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

Editor Wee Curry Monster moving my comments around

There's currently a discussion ongoing at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Editor Wee Curry Monster somehow thought it would be appropriate to move my comment about the removal of a section to a new section called "Separate section for comments on individual editors", which he alone came up with, with the summary "move rambling personal attack to appropriate section"[1]. I advised him to not mess with my comments again or I'd report him here [2] and then I moved my comment to the right section again. He swiftly deleted my message at his talk page [3] and proceeded to move my comment once again [4] with the sarcastic summary "WP:IAR". This is not acceptable and needs to stop.

The comment I moved is nothing but personal attacks against editors. Yes I did move it to a separate section, since it contained nothing about content and filibustering is a problem with this editor (see below). I would normally not move a talk page comment per WP:TPG but considered this a case per WP:IAR as an exception. If that is criticised I won't be doing it again.

WP:BOOMERANG, which Gaba p has been warned about:

Frequent personal attacks eg [5],[6],[7], [8]

Edit warring constantly, never follows WP:BRD eg [9],[10],[11],[12]. Noting the comments from the previous ANI session I have endeavoured to avoid edit warring with the editor by using tags to bring attention to other editors to address issues but he will edit war to remove those [13].

WP:FILIBUSTERS. Classic tactic, text demanding detailed answers [14], disputes response [15] then claims no response obtained [16].

Most edits rely on WP:OR or WP:SYN, constantly pushing WP:POV and working in a WP:TAG team with User:Langus-txt to force material into an article.

Abusive edit summaries [17], cherry picked quotes and partisan sources. This is an editor who is single minded about conducting his editing in a disruptive and confrontational manner. I believe given recent comments he has been deliberately seeking confrontation in order to have himself and several other editors topic banned per the last session here. Likely this editor is a sock of the bannned sock puppet master User:Alex79818. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

ADD: [18] diff of my edit, which he claims has a sarcastic edit summary. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarify. There are so many examples of disruptive behaviour by User:Gaba p this took 5 minutes to compile. Per the previous WP:ANI thread usually tactic by User:Gaba p is to fling many accusations, combined with diffs, notably the diffs rarely support the accusation but gives the appearance of such to those that don't check. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you had this prepared, that's ok. I'll be adding some examples of your behavior next. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I encourage Gaba p not to bother posting dirt on WCM -- if they don't want their talk page comments they can simply stop discussing other editors. NE Ent 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent I don't understand what you mean by "if they don't want their talk page comments they can simply stop discussing other editors". Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I also encourage Gaba to stop trying to run Wee off of Wikipedia with his constant harassment from article to article which has now gone on well over a year. When I tried to warn Gaba, he and Langus made very inappropriate remarks to me which I could have reported but chose not to. Despite the remarks, I have briefly edited on these articles and have only had only brief remarks with Wee, always over Wikipedia matters. I find it unsavory that you Gaba would follow him everywhere to the exclusion of all other articles and harass him and then you and your alter ego make extremely unsavory remarks to anyone who sees it and tries to defend the Wikipedia:Assume good faith ethical standards of Wikipedia. For once and for all, please desist and resume good-faith editing again. I am sure with your education that you have more to offer Wikipedia than this. Mugginsx (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I notice editor Mugginsx has been following me around since september when she stopped by my talk page to make uncivil (and untrue) comments about me [19]. She did it again a few weeks ago [20]. I note that up to today I have never been involved in a discussion about content with Mugginsx, she simply shows up to defend Wee whenever needed and nothing else. I've requested her to stop following me around to no avail. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

An indefensible untruth. I have the diffs too. [21] Mugginsx (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What is that supposed to prove? Would you please stop disrupting the discussion? This is about Wee's unacceptable behaviour. You did the exact same thing in September to the extent that you got in a fight with another editor about some remarks you made about him. Could you please stop? Regards Gaba p (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW if you examine the diffs presented by Mugginsx, they are neither uncivil nor untrue; which goes back to my comment of making accusations and presenting diffs, which don't back up the claim made (how many editors simply presume they do?). And as for the comment they have never touched on content see [[22]] and Mugginsx's edits on Self-determination. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncivil: coming out of nowhere to accuse me of stalking [23] and again recently [24]

Untrue: accusation of being blocked due to sockpuppetry when the block was proven to be wrongly applied [25]

I repeat: Mugginsx and I have to the best of my knowledge never discussed content on any article. Wee's link [26] shows only Muggins commenting in the talk page, not me. I request any admin/editor reading this to please go and check the links for yourself and tell me if I'm lying about any of them. This is just an attempt by Wee to throw mud at me once again. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Presenting diffs without all the information again? See [27] where User:JamesBWatson refused to unblock as he was convinced the original block for sock puppetry was well proven. User:Gaba p conveniently finds a diff that I know the personal details of the banned editor User:Alex79818 (I do but only because in harassing me in real life he accidentally revealed them). After providing this information in confidence to James, he cautiously unblocked User:Gaba p see [28] only for a few days later to have to issue a warning for incivility [29]. I note that in this diff that James considered there was still compelling evidence of sockpuppetry but sufficient doubt to give you the benefit of the doubt, User:Nick-D also considered there was evidence of sock puppetry [30] but also gave the benefit of the doubt. There has been plenty of suspicion of sock puppetry and it was not mentioned as a personal attack. I remain convinced on the basis of the types of edits, the subject matter, quirks of grammar and spelling and the fact you're constantly hounding and attacking me in exactly the same way that User:Alex79818 did, that you are one and the same. On past performance it is likely there are other sleeper accounts. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

On accusations of sock puppetry: in early 2012 Wee accused me of being a suck puppet of blocked editor Alex79818. The life-time block quickly imposed on my account was lifted after I gave away my right to anonymity to one of the admins who checked I was not the same person (Wee knows this blocked user's real identity). Notwithstanding this, Wee has continued with his accusations. At the previous ANI he did the same accusation and I offered an admin to reveal my identity once again ("have Wee tell you the identity of Alex and I'll once again reveal my identity as a sign of good faith") [31]. Admin User:Nick-D has said verbatim: "Given that my block of that editor was (probably rightly) lifted as being a case of mistaken identity once further evidence was provided to an uninvolved admin, I'm not well placed to intervene with the admin tools in relation to their editing".[32] Who's selectively quoting Wee?

I will once again repeat my offer to reveal my identity to an admin here so then can check the identity of this user to see I am not that user. Please send me a private message and I will gladly do so. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving comments around is not allowed per Talk page guidelines , further Wee Curry Monster is moving them from a section he started, thus making him involved.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree, we also have WP:IAR and if his comments were about content and there wasn't an issue of paralysing discussion by filibustering, then I wouldn't have done so. I did think twice about it and was attempting to reduce disruption. As other editors have noted he has followed me from article to article frustrating any attempt at editing. Note I did not refactor his comment and btw it was in the same section just moved to a sub-section for personal attacks. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I warned you to not move my comments around and you did it again just so I would file this ANI and you had a chance to post dirt about me. You were attempting to reduce disruption by disrupting my comment?

Care to give links to which other editor has accused me of following you around? As I remember only Mugginsx has done so and as I have stated already, she only shows up to defend you whenever needed. For the record: some time ago I added my name to the Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group so as to make it clear that I would be helping in Falkland related articles. This hasn't stopped Wee from accusing me of hounding (he is present in virtually all Falkland/Gibraltar related articles). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wee Curry Monster, please don't move the posts. I do not see egregious attacks, nor was the post off topic. Gaba p; please don't accuse other editors of vandalism when it isn't clearly vandalism, that merely escalates and does not resolve any problems. And anyone can remove anything on their talk page, unless specifically prohibited from doing so by an ArbCom decision or due to issues such as being an indeffed sock account. WCM can remove posts from anyone and that's perfectly fine. Don't "warn" people you'll take things to ANI, that's simply pointless threatening, and is unlikely to lead to collegiate or positive results. You try sincerely to work things out, and if that fails you seek help, via ANI or another appropriate venue, but you don't threaten people with ANI. That shows a battleground mentality and casts doubts on your desire to actually work things out, as it reads as "my way or I'm telling!" Your behavior here has been less than exemplary. Be done with your hostile behavior, and try to AGF and work with your fellow editors. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 18:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries, I will give a solemn undertaking not to do so. You say the attacks were not egregious, sorry but the effect of constant attacks of lower level incivility are cumulative. You may like to review the fact this has been constant and unremitting. I have also moved articles, only for User:Gaba p to follow me there. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the mention of "anyone can remove anything on their talk page", I never complained about him deleting my comments on his talk page, I simply pointed to it to note that he had taken notice of my warning. I warned him about ANI in an attempt to get him to stop moving my comments around and avoid this report. Is it not polite to warn an editor that further disruptive editing will be met with ANI? I note I had already warned him to not mess with my comments earlier [33], is this not enough?

I assume good faith always Killer. As you can see in the history of ARA Belgrano (another Falkland-related article) and its talk page, I edited with absolutely no issues along with other editors who sometimes disagreed with me and sometimes agreed. I did this from 28 Dec to 3 Jan and I had no problems with the rest of the editors involved in the editing. Wee's first comment in a section I started in the Talk Page was to accuse me of "soap boxing" [34]. Who's not assuming good faith here? The issues appear the moment Wee shows up.

He needs to stop the personal attacks and he needs to stop accusing me of being a sock poppet, I've asked him this more times than I can count now. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, your warnings are not "enough" they are far, far too much. You're not politely informing another editor, you are threatening them; this is combative. If you wish to complain about WCM accusing you of being a sock, and of you requesting they not, you must provide diffs. Regarding always assuming good faith, I see Kahastok, below, has provided two diffs of you attacking another editor and accusing them of lying. KillerChihuahua 18:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My comments on soap boxing refer to content, in which a quote is used to add a political statement not for merit. It was a comment on content NOT the editor. I have been a regular contributor to ARA Belgrano for years but chose not to comment on most of User:Gaba p's edits for the simple reason he would turn it into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Gaba's behaviour in these discussions has really been dreadful.

He has been fairly continually accusing other editors of lying and issuing repeated personal attacks on multiple articles over the past couple of weeks. Curry Monster has only provided diffs of four such instances - it's not difficult to find others. Curry Monster has already pointed out that, after issuing me with several personal attacks (apparently for having the temerity to disagree with him) he was completely ignoring any objection made to the edit at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, claiming that I hadn't made any. This is why I ended up just posting "I remain opposed for the reasons already expressed" - I saw little benefit to the encyclopædia in detailing the objections over and over again only so that I could be subjected to personal attacks and then ignored.

Worth noting that in many cases where he accuses someone of lying, the point is not even whether a given error is in good or bad faith (though he should be assuming good faith). He at least twice accused me of lying - and also threatened to bring me here (a threat that I did not consider particularly significant because of WP:BOOMERANG) - when I suggested that this proposal had the effect of substantially increasing the weight given to the Argentine position in this particular dispute while only downplaying the British position. Now, I've looked at that diff several times, and I'm afraid I can't find any way that I can look at it in which the point I made was even inaccurate. It appeared to me that he was trying to intimidate me into accepting the proposal. Kahastok talk 18:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Wee lied at an admin's talk page [35] (see point two of my first comment) about something I had supposedly done, which was simply untrue.
2. He lied at ANI about me removing a citation ("Gaba claims this wasn't cited to a UN document [142] sorry but the article history tells a different story") [36] which I proved to be false again.
3. Wee's latest string of personal attacks [37] (accusations of "disruptive behaviour", "butchering an article", "edit warring" and making "untrue" statements") where fueled by a lie as I proved beyond doubt below the title "Time for a reality check for Wee Curry Monster".
4. He lied just now at an admin's talk page [38] about me adding tags to a section when it was him who added all the tags in said section (!).

What else could I possibly call this actions by Wee? Repeated "mistakes"? Should he just get away with his constants attacks and untrue statements directed at me without me calling it for what it is? Assuming good faith can only be done for a while.

Regarding the accusation I made of Kahastok lying, please see [39] where Kahastok accused me saying "you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain". I politely asked him to either provide a link where I proposed such a thing or take back his words. He did neither (he actually repeated the same accusation again) so I warned him that any new unfounded accusations by him would take us to ANI. Is this also a "mistake"?

I note that both this editors (Wee and Kahastok) are used to work as a team backing each other's edits and defending each other whenever something like this comes up. Not long ago both editors were topic banned from editing Gibraltar related articles (another former British colony) [40], Wee in particular was "warned against bad faith accusations and further disruption." [41]. He is doing the same thing now in Falkland related articles. Gaba p (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me but can someone really repeatedly allege at ANI I am a liar and not be sanctioned for repeated incivility?

Typical example Point 4, he claims I'm lying about him adding tags disruptively. See [42] where rather than edit warring I tagged his edit to bring attention to other editors. Another editor reverted to an earlier consensus and [43] please note the edit summaries.

Sorry but this is too much I am fed up with the constant incivility and I really shouldn't be expected to put up with it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There's no reason why you - or I - should have to put up with any of this. In my case, admins might note that my response did provide a link to his proposal - the same link as I provided above (in fact I copy-pasted it), which I believe I described accurately. One might also note in there detailed objections to Gaba's proposals (and not the first) that Gaba still claims even in this ANI that I never made. Kahastok talk 22:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

One more instance of Wee making a "mistake". See my point 4 where I comment on how Wee complained at an admin's talk page[44] that I had added disruptive tags to a section. This is what he said:

"You'll of course note that he even revert warred over tagging and added un-neeeded tags to be disruptive in retaliation." (bolded by me)

Please follow the link to the admin's talk page and you'll see that the discussion revolvs around the article Self-determination where it was Wee who added all of the tags[45]. Please notice the state of the section with the three tags added by Wee which he tried to pin on me.

Wee's response here refers to a completely different article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute where once again he added the NPOV tags[46] later on removed by Kahastok by reverting the article's section to an old version. I then proceeded to add the very same tag Wee had added earlier[47]. This tag was removed by Wee [48] saying that I "previously considered this [section] neutral" when I never said anything of that sort. As you will notice the tag is gone from the article since I saw no point in adding it one more time only to have it reverted again. Once again, Wee makes a mistake by assigning to me something that just isn't true. What should I do about his constant behaviour? Just let it slide?

Do also notice Kahastok response where he accused me again of "you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain" (something of course I absolutely never did) and gave no link to prove that I had said such a thing. What should I call this? What should I do about his? Should I just keep quiet?

It is just not acceptable that these editors get to bend the truth the way they do with no consequence whatsoever. Even worst, if I say something about it then I'm being the disruptive editor. Please do tell me: is their behavior acceptable? Gaba p (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment(s) by long time observer(s)

• I have been witness to Wee Curry Monster and Gaba p behavior towards each-other for some time now. I have a few times tried to intervene by way of trying to re-direct the argument towards a solution - this has not work - So thus recently (yesterday) I have removed the disputed text on the sub page Self-determination and have had that page locked 2 times this month. I am in the middle of trying to help again as seen here - however I dont see how these 2 will ever get along - the situation is has been so degraded for so long that I believe an interaction ban between these 2 is the only solution to stooping the disruptive editing.Moxy (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• I too have been following this for a while, and I don't think an iban is called for or necessary. My opinion is that Gaba p's behaviour on several articles pertaining to the Falklands dispute, and their talk pages, is causing a great deal of trouble. It's obvious at this stage that he has a very well established opinion on the matter, and his editing serves mainly to further that viewpoint. Much of the classic behaviour of the tendentious editor (as linked by WCM above) is evident - slow edit warring, breaching the spirit if not the letter of 3RR, threats to report others to noticeboards and demands that other editors self-revert, statements that he'll revert others if they don't themselves (as if this somehow makes it ok), filibustering in the manner outlined by Kahastok above (demanding unreasonable levels of detail and lengthy explanations for the actions of others, challenging any explanation given and later denying that any explanation was ever made) etc. etc. This is the classic wikipedia problem of one disruptor being able to hold an entire swathe of articles and talk pages to ransom, even in the presence of multitudes of opposing reasonable editors, if they are fanatical enough. I'm involved here and so won't be taking any action, but those are my thoughts. Please note I don't think WCM's behaviour is perfect, but I don't think he's the root of the problem here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

On Basalik's accusation of filibustering: I recently made four different small edits to Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Wee and Kahastok repeatedly blanket-reverted all edits giving as reason only vague statements of OR and POV: [49] [50] [51] [52]. As the talk page proves I asked them to please comment on why they thought the edits where inappropriate separately so we could work on them and to please stop blanket-reverting, many many times. They did not and Wee is now asking for the whole section to be removed. Basalik accuses me of filibustering when all I did was to bring current, relevant and properly sourced information to a section in that article. Editors Slatersteven and Langus were working with me on each of those edits with the aim of improving the article while Wee and Kahastok kept repeating the same mantra of "OR" and "POV". I have never opposed an edit when the majority of editors have agreed on something, can you provide a link where I have? Gaba p (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, can I ask you to please note that the antagonism is one way, one of those occasions where a two way interaction ban is distinctly unfair on one party. You might also care to note that the same editor is attacking others, even here. User:Gaba p appears fixated on me but it isn't reciprocated. I know all too well from past experience that such a ban would be flung in my face as evidence that I'm a problem when I am not the one creating conflict here. I actually believe that to be Gaba's objective here for that very reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not concern over who did or said what to who - I am here concerned about the disruptive editing going on. I am sure even you agree that the interaction between you two (despite who's at fault) is at a point were behavior is being discussed more so then content. Both should take a break from each-other and from the topic all together in my opinion. Page after page after page after page of a debate were no-one is listing to the others position is pointless. For over a year nothing has changed - just getting more and more personal taking up tlakpages that are to be used to helping the articles. Section like "Personal attacks by Gaba p" and/or "Lies by Wee Curry Monster" is not helping the article at all - just putting more fuel on a fire. If you believe its all Gaba p fault and that its a problem all over see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or more specifically Wikipedia:Editor review .Moxy (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes indeed you should concern yourself over who did what to who. Could you point to an occasion where I have been unjustified asking Gaba p to comment on content not myself? Equally comparing a comment on a personal attack, with a whole section dedicated to making a personal attack I would suggest shows you're not being entirely fair. Yes I agree its not healthy and whilst I don't claim to be perfect or faultless, I've not been disruptive in my editing. I have remained civil, tried to follow WP:DR and my comments have been based on content. To suggest a sanction where one editor has done that and the other has done everything to create conflict simply rewards disruptive behaviour. Even here he is continuing to make unfounded allegations that I am a liar with impunity. I ask you a straight question, if an editor followed you around calling you a liar repeatedly and when it came ANI I suggested you be sanctioned too, would you not consider that unwarranted? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me just note that on September 2012 a dispute came to ANI after Wee broke the 3RR by reverting an edit agreed on by 3 editors [53]. The discussion ended with an admin proposing an interaction ban between us and a 4 month topic ban (relating to Falklands) for both of us, which I accepted. WCM on the other hand did not and instead left an uncivil comment ("like a lot of content editors before me I can just turn round and say fuck wikipedia, I'm out of here")[54] and "retired" from WP. He never actually stopped editing and certainly not on Falkland related articles.

If the ruling here is an interaction ban and/or a topic ban I will again accept it, noting once again that an ANI report caused by Wee's actions is one more time spilling over to give sanctions to other editors. If Wee were a new editor any of his actions I commented on above would have had him blocked for sure. Gaba p (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note Wee's WP:CANVASSING: [55] [56] [57] Gaba p (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. Gaba accuses Wee of provoking him (Gaba) of filing this ANI just to throw dirt at him. How messed up is that? Here is the comment from above: I warned you to not move my comments around and you did it again just so I would file this ANI and you had a chance to post dirt about me. I believe this provides insight into Gaba's mind and his unexplainable dislike for Wee and anyone else who does not agree with himself.

With all due respect, an interaction ban for both, in view of the proof here of Gaba's constant attacks, not only on Wee, but anone who disagrees with Gaba, who even anyone who tries to suggest anything constructive to him is unfair. Gaba has made it clear he is more interested in attacking than improving the articles. I would suggest a ban on Gaba for all of the Falkland Island articles so they can move forward. After I and others who have commented here trying to help Gaba but instead getting attacked, I have concluded that this is his motis operadi, not just to Wee but anyone. Mugginsx (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's Wees comment about him moving my edits around: "No worries, I will give a solemn undertaking not to do so." Everything else he has said here are simply attacks on me (just like yourself), the fact that he started this by moving my comment twice after I had told him to abstain from such actions is now completely buried under a pile of accusations against me.

I have no idea why you started attacking me so ferociously a couple of months ago but I'd like you to stop. You are most definitely not an un-involved editor and your past behaviour shows you have been trying to get me blocked for a while now (see Mugginsx's comments on previous ANI, [58]) so viciously as to even call the attention of an editor [59]. Could you please drop it? Thank you. Gaba p (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, you seem to feel that anyone who does not agree with you is out to get you. That is not true. You have a fine education but instead of using it to create great articles as you probably could, you use it in this manner. It is realy too bad. BTW, Wee reverted some of my edits on these articles, I did not start a vendetta against him. When I saw the argumentative editing on the articles, I decided to step away from them. That was quite awhile ago.Mugginsx (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No Mugginsx, I do not believe everyone who disagrees with me is out to get me. As you can see in the history of ARA Belgrano (another Falkland-related article) and its talk page, I edited with absolutely no issues along with other editors from 28 Dec to 3 Jan. After a short discussion it was clear that the majority consensus was to remove an edit I had made which I gladly did[60]. Wee's first comment in a section I started in the Talk Page regarding that very same edit was to accuse me of "soap boxing" [61], notice the difference with the rest of the editors?

You and I on the other hand have never crossed paths in a discussion about content. Ever. I have never disagreed with you on anything other than your constant lobbying to have me blocked. I have a vendetta against no one, but do note that Wee still accuses me of being the sock puppet of a blocked account, even after I revealed my real life identity to an admin once and am willing to do so again. This accusations by Wee have been happening for a full year now. Who has a vendetta here? Gaba p (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking at the edits and talk page discussions and I must say it is you and not just with Wee. This is the first time I remember asking that you be blocked and that is only on these articles that frustrate everyone. Mugginsx (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then I gotta tell you your memory must be failing: "I respectfully move to close this discussion with a request for sanctions against especially User:Langus-TxT who does not even respect the decision of administrators, [49] for obvious Tag Teaming and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and User:Gaba p who has spent one year obstructing and reverting Wee's Reliable Sources [50] even after they were verified at [51] and not acting in good faith.", " I think the best thing is an article ban for the tag team.", "I do not believe Gaba p has any real interest in the Falklands articles, truth be told. I therefore once again propose an interactive ban or article ban among some or all of them", etc..[62] Pretty much every comment you made on that ANI is an attack to either me or editor Langus or both of us. You have never been involved in a discussion with me and yet have repeatedly asked for sanctions against me at every situation possible. Once again I'll politely ask you: would you please stop it? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct, on these articles that frustrate everyone. I am finished arguing with you. You must stand on your record. Mugginsx (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If this means you'll stop attacking me every chance you get, then I'm glad we are done. Hope to see you around on better terms. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Question - Am I allowed to casually call another editor a liar repeatedly?

I ask this because for months User:Gaba p has been repeatedly calling me a liar, he has continued to do so here. He has been allowed to do so and is becoming bolder and bolder in his incivility. Has WP:CIVIL been simply abandoned? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you repeatedly tell untruths about other editors behavior you should expect to be called a liar. The solution would be to apologize and not repeat the untruth, in which case I am sure Gaba p would retract his claim that you are a liar. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course he's not typically permitted to repeated call you a liar. Was he able to refute your statements in some manner with a diff? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, he presents a diff out of context claiming this shows I am a liar. Look above. He is effectively calling me a liar at WP:ANI with impunity. He gets away with it by loudly making accusations of misconduct, chucks in a couple of diffs and no one questions it. If we've abandoned WP:CIVIL at this point I would feel it beneficial to be allowed to vent, because I've been subjected to incivility for months now and as noted previously have remained civil throughout. Also excuse me, where in WP:CIVIL is it ever acceptable to call another editor a liar constantly? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No one is allowed to call anyone a liar.Its a clear violation of WP:NPA--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba has usually backed up his accusations of lying with links/diffs to a previous interactions/discussion. Not checked all of them, but on the face of it, I find this to be interesting. Probably should take a close look at all of Gaba's provided links. (Well-founded accusations of lying are not against Civil if its evidence of problematic editor behaviour). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

More self-determination stuff, I think WCM 'I didnt break 3rr' claims here are certainly misleading, if not outright lying. And certainly not in the spirit of 3rr Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems fairly straight forward. Saying an editor did one thing when they did not can only be excused as a 'mistake' so many times. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if some of the edits and/or assertion of certain editor its not true.Only thier edits should be discussed as WP:NPA is clear on this." Comment on content, not on the contributor."--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, factual descriptions of editor behaviour when backed up by evidence is not a personal attack. However repeated accusations of someone being a sockpuppet when its been proved to an admins they are not is a personal attack. 'Only their edits should be discussed' doesnt extend to disregarding edits where they are stating something they know to be an untruth. (The above is meant as a general case, not applied specifically to WCM) Fortunately since Gaba has helpfully included links and diffs we can look at them and see exactly what the case is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike and what should I do when the untrue assertions by an editor are used in a discussion about content to gain an advantage? I note that I'm not even counting the times Wee has purposely misinterpreted sources to favor his position (the Reisman case at Self-determination is quite telling, if you want I can fill you in) I'll gladly comment on every link I presented here about Wee "making untrue statement". When is it acceptable to say "I can no longer assume good faith and this editor is simply lying"?

The accusations of sockpuppetry have effectively been going on for a full year now (starting from the moment my block was imposed and then lifted). He has directly called me "Alex" twice now on different occasion while discussing content: "You've been given a chance you didn't deserve Alex, don't blow it"[63], "Stop being utterly confrontational in every aspect of your edits on Falklands topics Alex please."[64] Is this civil behavior? I remind you that in order to have my account back I had to give away my right to anonymity and I am even willing to do so again if needed.

Just for the record, I never called him a "liar". I simply noted the particular instances where I caught him lying. I believe there is quite a difference. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't talked specifically about you but really talked in general terms that making personal comments about editor is never a good thing even if you think that you 100% right.If there are some problems with this user conduct there are appropriate forum to deal with it-this board and WP:RFC/U.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

On this I agree Gaba, if you think there are long-term issues, raise it as a WP:RFC/U and make sure you back up accusations with diffs/links to evidence that supports it. Secondly, as the original complaint here was regarding moving your comments, and WCM has been told not to do that, you might want to back away now and get back to editing. ANI is for immediate issues, not long-term behaviour. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Calling someone a "liar" or even saying that they are "lying" are both actions that are bound to ruffle feathers, and escalate a situation needlessly. "That's not exactly what you said earlier" - followed by a proper in-context diff - will actually say the same thing, in a far more useful manner. When it comes to using sources, if they misuse/misquote a source, that does not mean they're doing it on purpose or doing it maliciously - in that case, give them the benefit of the doubt and propose a better interpretation of the resource on the article talkpage. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone say something about me which is not true and which I can demonstrate is not true, and yet when confronted with this untruth does not retract but in fact repeats the untruth, then I will call them a liar. Lying about someone's actions or views is a classic uncivil move, and pointing that out is necessary to address the problem. Using the word liar to point out that someone has been lying is not comparably problematic to the actual lying.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is Gaba has just been accusing people left right and centre. Gaba has repeatedly accused me of lying [65] [66][67][68] - not always in so many words - based on a point that so far as I can tell is entirely accurate: specifically, that what was proposed substantially expanded upon support for the Argentine claim while only downplaying British side. I'd like some outside feedback here - is my description of the proposal inaccurate? Because I can't see any way that it is. Does it appear malicious to any uninvolved editor? In the view of outside editors, can this description be civilly characterised as "a lie" (emphasis original)?

Because it certainly appears to me that the accusation of lying was not being used as you describe, but in attempt to intimidate me into accepting Gaba's position, a position that I opposed (and oppose) on the grounds - among other things - that I considered it POV (a suggestion that Gaba dismissed as "childish"). And frankly, it does not appear to me that Gaba is learning from this discussion. Kahastok talk 18:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What Bwilkins said. We should always be mindful of behaving in ways that reduce conflict and don't inflame emotional responses to situations. If someone says or does something that contradicts an earlier action on Wikipedia that have done, it is fine to demonstrate the inconsistency in their behavior with diffs and non-emotional language. The problem comes when you label someone a liar or when you label their behavior lying. Instead of doing that, just say "In this diff [1] you did blah blah blah, but in this other diff [2] you said you did yada yada yada" That is sufficient to demonstrate an inconsistency in a person's behavior without calling them names or being insulting about them. --Jayron32 14:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. A determination of "lying" depends on a state of mind that is generally unknowable by outside observers. Making untrue claims you believe to be true does not make you a liar. Comment on the contributions (I'm fond of "I don't think that is correct", but have been observed to venture into "that is plain wrong" when provoked ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to take exception the comments of User:Only in death, show me where I have made in excess of 3 reverts in a 24 hr period. I have even self-reverted on a vandalism edit to avoid Gaba p making a frivolous 3RR report after he edit warred to force one of his edits into an article. I rarely make more that 2 reverts, I stretch to 3 reluctantly when there is a clear problem with an edit. You can bet your bottom dollar Gaba p and Langus-TxT would have skipped gaily over to the WP:3RRN to make a report had I done so. When you've checked those diffs and find its not true, I expect an apology for calling me a liar and backing up Gaba p calling me a liar.

There are many occasions where I could have pointed out edits that were blatant lies but I have never resorted to calling an edit a liar. But thank you guys, if I find someone lying again I will be sure to make sure I call them a liar repeatedly and if called up on it I will refer to this thread as justification that such conduct is condoned officially by this noticeboard.

I am not a liar, I have not lied and I am fed up to my hind teeth of being the focus of this guy's constant incivility. Thanks for all the navel gazing and backing up of an uncivil editor. It just convinces me that being civil is a waste of time on my part. Because as Basalisk notes above one editor can paralyse an entire topic area with personal attacks and filibustering and no action will ever be taken. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What in the above comments leads you to the conclusion that "this thread as justification that such conduct is condoned officially by this noticeboard." Three people immediately above have stated unambiguously that no one should call anyone else a liar. So, your conclusion does not follow directly from the comments you are responding to, because those comments all agree that no one should be calling anyone a liar. --Jayron32 07:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well as you ask, I have been subjected to persistent incivility from this guy for months, he continues to call me a liar here in blatant breach of WP:CIVIL. I demonstrate with an example his diffs don't support his claims. And yet other editors join in calling me a liar and no action is taken. A number of editors have commented that this is an example of a disruptive editor and no action is taken. And he is continuing to do it. Could you avoid any other conclusion that his conduct is condoned? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I have to prove I did not lie

An example.

Gaba p claims I lied at an admins talk page stating "You'll of course note that he even revert warred over tagging and added un-neeeded tags to be disruptive in retaliation."

He alleges this refers to Self-determination. No it doesn't and I never actually said at any point it did. Gaba p has been disruptive on multiple articles. I was actually referring to this and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, another article where Gaba p is filibustering and paralysing any discussion.

Rather than indulge Gaba p in a revert war, I tagged his edit for NPOV [69] the edit summary is ‎International position: identify section where POV problem is, in the hope of bringing other editors into the discussion. This is a suggested means of resolving editing disputes is it not. He was reverted by another editor so he added a NPOV tag see [70] the edit summary is (→‎International position: identify section). The tags are unneeded, he was previously involved in the discussion that resulted in that text see Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 8#2012 Summit of the Americas. You'll note the striking similarity in the two edit summaries and my conclusion is not exactly unwarranted. You may try to accuse me of not WP:AGF but AGF is not a suicide pact and I have seen too much of this guy's disruptive edits.

On Self-determination, Gaba p and Langus-TxT, edit warred in a WP:TAG to try and remove a NPOV tag. [71] and [72].

My comments about revert warring to remove tags and adding tags disruptively clearly have basis in Gaba p's actions. I did not make them up, I did not lie as he claimed. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Another example.

Gaba p claims I lied and that his edit did not separate a statement from its original cite [73]. He later suggested removing it as the cite did not support the edit. He repeats the claim at ANI. Sorry but the history of the article shows different [74].

Again my comments about Gaba p's edit were accurate, I did not make them up, I did not lie as he claimed. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• It does look like Gaba p is not himself sticking very closely to the facts. He clearly does remove the Lopez source from the claim it supports adding a CN tag, and you clearly restore the source to where it belong. Whether the source was later found to be unreliable is not really relevant. I also do notice that your edit summaries are fairly combative and probably weren't conducive to making Gaba p accept them as valid. Often time we overstate the facts when we are angry and instead of considering that someone may be acting in good faith we ascribe bad faith right away so that "being wrong about something" becomes "lying" and restoring a source to its correct place becomes editwarring.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ·ʍaunus going through all the history from those articles can be confusing. Let me try to make it clear. After a couple of days of editing the Falklands section (both me and Wee) at Self-determination, Wee introduces a version of the section which uses the Lopez book to source the statement "Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination."[75] Right after this is done the article is locked by an admin[76] and the issue goes to RS/N where the Lopez book is found to be unsuitable for its use. After the RS/N is done, with the mandate not to use that book, I go back to the article and remove it leaving a cn tag instead.[77] Wee immediately reverts this edit bringing back the unsuitable source to the article.[78] Another editor rv's Wee and removes the unsuitable source.[79] Wee for a second time brings it back.[80] Once again I remove the unsuitable source[81] and Wee brings it back for a third time.[82] I rv his edit nothing that he is introducing back to the article a source we were told not to use.[83] What Wee said of this episode at an admin's talk page is verbatim: "I have posted at WP:RSN see WP:RSN#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN, which concluded the source Gaba p was using was not reliable. Today he went straight back to the article, re-introduced the same edit and attributed to the same unreliable source."[84] He effectively assigned to me the re-introducing of an unsuitable source to the article when it was him who did so three times. See what I mean now? How else could I call such an action? Please tell me if something is not clear. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Actually you're assuming they are combative but I am a Glaswegian and we have a blunt way of speaking. As text is an imperfect method of communication because it does not convey nuance well and can easily be misconstrued I do not pay much attention when editors express an opinion in a forthright manner. I do however object when they flat come out and call me a liar, especially when as you politely put it, they're not themselves sticking very closely to the facts. If I was being combative, as anyone who has drinking if Glasgow would know, you would know about it. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeated allegations I breach 3RR and this is simply untrue.

An example, Gaba's reverts [85],[86],[87],[88] 4 in less than a 24 hr period. He tries to wikilawyer the 3rd revert as an "edit" to game the system.

Mine [89],[90] and [91] thats 3. To be utterly honest I had earlier reverted a borderline vandalism edit [92] but I self-reverted [93]. Thats the closest I've ever come to breaching 3RR, the vandalism edit was later reverted by another editor but not for weeks.

No I wasn't happy about reverting but for anyone familiar with the history of the Falkland Islands would realise this is a mistaken reference to an earlier event the Lexington raid of 1831. I even said so in the talk page [94]. You'll not however I have been more than honest in presenting the one occasion when I was close to breaching 3RR but did not.

Gaba p claims I was the only editor to breach 3RR [95], the above diffs show this to be untrue.

Gaba p claimed to be awaiting a reply on his 3RR warning [96], I'd already replied [97] and I note he had read it [98]. Gaba p's claim to be awaiting my reply were untrue - he'd already had it.

Gaba p's allegation I have lied about not breaching 3RR are untrue, I've shown it with diffs. The maximum is 3 and I did so reluctantly because common sense and knowledge of the subject led me to conclude it was an error.

On this occasion, Gaba p's allegations that I lied are false, he also made several claims that are demonstrably false. What would we call an editor repeatedly making false allegations and claims in the talk page. Answers on a post card please. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

First I'll note that I had no desire of entering this exchange of commentaries about another user behavior but was forced to do so after Wee commented on mine.

I have posted here four occasions were Wee "told things that were not true". If any editor/admin is unsure about any of them and wishes to go trough them I'll explain exactly what makes them "untrue" (avoiding the use of "lie" as advised here), like I did above with the Lopez book and his claim that I was "bringing it back" to the article when in fact it was him who did so on three occasions. Before ending this let me comment on an example of an untrue statement by Wee done in the comment right above this one:

Gaba p claimed to be awaiting a reply on his 3RR warning [99], I'd already replied [100] and I note he had read it [101]. Gaba p's claim to be awaiting my reply were untrue - he'd already had it.

So Wee presents a diff were I supposedly were awaiting a reply on my 3RR warning[102] and my claim to be awaiting a reply "were untrue". Please check the link for yourself and you'll see that I say verbatim: "Once again I reiterate to you my proposal that you self revert your last edit given that you have breached the 3RR. Otherwise I will be forced to report you. I'll await your reply. Regards." Wee says I already had a reply[103], in which he said he did not "intend to make any further reverts". In fact it was after that reply by him that I reiterated my proposal that he self-rv (please check the time tags) and it was the reply for that reiterated proposal I was waiting for because I wanted to prevent a report for breaking the 3RR. He effectively self-rv'd after I asked him to, so the report was finally not presented.[104] See what I mean? Who is making "untrue statements" here? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Request to block MMAbot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MMABot#MMABot_v3.0_Task_Proposals_and_Notes. If you look through the talk pages of the project, you can see that the MMAproject has serious disagreements on formats and guidelines. At this point there hasn't been compromise or agreement reached by the entire group as how proceed. One of the editors, TreyGeek has has history of trying to impliment his viewpoints by falsely linking guidelines that don't apply, threatening to get editors blocked that refuse to agree to his point of view, and he has even went as far as trying to get admin to step in and make people do things his way. Now he is attempting to circumvent the viewpoints of the entire group by programming a bot to change the articles to match his opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MMABot&action=history. If you look at the talk page for the bot, I have tried to voice my opinion and he keeps deleting it and saying its his talk page. Well if its his talk page and he is refusing to accept input from anybody who doesn't share an opinion, then it innappropriate for him to be using a bot to change formats to match what he wants. The bot is serving his interests and not the interests of the group, and I respectfully request help from somebody who had the authority to temporary block use of the bot until the group can come to a compromise that is satisfactory to all the active editors. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Willdawg is unhappy with the consensus that formed at WT:MMA#Cleaning up the format. TreyGeek posted a notice on the MMA WikiProject talk page about creating a new task for MMAbot regarding table formatting. Trey is simply asking for input from the WikiProject about the task, and so far Ravensfire and I have asked questions about it. Willdawg is attempting to stonewall the discussion, claiming that a compromise is what matters, rather than consensus. Users PoisonWhiskey and SubSeven have asked him why he has a problem with it. He opposes "somebody who has stirred up so much controversy and refuses to compromose being the one to do it". I don't think Willdawg understands that this bot task being discussed is still in it's infancy, and is nowhere close to going live yet. Ishdarian 19:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If you read consensus, CONSENSUS IS COMPROMISE. You can't seperate the two. You are also wrong about me having an issue with the Conensus. The Conensus was to go to the blue tables, and I have not expressed any issue with what was agreed upon. The admin who closed it out specifically said that the consensus didn't indclude minor changes. I have an issue with the table being too fluffed up and hard to follow, which is why I am suggesting a couple minor changes to make things look better. I am looking for a little diplomacy, I don't object to the major layout, and in exchange, they agree to a couple small, minor edits that would make the table easier to read. This is the problem with the group. There are a few editors who keep refusing to accept opinions and viewpoints that are different than their own and they have to get their way. I'm willing to compromise and drop the issue if they are willing to compromise on a couple really minor edits (The way the columns end up spacing out, the judges scores make the table look better if they are put into the comment section, and 95% of fights that end in KO or TKO end because of strikes, so its redundant and fluffing to add anything behind the TKO unless its something like a physician stoppage or something out of the ordinary). You be the judge. Am I really asking for them to compromise that much? I'm willing to give in to the majority of what they want in a format but they can't budge just a little bit on a couple minor issues. Really? What they are doing isn't consistant with a CONSENSUS. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor issues? may i remind you why the discussions about the format began? (tip: Talk:Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Seven and [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113]) Poison Whiskey 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

For those who are new in this drama, just take a look at the section "Repeated editing of articles against WikiProject consensus" above. Poison Whiskey 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You know that section is going to show exactly what I'm saying, that there are a couple editors who are trying to use admin to circumvent the COMPROMISE portion of CONSENSUS and have tried everything including trying to get admin to tell me and other editors that we have to bow down to their viewpoint and to stop requesting that the project be a group effort. Take a look, it appears you have a case of the IDIDNTHEARTHAT that you like to point out. Weren't you told that I was following the rules and there wasn't any action to be taken in that complaint. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment from someone involved. The discussion Willdawg is referring to is for a proposed task for MMABot, reformatting result tables in MMA events (where possible) to use the consensus format. The bot does not do this right now and probably won't for at least a week, probably several weeks. There's a discussion on the WT:MMA page about the proposed change where he's already posted. Leaving essentially the same comment on the MMABot talk page doesn't help and could fragment the discussion. I think he's mistaken in his comments and aggressively pushing back on attempts to use the new event result layout. Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

All I want is for everybody's opinion to be taken into consideration and for everybody to compromise on issues. Remember for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If a couple editors are trying to force the rest of us down, then yes, I will push back, but the difference is I am only pushing back to the point where all the editors are equal and can have their viewpoints treated equally. Willdawg111 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As per Beyond My Ken, I have restored Willdawg's messages on MMABot's talk page. Willdawg has raised no specific complaints other than I shouldn't be operating MMABot. I don't know how to respond to that kind of complain other than to say I have the support of a number of people in the MMA WikiProject to operate this bot and its tasks for v1 and v2 have been approved by the WP:BAG. I am open to suggestions or guidance in regards to this issue. I've been asking at ANI for two days now at this thread for guidance as to how to deal with Willdawg and I have been ignored. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

Right. It really is time to start enforcing the discretionary sanctions here. If no uninvolved admin objects, I'll be topic-banning Willdawg111 for a couple of months, shortly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Crazy idea, since I'm one of the people with a headache from interacting with WillDawg. They're a relatively new editor that does some good work but I don't think they've got a good understanding of policy and their interaction style is causing problems. Rather than a total topic ban, perhaps a restriction for MMA related areas to edit only articles and article talk pages but may not change any existing format in the article nor revert format changes that others make, maybe for a month or two. After that, restrictions are lifted but they're on an interaction probation to force them to be more congenial in how they interact with others. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there's a chance of him becoming a solid editor but a topic ban would probably chase him away or, when it's over, result in a backlash where he gets blocked. A wake-up call might work here. Ravensfire (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a revert restriction is going to work. As evidenced at the MMA wikiproject talk page WT:MMA, other editors have observed that Willdawg111's behavior is not only restricted to article space format changes. Personal attacks have been called out, snide remarks are ignored, and objection to any sort of forward movement (because a Bot is operated by someone on the other side of the MMA debate) indicates that they are engaging in a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality and therefore their actions (including this thread) show that it may be wise to cut our losses with this editor. Hasteur (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'm hoping that there's a good editor in there that's fallen in line with some of the ugliness that's in MMA. With the right shock (from some admin he doesn't know and who's never stepped foot in the MMA area), it might be enough. Right now the pain is from his behavior on WT:MMA and refusal to accept the formatting consensus. Okay, end his ability to do that while still letting him work on MMA articles. If that fails, he gets the hammer. Ravensfire (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for sanctions to be applied now, but I'd like to note that Willdawg111 has not yet had the MMA riot act read over them. They've been "suggested" at a couple of times, but no official delivery of warning yet. Hasteur (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, more MMA drama? It's time to put a stop to this. It's bad enough they've driven Mtking away. RNealK (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great news! Evenfiel (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disgusting. RNealK (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban This situation is really annoying. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. Okay, I've topic-banned Willdawg for three months. I don't think the lack of a more formal warning should be really an issue here, because throughout this whole thread and the preceding one, discretionary sanctions had been mentioned multiple times, as had the idea that Willdawg had deserved a block already for his behaviour a couple of days ago; it must have been clear to every participant in this discussion that such sanctions were on the table. I have also blocked Evenfiel for 48 hours for the nasty personal attack just above here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dang. That seems a little harsh. I could see a month, but 3? Sure, I haven't been following most of this. But in the interactions I have been involved with that feature Wilddawg I don't recall him making snide or less than subtle insults. He just seemed like a genuinely good intentioned editor who was being stymied (along with myself) by an incredibly small group of people. A vocal minority if you will. The ANI is the last stop when people are unable to see (in our view) reason. Or at least be open to consensus, which wilddawg pointed out was not being followed because these folks would not allow for any compromise to be made. This is all compounded by the fact that mma is a relatively small topic, and the ones who are here but not participating have probably been driven off by the same person who outed me. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Wilddawg's frank admission that he will not accept a consensus that does not incorporate a "compromise" towards his viewpoint is evidence enough, even in isolation, that his continued involvement is disruptive. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• He has already been banned. No need to grave dance. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if that's the way it came across; I had no intention of "grave dancing". I was simply indicating to FPaS that I supported his actions (it is not uncommon for admins to comment on each other's actions at ANI). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support this too, reluctantly, since I think that Willdawg has good intentions but a lack of knowledge, or a lack of interest in knowledge, about how Wikipedia should work. Besides, I urge Portland to stop making these claims of conspiracy theories. I suppose Portland is making reference to JohnnyBones or whatever the hell is name was, with the suggestion that the editors who are commenting on this and other threads are somehow swayed by that now-blocked editor and the ones who aren't are driven away by Johnny. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. Moreover, both Willdawg and Portland repeatedly accuse "the rest" of the editors of unwillingness to compromise; I see no evidence of that either, and it is time to put a stop to the "consensus=compromise" fallacy. Consensus does not necessarily entail compromise. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  In response to you claim about "no evidence", this is because I don't like to spend my free time digging around for an "AHA!" quote. Even if I did, you would just repeat what you already said. In response to your last sentence: But it could, and it's a shame that they won't because If I had the nerve to resort to sockpuppetry there wouldn't be a need for compromise. Maybe that is where this JBJ character comes from in the first place. Either way, the mma project is just that, a project in the same vein as those in Chicago.

edit: This is also not about me, as I did not participate in the majority of these issues such as formatting( I think I said I liked elements of both and left it at that), nor did I follow the mmabot conversation. But in the arguments I have had with the others regarding The Ultimate Fighter, and the whole tier system all there appears to be blocking me is a massive stonewall. This is how teenagers compromise. I also liken mmaprojects version of consensus to "America; love it or leave it!" [User:PortlandOregon97217|PortlandOregon97217]] (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Dunkmack9 on a fringe theory tear

Dunkmack9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been a problem for a while now and I'm surprised he hasn't come up earlier. He has a long history of inserting material that is unsourced, or is personal opinion and analysis, or which comes from well-known fringe sources which are rejected by the mainstream. For example, he has done a lot of editing of Rudolf Hess, partly inserting his own analysis, sometimes pushing the theory that the Hess at the Nuremberg trials was an imposter substituted by the allies. Pretty much everything he adds eventually gets rolled back. He marks every edit as minor (with occasional lapses), even though most of his additions are hundreds to thousands of characters long. He is not particularly communicative, and there are several attempts recorded on his talk page to dissuade him from his campaign of fringey editing, to which he hasn't replied. He has become particularly active of late. I don't know that a short-term block would get through to him but it would be nice not to have to revert everything he does. Mangoe (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Endorse block, has already been given multiple warnings by Dianna NE Ent 22:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion from what I saw on the Hess article is that he's more interested in inserting a fringe conspiracy theory into the article than undertaking actual improvements to the page. He wants to contribute, but I am concerned, because he seems unable to identify and make use of reliable sources, choosing only the material that's the most far-fetched, and in Hess's case, most certainly incorrect. -- Dianna (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If he had persisted in editing the Hess article in spite of the warnings, he might have been blocked at that point. But because he moved on elsewhere, he was not. But being disruptive over a number of articles rather than persisting in the one place is just as disruptive, maybe even more so, and it has allowed him to fly under the radar for some time. I'm not convinced it's severe enough to warrant a block at this point, but adding opinions (Diff of Rudolf Hess; note especially the very last sentence) and editorialising about the quality of the articles in the articles themselves certainly has to stop. I welcome him to this discussion and hope he is prepared to improve his editing skills. -- Dianna (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

He has moved on to the Day of Deceit article from the Hess article, but the editing pattern has remained; should he further ignore the warnings given, from this point forward, I would say a block is in order. Kierzek (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's where he came onto my radar. Stennett's fringe theory book is an SPA magnet and has to be watched assiduously. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

...And he's just POV'd it again, adding positive reviews out of balance with the severely negative scholarly reception. Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone uninvolved could assess whether the current problems warrant a block, that would be best. I feel I am involved, as the Hess article is my new project. My opinion as an involved editor is that the current behaviour warrants at least a temporary block to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. -- Dianna (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  20:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Harassing, island-hopping IP editor

This individual, who seems to hop IPs every few edits was blocked for similar (although more aggressive) behaviour in November and has long been back with a vengeance. Although this person's editorial mishaps extend beyond mere edit-warring to harassing, I felt it would be easier to single out a single behavioural issue. Also, at Tainan this editor showed his/her true intent of tracking me down by reverting in a non-politically contentious content area. The questionable conduct extends to the 111.243.45.* and 61.219.36.* ranges as well, including outright vandalising of other user's talk pages. It is high time that this person's ranges are executed Wiki-style. GotR ^Talk 16:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP should be blocked and harassment has not, should not and will not be tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Gossip may need revdel

Resolved

 – Rev-deleted and blocked.  Sandstein  08:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Antwerg (talk · contribs) has just added another link to gossip associated with a BLP subject despite advice from several editors at their talk. Previous edits have recently been revision deleted. Would someone please check the latest contribution (which I reverted). Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• The user has again posted a link in an attempt to force a BLP violation onto at least the article talk page, and that is after some clear explanations and warnings at User talk:Antwerg#Enough. Here is a diff of the most recent addition (previous additions have been revision deleted).

  Would an admin please take the necessary action.

  Feel free to delete this message if you like (although the gossip is all over the Internet, and is near the top of Google searches for the subject's name). Because it's all over the Internet, the issue can be viewed as minor—however, it is a clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:DUE to use Wikipedia to highlight that the police have interviewed someone who worked with a person responsible for very serious abuses (with the obvious yet false implication that the BLP subject is suspected of abuse). Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The user's talkpage may need to be revdel'd too. A person is being named there in several history versions. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If you link to or mail me the diffs, I'll rev-delete them.  Sandstein  14:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Earth100 adding unsourced material / original research

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

---

Back in December, Earth100 was brought to AN/I by myself for disruptive editing, consisting mainly of original research and adding unsourced material ([114]). At the end of December, he was blocked for personal attacks ([115]), and after that, his edits became very productive again. Unfortunately, tonight he has started again adding unreferenced material ([116], this one I showed my edit, where I put in a citation needed tag, as it makes it more clear what was unreferenced). I have tried explaining to him again why this is not allowed ([117]), but he has responded by saying that apparently, while he has a source for the information (that he did not add to the article when he added the information), he is engaging in original research, which he continues to deny. It's just getting a little bit ridiculous how many times people in the project have to tell him that he cannot simply engage in editing like this. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Inks just being too aggressive on me, on just wants to make a report on me, and there's no significant problem with me. Just ignore the message, Thank You.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 11:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Earth100, that isn't a response to the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem--you aren't even acknowledging that you're doing anything wrong. Multiple users have tried multiple times to explain why you cannot add unsourced material or original research, but you continue to do it anyway. Inks.LWC (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Today, I proposed one of his articles for deletion 2013 North Pacific Super Storm, as it failed WP:GNG, and we've already had an increase in desire to make articles for non-noteworthy winter storms since The Weather Channel started naming them (but that's a whole other issue that has nothing to do with this), and he removed the PROD tag (which is fine), with the edit summary, "Only STUPID users like INKS don't find any thing likes news and true information." He then apparently changed his mind and re-added the prod tag back, but this is not his first time making personal attacks. This has to stop; I have tried to be helpful and explain what needs to be done to properly source things, but Earth100 has refused to take my advice and has only resulted in being hostile. I didn't bother putting a warning on his talk page for the attack, as he already knows personal attacks are not allowed (as that was the reason for his last block), and it will probably just end with him deleting the warning anyway. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because an editor repeats problematic behavior and deletes warnings from their talk page doesn't mean you should stop posting the warnings. They serve a purpose and they make a record. My impression, although I know little about the subject matter that interests Earth100, is that he does some good things and some bad things. Calling you stupid, of course, is one of the bad things, but even you acknowledge that he can make productive edits. The issue is how to get him to reduce the bad stuff. He apparently has strong views on things and some of them are at best counterproductive. For example, he created a userbox (I think he means "skunk") in which he announced his hatred for the Communist Party of China. It's not as bad as the userbox he created in which, if my memory serves me, he said he hated the Japanese - that one I deleted and I'll probably delete this one, too - but it's obviously not a productive use of Wikipedia's resources (and it violates userbox guidelines). The last block really got his attention. Not only did he improve after the block expired, but during the block he became quite communicative and friendly. And none of what I'm saying addresses the issue of adding unsourced or poorly sourced material to articles (he was warned about that before, particularly by User:Qwyrxian). So, what do you suggest? Another block? Perhaps a mentor? I'm tempted to block him now, mainly because he's not really responding to any of this in any meaningful way, and his behavior is mostly a repeat of previous behavior, but I'll wait for some more input.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've added the warning for a personal attack. As for what I think should be done, forced mentorship would probably work, if Earth100 is willing to go along with it. But first he has to acknowledge that he's doing something that warrants it, otherwise we'll just be back here when the mentorship ends. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship, of course, would have to be voluntary and, obviously, he would have to acknowledge it is needed; otherwise, it's meaningless. As an aside, your warning is incorrect in that it says the uncivil comment was "removed". More important, he's not responding here or on his talk page, even though he's edited since I urged him to do so. I know next to nothing about the subject matter, but it seems that his edits to Kármán vortex street are at least partly WP:OR in that he appears to be interpreting the pictures he added without any secondary sources in support of his interpretations.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess I worded myself improperly when I said "forced mentorship". I meant he is given the choice between mentorship or a block, with the instructions that if he stops his mentorship, he would be blocked (that's something I thought I've seen before - if I'm incorrect, please let me know.) My apologies on the incorrect template. Is there a proper template to use for personal attacks in edit summaries? (Although, he's requested deletion on the page, so I tagged it with G7, so it won't be up very long and it has been deleted.) As for the Kármán vortex street, there shouldn't be a gallery at all, as it clearly goes against the policy of WP:IG, which I pointed out on the talk page (full quote here, as it's not really relevant to put the whole thing on this AN/I) Inks.LWC (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there isn't a personal attack template for edit summaries. One option is not to use a template that doesn't really work. Another option is use the template but then edit the expanded text to conform to reality.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

OK; I'll keep that in mind for the future. Regarding the mentorship, is my proposal permissible under the policies and guidelines? Inks.LWC (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocks are not intended to be punitive. Therefore, if there's acknowledgment by the editor of the problem(s), a promise to contribute appropriately, and an agreement to be mentored to assist the editor in adhering to their promise, that could be an acceptable solution. Obviously, an editor's promise loses some credibility if they've promised before but return to the problematic conduct. Here a mentor hasn't been tried, so it would be a new component.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, and I think/hope this can be resolved without a block. Although, from the past AN/Is, Earth100 typically has not participated in the AN/I until being told again that he should participate. Perhaps you could encourage him to come here and participate (as I think it would be much better coming from an admin, rather than myself). Inks.LWC (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I already told him. I wasn't happy that subsequent to that he edited articles but failed to respond. Still, I'm willing to give him a bit more time, but if he continues to edit as if nothing has happened, he'll leave me little choice but to block him.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Earth100 for 2 weeks. His "response" was to delete all the comments and warnings from his talk page, including my request to respond to the claims against him.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It is worth noting that he responded on InksLWCs talkpage denying that he had been involved in any personal attacks.Jason Rees (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • So what happens when he gets back? The block doesn't really address the issues at the heart of this (or the last) AN/I. Each time, he's been blocked for personal attacks. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • At this point, we'd wait for the block to run its course. If he comes back and starts editing productively, great! If not, he can be blocked for a longer time (or indef) as necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN/WP:HARASSMENT, and childish name-calling by User:JoshuSasori

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

---

For about a month now User:JoshuSasori has been making it very difficult for me to make any edits to articles on Japanese cinema. Virtually all of my edits to Kuroneko, Tadao Sato, Double Suicide of Sonezaki and numerous other articles have been subjected to excessive scrutiny, and if not blankly reverted have been gradually whitewashed out. He has been generally unwilling to compromise on issues where we disagree, and when I don't let him have the articles exactly his way he starts calling me names like "hound"[118], "orientalist"[119][120][121], "troll"[122][123][124] and "insane loon"[125]. (Those are just the ones that he wrote in his edit summaries and the most recent one. There are plenty more on the various talk pages.)

I would very much appreciate some administrative oversight, preferably someone giving the user in question a good talking to and explaining to him that he doesn't "own" articles he has created or contributed to on Wikipedia, and he shouldn't treat he should call talk page comments by his fellow Wikipedians "troll droppings".

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• User:JoshuSasori does indeed seem to be consistent in his personal attacks. I especially enjoy his dodging attitude at WP:DRN. He is pulling a classic WP:NOTTHEM behavior. Comments like "I strongly advise you to look through Elvenscout742's edit history." and "I'd like to emphasize here that I warned the person trying to resolve this conflict to carefully read Elvenscout742's edit history before attempting a resolution." display a pattern of blaming others for their incivility. Not once does JoshuSasori offer a single diff, instead expecting the DRN volunteer to comb through the OP's edits and determine what's wrong.--v/r - TP 14:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to deal with it? elvenscout742 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

On the dispute resolution page, we are asked not to discuss user conduct. Thus lengthy descriptions of Elvenscout742's behaviour would not be appropriate: "It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct." JoshuSasori (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori failed to present a reasonable argument on DRN, and focused exclusively on "my behaviour". Whether he provided detailed examples is really beside the point, because he focused on ad hominem attacks against my supposedly harassing behaviour. Note, though, that I never called JoshuSasori a hound, or a troll, or an insane loon, or referred to his talk page comments as fecal matter.[126] elvenscout742 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori failed to present a reasonable argument on DRN, and focused exclusively on "my behaviour - This quite simply is not true, I didn't say a word about your behaviour. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmm - what difference would Elvenscout's behavior make? Diffs presented show pretty clearly JoshuSasori's incivil behavior bordering on personal attacks. NE Ent 02:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Elvenscout742 has been following me for the last month. Do you want details? JoshuSasori (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what we want. Please show us.--v/r - TP 16:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori above claims I have been following him. In reality, I have been simply trying to edit Wikipedia articles on Japanese films that I am interested in. Some of them, I already edited before JoshuSasori even registered on Wikipedia, which I pointed out in my peace offering to him on December 24.[127] He is the one who has been following me around these articles. Most of my recent edits to articles on Japanese cinema (too many to list) have been either reverted or followed closely by JoshuSasori. He has also showed up at several unrelated discussions (1, 2, 3) I was involved in and opposed my point of view, apparently just because. One of his recent comments also resembles a professional threat.[128] elvenscout742 (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Elvenscout742 initially interacted with me via the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan talk page where I initiated a discussion about macron usage in MOS:JAPAN. He then followed me to the talk page of Ryo Kase. After that, he began a campaign of multiple article moves of fairly obscure articles which I had created: Reiko, Ryoko Nakano, Sonezaki Shinju, Kindai Eiga Kyokai. I have been watching virtually all Japanese cinema articles for eight months, and he had not edited any prior to these moves, I had never seen him before that. Following this, and further disputes about WP:HOUNDING, he started "editing" these articles with minor edits, often WP:OR. When asked to provide a citation or corrected in a minor way, he immediately posts long screeds on the talk page of the articles. I do not know of any substantial edits by this user on any cinema articles, instead he makes gigantic contributions to talk pages only. However, I can understand the above about his work may have caused him distress. I have no intention of professionally threatening this person and will remove those remarks. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I apologize for calling him "an insane loon". If someone called me an insane loon, certainly I would think it was a humorous joke, but perhaps he did not take it that way. The context of this remark was that he told me that I had not seen a film called "The Hidden Fortress". Since I have seen the film, and since Elvenscout742 does not know anything about me or what films I might have seen or not seen, his comment struck me as being extremely odd, as if he had some kind of paranormal knowledge about me, which is why I made that crack about him. Frankly I don't think "orientalist" is very insulting but I apologize for that too. Also I called him a "hound dog", in the style of Elvis Presley. So I will apologize, once again. I've recently been looking through the edit history and noticed that when I told Elvenscout742 that he was being ridiculous or being absurd he took that as a personal attack. What I'll do from now on is to try to avoid this kind of talk with him. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I happened accidentally upon a move request JoshuSasori had participated in on 15 December[129] and he responded to me 20 minutes later.[130] The WikiProject Japan discussion to which he is referring does indeed seem to have been going on between him and my WikiProject Japan colleagues at that time, but my involvement in it began on 21 December[131], almost a week later. After this, I did indeed notice that he had created several articles based on his POV that Japanese names on Wikipedia should not have macrons: a number of these had no real justifications (Kindai Eiga Kyokai, for instance, was based on unrelated third party DVD covers[132], even though their official website[133] uses "Kyoukai" to mark the long vowel). I was not "hounding" JoshuSasori by moving these pages, I was merely doing what I believe is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. JoshuSasori's apparently taking personal offense at my moving articles he "created", and immediately moving to undo all of these edits, indicates a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia collaboration is all about. It is completely false to claim that I had never edited any articles on Japanese cinema prior to moving "his" pages: I pointed out to him early on[134] several specific examples of articles I had edited years before he arrived on them, and several more articles (mostly the animated films of Studio Ghibli) have been edited by me and never touched by him. He seems to continue to believe that my interest in Japanese cinema is a fabrication that I use to undermine his edits, despite this overwhelming evidence. His above accusation of OR is entirely disingenuous: I made a minor note on the Japanese title of Kuroneko, and provided numerous sources. He also reverted my addition of a Wikilink to the article on a historical person who is mentioned in the film, based on a ridiculous assertion that the Minamoto no Raikō who appeared in the film is different from the Minamoto no Raikō of Japanese legend, despite the character's dialogue specifically alluding to said legends in the first person. It is difficult for me to make "substantial edits" to cinema articles when he has been working to undermine most of my edits, however minor. However, I would like to draw his attention to the fact that I was the one who started the articles Twenty-Four Eyes and Ukare Gitsune Senbon Zakura. (I will assume by "cinema" above he means "Japanese cinema" -- Musa (film) and Bichunmoo are just two other articles I started.)

I would like to acknowledge my appreciation for JoshuSasori's removal of the above-mentioned comment and retraction of "insane loon". It was difficult to take the latter as a joke, given the other names. Honestly, though, "orientalist" is far more offensive to me personally, because I majored in Japanese translation in university, I have written critiques of orientalism in general. One of my only four edits in 2010[135] was to alter a slightly POV statement that had previously been biased in favour of the orientalist Arthur Waley. (I am not proud of my pre-revival failure to understand Wikipedia's sourcing rules, but my edit summary provided justification.) "Orientalist", to me and to other scholars, implies a lack of serious acquaintance with the so-called "cultures of the east", and a Poundish dismissal of scholarly research into these areas. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, my above response sounds kind of confrontational. I of course did not mean it that way. If I can take JoshuSasori's above inaccurate representation of history (paragraph 1) as merely the good-faith misunderstanding I initially took it to be,[136][137][138][139][140][141] and his apology for the name-calling (paragraph 2) as an indication that from now on we can work on collaborating on Japanese cinema articles peaceably, I will go back to my initial state of offering peace.[142] JoshuSasori, are we on the same page here? I am willing to believe that JoshuSasori's move of Double Suicide of Sonezaki to an unofficial/inaccurate title was just good-faith ribbing if he accepts that my interest in Japanese cinema is genuine and that I am only WP:HERE to help build Wikipedia. (And that my DVD collection is bigger than his is!フフフ) elvenscout742 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I just found a funny precedent for my being bold in moving articles relating to Japanese cinema.[143] And I think I was probably right, since the move request that later reverted this move neglected whether the film was the primary topic or not. elvenscout742 (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Elvenscout742. The above is a mere sample of what I have been putting up with, every day, for the last month since he started hounding me. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what?? I just gave you yet another peace offering, despite your continued false assertions that I am the one who is doing the "hounding". elvenscout742 (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm missing your point JoshuSasori. You're upset because he used actual diffs to illustrate his point? Please, offer something better than "just look". This thread is about to close with your indef block for the below veiled threat. So I suggest you offer an explanation quick and change your behavior.--v/r - TP 16:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I should note that while this has been going on JoshuSasori has considered making irrelevant, sarcastic arguments against me and referencing my ANI posts on another move request debate where he doesn't have a real argument.[144][145][146] elvenscout742 (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Intimidation attempt

So why hasn't User:JoshuSasori had his ass indefinitely blocked for this rather crude attempt at intimidation? --Calton | Talk 15:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Abusive emails (Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis)

I received three emails this morning from User:Nero1990, an account with no contributions. There is no clear place to report an incident like this, so I'm posting here to receive administrator assistance. They are all identical, and read as follows (email addresses redacted):

from: Nero1990 <XXXXXXX@XXXXXXX.com> via wikimedia.org
to: Siafu <XXXXXX@XXXXXXX.com>
date: Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:22 PM
subject: GAS THE ANTI-SEMITES!
mailed-by: wikimedia.org

LONG LIVE ISRAEL! DEATH TO THE ENEMY!


--
This e-mail was sent by user "Nero1990" on the English Wikipedia to user "Siafu". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's e-mail address, nor any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your e-mail address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

As per this you should not paste an email on-wiki, not sure whether we can do it on ANI also an admin will be able to help you. --sarvajna (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the email addresses, so no outing is occurring. As for not posting emails, I find this to be a strange thing to say to me, as I'm receiving weird offensive emails from someone I don't know, being delivered by wikimedia.org; the inappropriate behavior is not mine. There's no copyright violation in posting this, either. siafu (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had similar in the past - it's someone who creates accounts just to send email abuse. I expect the answer will be to block with email access removed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently a lot of editors who participated in the discussion at talk:Germans andthe ANI discussion surrounding the block of User:Guitar hero on the roof received this kind of abuse yesterday. I received 20 death threats myself. They were not from the same account who sent the email to Siafu. Blocking these throw-away accounts is not really an effective solution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This sort of crap has been going on for at least a year and a half with many prior discussions, see User talk:RolandR#Hundreds of threatening messages for example. RolandR is a frequent victim. It sounds like some progress has been made in that a throttle has been implemented of 100 emails per hour [147] but there's still no proposal to better stop the problem. There is a plan bto allow emails to be controlled by the abusefilter [148], but if people have other suggestions, they may want to make them in an appropriate place. (I don't think discussions at ANI are likely to achieve a solution since the prior 10 or so haven't really.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I received several this morning from User:Liandarnody. It's obviously JarlaxleArtemis again, using an extremely offensive hmamail account name. The subject line of my messages was "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you, CommuNazi scum". Account now blocked. RolandR (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Did any of the other accounts start with "Nero"? In any case, disallowing accounts with no edits to send E-mail might be a partial solution, especially if the reason weren't given (WP:BEANS). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps I should clarify when I say there's still no proposal I mean there's still no proposal that seems likely to be implemented. There have been some other proposals which don't look likely to be implemented for a variety of reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I recieved the same mails as quoted by the OP this morning sent by a User:Nero1990. And yes I also (briefly) participated in the discussion at Talk:Germans. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a message (happens to me quite often but I just delete automatically) from the some idiot this morning, only it read 'Gas all Arabs' to judge from the heading, since I didn't open it (probably also telling me I'm euroscum). Wouldn't have mentioned it had it not been raised here.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Me neither. I just deleted them and moved on. Although I can understand that the possibilites in the present system for constant email harrasment by trolls needs to be curtailed. I support the idea of removing the email function for editors with no edits. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the one I got in December, from User:Enemy of the Jihadis was titled "GAS THE ARABS!". I reported the abuse to hmamail and they quickly blocked the account, but that doesn't stop the creation of lots of throwaway ones. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems I got more of these than anybody else. :-) In analogy to WP:DENY I originally decided not to mention them on-wiki, but simply notified the email address given at WP:Functionaries. It think this is the preferred reaction; if not, maybe one of the functionaries can let us know. Hans Adler 16:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I for one liked to know I wasnt the only person to receive these. Email disabled now though.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Its rare that I see a good idea on ANI, but disallowing accounts with no edits to send E-mail might be a partial solution qualifies. I would raise it to a minimum of 50 or 100 edits though, or maybe only autoconfirmed accounts. nableezy - 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Its user:grawp and I agree with user:nableezy--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that must be the first time I have seen the above comment! It is indeed a good proposal, and one I have raised before. However, I have been told that this is impractical, and reasons have been given for not introducing this. In particular, it has been argued that victims of BLP violations sometimes need to contact an editor for changes to be made. I'm not convinced that this therefore requires a facility which enables a serial abuser to send thousands of racist death threat emails to scores of editors. Nor why a user is allowed to send via Wiki mail emails from an address threatening to kill another editor. This really needs to be addressed urgently: I have received more than 1500 of these in the past 18 months. RolandR (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it naive of me to suggest that the sending of so many abusive and malicious messages and death threats is a police matter? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in the subject line and Wikimedia Foundation well knows: This is Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. One editor reported he received an email in my name which doubtless is from JarlaxleArtemis who has been making up offensive User names with my name in it on various Wikimedia projects. (Is this the email people are referring to here?? Feel free to send me a copy if so.) So he WILL escalate his behavior when he decides to really come and get you. If he finds out you live near him in Southern California, you might really be in trouble.

As you can see, he's been at it a long time and Wikimedia Foundation has made efforts to stop him, including contacting his family. Please add your complaints to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis under current activites, favorite pages, or anywhere else you feel it is necessary.

Obviously if anyone bothered to go to the feds (and this is not a threat since I won't), a whole case could be opened. The stupid kid probably would face decades in prison under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Threatening the government officials of the United States, Terrorism or any of the zillions of other laws there are out there. Instead of getting the psychological help he obviously needs. But he's no Aaron Swartz so it's not like Wikimedia Foundation has a duty to protect him. CarolMooreDC 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll dig out one of mine and send it to you, I've been meaning to do something about it since I saw your name on it. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, do I really need to mention that since these incidents are all related to editing in the Israel-Palestine area (or more recently against editors who questioned a WP:OR definition of who is German or Jewish), that this is political terrorism plain and simple? Does it matter if the person does it because they are oppressed, or because they think they are oppressed, or they are pushing some nefarious political agenda of a state? It's something Wikipedia has to deal with. If there is war vs. Iran it will get much worse on articles related to that topic. So it should not be just written off as hijinks of bored trolls. CarolMooreDC 04:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Jesus H. Murphy, Grawp is still around and trolling? Kurtis ^(talk) 20:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Ai-yai-yai-yai-yai! Grawp is on the loose again? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

New policy proposal?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Email policy proposal

NE Ent 13:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of JarlaxleArtemis violent threat .gif

WMF is aware, thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Which was just posted on my talk page and I'm deleting now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carol..gif Please save a copy for Wikipedia's legal dept. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 01:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Also ban User:Tablorprizerna who put it up again after I deleted it. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 01:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP issues at Anita Sarkeesian

As many of us know, the Anita Sarkeesian article has been a particularly sensitive BLP issue since the subject was the victim of a sustained harassment campaign last May. Mostly this has been handled through scrupulous patrolling, however one particular user, Niemti, continues to use the talk page in a manner inconsistent with BLP, the talk page guidelines, and general competence, and it needs to stop. Niemti, coming off a ban as HanzoHattori and currently the subject of an RFC/U about his behavior, dislikes Sarkeesian and feels the article is primarily about video games, entitling him to add negative material from video game blogs.[149] Worse, for over two months, he has choked the talk page with incoherent rants that disparage the subject, circulate negative gossip, and derail any discussions about actual article improvements.[150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158]
He has been warned about this various times,[159][160][161][162] but won't or can't stop his disruption. Most recently he started a facepalm-inducing RM that's a pretty transparent attempt to shift the focus of the article in the hopes it will let him introduce negative material from video game blogs. He's spent the last three days bludgeoning any RM participant who disagrees with him (which, naturally, is every other editor) and going off on yet more disparaging tangents.
Enough's enough. It's clear Niemti can't participate at this article in any collaborative fashion. He needs to be banned from the article and its talk page - and any discussion of Anita Sarkeesian on Wikipedia. It's also time to look more comprehensively at the issues brought up at his RFC/U.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support Cúchullain's analysis of the situation. Classic case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT that has gone on for far too long. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can support/reinforce what Cuchullain is saying too. It's the same problems I come into every single time I interact with Niemti. (For the record, I rarely have actual personal conflicts with him, it's more that editors are always coming to WP:VG asking for help with dealing with him, a place where I frequently provide assistance.) He has ownership issues, and you can't hold a rationale discussion with him on talk pages. His responses are usually long confusing rants filled with condescending, saracastic remarks..

It's hard to recommend what to do though; as difficult and rude as he may be, he usually keeps within the bounds of blockable offenses. (He reverts people without explanation, but usually stays within 3RR. He's rude, but usually doesn't violate WP:NPA.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

In this case his strange gossip is clearly a BLP issue, and his refusal to get the point and talk page railroading is disruptive. He needs to be banned from all discussion involving Anita Sarkeesian. And please, someone close that disruptive RM.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's make it formal. My proposal: Niemti is indefinitely banned from the Anita Sarkeesian article, its talk page, and any discussion of the subject on Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Niemti's issues stretch beyond just this article as noted above, but if this works in halting some of his disruption I don't see the harm in supporting a ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I also support Cuchullain's topic ban proposal and if this works in preventing some of his disruption, I do not see any problem with that per David Fuchs's comments on this situation. I agree with Cuchullain that it's perfectly clear that Niemti cannot participate in this article in a collaborative fashion and also that it's about time to look into the situation over at the user's RFC/U. This pattern of disruption is unacceptable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask at this juncture whether anybody not editing from Sympathetic Point of View with Sarkeesian will be treated as part of a larger "harassment campaign" and blocked. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on the actual situation here.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the RM has been closed by TRPOD. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Nobody is suggesting the AS article should be free of criticism or critique, merely that all such be cited from RS. The editor under discussion has long since passed the threshold of disruptiveness. BusterD (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This editor has gone too far beyond constructive dialog and consensus-seeking and is way into disruptive territory, and clearly will not stop voluntarily. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree wholeheartedly with a topic ban. Niemti hass shown time and time again to be incapable of separating passionate personal views on the matter from what is relevant to article content or talkpage discussion. As long as there is zero understanding and not even the mild intellectual sympathy of feminist media analysis in video games, Niemti's interaction with the topic will remain destructive. Peter ^Isotalo 05:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support See also recent AN ban discussion, closed as no consensus. NE Ent 13:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I went to the Anita Sarkeesian article and talk page expecting to see a woman-hating disruptive editor harassing other editors, based upon the description given above, but that's not what I saw. Many of the editors Niemti suggested did, in fact, advance the cause of NPOV policy. He has a clear view, but it's clear that certain editors are wikilawyering to prevent that view from being even mentioned in the article. When editors try to argue that an article about a woman known for criticizing video games for sexism has nothing to do with video games and therefore sources about videogames cannot be used in the article, that's crazy. When they try to prevent published criticism of the topic of the article by saying that the source is not reliable because it is a video game blog (video game blogs can be reliable) but allows a lot of primary sources and feminist blogs to be used as sources, that's not following WP:RS, that's cherry picking sources to use the article as a promotional piece advancing her views and her career. In my opinion Niemti is not any more guilty of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT than the editors currently their rejecting his input. Wiipedia editors are far too quick to try to block people over disagreements over views instead of actual behavior. This is just civil POV pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • All I can say is that regulars of WP:VG appear to have a thing or two to learn about critical analysis of references. Some of the nonsense sourcing (blogs, forums, fan databases, "quote references") that many video game articles get away with would never be tolerated in other fields. This is a perfect example of what happens when those standards are applied outside the somewhat sheltered views of gaming aficionados. Peter ^Isotalo 03:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't stress enough that WikiProject Video Games does not call the source in question (Destructoid) "reliable". This is something that Niemti keeps on saying that simply isn't true. WP:VG classifies it as "situational", as it can only be used in rare instances, because sometimes their stories are picked up by more reliable sources, showing it's likely reliable/true information, yet Destructoid should ultimately get credited for being the source. There's no way that this is one of those scenarios where WP:VG would deem the source useable. So don't misdirect the issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 04:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Content matters aren't at issue here. The issue is Niemti's behavior, which has been totally disruptive to the article. Comments like this have no place anywhere on Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 04:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this your diff shows exactly what we disagree about. In the diff, Niemti simply makes an argument that a person is not really notable. This may or may not be a correct argument (I would have to do my own research), but I do not see this at all as a BLP violation or a personal attack. I would never make such comment. However, if someone else made such comment in discussion with me, I would consider this comment as frank and straight to the point. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Niemti has repeatedly attempted to insert his own favored POV into the article in obvious violation of WP:RS and without any understanding of the topic at hand. Niemti has plagued the talkpage with long-winded rants, general incivility and only two days ago a disingenuous attempt to move the article. He has time and time again shown that he is unwilling or incapable of listening to arguments or to respect consensus.

Are you trying to tell us that Niemti's behavior in this case has actually been helpful and constructive...?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wishes, again, this isn't about the content matters Niemti brings up, it's about his disruptive behavior. In that single edit, Niemti went, FORUM-style, on an irrelevant tangent about some other YouTuber, ignored previous warnings to stick to discussing article improvements, and claimed, with no backing or relevance whatsoever, that Sarkeesian engineered the trolling campaign in a "media-savy way" to "start a huge moral panic" in order to benefit financially from it. Oh, and he suggests she should have just rolled over for her harassers or "counter-attack literally using her vagina". Are you really suggesting this is appropriate and productive talk page discussion? And people wonder why few women edit Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I must agree: that was clearly an inappropriate statement. Niemti should stay away of this page. As about women in the project, come on, they simply have more important things to do than waste their time here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I simply do not think that any statement by Niemti provided in the diffs above (on the article talk page) represents a clear-cut BLP violation. However, I would strongly advise Niemti to voluntarily stop editing this page, stop commenting about this person and make a clear statement about this here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per my comments above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral agree with DreamGuy. While Niemti's view may be unpopular, I don't see any blatant BLP issues by him in the discussion. Note also that TRPoD's closure of discussion was not appropriate, as he has already voiced his opinion in the discussion with comments, he has a conflict of interest and should not close the move discussion. As I'm not a participant in the actual discussion, however, I'll just go with neutral !vote. Still waiting for Niemti's statement, though... Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I understand where you're coming from. Personally, I'm not as much bothered by the BLP problem as much as that there's clear consensus against what he's trying to do, and yet time and time again he wastes editors time with his incoherent rants and attitude, and has even made comments that seem to suggest he's going to just go against consensus once editors lose interest in the topic. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You may be neutral in your vote, but you're definitely not neutral in your commentary. It's not a matter of unpopularity. This is a classic example of "Experts are scum" in my view, something which I thought was rather rare on Wikipedia these days. The views Niemti is trying to push so obstinately are about as relevant as the views of an oil lobbyist in a debate about global warming. Gender studies may not be as "hard" a science as climatology, but it sure as hell is more absolute than the opinionated and uninformed editorials of video game reviewers. Peter ^Isotalo 03:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If a source is reliable, it's reliable. Your comments here suggest that you don't think games journalists can be considered reliable for a game-related topic, which seems pretty absurd. Niemti might not be a productive Wikipedian but your attitude is not helpful either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Comment. Clearly I believe that taken as a whole, Niemti's rantings, many of which just introduce unsourced gossip, disparaging innuendo, and personal gripes about Sarkeesian and her motivations, constitute a BLP issue. But even if you disagree on that point, there's still the matter that his repeated violations of WP:NOTAFORUM and the WP:TPG, his unwillingness to get on track despite numerous warnings, and his bludgeoning of editors who disagree with him. This is patently disruptive and it needs to stop.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • My thoughts, exactly. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per DreamGuy. 5.12.84.224 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as my analysis mirrored DreamGuy's --Nouniquenames 03:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support in agreement with comments by Cuchullain and Sergecross. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Niemti is an excellent editor when working alone on uncontroversial subjects, but terrible at working with others. He is unable to make even the slightest concession to other editors and becomes demanding, patronising and sarcastic almost immediatly upon sighting an alternate point of view. This issue is not about what the Sarkeesian article should look like, but the way he goes about the discussion, which is wholly inappropriate and completely disruptive to civil, useful discussion. Euchrid (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• First, and foremost, I'd like to start of by saying that I do not consider Niemti to be sexist, at all. The arguments sighted on the article's talk page stem more from a disagreement about the source of Sarkeesian's notability than any misogynist sentiments on his part. Nevertheless, the concern is that he is using said talk page as a platform to express his opinions (or as he may call them, "facts" — of the variety that cannot be adequately verified by any third-party sources) regarding the subject, and specifically the reasons in which she is considered significant enough to have a biography on Wikipedia; it delves into BLP-violating territory when he says that her fame mostly comes from the harassment campaign levied against her, which cannot possibly be substantiated in the article. It's hard to really get a good sense of what he's trying to accomplish in his contributions there, and it's unfortunately stirred up a great deal of ill will among the participants. Therefore, I'll have to echo the sentiments of My very best wishes in suggesting that Niemti disengages from the topic altogether, precluding the need for an actual community sanction. I think he would find much more satisfaction in editing other topics of interest than from continuing to beat this particular dead horse. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Tagremover and Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner

User:Tagremover has been using Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner to push his/her POV on the Boeing 787. He/she even resorts to accusing us editors of being biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters here. This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda. I personally think some action should be taken here, since he/she is abusing the talk page for a reason that is not allowed. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 18:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Its true i used some clear, bold language (bleedless > bleed, nightmare) but also newer sources like the established Time magazine use the same. Just to give a short scientific result. Seemed to be too "emotional", although it will get clear if it is read fully it wasn´t meant so.

biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters: I did not mention anyone personally, but this article is somewhat "pro-Boeing". But:

Other Aircraft articles (Airbus) are somewhat biased, too. Its IMHO a common problem in Wikipedia product articles. Losers are articles like TU-144, which have less (russian?) editors. I think this "fight" to mainly write positive about products is NOT good and is not what is meant by Wikipedia:Assume good faith (about the products, of course good faith for editors). I just think it should not even allowed, but it MUST be allowed in Wikipedia to call an article or statement biased. And i wanted to share info to improve this. Tagremover (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: Wikipedia:Assume good faith: Did User:Andros 1337 respect that related to me? Tagremover (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to note I collapsed one forum-type discussion and left a note reminding users that continuing to add commentary, speculation and the like may be disruptive before I was aware of this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My reasonable small inline tags: [163] were removed: [164], my critical comments and suggestions were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor of the article, and i was taken to ANI. Remarkable. Please could we stop at least this ? Tagremover (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I must say, Tagremover's edits are very WP: FILIBUSTER-ish, to say the least. Tagemover claims he is adding a "short scientific result", but is instead loading the article with his own personal anti-Boeing POV. When his edits are reverted, he issues a lengthy rant on the talkpage, along with WP: NPA violations, calling other editors "America the beautiful Dreamwriters". In my opinion, MilborneOne has every right to collapse that section. It was completely redundant and disruptive. Sadaam Insane (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Sadaam Insane makes wrong statements:

• "loading the article with his own personal anti-Boeing POV": Wrong: What, when? Diffs?
• "When his edits are reverted, he issues a lengthy rant on the talkpage" I feel insulted. What, when? Diffs?
• "along with WP: NPA violations, calling other editors "America the beautiful Dreamwriters": A user answered;

• "Give it up, you're "pissing in the wind" against "established editors" with WP:OWN issues who will "revert" you into oblivion... Not worth it." I answered:
• "Is the Dreamliner Becoming a Financial Nightmare for Boeing? sees probably months of grounding. Other analysts come and join my previous stated opinion. Too many biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters here. That was one reason i used strong words above; but if one see the consequences, one chose them - see established time magazine." [165] Clearly meaning no one personal.

Tagremover (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying our editorial effort on the article suffers from "Too many biased 'America the beautiful' Dreamwriters here." smears the editorial pool for the article in general. Your complaint would have more validity and perhaps be accepted if you were to provide diffs instead of simply making a nebulous, non-specific claim. Marteau (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

continuance. Regarding the instance you cited above, where you tagged "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines" as and objected to your "dubious" tag being reverted as evidence of a bias, the fact that Boeing indeed said that is indisputable and is cited. This clearly is an objective, non-biased revert. Marteau (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I apologize for that earlier outburst. It doesn't take much for me to go off like Joseph Goebbels. I will strike out that section as soon as I remember how to strike out comments (hopefully one of the kind admins will refresh my memory). Sadaam Insane (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Strike MilborneOne (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Sadaam Insane (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted, thanks. This crazy anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war is disruptive and i think about solutions to decrease its effects. But changing the brain and believes of humans is not quickly possible. But again: Thanks for thinking clearly.

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to "change the brains and believes of humans". Is that what you are trying to do? Because that would fall under the WP:ADVOCACY rubric, which you might want to review. Marteau (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am currently writing a longer reply to the others, latest posted in a few hours. Tagremover (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Takes a little bit longer, is a longer reply. Tagremover (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, ok, i´ve done some research in the history of Dreamliner. Most important first:

I apologize for writing: "Too many biased ......(not repeated)" Also i used the words like a joke and meant nobody personal, it was bad. Sorry.

Wrong accusation by User:Marteau is that i : "smears the editorial pool for the article in general": that was CLEARLY never said and of course never meant.

Correct is: Too many biased edits at Dreamliner. A lot of other aircraft articles are biased, too: Boeing and a lot of Americans and Airbus: Often too positive. Russian and especially former Soviet: Often too negative. Ukraine editors (Antonov): Fighting hard. Let me explain a few examples (mainly Dreamliner):

(moved text)

1. 17:15, 16 January 2013 : I posted my analysis: At this time the batteries were not seen as important by most analysts: Used some bold language, to sum up my results: That FAA have to ground the plane with many composites (oil and coal based), delivery stop later. Thought that this will push discussions: But seems as too hard - also newer analysts join my tone. Discussions should deepen knowledge and lead to increased article quality: Seems low. Wanted to discuss before that: [166]

Proposed a section for bleedless technology: Important new feature.

1. 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC) FAA grounded Dreamliner, sooner than i expected
2. User:Fnlayson, Highly regarded by me, one of the most active editors in aircrafts, with good and very wide knowledge, always (often after a revert and following tags ;-) ) able to find a good text/wording: This is NO accusation and i support no forces against him, but: he had deleted some posts of the newest incidents, especially sections including words like: "Grounding", "Incidents" and other words. Tried to make the incidents look not so serious? No accusations, no diffs, just trying to improve neutrality.
3. After short time with User:Fnlayson found: "Among 787 flight systems, a key change from traditional airliners is the electrical architecture. The architecture is bleedless and replaces bleed air...": Better.
4. Posted tags: "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines, allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy." [167]
5. Was taken to ANI by User:Andros 1337 with: "This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda". IMHO User:Andros 1337 is biased and violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
6. Responded at ANI and at Dreamliner talk.
7. My comments were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor (and admin) of the article: This should be undone: Although the title and the first posts were pushing too hard and achieved the contrary of an discussion, its made for article improvement and discussion. But: Should probably continue in a new section. (copied)Tagremover (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Extended content mostly tangential to the discussion about Tagremover's conduct
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines...." Facts: This is a reference of a manufacturer, a PRIMARY source: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:PRIMARY. Also many editors will not accept those at all, i do under some circumstances. But here we have a manufacturer PRAISING THAT HIS TECHNOLOGY IS BETTER than competitors: CLEARLY POV ! "says": See ref: Boeing believes...and expects... : Thats different! Are all systems included, for example de-icing? 35% compared to what EXACTLY? An equally modern system isn´t meant: Airbus disputes that. Stop that biased anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing thinking ! Technology has to be understood: But this statement is vague. Reference is OLD (6 years?), a clearly PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, a time diff in which the whole system was constructed in reality. A NEWER ref of EXISTING tech is needed. ...allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy. see above. "The total available on-board electrical power is 1.45 megawatts, which is five times the power available on conventional pneumatic airliners...": Sounds not very efficient: Has to be explained/detailed. Advertising primary source Result: "indisputable": Its too sad to LAUGH about. Has to be rewritten! "According to Boeing, the 787 consumes 20% less fuel than the similarly sized 767" This is a message of MAJOR importance, the KEY reason for the Dreamliner: FUEL-EFFICIENY ! Avoid ANY biasing, it bias the message of the WHOLE article! Facts: This is a reference of a manufacturer, a PRIMARY source: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:PRIMARY. Also many editors will not accept those at all, i do under some circumstances. But here we have a manufacturer PRAISING THAT HIS AIRCRAFT IS BETTER than competitors: CLEARLY POV ! Outdated: [168]. Design changes: See the history of Dreamliner. Example: Design change: Weight increase. Design change: Range reduction. Clearly ADVERTISING: "super-efficient airplane", "top aerospace companies", "unmatched fuel efficiency", "exceptional environmental performance", "exceptional performance" ...I wouldn´t trust this text a thing. Minimum this section seems to be written by advertising department, sentence with 20% just copied from old text. "similarly sized 767": similarly see weight increase, and: What version, which age, what for engines? Vague ! 787 : What version? Vague ! How is that calculated? Per seat? Vague ! But: ANA said 21% fuel savings. [169] But: Tokyo-Frankfort is nearly out of range even for the 767-300ER, an extended midrange-model, must be measured in shorter distances, like North-American east-coast <> Western-Europe. Vague: Per seat, aircraft, or whole payload? And: A350 - direct competitor - not mentioned: Also its preliminary. Results (major message): Reference as unreliable, primary, old, vague and advertising: disputed ! 20% highly questionable (deleted), 21% (ANA) vague. Has to be rewritten! "...the world's first major airliner to use composite materials for most of its construction" IMPORTANT message. Facts: Detail: Meant is most of its weight, not most of its volume. Outdated: [170]. Design changes: See the history of Dreamliner. Example: Design change: Weight increase. Design change: Range reduction. 51%, 50% (other refs), or 49% ? Or: Much more Titanium? Boeing's 787 Dreamliner is no lightweight (Describes plane ready to flight) Result:: Has to be rewritten. Airbus A350 Now i´m not pro-Airbus or somewhat: But the competitor A350: Is not ready Not such a major change in design preliminary data of unready plane So: Easier to believe. But: "with up to 8% lower operating cost than the Boeing 787": 2006 reference: 787 changed: Outdated: Has to be REWRITTEN ! Tupolev Tu-144 Example for some pro-American or anti-Russian/Soviet bias: Especially the Tu-144D was a really good plane. Not copied from Concorde, but developed out of the Tu-135 variants, the Tu-125 and other not realized projects including Myasishchev variants/projects. Now, where does biasing come from? Its not exactly clear. Chronology: 17:15, 16 January 2013 : I posted my analysis: At this time the batteries were not seen as important by most analysts: Used some bold language, to sum up my results: That FAA have to ground the plane with many composites (oil and coal based), delivery stop later. Thought that this will push discussions: But seems as too hard - also newer analysts join my tone. Discussions should deepen knowledge and lead to increased article quality: Seems low. Wanted to discuss before that: [171] Proposed a section for bleedless technology: Important new feature. 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC) FAA grounded Dreamliner, sooner than i expected User:Fnlayson, Highly regarded by me, one of the most active editors in aircrafts, with good and very wide knowledge, always (often after a revert and following tags ;-) ) able to find a good text/wording: This is NO accusation and i support no forces against him, but: he had deleted some posts of the newest incidents, especially sections including words like: "Grounding", "Incidents" and other words. Tried to make the incidents look not so serious? No accusations, no diffs, just trying to improve neutrality. After short time with User:Fnlayson found: "Among 787 flight systems, a key change from traditional airliners is the electrical architecture. The architecture is bleedless and replaces bleed air...": Better. Posted tags: "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines, allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy." [172] Was taken to ANI by User:Andros 1337 with: "This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda". IMHO User:Andros 1337 is biased and violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Responded at ANI and at Dreamliner talk. My comments were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor (and admin) of the article: This should be undone: Although the title and the first posts were pushing too hard and achieved the contrary of an discussion, its made for article improvement and discussion. But: Should probably continue in a new section. Low Article quality Especially Aircraft articles seem to consist of quite isolated, ordered sentences; a list of sentences. Also articles contain a lot of info, no real concept or coherent explanation. Talk pages sometimes similar: "Does this isolated sentence comply with the following reference?" This is no real discussion. Improvements Must mainly be done regarding a few editors. Difficult. But this anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war is disruptive and leads to biased, low Article quality. Talk? Discuss?

Remarks

"OK, we do the change: But later, in a few weeks/months, we revert everything and let the Dreamliner article be again the dream of all fans and Boeing." is not good. Tagremover (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of hatting that mass of text which as the comment says is content and not really germane to the issue at hand. Blackmane (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I was about assume good faith and suggest we didnt need this thread as Tagremover has raised his issues on the talk page, but he edited the article again to add back in the two dubious tags on referenced statements, so we are getting close to being disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed tags: [173] I just added them a second time (according WP:3RR, update: first revert), placed my reasons on the talk page: NO ANSWER. Removed them. But discuss on talk page. Tagremover (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw this [174] together with a lot of edits also of User:MilborneOne on the talk page, but NO contrary statement, as an agreement. Again: Discuss. Give (contrary?) reasons. Tagremover (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In general: This is IMHO and according to other users (collapsed above) not the right place to discuss article content. First the article talk page should be used. But: My reasons were ignored, and with the result or even intention to take any editor, who tries to remove biased, pro-Boeing statements and is obviously able to discuss, to ANI and get him blocked: WP:GAME.

Again: I propose you or someone else give reasons on the article talk. Discuss.

And: This case should be closed, as it is annoying for me and everybody else taken to ANI without reason or the reason to suppress any removal of bias, see also WP:OWN. Tagremover (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:Marteau:

1. It would be nice and easier, if you post your new comments, where they could easily be found: At the end.
2. "change the brains and believes of humans" was directly related to anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war: I am not and will be not the main editor of Dreamliner and even a lot more aircrafts: As i already said, i highly respect for example User:Fnlayson for his great work. So: This are only a few statements which are obviously positive for Boeing, and if the bias (my result) should be removed permanently, editors with a some participation have to agree.
3. I am absolutely open for a discussion. IMHO this could be done on the article talk page; no dispute resolution needed now: The problem is ignorance, not reasons. But if someone thinks dispute resolution is needed and he will participate, of course.

Please, could a nice administrator close this case of WP:GAME and WP:OWN quickly: Also i think it was wrong and aggressive to accuse me here, its wasting my (and others) time as it will not satisfy me if other users get punished for accusing me. And: IMHO everything is said. Thanks in advance. Tagremover (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at DGM

URL references from the good-article Discipline Global Mobile are being removed, because they comply with DGM's terms of service, which prohibit links to internal pages. Apparently DGM's ToS has no weight on Wikipedia, alas.

A WP-compliant action would be for editors to add url information, if they wish.

Unfortunately, apart from one edit by Pigsonthewing, editors who advocate complete urls to internal DGM pages are not inserting such urls. Rather, they are disrupting the article with improperly used dead-link tags, messed-up formatting with misplaced plain-text urls, stray [], etc.

At least they should be required to use the preview function before inflicting their edits on the world. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As the unnamed editor who damaged the article in an attempt to remove clearly incorrect links claiming to source information about living people; after failing to comment out the offending material, I removed it entirely. I thought it would be less disruptive to comment it out than to delete it. Per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of the editor adding material to supply a source. If a URL is to be included, it should not be misleading.

This being the fourth or fifth place he's commented on this, perhaps something should be done.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that Talk:Discipline Global Mobile#Disruptive editing seems to have descended into a slanging match between Kiefer and Andy, I think it does deserve attention here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

This grievance re the conduct of Editor Alexbrn concerns the main tenet of WP, NPOV. NPOV is clear & unambiguous, yet Alexbrn; who is a Journeyman Editor with over 2,000 edits, has been on WP over 5 1/2 years, is a native speaker of English, & has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in English, advised me on the Talk page: "You misunderstand NPOV, and you're wasting everybody's time - not least your own. I suggest you carefully review the discussion on the Burzynski Clinic article to see how multiple editors - not just me - view your proposed additions, and how WP policy applies. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 1:04 am, Yesterday (UTC−6)". This grievance covers posts from 1/13 - 1/16/2013 which are listed below. Please note that the links contain posts by others, unrelated to this grievance. I've worked in the legal industry for over 22 years & in my humble opinion, if you have a PhD in English like Alexbrn claims on their User page, & you don't understand WP:NPOV, maybe you shouldn't be a WP Editor. [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013

• Uh...would you mind actually explaining what your grievance is? It's clear that you're upset with Alexbrn, but you haven't said why you're upset, or what the issue you're upset over is, or what administrator intervention you're asking for. By the way, the unresolved tag isn't necessary here, so I've removed it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Fluffernutter, Ummm...I'm not upset with Alexbrn; I'm too old to get upset, because Alexbrn is biased, so I know what I'm dealing with. My grievance is clearly explained in the links provided but I am happy to repeat it here as well. I requested that information be included in the referenced Article & Alexbrn proceeded to advise me that: "It seems clear from previous discussion on this page there is no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material you are requesting; quite the opposite in fact: a strong consensus not to add it, with plenty of reasoned argument in support. The article presents the well-sourced consensus view of the scientific/medical communities already. We shouldn't be undermining that with poorer-quality sources." (1/15/2013) AND "The article gives the consensus view of the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK. In relation, other one-off articles are "poorer-sources", and we must not use them to undermine the clearly presented consensus." (1/16/2013). WP:NPOV clearly indicates: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is NONNEGEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it." "The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors' consensus." (Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.). In my humble opinion, Alexbrn & other volunteer editors are biased and are attempting to only present their biased viewpoint in the Article in question, instead of FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Therefor, I'm simply requesting that if Alexbrn & some of the other voluntary editors are going to be allowed to continue to be the gatekeepers of what information is published in this Article, that they be required to comply with WP:NPOV & WP:MEDRS policies & publish the information I requested be published unless they are able to cite a valid WP policy that supersedes WP:NPOV. Thank you very much. 166.205.68.49 (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013

(edit conflict) Didymus Judas Thomas is asked not to use all caps; (use two single quotes for italics e.g. ''italics''. NPOV is one of five pillars which is coequal with, not supreme to, the other four; specifically consensus, which is fairly clear on the talk page. If they wish to pursue the matter further I'd recommend rfc. NE Ent 02:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong venue; use dispute resolution as you yourself suggested (5th diff). No admin action needed here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Seb az86556 archived this thread with the above archive message. I hate to unarchive it, but I believe this may be rather premature. There are behavioural issues to deal with here, and we shouldn't just dismiss them with telling people to shoot off through the DR process: recently, Didymus Judas Thomas and Alexbrn appeared at DRN, and nothing substantive happened. Delegating this stuff out won't solve it, we need to have a look at the behavioural issues here.

If you peruse the discussion on Talk:Burzynski Clinic, it's quite apparent to see that User:Didymus Judas Thomas has a real problem with communicating with other editors and there seem to be repeated problems of WP:IDHT, appeal to irrelevant policies and other behavioural issues. On the talk page, a topic ban has been suggested. If such a thing is to be done, we should probably discuss it here. I am not an expert on medical matters, nor on the correct interpretation of WP:MEDRS, so I shall not offer any opinion other than "there seem to be some plausible complaints about DJT's behaviour, let's have a chat about them". (Of course, I shall now probably have everything from my birthday to my alma mater to my shoe size repeated back to me when addressed.)

Perhaps adding to the motivation for this discussion, if you Google for "Didymus Judas Thomas" burzynski you will find that someone with the same name spends quite a lot of time posting on a lot of blog comment sections defending Burzynski and his treatment. This might lead one to think that Didymus Judas Thomas is a paid advocate working for Burzynski. Or not. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good points here; seems like an at least partial boomerang. I didn't see that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a block is needed here. I suggest that it be an indef one. I see lots of POV pushing here --Guerillero | My Talk 22:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Lords of the New Church

I don't have a lot of experience with BLPs but does this qualify as a BLP violation removal, is it a legal threat or something else? Qualified input would be appreciated. --Saddhiyama (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Judging by the user's contribs, it sounds like they've been in contact with WMF legal/community departments and are perhaps confused about how to act on whatever response the WMF gave them. Their behavior is a bit weird, but I suspect they're fumbling around in an effort to do things by the book. Saddhiyama, it doesn't look like you've notified the IP editor of this ANI thread yet. When you do, hopefully they will come here and we can help them sort out what it is they want to see done, and why. IP, if you do decide to participate in this thread, please remember that while we're happy to help you, if you make any threats of legal action against Wikipedia or its editors, you will be blocked per our policy until the legal action is over or the threat is withdrawn, whichever comes first. It's nothing personal, it's just for the protection of all parties that if someone wants to use a lawsuit, they have to pursue matters through the lawsuit rather than on-wiki. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)IP notified. The section doesn't seem to be in violation of WP: BLPGROUP. I don't think they are particularly insinuating legal action, but, looking at their talkpage, it's possible they may have their own anti-LOTNC WP: AGENDA. Sadaam Insane (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm here and I'm trying to protect the band brand name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.78.24 (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am a stakeholder in the band and I'm only concerned over ommitted historical information and new misinformation that may cause harm to the brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.78.24 (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Still trying to participate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.78.24 (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You cannot "protect the brand band name" here. If there is information that is valid and properly sourced, it's going to be in the article whether or not the band approves of it. Our restrictions on BLP aren't an excuse for censoring information you don't approve of.

I suggest that you have a serious conflict of interest in regard to this subject, and need to follow the most stringent requirements of the COI policy: that is, please cease to edit the article directly, and instead make editing suggestion on the article talk page, to be acted upon by neutral editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Eliminating a listing of band personnel with a thinly veiled legal threat as a rationale? Hmmmm. Good luck with that. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Xerographica

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

---

I cannot help but wonder why User:Xerographica would add this section to User_talk:Xerographica#Removal_of_Relevant_Sourced_Content (See: [183]) and title the section "Removal of Relevant Sourced Content". S/he is referring to another specific user. While I am unfamiliar with the various aspects of Trolling, this seems to qualify. Xerographica has been blocked in the past (for a total of over 4 weeks, 96 hours) for PA related comments. This latest edit, in my own opinion, is another effort to be disruptive. Why should such a note be posted? It does not indicate willingness to cooperate with the community. --S. Rich (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you ask them? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

When content of article isnt about title of article

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but I have noticed an article that is supposed to be about a certain historical song, but once you enter to read about it, there is only 1 sentence about the actual song, and even this single sentence does not include any information about the date, context and reason it was composed, but a claim that is missing a citation. Following this is a header about a recent event from 2 days ago, and a whole paragraph about that citing newspapers. This of course is related to the song in question, but seeing that the song has an 80 year old history, it would seem that this paragraph (if at all) should find its place at the end of an article under controversies, after content about the actual song.

In addition, the article has been locked for editing 2 days ago, right after the event in question took place. I have posted on the conversation page a number of times to inform that the page is biased, as well as that it contains a number of falsities that can easily be checked, and the article still remains as it was. In addition, one editor's answer to my post raised my nationality into question.

I would like to know what to do in this case.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centarpsr (talk • contribs) 11:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment):

A good start would have been to include the name of the article . It is presumably March on the Drina.

After reading the article, your description above does not seem correct. The article describes the event about which the song was written, its history, includes lyrics in 3 languages (!), and cites many versions that have been produced. It seems to flow well as written.

I don't see any posting by you to the talk page, unless you are the 212.* IP editor (you should make sure to log in always, and to sign talk page posts with ~~~~), and I see no responses by anyone else to that editor's posts. The page does not seem to be edit-protected in any way. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Centarpsr Thanks for the quick reply! The English version is ok, and yes, I also contributed to it. I am referring to the Croatian version of the article. I didn't name it initially since I wanted to be sure I was on the right track first. —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's an article on a different language of Wikipedia, there's nothing we can do here - each language has its own processes, administrators, and discussion pages (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas at Talk:Burrito

In an ongoing discussion regarding bold changes to content restructuring, content removal, and re-reversions (1, 2), at the article Burrito, Viriditas has indirectly accused myself of sock-puppetry, with this edit. In the edit he/she claims that Biancles is an SPA. This is the latest reply, in what I have considered a series of uncivil replies made by Viriditas (please see the candidate page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas1 (which still requires an additional certifier) for further information). This discussion, already had a third opinion (by Go Phightins!), and RfC to receive additional editors opinions in an attempt to build a consensus. Up until this (what I believe is) NPA, I had repeatedly asked for civility, and was attempting to start an RfC/UC; however, due to the NPA. I am beginning this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional accusations of puppetry and incivility While I have no beef (well I hope it's beef) in this burrito article (for the record I love S.F. burritos), I too have experienced recent unpleasantries with Viriditas being uncivil and accusing others of puppetry. In a unrelated burrito & Viriditas matter, I politely asked another user on their talkpage to be more careful about using "vandalism" in edit summaries when reverting edits. Viriditas joins the conversation and accuses me of editing on behalf of a "block sock puppet". Then further on in the conversation Viriditas makes a completely unfounded and grossly offensive statement that I have "been on an anti-LGBT crusade for Christ". I assume being called a homophobe is a violation of WP:NPA. I also personally find the statement claiming I'm doing something on behalf of any religion repugnant (my apologies to editors of faith in advance, I don't mean to cast aspersions on your beliefs). Despite Viriditas requesting me not to post on his talk page, I ignored his request in light of his gross accusations and warned him with a template. His response was to delete the warning (no big deal), however his edit summary once again made another accusation of puppetry stating "What part of "banned from my talk page" don't you understand sock?". I had some email conversations with another editor about this incident, and as a result of those discussions and some passing time I decided to take no action. However I see that this is not an isolated incident. I don't know what administrative action should be taken here, but at the very least Viriditas should be admonished for this behavior.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, looking back, is not the first statement made by Viriditas that could be considered an Ad hominem argument which falls under WP:WIAPA. The initial re-reversion came after this statement:

We don't edit Wikipedia based on your personal preferences for a region, we edit based on the sources which describe these regional variations in order as Mexico - San Francisco - San Diego. You don't get to subvert this order because YOUDONTLIKEIT.

This reversion of a reversion, did not abide by WP:BRD. I replied to this by asking for civility, as at that point I continued to assume good faith. Therefor this makes, IMHO, two events where Viriditas had posted something that falls within WIAPA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• The aforementioned RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas1, is proposed for deletion, "Uncertified RFC/U after 48 hours". However, the RfC policy says "Any RFC/U not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours"; it does not say that it needs to be certified within 48 hours, and the RfC makes a claim that more than one user tried and failed to resolve the dispute, though there is as yet no second certified. As such, I am unwilling right now to delete it since I don't think the letter of the law says I should. A second opinion from an admin would be welcome; there do appear to be concerns about Viriditas's behavior, though I cannot judge the validity of such claims--I'll err on the side of caution since, as far as I know, RightCow and Rosetta are not trolls. For the record, I also like burritos, though for some reason they remind me of sepositories. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• That RfC is gone now. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of this discussion, is it possible to undue the deletion? Although all the content can be found through searching through the history of the article, its talk page, and the talk page of Viriditas, the work done to create it already alleviates the need to do much of that searching. This will assist non-involve editors in quickly looking at the history of the discussion, and the issues I believe have occured.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am against restoring the RfC; I did read it before deleting it, and I couldn't see anything that is worthy of an RfC, which is probably why nobody would certify it within the time limit. Why not just continue to discuss the matter in article talk? Or not; it's hardly an earth-shaking issue you are in dispute over. --John (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the RfC and I agree with John on its content. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It was my first try at formating an RfC/UC, I sincerely hope that the events in question were not lost due to my poor formatting. Moreover, I hope that I rarely (if ever) have to create another one. Ideally all editors whom I happen to discuss content with will not require an RfC/UC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support WP:CIVIL  I added Viriditas' talk page to my watch list after an incident, and regularly see personal attacks used to remove edit comments.  I support the call for an admin warning.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I have not accused RightCowLeftCoast of any sock puppetry. He has apparently misunderstood my comments as well as most of the discussion on the talk page, including: how we use appropriate sources (not poems that you find in a Google search!) what constitutes original research (we don't add source A and source B together to come up with content C), how verifiability helps us choose content (if we can't verify what a source says we usually can't use it if there is a dispute), and more importantly, how to resolve disputes on the talk page (it means actually discussing the topic not asking others to answer for you or relying on the answers of others). In response to all of these questions, he has made repeated accusations of incivility rather than engage in the discussion. This pattern tends to look like WP:IDHT after a while. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a board to discuss content dispute, but editor's actions. I believe that I have responded by attempting to refute the points brought up, by explaining the guidelines and policies as I understand it, and so far there is a plurality of editors who have stated that I have and for the most part agreed with me. I have gone through dispute resolution process by requesting a third opinion, and began an RfC which has lead to the plurality that I have stated above. When faced with comments that I believe were uncivil I kindly asked that incivility ceased, only for continued incivility. I had hoped that it would not come to this, however after two instances that IMHO fall under WP:WIAPA...

Regardless, if I am not accused of sockpuppetry, it is still bad form to address that statement by Biancles as a SPA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that you've tried very, vey hard to turn into a conduct dispute by ignoring the questions and points raised in the discussion and accusing me of incivility over and over again. To me, this is a case of IDHT. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet I have not ignored questions, and points, and have answered them. Others have stated, not just Biancles, that I have done so. However, at the same time I have had several replies which IMHO are uncivil, and have been accused of IDHT and not answering the questions and points posted by Viriditas.

Based on what others have posted IDHT is not the case, therefore please stop making the false accusation. If Viriditas believes IDHT still occurs, may I say sorry in advance for any misunderstanding this may cause, as I have done in the past I will continue to reply and answer questions and points (even if others believe I am not).

As I said before, it is OK for us not to agree, as long as we remain civil. As I have said, since we did not disagree I followed the dispute resolution (3O & RfC) process and a consensus was formed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is a ridiculous thread and it's implausible that it will lead to any admin action -- certainly not against Viriditas. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please expand, I would like to know why any editor is above any action.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

But, that's not what he said or implied. This is another example of your continuing misreading of comments. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What is implied? This is why I am asking for an expansion of comment, for clarification. What about this thread is ridiculous? What is meant by "it's implausable that it will lead to any admin action -- certainly not against Viriditas"? What is implausible, that admin action will occur, or that admin action will occur that reflects upon Viriditas, something else?

I would have liked to avoid all this. This could have been done through civil discussion; yet here we are.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know why any editor is above any action No one is above any action, but your alleged question is a simple example of "Begging the question", where it assumes that there is some action that needs to be taken. And "we" are here because you chose (unnecessarily) to be here, so you really shouldn't be talking about how you wanted to avoid anything. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me expand on what I meant. When I say I would have liked to avoid all this, I mean I would have liked it if Ad hominem arguments made against me did not happen, I mean I would have liked it if the conversation on the Burrito Talk Page was civil, I mean if those two things did not occur, the situation would have never arose that lead me to starting this discussion. I hope this is more clear.

I had tried to ask (multiple times) Viriditas to be civil. I had went through the dispute resolution process(es) that has established the present consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• The word "ridiculous" is defined at wiktionary as "Deserving of ridicule; foolish; absurd."  The use of such language does not befit a collegial atmosphere.  The use of such language should inure to the originator.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying that this thread is "ridiculous" is not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination.

So far, I'm not seeing anything sanctionable here. The only comment actually calling anyone a sock was in removing a generic warning template placed by User:Little_green_rosetta (whom Viriditas had previously asked not to post to his Talk page.) That was somewhat inappropriate but, given he wanted no contact from the editor, Viriditas was understandably upset at having a template slapped on his Talk by someone he wanted no contact with. And, given that this was from December 27, I don't think it qualifies as an "incident" needing immediate action. A troutslap is about all that would be warranted.

I haven't got time at the moment for a details combing through contributions to see if the accusations of meatpuppetry are valid or not, so I'll refrain from comment there. It does warrant some investigation to see if those comments are appropriate. If nothing else, there's a possible WP:BOOMERANG here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas

Note: Please compare the closed and collapsed thread "Strange closure of AN/I item "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote"" above, which was started by User:Deicas. It is highly relevant to this request. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

He has been here twice, and both times told that admins are not going to intervene in a content dispute. He has a a whole section on Talk:Paul Krugman devoted to uninvolved admins telling him that his arguments are not holding up. He has been told over and over about to cease his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT repetitions of his oft-rejected arguments. So what does he do now? He posts yet another point-by-point argument for inclusion of material that half a dozen people have already said is inappropriate because it's an off-hand remark taken out of context. Nobody should have to put up with this; I haven't measured it because nobody should have to work that hard, but I would guess that half if not more of the discussion on this article is devoted to his obstinate refusal to accept that everyone rejects his arguments. We could make progress in improving what is a pretty badly broken article if we didn't have to deal with (a) his bone-headed refusal to admit that his arguments are not being accepted, and that in fact people have specific (and in my opinion utterly valid) counter-arguments which he needs to address instead of brushing off, and (b) his propensity to fill the page with line after line of pseudo-logical bloviating which turn what should be one sentence (or at least short paragraph) responses into huge tracts of badly-formatted text which defies reading. I would take this through RFC/U were it not for the agony that would put us all through of having to repeat every last rambling word of this, poring over every bad argument at least one if not ten times; this has been hammered on so much that I don't see why we have to be tormented so. Please tell him he has to edit something else and leave at least this article alone. Mangoe (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not yet ready to support that proposition, although I am very sympathetic to the frustration. I wish there was some way to get through, because facts, polices, guidelines, analogies, rational arguments, and other approaches have failed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to hurry off somewhere, so I don't have time for a detailed response. But I've looked over the talk page, and don't think the behavior yet justifies a topic ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• How successful was your WP:RFC/U? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "I would take this through RFC/U were it not for the agony that would put us all through of having to repeat every last rambling word of this". Right there. just above these lines. --Calton | Talk 02:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In reply to User:Mangoe's request that I be topic-banned from Paul Krugman I respond:

In the course of contentious discussion at, and associated with, Talk:Paul Krugman I have observed a number of editors engaging in:

1) Extensive violations of WP:TEDIOUS, notably

"One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors" and;

2) Extensive violations of WP:GOODFAITH.

If anyone wants to see examples of these acts of WP:TEDIOUS and WP:GOODFAITH violations then ask and I will provide them below.

In response to this use of WP:TEDIOUS and violations of WP:GOODFAITH, and in the apparent absence of any other way to respond, I have engaged in close and careful logical argumentation with a view toward reasoning out the issue(s) in dispute. This "reasoning out" effort is *entirely* consistent with the best Wikipedia standards. If someone disputes my claim of "*entirely* consistent" I encourage them to do so.

If there are disinterested observers who believe that User:Mangoe's request, "PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas", on it's face, possesses *any* merit then please say so and I will address the accusations in detail. If there is a particular claim in User:Mangoe's request (e.g. "pseudo-logical bloviating", "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" "obstinate refusal", "bone-headed", "badly-formatted text", "uninvolved admins telling him that his arguments are not holding up", "bad argument" ) that you would like me to address then please mention that portion. Deicas (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that Deicas wants "logical argumentation" and "reasoning out" - which are good things of course - but to him these basically mean "badgering people until they agree or give up". Deicas seems to confuse "using logic and reason" with "agree with me!". A logical and rational person is, by definition, open to persuasion. Here what we have is more of a rhetorical tactic which seeks to mimic logic and rational argument to win a dispute in favor of an already arrived at conclusion. I believe that kind of behavior is called "sophistry".

Basically what happens is that someone says "X is Y". Then Deicas says "can you please provide evidence that X is Y". Ok, fair enough, here's the evidence. Then Deicas responds with "can you please provide evidence that your evidence shows that X is Y". Huh? What? Ok, let's try that. Here's evidence that the evidence provided is evidence. Then you get "can you please provide evidence that the evidence you provided to show that the evidence showing X is Y is valid?" etc.

Or someone says "Wikipedia policy says Z". Deicas says "can you please show the Wikipedia policy which says Z". Sure, here it is. "Can you please give a link to a policy which says that the policy you quoted is applicable". Etc. etc. etc.

I'm pretty sure Deicas would respond to my above characterization of his attitude with a "can you please provide evidence where I have done that". Well, the talk page of the article on Paul Krugman for one. But of course it's somewhat of an exaggeration, meant to illustrate the point (another rhetorical trick - to take what someone says ultra-literally). But the point is valid.

I guess it's possible that Deicas is acting in good faith and that he sincerely believes he is the only "rational and logical" person around on this article. Still, for all practical purposes, this is nothing but obstinacy and tendentiousness which is essentially indistinguishable from straight up bad faithed POV-pushing and "defending the truth". Both phenomenon - whether done in good faith or not - suffer from a good dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DEADHORSE, which is the essence of the problem here. And apparently, Deicas has been at it for two years [184] (albeit, I think, with a break), which has been noted by several commentators on the talk page.

Topic ban from Paul Krugman would be justifiable though honestly, I expect he'll just pick another article to do the same thing on. That's sort of the problem with people who are convinced that they are the only "rational and logical" ones around.Volunteer Marek 20:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is insisted that we put this through WP:RFC/U I will bow to that insistence, but I really am more inclined to let Deicas have his way on the article than make it three times in three months. We'll just repeat everything we've done here and on the talk page, and my stamina is not limitless. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the point of wearing down the opposition, everyone gives up and leaves allowing whatever changes one wishes to go forward. Insomesia (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

An RFC would be pointless bureaucracy in this case, as there's already plenty of evidence regarding behavior and plenty of feedback on same. Just take a quick skim of

• The article talk page in question, particularly this part
• This trainwreck of a Dispute Resolution attempt
• This ANI thread
• This follow-up when Deicas didn't get his way on the original thread
• This bit of forum-shopping.

So, is further bureaucracy needed? --Calton | Talk 02:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas topic ban proposal

This proposal is to ban the editor from the Paul Krugman article and related subjects broadly construed.

The user Deicas has become an SPA account since January of 2011 [185] (accounting to more than half of this editor's contributions). The editor has become extremely disruptive on a number of venues (including this one) and has a number of issues including WP:ICANTHEARYOU where he has been advised a number of times on policy, procedure and guidelines, but refuses to "get the point". The user has been edit warring and disrupting the Krugman article to such a point that the article has been locked until January 20. A recent AN/I was hatted by Admin User:Jayron32 with the heading "OP has been advised on how to proceed". Unfortunately, that does not mean the editor has or ever will take the advice. The editor does not lack the ability to communicate, but refuses to do so in an informal manner and continues Wikilawyering at almost every turn, making it nearly impossible to understand the basic question or concern, which appears to be purposely devised.

Support as proposer.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Amadscientist. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I am having a very hard time seeing what benefit Deicas could be to Paul Krugman specifically and Wikipedia in general. Deicas insists that editors opposing Deicas' suggested changes are making "no rational argumentation". What's really happening is that editors are making normal informal but logical arguments in supporting or objecting to suggested changes. Deicas does the exact opposite of both of those things: Deicas makes illogical arguments but with a highly "formal logic"-sounding format and in legalese. Additionally, Deicas insists that other editors conform to Deicas' own pseudo-formal logic format while totally overlooking the easily accessible points in the straightforward, plain-language arguments others make. And, when other editors refuse, as it's unreasonable of Deicas to require other editors to reformat and restate and reformat and restate their points to Decias' satisfaction, Deicas simply declares whatever the other editors wrote to be invalid, restates Decias' own position, and declares that Deicas' position is therefore "The Consensus". This one of the worst cases of WP:SOUP I've run across in a while. Zad68 02:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above which I think echos Zad68's pretty closely (and that WP:SOUP essay - man, I wish I've been aware of this earlier).Volunteer Marek 03:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my examination of D's contribs during the previous thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, this bullshit has gone on long enough. What's the over/under on him being indeffed?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  05:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- we've had far too much disruption on Krugman from Deicas. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I've been wondering how long the others at Talk:Paul_Krugman were going to put up with his disruptive nonsense. I've noticed at least two other editors giving him advice and guidance, only to become discouraged and frustrated (as we all are) by his puzzling comments -- which seem to be a nearly laughable form of wiki-lawyering. He does not appear to know the meaning of collaboration, he takes disagreement personally (and annoyingly asks everyone to strike comments he doesn't like), and I believe that he's violated wp:canvassing more than once. Also I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that in those two years absent from editing (Jan. '11 to Jan.'13), he was using a different account. El duderino ^(abides) 07:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support following the reasoning of the proposer and the supporters. Alternate solution: restrict Deicas to fifteen words or less comments at Paul Krugman and related topics.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as someone who would like the talk page to contribute to making the article better, instead of endless arguments about the same things over and over again. FurrySings (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - xe may be annoying and in the minority, but that's no reason for a topic ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, classic wikilawyering and attempting to get one's way by argumentum ad nauseam goes far beyond "annoying", Nathan. It hugely wastes the time and energies of good-faith contributors who could be doing something useful. I support the topic ban, but I actually think it's a mild measure here. I could see an indefblock, per Little green rosetta. Thanks for reminding me of the WP:SOUP essay, Zad; that's exactly what this is a bad case of. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC).

Indef would be fine with me. I think topic bans are useful in a very narrow range of situations, of which this is not one. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U

Given that there was at least one call for it, I have prepared Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deicas should people feel it a necessary prelude to action. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It really isn't necessary, enough ink has been spilt. Look at the support for the proposal above. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC).

User:Kyntale

User:Kyntale has violated 3RR here. An admin please step in and take the necessary action. The content he's added wreaks of COI from a non notable magazine and affects article neutrality and undue.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ernst, it's been reverted again. But there was nothing on the editor's talk page until you posted there: if any of the reverters had left a 3R warning, I could easily have blocked for the next time they reverted. I've warned them, and no doubt they'll be blocked if there is a next time. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

He's reverted 9 times!!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, was getting fed up with reverting him.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat at talk:Amble

Resolved: Blocked for 48 hours per NLT. m.o.p 21:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Any more defamatory comments from you will result in legal action. Posted by a representative of the amblenorthumberland.co.uk website"
I guess that's a very clear threat and should be dealed with accordingly. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

not a threat, a promise ; short nlt block anyone? (dynamic ip) NE Ent 19:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't bother blocking me - I wont be bothering with this site again - its a joke! it protects people making defamatory comments yet threatens those who attempt to stick up for their good name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.222.22 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact, we work hard to remove defamatory statements; it's simply Wikipedia requires using internal processes to do so rather than legal action. Admittedly the processes are very messy and perhaps not well documented / explained to new editors. If you simply make an affirmative statement you do not intend to take legal action against Wikipedia or any of its editors you welcome to contribute as best you can. NE Ent 21:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

IP following me and possibly threating

Resolved: Offending editor blocked. m.o.p 20:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This is one of his edits [186]. He probably left the message at my talk page, like he is anonmymus and he doesn't forget. What can be done about this IP? And please, check if this user has any connection to User:San culottes, as his sock puppets often made similiar edits concerning me only. --Wüstenfuchs 19:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a clear violation of the wikihounding policy due to edit warring and personal attacks and I think that the IP should be blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User has been blocked by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). m.o.p 20:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What?

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

---

Hi this user keeps undoing my edits from this user because of sillyness. Carson is a sockpuppet of me and someone else said to blank my talk page so I told Carson and the user undid it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alameda15 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You can blank the talk page of your primary account, but the notice on the sock account will stay unless you can get the admin who posted it King of Hearts (talk · contribs) to agree to remove it. NE Ent 19:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have tagged the user page as a sock and redirected the talk to it. This is the normal method of dealing with sock accounts. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not really. There's an open, two month old request for closure on that vary topic, in case any admin/senior editor has time on their hands.... NE Ent 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by user Flyboyguy

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

---

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

When challenged about changes made to the article Reichen Lehmkuhl this user has replied with a legal threat, alleging defamation and claiming a relevant power of attorney. William Avery (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've indeffed him as the threat was clear. I've also removed the promotional edits added by the editor to the article, which also made the article look like an unholy mess. At the same time, I've severely pruned back the section that I imagine the editor found objectionable. it was miserably written (tabloidy), and almost every source was dead. It was too problematic from a BLP point of view to have all those dead links. The section is now short, neutral, and sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Block review request

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

---

This was my first block in so I'm posting this for review. The Fake ID (talk · contribs) was created seemingly just to review a good article candidate which had previously been reviewed by an involved editor. I have reverted their edits and blocked them. I am open to any administrator undoing my actions if I made a mistake. I have also opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suresh Elangovan. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you inadvertently omit some words above ("my first block in")? In any event, the block and the undoing of the user's edits seem reasonable to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In 2013? Anyway, the block is fine per usual standard around here which, unfortunately, is often crappy. Why not first ask the user if they're an alternate account first? What's with the FPP on J Milburn's user page? Tacky. NE Ent 23:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Gee, NE, crappy and tacky in one short response. That's crusty even for you. I see no point in asking The Fake ID who he is. What kind of response would be helpful? It doesn't surprise me that you know more Wikipedia acronyms than I do, so I'll bite: what's FPP? Flying purple pundits?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My first block in a while, I was meaning. FPP? J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, good, I'm not the only one.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Free picture promotion? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Full page protection, although I don't see that it's related to the block. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had it like that for several years. It's never been mentioned before as I remember, and has never created any issues. Before it was protected, it attracted a lot of vandalism. Is it really a problem? I'm certainly not seeing what's "tacky" about it. J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the issue, either. It might be problematic to indefinitely lock your talk page, but generally except for removing vandalism, no one should edit your user page but you. And I agree - tacky is an odd word to use.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I don't make this stuff up -- FPP is periodically used to stand for full page protection 1 2 3. Thought maybe J Milburn was newly minted mop wielder, went to user page and the first thing that popped was the "view source" in placed of the usual "edit this page." Contrary to the gestalt of wikipedia -- "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia."NE Ent 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It was not pre-emptive, and my userpage is not an article. I'm not a new admin, I just don't hang around this noticeboard. This thread reminds me why. J Milburn (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that this thread is not giving you a warm and fuzzy feeling? I confess I'm not one of those admins who's smart enough to stay away from here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

JM, would it cheer you a bit if I said that I assumed "FPP" stood for "Frowning Philosopher Picture"?--Shirt58 (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps they're an editor who doesn't want to be associated with a minor religion in India for some personal real-life issues. How the heck would I know? That's why you ask the question. I thought there was a good faith thing around here somewhere, you know? NE Ent 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not all assumptions, including good faith, are reasonable depending on the circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In the time I've been active on Wikipedia, when it comes to AGF I have observed that you generally tend to reap what you sow. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Good and obvious block. I've deleted the GA review because not only is it obviously created by a sock of the original GA author (who shouldn't have been reviewing it), but even a cursory examination of the article shows that, generally well-written that it is, it doesn't reach GA yet - there are a number of prose issues. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as an obvious block given what happened. FurrySings (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Demiurge's refactoring of comments

topic ban

I was topic banned from the aspartame controversy page about 17 months ago. The first topic ban was for 3 months. I waited 3 months and assumed that when 3 months passed the ban would be lifted. It was but The administrator had the option of reinstating the ban at his whim. I had no chance to even present a case. Consequently when I signed on I was quickly topic banned for 1 year. Now one year has passed and I am allowed back on. My concern is that I am now forever subject to another topic ban on a whim of some administrator with no chance to even present a case. This is not fair. What option do i have? Can I get the original topic ban reversed. Will this stay with me for years?

Also before the original ban I was told by Kingoomieiii that i would not be banned if i was not impolite. i was polite but this advice was wrong. You should not give out false advice. Also before the original ban was in place i tried to change and all the warnings stopped..... or so i thought. In fact they moved to my talk page where i neglected to see them ( yes this was my fault) Arydberg (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Myself and many other editors have explained to you over the last year that WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX on which to stand and push an anti aspartame POV. So long as you don't attempt to push a fringe POV on aspartame then you won't get topic banned, but you've made it clear that you believe it is a bad substance and therefore feel the need to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You were not rebanned at an admin's whim, you were rebanned because you continued the behavior that got you banned in the first place; so long as you don't continue your previous behavior then you won't be rebanned, it's really that simple. Sædon^talk 04:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above, I see no real reason to repeal the topic ban on Aspartame. You clearly don't yet get it. Saedon has condensed the entire situation pretty well. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Per Saedon; also, don't ignore messages and warnings on your talk page in the future, and it won't seem so surprising if and when you're blocked or banned. KillerChihuahua 16:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso's disruptive conduct

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

---

Ihardlythinkso is calling my edits as "close to vandalism" and "baiting"!! please see this diff. All that I did replace - (hyphen) with N/A (Not available) to this section of Chess960 article. Is this not a personal attack?! Ihardlythinkso says in edit summary that "lost AGF with you". (Please take a look at history if you want evidence). When did I do any bad faith edit? All that I did was an effort to improve articles that need improvement. Ihardlythinkso calls me as intentionally dense and enjoys pissing other editors!! I just tried to clarify the article. The editor also describes my edits as unnecessary edits. Forgot to put name 07:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This user seems to feel WP:BRD and collaborative discussion, when there is disagreement about change, doesn't apply to him. [187]. It's been near impossible to get him to article Talk, he prefers to force his changes, he'd rather revert-war. On the current change disagreement, I opened a discussion at his User talk, which he totally ignored. Excuse me, but I thought this was a collaborative project where discussion is entered into when there is disagreement over a change. User:Forgot to put name knows when there is disagreement, but prefers his steamroller rather than any discussion or collaboration. Yes, I've lost patience with that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ignore the discussion that you opened at my talk page. I pointed you the meaning of N/A at Wiktionary and then made the change. You tell that the meaning of N/A is "ambiguous" since it has nearly six definitions. OK, let's write the meaning of N/A at the end of the table. Is it OK now?? Or let's convert the hyphen into em dash for clarity (—). Let's stop the "revert-war" here. I'm suggesting use of em dash because hyphen is used only for connecting two words. But I think N/A is more appropriate here because readers are likely to get confused. I would like to tell why I didn't come to article talk page. I didn't come to article talk page because it's nearly impossible to establish consensus on talk page. (Almost noone is watching the page). And to establish consensus more than 2 people should be there in discussion. The talk page is not well patrolled too. That's why I didn't go to the talk. I admit that I edit-warred a little bit, but I never talked impolitely (which Ihardlythinkso did). Forgot to put name 09:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Forgot to put name, you ignored the fact I had clear disagreement with your change at your User talk, and your response there even lead me to believe you accepted & agreed with my objections. Then, w/o having engaged in any discussion points, you went back to the article and reverted twice, leaving somewhat belligerent edit summaries. Now you are trying to conduct content discussion *here* with me, for the first time at any location, at an ANI you opened for my blood! This is not the place for content discussions. (But apparently you think it's a good time/place, now that at ANI, the "blocking gun" is placed to my head!?!?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Forgot to put name, you admit to edit warring, you admit to disfavor discussion at article Talk, and you admit to awareness of WP:BRD, but prefer to ignore it. But you object to impoliteness in the face of all this, and bay for my blood at ANI, which is supposed to be a last-resort mechanism. And you misuse it further, by trying to carry on content discussion here when you think I'm under a gun. Please take a hard look at your own Wiki-conduct first, before complaining about others'. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You two: We've had templates for marking table cells, for some time, now. There's a whole list of them at Template:No/doc#Templates in this series, and they let editors and readers distinguish between cells that haven't been filled in yet and cells that are intentionally empty. Use {{n/a}} for inapplicable cells and {{dunno}} for unknown data. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thx for pointing out. (I was looking for conventions re empty cells, but couldn't find anything in HELP:TABLES or MOS.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Uncle G for the suggestions! Forgot to put name 11:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• It would be desirable for Ihardlythinkso to use calmer language—there are ways of expressing an opinion in a more subtle manner, and apart from being nice, that avoids distractions from the underlying topic when people inevitably complain about a WP:CIVIL violation. However I happened to notice this edit by FTPN at WP:VAND. I reverted the change since the original was obviously correct (and the change made no sense), but FTPN restored the edit before asking exactly what the problem was. I don't feel like taking the time to work out the rights/wrongs at Chess960, but if similar issues are occurring at that article, I can understand Ihardlythinkso's concern. Also, raising an ANI report over this incident is not appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thx for your comments. I know I lost some cool. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the comments! @Ihardlythinkso, I was not discussing about content, I was discussing about your conduct towards me (See header of this thread). Forgot to put name 11:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • What are you talking about?? (Read what you wrote. You attempted to conduct content discussion with me here, at ANI, after baying for my blood. I do not know why you have such a problem with facts that are right in front of you. Also your just-now edit sums, "please don't violate the civility policy again", are hypocritical: you ignore your own incivilities, namely edit-warring, distain for WP:BRD, and informing everyone you have no use for the article Talk. You also leave belligerent edit sums. Do you care to point more fingers at who is uncivil?? You can get off my back now, yes?? Because it's gotten downright creepy.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, I have no use at article talk. But I have explained why it's so. I never lost my cool as you did. Let's end the lengthy discussion here. Compromise? Forgot to put name 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
          • You have already been told that opening of the ANI was inappropriate. So you have no basis for continuing to levy accusation against me as you did in your recent edit-summaries here. You claim upfront you have "no use for article Talk", as though it is some sort of virtue, even though it flies in the face of fundamental WP principles re collaboration between editors, and WP content dispute resolutin policy & guidelines. So on what basis do I "compromise" with you?? (Your behavior is rather "uncompromising" -- wouldn't you say?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Using article talk for content disputes isn't really optional -- you're required to use it if there are disputes. NE Ent 13:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

To Admins: How am I supposed to work collaboratively with this editor, when he has no problem admitting he doesn't plan on using article Talk for content resolution discussion?? I'm all ears. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

By not working mano-a-mano for months with a new editor until you lose your cool. Wikipedia is a numbers games (e.g. consensus). At some point when you recognize you're just not going to agree it's time to get help (e.g. WP:3RD, WP:DRN,WikiProject Chess. Also, article talk is way better than user talk for content discussions. NE Ent 13:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm all confused. Don't know what to do now. This has received 3 third-party comments and they have said that you are rude towards me. (Aren't you?) They tell that they have no time to examine whether my edits are problematic or no. Whatever be the condition, you mustn't lose your cool. (As you said another: "uncompromising", but my edits were not so problematic that it's uncompromising, actually your behavior towards me is very rude). If you say so much that my behavior is problematic, then why don't you see WP:3O? Already received a third opinion that we should use the {{n/a}} or {{dunno}} templates. Because I am little bit new at WP, I may have misused this noticeboard. If you feel that my behavior is little bit problematic, then you are free to educate me (Educate me if you want to do so). You are telling to admins that how to work collaboratively with me, then work collaboratively with me by compromising and using the templates mentioned above. If consensus supports you, then I will agree that I'm uncivil and a problematic editor. Forgot to put name 13:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Forgot, you've been told that using article Talk is not optional. You've been told the ANI thread was inappropriate. You admit edit-warring, but will you continue in that vein? (Revert-warring is inherently incivil.) "Consensus" isn't needed to see the behaviors problematic. No one is turning the ANI around on you. IMO you need to work on more ability engaging discussion, taking a view & convincing the others, listening to their side too & remaining objective. And I have my own things I need to improve as well. Good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, much of this seems to stem from Forgot's poor understanding of WP Policies and Guidelines. The rest is largely attributable to Ihardlythinkso's inexplicable and combative incivility. The content matter has been resolved, so all that remains is to correct behavior. To Forgot, I would say that while WP:BRD is not a policy or guideline, it is widely regarded as best practice. You might also want to read up on WP:EW, as simply reverting and re-reverting will never get you anywhere. In addition, please remember that discussion is extremely important when there is a content dispute such as this one, so if your edits are reverted, go to the talk page and talk about it. To Ihardlythinkso, please refresh your memory on WP:CIVILITY, because making unconstructive edits in good faith is not incivil. Commenting on editors instead of their edits is incivil. When another editor makes a mistake, your attitude should be trying to help them learn, not beating them down and making accusations. Helping them to become a better editor is worth a lot more to the project than even reverting their bad edits. If you're here to build an encyclopedia, I hope you'll respect that more in the future. —Rutebega (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Rutebega for the advice! Forgot to put name 15:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would add a couple of comments to Rutebega's advice. First, both parties were edit-warring, not just Forgot. Second, Ihardlythinkso is under no obligation to help other editors, but if he elects to interpose himself in the dispute, he must behave appropriately. Many of his comments on Forgot's talk page and here have not been constructive. I'm closing this now as I don't see anything more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Response to User:Rutebega

User:Rutebega, "inexplicable incivility"??? I've got an explanation for you: after trying repeatedly to discuss and work things out with the user, his crass response in reverting without consensus, and leaving belligerent edit summaries, broke down my patience. And that is because I am a human, with limited patience, and not a machine or a god, with infinite patience. (Does that help you now, because I'd hate for things to seem "inexplicable" to you.) Secondly, you seem to think that I said or believe that "making unconstructive edits in good faith" is incivil. (Where did you get that idea?? What did I say to lead you to that conclusion?? Do I have to repeat here what I called incivil from User:Forget, or, can you spare me that and go re-read what I wrote??) "Commenting on editors instead fo their edits is incivil." I already knew that. Your reminder is in no way helpful (but of course, it perhaps makes you, as 1+ years editor, feel better to lecture and treat other editors as naughty children!?) "When another editor makes a mistake, your attitude should be [...]". Well Rutebetga, there are behaviors to look at too, it is the behaviors that were attached to the mistakes, like belligerent edit sums and in-your-face reverts without discussion, that broke my patience, not any good-faith edits of themselves. The attitudes that User:Forgot displayed, with his distain for WP:BRD and article Talk, are intentional, choices deliberately made. They are not "innocent mistakes" made out of some knowledge I can offer to correct. (For example, in earlier contact with this editor at the article, when I pointed out WP:BRD to him, he asserted it was an essay, not policy, and therefore he could ignore it. Even in this ANI thread he has taken the position of "justifying" no use of article Talk. Did he say that he learned anything about this? That he should correct that? Where? Did I miss it?) "If you're here to build an encyclopedia, I hope you'll respect that more in the future." That is pretty insulting, Rutebega! To accuse me of "not having respect", when it was a simple case of my patience wearing thin and then breaking, because I am human and not a machine, after trying to work and collaborate with this bullying user, over time at that article. (And if you like to tell someone they should "show more respect", wouldn't User:Forgot be a good candidate for those messages, seeing that he feels emboldened here to unrepentingly explain why he doesn't believe in using article Talk or WP:BRD?? Is that being "respectful" to "bulding an encyclopedia"?? You haven't accused User:Forgot of showing disrespect, even though he's aware of the policies but chooses to ignore them, yet you accuse me for showing disrespect, and having a bad attitude, toward encyclopedia-building, when it was a simple case of my patience breaking down. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried to prevent you from posting to a closed discussion, not only as a matter of procedural principle, but partly because I felt that any continuation of this discussion would be unproductive and actually be to your detriment. Your multi-pronged attack (really more like a rant) is a confirmation of my view. My suggestion to Rutebega, whose advice I thought was even-handed and temperate, is not to respond, but that, of course is up to them. I will leave this "new" discussion open for a bit in the unlikely event that it becomes helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Araksi Cetinyan

Resolved: Belongs in DRV. m.o.p 21:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Sue Rangell, known for a history of disputed AfD closures (she got warnings by about a dozen of users though never conceded) closed this highly contested AfD as keep. I request an uninvolved administrator to reopen the discussion since here an administrator closure is required. The user will be now notified.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion belongs in DRV. It looked pretty straightforward to me. With only a single !vote to delete (by an IP account), and five !votes to keep (by well established editors citing Wikipedia policy), I wouldn't call it "highly contested". I get a lot of negativity for closing discussions because I am not an admin, but if you look through my closes, generally the disputed ones are followed up by an admin who closes it the same way, or otherwise says I did nothing wrong. I have been on Wikipedia a very long time, and I am trusted with permissions that some admins do not have. I think I can be trusted to close a few discussions, especially ones as obvious as this. Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  Well, in contrast to your opinion, mine is that you should be topic-banned from AfD despite your advanced permissions. In this particular discussion, there are at least two users proposing merge and redirect. The result could be merge, or no consensus. If the result is keep, it should be at least justified which you as usual failed to do. I could easily find couple of dozen of examples of your doubtful AfD closures, and there are many in the history of your talk page, but just to save space this is another one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan (note that I was not involved).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Your explanation concerns me somewhat. It certainly implies that you just counted votes. You made no reference above that implies that you looked at E4024's arguments. Ryan Vesey 20:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr Vesey, I hope there was nothing wrong in my arguments... --E4024 (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, E4024, I thought you made powerful arguments. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --E4024 (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty apparent that the closer here just doesn't get that they should not be closing AfD's like this, despite a page full of advice to the contrary. I agree that a topic ban on closing AfD's is appropriate here. VQuakr (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• If it's deletion review you're looking for, please take this case to DRV.
• If it's a topic ban you're looking for, make a clear-cut case (with plenty of citations) for why you feel the editor in question should face restrictions.

Neither of those discussions belong on ANI; please take the former to DRV and the latter to AN, if you're so inclined. I'm going to mark this as resolved. Feel free to re-open said issues in the appropriate channels. m.o.p 21:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wasn't clear keep, reverted closure -- let an admin do it. NE Ent 21:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong OBJECTION - Non admins reverting a close is illegal under WP:NACD. The proper way to dispute a close is via WP:DRV --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't Boston Legal; STRONG OBJECTION isn't helpful (caps generally aren't) and we don't have laws. In any case, I have (as an admin) re-opened the discussion. Ironholds (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Very well, but the reversion was vandalism under WP:NACD. Which reads: "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision. Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism is not "anything that doesn't follow an ambiguously written policy"; "can be reopened by any administrator" != "no non-administrator can re-open it". Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Oliver. Indeed, thankfully we are not in a courtroom --Ymblanter (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The spirit of WP:NAC is very simple: non-admins close only very uncontentious deletion debates. If you feel you need to post something like this to explain your close, then it probably isn't something you should do a non-admin closure on. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)