jumping in to insert comments and break this statement up.

I appreciate comments and concerns of editors above. Please take note of OrangesRyellow's statement above, about when an ANI is started for one reason, then ..."discussing other issues in the same thread can lead to a situation where the user being discussed becomes overwhelmed and ignores defending themselves simply because they cannot find the time and energy to engage in multiple issues." I am indeed a bit over-overwhelmed. It is not that I could not respond to everything above, but my doing so would provoke more commentary and disagreement. In a previous wide-ranging AFD or two, I have responded in detail to statements that I felt were false or misleading or needed to be put into context, only to receive criticism for doing so. E.g. I was criticized by one ANI-originating editor for defending myself against assertions in the ANI that were not that one person's concerns. There is NO WAY to satisfy all ANI participants. I do feel that I am capable of defending myself, in terms of explaining my motivations and reasoning for the edits I have made.

But basically, I don't think ANI is appropriate or fair for a proper discussion. I don't want to do this, but I think it is time to seek an arbcom case, towards "breaking the back" of long-running contention, chiefly between editor Orlady and myself, and also addressing Nyttend and myself which has also turned pretty sour and is unpleasant to watch.

Please note, I did not choose this time to have a big ANI discussion. The impetus for this ANI is Orlady's opening of AFD on List of Methodist churches, since closed Keep, and Orlady's opening of AFD on List of Other Backward Classes, still open. Since those AFDs opened I made edits to expand or otherwise improve those lists (though I think they are obviously needed, helpful lists to have). I have been the receiving end of a lot of jabbing edits, by Orlady and Nyttend, in the church list articles, and I feel like I have been attacked rather strongly and inappropriately by editor Sitush on the Other Backward Classes article.

There has been useful discussion on several aspects of the Methodist church list-article at its Talk page, involving editors Revmqo and Peter I. Hardy (whom I invited) and Ryan Vesey. These are about use of term "local" or not, and about scope of list to include notable congregations that are not listed on a historic register or not. This is fine discussion to have, not fully resolved...I myself am not happy that Revmqo and Peter I. Hardy are not happy about how several discussion items are left now, and I would like to get to a real consensus. There's a way forward, find notable modern Methodist churches to add to the list. And I think that, to stay parallel to other big lists of churches by denomination, that it will turn out best to keep the scope wide and with same scope asthe corresponding categories (Category:Presbyterian churches, etc.) That's the kind of stuff I want to work on, I don't want to be here at ANI.

The list of Presbyterian churches has been quietly expanded mainly by editor Altairisfar. The lists of Anglican churches, Baptist churches, Congregational churches, Lutheran churches have been mainly developed by me, and also reflect a few others' contributions.

In the church lists there have been edits that I took exception to, by Orlady and Nyttend, which I reverted in continuing their development. For example, a change at the long-stable {{coord}} template (and/or linked GeoData features) rendered the new, big church lists to show bad looking redlinks everywhere that an empty coordinate template had previously showed nothing, as intended. I sought to have the template change reversed or corrected, and was given guidance that the coord template calls needed to be commented out, and I have proceeded to implement that. Intervening, Nyttend repeatedly edited differently, stripping them all out rather than commenting them out, and I objected and asked for Nyttend's assistance instead at several Talk pages, and I reverted Nyttend's edits several times, and I continued. I think Nyttend never did reply anywhere but to chime in with this ANI, and that his position was extreme and unreasonable. In the context of medium-term and recent history with Nyttend, I don't experience their edits as helpful, but rather I experience these ones as harassing. I believe that Nyttend has made no positive contribution to any of these new list-articles; I have been the major editor.

For another example, Orlady once and Nyttend multiple times stripped See Also links from the church list-articles, while the linked articles were coming in and out of mainspace. I see at Talk:List of Methodist churches, that Orlady comments: "The two issues (multiple references to the US list and redlinks in the See also section) are unbelievably trivial -- this isn't stuff that should be worth risking a block for. When several other experienced users say you're wrong, rather than reverting them, you should think seriously about the possibility that they are correct." My feeling is, why are you, Orlady, following closely and pressing on "unbelievably trivial" matters in brand-new list-articles that I have started and was very actively developing in ways that would eliminate those issues.

This is somewhat similar to List of round barns, where editors Nyttend and Orlady tagteamed disruptively, in my view and in the view of some other editor(s) at an ANI about that.

I do not at all seek any kind of exemption from Wikipedia policies or style guidelines or anything else. I do entirely buy into Wikipedia's democratic nature, and believe that brand new editors and experienced editors can have good criticisms, and that it is basically good to have continous consensus-building processes

However, I think the long history of Orlady's following me, and to a lesser extent Nyttend's interactions, are problematic and in fact embarrassing for Wikipedia. I don't think we should condone behaviors that reasonable people can agree seem unduly aggressive and bullying in nature. I would question my own behavior, and back off, if I was causing stress and failing to communicate and not constructively adding anything, in a long running situation with another editor. If there were truly important matters to address, i would seek mediation or seek to involve other editors instead. I don't think it helps for a compromised person, Orlady, to follow me closely and to repeatedly open AFDs and to egg on others.

I don't think Wikipedia is served by blocking or banning me in any way. I do think my repetition of negative statements about Orlady and to a lesser extent about Nyttend, when they follow my edits and contend, is unpleasant. However, one-sided measures against me alone would reward arguably bad behavior (that I and reasonable others can see as truly bad behavior), and would not be fair.

I just found my way to Talk at Dennis Brown's page that includes some hurtful stuff, others talking negatively about me, including perceptions that I have been dehumanizing of other editors, as if that is what I seek to do. It's not funny at all. What I seek to do is to support new and experienced editors becoming constructive or more constructive contributors to Wikipedia, and i have done that with many editors. I have responded with negativity towards Orlady and toward Nyttend recently, and on some previous occasions towards others, but in a context of greater negativity by themselves. There are truly horrible things written by Orlady, that are not forgiveable, IMO. A long pattern of harassment has seemed calculated to dehumanize me, to treat me as a non-person. There have been awful things said against me, when basically I am just working to develop articles and communities of productive editors. How does a person deal with dehumanizing comments by others? How does one deal with long term bullying that includes dehumanization. This and other ANIs are fundamentally dehumanizing, about me. I think it takes a long arbcom look to untangle what has happened.

What really are any substantive matters here? That I sought to restore coordinate links, that I sought to develop several useful list-articles, that I objected to AFDs?

About the opening cause of this ANI, I honestly don't think Sitush has justified their statements that my edits would cause incredible harm to Wikipedia somehow, in the India articles. I don't see that happening at all. The major disruption is this ANI proceeding, isn't it? There's now a somewhat longer, completely sourced, list of OBCs, and there have been some edits back and forth at some linked articles. See Talk:Koli people for one fruit, where it seems established that there is a need for a disambiguation page since the term Koli is ambiguous. Great. I do think it is obviously helpful, in the problematic area of Wikipedia's coverage of India's caste system, to have completely sourced lists and to work back and forth about corresponding articles being categorized with the same term. Developing on the OBCs and SC lists seems like a positive way forward. I think the AFD on these has no big, valid arguments against keeping them. Anyhow, as I stated way far above, I did back off from further editing at the List of OBCs article and will wait to contribute at its Talk page, in a while.

I have major real-life obligations and cannot complete a good statement here all at one time. --doncram 22:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Please note my account name is Doncram or doncram. Thank you.

P.P.S. Please consider doncram's request that this comment by doncram not be cut up.

Doncram, I'm sick and tired of being your punching bag -- and letting you get away with repeating accusations against me all over Wikpedia. If you are going to accuse me of "long-term bullying that includes dehumanization", please provide diffs that demonstrate the horrible behaviors you accuse me of. This ANI may not be the right place to publish your list, but since you refuse to allow me anywhere near your talk page, I feel I must insist that you not place your collection of accusations on my user talk page or anywhere in my user area. You might note that about 1-1/2 years ago I compiled an interesting collection of words and phrases that you and I had used to characterize each other (and each other's work) in one protracted WP:AN discussion. I cannot find anything dehumanizing in my comments there (examples of terms from the list: "deliberately vague", "doing things his way", "massive chip on his shoulder", "deeply resentful", "strongly held position", "convinced that ... work is practically perfect", "propensity to create drama"), but I recall being taken aback at the venom I saw when I compiled the list of things that you had said about me and my work (examples of terms from the list: "pure nastiness", "evil", "hatred", "causing contention", "lying", "inflammatory", "nasty-spirited", "vast, poisonous negativity", "obtuse", "totally unproductive", "Liar liar liar liar liar!!!!!!!!!", "obviously offensive", "absolutely 100% false", "shows a complete lack of understanding", "reckless disregard for truth and for my reputation"). The only thing I find on the list of things I said that could be considered "dehumanizing" was "dog droppings that are left in in public parks by the pets of thoughtless dog owners", but that statement was metaphorical and related to certain of your edits (full version: Similarly, the dog droppings that are left in in public parks by the pets of thoughtless dog owners could be "relatively easily cleaned up," but the world is not full of people who want to devote themselves to selflessly cleaning up after other people's dogs); it had nothing to do with you as a human person. --Orlady (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm horrified by Orlady's behavior against me. That is an wp:ATTACK PAGE, as is another page that Orlady has built up and spat up on other occasions. 21 minutes after this post, Orlady used administrative powers to eliminate one of the list of churches articles I had been developing only today, out of mainspace, in this edit. This was restored a couple minutes later by Orlady, presumably after they noticed that while i edited it only today (merging in another church list and developing), the article existed since 2009. I tend to experience Orlady's edits following me as editing with anger, editing with malice, seeking to find fault. I think here, it woulda been great, woulda been a triumph, for Orlady to use admin powers to humiliate me during this ANI by userfying my work, in full view of many.

Orlady, I don't follow your edits on list-articles about bow tie wearers and such, and I don't touch any of the numerous pages you build that discredit claims of marginal academic entities, many of which I think are not encyclopedic and should be deleted (the material is suitable for a personal blog, I think). I am also not in a position of as much power to inflict; you have won the long-term game of repeatedly dragging me down, so you not I am an administrator, and many see me as the subject of repeated ANIs. You follow me. You open AFDs and/or egg others on. In an arbcom case, you and I and a bunch of others could go through a lot of hateful past statements, and I could/would explain exactly how I think you were lying, here and there, or were really reckless with the truth, or you seemed to be delighting in composing or repeating some nasty statement, and how, in context, my responses were usually milder than what you were doing and saying. And you could repeat those hurtful statements, and argue that this is what Wikipedia is for, for you to have full license to follow and to harrass me. Is there any way to avoid that. Could there be an interaction ban, permanently, without that. --doncram 07:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So, I guess there is no love lost here. If everyone can't remain in there seperate corners I would expect an uninvolved admin to start handing out topic bans. Seriously. Other than arbcom....I see no other way. Clearly this group can't do this on their own. They are not seeing the value of the other editor at the moment and they may never see it, but I would hope that regardless of the content disputes that editors would be able to see how much harm is being done by continuing this fight. If you can't let it go...it will probably be taken away.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Says an editor who got involved in this thread in order to take potshots at the reporting editor over an unrelated dispute elsewhere that you haven't even seen fit to link to. Ahem. While this may eventually go to ArbCom, there's significant evidence in the loooong history of this conflict suggesting that both sides should not be apportioned equal blame. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So you are accusing me of only invloving myself to take potshots at the filing editor. Wow.....no. I have my own experiance with the editor. Many on this AN/I do. Ahem.......? And you are here only to defend the filing editor I guess. They are perfect and need not be scrutinized at all even when from all evidence they are just as problematic. That is correct I have not linked to that "dispute" as it wasn't a dispute. It was an RS noticeboard discussion and they went into discussing my personal life and do not wish to draw attention to that discussion again. I don't know if the filing editor should be given equal "blame" but should be seen as equaly involved and it is my opinion that everyone here, including the filing editor is guilty of extreme bad behavior. I guess assuming good faith is not something you are willing to do except for them.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are my posts that you have labeled as "pot shots":

(1) "And I would add this is a very consistant form of conduct by Sitush. A little surprised there isn't some slight boomarang for his behavior on the involved articles. This seems to be something of a pattern I have noticed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)"

(2) "Lets face it, we all put up with a lot of bullshit. Does that mean we have a right to threaten disruption as Sitush just did by saying he is going to blow up? No. I see a lot of this as a contnet dispute and frankly I really do not care what level of expertise they claim to have. This project is for everyone, not just experts. I have real expertise, but I don't lord over others and become uncivil at the very addition of content.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)"

(3) "Well.....it answers a number of questions I have had.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC) "

(4) "Thank you for this reply. At the moment I have only the recent history of how Sitush treated me and a few others over an RS situation that I feel the editor took far too aggresive a stance with insulting comments and horrible civility issues. I try not to hold this against them and yet I cannot help but understand why some may wish to hurl the kitchen sink at them. The main reason why I cannot see Doc as the singular problem here is exactly because of the horrible way Sitush has interacted, with others...not just me. However, the fact remains that the editor filing this ANI has issues. Whether or not that ammounts to a reason to not sanction Doc remains to be seen but yes.......Sitush has issues they need to address and I belive they are a part of this current situation. I have alwasy felt this was going to catch up with them and for the moment....that time could well be now.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)"

(5) "This may well be true, but I don't see this an excuse for any editor to threaten to blow up and expect others to take their side. Sitush is a well respected editor and should not behave the way he is and has no matter what the excuse is. We need civility more when things get heated, not less.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)"

(6) "I'll make no further comment in this section then Ryan. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC) "

Besides the above new commnet that you replied to the only other posts were !votes.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand why you appeared here. Amadscientist, you posted something on-wiki and I mentioned it in a discussion: if you post in full view then it is disclosure. Regardless, I retracted when it was pointed out to me that, really, you'd made a mistake and there was no point in labouring it when you were clearly unhappy about it. I've not looked for the thread to check this summary but it will be the gist, I'm fairly sure. In any event, it seem to explain a lot about your motivations now. You want an apology from me for repeating your own disclosure? You've got one, for whatever it is worth. Happy? - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps in your vast wisdom Sitush you may understand that even if I write something on another editors talkpage it is considered uncivil to bring it up on an unrelated discussion to try and stalk me with personal information. You also should be aware that if an editor requests that personal information not be used in discussions then it is off limits. You refused to remove the information you took from a post I made on Dennis Browns talkpage that you posted for absolutley no reason but to make a suggestion of my editing. You had to be asked by another to remove it as I had requested. You are the most disrespectful editor I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. You took disruption and uncivil behavior to it's own special level. I made no mistake. I take issue to anyone just running around repeating medical information about me just because you think it is fair game. It is not, but shows the level you stoop to. Review the guidelines for this. Of course I accept your apology as late as it comes and as little as it means now, but I do accept it in the manner it was given.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And I "appeared here" because I frequent this notice board and have for some time. I didn't just appear here because you made a filing. I believe that editors that are familiar with the tactics and behavior of others often comment on these AN/I filings.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to link to the thread(s). I can't recall all the details and it is several thousand edits ago, in my case at least. I'm pretty sure that I wasn't "stalking" etc and I'm pretty sure that there was some sort of relevance. I'm also pretty sure that, aside from this current thread, it is the only significant interaction between us. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And thus debuts WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP. Now, having had your apology, are you done discussing a completely off-topic run-in you had with Sitush in the past on a thread that largely has nothing to do with that? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is degrading quickly. Doncram thinks it should go to Arb, as do others. At this point, I would suggest this be the next course of action and would request someone simply file a case and end this this ANI thread, via Thumperward's previous insights that nothing is likely to come of this ANI except more drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AJillani

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user AJillani appears to be primarily (or solely?) editing in order to promote/ advocate issues around issues of youth and breast feeding related to Pakistan. In September 2011 they created Juvenile justice in Pakistan, they have attempted through AfC to create SPARC Child Rights Society in Pakistan‎, SPARC & Breastfeeding in Pakistan, Breastfeeding in Pakistan and SPARC and SPARC & Breastfeeding ‎ which appears to not gone through the process.

In the case of Breastfeeding in Pakistan and SPARC (which I have just reviewed) it is pretty much copy & past from SPARC & Breastfeeding.

Other than sending SPARC & Breastfeeding to WP:AFD (they have used the WHO and some newspapers a sources) and kepp declining any AfC submissions that don't stand up and advising of WP:NOTADVOCATE and other guidelines, what can we do? Should we do anything? --wintonian ^talk 01:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Couple of things here. The user may qualify as an expert on the subject matter. We have certified medical professionals which spend a majority of their time in WP:MEDICINE. Secondly, "Jillani, Anees. Cries Unheard, op. cit.,." and "Jillani, Anees (2001). The Sindh Children Act; The JJSO; & the Punjab Youthful Offenders Ordinance. Islamabad Pakistan: SPARC." are more then likely evidence of a COI. As the user's name is A(nees)Jillani. I doubt we are dealing with a malicious or single purpose account. but we are infact dealing with a notable individual who is a member of SPARC and is a very legitimate and notable organization whose work has recieved prolongue national recognition and plays a national role in an international body. I believe we are also dealing with a non-native english speaker and someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and a poor attempt to discuss the problem before coming to ANI seems to be obvious. This matter is best dealt with delicately and though some explainations. I may not be an admin, but it seems that there is no issue here that cannot be resolved by discussing the matter and working with the editor. Quite clearly, the topics and organization are itself notable and do meet GNG. Fixing up some COI matters and a little bit of a POV matter will make for a good article. Wikipedia is not friendly to such people, and I've had numerous cases of such individuals completely confused about how to work with our systems. I'll personally try to talk to the individual and help develope a proper article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Chris (assuming his facts are right), Wikipedia shouldn't drive new editors away. Better "Wikify" them. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Language shouldn't be a problem for him[16]. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPARC & Breastfeeding. Normally, I would have considered deleting it as G11, but in view of the discussion here, perhaps the community should see it. Myself, I think it needs to be started over, and can not be otherwise fixed: the advocacy is pervasive. I fully appreciate the need to keep new expert editors, but we need some energetic means to impress upon them that we have some basic policies. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not too overawed by the expertise part, except that the said editor is a potential plus to the project, if he is explained various policies such as SPA, COI, RS, V etc. It is necessary to go the extra mile in order to do so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I brought it here because I didn't quite know how to approach this, to me they looked WP:POV and promotional given the duplication under different titles. Admittedly I am unlikely to spot an expert if they came hit me in the face so I am prepared to to see this as a WP:COI issue with a lack of understanding about the guidelines here - in fact it generally pleases me to assume good faith unless its blatantly obvious not in good faith. I'll write out a 'thank you for your edits - this is how you can improve your contributions - have look at these guidelines' type ditty on their talk page later. --wintonian ^talk 12:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Username issue, combined with curious edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've just spotted User:International Jihad. In spite of their very blockable username, they seem to have made what appears to be a complete, well constructed, sourced, article with their very first edit. With the combination of these two factors, I'm not sure what's going on here: new editors are not usually capable of this, so I suspect this is a returning experienced editor.

The name is obviously unacceptable, so I've blocked them for that, but with the option to create an account with a less provocative name. However, given the unusual circumstances, I wouldn't be surprised to see further developments soon. Can admins please keep a lookout for anything odd happening in this general topic area? -- The Anome (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not completely familiar with our username policy; however, is the existence of the term "jihad" in someone's username a violation of policy? As an American, I have a negative reaction towards the term; however, that may not be the case to a Muslim. At least per our article Jihad, Jihad is an important religious duty and "The "greater jihad" is the inner struggle by a believer to fulfill his religious duties". In those definitions I see nothing wrong. I'm happy to defer to those more experienced with our username policy though. Ryan Vesey 04:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll also note that the article, Abu-Zaid al Kuwaiti, displayed some close paraphrasing. I've tagged it as such, but don't have time to fix it. Ryan Vesey 05:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the name could be considered offensive, which would make it a vio of our username policy. However, I have no problem with allowing him to keep it unless anything comes up. gwickwire^talk_edits 05:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I caught sight of the created article earlier myself, my initial possibly prejudice thought was that it was surprisingly neutral, however I soon reminded myself how the term 'Jihad' is open to interpretation in Islam, would we block someone with a user name like 'Crusader' for instance? Which could refer to the crusades or to the model of Land Rover. Just my 2p --wintonian ^talk 05:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it open to interpretation, though? While (according to the dictionary) "jihad" might mean "personal struggle", I have a hard time accepting this interpretation in the context of "international jihad". And this isn't synonymous with "crusade". If there was a prominent social movement to revive the crusades and kill in the name of religion, I would think we would be somewhat more inclined to block crusade-related usernames. That is not the case. It is with jihad however. This is not a western-bias thing. Jihadism is bad. Swarm ^X 05:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Swarm here; yes, I'm well aware that jihad has multiple meanings, but for practical purposes in the English language it tends to refer to something we wouldn't allow people to advocate in a username. I seriously doubt we'd extend much good faith to someone who chose the name User:FaggotHater claiming he disliked the food of the same name; setting aside my personal taste for said dish, it's patently obvious that the username would be problematic even if that was the intent. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• This user is certainly not new.Creating article with fairly good wiki markup is good sign of banned user or someone socking--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • … or someone who has simply edited without an account. Wikipedia has been around for over a decade, now. It has even made the newspapers. The fact that people who haven't yet or have only just created accounts on it know how to write with wikimarkup should not come as a surprise. Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I edited anonymously for over a year (including some significant revisions of articles) before I created my account (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There are also legitimate reasons for a new account, such as someone who hasn't edited in a year and forgot their password and didn't have email enabled. We are old enough that this is not so uncommon. Plus cleanstarts, etc. It is all moot now, since they have been softblocked for username violations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd concur. Being a regular follower, and infrequent contributor, of dispute boards, I have said before, and will say again now, that the tangent we sometimes get onto about "length of service," "edit count," etc. are a poor benchmark to assume the intent of the OP in these kind of cases, as well as being a breach of the "good faith" policy, unless it is blaringly obvious that the account in question was created from a blocked account to continue brandishing the stick. Ditch ∝ 18:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Earth100

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A few days ago, users Earth100 and Meow were involved in an edit war, where both users violated WP:3RR. Both users were reported (Report for Earth100; I'm unable to find the archive for Meow's report, but it's visible on this old diff: [17]). The two continued to fight on each other's talk pages (User talk:Meow#December 2012 and [18]), and I warned them that if they kept it up, I would have to take it to AN/I, since it was becoming disruptive. In the mean time, I've attempted to clean up the page at the center of the edit war, Typhoon Bopha (2012). Earth100 has opposed the changes I've made to the page, adding original research ([19]). I attempted to engage in a discussion with him to try to keep the information and properly source it, but he would not cooperate, and as I was unable to find sources for the information, I removed it. I would have tagged it with a citation needed tag, but the information seemed inaccurate, and as it was unsourced, I felt the best option was to remove it ([20]), and placed a warning on his page to document the incident ([21]). After that, I began a clean-up of the article, as many of the sources given were either misplaced or did not mention the facts they were supposed to reference. He reverted my series of edits, re-introducing grammatical errors and bad references ([22]). I again placed a warning on his page ([23]). Later in the day while I was offline while at work, he posted the comment "Inks.LWC, it would have been sooooo much better...without you." ([24]), which was removed as a personal attack by another editor. (Out of full disclosure, I disagree with labelling that a personal attack, but I wanted to post it here so as to show the full situation.) The editor who removed the comment also warned Earth100 (User talk:Earth100#December 2012). As I still have Meow's page on my watchlist, when I returned from work, I saw that it had been edited, so I went there to see what was written and found that Earth100 had continued his fight with Meow (Meow has taken my suggestion and stopped interacting with Earth100), saying that Meow is "[t]he real crappy information" ([25]), a borderline personal attack. I truly didn't want to bring this to AN/I, but Earth100 seems to be ignoring the advice from others to just walk away from the situation. I know that Earth100 needs to be told of this AN/I, but I am unsure of whether I need to (or should) also inform Meow. Like I said, he's been uninvolved in the situation since I suggested he walk away from the situation a few days ago, so I don't really consider him the "subject" of this discussion, but guidance from an admin would be appreciated. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please note the notice at the top of this page. You must notify editors when you report them here. I have done so for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I did: [26]. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Meow has been here longer than I have, and looking at their edit summaries and their attitude on their talk page is very disturbing. Summaries like "Fucking stupid dumbs" [27] and comments on their talk page like "To rude people, I have to be ruder that makes them want to kill themselves." are unacceptable. Earth100 needs to learn when to back off and stop the childish banter as well. Comments like this [28] are unhelpful, as is his instance on bludgeoning Meow's talk page. Honestly, you both are acting like 12 year olds, and I'm tempted to block you both for a month for badgering and creating a hostile environment for other editors. If you aren't mature enough to edit here, then you would be better off finding something else to do during play time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've left messages on both of their pages asking them to knock if off, since it doesn't look like they are interested in coming here. The petty stuff started with an edit war and they need to just give each other some space. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Look, i apologize for everything that happened, thank you.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 02:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threats Wikipedia may "get sued"

Please see this diff here were a user invokes a legal threat to try and push forward their POV on an article. The content of their claim is irrelevant the issue being reported here is the use of a legal threat as a way of editing Wikiepdia. Sport and politics (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is a legal threat. He's not saying that he will sue if he doesn't get his way, he's saying that wikipedia could end up getting sued if there are BLP violations in articles. That's just a statement of fact. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's kinda like saying your legs "might" get broken if you don't pay me that money you owe me. Or am I watching too many gangster movies? GiantSnowman 13:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha. I read it more as "your legs might get broken if you jump off that bridge". And there can never be "too many" gangster movies Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You are exactly right GiantSnowman. It is the resorting to threatening legal language which I am reporting. It is not right to resort to that kind of language in Wikiepdia. it is a form of intimidation "stop do as i want or else". Sport and politics (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

How ridiculous, what a waste of Admin time. Yes of course I am merely protecting Wikipedias interests, as Basalisk confirms. I have no connection except being British. We have a duty to report accurately whatever the case, if I was the reporter the previous quote would be deemed unacceptable. Sports doesn't like the article and will do anything to subvert its meaning or remove it. I'm surprised she is confident enough to try this trick though, perhaps she expects everyone to see the word 'sue' and overeact. I expected her to gang up then edit war, but this one caught me out as usual, different anyway. --Andromedean (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A wholesale missing of the point has been done by Andromedean. Wikipedia has policies on Biographies of a living person and plagiarism and Copyright violations, citing those if they applied would have sufficed. They were not cited or referred too, instead threatening and intimidatory legal threats were resorted too. Wikipedia has clear policy outlawing legal threats. Sport and politics (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean would be well-advised to avoid any problematic language concerning editors or motives. [29] shows a style which is less-than collegial (" Otherwise retract your accusations, or else you will be in trouble yourself" appears uncollegial, if not an overt threat.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

• This needs an admonishment because the language can have a chilling effect, but I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to threaten action. Like others have said, you need to parse your words more carefully and insure you don't accidentally inhibit the free flow of ideas with them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Very much agree with Dennis here. I don't see this as even a borderline threat, but very badly worded and certainly something needing some sort of warning. Perhaps not any outright sanctions but at the very least letting the editor know what effects his words have on others.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I will clarify the wording in the talk page, however the reaction is again very frustrating. Instead of helping Sports and politics create a major incident out of nothing, why not just fix the false text to protect the encyclopaedias reputation? Let's be clear here, there is no free flow of information, sport&politics doesn't wish to discuss this, and is not conforming to policy. It is a clear attempt to change the meaning of the statement, and this should be our primary concern. The correct text is:

But is Boardman not concerned that this high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage? "Well, I'd like to think so," he laughs. "We haven't done our job if they're not."

but it has been written as

When asked if the British team will put some countries at a disadvantage, former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team, Chris Boardman replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."

obviously all implication of technology has been removed, the whole point of the article also

: All bicycle and equipment were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use. is not strictly confirmed in the text, Chris Boardman said this, so should we precede the statement with -

Chris Boardman said that every single bicycle component was vetted and declared fit for use by the UCI and passed fit for use, it also clarifies we are including further statements from the British side to provide relevent balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 08:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on the content of the article is for the talk page of the article. Please take it to the article talk page. Please also do not engage in reversions and re-reversions until a discussion has occurred Andromedean. Engaging in such conduct is edit warring and must be avoided. a new section on the talk page has been initiated for discussion of the content of the article section. Sport and politics (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It takes two, Sport, how about you check your own behavior here, huh?--v/r - TP 14:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I am though not the one making thinly veiled threats and engaging in behaviour such as making the changes proposed unilaterally when the knowledge of the views of others is well known and that making those changes has been previously discussed in mediation. Andromedean is also fully aware they are in a minority of one on that talk page in relation to their version of the section of the article. Changing a section back to the consensus version when a user who has caused considerable disruption to the section in question, isn't acting outside of the rules and spirit of wikipedia, making the inflammatory changes as Andromedean has done is acting outside the spirit and rules of wikipeidia. Sport and politics (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm neither impressed by the way you and crew at the talk page have shrugged off Andromedean's comments and called it 'no consensus' (I call it bullying) nor am I impressed that at the first vague 'legal threat' that you ran here to get a block. Nor am I impressed that in the processes of reverting, you warn Andromedean of an edit war. I see a ton of ownership and battleground behaviors coming from editors on that article. I don't know the finer details of the problem, the issues with content, but the way your handling criticism and differences of opinion is troublesome. You and HiLo48 have essentially exhausted everyone else off the page so 'consensus' is always yours.--v/r - TP 14:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in here but I am one of the editors involved pretty extensively in the editing of the article. I have to say that what you've observed is exactly the tactics being employed by S&P, such as:

• in the processes of reverting, you warn ... of an edit war;
• You ... have essentially exhausted everyone else off the page so 'consensus' is always yours.

This pattern of behavior is prevalent throughout the whole editing history of that piece. You can check the talk history to ascertain and verify that. I would actually suggest that certain administrative action is warranted for such behavior. Showmebeef (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly there is no "crew", secondly I am not engaging in bullying. Thirdly Andormodean has resorted to personalising the discussions in the past and is mildly obsessed with ensuring that they attempt to get their version on to the article. This has been going on since August and it is now December. Fourthly the line and implication that I have "shrugged off Andromedean's comments" is not true Andormodean's comments have been given more than enough time, please take a good look at the archives and mediation. Mediation has been gone through and resulted in the current consensus version which is on the article. In contrast to your claims it is Andormodean who has exhausted everyone else off of the talk page. Hilo and myself are just the only ones left preventing them foisting the POV and synthesis riddled version all over the article. Please take a look at the archives of the talk page and please take a look at the mediation which took place. Also in regards to "at the first vague 'legal threat,'that you ran here to get a block". That is not the case I have not called for or asked for a block, it was though pointed out correctly that use of such language must be avoided due to its "chilling effect". Please look at all of the background regarding this and you will find reports by Andromedean in relation to others behaviour and they then took um-bridge when their behaviour was also bought up in the discussion. This needs resolving and the whole of the situation needs looking at and not the tine skimming of the most recent discussion imitated yet again by Andromedean on this issue. Sport and politics (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually went through the talk page history and what I see is you constantly insisting that either: 1) Consensus has already been determined, if it suits your POV, 2) Consensus needs to be determined, when something doesn't suit your POV, and 3) Wikilawyering with other editors and insisting that they have a POV. I noticed at least two editors disappeared from the talk page because of your behaviour. Just like above, when Andromedean wants to discuss, you've got a reason not to. I think you need to find a new article to work on.--v/r - TP 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Whilst i disagree with some of your opinions I respect them, I also think it may very well be worth Andormodean finding something else to occupy their editing here at Wikipeida. There has been a large volume of Forum Shopping undertaken by that individual and the consensus we currently have is the one worked out through mediation. To make changes which go to a revision which was pre-mediation, Is going against consensus. There is also no "Wikilaywering" as you are claiming it is simply asking for things such as rules on POV and Synthesis to be upheld. If you are referring to this referral as "Wikilaywering" that's a little strange as this is a legitimate referral on an issue which has been described as having a potential "chilling effect". Anyway we have deviated from the subject originally bought on this page if you wish to continue this discussion please feel free to do so at my talk page. --Sport and politics (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What I refer to as Wikilawyering was things I read from last September and August dealing with Cla68 and some other blocked editor. Nothing recent.--v/r - TP 17:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by involved IP: Firstly, I resent the description "Sport and Politics and crew". I disagreed with her in other discussions on the article. While Sport and Politics's conduct is not flawless her initial method of resolving content disputes is civil discussion. (Unlike say HiLo48, whom I presume is also a part of the "crew".) She is hard to convince, but accepts the consensus, as well as outcomes from dispute resolutions, e.g. WP:3O when I disagreed with her (see this, note the lack of ad hominem arguments) or WP:DRN in this case. Compare this with the number of places Andromedean has brought this case up in. Almost initially, and also immediately after the DRN, Andromedean's main discussion technique has been comments with arguments (some strong, and some weak) hidden in the same comments as personal attacks. This makes the occasional valid point very hard to see as it creates animosity with the editors holding an opposing view. This has greatly prolonged the discussion. Furthermore, it is much more likely to remove editors from the discussion than anything Sport and Politics have done. It is far more unpleasant and tiresome to disagree with Andromedan than it is to disagree with Sport and Politics. I backed down from the discussion, and have almost ceased editing Wikipedia altogether because of Andromedean's repeated claims of bias and similar. To be fair to Andromedean, what was actually the last straw was that WP:ANI did not see this behaviour, going against the civility pillar, as serious enough to warrant even a warning. As I said then, I don't belong in a community where this is acceptable behaviour.
The apparent reason for Andromedean's repeated claims should be a cause for concern in a collaborative effort such as Wikipedia. Andromedean seems completely incapable to comprehend that other editors may rationally disagree with him, and when he meets with disagreement the immediate conclusion is that the disagreers must be biased and have a secret agenda. There is a complete and fundamental lack of assuming good faith. Because of the perceived agenda he has no need to consider the merits of our arguments, which he almost never does. E.g. I have repeatedly told him that much of his information has a place on Wikipedia, just that he attempts to put it in the wrong place i.e. an article with a limited scope where only small parts of his information is relevant. He does not respond, and continues with the same argument, if neccessary at a different location. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the time you put into looking through that long history of the article Tparis, it's good to see someone doing their job and becoming familiar with the hard facts and pain we have been through. I fear there may be far more to Sport&Politics behaviour since she has virtually claimed ownership of the entire Controversies in the 2012 London Olympics article, attempting to reduce as much text as possible through a combination of edit warring and Wikilawyering.

This 85* (he sometimes goes by 88*) character was the other person who misled the volunteer into believing their was consensus in the Technology in track cycling DRN when there was no such thing. There were two editors completely against the version and two for. However, that should be largely irrelevant anyway because Wikipedia is only a democracy of editors supported by facts and sources, views not supported by evidence should be ignored. The two changes I recently made are as clear as they come. We have to consider the motivations behind someone wishing to subvert those basic facts. I have a right to seek advice on how to correct these misquotes. To call this forum shopping is inaccurate and offensive and I draw attention to the Wikipedia guidelines copied on the talk page in italics.

Sport and politics failed to quote a single hard fact or source since I wrote this back in August. 85* just one from I remember, yet their views were taken heavily into account, and almost completely ignoring one quality contributor. I was going to raise an incident about it but assumed it was a genuine mistake and didn't wish to get anyone into trouble.--Andromedean (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have serious issues with this edit, but I won't re-enter a debate to defend it either. "High tech warfare" seems a little unfair, even if it is a quote from the source (the text in the article is not currently a quote (nor should it be) so it does not need to match the source word for word), and "the British team's use of technology" would be preferable. In any case, if that is the only change you currently desire I hope it is resolved shortly so you and Sport and Politics can move on from this article. Your problem now is that your conduct have put off more moderate voices, as only the editors who disagree most strongly with you bother to find the time to reply to you. I hope you will consider the advice that some information from your earlier versions belongs here as adding it there would improve Wikipedia.
Re the DRN: There was an unanimous consensus to include the section, there was a 3 (+ clear volunteer advice) to 1 to include something on "home advantage" (you also seemed to accept it) and there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of achieving a consensus to include more "background" against the British team (claimed past transgressions etc.). Thus there was a consensus to include "at least this much" and no chance for a consensus to include "more than this". I, and it seems the volunteer approved, wanted to speed up the process, because of BLP issues and one misquote in the old version which, at the time, remained in the article despite having no chance of becoming the consensus version.
By the way, the reason I haven't provided a lot of sources is that I did not argue against the facts you provided, but that they were (as I later agreed: with some exceptions) irrelevant to the 2012 Olympics. Good bye. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• RE: "High tech warfare": I don't see why this direct quote from the original reference is "a little unfair". The original author believed it's justifiled. Why would/should we inject our own view into it, being objective editors as we are, or at least while we are trying to be?
• Re the DRN: I highly dispute the notion that "there was an unanimous consensus to include the section", as the exchanges on my talk page would have suggested that it is far from the truth. You've rushed it through by taking advantage of the fact I am on a different time zone than (possibly) the rest of the editors, and by opening multiple discussion topics at the same time. And I would also like take this opportunity to point out one fact: even on the topic of "home advantage" which I was focusing, you did NOT even use the "compromised" version you yourself has offered, and sneaked in a totally different version. And this appears to be a pattern: you open multiple discussion topics, and make several suggestions, and if there is no (timely) response, you just push them through. And in the case I just cited, you did not even use the version you suggested.
• Re: Comment by involved IP: I still question your intention of refusing to register a user id, while at the same time getting so much involved in the editing and discussion of a particular Wiki article. I understand that there is Wiki policy on IP user. But why choosing to use it (or rather, abusing it)?? There is nothing we can do about the behavior of an IP user, isn't it?! Showmebeef (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

RE "High tech warfare": As I said, not important for me, but the source is not an encyclopedia whereas Wikipedia is. Different word choices are not unreasonable and should be preferred when not quoting.
Re DRN: You misunderstand me. As Sport and Politics no longer advocated removing the section completely there was consensus for including it in some form. (It was also clear that you would not achieve consensus to include everything you wanted, but you seemed unable to accept that, opting instead to needlessly prolong the discussion while a flawed [as in: misquotes and BLP] version remained in the article.)
Re IP: Dynamic IPs are vulnerable to range blocks. Furthermore, I am less anonymous than you are; I simply don't like registering online, and I certainly won't register for the occasional and very limited editing that I do here. As for abusing it, I clearly disclosed that I was involved. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

RE "High tech warfare": if it is "not important for" you, then why was it modified to NOT use the original quote, but instead of a leading sentence that totally changed the meaning of the quote?
Re DRN: I don't think I was "unable to accept" the notion that "you would not achieve consensus to include everything you wanted". As a matter of fact I DID make a concession while discussing "home advantage". You were the one who appeared to offer a concession but turned around and didn't honor it.
Re IP: I wasn't talking about the "anonymous" aspect of an IP user. I was talking about the "unaccountable" aspect of it. Showmebeef (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Guies, for the love of kirsty hawkshaw! I'm not going to get involved at all, but i just want to pose this to you people: This disgussion is getting us nowhere, time to move on right now and i mean it. 199.101.61.190 (talk)

Good point, I will retreat away from Wikipedia again. However, I think it is clear that this issue will continue to fester even without my involvement unless there is some administrator intervention, whether against me, Andromedean, Sport and Politics, Showmebeef or any combination thereof. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Farewell then, for the 3rd or 4th time! Maybe next time you join us, you would be persuaded to register a user id?! Showmebeef (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Now i think that seems a little harsh because there is no law saying you have to have a user id. i'm never going to create one because it's too damn hard what with the captchas and all, but anyway, i'm putting a notice here. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

notice

An/I is not a place to go crying to when a user is making you a little bit upset. i don't care how long it's been going on. My best solution is for Sport and Politics, Hilo48 and Andromedeon to all leave each other alone, because it's only going to get heated.

• S&P, leave the article alone now. it's only going to cause drama and we don't need drama. there, i put my two sents in, i'm going back to my mission now. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Gayane

What to do with the new editor who has been changing Gayane (given name)? He/she does not react to my posts on his/her talkpage. Debresser (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked the sources they are adding to see if they are valid? This is more of a content issue at this point, since their edits appear to be in good faith. I only see one instance of a comment on their talk page and zero on the article talk page. I do think a greater effort should be exerted before bringing the issue here, preferably on the article talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure the sources are valid, and the editor is reverting everything in good faith. The problem is that the material is not appropriate for this article, since every item should have its own article, and they should be referenced from the disambig page Gayane. The user apparently does not read her own talk page, probably she does not know of the existence of the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you try the article talk page, that is my point. One or two edits that are in good faith but in the wrong place doesn't warrant blocking, particularly since there has been insufficient attempts to resolve the problem before coming here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did before posting here, and since then she reverted her edits, but was reverted by a third party. I will see whether anything changes overnight, and if not, I will see what I can do tomorrow. Possibly just take her text and add split it between several articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I do understand the frustration, really. I've been known to post giant 600x600 images of stop signs on their talk page, with polite notes asking them to discuss. Really. It often works. I'm just saying ANI is like a night court where all the judges like to give life sentences, so it is best saved as a last resort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Userpage violating rules

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Eric Korea (talk · contribs)

The userpage contains a full Wikipedia article copied from G-Dragon, changing the name of the person into various names like Kim Jong Un (!) and placing interwikis of the article into user namespace. I think this userpage violates our rules and also the biographies of living persons rule, as it uses the article of a living person to mock others. Please delete userpage. Thank you. 小龙 (Timish) # ^{xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng} 16:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted the page as a Blatant Hoax, it is clearly not a good faith attempt to create an article. In addition to the BLP violations mentioned above, the article also has failed to attribute where it was copied from in violation of the attribution rules for on wiki copying, though as mostly positive article, it wouldn't meat the G10 criteria, and as the attribution could be fixed it wouldn't meet G12, so G3 is what we are left with. Monty₈₄₅ 16:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ashermadan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An IP was harassing this user for lying on his user page. The IP was violating numerous policies and, after being warned by myself numerous times, was blocked for it.

On December 7, Ashermadan, without any significant evidence, accused me of being a sockpuppet for this IP. Ashermadan has also accused other editors of being trolls, of operating socks, and of vandalizing. Furthermore, Ashermadan opened an SPI case against me and failed to notify me of its existence (it failed anyway considering the circumstances and how false it was). I have a zero-tolerance policy for bullshit, and this strikes me as not only arrogant that Ashermadan would translate my warnings against the IP attacking him as a sockpuppet of mine, but also incredibly disrespectful and a total lack of understanding of the WP:AGF policy. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is no requirement that you notify someone if you file an SPI report on it. As a matter of fact, I strongly discourage it as it tends to add drama to what should simply be an investigation. Opinions rarely shed light on the investigations, which are based on established facts only. In the absence of bad faith, filing an SPI report is not an "offense". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong and I apologize but I didn't violate any rules. I genuinely thought thought it was you because you edited his posts moments later. And the user Zekatu you are talking about has a habit of violating Wikipedia policy. He blatantly disrespects the 3 RR rule and I have reason to quarrel with him. As for the misunderstanding with you, I apologize. Ashermadan (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MagicEagle67

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I want ti report this users because they keep making changes against consensus regard any article related to Rangers F.C. they are pushing there own point of view and are not providing new evidence or arguments to back there case, nor are they engaging in the talk page like i have asked them to.

They also editing a medation page that is long closed now [30]

Any action against the user is at the admin discretion i dnt want to be involved in the discussions, i will post in the article talk page for other editor familiar with the subject to post and let the user knowAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Currently repeatedly vandalising the History of Rangers [[31]] page and had this to say when warned about it, "That's fine if you get me banned. I will just create my very own page and put the record straight. If you can create and edit a page full of mistruths, myths and hearsays, I am sure someone like me who is reporting facts will do a far better job of accuracy than you."[[32]]BadSynergy (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This user is escalating in there vandelism and is trying to take wp:own and is disregarding talk and other policies like wp:truth and wp:consesnsus amongest others, please puta ban in placeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I blocked MagicEagle67 for violating 3rr after a warning (15 or 16th revert in 24 hours), they promptly socked to continue edit warring. The edits were not vandalism, but the continued edit warring was clearly disruptive. I also advised the others involved in the war that they were violating the 3rr rule, both stopped, so this should be resolved until the block expires, or we get another sock. Monty₈₄₅ 22:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  I've semi-protected for a week to discourage additional socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nomoskedasticity at Caroline Hoxby

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

A week or so ago, Caroline Hoxby raised some concerns regarding her biography here on Wikipedia at this wp:blpn thread. There were real issues, although those participating in the discussion there (myself included) disagreed with her on the extent of the issues. She alleged that one editor in particular, User:Nomoskedasticity, who had long been involved with her article, had a conflict of interest and was editing her biography in a non-neutral manner. I do not think it is necessary to determine, in this case, whether he does or does not have a conflict of interest, as his efforts to include in her biography particular mention of one of her non-notable colleagues can only be described as aggressive, undue, antagonistic, and tendentious.

His most recent edit to the article was quite clearly to make a disruptive point. (Removing a non-controversial sourced fact to retaliate for the earlier removal of controversial, poorly sourced content.) I don't know that his disruption, to date, is sufficient enough to raise wp:blplog, but I don't have the stamina to prevent someone so clearly determined to tirelessly push their point of view using whatever means necessary, and I hope raising the issue here can bring appropriate attention to the article that did not materialize following Hoxby's post at wp:blpn. (For the record, I do not know any of these people in real life, had never edited the biography in question before the issues were raised at the biographies noticeboard, and actually disagree with some of the positions Hoxby's research has been used to support. Nonetheless, I believe she deserves a neutral, fair, and due biography here that doesn't simply serve as a coatrack for those who disagree with her.) jæs (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any wrongdoing by Nomoskedasticity. There may (or may not) be legitimate quibbles over some of this user's edits, but the decisions on what to include/exclude appear to me to be appropriate in the context of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. PS - I don't interpret the comment about not referring to her as a sociologist and "there's little worse one could say about an economist" as antagonistic, since Nomoskedasticity self-identifies as as sociologist and it was accompanied by a smiley face. --Orlady (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• • His removal of a reliably sourced, notable paper Hoxby wrote was tit-for-tat disruption, plain and simple. He had edited that very content only a couple of days before. jæs (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I should have clarified my thinking on that item.

IMHO, the removal of the Reardon critique was entirely appropriate. It doesn't belong in the article, and Nomo is no longer arguing for its inclusion. However, the statement that he removed about the National Bureau of Economic Research study that she coauthored also does not belong. All it says is that she coauthored a study; the fact that there was a third-party source mentioning it does not make it noteworthy. That study can be included in the list of her selected works, but it doesn't deserve to be highlighted by inclusion in the article text. --Orlady (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

while i completely disagree with the claim that third party coverage of a paper isnt something that matters when we decide what to cover (that should in fact be one of the primary factors) in this case it is not really "third party" coverage by reliable sources - it is a student newspaper (ok so its Harvard students, but still a student newspaper) putting it on the "questionable" end of the reliability scale, but it is also the harvard student newspaper covering a harvard professors paper that named harvard as the #1 school and therefore any designation as coverage by a "third party reliable source" is not suitable and I dont see any problems with the removal.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is this at ANI? I see minor content disputes that have apparently been mostly resolved, and talk page posts that are perhaps not entirely polite, but way below the level that requires intervention by an admin. My referring to the subject as a sociologist was an error, and I take no offense that he corrected me on it. I get annoyed when people assume I'm a theorist; I think it's a similar thing. a13ean (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

More eyes are on the article now, and I hope that will be enough to ensure its neutrality over the short and longer term. I am sorry that the project is still far too slow to recognize editors that employ subtle but real tactics that damage the neutrality of our articles and drive away good editors, especially at contentious wp:blp articles. It is what it is, I guess. jæs (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the rant jæs left on his/her talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• You almost certainly shouldn't be. The matter was dealt with, by both checkusers and bureaucrats, last month. It was all very Canadian. Which is why you didn't hear about it. It takes less than a minute to find out what it was, without need for using any administrator tools. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP launches personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

94.66.183.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) attacks other users as being gay and Nazi (which I assume the unregistered user supposes to be understood as an insult)

attack in the edit summary attack on the talk page --RJFF (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked a month for disruptive editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today (in about 8 hours). Until then, users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote.

Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.

Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.

Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz ^talk 15:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is so exciting! Who gets Ohio? Will Black and Hispanic voters seize the moment, or the "religiously unaffiliated"? Will the new bossman (or woman!) appropriate power inappropriately or will the peons/people revolt? Will political parties be actual parties, with cake? Did someone write me in and will I win? Oh lord have mercy, it's too much to bear! Drmies (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Taft gets Ohio, but only because we couldn't carry him elsewhere. Most voters will remain non-corporeal manifestations on a server, although a few might spontaneously materialize and be found sitting in the server room. As non-corporeal entities, they will lack the ability to appropriate anything. There will be cake. It will be banana ripple. Congrats to voter #799, MZMcBride! MBisanz ^talk 16:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Hono(u)red. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • This is where having an encyclopaedia around here somewhere comes in handy. What you assert about non-corporeal entities is only true if one has one particular point of view. The other holds that it is false. See non-physical entity and remember to be neutral. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, and you lost. You somehow managed to get a negative vote. That's right. Someone wrote in an oppose because they hate you so much. MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Only one? Where's the negative vote from the person that the other person wanted to see blocked? Drmies (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Hurrah! I'm so excited I suspect I won't sleep tonight for anticipation. Have we booked Jon Snow's swingometer or will we be relying instead on reading smoke signals from Jimbo's central heating flue? Have WMUK staked out a good viewing position to report back to us the outcome? More seriously, thanks to the election committe and everyone who participated in the election for validating our curious form of non-government government for another year. Huzzah! Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, thus far, exit pools are showing that the Silly Party will triumph. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I voted a straight ticket for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
      • SUUUuure if you just want more of the same ol' same ol'! Why not try voting for REAL CHANGE for a change?? Zad68 19:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't bother voting. Infact, I've only ever voted in one election. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to evaluate candidates, at least vote a full ballot of 'oppose' votes. Remember, the election process can seat any candidate who gets at least 50% support, and we've been scraping the bottom of that barrel for a couple of years running. (Compare with the level of support required to become, for example, an administrator.) It's better to have a slightly-smaller ArbCom that has the community's confidence than a full slate of borderline competence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sure white suburban women and Cuban turnout will be the key. And so will Florida. They can't do anything right. Go Phightins! 20:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Well, the 2012 Arbitration Committee Election certainly qualifies as an incident requiring administrator intervention. I say we move to indef the election.--WaltCip (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  Support indef of the elections. They've been violating Wikipedia policy for years. WP:CON in particular. If this motion doesn't pass, then perhaps an RfC is the next step (Kidding aside, I don't think an RfC to discuss bringing back CON to the process would be a bad idea...) - jc37 22:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  So you support the election being more of a CON job? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  ROFL - Oh, I dunno, maybe more a case of the pros weighed with cons : ) - jc37 00:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Any complaints from the disinfranchised yet? When can we expect the consession speeches? ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ooo, if someone's going to the concession, could you grab me some popcorn and a Coke (no, Pepsi is not alright) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The popcorn has a free refill but all they had was Dr. Pepper. Sorry. I brought you some Milkduds to make up for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• The polls are closed. So where's the exit-polling data? What about the partial results? I mean, if NYBrad is running behind early, that's OK if the votes aren't from New York, but if they're from his home state, then he might be in big trouble. Must have partial vote tallies and exit polls! Guettarda (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Because of a unique spelling blunder, NYBrad is actually doing better in KY (the state, not the lubricant ... although .... ) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Breaking news! At the concession speeches, it was announced that they're out of Coke! Sprite will have to suffice! And Keilana has taken Kentucky. Go Phightins! 01:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Exit polls are completely inconclusive as taken by a certain user, as only one person willingly responded to the poll, and the rest of the responses were forced to vote for a certain candidate. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

_{Man....that "certain user" doesn't edit much. LOL! ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)}

@gwickwire, @Amadscientist: as the per the top of this page and its edit notice: "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion." I have notified Example (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as you have neglected to so do, in violation of a policy violation that must be strictly adhered to. --Officious and inflexible user who has no sense of humour whatsoever 58 (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yell at Gwick, they brought the "editor" up. I just commented. ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• What election? Nobody told me about this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Most of WMF's servers are in Florida. I hope that the vote server is located somewhere else? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Florida....huh oh.....I see a Brooks Brothers riot ahead!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Hanging chads? One of the scrutineers may be a crucial deciding factor. Doc talk 11:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Well, since the only reasonable result of that election is to have me named Supreme Leader and Eternal President of Wikipedia (with Newyorkbrad as my trust Consigliere), why don't we dispense with all the drama of that needless actual counting of votes and all and I'll declare my birthday to be a holiday. Yay! Parties! — Coren ^(talk) 14:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just curious: How is the closing of the Arbcom elections an incident? GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Things like that get advertised in as many places as possible where large groups of people can view it for the most efficient method of propogation. Agreeably, the silliness factor is a bit beyond usual (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Because someone was stuffing the ballot box. I suspect Brad, the first candidate to get 150% of the vote.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, stop that! This is getting too silly! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TheOldJacobite

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

They appear to be reverting anyone who edits after them on film pages. I draw your attention to the work I did on the plot to The Last Detail. I added an active voice, created a narrative and removed poor punctuation. However within minutes this user reverts me and says it's unnecessary details. Yet all I did was take what was there and rewrite it into better prose. Which clearly can be seen here. Now I now I recognise my Undo marks are terse but when you compare our two versions the improvements can be seen. The plot is logical, clear and understandable. Therefore people like TheOldJacobite are not reverting because they think its wrong it's if their ownership of their "version". I thought the point of this site was to make contributions and move things forward not spend your entire day reverting things to way you like them.

Unfortunately I notice they are doing it to many, many pages see here. Now I cannot speak for the veracity of their other edits but what is the point of having positive spin i.e. join in and improve articles when you get slapped down by someone who is reverting things back to the last time/or their vision? Someone in authority needs to speak to this person and remind them of Wikipedia's higher values of WP:GOODFAITH and to WP:BEBOLD. Personally I don't think I now bother again for awhile. I know I reverted but there is nothing to stop this user doing the same to me. Or getting a friend to do it. Anyway I used to come here a lot a few years back but I thought things had changed. But they haven't.  :-( 109.149.192.65 (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, well, yes, sure--there are good and bad things about both versions. Your edit summary, however, is unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I do know that TheOldJacobite is very meticulous on film plots to keep them trim and definitely below the 700 word limit, and thus when details that are not necessarily for understanding the film are added and make the plot exceed or near 700 words, he will revert, and generally that's fine. This specific edit is a bit questionable since the plot seems well away from 700 words and what was added wouldn't push it over, though as noted not all of the changes are necessarily great. I'm not sure if reversion is necessarily correct as it certainly wasn't all bad and broke everything, but I don't think there's anything immediately wrong with the reversion either. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• The claim of "ownership" is ridiculous, as I have made exactly 4 edits to this article. And, yes, I am vigilant when it comes to changes to film articles, especially plot summaries, as I have seen far too many of them wrecked by editors who may think they have good intentions but who are, nevertheless, terrible editors. I also make mistakes, which may be the case here. But, it is borne of the frustration of seeing article after article changed, without explanation, by editors who have no idea what they are doing. But, the accusations made here by this anon. are overly broad and mostly wrong. And I object to the fact that I was not informed of this discussion and had to discover it by chance. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you know squat about writing? Did you finish college? Questions of conscience at best which don't require an answer anyway. We should close this threat. Ent? Drmies (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This report should be closed. I see no evidence of ownership by TOJ & infact applaud his efforts. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persecutory vandalism at Gender role

Article: Gender role. An ip-editor from various ip's of number 220.255.2.x has constantly singled out another editor (me) and attempted to revert (several times in a row) out every single contribution of that other editor (me). The persecuted editor (me) has attempted resolving the case via the discussion page and on the vandalists talk page, but the vandalist has refused to respond. example difs: [33] [34] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.154.216 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This article seems to be subject to a long-running edit war, with insufficient talk page discussion. Although some registered users have reverted changes recently, the edit war is primarily between (presumably) two unregistered users. I have therefore semi-protected the article for a week to allow things to settle down. I am not blocking any users at this time, as I note that there has been no edit warring since eldamorie's recent warnings. Please use this week to sort things out on the article talk page. I also caution both users against putting personal attacks in edit summaries. Bovlb (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I closed an edit-warring report at WP:ANEW based on your semi-protection of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

indefinite block of LatinoLatino/Imperium Romanum Sacrum seems to be pure censure.

I'm a portuguese writer of History, and sooner I will begin publishing on paper (for the moment I have only edited digital works). I was alerted to a discussion, here, on Wikipédia on english, about a never real existent entity called the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brasil and Algarves. That entity only existed on the paper, and what was real was the elevation of Brasil to a Kingdom of the portuguese throne in 1815 (we use «throne» as you use «crown», because in Portugal the cerimony of recognising someone as the country's king was always made without coronation, and was called «to elevate to king», «to ascend to king» on, first, a kind of ritual Cortes, and after in real Cortes). I looked on Joel Serrão work, Dicionário de História de Portugal, on José Mattoso work, História de Portugal, and I never found there on the indexs any reference to such a «United kingdom» as a historical reality. Well, maybe another portuguese historian can explain the thing to us. He is (was) José Hermano Saraiva, in his História de Portugal, volume 3, p. 383. 1983, Publicações Alfa, SARL, composed on Lisbon, Portugal, and printed on Toledo, Spain: «Pela Carta de Lei de 15 de Dezembro de 1815, o Brasil foi declarado reino, unido a Portugal, «de maneira a formarem um só corpo político». A nova designação não alterava a realidade das coisas (the new designation haven't altered the reality of the things), mas corresponde a uma tentativa (but correspond to a attempt of) de solução do difícil problema da associação do Brasil e Portugal. A ideia foi sugerida pelo representante francês no Congresso de Viena, Talleyrand, aos delegados portugueses, que imediatamente a transmitiram para o Rio de Janeiro. Segundo Talleyrand, o Brasil passaria a constituir um reino e seria ali a residência permanente do monarca. Da mesma dignidade gozaria o território europeu onde o trono seria ocupado pelo príncipe herdeiro. O projecto foi aceite sem hesitação; houve luminárias e tedéus e adoptou-se nova bandeira: o escudo das quinas sobreposto à esfera armilar manuelina. (Now, as a good portuguese, Saraiva is going to joke a little, saying more or less that this «United Kingdom» only existed on an inscription) Na inscrição de um fontanário construído em 1817 na cidade de Guimarães estão esculpidas essas armas, que são a remota origem da bandeira da República, e D. João VI é, nesse mesmo monumento, designado pelo título de D. João I de Portugal, Brasil e Algarves». The italics and negros are mine, and not of Saraiva. Prince Peter never came, then, and the governments of Portugal and Brasil, in the reality, were already separated. LatinoLatino only tried to explain the point of view of the historians, but he was blocked, by the other hand, a group of tittles fetishists, for whom any tittle is real and correspond to a real reality, aren't blocked and continue to write senseless things as the article «United Kingdom of Portugal, Brasil and Algarves», From a «attempt», as Sairava said, they "built a Kingdom". I ask that the block of LatinoLatino/Imperium Romanum Sacrum will be declare a abuse and will be removed, and I ask that everyone that harassed him will be punished. If any sysop his between the harassers, he must be at once dismissed. Salut, Jorge alo (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Immediate response: ...whut? More serious response: this noticeboard doesn't handle content disputes, and from what I can make out of your very convoluted post, you're arguing for a particular position in a content dispute. If you think a block was issued in error, you need to explain to us why the block was erroneous, not why the blocked person's POV is correct. It would also help if you could summarize your point(s) rather than writing a very large, rambling paragraph. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not about content disputes, nor about a removal of a block, it's about censorship of good and care persons on Wikipédia by some people. The attempt, down, to «declare me» a sock, is more one episode to indicate that all this matter is an very serious incident of censorship, and also must be punished. Jorge alo (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hatting a divergence down a totally unneeded tangent.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's just another sock of the blocked editor-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Not seeing evidence this is a sock. As for the blocks, Imperium Romanum Sacrum is not indef blocked, and only has a one month block. Monty845 20:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC) (after EC) Possible, but not necessarily an obvious sock. The socking that resulted in the block was deemed "Likely" by checkuser. The OP of this thread does not appear to have shown up on that CU discussion, and the OP is *not* a brand new account. So unless the CU did not look around for other possible matching accounts, it's not as obvious. At a minimum, I think we need to AGF and, barring either behavioral or CU evidence, not assume that this is a sock just because they agree with a sock master. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Alright, not a sock. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC) First I was a «sock», now I'm not a «sock». Very well. This attempt to make me a sock is more one episode to indicate that all this matter is an very serious incident of censureship. This is not about content disputes, nor about a removal of a block, it's about censorship of good and care persons on Wikipédia by some people. This attempt to «declare me» a sock also must be punished. Jorge alo (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get this back on track. You need to lay out why the block was incorrect. Arguing that his POV is correct is really going to get you nowhere. He was blocked because a CheckUser found it likely that he was abusing multiple accounts. Of violating the rules of this site. His POV is really irrelevant to the situation. He violated the rules, he got blocked. And it's that issue that is what needs to be addressed if there is to be any chance of getting the block rescinded. Arguing about his POV and whether or not his positions are correct really does nothing to move forward towards a resolution. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I saw the blocks and what I understood was that two accounts were blocked, one for one month and the other, without no other apparent reason than the dispute on «kingdom of Brasil, was block indefinitely. What are the violations? They are real violations? The precedent violation on the account «Sacrum imperium» was a aggravating reason for the secound and indefinitely block? All this, to me, seems at first sight very suspicious. Jorge alo (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Standard practice for abusive socking violations is to determine as best as possible who the "master" account is, block that for a shorter amount of time, and indefinitely block the socks. The idea is that they are all the same person, and that person has shown themselves to be willing/able to abuse multiple accounts. So all but one are blocked indefinitely. In theory, when the shorter block expires, they can resume editing with the one account. If they want their one account to be a different one than the one judged to be the "master", that's easy enough to change. But they have violated any trust in the ability to use multiple accounts, so that ability is to be denied to them. One account going forward. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

For reference, the sock investigation that lead to the block is archived here. I highly recommend that you not go post there currently, as that's an archive, not an active discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm goin to read (only) it. I'm a ignorant of the rules but that one I know: to not write on archives. Jorge alo (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I was not involved, but to summarize what I see from the report, a user noticed similar subject matter, editing styles, and combative natures between two accounts, and opened the sock puppet investigation. A CheckUser, using the additional tools that they have available to them, checked over the edits of those two users, and also searched for other users with similar digital thumbprints. The CU found two additional accounts, for a total of four. They were pronounced "Likely" to be a match. Likely means that the match is not 100% certain, but is far more likely than not to be the same user. Using behavior, it was judged to be a Good Hand/Bad Hand situation, which is a definite abusive use of multiple accounts. The oldest of the four accounts was designated to be the master account, and received the shorter block. The other three accounts were blocked indefinitely. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

These are reasons for a month block? Citation: «They create very short articles (as already said), move articles without discussing and are very aggressive when met with any kind of opposition». Lecen was involved on disputes where is part was accused of not being of good fate, for example, on this one, and this episode of the «Johns/Joões» begun exactly with a lot of moves without discussion, and despite the warnings about it, Lecen also made other editors loose their patience, for example, here, and received such commentaries as this one, Citation: «Take your disgraceful, dirty deal and get out of my sight». But the one that is punished, and by Lecen proposal, was a guy that has done the "crime" of write little articles (that he has also said that he will developed) and reacted angrily, like many people do, to Lecen. For me, this is censorchip, and I can't understand how a really honest sysop can align on such punishments. I maintain the denounce of a case of censorship here, on Wikipédia. For the particular question of the removal of Sacro Imperium/LatinoLatino block (if they really are the same guy; but I think it's very probable that they are) where must I go? But I insist the question here, in this incident, is about censorship or not on Wikipédia, and nothing else. Jorge alo (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

To finish for today, LatinoLatino left this on my portuguese talk page, Citation: «Unfortunatly I got block, because one of my opponents equated me with user BrasiliaBrasilia.» So, maybe he isn't user BrasiliaBrasilia, and surely, on the middle of a discussion, one of his opponents demanded the block. Here, on Wikipédia on english, I don't know how you do, but in Wikipédia on portuguese we don't block one of the opponents in the middle of a discussion, even if the discussion is ferocious. What we do it's to demand calm of the opponents, and not to censor one of the sides. Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

@Jorge alo, I don't think it is particularly productive to drudge up past matters or making issue of editor personalities or content disputes. The blocking admin wasn't involved in any dispute, and I'm sure he considered the block on its own merits. That said, just taking a look at it now, a one month block does seem a bit excessive. This person is a relative newbie - his earliest accounts dates to late April. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how the accounts were used for illegitimate reasons, i.e. deceptive or disruptive ends. They do not overlap, edits seem to be dedicated to entirely different topics, and I wouldn't call any of them disruptive (some edits smack of newbie-ish thoughtlessness and hysteria, but that's pretty much across the board, not distinctive of any particular account). IMO, the admin jumped the gun and came down too hard on a new editor that may simply not have understood how multiple accounts might land him in trouble. I don't really see anything here that couldn't have been better handled by other forms of guidance. Walrasiad (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay Walrasiad, I apologize for speaking of questions of the past, but you know I'm portuguese (a kind of "natural" anarchists, second already the Romans), and I'm just trying to say that the proponent of the block is a very peculiar guy. By the way, it seems that «jorge» came really from England, by the name not of a person but of the saint of the dragons, «Saint George», as the «marias» came of the name «Saint Mary» (but not from her english name). Jorge alo (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, I made the blocks, including determining the period of time. I'm probably not as tolerant of socks as I am with minor incivility, which I say without apology, as socking is an attempt to undermine the entire consensus model which Wikipedia is based upon. In this case, CU declared it was likely they were the same people, and a behavioral comparison of the multiple editors proved to me that this was really one person who created multiple accounts, and they did so with the intent of deceiving others and undermining the normal editing process. Because of this, I have limited them back to one account by indef blocking the newer accounts. Next, it was and is my determination that a block of 30 days was necessary in order to try to prevent the problem from happening again. With socking, blocks must be long enough to remove them from ongoing discussions, such as AfDs, RfCs and other discussions. They essentially forfeit their right to participate by their deception, and this is the only way to prevent more disruption. When I am at SPI, first time blocks are typically one or two weeks. If they have created more than one or two socks, it demonstrates a determination to manipulate the system, forcing me to use a longer period of time in order to assure they do not disrupt Wikipedia further. Here, there are three socks, showing a pattern of abuse that goes beyond a simple one time slip up, forcing me to extend the block to one month. This is within the accepted norms for this type of socking. Hopefully, this will clear things up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There is here a contradiction between what CU declare and what Dennis Brown declare, Citation: «CU declared it was likely they were the same people, and a behavioral comparison of the multiple editors proved to me that this was really one person who created multiple accounts». What was «likely» to CU is «proved» to Dennis Brown. The rest are generalities that dont't demonstrate nothing against the poor concrete reasons for a 30 days block of a «likely» socker. There are not concrete deceptive or disruptive behaviours indicated for the accounts LatinoLatino and Sacrum Inperium Romanum than those indicated by Lecen. In the biginning of this discussion, I "was also a sock, likely", second one or two interveners. I think you are seing too much deceptive socks and too much desruption where I don't see and where CU saw «likely», and only about the probabilty of being the same guy, not about, second what I know, desruptives behaviours. Jorge alo (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your criteria on SPI. I still can't help wondering if it was applied too harshly in this particular case. I still don't see intention to deceive, given that the account edits don't overlap areas, nor were individual accounts dedicated to "good" vs. "bad" edits (at least as far as I can tell - again, I might be missing something, so correct me if I'm wrong). When his newbiness is considered, it seems it was more thoughtless than deceptive.

You cite "multiple accounts show a determination to manipulate". It seems to me, just looking through them, they show a determination to organize and sort his edits, so topical edits would be all in one place, as advertised by his handles - BrasiliaBrasilia for modern Brazilian topics, LatinoLatino for Latin American history, Imperium sacrum romanorum for Holy Roman Empire topics, and ChemTerm started out for chemical topics (eventually branched on to other things). It seems like a newbie mistake to me, not an attempt to jimmy the system.

Not saying a block of some sort isn't merited. But wondering if it might be scaled down a tad, or at least explained clearly to him. I am not sure he understood - or even understands now - why what he was doing was wrong (if it was wrong at all). Walrasiad (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• To Jorge, the CU's "likely" was based ONLY on technical merits, their IP, what city they live in, etc. The CU did not review behavior here, I did as clerk. I do not have access to the technical data such as their IP, only the CU does. This case was handled in the same manner as all SPI cases. There is an established procedure and it was followed to the letter. While errors can happen, a behavioral comparison is likely much more detailed than most people realize, using a variety of tools and methods that are generally not discussed (since we don't want to help any sock get better at socking). Anyone is welcome to have a CU or another SPI clerk review if you think an error was made, no offense will be taken. At this point, I have to stand behind the original conclusion and duration as no information has been offered that counters the evidence used. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• I forgot to add: generally, it is the blocked person who should ask for a review if they feel it is needed. I do not see any attempt by them to deny, question or even comment on the case on the talk page of User talk:Imperium Romanum Sacrum. I did see User talk:LatinoLatino make an "enemies" list which generated a complaint on my talk page, forcing me to have to blank his page and revoke his talk page access. He can still request an unblock via the email function. In both cases, the actual blocked users should be making the requests, not third parties, as that would be presumptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay Dennis, let's say you did a good work and that all the four accounts are of the same individual, and a thing that we can real say is that you have gave us the main reason for your decision, Citation: «minor incivility, which I say without apology, as socking is an attempt to undermine the entire consensus model which Wikipedia is based upon». Second Walrasiad search, we have four accounts about four different matters. So, let's ask, the socker has a deceive propose that will allow him to make minor incivilities on instrumentalizing four different Enciclopedia matters!? Second question, the punished came to Wikipedia on portuguese, because I had left him a link on his talk page, and ask my help, Citation: «Jorge, thanks for your note on my English talk page. Unfortunatly I got block, because one of my opponents equated me with user BrasiliaBrasilia. Maybe you can have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_Brazil, and provide some legal documents about the Kingdom of Brazil (Reino do Brazil). One User:GoodDay even said it never existed. But I presented several sources. If the Kingdom of Brazil never existed, then maybe also the Kingdom of the Algarve didn't exist... maybe these people would even deny the Kingdom of Portugal existed.... Usuário(a):LatinoLatino. So the guy even don't speak portuguese, and he is not worried about censure incidents, is worried with a matter of an Wikipedia article. As you, Dennis, have erased the link to my portuguese talk page on LatinoLatinos' talk page, maybe this is the reason because he don't say nothing. Now I ask, how many times the new user (April 2012) was warned on his talk page(s) (supposing all the four accounts are of him) or on the concrete discussions, by someone that not the opponents, about the necessity of being civilized in the discussions? Before LatinoLatino page have been erased, he referred only two opponents complaining about him. How many times was suggest the tutorial program to him? There is no due process, here, in such matters, to new editors. As any normal person beginning editing, they are worried about questions of content, and can loose easily their heads with such elements as Lecen and Cristiano Tomás, if, then, someone as Dennis will come on the matter, they will be quickly "promoted" to deceiver sockers with the proppose of generalize minor incivilities, and they don't know how to defend themselves. By this reason, I think in this case it's necessary a tutorial or custodial process to the new ones that are accused of such faulty behaviours. I maintain that a case of minor incivilities by one or more editors, was "transformed", without aparent enough reason, on a unrreal and a little comic case of a sock deceiver acting by the way of minor incivilities. This has the perverse result of: 1- protect very well trained editors on the arts of the dispute, here, on Wikipedia, against new editors on content disputes, and 2- the equally perverse result of throwing away people that could progress to be good or reasonable editors. All this, for me, it's what real deceiving Wikipedia means. I propose the removal of the block and the offer of a tutorial program to LatinoLatino. I propose also the creation of a due process to new editors, on such cases. This one was not a due process and the decision only has real base on «minor incivilities», not on any real deceiver socker behaviour. So, it's a wrong decision. Jorge alo (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly removing AfD templates and warnings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked, inevitably, for more of the same. Bencherlite^Talk 22:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Opn800 has removed an AfD template from Sarah-Jayne Gratton twice [35][36]. He's received a 'final warning' by bot which he's also removed from his talk page. This is on top of displaying aggressive, uncooperative behaviour to other editors. I'm not an admin so am unable to take any further action on this. Any suggestions? Sionk (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've tossed them a WP:3rr warning, and directed them to explain their objection at the AfD discussion. It gets removed, I say block for edit warring, otherwise let them participate at AfD. Monty₈₄₅ 21:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for violating WP:3rr. Monty₈₄₅ 22:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Having just looked over this user's history whilst in the process of declining a disruptive unblock request at UTRS (his favourite phrase and link, repeated over and over), I'm inclined to suggest that 48 hours isn't enough. His entire edit history is one long WP:BATTLEGROUND, with taunts, abuse, threats and accusations in virtually every edit summary since August. His abuse of Sionk is particularly egrarious, and for the last month or so just about all he's done is spam the same techspot link as "evidence" of "Wikipedia elitism" - there's nothing productive coming from his corner, and plenty of disruption. I'd support upping the block to indefinite; when he's willing to edit collaboratively, he can come back again. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I will support whatever the blocking admin feels is appropriate, including any increase. I will also note that Monty is being very, very generous here. Looking at the 6 year, 272 edit history shows an SPA with two purposes, to edit a select number of articles, and to cause distress to anyone else who does. I would assume that regardless of what is done here, his next block may be his last. He doesn't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. As to the length of the block, my instinct says it may be moot in a few weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably going to leave it alone, partly out of a faint hope they may comment productively at the AfD, but I have absolutely no objection if another admin would like to impose a longer one. Monty₈₄₅ 00:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Beyond generous. Upped to indef with talk page access revoked; enough of our time has been wasted here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persian Gulf / Arabian Gulf edits

Occasionally, someone (usually an IP editor) will edit an article solely to change Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf or vice-versa. I've read some of the controversy in various places here, but it's kind of scattered so it's unclear whether there was a clear consensus. Is there a policy as to what to do about these, if anything? There does not appear to be a Uw-* template on the subject; should there be?

(asked and ignored here, so I ask again. I expect it's a sore spot, so I understand, but I need to understand what to do when encountering this issue on a page on which I work. Please direct me to the right place if misplaced.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard is probably a good venue for issues like this, and it could benefit from a little more work! My first instinct would be to use the wording favoured by sources, or if that rule doesn't help, then a principle similar to WP:RETAIN might be helpful (ie. if there is no "right" answer, then staying with the status quo will at least stop the back-and-forth reverts) bobrayner (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, the subject has been beaten to death (lots of hits in archives), but it's difficult to understand whether there is a consensus or not without a lot of study. That's surprising, given how common the issue appears to be. I'd expect there to be a statement of the current consensus somewhere (which I think is Persian Gulf) and the reasoning, but I can't find it among all the noise. I will try posting at the suggested noticeboard, too. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Our article is at Persian Gulf. Even if only due to WP:BRD, Persian Gulf has consensus. CMD (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On a talk page of an article in question User:E4024 commented the following:

So you removed the ASALA monument pic from your TP and even began searching consensus? Congratulations! Please reserve those letters to people from Armenia. The fact that you and some other co-editors of your circle use "Armenia" as link to "ethnicity" in biographies/articles of certain people to avoid calling Turkish and Ottoman citizens as such, Istanbul, Ankara, Trabzon, Bursa etc are not cities of Armenia and have never been so.

I would like to ask to block the user for his uncivil behavior, for the following reasons:

1. a user has no right to discuss other user's userpage content, even if it doesn't quite please them
2. a user shouldn't discuss other user's userpage content in an article talk page
3. the user talks about me and my "circle", possibly referring to my ethnicity

Also, the user have been blocked numerous times.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 22:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything blockworthy here. Furthermore, if you look at the top of this page you'll see that you are supposed to try and resolve disputes directly with fellow editors rather than coming straight here. I can quite see that this is likely to be part of yet another regional dispute spilling over into Wikipedia but I don't see your opponent's action any worse than your in trying to get him/her blocked for such a relatively trivial offence. You both need to find a more collegial way of working on articles here, I'm afraid. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

So you believe that a userpage content can be discussed and to brought up to as an argument? I thought what my political views are (it be nationalism, multiculturalism, socialism, capitalism, liberalism, etc.) are not to be discussed.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 22:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Kim Dent-Brown. This is not blockworthy. It's a pretty useless comment, but if we could block people for useless comments we wouldn't have many users. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, probably I should check every users' page and comment on them. Deal! --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 23:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Making sarcastic comments like that does not strengthen your argument. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Deal is a deal. Commenting on a userpage content is allowed from now on. Not to be sarcastic, but that's what this case proves.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 23:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It'd be a bit silly if we let people make userpages then insisted that they were never allowed to mention what's on it, wouldn't it? So yes, this case proves that. I'm not sure why you're surprised. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If a userpage content can be commented on, then I can call you a "geek" or a "nerd" for being a mathematician? (just an example) and also follow your userpage history and mention everything you put up and remove from there on an article talk page your involved in? I'm not trying to sound sarcastic, just want to clarify how far can one go.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 23:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If we assume the terms 'geek' or 'nerd' are insults (which I do not take them to be, I'm rather flattered you'd call me that actually!) then that is not allowed because you are insulting me. That would be a violation of WP:NPA. Simply commenting on something I have on there is not uncivil. If you don't want someone potentially commenting on something on your userpage then you shouldn't have it there, anyway. That's just sensible. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest restraint in seeking boundaries, friend, as not all admin have the same threshold and the only way to truly find the limits is to get blocked. Deskana and Kim have offered you valuable information and are likely more patient than most. I suggest you take the advice to heart, go watch a movie or read a book for a while, and ponder it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Currently linked from the main page and being persistently vandalised. Suggest blocking User:Spannerjam (autoconfirmed) and semi-protecting, since IPs are also being used. Formerip (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Gave 4im warning to spannerjam. I'll keep an eye on it. IPs blocked. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 48hrs and User:Larrydan until he grows up or something. Spannerjam's other edits don't seem problematic, this one seems more of a political statement than just vandalism. Hopefully won't be repeated, because I will block. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/João Dorminsky

Resolved

without contacting a particular admin, this AfD has gone way longer than Nov 13, can it be closed or relisted? thanks. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Bwilkins just beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing uncivil comments by an editor

I'm commenting now on something that I see has been ongoing with an editor. I first took note of this editor (User:AndreaUKA) when I started taking part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Leonne Bennett. I simply removed unsourced content as well as links that would not be considered as reliable sources. In return I was called "arrogant", sniped at for my grammar, and generally talked down to when I tried to recommend that she not remove templates without actually addressing the issues they highlighted. While it always hurts to get your edits taken off, it is a fact of Wikipedia life. AndreaUK also seemed to have a sense of ownership over the article, getting angry at any changes to her version. She argued that she was going away for a week, essentially asking for the AfD to be put on hold and when I made the edits, got angry that I made them while she was away and presumably unable to approve the edits herself. If it was just this, I'd let it go, but I looked into her history and notice that she's had an ongoing history of abusive behavior to other people and a definite sense of ownership over anything she has put onto Wikipedia as in the case of User_talk:AndreaUKA#Yes.2C_I.27m_here_about_an_image.21. It also appears that every time something comes up, she brings up that she donates money and threatens to leave Wikipedia forever, as can be seen on her talk page as well as on the AfD for Bennett. There's also the stuff on Talk:The UKA Press, which generally makes me concerned because I've nominated the article for deletion. I know I'm going to be accused of various things, such as doing this as an attack and so on. (It's not- the company is simply not notable and if it was, I'd have left it alone.) Considering that her getting upset in the UKA Press AfD is a given, I think that it looks like it's long past due for an admin to step in here. If it was just the Bennett article I wouldn't particularly be concerned, but this looks like it is overdue for notice and I am fairly certain that more will only follow with the article about her company being put up for AfD since it doesn't pass current WP:CORP guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This edit seems very uncivil. Threats about her donations "drying up" and saying "surely you could have waited until I got back" are the only "arrogant" things that I've seen here. – Richard BB 09:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, please remember to notify the user in question that you've started a discussion about them here. In this instance, I've done it for you. – Richard BB 09:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(she did: 23 minutes before you did ... it's just not under its own header) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Another uncivil edit which is cause for concern, including editing his talk page post. Will warn. – Richard BB 10:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'd added it to the page, but it looks like it didn't come up with an automatic subheading and instead came up under my AfD notice. I've differentiated it to show up better on the page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, sincerest apologies! I appear to have forgotten how to use my eyes. – Richard BB 10:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Andrea certainly doesn't understand the project as a whole. WP:OWN is bad, "I'll take my donations and go away if I don't get things my way" is a threat that we don't need on this project. We have rules, processes and policies - you agreed to them when you signed up: if you don't want to follow them, the little X on the top right is always available. Otherwise, stick to the rules. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Sorry, but I find this all a bit petty (not to mention grossly over-exaggerated by Tokyo girl:)) I'm also at a loss to understand why a 'deletion' notice has been slapped on an article (UKA Press) which has been there since 2006 (approx) and has already been voted to 'keep' years ago. And yes, I'm afraid I do think it's been done out of spite. I could point out (possibly) hundreds of other WIKI articles far, far less 'notable'...

Still, never mind, I won't argue all the points, it's not really worth it from my point of view. Just go ahead and delete whatever you want to (don't forget all the other articles I started). I won't be able to help correcting spelling mistakes if I see them on articles, though :)AndreaUKA (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because an article survived one AfD, that doesn't mean it has a right to survive them all. The community will decide whether or not the article should be deleted, so there's no need to fear it being out of spite (which seems to be an assumption of bad faith, to me. As for other articles existing, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you think there are other subjects out there less notable, please nominate them for deletion and let the community decide. – Richard BB 10:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrea, there's a widely held common misconception (more off-wiki than on, admittedly, but I see time and time again on WP:AfC) that articles are deleted because people don't like them, they're on a power trip, or they like stomping on kittens and clubbing baby seals to death. I can't emphasise it enough that this just isn't the case. All Wikipedia articles need to start from sources, and be based on those sources, and if they don't - they should! This essay by Uncle G has further reading which may be of interest. Unfortunately with several million on articles on Wikipedia, and writing articles from the source up being a non-obvious working method, it means some articles that should be cleaned up per our policy get left behind. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuda Bux (band) is one such example I saw only yesterday, and that got wiped into oblivion without so much as a how-do-you do. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, point taken. It just seems a bit silly to propose deletion to an article which has already been voted (by the community) as notable enough (especially one with the glaring 'notability' of Kevin Brownlow). I'm sure there are plenty of other, more fruitful things editors could be doing. As for me 'nominating for deletion' yes, I could, but I won't be trawling around looking for them :) I have seen many which are pretty feeble though...thanks Richard.AndreaUKA (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just because something passed notability guidelines years ago does not mean that it passes the current standards of notability. It's actually fairly common for articles to be nominated for deletion because they were initially AfD-ed in the earlier years of Wikipedia where notability standards were incredibly loose. Over the years these standards have been made stricter and stricter because it was very quickly realized that the previous standards were not enough to keep out the blatantly non-notable topics such as "Bob's Burger Bistro" that has only gotten 1-2 brief mentions in articles. A great example would be books that previously passed notability guidelines simply because they had ISBNs, yet did not receive any RS coverage. The same thing goes for businesses and previously surviving an AfD does not guarantee that it will be notable in the future. Again, this is fairly common. As far as other things editors could be doing, this is pretty much what editors are supposed to be doing: adding articles and culling the ones that don't pass notability guidelines. I think that recently I've been saving and adding twice as many articles as I have nominating them for deletion, so it's not like I'm a deletionist.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• And considering your reaction to the edits I made on Bennett and your reaction to other people questioning the notability of various things you've added, it's quite reasonable to expect that you would react at least somewhat poorly to an article you made for a company you work for being nominated for deletion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrea, many of your talk page comments seem to be removing other people's. While I've brought this up on your talk page, your last edit here deleted several parts of several other discussions on this page. I'm not sure of the reasons behind this -- I'm willing to assume that Andrea isn't doing this maliciously -- but it seems to be becoming increasingly disruptive (intentionally or not). Does anyone know the reason why this might be occurring? – Richard BB 12:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to happen from time to time -- haven't figured out the pattern. Probably an issue for WP:VPT NE Ent 12:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I did it to NE Ent in fact. Deleted something from an entirely different section with nary an edit conflict in sight. No idea how. I thought it might have been an issue with my mobile browser but was unable to replicate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This conversation is also taking place here. I'm curious as to how text could actually be added this way. I did a ctrl F for the added text, and found it replicated no where else. – Richard BB 12:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's worth nothing that a sockpuppet investigation for this user has been opened. – Richard BB 15:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm writing here because AndreaUKA keeps taking personal swipes at me. So far she's called me "arrogant" and "petty" as well as making several other comments that disparage my edits here on Wikipedia. She keeps getting nastier and nastier in how she is reacting. One of the latest things she's done has been to go onto Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The UKA Press (2nd nomination) and make various comments about other articles I've created and edited. An admin really needs to step in here because she just keeps getting ruder and more petty with each day, making more and more personal attacks on my edits and character here on Wikipedia. Her current conduct on the AfD for UKA Press is pretty much the epitome of why I brought this up on this board. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to state that so far Andrea's recent edits are mostly comprised of her making personal attacks against my editing and other articles I've created. Other people have told her that some of her comments were way out of line, but all she has done is continue on with her activities. I'm at my breaking point: can an admin please step in and put an end to all of this? I'd say warn her, but she's been warned by people on various forums about her attitude and she's ignored them. I'm not going to say block her from editing for a few days, but considering that she has yet to take anyone's advice about ceasing her personal attacks on my edits and character, that might be the only thing that would really get her attention. All she's really doing at this point is being disruptive. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Now she's accusing me of bullying in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndreaUKA. I want to state up front that at no point have I endorsed bullying, nor have I asked anyone to come onto the pages to harass her. All I have done so far is to open up an AfD and edit another article up for deletion. So far she's harassed me, insulted me, insulted my editing, and accused me of bullying. The only thing she hasn't done is call me names. I'm honestly not sure what else needs to be done for an admin to step in and take action. Nothing that I or other users have said or done seems to be sinking in with her. I'm getting rather tired of her getting away with making continual personal attacks against me.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Seriously, can an admin PLEASE do something about all of this? Now she's going into my own personal userspace pages and editing them under the guise of "helping". If she wants to edit the mainspace pages then fine- go ahead. But it's pretty obvious that the only reason she's doing this is because she's angry that I edited pages that she created and put one up for AfD. This is getting really old and pardon my language, but I'm pretty damn tired of her being able to get away with this. These are not good faith edits she's doing. Just one look at her rude and condescending responses to me in the multiple AfDs and the sockpuppet investigation makes that blatantly obvious. She keeps making personal comments and other aspersions against my character. She's starting to lighten up a little, but the fact remains that she has been making personal attacks against me, editing my userspace pages without my consent (some of which are already on the mainspace, making her edits useless), and generally insulting anyone that tries to explain the current notability guidelines. Seriously guys, it's time for an admin to step in because at this point the arguments are just going around in circles and most of the arguments on the pages concern her behavior. Most of her edits lately have been to argue with people, insult me, among other things. She hasn't really been all that helpful lately.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Readding to generate a more thorough discussion. – Richard BB 10:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? AndreaUKA's last non-minor edit was three days ago, and it was a post which detailed her plan to significantly scale down her participation (particularly on the articles in question). This has pretty much resolved itself IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If Tokyogirl feels that the situation is resolved, could we have an admin close? – Richard BB 11:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why this was pulled out of the archives - the situation had basically calmed down, and re-introducing drama was counter-productive. Bad idea. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• The only thing about her saying she'd scale down her edits is that she'd said that a number of times before coming on to argue various more points, most of which involved taking swipes at me. However I have a feeling that when the current AfD for The UKA Press closes, I probably won't hear any more from her. If possible, I'd like to keep this open until the end of the current AfD for UKA Press. That she went back to her talk page and specifically added my name to a long post on her talk page on the 10th (yesterday) suggests that she's still sort of floating around out there and that she still doesn't entirely understand why I opened this ANI or why her accusations and statements are considered unacceptable. I'd like to hope that it's over, but I'd like this to remain for just a few more days. I think that the AfD will probably close on the 12th as a delete considering that it has 7 relatively well phrased arguments and one keep that is based on older notability guidelines. So just for one more day? After the AfD closes, if Andrea were to go after me again then I'll probably just re-open a new case. It's just that I take accusations of "bullying and attempted manipulation" very seriously when it comes to myself and other editors, so that's why I'm making a bigger stink about this than usual. Her comments were far more personal than some of the other ones I've dealt with, even with the potential Jobie Hughes sockpuppet vandalizing my user page. I know that this is to be expected when you deal with fragile egoes, random articles, and deletion discussions, but I've never had one go on for this long, have posts this elaborate, and involve so many people. I mean, the girl even went into my userspace to do some rather pointed editing on article fragments that were already available in the mainspace. She just seems to have a vendetta against me. She's had people talk to her, but I don't think any of it really sank in that calling people bullies and slinging various insults at them and other users is not OK. She still sees herself as the wounded party in all of this, which is what really bothers me- especially since she has a long history of attacking Wikipedia editors she disagrees with, with no actual repercussions. If this was the first time she'd done this then that'd be different, but she's been posting rude responses to/about people since 2009.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I presume my name was also added to the header on her talk page yesterday, pretty clearly implying that the three named editors are "bullying and manipulating" her, because I warned her in the two AfDs that her personal attacks on Tokyogirl (and later another editor) were unaccceptable [37], [38], [39]? Having said that, she seems to have got the message and has cut it out for now. More eyes on UKA Press AfD is probably all that is required, if that. Voceditenore (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ali1512 abusing another account

First, sorry if I have put this in the wrong place, I chose ANI over SPI because this case only involves 2 users, and they are almost certainly the same person. A user called Ali1512 (talk · contribs) created 2 pages- Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan Nutkani, which was flagged for speedy deletion by me, and Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan Nutkani (Machrani) which was A10'd as a duplicate of the first page. The user was subsequently blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly removing speedies. He then recreated Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan Nutkani (Machrani) which was moved to Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan Nutkani and then prodded. Now, Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan Nutkani (Machrani) is back up again, this time created by a user called Alizafar1514 (talk · contribs) and has been proposed for deletion again. The user's name and edits give me a strong suspicion that these 2 accounts are related. Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The account names are similar alright. Rubber ducky. The subject seems to fail WP:Notability. Doc talk 11:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So, the first one stopped editing when the second one started. This looks like the user made a new account- would this still be considered alt. account abuse? Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Depends on who you ask. There is a gray area between WP:SCRUTINY and WP:CLEANSTART. It looks like the same user pushing the same non-notable subject to me, but I'm just one user looking at it. Doc talk 12:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, 116.48 was just me forgetting to log in. Passengerpigeon (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Having multiple accounts is not, in itself, a blockable offence. More productive editors than Ali1512 have dropped their accounts on the floor and picked up afresh. What needs to be done here is for someone to actually talk to the user and explain what's going on: so far, neither account has had anything other than templatespam in terms of communication. This didn't need to go to ANI nor SPI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, I will write him/her a personal message on their talk page. Passengerpigeon (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the "article" again under A3. (A10 doesn't apply, as the article duplicated was also deleted, and G4 doesn't apply, as it wasn't deleted under a deletion discussion.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

IP vandalism on Max Keiser

Dear admins, I've observed a string of advertising / vandalism on Max Keiser promoting silver as an investment from an IP address previously associated with a financial services firm. I'm going to take an initial action by rolling back to what appears to be the last good version, however I would also request some kind of protection of this page against anonymous users. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• A sampling of previous edits shows a variety of edits so I'm not thinking action is needed, unless there are more edits of pushing silver as an investment. ie: a pattern. This was one editing session, essentially one edit and it was sourced, even if reverting was better. I don't want to jump to conclusions without more evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Understand and agree. I shall keep a hawk-like eye on this page and report back if they appear to be making more ill-judged edits. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• That sounds like a good idea. I completely understand the concern, and I share it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Request Danjel be topic banned from Chili burger, interaction banned with me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Danjel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Danjel and I haven’t been getting along of late, apparently stemming from voting in opposite ways at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Harbour Public School (2nd nomination). Recently, an article I created, Chili burger, was nominated for deletion. At that discussion, he made 30 edits, including ones that insinuated accusations of meatpuppetry, claimed well-respected editors were only voting because of ILIKEIT, and bringing up irrelevant AfDs in combination with ad hominem attacks. Meanwhile, he’s attempted to ban me from his talk page, but continued to post to my talk page, complain about me on other user's talk pages, call me “paranoid delusional” on other people’s talk pages, even HOUNDing me at other’s talk pages. After Chili burger was unceremoniously closed as Keep this morning (more than 3 keeps for every delete), within minutes he started a merger discussion (in two different places). That merge discussion already has a pretty clear outcome (of “not merge”), and of the more than a dozen contributions Danjel’s made there, he reiterated the preposterous accusation of voters only voting because of WP:ILIKEIT, made it seem like this is some “pistols-at-dawn” confrontation between the two of us, ignoring any consensuses, and again brought up irrelevant AfDs while accusing me of BATTLEGROUND on a discussion HE started. Several people at both Talk:Chili burger and at user talk pages have requested he withdraw it, citing WP:DEADHORSE, and WP:WINDMILL; he has refused because he doesn’t want me to “win”.

I have frankly had enough of him; as I said at the Chili burger page, he’s become a broken record. Therefore, I request the following:

• He and I be banned from interacting on each other’s talk page
• He and I be banned from talking about the other on other people’s talk pages
• He be banned from AfDs I start or participate in
• He be banned from AfDing articles I have started or significantly edited
• He be banned from Chili burger and related articles
• The Chili burger merge discussion be closed as “Speedy not merged”

pbp 20:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Has he received warnings from anyone besides you to stop?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he got one from Milowent earlier today, and various requests on Talk:Chili burger and various user talk pages (User talk:Dennis Brown has one) to withdraw the merger request and back away. I've personally asked him to cool off numerous times; but he's reverted everyone of them (some claiming to be vandalism) pbp 20:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've been trying to deal with the problem already, on the various talk pages and my own talk page. Both sides of this issue could have handled things better, which is why I'm trying to just get the merge discussion put off for a month and mediate it at that time. This is premature and I recommend closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Neither of those look like warnings to me and since Dennis feels this is premature I'm going to close this (in the interests of drama reduction). --regentspark (comment) 20:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Ambivalence article and meat puppetry

I'm currently involved in a silly edit war and talk page discussion going nowhere. It started with USER:Validfortravel (an spa created just for this) making this edit inserting a picture in the Ambivalence article which I felt did not adequately get across the meaning of ambivalence (holding conflicting emotions at the same toward one object) and suspecting that it might also be a joke, removed the image. Validfortravel added the image back in, an IP removed, Valid added it back, I removed, etc., and then finally I started a discussion on the talk page. The discussion there went nowhere with some editors making jokes ("I'm conflicted about whether the image belongs or not" type things) and some possibly not understanding what "ambivalence" means (there's a common connotation that it means ambiguous or uncertain or undecided, etc. but that's not the definition used in the article).

Given the number of IPs involved I began to suspect sock or meat puppetry was going on. I did some searching on the Internet and confirmed that this is a case of meat puppetry. I cannot link to the evidence directly as it would out one of the editors involved (not sure how to handle this type of situation, maybe any concerned admins could email me and I would provide the direct evidence?).

This whole thing has blown up way more than it should. When I first came across the image, as part of recent changes patrol, the situation looked like any of the numerous times I've encountered the same kind of drive-by edit and assuming it was a joke, reverted and moved on. And as the edit war started building I kept thinking it would just die off on its own as these things often do. But this disagreement has legs and while I could have handled things better the situation has deteriorated. Anyway, I'm asking for other editors (and admins) to get involved, look over the talk page discussion, and help resolve what is a silly fight. If consensus is that the image is appropriate then I'm fine with that but I don't think a reasonable discussion between me and Validfortravel and their friends is possible. I'm not looking for anyone to be blocked or the page semi-protected but some outside involvement might help end this. Thanks all. SQGibbon (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)