Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive807

Haldrik

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

---

Hello. So, maybe someone should take a look at this page diff here, probably sooner than later: [1]. Haldrik (talk · contribs) has long been an advocate of some pet theories involving dwarfs in Norse mythology as vampire-like beings (human sized with pale skin and dark hair and an associated with matters deathly). To promote this notion, he's constructed a big web of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that he will unrelentingly re-add to the article, often without reference. He's been repeatedly called out on it at the talk page currently at Talk:Dwarf (Norse mythology) for years by several users outside of myself. It appears that over time he's decided to simply slide into anonymous IP mode (this is probably him) and not bother with the talk page, even when asked to explain himself. Finally, once work began on the article again when the Tolkienism of "dwarves" vs. popular usage of "dwarfs" came to fore, he's flipped out and just replaced the redirect with a rant against me. You're welcome to peruse the appropriate talk pages. I've rewritten many related articles to WP:GA specs over the years. This is a strange case that has resulted in a fair amount of wasted time better spent elsewhere. I've been trying to build off an appropriately referenced, scholarly core, but with some guy inserting this stuff, it isn't getting very far from that. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just warned Haldrik for attacking you in article-space and will block him if he does so again. The IP has been warned for edit warring, so I'll block if it reverts again. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like he just pasted the attack here instead: [2]. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just given him some advice on my talk page, hopefully he'll take it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And he didn't. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by Justme78783

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

---

Looking over recent edits at Albania I noticed that Justme78783 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while edit-warring also issued a legal threat: Undid revision 567295305 by Antidiskriminator (talk) Please refrain from propaganda , otherwise administrative and legal actions will be initiated . Thank you. I ask that some action be taken regarding the legal threat per NLT. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indef, clear cut here. Secret ^account 02:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Secret. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

23.30.62.134 - The Color Run revisions

The IP address 23.30.62.134 is being used anonymously, but based upon contribution history appears to be used by an employeee of The Color Run LLC to make changes to the page The Color Run.

I have added criticism of The Color Run LLC to the page and this has been removed several times with no explanation or debate to validity of the criticism. The criticism is factual, impartial and is referenced.

I would suggest that the user 23.30.62.134 is blocked until they agree to comply with Wikipedia policy, particularly the editing of a page for self-promotion usage.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jez Bridges (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Two things: they've done it twice, and if they keep doing it you can report them at WP:AIV. Second, this is a reliable source? Drmies (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • First point - thanks, if it continues I'll go there. Second point - I understand your reservations given the blog's appearance, but when I dug deeper into the matter, there is evidence to corroborate the 70% - 20% - 10% comment. The Color Run has announced via social media commentary (scroll down a bit, use find command for 'profit') that they contribute approximately 10% of their profits to a nominated charity. Further to that, I found that the Cairns Hillbilly blog is pretty solid in calling things before the mainstream news catches on. Jez Bridges (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Drmies is sometimes (though not always) dry and restrained in his commentary. That is not a reliable source and should not be used on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I thought it may be borderline. I tracked down a couple of news articles that discuss charity contribution and have cited them instead. As it so happens, the amounts cited in the news articles are way below 10%, which I guess is harsher criticism. No discussion of operating costs and held back profit so I just removed that piece of discussion. Jez Bridges (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Some blogs are better than others for off-Wikipedia reading and enjoyment. But self-published blogs are never, ever a reliable source for anything whatsoever on Wikipedia, except for the personal opinions of the blogger. For any factual assertions, we need reliable sources with professional editorial control and an established reputation for fact checking and error correction. 99.9% of blogs fail that test. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Will keep it in mind in the future. Jez Bridges (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The Sacramento Bee source quotes random uninformed people on the street who assumed that it was a charity event. The Syracuse.com source talks about some people criticicizing the event, but does not identify the people, characterize them, or quote them. This seems like thin soup to me. Why should a profit making business be criticized on Wikipedia because some random or unidentified people think they probably ought to donate more money to charity than they actually do? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Both articles cite figures in terms of donations in the same region (2-3% of total revenue). That is the point being cited. As far as general criticism of the event - I could cite half a dozen more articles that cover similar points (people being surprised at for-profit status) but I stuck to articles that were talking about how much was being donated. Either way, there is criticism of the event by reputable sources. Jez Bridges (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat, blanking

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

---

Praveenant (talk · contribs) has been removing content on corruption from Government of India because, as he said on my talk page, "Every Country has their negatives all cannot be part of a generic article which could affect the growth or view of other of a country, That is against the country sovereignty. Kindly ignore content wich could affect mass people." His latest removal of the content included a legal threat in the edit summary, and I'd already issued a final warning. I might be WP:INVOLVED, so I leave it to another admin's discretion as to whether or not it's time for a block. Qwyrxian (talk)

NLT block applied as this is obviously intended to have a chilling effect. Even if and when the LT is rescinded, the smell here is of WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Good call on the NLT block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC).

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

Repeat offender

User:Jonathan.bluestein has consistently been re-adding citations to Hebrew Wikipedia pages, despite this being not in line with policy. He has been told umpteen times about this at talk (and here) and on edit summaries.

Yet his latest edit has re-added them: [3]

---/ Chesdovi (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Offender"... Nice one, you're outdoing yourself :-D I'd like to request the moderators and editors to go through the lengthy talk page for Haredi Judaism to understand the context of what's going on. Chesdovi and I have been running an 'Edit War' for quite a while now, and I gather one needs to understand the reasons and background before making a decision on how to intervene (the entire conflict is well documented on the aforementioned talk page). Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding this a bit hard to decode. Bluestein does seem to me to have some policy issues and is probably too reliant on his local knowledge of the Israeli scene; on the other hand it seems possible that Chesdovi's perspective is a bit, well, colored. I am tempted to conclude that Bluestein's views may be correct but that he is having trouble proving them according to our standards. There surely must be other editors who do read Hebrew (which I do not) who could mediate this, but it seems quite problematic to have the content of what is after all a pretty important Judaism/Israeli topic determined by an edit war between only two people. Mangoe (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. The sourcing is bad enough already, with a ton of bare URLs, commentary in the notes, lengthy quotes, doubtful sources, etc. I've removed a few of the more egregious citations. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Drmies do you read and understand Hebrew? Caden ^cool 19:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I sure don't! Good thing that's not important here. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Drmies - you've deleted a few ref/cite that were from Jewish Halacha. It is a primary source for ALL religious Jews (not just Haredim), and for many Haredim it's more important than even the Old Testament. Knowledge of Hebrew is required with regard to that last edit you made, because there were culturally-bound and complex Hebrew quotes there. Please refer to the talk page if you wish to discuss this. Other edits you made I agreed and went along with. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I can give it to you in a couple of languages (Hebrew not included), here and on the talk page, but my edit summary is quite clear, I believe. This is original research. What you need are reliable sources that provide an interpretation of sacred text as it applies to the particular denomination under discussion. No knowledge of Hebrew is required; indeed, if knowledge of Hebrew were required it would only prove my point. See WP:PRIMARY. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• The editor also appears to be on 4RR today. I have left a warning rather than blocking, but am going to look at the article now and will revert back to the main version if necessary. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• The usual way of handling such sources in almost all contexts is to give the English version in the article, preferably from a standard translation that can be cited as such, and then the original language source in parentheses or as a footnote. Since this is the English WP, it is always necessary to give an English translation. I can't think it a good idea to take comment on the sources only from Rabbis speaking or posting on the internet, but from reliable conventionally published sources as well. (& I think some Haredi commentary is in fact published in English) One key reason for this is that not all groups use the internet, so their views will not be included)

More generally: there is a difficulty in all articles like this of giving representative views--there are as many interpretations as there are religious Jews, and to say that a particular publication is the mainstream source is extremely difficult. It's particularly difficult giving a reason for a custom, because I think sources typically give as many different reasons as possible, and it is not easy to pick one to identify as the usual reason. There is an inevitable tendency to give the views of the authorities whose opinions one personally follows, and those like myself not fully literate in the tradition may not be able to tell this. There is a particular danger especially for those outside the tradition of picking what seems the most "quotable" comments, which can mean the ones that one thinks illustrates the weird or picturesque or extreme behavior of others. (and this can be a problem if one relies on English journalistic sources).

Certainly, however, it is wrong to refer to the Hebrew WP as an authority; it's no more authoritative than we are. Those who wish to see it can follow the usual interwiki links. There is however a way of giving WP:Soft redirects. The guideline currently says those to other language WPs should be avoided "because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers." The key word here is "generally"--I think there will be reasonable exceptions. But I do not think we ever refer in text or a reference to another WP.

I think however it is reckless to remove or edit material in a language one does not understand, and I think it abusive to edit--especially to edit sensitive material--on a subject or a culture or subject one does not know or where one cannot read the sources. I've made formatting edits on such material, and sometimes corrected English grammar, or copy-pasted a name or a title, but beyond that it's risky doing even what seems like obvious clarifications. Yet how can we leave such editing to the supporters, or the opponents, or a tug of war between the two? The only solution is to rely upon neutral scholarship, but it isn;t necessarily easy to find scholarship that everyone regards as neutral. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on the specific issue here, but I do read Hebrew. It's late now, but tomorrow I could review these challenged edits and offer an opinion. At a first glance, however, it appears that the only use made by Jonathan Bluestein of Hebrew Wikipedia is to link to a photo. If that is the only cross-wiki link, there will surely be a way (through Commons, possibly) to use this photo legitimately in the article. RolandR (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, I believe that this may belong at DRN. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 11:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Slowends

I misfiled the SPI (sorry) but JoshuSasori has again confessed to attempting to evade his block. No one else calls me "Trollvenlout". He's still monitoring my edits, so there's no need to inform him of this thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Bagworm engaging in grave-dancing/harassment

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

---

Hey, Hijiri88/Konjakupoet here. As some of you may know, I was run off Wikipedia by a disruptive user who contacted my office and started incessantly hounding me on- and off-wiki between January and April. (If you want details please e-mail my original account.) I came back under a different name in April but when another user (now also blocked) reported on me the off-wiki harassment continued.

I have since been editing intermittently on various short-term accounts and IPs, not so much to "get revenge" or right old wrongs, but just when I was reading Wikipedia and noticed a mistake somewhere. I have no interest in returning to actively editing Wikipedia under a stable account at least as long as that user is (probably) still watching.

However, I have noticed something disturbing since leaving. User:Bagworm has been "grave-dancing", apparently having found that I had retired and would be unable to defend my old edits. He had been disputing content and/or edit-warring with me a few times between September and December of last year. It got to the point where he attempted to unilaterally ban me from editing poetry articles,[4][5] probably so he could undo all my previous edits to these articles. (No specific evidence that this was his intention, but when I posted this on my user page, it took him only seven hours to remove a "citation needed" tag I had added to one such article, based on the flimsy excuse that his other primary sources were adequate.)

After Bagworm realized he wouldn't be able to get rid of me (in all of our disputes I was the one with the better sources, and I was always ready to patiently discuss on the talk page, even if he wasn't), he apparently retired from Wikipedia, not making a single edit for almost four months.[6][7] About 30 minutes after coming back, Bagworm undid an edit I had made under my second acocunt.[8][9] I had removed a questionable citation of an online poetry mag (when he retired, we still had not reached any kind of consensus as to whether these were acceptable citations). I had not added any citation needed tag, since the statement is one of the most easily verifiable in all of Japanese literary scholarship, and could be checked in any good book on the subject. It therefore seemed inappropriate to include a link to an online American poetry magazine with little general relation to the topic of the article (waka and haiku are different genres).

Evidence of harassment is provided below. I tried to be VERY thorough so the post is LONG.

NOTE: The following is a LONG explanation of Bagworm's grave-dancing. I hope not to be ignored based on TLDR, so I'm separating the specific details (with all the diffs) by asterisks for those interested. * * He also undid several edits I had made months earlier to the article Haiga, which is about a Japanese style of painting ("hai-ga" means "haiku picture" or "picture in a haiku style", or some such[10]), but Bagworm and one other user (who has since been indefinitely TBANned from Japanese literature) were insisting that haiga is any picture that is combined with a haiku. [11][12] [13][14][15] [16][17] Ironically this edit summary seems to imply that English-language refs are inherently superior to non-English refs, even Japanese refs when writing about a Japanese topic, which is a gross misunderstanding of WP:NONENG. But this edit added a German-language ref to an article on Japanese painting. And given that this was added directly in response to my asking for a reference, it would have been nice if he stuck with ones in languages I can understand. At the article Haikai, I had removed a number of other not-necessarily-reliable online poetry mags. Meaning no insult to Associate Professor Crowley, who seems like she knows what she's talking about, it just seemed very odd to me to be quoting an website that mainly deals in modern American poetry for the dictionary definitions of Classical Japanese words, especially when we already cited a reference to a book by the exact same author, through a reputable academic publisher. This is why I stated in my edit summary "unnecessary [...] used when other, valid sources were already in use". In my opinion if we are going to add a second reference, it should be to one that is better than Crowley's book (a Japanese dictionary used by native scholars, and probably also by Crowley herself, for instance), not an online English-language poetry magazine. This did not stop Bagworm from undoing me, though. [18][19] The redirecting of tinywords was a potentially controversial issue, and one that if I were still active on Wikipedia I probably would have been ready to compromise on if challenged and if presented with reliable secondary and/or tertiary sources. But in this case the redirect was not challenged for almost three months, and when it was it was done by an obvious COI user whose username indicates that he is the owner of the website in question.[20] The only other users who opposed the redirect were Bagworm, in yet more gravedancing and with an ad hominem remark about how I am "sarcastic" (given how much bull I had to put up with from Bagworm and other users like him, can you blame me for being suspicious of articles like that?). [21][22] When I reverted this gravedancing under my cellphone's IP, as no reasonable evidence had been advanced to justify the reversion of a redirect that had been stable for three months, he reverted again.[23] I was reverted again by the COI user.[24] I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about "edit-warring" or "sockpuppetry": BRD obviously applies, and the three-month old redirect, when BOLDly removed and then REVERTed, should have been DISCUSSed on the talk page before being reverted back. Further, Bagworm knew perfectly well why I was using a shifting IP, as when he first attempted to OUT me under one of my temporary accounts I had e-mailed him explaining the circumstances and the danger of his trying to connect my new account with my old one. Further, more than one admin had told me by e-mail or by reverting outing attempts on this and other forums that it was okay under my circumstances to keep maximum anonymity. Anyway, regardless of which side was "right" in the ensuing edit-war (I'll apply that terminology if no one tries to shift the blame inappropriately onto me -- the incident took place because Bagworm was engaged in a grave-dancing campaign to begin with). Also, obvious meat-puppetry was taking place, as before long a third user showed up completely out of the blue to revert me again, this time a Romania-based IP (who I can't contact off-wiki to give the complete explanation of why I was editing under IPs) and as their first edit decided to revert me with the aggressive edit summary "Revert repeated article deletion despite objection of others conducted by IP hopping and edit warring IP from "retired" editor". It seems obvious that either the COI user or Bagworm contacted a friend of theirs off-wiki in order to help in the reversion campaign. And this Romanian IP has in fact continued to seize as many opportunities as possible to harass me and attempt to out me, even going so far as to hijack an ANI thread in an apparent attempt to use a clear-cut POV/source-abusing/edit-warring issue as an excuse to out the good guy who reported it.[25][26][27][28][29] The Romanian IP has since registered as User:Someone not using his real name. My edit to the Senryū article was another in the series of removals of questionable online poetry mags, and Bagworm's reversion was another in his series of grave-dancing personal attacks. [30][31] Other users can disagree with me on the substance (the issue was, as noted above, never resolved), but no one can argue that reverting a bunch of my edits after I was hounded off Wikipedia isn't slimy at best. The Renku reversion is another.[32][33] Again, saying absolutely nothing about Professor Horton's credentials or reliability, I just don't think that we should include information that has only ever appeared in an online poetry mag published by an accountant and someone whose professional bio doesn't mention any qualifications in Japanese language, literature or history, and if it has appeared in more trustworthy sources, then we should be citing those instead. He has become more aggressive recently, constantly reverting my IP on the article Waka (poetry) and insisting (bizarrely) that there was "consensus" at Talk:Haiku#Simply Haiku and Frogpond as sources? that the defunct online poetry mag Simply Haiku is a reliable source, completely ignoring my argument that a modern American haiku magazine is not an appropriate reference for an article on classical Japanese waka. In fact, the only user other than me who posted on the talk page section in question was Icuc2, who agreed that online poetry mags were inferior to books and academic journals, and only need be used when better sources are not available. In this case, another, better source was already in use, a fact which I pointed out several times.[34][35][36] Bagworm, however, has reverted my removal of the inappropriate link some four times.[37][38][39][40] He also keeps trying to change the subject, by insisting that the author of the piece is a renowned Japanologist, even though my problem is that the we shouldn't be including links to haiku magazines in articles on waka unless there is some necessity to do so. * *

I have mentioned a few times in this post that I have been engaging in "sock-puppetry". It needs to be noted that I have never cast more than one !vote or anything of that ilk, and have only been doing this to protect myself from the off-wiki harassment of a certain user. I know, given the circumstances, that this may be a little difficult to accept, so I'm taking the liberty of contacting a few users (Lukeno94, Cuchullain, Yunshui, In ictu oculi and Drmies) who are more familiar with the background of why I retired initially than most Wikipedians, and can verify my claims regarding "sockpuppetry". I am also, of course, contacting Bagworm, Dtweney and Someone not using his real name to allow them to explain themselves if they so choose.

What I request from the Wikipedia community is a TBAN on Bagworm from "Japanese literature", broadly construed, similar to the one that was placed on his co-edit-warrior Tristan noir for similarly slimy actions.[41] This may seem somewhat extreme, but the user has done little for JLit articles, as far as I can see, other than remove verifiable information under the flimsy excuse that a "citation needed" tag had been on it for a certain length of time, add questionable sources to statements that either don't need them or need good sources, and edit-war with me/dance on my grave. The one or two semi-decent articles he started in this area don't stack up against the contributions I made and he is preventing me from continuing to make. (I already provided evidence of Bagworm's practice of removing information under flimsy excuses here.)

Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR. Care to give the short version? — Richard BB 12:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

TL:DR Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Same here. Insulam Simia (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Didn't y'all go to real schools where they make you read real books? Or did you use TLDNR in class as well? Drmies (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies:, I take it you're too old for SparkNotes? GiantSnowman 14:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Abridged version: I am a secondary account of a user who was forced off Wikipedia by a very disturbed user. After my main account retired, another user (Bagworm) started reverting a large number of my edits that he had failed to undo while I was still active. The user's disruptive edits are all in the area of Japanese literature, an area to which he has not contributed anything of note in at least a year. I would therefore like a TBAN imposed. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

the link you provided is for a banned user...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The harassment was, as I recall, one of the reasons he got banned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That user is banned, but the user who is currently harassing me (aided by the already-banned user's sockpuppets) is still at large. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I reject the paranoid accusations of conspiracy leveled at me by the latest incarnation of Hijiri88/Konjakupoet/Coldman the Barbarian and his other "alternate accounts"/sockpuppets in the collapsed section above. I simply told him that if he wants the tinywords article deleted, he needs to follow procedure and take it to AfD, instead of edit warring with multiple IP socks. See the talk page there where he failed to participate, while edit warring from IPs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I'm not here to argue with you. You've made decent contributions since then, and I have no serious beef with you. I merely brought you up to provide a fuller context to what was obviously part of a larger harassment campaign by Bagworm. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See also this discussion where I asked admin User:DGG to open the AfD, but he did not think it appropriate. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Coldman/Jubei the Samurai/Hijiri88/Konjakupoet/182.249.241.* wants me TBanned because some of my edits have run contrary to his? Cos that's all the above seems to me to add up to. Pinch me, someone. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a pretty huge chunk of your edits, and it's likely well over-half of your Japanese literature edits since you came back in April. And going around misrepresenting talk page discussions in order to revert the edits of another user who you just don't like is extremely disruptive. You have misrepresented the discussion between Konjakupoet and Icuc2 as forming some kind of "consensus" in favour of Simply Haiku, regardless of context, numerous times.[42][43][44][45] You clearly feel that because my original account has retired you are free to go around undoing all of my edits you don't like, and not provide any valid justification. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"You clearly feel that because my original account has retired you are free to go around undoing all of my edits you don't like". Please don't pretend you have some special insight into what motivates another editor; your wholly subjective assertions do not count for anything. Yes, some of my edits have been to text you previously edited. So what? Remember what it says at the top of every edit window at WP?: "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". Just because you edited articles in an area in which I've long been active doesn't give you OWNership. Please get real here. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As for hounding, it is Hijiri88/Konjakupoet/Coldman the Barbarian/Eh doesn't afraid of anyone who followed me to a UAA report, trying to prevent one of his POV pushing Japanese nationalist wikially and spammer from being rightfully blocked [46] Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you followed me to ANI first, solely in order to make a completely off-topic attack against me. And I already said I have nothing against you. What's the deal? Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait -- Japanese nationalist wikispammer allies!? Do you know anything about my edit history?? Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not follow you to ANI. I participate on ANI regularly. Do note that I supported the topic ban on the Korean POV pusher you reported to ANI. Do you participate in UAA regularly, "dude"? Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've been referenced here, and I'm going to make my comment. There is no question that JoshuSasori hounded Hijiri88, and that they continued to do so a long time after they were community banned. Bagworm gives every hint of engaging in identical behaviour to JoshuSasori (bar the disruption to Hijiri's workplace) - which is to say, that they stalk Hijiri's edits (if a little more sporadically than Sasori usually did) and revert them because of who made the edits. As to the exact topic dispute, I can't profess to have any knowledge whatsoever about who is right; this is most certainly not my area of expertise. I don't know much about the Romanian IP/"Someone not using his real name" part of the debate. I will say this, with regards to the Waka (poetry) edit referenced here (about the reference, ironically) - why the hell are people edit warring over whether to have one or two references for this? One should be sufficient, unless the other one is needed to try and further prove notability of the topic (which isn't an issue here) or the statement is controversial (which I'm assuming this isn't; again, I lack knowledge on this area, so feel free to correct me.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your input, Lukeno94. However, your sweeping assertion, "Bagworm gives every hint of engaging in identical behaviour to JoshuSasori (bar the disruption to Hijiri's workplace) - which is to say, that they stalk Hijiri's edits (if a little more sporadically than Sasori usually did) and revert them because of who made the edits." appears to show a complete lack of AGF. "revert them because of who made the edits" - that is deeply offensive and absolutely groundless, and I would urge you to offer supporting evidence or withdraw the offensive remark. I most certainly do not stalk Hijiri/Jubei. A glance at his edit history will immediately confirm that he edits a whole host of articles that I have no interest in and no history of editing. I have no personal quarrel with Hijiri, and only in the last day or so did I become aware that the IP edit-warring at Talk:Waka (poetry) was actually him. If you're looking for real evidence of harassment, it can easily be found: Hjiri/Jubei/124 has in the last two days twice removed my posts to Talk:Waka (poetry), here and here He seems to be confused and is claiming that I edited his comments, which I certainly did not. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • No, you knew from the get-go (it was obvious) that Jubei and the IP were both me. I accidentally posted an unfinished comment while logged in to an account that I was keeping separate primarily to avoid accidentally outing an unrelated user. My phone is not the ideal way to edit Wikipedia, but thanks to JoshuSasori it's the only way I can do so without either setting up another named account for him to harass, or giving away my home IP. None of this was a justification for you to constantly revert my tweaking my own comment. I had no way of reverting your editing of my comment without also deleting your reply (again, phone), but I made it clear that you could restore your comment if you wished. Your continuing to claim that you have a right to revert my finishing my own comment is essentially claiming that it's OK for you to edit my comments, but not for me to edit my own.

Plus, your assertion that Luke is violating AGF is made without evidence. I provided probably too much evidence that you were harassing me, and you have yet to provide any evidence at all that this is not what you were doing. Can you explain why almost all of your Japanese literature edits since April (or last November?) are direct reverts of edits I made? Can you explain why you consistently avoid directly addressing my arguments, and instead focus on straw-man issues like whether such-and-such author knows what (s)he's talking about? It's obvious that you are looking for flimsy excuses to go around reverting my edits, and you think that since the account that made all those edits between 2005 and 2013 is now permanently retired you will be able to get away with it. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"you knew from the get-go (it was obvious) that Jubei and the IP were both me" - How could that possibly be "obvious"? Though the IP's behaviour was reminiscent of yours, I had no way of knowing Jubei was you until you owned up. That's yet another irrelevance anyway, since I'm not questioning your motives in using multiple accounts here. What I do know is that you are the one repeatedly deleting my Talk posts in direct contravention of WP:TALKNO, and whatever technical straws you clutch at doesn't alter that. You keep making the accusation that I edited your posts. Please show a diff or withdraw this false accusation.

"It's obvious that you are looking for flimsy excuses to go around reverting my edits. No it is not "obvious" because it is simply not true. Please desist from making such purely subjective non-AGF assertions. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to game the system by sticking to the letter of TALKNO and ignoring the actual purpose of the guideline. "I am only able to edit from my phone, and I can't copy or paste" is a good enough reason to blank-revert when someone else edits my comment. Slyly sticking in a separate comment in the same edit as altering my comment is your fault, not mine. I told you you were free to re-add your own comment, but I asked you several times to stop altering my comment. You refused until you were left with no other choice, and even then continued to insist that I was "repeatedly removing" your comments.

I have given the evidence that you are taking flimsy excuses to undo my edits ("I have a source in English that I am choosing to interpret as contradicting what Hijiri's source says" is another glaring example). Please address this evidence directly or admit that you have been hounding me. Your friend Tristan noir tried a similar strategy to your current one ("I don't need to explain my actions because of AGF") back in January, and he wound up getting TBANned. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how is my asserting the broader definition of haiga by Haruo Shirane, Shincho Professor at Columbia University, probably the top scholar in Japanese literature in the U.S. at this time, a "flimsy excuse"? It is becoming increasingly clear that you've raised this ANI because my edits impinge on your sense of WP:OWNership of these articles which I've been editing since long before you took an interest in them. Not because of harassment (because there isn't any), not because of grave-dancing (as pointed out by DrMies, there isn't any). What a waste of administrators' (and my) time. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Taking a quote from a well-known scholar out of context, in order to make it appear that this scholar supports your POV when they clearly do not is a flimsy excuse. This has already been pointed out. You failed to respond, but your above comment indicates that you clearly still think you were in the right in reverting my edits. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not true. What you have evidenced is simply a disagreement between us over the interpretation of a respected scholar's statements. That is nothing more than a content dispute, and your bringing it up here clearly supports my contention that your only motive for this ANI is a sense of impingement on your wp:OWNership of articles which I've been editing much longer than than you. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not about different interpretations. You misrepresented the citation, and then when I pointed out to you that Shirane clearly doesn't mean what you want him to you ignored me. Clearly you want Shirane to agree with your online poetry mags, when in fact he agrees with the actual definition of the Japanese word as given in Japanese dictionaries. I.e., he agrees with me. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

i.e. a content dispute: a waste of admins' time. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Let's just cut to the chase here: nominate the article for AfD instead of this proxy war by trying to determine who "hounded" who in an obvious content dispute. Bagworm is a fan and editor of Japanese-style literature in American venues. It's pretty transparent that Hijiri88 & co. have been campaigning to delete such articles. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Bagworm first edited that article in 2008 [47]. When did the many accounts of Hijiri88 edit it first? The earliest I could find was 2013 [48], but it's possible he used another account name before. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read the comment you are replying to. This thread is not about tinywords, and I already specified that that's a sidenote here. The article Lukeno is commenting on is Waka (poetry) -- an article I created. I never said Bagworm "followed" me to the tinywords article, merely that he only reverted me for the same reason he reverted all those other edits -- he could. Now can we please get back on topic? This thread is not and never has been about tinywords in particular. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. It's a bulk, specious complaint from yourself claiming you are being hounded by a conspiracy of editors, among which you have named me. I have never edited Waka (poetry). So why did you choose to name me in your complaint then and allege I conspired with others if it's all about waka now? Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment: "gravedancing" implies you're dead. You're clearly not dead, so technically there can be no gravedancing. And typically we take that to mean things like making fun of a "dead" editor on their talk page, etc. Edit-warring (if that's what it is) with a retired account the editor of which is still active is not the same as gravedancing, and it's not necessarily harassment. Correct me if I'm wrong: we're really talking about possible WP:HOUNDING, no? I noted one more thing in clicking through the diffs: Hijiri's opponents have a knack (and, historically, have had a knack) for using minor publications and webzines, to the point of promotion. That tinywords article is one of them--but that's by the by.

  I don't have all the time and attention in the world right now, but I'll get back to this. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  • DrMies, the only other contributor to suggest hounding is Lukeno94 (without a shred of evidence), and I have roundly provided evidence to the contrary above. What is your motivation in persisting with this groundless accusation? I most certainly do not stalk Hijiri/Jubei. A glance at his edit history will immediately confirm that he edits a whole host of articles that I have no interest in and no history of editing. I have not expanded my editing areas into Hijiri/jubei's. This is 100% clear. So, if I'm not grave-dancing, and not hounding, what exactly are we doing here? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Eh, at the risk of sounding like a school teacher, where did I accuse you of anything? Will you care to actually read what I wrote (I didn't think it was too long to read), or are you just going to open your spout and vent baselessly? (Hint: note the word "possibly".) Drmies (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that, DrMies. I struckthrough the offending text yesterday, but just saw your note now. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• No worries. Just because I'm a bit of an asshole doesn't mean I always act like one. :) Drmies (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

My experience is gravedancing on wikipedia is much more commonly taken to mean harassing or continuing to comment on, make fun of or try to shine a spotlight on an editor who is indef blocked or banned, or even simply temporarily blocked where it serves no useful purpose. Sometimes also a topic banned editor in relation to their topic ban. It may also apply to a retired editor in some cases. A key point is generally whether or not the actions are perceived to serve any useful purpose as when they are not, continueing to pursue the issue which has already gone against the editor on some way, is seen as pointless and harmful when the editor is either unable or justifiably has no reason to respond. See for example Wikipedia:Blanking userpages of blocked editors is not necessarily gravedancing or do a search for grave dancing on the ANs archives. While it' s true this isn't quiet the same as gravedancing is generally defined and used elsewhere outside wikipedia processes, and it's true doing the same for a dead editor is likely to be also seen as a different very serious form of grave dancing, the other use is not something that comes up very often. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, please see this thread for the reason why my main account is no longer able to defend its edits. Bagworm has known about this since at least early May, when I e-mailed him. He has, however, persisted in undoing a significant number of my edits that he disagreed with, and when I try to revert on my phone, he dismisses me as some kind of IP-hopping vandal. He has not provided any valid arguments for his removals, because he apparently thinks he can get away with it now that my original account is retired. I considered this to be "grave-dancing", but I'm happy to use "hounding" instead. (If you want to know why I can't just set up another account or go back to my original one, I would be happy to e-mail you. Revealing it here would be self-outing.) Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I most certainly have not been hounding Hijiri/Jubei/Coldman. A glance at his edit history will immediately confirm that he edits a whole host of articles that I have no interest in and no history of editing. I have not expanded my editing areas into Hijiri/jubei's. This is 100% clear. Neither have I been grave-dancing even by Nil Einne's definition, since (as pointed out by DrMies) Hijiri/Jubei/Coldman is manifestly still active on the general topic. So please, someone tell me, what are we doing here, apart from wasting each others' time? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• So the fact that your first edit in four months was a revert on something Hijiri wrote is pure coincidence? Hmm. And I'm the King of Turkmenistan. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• • What are you even talking about? My first edit in 4 months (April 2013) was this one to Bruce Ross where AFAIK none of Hijiri/Coldman's sockpuppets have ever edited. I then made 5 edits, all clearly constructive, to Haiku in languages other than Japanese, where Hijiri was the last previous editor. Did I make any attempt to revert his efforts there? No, because they were constructive and helpful. What does it take for you to get that I am not interested in reverting his work for the hell of it? Please check your facts in future before making baseless allegations, and note that your WP:SARCASM is entirely inappropriate to this discussion. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• • You made a few small edits to that and one other article and then went straight ahead to undo one of my edits that had already been discussed, with my POV coming out on top. As far as I can see, almost all of your edits that were not reversions of me were not in the area of Japanese literature. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted one of your edits. So what? The rationale was clear, as I pointed out at the time. Obviously we interpreted the discussion at the Haiku talk page differently. Is this really what you're wasting admins' time with? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Allow me further note, as a rebuttal of the spurious claim of hounding/harassment/personal vendetta, that I have had substantial, productive interaction with Coldman's sock, Sarumaru the Poet, as recently as mid-June at Sarumino (which I created), as evidenced by the article edit history and Talk:Sarumino. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• • One semi-good edit should not be used as an excuse for you to go around reverting all of my edits that you disagree with. I have made probably ten times as many good edits in this area as you, and we both no the reason for that: I am fluent in Japanese and have a serious academic qualification in this area, while you ... do not. When you disagreed with me and I was still active under one account, consensus was on my side in every single one of our debates, and the reason for that is that I always had a better case than you in consideration of Wikipedia policy and reliable sources. However, since my main account retired, you have been going around undoing several edits I made, apparently based on the assumption that I would be unable to revert you (or that I wasn't still watching those pages.) Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The above is simply untrue. If repeating untruths louder and louder is the way to get your point across here, perhaps I have something to learn from you. But sorry, that's not my MO. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note, this is neither here nor there (well, it's actually both here and there), but I nominated tinywords for deletion. This as a kind of disclaimer, maybe, for whoever needs one. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the content dispute as it's not an admin matter, but it's obviously complicated by the banned user's continued harassment of Hijiri88. The harasser finds him with every new start he tries to make, precluding his ability to edit normally. That's not going away until Wikipedia finds a way to deal with it and Hijiri can return to normal editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Cuchullain, I'm sure you're right, but can we please be careful to keep a clear distinction between the subject of this ANI (i.e. me Bagworm) and the entirely unconnected "harasser" you mention above. Sorry to be pernickity, but the entire above is so long that I'd forgive an admin or other editor for getting the characters a little confused. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've just had my entire recent post deleted by DrMies here with not even an edit summary. Perhaps a word of explanation for what looks like a rather high-handed approach? If it's because I've broken some protocol, then I apologise for my ignorance. Nevertheless, it should surely not be too much to expect an explanation. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's an edit conflict, Bagworm, and I apologize. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks, DrMies. I'm relieved to hear that, and sorry for doubting you. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• The TLDR version of this is that the latest incident on waka is simply a content dispute between Coldman and Bagworm, involving some edit-warring. Do note that Coldman's and his other accounts & IPs are not new to intemperate edit warring with other editors [49] besides those mentioned in this thread as part of the alleged conspiracy. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

By "TLDR", do you mean "Too Lazy to Do the Reading"? Because if you had even glanced at the current waka dispute you would know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with content (neither of us have even proposed changing the wording of the article), and is rooted in Bagworm trying to add spurious links back to the article, apparently solely because I removed them previously. Additionally, Bagworm's history of making problematic edits in this area, as I hinted in the final paragraph of my first post here, goes back to 2008. He has been hounding me across numerous articles since last October, and has become especially blatant since April. If you like, I could upload images of my email outbox to prove that I wrote the first draft of this ANI case two months ago, and that that draft barely mentioned the waka article (or the Romanian IP, for that matter)? Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If his edits are problematic across a range of articles, then you should start a RfC/U. Running to ANI with wild conspiracy theories in which you saw fit to include myself (although I have had no contact with you since you followed me to UAA on June 11) does not help your case. As far as I can tell, you were both edit warring on waka (you using IPs). I have no idea who is right in that dispute from a content perspective. From a purely behavioral perspective, you are both at fault, you a little more because what you have done can be considered WP:SOCKING. There was an editor who was recently blocked indefinitely for doing little more than edit-warring once while logged out. You have used multiple accounts to participate in several disputes, while not being exactly strainghforward about their relationship, so I have opened a SPI on you. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Full response to SNUHRN. There be whales here. Don't uncollapse unless you want a heavy, and almost entirely off-topic, reading project.

As an aside, I will address the fact that you have now accused me of "following you" to UAA twice. The fact is that you first followed me to ANI, apparently with the intention of hijacking a discussion I was involved in in order to attack me. You had never posted to ANI before. Your first nine edits on ANI looked like [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58]. Not long thereafter, I commented on you UAA post here. I may have "followed you" there, but not until you started haranguing me on ANI, and I only gave my genuine opinion of the username in question (I don't think "Koreation" is an ethnic slur, so much as a general problem on numerous Wikipedia articles related to East Asian history). I did not make a personal attack against you. You made two more comments on ANI, both personal attacks against me.[59][60] Your first posting on ANI that was not to a thread I had started was nine hours later.[61] So your assertion that you "didn't follow me here" because you were a "regular contributor to ANI" is spurious at best. And you still have not explained why your first edit on Wikipedia was to undo an edit I had made 23 hours earlier with an edit summary that accused me of "repeated article deletion despite objection of others conducted by IP hopping and edit warring IP from "retired" editor".[62] This is a very strange first edit for anyone to make, and reeks of meat-puppetry. I don't have a problem with the majority of your edits since then, so I don't intend to pursue this further, as long as you stop accusing me of "conspiracy theories", "following you", "edit-warring" and so on. And regarding your above accusation of edit-warring: I discussed the issue with Icuc2, and the latter user agreed that Simply Haiku should not be cited as long as better sources are available;[63] Bagworm reverted my edit based on the spurious claim that what had actually happened was that Icuc2 had forced me to come to a consensus that Simply Haiku is an awesome source and should always be used as much as possible;[64] Bagworm never offered a single piece of evidence or valid argument in favour of his addition, other than this problematic claim of Icucian authority, and in fact doubled down insisting that Icuc2 had not said that Simply Haiku should not be used when better sources are available;[65] I pointed this out to him by saying "Icuc2 agreed that scholarly sources (read: academic books and journals, not poetry mags) were preferable, but were not readily available for haiku. He/she may or may not have been right about haiku specifically, but in this case that argument clearly doesn't apply";[66] instead of responding to this rationally, Bagworm repeatedly defended JoshuSasori's re-factoring of my comment.[67][68][69] Therefore, the link should have remained out of the article until he provided some decent argument. He was edit-warring, while I was trying to get him to discuss it on the talk page. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC) And I gave you my genuine impression of your editing of Wikipedia. I have edited Wikipedia as early as 2007, by the way [70]. You enjoy your anonymity, and I enjoy mine. You're not the only person on the planet who changed his IP address. I have had no off-wiki contacts with either Bagworm, User:Dtweney nor with any other regular editor of Japanese literature articles. You probably forgot however that there was no shortage of ANI and COI/N reports surrounding these articles around May-June, which is how I found the tinywords article, where you were trying to circumvent the normal deletion procedure by a edit-warring a redirect, despite objections on the talk page. I have no horse in this race except upholding Wikipedia standards. And if you look at the tinywords AfD, you can see that Bagworm actually voted to delete that article now, even though he had reverted your redirect in past. Assuming a bit more good faith instead of jumping to conspiracy theories would go along way in improving how others perceive you. I'm glad you didn't accuse User:Joe Schmedley of being a meat puppet because of [71]. There's is hope for you yet. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Tell me: since JoshuSasori outed me, what anonymity have I "enjoyed"? I have told you numerous times that this ANI is not about you, but you seem to keep trying to defend Bagworm's reprehensible behaviour solely as revenge for me bringing you up. I don't know what ANI and COI/N reports there were in the area of Japanese literature around May/June -- one would think I would have been involved, but I don't have any recollection of such. You may be upholding Wikipedia standards, but you have been clearly engaging in disruptive editing in this area by assuming that I am in the wrong and Bagworm is in the right, solely because I am unable to use my original account. Now that ArbCom has weighed in and made a definitive statement that I was not consciously engaged in disruptive behaviour and that this thread should be let run so Bagworm's harassment can be dealt with, can you please stop assuming bad faith on my part? I will leave Wikipedia after this is dealt with, and until that point I will only edit under this account. The sooner this matter is dealt with, the sooner you can be rid of me. Why would I want Bagworm TBANned if I plan on leaving anyway? Because he has not added anything noteworthy in at least the last year, instead engaging me in edit wars and constantly undoing my edits. My edits were all good, and even if I am leaving Wikipedia I don't want to see them undone by some disruptive user who, if I didn't have bigger fish to fry, would have been taken to ANI last year. I have never been blocked for disruptive behaviour, while Bagworm's long-time collaborator has been blocked and TBANned for the very behaviour Bagworm was helping him with. Bagworm's making one gesture of good faith on the AfD (which I saw earlier, by the way) does not mean his "contributions" in this area outweigh his constantly hounding me. Also, I should point out to you that, while ArbCom has agreed that none of my socks deserve blocks for disruptive editing or simply being socks, and that I was already forgiven for trying to protect myself via said socks, Bagworm has been actively engaging in sockpuppetry in order to hide his own COI/advertising, and to hide the fact that he was following my edits even while he was not active on Wikipedia. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC) I guess my ANI memory is better than yours [72]. I may have been a little off with the dates (April vs May), but at least I remembered seeing something. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like this is being handled privately by ArbCom [73], so I suggest closing this thread as redundant and a potential troll magnet (the tinywords AfD was already trolled). If Hijiri88 is serious about avoiding harassment from a certain banned editor, he should stop putting up these mega-threads where he accuses anyone who disagreed with him on something of being a meat puppet. And he can't be at the same time "retired" (thus complaining of "gravedacning") while he continues editing the same articles on topics which are so incredibly niche (e.g. waka) that they enable his instant identification. See advice at WP:CLEANSTART. Furthermore, he can't use "gravedacning", "harassement" and "meat puppetry" as trump cards whenever he has a content dispute with a non-banned editor in the same areas in which has previously edited. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• In his latest content dispute, Coldman appears disingenuous [74] in his [mis]interpretation of what User:Icuc2 actually said in the linked talk page [75]; Icuc2 did not reject using English sources, or that source (Simply Haiku) in particular. Icuc2 actually told Konjakupoet (another account of Coldman) that "Simply Haiku was also a refereed journal and rather popular in the field while it lasted. I wouldn't make any claims that all of the material in these journals is top-notch, but they do represent the more or less official views of the field, and I believe the citations were being used for that purpose (i.e. not to establish some obscure scholarly point that might need a more high-powered academic source). If you pull out these types of citations, I'm not sure there's much left at a higher level. So I think the standard you are applying here (and in some of your earlier Renga edits, is, if not unattainable, at least unrealistic. If you do have better sources, by all means put them in, but finding sources is a difficult and time consuming process, and no one here is getting paid to do it. It's not helpful to pull out functional references just because you think there ought to be a better source somewhere, particularly when content has been written in the first place based on a particular source that you are removing. In short, I'd much appreciate a reference crusade focused on adding new, better sources rather than removing sources that don't meet an unrealistic standard." Besides WP:NONENG encourages using English language sources whenever possible. This is clearly a content dispute that should be handled via WP:3O or RfC, not by playing the victim card at ANI or misrepresenting other people's words. I don't see why that citation had to be pulled when it's more easily accessible than the 1986 book (which in this case is also in English). The whole dispute looks like making a mountain from a molehill just to have a reason to drag someone to ANI. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• I have now made suggestions for improving the referencing on the article's talk page. The current references for that paragraph don't really verify the material as written. I suggest we continue this discussion on the article's talk in a more constructive fashion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I might point out that User:Coldman the Barbarian appears to me to be at best skirting the line of WP:POLEMIC now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No polemic. I was told by ArbCom that I needed to stop editing under shifting named accounts. But I was specifically told that my activities were NOT disruptive, that I had OBVIOUSLY not been using these accounts to evade the scrutiny of the Wikipedia community, and that this ANI thread would stay open to let the Wikipedia community deal with Bagworm's harassment. You appear to have had my official statement of retirement deleted, so while I'm back I might as well open an SPI on Bagworm. I've been holding back on pointing out all the details of Bagworm's harassment because I would run the risk of outing him. But now this has gone too far. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Coldman is openly admitting to attempting to out me ("I've been holding back on pointing out all the details of Bagworm's harassment because I would run the risk of outing him. But now this has gone too far."). Yes, this has clearly gone too far. Admin action please! --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • With Coldman's admission of using the 182.249.241.* range on his phone, it is now clear that it was he who perpetrated a previous outing attempt on me here. The edit summary contained a real world name, and was erased after I contacted Oversight.--gråb whåt you cån (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Please see the SPI. I am not "attempting to out" anyone. I am pointing out that I have been aware of Bagworm engaging in disruptive sockpuppetry for a while, but have not reported it because there was a slight risk of accidentally outing him. Bagworm, however, has been actively linking my clean start accounts with an account that has been outed in the past, and failed to desist when asked to. I have admitted to using some of the information I knew about, but carefully wording it so as not to reveal anyone's real-world identity. Also, I have always, ALWAYS been very tactful about possible outing, even if other editors have been making their real-world identities perfectly obvious by openly engaging in self-promotion. Please someone deal with the sockpuppetry issue and ignore Bagworm's off-topic tirade. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

NOT an off-topic tirade. You have admitted to being 182.249.241.*, and 182.249.241.51 made a direct outing attempt on me on May 20, here. As I said above, the edit summary you used contained a real-world identity so I contacted Oversight suppressed the information. You have really gone way too far now. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how is posting something on my own page as a joke[76] a violation of WP:OUT? Even if I accidentally posted the same thing on your page first,[77] before immediately reverting myself and admitting the mistake?[78] You have openly attempted to connect me with accounts that have had personal information compromised both on- and off-wiki (to the point where I can't get it retracted), and despite my e-mailing you and begging that you stop you persisted. I have not even brought that up here because this thread is about your hounding of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldman the Barbarian (talk • contribs) 04:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, I need to point out that I've made no shortage of good-faith mistakes while editing Wikipedia from my phone. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop skirting the issue. You made a direct attempt to out me, as Oversight's records clearly show (why else would they have removed the offending text?), and you are now doing the same with your SPI post, regardless of your disingenuous assertion to the contrary. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, Bagworm, you're digging yourself into a hole here, by claiming that something I have done in the last few hours was an "open attempt to out you". I have contacted numerous other users about this off-wiki, making it perfectly clear numerous times that I do not intend to out anyone. My direct statement of such on SPI and directly above this is proof enough that if you inadvertently out yourself during these proceedings, that was not my intention. I sincerely urge you to delete this entire subsection and ask oversight to remove it from view. I am the only other editor here and you have my permission to remove my comments with your own. Then we can never speak of this again. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are the one who has dug himself a hole (hence your uncharacteristic offer of compromise). Please read WP:OUTING where you will learn that an 'attempted outing' constitutes an attempt to connect an editor with a real-life identity, not necessarily their own. To mis-identify someone is just as much a transgression as to identify them accurately. You are the one doing the outing attempt now, and you are the one who did the outing attempt in May. There is nowhere for you to wiggle on this. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

How is compromise uncharacteristic? Seriously, I have witnesses to say that if you get outed, that was not my intention. Also mis-identifying oneself as a practical joke to mislead JoshuSasori (who was monitoring my userpage when that incident in May happened) cannot violate WP:OUT because I am allowed to identify myself if I so choose. Seriously, think about this: I have not posted anything, either here or on SPI, that could be considered "an open attempt to out" anyone, and have also made it perfectly clear that I do not intend to out you (although given that you made your own identity clear through your own self-promotion, I certainly could make such attempt). I do not intend to out you, so please stop this tirade before you say something stupid. Even if at this point your real-world identity became perfectly clear to readers, no one could possibly take that as having been my intention. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The facts speak for themselves. You have made two outing attempts for all to see. That's all there is be said. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Technically, expunged edits aren't there for all to see. Plus, if you think any of my recent activities here or on SPI were "outing attempts", I encourage you to contact Oversight and see what they have to say. I think it's perfectly obvious that I have not posted any personal information about you today, so your outing accusation is bogus, and the previous "outing attempt" was an obvious mistake that, when viewed in conjunction with all the other mistakes I have admitted to making while editing from my phone, is easily verifiable as such. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your current attempt to link Bagworm with a real-world identity, however left-handedly, is a clear attempt at outing. The fact that that identity is one you know is not his real one is no defense, however much you protest. As pointed out above, WP:OUTING is just as serious an offense whether the identification is correct or incorrect. Similarly, claiming that the harmful information has been expunged from your earlier outing attempt is a laughable attempt on your part to hide behind your hands. It was expunged because it was harmful. Your current dangerous behaviour should be seen in the context of your setting up a venomous attack page targeting me yesterday. Happily that attack page was speedily deleted - see comments on your talk page by two admins here before you blanked it in shame. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Coldman, as it happens, I was the oversighter who suppressed that edit and, yes, it fell foul of WP:OUTING, because you were linking an account to a real-life identity. And such behaviour is a violation of WP:OUTING regardless of whether the identification is correct. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you saw said "attack page" before it was speedied. It was not an "attack page", but rather a farewell address written at the recommendation of ArbCom in which I encouraged the community to protect my previous edits from further hounding by you -- something also recognized by Salvio Giuliani as an issue. This is why this thread will stay open until your hounding behaviour, and your hiding your admission to following me behind a sock account, is dealt with. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course I saw (and saved) the attack page you created, Coldman. It was speedied because it was an attack page, with your venom directed specifically at me and at SNUHRN as well as others you have speciously claimed to be in some sort of conspiracy against you. Your assertion that it was not an attack page is lame: obviously it would not have been speedied if it wasn't an attack page. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Not gonna reply to the above ingenuous attack, except to say that if any part of my farewell address offended Bagworm (or SNUHRN) I apologize. I genuinely don't remember what I could have written that was so offensive as to warrant the page getting deleted, but I really did just mean for the Wikipedia community to continue defending my edits from Bagworm, who has now admitted to stalking my edits.[79] This about 90 minutes after claiming that his partner, and not him, had been the one following me.[80] Neither member of the Bagworm family had been actively editing during this period, but this confirms that it was not a coincidence that his 7th edit after returning was a direct revert of me was not an accident, and his 2nd through 6th were to an article that I didn't technically create, but... CU also confirmed that Bagworm's IP had been making edits that "lend credence to [my] allegation that [he had] been following [me]". It seems entirely possible that Bagworm used his IP as a sockpuppet to make edits that would clearly violate WP:HOUND. At the moment I can't recall a whole lot of IPs that I noticed following me, apart from one group that is based in Japan and obviously a different user, and one other group that made an off-topic personal attack against me on an AfD and later made a serious of vandal attacks against my page that directly outed me and so are no longer visible.[81][82][83] Bagworm's confirmed meat-/sock-puppet that he claims is his partner posted on my (Konjakupoet) talk-page 30 minutes later and asked me to "clear things up", which if I recall was exactly what the vandal IP was asking me to do. Therefore, it is a confirmed fact that Bagworm has been engaging in meat-/sock-puppetry in his hounding campaign against me, and we can be fairly certain that while logged out he (or his meatpuppet) outed me directly and unambiguously, and made a malicious personal attack against me (linking to my professional profile on a freelance translation website and insulting my appearance). It appears this thread may have slipped into TLDR territory a long time ago, but under these circumstances Bagworm needs to be told that his behaviour is unacceptable, and so if this thread gets archived with no result I intend to post again with a much more concise version of events. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for this seemingly cloak and dagger approach, but I may not disclose the edits, because I'd be connecting a named account to an IP. However, I'd like to point out that a. the edits are really few and b. they don't link to your professional profile and they don't make fun of your appearance. I guess the point now is what administrative action you'd want. Would you be satisfied if Bagworm accepted a standard interaction ban or do you want something more? And, Bagworm, would you accept the terms of an interaction ban between you and Coldman? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay... well, I'm not willing to accept a 2-way IBAN. I have done nothing wrong -- rather been the victim of a 10-month-long hounding campaign -- and last time that happened it came out pretty messy. Plus, even for a 1-way IBAN to be effective it would need to keep Bagworm from reverting (1) Hijiri88, (2) Konjakupoet, (3) Hitomaro742 and (4) Sarumaru the Poet. And that's just the already-connected accounts that were editing in Japanese poetry. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Coldman has grossly misrepresented the situation in his tirade above, and conflated information with wild speculation, some of which Salvio has thankfully refuted. I feel very wronged here. I have been the victim of a concerted campaign, first with Coldman's attempted outing of me in May (for which he is completely unrepentant and continues to laugh off as a "joke"), then here at ANI, and next at Coldman's attack page which was speedied. Nevertheless, if it takes a two-way interaction ban between me and Coldman, as Salvio has proposed, to restore some sort of normalcy to the situation (and to everyone's blood pressure), then yes I will reluctantly accept the admin's recommendation. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Bagworm wants the Wikipedia community to take his word over mine that, despite my immediately undoing myself and apologizing, I was consciously trying to out him. I thought my SPI was consciously trying to out him too? Has he changed your mind about that? Like he changed his mind about whether his partner was the one following me and not him?[84][85] Or like he is claiming he didn't know about me being stalked by another user 18 hours after his "partner" directly commented on the stalker issue?[86][87] And of his first 7 edits after returning to Wikipedia at the end of a 4-month hiatus, 6 of them were either to a page in whose creation I was integral part, or to directly revert an edit I had made.[88][89][90] Note that all three of the so-called incidents he mentions above took-place after he started his current campaign of reversions. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Kindly cease misrepresenting facts. I never claimed not to have your user page in my watchlist, so did not "change my mind" when I mentioned that it was (in my watchlist). you have shown no evidence of me or anyone connected with me commenting on your stalker issue - the diffs you provide do not support that at all. All of the rest of your harangue has already been fully dealt with above. It is now abundantly clear that you are frantically trying to justify your refusal to accept admin Salvio's good-faith effort to put this saga to bed. You don't feel his recommendation is fair to you? Well I don't feel it's quite fair to me either. But we both need to know when to shut it and accept compromise proposed by a neutral player. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You changed your definition of "follow" mid-discussion. I said you were monitoring my edits (something no one has yet managed to disprove, with at least 2 other editors agreeing that you were), and you have been insisting throughout that this is not what you were doing. You then heavily implied that it was "your partner" who was following me, and not you. Then Salvio reported that not only "your partner"'s comment but also your logged-out edits indicated that you were following me. In all of these instances "following" clearly meant "monitoring my edits" -- which is what the whole point of this whole ANI has been the whole time. Then, you finally admitted to having been "following" me. Then just now you started insisting that "follow" as used by you means "have my user page on your watchlist", rather than "monitor my edits". Either (1) you changed your story, (2) you are deliberately using misleading language or (3) you are accidentally using misleading language despite this whole damn thread being all about you monitoring my edits. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a hypothetical question, as I know Salvio is not allowed answer, but how the devil could Bagworm's logged-out edits indicate that he "has my user page on his watchlist"? Of course even if CU cannot provide us with a concrete answer, everyone knows that the reason is that Salvio was working under the same definition of "follow" as everyone else, except (apparently) Bagworm, was. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding mention of my late partner, here's all there is to it: She made this single edit, and possibly a very small number of logged-out edits previously (as confirmed by Salvio), which I now realise (and have come fully clean about) was very likely the result of inadvertent meatpuppetry. Salvio just a short time ago drew my attention to the detail of what meatpuppetry can entail, and it is stricter than I had realised. I have already offered a cast-iron guarantee that, now that I am fully appraised, there will be no repetition. The above is being blown out of all proportion by Coldman. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not changed my definition of "follow" mid-discussion. My only understanding of 'following' a user-page, article, etc has been to add it to my watchlist. If the accepted meaning of the term is different then I'm sorry if I misled. I don't spend nearly enough time in WP to monitor every move you make. Frankly, you're not that interesting. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it was sockpuppets, or meatpuppets, or your main account, the fact still remains that you have been going around reverting my edits. Even if you don't spend enough time on Wikipedia to follow all my edits (it would take less time than I spend making said edits, which isn't much...), you have still somehow found a bunch of my edits worthy of reversion. You have more than once referred to said activities as "restoration" of what was removed "without discussion", indicating a clear awareness that it was me you were reverting.[91][92] Did you not also know that it was me you were reverting with your other, similar edits?[93][94] How about when you dismissed my citing a Japanese dictionary for the definition of a Japanese word, and then used your new source as an excuse to change said definition back to saying pretty much what it said before I had ever edited the article?[95][96] You of course admitted that you had checked the history and knew it was my edits you were reverting.[97] And when I pointed out to you that you were manipulating and thus misrepresenting your source you failed to respond. Please explain to us why you have been doing this, Bagworm. Coldman the Barbarian (Talk) 16:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

OMG, we have been thru all of this at least twice above. Are you just going to keep repeating yourself in a different order and hope that, because the thread is so long, people are going to get confused and think you're coming up with new stuff? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This thread has turned into one big battleground between these two users. And people are letting it happen?! Guys, take it somewhere more appropriate! Requesting Thread Closure and sanctions as agreed. (I assume some were agreed upon.) MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 16:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Wtf? This is a thread that should be on ANI, not anywhere else, and no sanctions have even been proposed. If you're not going to attempt to read the thread, don't make that kind of comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Luke, before berating an editor for not reading the thread, perhaps you should read it yourself. Cos, if you did, you'd see that sanctions have been proposed, and that I, the target of this epic, have accepted them. Coldman, however, seems incapable of piping down, instead perpetuating the thread by selling the same goods over and over. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'd noted the interaction ban being mentioned, but not as actually being proposed to be actioned. It's still a pointless thing, since you'll still wander around and revert Hijiri all over the place, safe in the knowledge that they can't complain. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Per WP:IBAN:

if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:

• edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
• reply to editor Y in discussions;
• make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;
• undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

--gråb whåt you cån (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Because you'd pretend that any IP edits weren't actually Hijiri. And you know full well that you'll do that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is why Wikipedia needs to find a way to protect Hijiri from Joshu's harrassment so he can return to normal editing. To my mind, this needs to happen before we worry about settling disputes of this nature, since until then Hijiri will always be in a position of vulnerability.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling a few people may think that Luke is skimming the edge of AGF with his attitude. Nevertheless I feel as if I should explain why I thought it was a battleground.

It's quite simple really. The thread (before my intervention) had aspired into what I saw as a battle between Hijiri and Bagworm, and last I checked doesn't a Battleground attitude generally cause problems and therefore don't we try to stop such battles from taking place? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 15:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• If it were simple it wouldn't take up so much space (that's not to say it should take up this much space). There's nothing wrong with Luke's good faith, and an Iban of sorts is perhaps a good solution, at least for now. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Luke: "Because you'd pretend that any IP edits weren't actually Hijiri. And you know full well that you'll do that"
Drmies: "There's nothing wrong with Luke's good faith"

Jeez, I'd laugh at the absurdity of the above, if it wasn't so sad. But it kinda sums up this topsy-turvy world. I've taken some time away from Wikipedia, and come to the conclusion that life without the stress of this kind of nonsense is... better. I love the idea of Wikipedia, but the practice has become something quite different. It has developed a 'system' which can be learned and played, and which by its nature favours those who have learned its tricks. I've been editing quietly and productively for many years, sharing my knowledge and improving here and there, in no big way, and have had very little occasion to have anything to do with its 'admin' pages. Along comes an editor, new to the area I've been working on for years, removes knowledge that has long been incorporated in articles, rubs everyone up the wrong way, utterly abrasive and not interested in collaboration or consensus, but displays enormous energy and stamina, and by manipulating the system gets his way. And so it goes that you drive away editors who simply want to contribute without being combative or learning the tricks of the system. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm back on one account now, so I can defend my own edits from Bagworm, so a 1-way IBAN is more agreeable to me now than it was two days ago. Although I don't think the community would oppose a double TBAN on "online poetry magazines" and "modern western poetry based on pre-1868 Japanese poetic forms" -- both ares Drmies shares my concern over. If Bagworm is now retired, I guess it makes no difference, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see a convincing reason to TBAN Bagworm. He has contributed productively to the area of Japanese poetry for several years now. You two need to learn how to collaborate better. Based on the publicly available evidence, Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man seems to apply more to you, Hijiri88 than to Bagworm. If some check-user wants to block Bagworm for his alleged naughty IP edits (which have not been made public), he or she can obviously do that. If ArbCom wants to TBAN Bagworm for the same IP edits, they can do that. But there has been no convincing public evidence that Bagworm has done much wrong besides some edit-warring with you over trifling matters, in a topic area in which both of you have contributed productively for a long time. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If Hijiri's in a position to edit using an account, an interaction ban would be better than a topic ban. However Wikipedia is simply going to have to do better dealing with the banned harasser or we'll be right back where we started again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Bagworm has now retired [98]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Is this Good Article Reviewer a sockpuppet?

Yesterday I submitted the article International System of Units for review as a WP:GA. This morning I received a note that User:FishGF was reviewing the artcile. FishGF's account was first created at 06:21 this morning and his/her first action was to start a Good Article review at 08:00 this morning. The reviewer's initial comments look like they come from a disruptive editor, possibly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of User:DeFacto.

I find it incredible that a complete newcomer can conduct such a review. This undermines the whole principal of Good Articles. I request that the actions of this editor be reversed and the the Good Article evaluation process be tightened up in respect of who can review an artcile. I will deal with this specific editor separately on WP:SPI. Martinvl (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, could also be a random newcomer trying to make a comment and mistaking the GA review venue for a general article feedback or talkpage venue? Or does the specific point he raised reflect a pattern connected to DeFacto (beyond the fact that DeFacto was obsessed with this topic area in general)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

FishGF clearly fails WP:CIR with regard to the ability to judge the merits of an article against the GA criteria. I will help review the article; any others are welcome. We will make this a community review. Binksternet (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Side comments. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is my understanding/experience that asking questions of this nature at ANI will result in a block for the person asking; YMMV, but you might want to avoid queries at ANI in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Who was this comment aimed at? I couldn't find anything in the history, so I'm confuzzled. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Hi, Luke ... it was a note to Martinvl to exercise caution in inquiring or attempting clarification re socking queries or issues at ANI, as doing so has resulted in blocks to the person inquiring at ANI in the past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I was confused by the "YMMV" bit, thanks for clarifying. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC) The admins and the article reviewers love each other dearly, but will not pass up the opportunity to take shots at each other. Think of this as Thanksgiving dinner at the home of a large dysfunctional family. --GRuban (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Do you have any idea what any of the history revolving around DeFacto is, or are you here just to bitch about admins? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A complaint about User:Sitush

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

---

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digvijaya_Singh User:Sitush has taken effective ownership of the wikipedia article. Relevant discussion may be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digvijaya_Singh (please scroll down to the section 'User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit) . I have already taken this to Dispute Resolution (where it is still pending) but i believe this is the more appropriate forum now to deal with the issue since Sitush's misbehavior needs to stop now and Dispute Resolution is not the appropriate forum for this purpose. My allegation is this: Reckless to the explicit rules and guidelines specified in WP:Ownership and WP:Consensus, Sitush is now treating this WP:BLP as his personal facebook page. Sitush has persistently been flouting wikipedia rules and guidelines, specifically the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP and also WP:Consensus. I have given many examples in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digvijaya_Singh (see the section 'User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit') where he has done this. Even the sub-section 'Batla House Encounter' whose content was disputed (which was why i had taken him to Dispute Resolution) was deleted completely together with a unilateral deletion of the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section (of which the 'Batla House Encounter edit' was part) by User:Sitush while the dispute was still pending in Dispute Resolution. My contention is that Sitush seeks WP:Ownership of the article, is not interested in WP:Consensus, continues recklessly with violating the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP and hence deserves to be recused from editing this article henceforth.Soham321 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Lots of people complain about Sitush because Sitush is one of the few editors willing to take the time to maintain a range of articles in accord with standard policies, while a never-ending stream of new editors arrive to make sure their particular outlook receives prominence. The report above contains lots of links to various policies and guidelines, but I can't see any diffs showing something that needs attention at this noticeboard. Please pick one item and quote a few words from it so the text can be found in the article, and/or the talk page. Briefly say why the item is a problem, and what action you recommend. Other editors are unable to take the time to explore the very long Talk:Digvijaya Singh#User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• There is currently an active complaint at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard taken out by Soham321, so there is a degree of forum shopping here. However I do see that at DRN the two volunteers who have commented seem reluctant to make a judgement, suggesting that more discussion needs to happen at the article talk page; perhaps this lack of progress is frustrating Soham321. I have read through the Batla House Encounter section of the article talk (and briefly through the whole article talk page) and I don't find anything obviously objectionable by Sitush. Soham321 has on the other hand described Sitush as a liar which I would caution him/her not to repeat. I can't reach an opinion on Soham321's complaint myself because as Johnuniq points out above, there is no concise diff to demonstrate a specific problem. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that a prerequisite for Dispute Resolution is an assumption of good faith between the interlocutors. That assumption of good faith was broken when the disputed edit (which was and is still pending in Dispute Resolution) was deleted in its entirety by Sitush and not only that the entire section of which the disputed edit was a part was also unilaterally deleted by Sitush. At that point of time it became a complaint about Sitush's behavior. The context in which i had accused Sitush of misrepresenting me was when he claimed i was also in favor of deleting the entire section ('Debates, Disputes, and Controversies') which he unilaterally deleted, when in fact i had explicitly opposed the deletion of this section (and i had given my reasons) when Sitush had asked me my opinion on whether it should be deleted in its entirety. I had in a separate discussion with another editor objected to a portion of text within this section ('Debates, Disputes, and Controversies') that had been added by this editor on the ground that it had no real biographical value but i had achieved WP:Consensus with that editor when he allowed me to make some modifications to his edits which i did to make them conform to WP:NPOV. Sitush does not believe in WP:Consensus as is evident when he unilaterally deleted the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section when a portion of this section had been taken up for Dispute Resolution. When the 'Batla House Encounter' edit (which was a part of the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section) was in the WP:BLP, Sitush had modified it and made the edit inappropriate/inaccurate. This happened when Sitush violated the wikipedia guideline of Balance when he did not allow Singh's views on this issue to be included in the edit (see Balance in WP:NPOV). Sitush also violating the wikipedia guideline of Impartial Tone when he inserted a clearly biased and prejudiced and irresponsible quote of a journalist which is violating the Impartial Tone clause in a WP:BLP (See Impartial Tone in WP:NPOV). So the first point of dispute is that the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section which Sitush has unilaterally deleted when a portion of it was in Dispute Resolution needs to be re-added to the main article. Once we agree on this point, i can start giving the relevant diffs to show the multiple occasions on which Sitush has violated the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in WP:NPOV in this WP:BLP.Soham321 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The diffs for the removals that Soham refers to are:

• 1
• [99]
• [100]
• [101]
• [102]
• [103]
• [104]
• [105]
• [106]

Subsequently, I made this series of edits into which Soham interjected {{POV}} - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am giving the relevant diffs myself now. Soham321 (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• 1 This is the page that existed just before Sitush started removing the entire content in the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section.
• [107] Sitush unilaterally removes the 'Thackeray Family Controversy' edit in its entirety. This section was in the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section.
• [108] Sitush unilaterally removes the 'Batla House Encounter' edit which was in the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section and which had been pending Dispute Resolution
• [109] Sitush unilaterally removes the 'Views on RSS Section' edit which was also in the 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section.

Sitush keeps going like this till finally the entire section in 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' has been wiped out by him. My point is that Sitush violated WP:Consensus when he removed the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section because he had asked me whether i was of the opinion that this entire section needs to be removed, and i had said No. I gave my reason for this on the talk page which i now reproduce: The Controversy section should not be removed in its entirety because of two reasons. First, it contains important biographical information about Singh and second it involves issues of national interest. I refer in particular to the two edits on Singh's views on RSS and also the edit on the Thackeray family controversy.The Batla House Encounter edit should also remain in this WP:BLP because it remains a talking point in the Indian media with some continuing to claim that despite the verdict of a sessions court (meaning a court belonging to the subordinate judiciary-- implying that the verdict can be appealed in a higher court) the whole case of the prosecution remains dubious and 'full of holes'. For more on this, See for instance http://www.tehelka.com/flights-of-fancy-about-911-copycat/ . On the other hand, there are others who claim the encounter was genuine. For more on this, see http://www.tehelka.com/human-rights-activism-is-not-about-converting-the-so-called-terrorists-into-martyrs/. So, since this remains a talking point in the Indian media, Singh's view on this encounter can legitimately be put on his WP:BLP In this connection i would also like to invoke WP:Ownership with the relevant extract: "All Wikipedia content[1] is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." Soham321 (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Prior to his deletion of the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section, Sitush had modified an existing edit ('Batla House Encounter') which in my opinion was accurate and made it biased/prejudiced/inaccurate. This is the diff: [1] Notice that Sitush violated the wikipedia guideline of Balance when he did not allow Singh's views on this issue to be included in the edit (see Balance in WP:NPOV). Sitush also violating the wikipedia guideline of Impartial Tone when he inserted a clearly biased and prejudiced and irresponsible quote of a journalist which is violating the Impartial Tone clause in a WP:BLP (See Impartial Tone in WP:NPOV).Soham321 (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. Two DRN volunteers suggested further talk page discussion and from the outside looking in, it seems they're absolutely correct. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible to have further discussion if the disputed section in the main article is unilaterally removed along with several other related sections (the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section) in violation of wikipedia rules and guidelines of WP:Consensus and WP:Ownership. The whole thing becomes messy when this deletion takes place while the disputed section of the article is in Dispute Resolution. Also, a substantial amount of discussion on the talk page has taken place since the two wiki admins had asked for more discussion. The discussion on the talk page has concluded. Sitush has made it clear that he demands ownership of the article in violation of WP:Ownership and he is not interested in any consensus in violation of WP:Consensus. Soham321 (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I had given four reasons on the talk page as to why i had put a POV tag on the main article which is now consisting almost entirely of whatever Sitush has written ever since he has claimed ownership of this WP:BLP in violation of WP:Ownership and WP:Consensus. Sitush has made amends with respect to one reason, but the other three points still stand. They are:
• Violated the Balance and also the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by adding the following on the basis of hearsay and speculation in one solitary article: "Singh was directed by Sonia Gandhi to ensure the selection of Ajit Jogi as the Chief Minister for the new state and this Singh did, although Jogi had been critical of his style of politics and Singh had personally preferred not to see him installed to that office. While Singh managed to convince the majority of Congress Legislator Party members to back Ajit Jogi, the absence of Vidya Charan Shukla and his supporters at the meeting raised questions about the exercise of seeking consensus as Shukla was the other main contender for the post.[16]"
• Violated the Balance and also the Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by adding a POV comment of the political commentator Aditi Phadnis. This comment has no place in a WP:BLP.
• Violated the Balance and Impartial Tone clause in WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP by giving freely speculative reasons for Digvijaya's defeat in the Madhya Pradesh elections in 2003 based on a solitary source.Soham321 (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at the diffs provided by Sitush, and they generally show the removal of tidbits from an "Other controversies" section in a BLP—almost always a good thing! While again trying to find a concrete example of a claimed problem, I noticed Talk:Digvijaya Singh#Edit Battleground with what appears to be an accurate summary of the problem (there are three groups of editors: neutral Wikipedians; politician supporters; politician haters). In that section, Sitush commented "I'd say around 80% of this article is undue weight and attempts at soapboxing" (the article at that time shows that is correct). Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit history of the main article as well as the talk page content will show that the 'Other controversies' section was added by User:A.amitkumar and i had myself told amit that these edits of his do not seem to have biographical value in my opinion. But amit disagreed with me. However, i achieved WP:Consensus with amit by making some modifications to his edits. My specific objection here is to the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section being unilaterally removed by Sitush when one of the sections in it was being disputed and was in fact pending Dispute Resolution. By doing this Sitush is claiming ownership of the article in my opinion in violation of WP:Ownership and he is also in violation of WP:Consensus. Soham321 (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN does not work that way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Soham, I think that one problem here is that you are frequently not understanding WP:OWN, WP:Consensus or the ramifications of WP:BLP, just as you did not understand WP:Vandalism. Please also note that I am still open to suggestions. I am trying to improve this article, I really am, but your constant accusations are wearing me down and, alas, are fairly typical of WP:SPA behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I still maintain that your deletion of the entire section of 'Batla House Encounter' together with your deletion of the related sections like 'Thackeray Family Controversy' and 'Views on RSS' i.e. all content within the section 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' at a time when the 'Batla House Encounter' edit was pending Dispute Resolution was violative of WP:Consensus and also WP:Ownership. As of now, the entire WP:BLP of the main article under consideration consists almost entirely of words written by you. I find this unacceptable and violative of WP:Ownership. Also, your prevarication when you falsely claimed on the talk page that I also wanted the removal of the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section on the talk page did nothing to enhance your credibility. Soham321 (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC) And oh, if you would really have been open to suggestions you would not have unilaterally deleted the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section when a portion of it was being disputed in the Dispute Resolution page. Soham321 (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Soham, you can huff, puff and maintain to your heart's content but even this last response of yours clearly demonstrates a misunderstanding of policy etc. Articles regularly have as few as one major contributor without being owned by that person; consensus is based on policy, not "votes"; BLP dictates that contentious material is removed if/until the issue is resolved; DRN is a voluntary process, although you have tended to see it as some sort of court of Wikipedia with your frequent premature desire to run there (examples include 1, 2, 3). - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you agree that as of now the entire text in the main article under consideration consists of words written almost entirely by you? Soham321 (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but so what? It is developing quite well, I think, but needs more work. That, however, is a content issue rather than a behavioural one. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@Soham321: The above still does not show a problem. Yes, Sitush removed a section, as noted in my last comment. But (briefly) what is wrong with that? Presumably you think some of the text should be retained—(briefly) what text and why? Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I object to the removal of the following three edits in particular by Sitush:
• 1 This is the 'Thackeray Family Controversy' edit
• [110] This shows two versions of the 'Batla House Encounter' edit
• [111] 'Views on RSS' edit

My reason is as follows: The 'Views on RSS' and 'Thackeray Family Controversy' edits involve issues of national interest. These sections would be present in any biography of Singh. The 'Thackeray Family Controversy' edit is significant because it involves Singh's attack on the regionalism and regional chauvinism articulated by a section of politicians in Maharashtra and the 'Views on RSS' edit is important because it involves Singh's criticism of the Hindu extremist group, the RSS, which has increasingly become more powerful in the political sphere and whose endorsed representative Narendra Modi is tipped to be the Prime Ministerial candidate of the main opposition in India in the next general elections in 2014. The 'Batla House Encounter' edit should also remain because it remains a talking point in the Indian media. In the latest issue of Tehelka magazine there are two articles containing two different views on this encounter. ( http://www.tehelka.com/flights-of-fancy-about-911-copycat/ and http://www.tehelka.com/human-rights-activism-is-not-about-converting-the-so-called-terrorists-into-martyrs/ ). Soham321 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• DELETE to IMPROVE should happen only when no reliable sources are available. Editors cannot claim removal of controversial content due to content dispute (especially for content which is validly sourced). If you feel this is trivia then this is not the right way to handle trivia. Statements such as "this doesn't look good", or "this should not be here without reason" are certain traits that show ownership by the editor which is not correct. Also showing an editors past good behavior doesn't permit them to do things wrong now or prove what an editor does is correct(there is no dearth of first time offenders in WP), so lets keep that argument out of this topic.  A m i t  웃   17:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

DELETE to IMPROVE should happen only when no reliable sources are available - do you have a policy to support this statement? It is not uncommon to take such steps, especially in BLPs. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE talks about trying to correct/fix the problems before you revert and the policy about WP:BLPREMOVE talks about removing contentious content only for un-sourced or poorly sourced content. The controversy section was added to the BLP by me because of WP:WELLKNOWN to try to summarize the large sections of controversy into a single section and use only 1-2 lines per controversial statement the leader might have made instead of using such large sections for each controversial statements. Where is the policy that states sourced content should be removed for improvement, a trend or habit is not a policy either?  A m i t  웃   17:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a policy for removal; I queried your statement, which read like it was based on policy. There has been lengthy discussion about the controversy stuff and in the absence of any consensus plus the burden of BLP and not wanting to be a random list of random allegations, I boldly took the lot out. As noted in a diff above, I'm not averse to considering proposals but none were forthcoming at the time and, indeed, Soham had indicated an unwillingness to provide any. I do wish that people could try not to write articles in list form and I do wish that they considered the relative importance of statements made in those lists etc ... but I've been around India-related articles for long enough now that I really should know that good writing is not usually going to happen. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I lost interest in interacting with Sitush after he started misrepresenting my position by making false statements. For instance, Sitush claimed that i was in favor of removing the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section when in fact i had opposed such a move. That was also when i had explained to him why the entire 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section should not be removed as he was in favor of doing. For the diff, see here. Soham321 (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the diffs of text removal by Sitush and I found that these were improvements to the article, removing text with problems such as non-neutral tone, and synthesis of sources to form a novel conclusion. I have not looked at the article's talk page or at the DRN discussion.
As described by Johnuniq, Sitush is to be praised for interposing himself between Wikipedia's policies and politicized or activist editors. This position subjects him to a near-continuous stream of and criticism and even invective. If Wikipedia is to maintain its neutrality, Sitush should be supported as much as possible by the community. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If your only contribution to this discussion is to sing praises of Sitush, then it is not going to help anything here. I am leaving this topic even though the content under discussion was created by me. I have no issues with Sitush, and any consensus brought here or on DRN is fine by me. But try to keep the discussion pointed to the content and not the user.  A m i t  웃   18:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sitush's three edits given as problem edits are well within policy, there is no reason to sanction him for them. Wikipedia biographies shouldn't be used to provide a platform for the "views" of its subjects. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

None of those three edits can be said to be examples of WP:Soap. Soham321 (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My view is that a biographical article shouldn't be full of statements made by a person, shouldn't be what person X has to say about various issues, perhaps Digvijaya's impressions on Batala house case could be used in the article on Batala house. I don't see Sitush's edits, the three main ones as sanctionable. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I must say i am impressed by the level of interest you are taking in this case. On another note, could you confirm whether you have made a single edit to date in the main article under consideration? Soham321 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Will someone please consider hatting the discussion here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Persistant disruptive edits on articles labeled "LGBT People from Italy"

Three months ago, the same user began to make systematic disruptive edits from different computers on Benvenuto Cellini, Poliziano, Torquato Tasso and Lucio Dalla among others.

The different IPs used by this person, probably Guido Lonchile (talk · contribs), are, for the more recent ones :

217.203.129.136 (talk · contribs), 95.74.248.0 (talk · contribs) and 109.52.145.74 (talk · contribs) for Torquato Tasso

217.203.139.73 (talk · contribs), 95.75.19.58 (talk · contribs)and 109.52.145.74 (talk · contribs) for Benvenuto Cellini

95.74.240.181 (talk · contribs), 217.203.139.73 (talk · contribs), 109.54.162.138 (talk · contribs) and B. River (talk · contribs), specifically created on this purpose for Poliziano.

Isn't it possible to block that person ? Frimoussou (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The pages in question are currently semi-protected, but I think a rangeblock might be a good idea in this situation. I've never done one before, but it looks like 217.203.129.136/20, 95.74.240.0/20, and 109.52.145.74/14 would be the ranges, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@Mark Arsten: I get 95.74.240.0/20, but that does not include 95.75.19.58. If that one is included it puts us into a range that is bigger than we are allowed to block. That IP could be blocked individually. The range 09.52.145.74/14 - I got the same result, but this tool shows someone is making useful edits on classical music articles from that same range so it would be inappropriate to block it imo. The third range is 217.203.129.136/20 (I got the same result as you did). I did not see anyone else editing recently on that range. I am not sure the blocks will be needed if the articles are semi protected so I will leave it up to you to decide. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I blocked the 95.74.240.0/20 and 217.203.129.136/20 ranges, thanks for your help! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to whitewash a convicted fraudster, and to promote his latest pyramid/Ponzi scheme.

User:Alagherii, a newly-created account, has edited only two articles: Sergei Mavrodi, a biography of a convicted Russian fraudster behind several large-scale pyramid/Ponzi schemes, and MMM-2011, which was formerly an article on one of Mavrodi's schemes, later made into a redirect to Mavrodi's biography as the result of an AfD discussion. [112]. User:Alagherii has repeatedly attempted to turn the redirect into an article, containing the following text:

"MMM - world-wide financial and socio-political movement, numbering tens of millions of members all other the world and proclaiming its ultimate goal of financial freedom and the complete destruction of the modern global financial system, the Financial Apocalypse. As leader of the movement of Sergei Mavrodi, dollar is Dragon and to deal with it, he created another Dragon - antisystems, MMM. The dollar is a pyramid, and MMM, respectively, is also a pyramid. Because, according to Sergei Mavrodi again, the pyramid can only be fought with the other pyramids, exactly the same. For more on the ideology of the MMM can be read here [113]". [114]

Likewise, Alagherii has repeatedly edited the Mavrodi biography, amending it to represent Mavrodi as a "a financial genius and revolutionary" rather than the convicted fraudster he clearly is, removing references, and generally attempting to whitewash the article. [115]. Given that User:Alagherii is clearly a single-purpose account, who's sole edits (contribution history: [116]) have been made with the intent to deceive Wikipedia readers concerning Mavrodi, I ask that Alagherii be blocked indefinitely. I would also suggest that the MMM-2011 redirect be permanently fully protected, and that the Mavrodi biography be protected by 'pending changes' to at least discourage casual whitewashing attempts. Further eyes on the biography would of course also be appreciated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours for 3RR. If they come back and do the same again I'll increase to indef. GiantSnowman 15:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Protected redirect. I'm not sure that pending changes is right here, since there's only been this one new user causing problems in the past few months. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User:CJK comparing academics to 9/11 "doubters"

User:CJK seems to consider a Wikipedia talk page an appropriate arena to compare academics who have expressed doubts as to the guilt of Alger Hiss to "9/11 doubters". [117] Can I ask that he be topic-banned from the subject matter until such time as he is prepared to adhere to expected talk-page standards, and to not violate WP:BLP policy in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Related reading (Arbitration request filed by CJK four weeks ago) for anyone who wants to get a bit of a background on this. NW (Talk) 17:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful link, NW. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK does exactly the same thing again: [118]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban might be helpful here. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ugh, what an awful comment to make. I support the topic ban on CJK as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Reading the talk page discussions and then the article for an hour (I have never heard of this article person before) I discover this to be a content dispute with several other editors just tired of arguing their points without any evidence in the way of references, against a tireless editor. I do see CJK as attempting to resolve these issues, after being insulted, poked and prodded for months to add mention of other possibly relevant rumor type factoids on the talk page. I also see some severe editwarring by a several editors, including an admin that subsequently blocked the article to all others except admins (severe COI?). I believe CJK has tried his/her best to discuss content disputes and I see a few other editors as using strawman arguments to intentionally not "get the point" and this ANI as a further disruptive attempt to avoid providing solid discussion. Very few, if any, references have been provided on either side but IMHO the consensus would side with CJK, despite the editor count. I suggest this article be locked down for about three months to let editors cool down and reconsider the bias (and maybe some ownership) of the article. Admins need to do a lot of reading to establish a fair conclusion here. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible legal threat on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera

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

---

On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, Smerus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has accused another editor of libel. Despite a warning of a breach of WP:NLT, the accusation remains over four hours later. As the chilling effect of such accusations on other editors is widely acknowledged, can someone take appropriate action to ensure that Smerus retracts that immediately. --RexxS (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think they are using the term colloquially, and its not reasonable to read it as a legal threat. Their response to the warning template also suggests they didn't expect the comment to be interpreted as a legal threat. That said, could be argued to be a WP:NPA issue. Monty₈₄₅ 15:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. People need to finally get off this idiotic meme that each and every mention of a word that could theoretically have some legal import ipso facto constitutes a legal threat. Saying "you did something bad to me" is not the same thing as "I'm going to sue you for doing this to me". Saying "you violated my copyright by uploading this image" doesn't mean "I'm going to sue you for damages". Saying "you damaged my article" doesn't mean "I'm going to sue you". Saying "you made personal attacks and insulted me" doesn't mean "I'm going to sue you". Saying "you libelled me" doesn't mean "I'm going to sue you" either. RexxS, you ought to know better than to try and use this silly non-incident for sanction-shopping against your opponent in those miserable old infobox wars. For shame. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I note that Smerus has not actually even identifed who may have, theoretically, been "libelled". He just said "other editors". Can cases of libel be brought by third parties? Even if they could, I don't think Smerus is actually suggesting that this is what he would wish to happen. His question, even if a little pointed, seems to be largely rhetorical. This seems to be wholly unnecessary escalation. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is indeed nonsense. The editor Smerus was reacting to had called him "a nasty S.O.B." a month ago [119] and has since had the nerve to go around accusing him of "bullying and intimidation" on the basis of very little evidence at all. I think Smerus was getting a little sick of this, hence his comment "your pestering of me across different pages is getting ever so slightly wearisome". --Folantin (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Characterising Montanabw as "going around libelling other editors" is so far beyond the usual rough-and-tumble of discourse that I find it unacceptable on Wikipedia and I'm surprised that you feel it is. Please remember that the thrust of WP:NLT is to consider the effect on the recipient, not to play at lawyer by second-guessing what the originator may or may not have meant. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And I still don't think a reasonable editor could interpret that comment to be a threat of legal action, and it certainly does not appear Smerus intended to create such a perception. There may be more meat on the civility question, but I don't think your gonna get a block on NLT. Monty₈₄₅ 18:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not unless every editor who leaves Template:Uw-defamatory1 on another editor's page is up for a block as well. This is absurd. Voceditenore (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I want to believe Smerus' remarks were just hyperbole and heated rhetoric and I'm willing to let the matter drop if he's not pushing it any further, either. But if not, truth is always a defense to any such charges, but further, expression of a sincere belief or opinion is still protected free speech in America, last I checked. My concern is that yes, Smerus is bullying User:Gerda Arendt and also some of the other editors like Andy who are designing and promoting infoboxes. I responded directly to his remarks at WP:Opera and Rigoletto talk. Folks can evaluate our dialogue there for themselves. My concern is that he can dish it out but can't take it. He and his allies have been extremely unkind to Gerda in particular across multiple talk pages related to the ongoing infobox drama at WikiProject Opera. I've been appalled at their bullying and what sounds to me like intimidation of Gerda, who is the creator of the "Precious" award that she gives out on almost a daily basis and one of the nicest and most good faith editors I know on wikipedia. I hold a view, backed by evidence that I find convincing, that Smerus responds to anyone who disagrees with his views on infoboxes in this manner (and his friend Folantin above is clearly a part of the same Greek chorus with tone and content). Now, should he be less rabidly anti-infobox than I think, I'd be glad to alter my own views on the matter. And if he apologizes for being so mean to Gerda, I will also accept that as a good faith attempt to mend fences. If Gerda feels he is now working with her in good faith, I too would be willing to back down. But this was not a fight I started. Montanabw^(talk) 18:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Barlas

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

---

I am once again reporting Ancientsteppe (talk · contribs). His edits in the above mentioned article are contraproductive. This comment on the talkpage proves that he is not familiar with WP:RS or other basic rules of Wikipedia. This is not a matter of scholarly dispute, but about a user who is distorting academic sources and is pushing for his own POV - without being able to privide a single reliable source. --Lysozym (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No reaction? --Lysozym (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• There's nothing in that diff that warrants any kind of admin action. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• As for their behavior in Barlass (where I happen to agree with you), I suggest you report them at WP:ANEW if they continue reverting. Just for fairness sake I have warned both of you for edit warring, as is clearly warranted by the history. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Steppe blocked for 48 hours for continuing to edit war after the warning. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Request to enforce NOR

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

---

This report does not concern a content dispute. This report concerns a pattern of long-term disruption of the March Against Monsanto article involving multiple editors restoring the same or similar sources in violation of our policy against no original research. These editors have attempted to impose a local consensus at March Against Monsanto in violation of our primary site-wide policy on WP:NOR and the typical application of FRINGE.

The "March Against Monsanto" is an international protest movement that demonstrated on May 25, 2013. The relevant policy and guidelines state that reliable sources about the protest may be used judiciously, however, these editors are adding off-topic sources from GMO articles that were published before the protests ever occurred and about a subject that has nothing to do with the protests or the reliable secondary sources about the protests.

The relevant NOR policy is very clear: "...you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context...precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia."

Similarly, WP:FRINGE states: "...the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing."

Certain editors, namely A13ean, Arc de Ciel, Thargor Orlando, SpectraValor, North8000, and Tryptofish, have all engaged in similar editing behavior between May and August, repeatedly adding in the same or similar content after being repeatedly asked to stop doing this on the talk page and on their user pages.

Here is a list of article diffs showing this behavior:

16:38, 31 May

• A13ean (talk · contribs);
  • Removes wording sourced to the Associated Press article about the protest and according to his own edit summary, "expand with cites from Genetically modified food", a completely different article. A13ean then rewrites and replaces the AP source with off-topic citations to AAAS (2012), World Health Organization (2012), Preston (2011), National Academies Press (2004), Winter & Gallego (2006), Jaffee (Feb. 7, 2013), Ronald (2011), Miller (2009), Chang (2012).

07:07, 1 June

• Arc de Ciel (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean's off-topic citations from the GMO article

18:53, 12 June

• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
  • Restores and adds to A13ean's off-topic citations from the GMO article

22:07, 13 June

• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
  • Restores and adds to A13ean's off-topic citations from the GMO article

13:20, 18 June

• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
  • Restores and adds to A13ean's off-topic citations from the GMO article

02:03, 19 July

• SpectraValor (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean's off-topic citations

13:35, 19 July

• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
  • Restores and adds to A13ean's off-topic citations from the GMO article

01:07, 20 July

• North8000 (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean and Thargor Orlando's off-topic citations from the GMO article

19:37, 20 July

• Tryptofish (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean and Thargor Orlando's off-topic citations from the GMO article

16:10, 23 July

• Tryptofish (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean and Thargor Orlando's off-topic citations from the GMO article

18:30, 27 July

• Tryptofish (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean and Thargor Orlando's off-topic citations from the GMO article

23:22, 28 July

• North8000 (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean and Thargor Orlando's off-topic citations from the GMO article

17:56, 4 August

• Tryptofish (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean and Thargor Orlando's off-topic citations from the GMO article

When the situation is politely explained to them, they ignore the explanation and keep adding the sources, all the while claiming that no explanation has ever been offered (WP:IDHT) When shown the NOR policy and asked why they keep adding these sources when we have perfectly on-topic, secondary sources about the subject, they avoid answering the question.

User:Petrarchan47 deserves credit for being the first editor to pick up on these overt policy violations.[120][121][122] As Petrarchan47 has observed, "this article is about the protest, and concerns behind it."[123]

I am happy to answer any questions as time permits. I have filed this report here instead of the WP:NOR/N board because that board is basically dead and receives very little traffic. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

All editors notified of this report. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (involved editor) This complaint is a continuation of the very lengthy thread above on this topic, and demonstrates the bad faith problems discussed there. Viriditas seems unable to accept that there can be a genuine disagreement between editors on whether/how this article is subject to WP:FRINGE guidance (by which it might be argued the addition of mainstream scientific views could be justified), or whether it should focus exclusively on the march (in which case they would not). Rather than try and achieve consensus we are seeing battles between some dug-in editors and Viriditas' complaint above (taking-in some experienced editors) of "a pattern of long-term disruption" and "overt policy violations" (while describing his own "side" as "polite" and deserving of credit) is just more of this. Each 'side' need to acknowledge the reasonableness of the other, assume good faith, and work towards a consensus. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't about a content dispute, this is about a long-term pattern of policy violation, apparent tag team editing, and behavioral disruption centering on WP:IDHT, which you have adequately demonstrated in your response, as you know very well that the mainstream scientific opinion has been represented by the AP[124] and other sources since the beginning. There is absolutely no justification to continue violating our policy on NOR and it needs to stop. I can provide diff after diff of the above editors violating consensus after consensus, pretending discussions never took place and deliberately adding the same content over and over again after multiple discussions said otherwise. This is willful and deliberate disruption. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • QED Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I'm afraid I don't see were Viriditas commented about conduct. The subject of this ANI seems to be purely content-based. If you would like to discuss whether editors are being nice or not, this wouldn't seem the place. This type of off-topic comment tends to dilute, confuse and divert the discussion. petrarchan47tc 07:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And by "content" I'm referring to the diffs showing repeated addition of OR which seems a response to any questioning of GMO safety. But such a response isn't proper in my understanding of how to build a wiki article. See the changes I made by this comparison of diffs, where I order the issues in a common sense flow, and put the introduction the first section at the top (it was hidden at the bottom for some reason - and is again). Now after a few edits between User:Arzel, User:Tryptofish and User:Thargor Orlando, it looks like this. The information about MAM founder is missing mention (again) that she is a first time activist, as if to make her less sympathetic, the GMO controversy supersedes all else, and the non-MAM-related, pro-GMO science was added back, among other unexplained changes. Another recurring OR has been, from the early days of the article, a focus on attacking the well-sourced claim that the march had 2 million attendees. Yesterday the 2 million number was removed for a bogus reason, leaving only "200,000" - based on one single newspaper article which was written while the protest was still taking place. The number matches the estimated turnout in coverage prior to the march. Details here. It seems like vandalism of an article to me. petrarchan47tc 08:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you read Viriditas's comment - especially the opening words? FWIW, I think this is a content dispute that Viriditas is trying to address via behaviour complaints (since that is how he sees it - incorrectly in my view). And this would be the right forum for that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Semantics. The content and conduct are married in this case. petrarchan47tc 08:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think this raises an interesting question. Is it impossible for this article to be neutral as reliable sources have not discussed it in sufficient detail? Is the very act of making this article neutral only possible through WP:OR by linking standard sourced statements of the scientific mainstream (or "Pro-GMO science" as Petra appears to call it, as though you can choose your "science") to the specific march? If that is the case, it should be deleted as sources have not discussed the topic in sufficient detail for it to be neutrally discussed on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

considering this, I've put the article up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March Against Monsanto (2nd nomination). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have raised no such question, and if anyone needed a working example of the exact kind of intentional disruption that has been going on here since May, IRWolfie's comment above is the epitome of the kind of disruption I've been describing. The article has never had a neutrality problem, has had numerous reliable sources about the protest indicating the scientific consensus, and yet, IRWolfie has constructed yet another one of his signature straw men to knock down yet again, this time nominating the article for deletion based on a deletion rationale that has no basis in reality. If you are looking for a good example of disruption on Wikipedia, please feel free to use this example, as I can think of no better one to illustrate the problem. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Not only is this a content dispute which Viriditas is trying to pretend is a behavioral one, but the entire foundation of their complaint / edit warring against everybody including the mediator-types is faulty, and a misreading of policy. In essence they are claiming that inclusion of a source that does not address the topic of the article is "OR" and mis-behavior if used. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Content dispute. GregJackP Boomer! 11:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• While I can't say I am very happy to see this here, it appears to me that Viriditas' diffs make a strong case. Anyone willing to examine them with NPOV may be edified by his points. Jusdafax 14:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• It should be noted that Viriditas has been blocked for three months for his continued conduct at the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am at a conference and don't have the opportunity to respond at length. However, I would point out that WP:FRINGE states "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." The safety of GMOs is a controversial subject. What I added was a single sentence supported with a number of reliable sources on the mainstream view of the safety of GMO foodstuffs. The line I used was a long-standing one at the GMO safety page. There's plenty of reasonable objections that could be raised about this change, but broadly accusing myself and other editors of paid editing, POV pushing, meatpuppetry, etc, is not a reasonable objection.

I reiterate my statement in the previous ANI thread: I do not have a conflict of interest in this matter; I have not communicated with any other editor on this subject off-wiki; I will gladly prove my identity to any admin whom I trust not dox me. a13ean (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. As Thargor noted just above, Viriditas has been blocked for three months. I urge uninvolved users to look at my talk page, and at the blocking administrator's excellent rationale on Viriditas' talk, for the reasons. (I was the editor who asked the administrator to examine the situation.) This ANI thread is a bogus attempt to use ANI to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, and the allegations of WP:IDHT actually apply to Viriditas and some of the few editors who are defending him. The claims of tag-teaming are without substance. Rather, the fact that multiple editors agree about reverting those edits merely demonstrates that there is some consensus against those edits, and the repeated reversions would not occur if Viriditas and Petrachan were not repeatedly adding them back.
• Let's get specific about this claim of WP:OR. The sentence in question is at March Against Monsanto#GMO controversy, and it reads: "There is a broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater health risk than conventional food.", followed by a long series of inline citations. The sentence comes from Genetically modified food controversies, where a content RfC now in progress is trending strongly in the direction that the sentence is reliably sourced and correctly written. The argument that Viriditas has made at the MAM talk page comes down to the observation that the sources do not mention the March Against Monsanto by name. However, look at the sentence that we are talking about here. It's one specific sentence. I offered my interpretation of the applicability of the sourcing on the article talk page way back on July 20: [125]. I said: "If the argument is that they are about GMOs but not about the March, then I think that's a false argument. The sentence that they support is about the safety or non-safety of GMOs, and they are directed at that. It's appropriate for this page to devote a few sentences to that, because the claims against GMOs are central to the reasons for the March. We should present what Canal et al. believe, but we must keep our presentation of their views in compliance with WP:FRINGE with respect to the science, as mainstream as they may be in politics and culture." I think that's reasonable. Agree with me or disagree with me, but don't deny that I said it. But Viriditas claimed that I never explained myself, so I repeated the explanation: [126]. And again: [127]. And again: [128]! In the real world, this isn't about editors repeatedly reinstating original research. It's about a few other editors doing WP:IDHT when they WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and coming here to ANI to make false accusations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The named editors in the opening statement have legitimate concerns with stopping this article developing into a WP:FORK. The original stub definitely was, and this dispute should be seen in that light. From my perspective, both "sides" have been adding OR to this article - and as petrachan has noted somewhere above, this article should be about just the march, and just verifiable positions which can be directly linked to the march. Many of the diffs cited above are introducing OR to combat OR (e.g., statement of no harm from GM needed to balance claim that "advocates" want GMO labelling. This should be about the marchers, not what these advocates want.) From my perspective, the article as it is is pretty well balanced, and slowly improving. There are a number of conduct issues here, but that doesn't seem to be the point of complaint - and even if it was, IMO the blame falls more on Veriditas and some of the other more characteristic "anti GM" voices than (most of) the named group above. As a content dispute, I don't see what action could helpfully be taken by admin. This is just yet another forum for this ongoing bad faith argument to spill into. DanHobley (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dan, you've been a very level-headed help at the page since you started helping there, and I realize that I shouldn't go too deep into content discussions here, but since your indent indicates in part a reply to me, I feel that I need to point something out. The protesters who are the subject of the page say that GMO foods are unsafe. The fact that they say it isn't OR; it's verifiably what they say, as shown in reliable sources. We certainly should report that. But (even setting aside the much-flogged references to WP:FRINGE) we need to apply WP:BALANCE to that. Thus this one sentence. A single sentence! It would be WP:OR if, hypothetically, the page said that the protesters are wrong because of those science sources. But there is ZERO OR in the sentence that I have quoted; that is the scientific consensus per numerous sources; the sources support the sentence that they cite, and the sentence belongs there per BALANCE. This really isn't adding OR to combat other OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's a little misphrased. I guess I mean more "These additions are no more OR than the text which surrounds them." DanHobley (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It would seem at first glance that WP:BALANCE wouldn't apply here because the article is about the march, not GMO per se. In this context, it doesn't seem that the policy is aimed at facilitating the introduction of commentary related to the truth content of the motivations of the protesters. The protesters are not being used as a reliable source making a statement on GMO, so where is the context for introducing the scientific consensus?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The page is also about the positions expressed by the marchers. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

From the AfD I see that Viriditas has shown sources that clearly state about the scientific consensus: "Genetically modified crops are the most tested and regulated crops, and the scientific consensus about their safety is overwhelming". Thus it is not original research to include citations about the scientific consensus as secondary sources make the connection, and NPOV can be satisfied. Thus I see that my AfD was correctly closed on the basis of these sources I did not have access to. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Tryptofish's role in this article has been of an experienced respected Wikipedian who has no known POV here, who was asked to help here. And their work on the article has all been cautious middle-of-the-road moderator type work. The fact that Viriditas was even beating Tryptofish up speaks volumes. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but a minor correction: nobody asked me to go there. I was looking at my watchlist, and I watch several of the RfC pages, when I saw that the bot had removed an expired RfC at the MAM page that I hadn't noticed while the RfC was going on, because my attention had been elsewhere. I thought that the page looked interesting, so I added MAM to my watchlist, and from that I became involved in the discussions there. It stood out to me from the start that some of the allegedly pro-Monsanto editors were sometimes kind of clueless and stubborn, but they always seemed polite, whereas some of the allegedly anti-Monsanto editors seemed to be incredibly uncivil and given to WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(added later) Yes, my mistake. I meant / should have said asked/encouraged (after you were there already) to take a more active role as a "middle of the road" person. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, I can point out that a disinterested examination of the article talk page will find numerous instances where, talking about content issues, I explicitly said that I agreed with Viriditas, not that it was ever acknowledged by him. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Trypto old buddy, as you have observed the record shows I attempted to gently warn Viriditas that he was headed towards a block, and it has happened in spades. Since he is no longer able to defend himself here, if anyone is actually willing to debate his arguments and supplied diffs without further bashing his personality, fine. Otherwise, I suggest we close. The odium of a block will make his actual points moot for many, which I consider a shame. Civility can be a double edged sword, as I see it, and some of the most polite and seemingly friendly editors can be as dark as the deepest cavern, and twist words to mean what they want them to mean in the service of an agenda that is cloudy. I make no accusations and cast no specific aspersions, but based on what I have seen here, there is much to ponder. Jusdafax 00:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to highlight something that Petrarchan47 said earlier as it appears to have been overlooked: "The subject of this ANI seems to be purely content-based. If you would like to discuss whether editors are being nice or not, this wouldn't seem the place. ". ANI does not deal with purely content based problems, ANI is the place to "discuss whether editors are being nice or not". There appears to be agreement that the complaint was about content, Viriditas has been blocked, and so this discussion can be closed now. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem now spreading to another page

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

---

Please see: [129], reverted: [130], where the evidence-free accusations of shill editing are continuing. Further information is at User talk:Canoe1967#COI at GM controversies. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I was pretty seriously concerned about this also. Canoe1967 doesn't appear to have adequate (==any actual...?) evidence for his claim of COI, and more troubling, pretty blunt insinuation of corporate astroturfing against Tryptofish Jytdog (edited for brainfart). I discussed this with Canoe earlier today and expressed my misgivings (along with another editor). I recommended he take it down of his own accord, but nothing happened. Conversation, and Canoe's justification is here - [131].[132]. It is doubly provocative given the previous ANI on this same topic (melodramatic sigh),[133] which resulted in this notice being posted at March against Monsanto: [134]. I would certainly characterise this as a straight up and very disproportionate personal attack, as well as an attempt to gain leverage in content arguments. DanHobley (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Was there such an insinuation about me? I wasn't aware of it, or maybe you meant against Jytdog. (Although I will point out what Petrachan said about me in the last link you provided: [135]). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Same editor is making insinuations about people being socks: [136]: "You seem to be rather defensive of another editor here. I could think sock or meatpuppet but without looking into it further I won't". IRWolfie- (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Both COI tags are removed now. I removed the second one myself. The way I read the policy for applying them doesn't seem to agree with a few other editors. "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other..." The user's page states "I'm interested in biotechnology, intellectual property, and the public perception of both.'" (my bold) This added up to me as his POV/COI being reflected to 'the public interest' through Wikipedia.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't know that there was a second one, so thank you for self-reverting! I take the fact that you self-reverted as indicating that you are aware of the concerns here, and therefore I do not see any reason for administrator action any more. Thanks again. At your talk page, I and other editors have tried to provide you with explanations about why editors with an interest in a subject do not, de facto, have a COI about editing in a subject. I'll add that someone saying that they are interested in biotechnology and interested in the public perception of it could quite readily be interested in making sure that the public perception is accurate, including recognizing any problems with it. There's no reason to assume that the person is pushing any particular POV, and it's best to assume otherwise unless there is actual evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Tabarez = Reza.Piri

Hi everyone. I think it is obvious that User:Tabarez (banned indefinitely on 11 June 2013 for copyright violations) returned with User:Reza.Piri as his newest sockpuppet. It just takes to look at their contributions (mostly about Iranian politics and sport) to see they are the same person (WP:DUCK). It really looks like WP:SOCK to me, so I guess an admin should look at this case. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As can be seen, User:Reza.Piri appears to plan to engage in an edit war at List of Presidents of Iran, in the same fashion as Tabarez did with his main account, and after its indef blocking with his socks. Its a clear WP:DUCK IMHO. --Sundostund (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have filed a sock puppet report at WP:SPI (direct link). You should have reported him there, not here. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thomas, I really appreciate your opening of a sock puppet report, I hope it will help to finally end this sockpuppet nonsense by Tabarez. But, as can be seen, Reza.Piri is still unblocked and he's still editing articles on Iranian politics and sport, including his edit warring on List of Presidents of Iran. I think some admin should deal with that. --Sundostund (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked Reza.Piri, so that sock is out. Now we need to see whether Tabarez plans another "comeback", with some new sock account or IP... ‎--Sundostund (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

As I suspected, he now uses another IP. I bet this is his newest block evasion - 2.178.185.80. ‎--Sundostund (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

His newest IP is 2.178.77.198 - exactly the same behavior as before, including edit warring at List of Presidents of Iran... --Sundostund (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And now he is 2.178.163.156, look his edit warring at List of Presidents of Iran and Inauguration of Hassan Rouhani... This really becomes pathetic. --Sundostund (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we REALLY need a rangeblock here, it appears this guy went mad at List of Presidents of Iran and Inauguration of Hassan Rouhani. --Sundostund (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

His current IP is 2.178.79.203 - again, same editing patterns as before... This guy is so stubborn! --Sundostund (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And now his IP is 2.178.160.190... --Sundostund (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Both articles have been protected by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Blackmane (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Gross misuse of article talk page, immediate action requested

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

---

I request someone step in to read Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites#Proof-reading the lead, perhaps remove material which does not meet TPG, including my own, and perhaps notify editors involved of the appropriate talk-page guidelines. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for having not notified the other combatant, BTW. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Folks, this is a little dust-up on the way to arbitration User:John_Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence. Consider the incivility directed at me Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites#Question of POV from the top of the talk page on down. Ignocrates (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Since we are here, I won't waste the trip. Please consider removing the tag that was placed on the article Gospel of the Ebionites#Relationship to other texts resulting in this discussion: Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites#Neutrality tag. Ignocrates (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• John, so you're asking some random admin to get into this fray and start deleting talk page content? I suggest both of you try to limit how widely you spill your dispute around Wikipedia. This isn't a stop on the dispute resolution train. --Laser brain (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• John, to be quite honest with you, what I see here is one editor raising concerns about a featured article review, which is an entirely appropriate use of a talk page. I see inappropriate responses to that initial statement from two other editors, but you're one of them, as you're dismissing rather than addressing the concerns. If you feel they're invalid, say so, but also say why. Ignocrates, your responses to John are also inappropriate as they are personalizing the dispute, and "get off your ass and address them" is needlessly inflammatory and certainly uncivil. The both of you should be focusing on concerns with the article, not bickering. A trout for the both of you, and if either one can't focus on the content rather than the writer, stay away altogether. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Basically, I'm asking someone to ensure that the conduct meets requirements. There is a very long history of misconduct on both sides here, me among them. Unfortunately, honestly, I believe (think what you will about my beliefs) that personalizing matters is, per his history, pretty much the primary tactic of Ovadyah/Ignocrates for some time now. Honestly, I would appreciate firm warnings regarding misuse of the talk page to both parties, with the possibility of enforcement through standard measures should inflammatory, off topic commentary continue, and, possibly, someone to refactor the page should behavior continue to get out of hand. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note similar uncivil interactions between John Carter and multiple editors: User_talk:Ignocrates/Archive 4#Opinion please and recently diff 1; diff 2. This is not an isolated incident involving two editors. Imo, TPG should apply here as well. Ignocrates (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nor are false and irrelevant accusations against others even remotely new for you, as per User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence. I also believe that it would very much help if additional editors ensured that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and other tactical maneuvers to avoid dealing with legitimate concerns be enforced, by administrative action if necessary. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if I should make this comment here as it is not directly relevant to the issue under discussion, but I don't know where else to put it and I feel it needs to be discussed by the wider community. User:John Carter has what seems to me an extremely odd attitude to WP:RS and WP:NPOV. He says that one of the leading authorities of today on the New Testament,Bart Ehrman, has as much credibility as Tom Cruise talking about Scientology diff 1 and compares Ehrman's works to comic strips diff 2. Ehrman has had seventeen books published by Oxford University Press, two by Harvard University Press and has written three university textbooks, used to train other scholars and professionals in the field, on the New Testament. But User John Carter dismisses Ehrman as an author of "popular books" and says that he can only be considered WP:RS when he agrees with "academic sources", see diff 2 above where he says "But popular sources are in general less well regarded than academic sources, and if we can find an academic source which says what Ehrman says, they would be the better sources. If Ehrman says something that academic sources don't say, then there might be a problem". Apparently because Ehrman, in addition to his seventeen books published by OUP, has also written for a general readership and produced NYT best-sellers without scholarly apparatus such as footnotes and bibliographies,etc., this disqualifies anything he has written from being used on WP. It appears John Carter does not consider Oxford University Press to be an "academic source", which seems absurd to me. John Carter has been involved in long running disputes with User Ret.Prof and User Ignocrates and issues lectures and warnings to them about various policies and guidelines, just for instance diff 3 and see diff one above, but John Carter himself does not seem to me to understand WP:RS or WP:NPOV at all. Apologies if I have addressed these concerns in the wrong place, I have discussed it with John Carter on several talk pages, but he basically just repeats that Ehrman is a "questionable" source because he writes "popular books".Smeat75 (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I messed up the link to Bart D. Ehrman above, now I hope it is correct and will direct to the WP page which says " Ehrman is a leading New Testament scholar, having written and edited over twenty-five books, including three college textbooks."Smeat75 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, I tried WP:Dispute_resolution noticeboard/Gospel of the Ebionites prior to this ANI filing; it just closed due to non-participation in resolving the content dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

possible malfunction of MadmanBot

I newly created Cyclopygidae just now. User:MadmanBot now placed a tag on this page that its content is very much like cyclopygidae, a page that does not seem to exist. Someone please help! Thanks in advance, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed that tag from the page. I hope Madman can shed some light on this, but it seems that it was a unique event. All other recent edits by MadmanBot seem to be correct so there's no need to push the shutoff button. De728631 (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):That was really wierd... when I clicked the first link, I got the article without the image, then when I clicked the second link, (literally a second later) I Got it with pictures... different versions of the lead too. I then purged the cache, and they became identical... very odd... Maybe some bizarre caching problem that cause the bot to misbehave? Monty₈₄₅ 20:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a note at the Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Tagfest

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

---

The Rambling Man has been engaging in a tagfest on small municipality articles: [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182],

Many of The Rambling Man's tags make little sense. He has tagged articles on smaller municipalities for having an insufficient lead. In fact, many of these articles have little, if any, content other than Geography and Demographics, and it would be a stretch to add anything to their lead. (Examples: 1, 2, 3)

He also argues that maintaining "Notable people" sections of articles is duplicative of categories, and that the NP sections have no well-defined criteria. The Rambling Man admits that he himself has no criteria for where he places tags and has stated that he intends to continue his tagfest for as long as his time permits.

This mass, random tagging is neither productive nor useful. It is highly unlikely to lead to any improvement in the articles. Moreover, if there is a problem with the criteria used in the "Notable people" sections of geographic articles, then it would be much better to address that on a policy basis, rather than through a mass drive-by tagging campaign.

Please intervene to stop this disruptive editing. 71.139.148.165 (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What disruptive editing? An experienced editor adding valid maintenance tags to articles in dire need of a clean up? Call the police! GiantSnowman 10:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A tag like [183] is meaningless without further explanation; the article is seemingly well referenced, both in quantity and quality of refs and throughout the article. If there are many of such misplaced or hard to explain tags, then it indeed becomes disruptive. Fram (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fram, regarding the diff you have provided - again, nothing wrong. There is lots of information in the article which is unreferenced, and it is a more efficient way than individually tagging each and every bit with {{cn}}. GiantSnowman 10:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fram, if you can see the sections of the article which are entirely unreferenced, then I can't help you really. As noted above, I could tag every sentence which needs referencing, or even every section, but I'm sure that'd be considered overkill. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's see: "Geography" is referenced to the Census bureau and the US Geological Survey; History has two refs; Climate has three refs; Demography has 2 refs; Government and infrastructure has 6 refs (but none in transportation); In popular culture has no refs; Notable people has one ref (for this section, often it is accepted that it is enough that the linked article has the fact included). So that makes one unsourced subsection. Hardly "overkill" to tag that specific one if you think it needs a source. Fram (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Whole paragraphs are missing references:

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 8.0 square miles (20.8 km²), of which 7.9 square miles (20.5 km²) is land and 1.07% is water. Eagle Lake is located 15 miles (24 km) north of the town.

The Census reported that 9,439 people (52.6% of the population) lived in households, 108 (0.6%) lived in non-institutionalized group quarters, and 8,400 (46.8%) were institutionalized. There were 3,833 households, out of which 1,357 (35.4%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 1,645 (42.9%) were opposite-sex married couples living together, 499 (13.0%) had a female householder with no husband present, 233 (6.1%) had a male householder with no wife present. There were 327 (8.5%) unmarried opposite-sex partnerships, and 16 (0.4%) same-sex married couples or partnerships. 1,161 households (30.3%) were made up of individuals and 405 (10.6%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.46. There were 2,377 families (62.0% of all households); the average family size was 3.05. The population was spread out with 2,559 people (14.3%) under the age of 18, 2,547 people (14.2%) aged 18 to 24, 7,633 people (42.5%) aged 25 to 44, 4,024 people (22.4%) aged 45 to 64, and 1,184 people (6.6%) who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 33.6 years. For every 100 females there were 273.7 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 327.3 males. There were 4,256 housing units at an average density of 530.9 per square mile (205.0/km²), of which 1,974 (51.5%) were owner-occupied, and 1,859 (48.5%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 3.4%; the rental vacancy rate was 7.7%. 5,039 people (28.1% of the population) lived in owner-occupied housing units and 4,400 people (24.5%) lived in rental housing units

There were 3,516 households out of which 37.4% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 46.4% were married couples living together, 13.2% had a female householder with no husband present, and 36.0% were non-families. 29.9% of all households were made up of individuals and 10.7% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.49 and the average family size was 3.10. In the city the population was spread out with 20.0% under the age of 18, 13.6% from 18 to 24, 41.5% from 25 to 44, 17.1% from 45 to 64, and 7.7% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 32 years. For every 100 females there were 198.3 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 231.6 males. The median income for a household in the city was $35,675, and the median income for a family was $45,216. Males had a median income of $29,973 versus $27,044 for females. The per capita income for the city was $13,238. About 11.0% of families and 14.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 14.5% of those under age 18 and 9.1% of those age 65 or over.

Susanville lies at the junction of California State Routes 36 and 139. Highway 139 heads north to the Oregon border as a direct route to Klamath Falls. Highway 36 runs west to Red Bluff, then east to where it terminates with U.S. Route 395 just outside Susanville's city limits. U.S. 395 connects Alturas to the north and Reno to the south. Susanville Municipal Airport, 5 miles (8 km) southeast of Susanville, serves as a public, general aviation airport. Lassen Rural Bus provided bus service within the city. The Quincy Railroad no longer serves Susanville on the former Southern Pacific Railroad line since 2004. A Union Pacific Railroad caboose has been placed on an intact section of track next to the rail depot.

Susanville is mentioned in the Quentin Tarantino films, Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown. In Reservoir Dogs, Joe states that Marcellus Spivey is doing 20 years in Susanville for "bad luck" and in Jackie Brown, the character of Louis says he served four years in Susanville, presumably at California Correctional Center. Actor Danny Trejo served some time in the California Correctional Center in Susanville. In the film Pink Cadillac, Susanville is said to be only 25 miles (40 km) from Reno, NV., not the true distance of 86 miles (138 km). On the Vandals album Slippery When Ill is a song called Susanville, about a trucker who has been driving for so long he can't remember what his cargo is or where he is heading. He recalls a girl called named Mary in Susanville, but following the lyrics of the song this could just as well be a girl named Susan in Marysville. Rapper Spice 1 mentions his friend serving time in prison in Susanville in one of his songs. Susanville is mentioned repeatedly in Slither (1973 film) starring James Caan, Peter Boyle and Sally Kellerman.

Hardin Barry, baseball player. Frank Cady, Played Sam Drucker, on Petticoat Junction, Green Acres, and Beverly Hillbillies, CBS Shows, 1960s Aaron Duran, Writer, Media ProducerJack Ellena, former Los Angeles Rams player, was born and raised in SusanvilleMike Leach, Washington State's head football coach was born in Susanville Kevin Mangold, Professional jockey, stunt double, actor, author Ryan O'Callaghan, NFL player for the Kansas City Chiefs and former New England Patriots Frank Shamrock, Mixed Martial Artist Ken Shamrock, UFC Hall of Fame, Former WWF (WWE) Superstar Mike Skinner, NASCAR driver.

See? That's a helluva lot of unreferenced material! GiantSnowman 11:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your first example starts with "According to the United States Census Bureau". This may not be a correctly formatted reference, but it is not unreferenced... Many of the other examples given also are clearly referenced if you are willing to look at the article in toto, and not read it sentence by sentence as if they are unrelated. The section that starts with "As of the census[11] of 2000" doesn't need a reference after every paragraph or sentence, that one reference is sufficient. Fram (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay so you'd prefer me to tag the transportation section and the popular culture section? And tag the unreferenced claims individually? I can do that instead. (Incidentally, did you check those references? The one used, for instance, for the 2000 census doesn't appear to back any of the claims up...) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Tag the sections if you feel it is necessary, it at least indicates where you see further problems. Tag unreferenced claims if they are dubious or controversial. There is no need to tag all unreferenced sentences in all articles... And the reference for the 2000 census are from 2008, but that website now shows the 2010 figures instead. That doesn't mean that the 2000 claims are wrong. Fram (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say the claims are wrong, I said unreferenced, which you now agree with. Okay, I'll add three or four tags then, rather than just the one at the top. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• A lot of fuss over nothing. If any statement in an article is unreferenced, then the tag at the top of the page is valid. Obviously, if there's only one or two statements that need refs, then tag those individually. If whole sections lack references, as is the case here, then there's nothing wrong with the tags. The IP would do much better to actually resolve the problems, rather than to raise a frivolous allegation of disruption. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Nothing? Articles which are mostly referenced but have some sections still unreferenced are among the better ones on Wikipedia. Focusing the tagging (and filling of backlogs) on the larger problems may be more useful. And the IP also (probably correctly) complained that tagging individual articles with a "notable people" section is rather useless, having a general discussion to decide on inclusion criteria would be much more efficient than having the same discussion on thousands of articles,n with wildly varying results. Fram (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The {{famous}} template says what is required. How is that so hard resolve? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
      • It doesn't say what is required, it suggests that the WP:V is somehow related to inclusion or exclusion criteria. Of course there should be a verifiable link between the persons given and the placename, but that's hardly what is being disputed. Does everyone who spent two months in the place get a spot on the list? Only people born there? People who studied there? And probably more importantly, do we decide these criteria 50,000 times, or once centrally? If there are no criteria as of now, it is useless to ask the few editors of such articles to come up with them. That template should probably simply not be used, cretainly not in its current form, since the text of the template and the category it places articles in (Category:Unverifiable lists of persons) are not directly related. Fram (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Well it seems pretty clear that depending on the context, the inclusion criteria will be different, so there's no one size fits all answer. As for problems with the template, you'd need to take that up at the template talk page I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I have nominated it for deletion instead, as I believe the problems to be insurmountable. Fram (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
            • I saw that! Quick work. I still think a "general" rule cannot be determined, it needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. After all, those lists are usually copied straight from the associated category of "People from X". Imagine the size of a list of "notable Manchester United F.C. players"? or "Notable members of the British Parliament". Still, we've got some fun to watch now, thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
              • If a list of notable members is too large, you can just spin it off to its own article or articles, this is being done all the time where needed (and sometimes where not needed or wanted as well). As for the fun: don't forget the popcorn! Fram (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
                • I'm there already! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Footwiks - again

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

---

Footwiks (talk · contribs) was very recently discussed at ANI - there looked to be consensus for a topic ban, but it archived without ever being formally closed/implemented. However, the editor is now back at it and I'm at the end of my tether. Basically he doesn't understand, or respect, consensus, and he lacks the competence to edit in any meaningful way to this topic. I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a proper look please, with a view to implementing the topic ban previously discussed. GiantSnowman 14:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem? I edited under conseus of recent discussion. I reduced number of category like List of Persepolis F.C. players. Is List of Persepolis F.C. players allowed? Is List of FC Seoul players not allowed? Please treat fairlyFootwiks (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you edited contrary to consensus on the article talk page - again. I make that the 8th time now that you have reverted to "your" version. GiantSnowman 14:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you made a mistakes. I reduced categories. Please cheok out original vision and currenct vision.

I have a qeustions. What is the diffrence of List of Persepolis F.C. players and List of FC Seoul players Diffrence is List of FC Seoul players is little bit more detail than List of Persepolis F.C. players.Footwiks (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please write in clear English so we can understand what you are trying to say. Let me summarise - there is consensus at the recent AFD, at the article talk page, and at the recent ANI dsicussion that the article needs a massive overhaul as its current content (as repetedly introduced by you!) is unencyclopedic and WP:FANCRUFT. The only person who has mentioned using the List of Persepolis F.C. players article as a guide/template is you, so again that is not consensus! GiantSnowman 14:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I said you before many times. List of Persepolis F.C. players and List of FC Seoul players contents category was community consensus some years ago. For example, Category is consists of Fomer players, Captains, Players who participate in major compettion. Foreign playrs.

List of Chelsea F.C. players and List of Manchester United F.C. players also have captain category and award winners. But they can't have Players who participate in major compettion and Foreign playrs category. Because Theses clubs have long history. So Dates are too many. Editing is impossiblew. That's why Europion famous clubs player articles have small contents categories. Where is the consensus you mentioned. Article of List of Football club players only have former playes category? That is not community consensus. That is just your private opinion.~ Footwiks (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you cannot suddenly claim 'consensus' from two years ago when I have shown much more recent, very different consensus exists! Have a look at List of Birmingham City F.C. players, which is a featured list, for an idea of what we should be aiming for, and see how vastly different it is from the abomination that is your version. GiantSnowman 14:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I suggested a CIR indefinite block at the end of the last thread, and I'm going to suggest it again. This user will simply not listen to anything anyone has to say, but their English is so poor that they're not competent enough to contribute to the English Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't said all player list article must have 4 categories (former players, captains, world cup players. etc)

Consensus that player list article can have detalied categorires (former players, captains, world cup players. etc)Footwiks (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Don't get me wrong.Footwiks (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Further to what Lukeno94 said above, I'm gonna suggest an indefinite block at this point, based on CIR - this user simply does not / can not / refuses to understand how we as a community operates here, and he lacks the language skills to ever be a constructive user. GiantSnowman 14:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Lukeno94//indefinite blocking? Because of detaling editing like another article. Why only me?

I just edited like List of Persepolis F.C. players, List of Chelsea F.C. players and List of Manchester United F.C. players. So What you mean that FC Seoul players articles only have former players category. But List of Persepolis F.C. players, List of Chelsea F.C. players and List of Manchester United F.C. players can have many categories. (For exam former players, captains, world cup players and foreign players.) Pleae explain reason in detail. If you are in my case, Can you accept that? Only [List of FC Seoul players]] have only former category. But other clubs have detaied category. Please treat fairly. If you make all football club player article have only former category. I can accept your opion. Footwiks (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef - Based on CIR, I can't even understand what this user is asking much less trying to accomplish. However, I do understand that... they don't understand, either (if that makes sense). Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 15:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Lukeno94// Do you know the rulls of Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers?

Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.....

So you mean that poor English speakers may throwed out....

Ok I'm poor English speaker. But check out my contributions about football for 5 years. Only my problem is editing in detail than other articles. In order to share informations, Editing in detail results in indefinite block What a ridiculus. I beleive that there is reasonable controller and user in English Wikipedia.Footwiks (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If you've been here for five years, you know that you're not a "newcomer" and thus WP:BITE doesn't apply. Wikipedia does not discriminate against "poor English speakers", but we do require that they have sufficent competence in the language to be able to communicate with other editors. Your consistent approach in both the previous AN/I thread and this one indicates that either you don't comprehend what is being explained to you - indicating you do not have the competence to edit en.wikipedia - or that you are willingly ignoring what is being explained to you. I'm willing to assume good faith that it's the former, but AGF is not a suicide pact, and the fact you have, repeatedly, espressed the sentiment that the issue is others, not you, and you keep referring to "past consensus" for your preferred version when it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that that consensus has changed, indicates that at this time an indefinite block is in order, until it is demonstrated that you are capable of communicating, both to and from other editors, in a way that both they and you are capable of understanding, and that you are capable of understanding both en.wiki's policies and how your editing up until now has been in variance with community standards, something that, thus far, you have singularly indicated a lack of ability to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Any sympathy I have for experienced editors who try and use BITE to worm out of sanctions for their own actions quickly evaporates. As Bushranger states, if you've been here for 5 years, you're not a new user whatsoever - in fact, that means you've had twice the time I have had to learn things, Footwiks! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose blocking or banning based on wp:CIR : user:Footwiks isn't speaking the Queen's English, but most of what he seems to say can be comprehended. There is no need to block him for that. Footwiks would you please look at wp:OSE and wp:CONSENSUS and wp:CCC as "The Bushranger" suggests. If you want a template for football club list articles, Giantsnowman suggests: List of Birmingham City F.C. players which is a wp:FA. I hope you heed to advice here and keep editing. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Footwiks can you not use spell check before saving, that would solve at least some of your problems. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Spelling isn't their issue. What you've clearly missed is that either their English is so poor that they can't understand what we are saying, or that they're using it as an excuse for behaving inappropriately. Either way, it's a textbook CIR case. They've already been here at least once, and they've been told multiple times what they need to do in order to stay out of trouble. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd breezed through the previous discussion. He needs to look at OSE and CCC or IDHT or as suggested above by the OP and The Bushranger. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. Fellow has over 12k edits![184] Gosh! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

69.117.174.122 (looks like a sock puppet of 67.87.140.155)

Appears to me that I saw the Disney's Greatest Hits and The Disney Collection: The Best-Loved Songs from Disney Motion Pictures, Television, and Theme Parks and I saw "Yellow" Volumes. There is no such volume as a yellow volume. And this time,69.117.174.122, appears to be doing it. Looks like a sock puppet of 67.87.140.155 since he did it like that. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am being hounded

user:Kmzayeem is stalking me and I want it stopped now. He is following and reverting me for not reason other than to piss me off, a merger discussion is reverted twice an article is redirected at the beginnging of a merger discusison twice He has turned up at mt last few DYKs and articles I have created, he is violating policy in not letting a merger discussion run and also violating the hounding policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have something called "Watchlist". Seriously stop thinking about yourself so much, nobody have any interest in hounding you. I usually edit articles related to Bangladesh and many controversial articles are in my watchlist. Chittagong_Hill_Tracts_Conflict was already in my watchlist and when I first time saw the article Bangladesh_Civil_War earlier yesterday, I watchlisted it.--Zayeem ^(talk) 19:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• You shouldn't be reverting the merger discussion... 19:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A brand new article just appeared on your watchlist? Pull the other one. I guess the DYK just popped up as well then? You are following my edits and violating policy in doing so Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, both of you:

STOP!

Both of you are blockable under WP:3RR - I see 6...7 reverts on the Chittagong Hill Tracts one by each of you. This is your only warning to cease and desist. Kmzayeem, I don't know if you were fully aware of the policy, please read the WP:3RR policy page and abide by it going forwards. Darkness Shines, you have been around long enough, you knew this already.

Regarding the reverts, on point of information, it is not proper to remove or flip such a proposal to redirect or rename. The proper process is to discuss it on the talk page(s) and propose the alternative. The only exception would be a clearly intentionally disruptive proposal, in which case you should ask for neutral editors or an administrator's help rather than start edit warring.

I don't know which of the proposals is more correct on the content points, so I leave that to discussion on article talk pages. However, I strongly urge you all to leave it as is and discuss on talk rather than making any more changes to the listed merge title.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ya, I have three reverts, and had to do an edit request on the talk page wasting admin time over this disruption, you do not change the target of a redirect once the discussion has begun., that is common sense. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the article should at least be restored until the merge discussion is completed. Whilst the content is in the history, it's not ideal for editors to have to look at a previous revision in order to comment. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The article Bangladesh_Civil_War is a dulpicate of Chittagong_Hill_Tracts_Conflict so I redirected it per this. I had also discussed it on the talk page. --Zayeem ^(talk) 20:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I know what CSD#A10 is, thank you, and it didn't apply here, because even if the article is about the same topic it is nevertheless a plausible redirect. However, as soon as the merge discussion was attached to the article, you should have stopped redirecting it. There is no deadline, and the issue can be sorted out through discussion. When it is, it may well be that the new article becomes a redirect to the old one. But to reiterate, that is a subject for discussion. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite, I support the restoration while discussion is done on talk pages. I would do it but am about to be mobile for some time and may not be able to respond if someone has an issue with it. Are you comfortable doing so? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to because I declined the 3RR against Darkness Shines on the edit-warring noticeboard. Is there another admin that could do so, please? Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, just a question, if the merge discussion remains without a consensus for years (as happening in many articles), should we be having two duplicate articles on the same topic?--Zayeem ^(talk) 20:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If the articles are indeed about the same subject there should surely be a method of merging the detail from both into one article. Or, are we merely talking about the actual name of the article here? Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've restored the version with the merger tag. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite, The articles are about the same topic, even DS would agree with it, which is why I redirected it. The new article has nothing new except the title, all the info are already present in the original one, which also appeared in DYK. I suggested him to start a move discussion on the original page if he has concerns regarding the title.--Zayeem ^(talk) 21:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I've offered my views on the procedurally correct handling of this issue here [185]. Since the new Bangladesh Civil War article is technically a (presumably inadvertent) fork of the existing article, the correct course of action is to move it into a user space subpage, install a temporary redirect to the existing article in its stead, then merge whatever parts of the content of the new Bangladesh Civil War article are superior into the old page; then, if necessary, begin a move discussion about where the resulting page should end up being. Mark Arsten, as the latest protecting admin, would you agree with this procedure? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:71.228.233.195

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

---

For a while I've been trying to clean up the page List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes, as the article often seemed to border on WP:FANCRUFT and contained far too much trivial or redundant information. There was a column in the list that indicated which episodes were available on home video, which format they were available on, and whether the releases were currently in stock on certain websites. All of this seemed unnecessary, as there is a page entitled Mystery Science Theater 3000 video releases which lists that information already.

I removed the column and immediately User:71.228.233.195, who I already had had disagreements with, immediately reverted the changes. The user brought it up on my talk page in User talk:Friginator#MST3K Video Releases.|this discussion] (sometimes with a questionable level of civility, as seen here) and eventually I basically decided to let the issue go. However, recently, other editors have also agreed that the "Home Video Availability" needed to go. This was quickly discussed on the talk page, and another editor (96.237.242.65) removed the column. Since then, 71.228.233.195 has begun reverting any and all changes made to the page in an attempt to keep it the way it was. I, along with other editors, namely User:96.237.242.65, have been reverting changes made to the page on a daily basis. I would have taken this to WP:3RRN a long time ago if I believed that this was merely a content dispute, yet it is apparent that 71.228.233.195 is not interested in improving the article, but simply changing it back to the way it was before the recent cleanup attempts. They have reverted the edits of multiple bots and editors, all in an attempt to halt any work being done on the page. This is disruptive, plain and simple. The user has made no attempt to gather consensus, has made very few direct counterarguments to the points I have made on my talk page, and very rarely leaves edit summaries.

Also, it's worth noting that 71.228.233.195 sometimes edits through the 199.48.24.10 address, but seeing as both IPs are located in Nashville Tennessee, and both are making the exact same edit over and over, so it's safe to assume they're the same person.

I've tried to avoid taking this issue to a noticeboard for a while now, as the issue seems 'extremely' petty and insignificant, but it needs to stop. There's simply no way to improve a page when someone is hell-bent on reverting every edit anyone makes to it without discussion. I would appreciate it if someone would intervene, as not many people seem to watch the page in question. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• OK, that's just purely disruptive. I have blocked both IP addresses for a month. If they persist by shifting to other addresses, ask for page protection. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Mo ainm

This user is reverting me on Ulster Special Constabulary. His aim seems to be to prevent me making changes to the article in compliance with the manual of style. His first revert was here [186] but I felt that as there were no refs to support what I had done I should put them in, so I did. Then I ran reflinks to ensure the article had no bare references. Reflinks found a number. He came along again here [187] and did a complete revert, wiping out the new references and the work done by the bot. He has then placed this message on my talk page accusing me of breaching WP:1RR. All my edits on the article page have been in keeping with the manual of style. Softening the language, correcting POV, reffing out links and running the reflinks bot. Just what I hope is expected from a hard working Wikipedian. This attempt at starting an edit-war is something I have become used to on articles relating to The Troubles but knowing it exists doesn't make it any easier to deal with when it happens - hence this report. I do not want to be dragged into a stupid and unproductive edit war. As my contribs will show I have been very active for some weeks without any difficulty, apart from misunderstanding some copyright issues which have now been largely addressed. I should add that his reverts have not been done as a result of any discussion on the article talk page. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This editor also know as User:The Thunderer and User:GDD1000 removed sourced content, this editor is well known for edit warring, look at their block log for their 3 accounts, and as can be seen by the history of the article reverted twice in 25 hours on an article that is under 1RR, WP:BOOMERANG anyone? Mo ainm~Talk 11:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Clean start and User:BigDunc. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Both of you added and removed sourced content, some of which contradicted each other. 1RR is within 24 hours, I believe. I'm not convinced either edit was more neutral than the other, either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You're correct. I removed content which alleged that the USC was hostile toward recruiting Catholics. I have the History of the RUC by Richard Doherty here, an official history. It quite clearly states on a number of pages the efforts made by the police and government to recruit Catholics into the USC and that a number of Catholics joined as a result, some of whom were later killed by the IRA for doing so. This can also be found on the web. My intention on the USC article is to more correctly reflect the truth. It is possible to find references in other books and on the web which suggest that USC was hostile to Catholics and it is a common trait amongst Irish republicans to do so. For some reason "My name" (his moniker in English) doesn't want the USC referred to as a "quasi-military" force either but the official history and other sources clearly show it to be such. Organised into brigades, battalions, companies and platoons, with military weaponry and tactics. I am somewhat baffled by My Name's opposition to this as these are well known facts and are included in the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I should also respectfully point out that the manual of style suggests we soften the type of language used in all articles to show neutrality. This is what I have attempted to do. I've done it elsewhere and currently have one similar article (very contentious) up for Wikipedia:Good articles review. It has been reviewed here and as you will see from the comments by the reviewer, it has no POV issues. That is my style of editing. It's not welcomed by editors who try to impose an Irish republican or Ulster loyalist POV on articles which is very common on the wiki, unfortunately. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• SoS drop it. Moanim reverted once on August 5th and then again on the 7th with a 34 hour gap between edits - that is not a violation of 1RR. You on the other hand waited exactly 1 hour beyond the 24 hour limit to revert him. You came to my page saying "Unfortunately I know from the many incidents of the past that talking to this individual makes no difference. Rather than having my extremely enjoyable time on here marred by getting involved in a WP:BATTLE I've decided to nip it in the bud."[188]. You both need to discuss this. You both are reverting without discussion. You are both walking the line. But I'll remind you SoS that trying to use process to win a content dispute WILL backfire.
  And as a point of order Moanim stop bringing up SoS's past accounts where it isn't relevant to discussion. SoS: clean start does not in fact apply to you. You are editing in the same area as those old accounts and have had run ins with policies and probation in exactly the same way as you did with those accounts. In fact you should link to them clearly as past and retired accounts of yours as per WP:SOCK#LEGIT. As should the former BigDunc - that account should be linked by its owner to their current account IF they are editing in the same topic area. Otherwise issues with evading scrutiny will arise--Cailil ^talk 12:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Cailil I'm not accusing the guy of 1RR. What I am accusing him of is adopting an editing pattern which is designed to try and trap ME into edit warring. There is nothing wrong with my edits on the USC page and they are reffed. It's not a content war in my opinion, it's just his way of dipping his toe in the water to see how I'll react, if I'm still dumb enough to fall for old tactics. If Moaimn wants to discuss why he's making the changes then I am very willing to listen as I enjoy collegiate discussion and might actually learn something as a result. I am happily engaged in this with many other editors on a number of subject, including the USC. However, if you look here you'll see that I did try to engage Moaimn in discussion recently and was ignored. Leading me to believe that his post on the UDR talk page was just mischief making - in other words he posted the request not knowing I had already dealt with it and without reading the note I had left on the "reader comment". When I went for clean start I read the guidelines and it clearly said, as it still does, that: It is intended for users who wish to move on to new areas having learned from the past, or who wish to set aside old disputes and poor conduct. It was to prevent the familiar combative editors from using my block record against me and with the intention that I would keep my block record clean as a way of showing I had learned from my mistakes. That's easier said than done when editing in such contentious areas but; I am more aux fait with the tricks that get used against me now and largely keep myself out of trouble - as you know, barring recent copyright issues. Me raising the complaint here is my way of telling Mo-aimn that I will not fall for any tricks to get me into an edit war. The Troubles sanctions allow sysops to take action even when there is no editwarring and by drawing attention to the situation I, in effect, protect myself. The fact is: Mo was not editing the article until 5th August whereas I had been in and out since 22nd of June. So why does he appear now? What's wrong with my edits that wasn't wrong with them on 22nd June - they're along the same lines? Why undo properly reffed NPOV material? Something stinks. I'm not, in effect, seeking sanctions against Mo-aimn, but I am sending a clear message that I won't allow anything to affect my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia and giving something back to society. What methodology would you suggest to prevent editors who have previously engaged in WP:BATTLE on these pages from turning them into a battleground again? Also: how can I link from my old accounts when logging into them could lead to an accusation of sockpuppetry, something which was tried anyway when I changed identities? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So now you are admitting that you set up new accounts to hide your block log and then on each of the new accounts you get blocked for edit warring doesn't seem you have learned from your mistakes. Also you are responsible for your own edits no other editor forces you to press the edit button. Mo ainm~Talk 19:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It was to prevent the familiar combative editors from using my block record against me and with the intention that I would keep my block record clean as a way of showing I had learned from my mistakes. - This is not what WP:CLEANSTART is for. A clean start requires that you avoid editing in previous topic areas - this is exactly as spelled out in WP:ILLEGIT as a sockpuppet account for evading scrutiny. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that the previous accounts are now properly disclosed and I have no further concerns on this front. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)"Me raising the complaint here is my way of telling Mo-aimn that I will not fall for any tricks to get me into an edit war." and "I'm not, in effect, seeking sanctions against Mo-aimn, but I am sending a clear message that I won't allow anything to affect my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia and giving something back to society." These seem like totally inappropriate uses for ANI. A lot of time has been wasted by third parties on SoS's "message" to Mo ainm when SoS could have simply left a note on their talk page to accomplish the same goal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol talk-page notices to some members of the Ireland WikiProject make no difference at all most of the time. The only way to get any progress or dialogue with an editor is via AN/Is etc. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Vikirefractoryworks

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

---

Continues to use talkpage for spam after being blocked. Requesting talk page access revocation. (Note that it is an IP that did this - please also consider blocking the IP and/or protecting the page.) Ginsuloft (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Horatio Snickers under the bridge

This account came to my attention through this asinine response to someone's "recruit editors from prison" proposal. Looking through his contributions I see only a handful of article space edits, all but a few of them problematic (a copyvio, a bit of Forteana, a pointless statement about a play, and a slow-news-day story about a badly-behaved zookeeper). Meanwhile his talk page shows several warnings about trolling the reference desk. I see a lot of deliberate (if low-level) disruption and I suspect he's some banned person's sockpuppet, but at any rate he doesn't seem to be here to any good purpose. Mangoe (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be a serious proposal with robust civil discussion taking place. While his response was a bit odd, I found yours to be much more troubling. This is an absurd complaint, even by ANi standards. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to wonder at whether you even looked at this editor's history. Mangoe (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me about this discussion. I don't think there is anything wrong with my contributions to the discussion about Wikipedia edits from prison, nor in fact about any other of my edits. I will admit sometimes I have a fairly robust style, but I am willing to address any points people may have about my edits here, and invite anyone to do so on my talk page.

As regards your claim that I am a sock puppet, I will say what I said before - if you have evidence, produce it, rather than making vague allegations on noticeboards.

On that subject, I note that User:AndyTheGrump has created a sock puppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Technoquat. It would have been polite of him to have informed me that he was carrying out this investigation. What I found most surprising is whilst browsing the site earlier today, I saw there was a notice from an unrelated user on my talk page - a message informing me of the investigation. That user has now been blocked and the message has been permanently removed. Whilst I understand this may be due to the fact that the user was blocked for actually being a sockpuppet - it seems unusual that their only edit was to notify me of something that is actually the case, and for that then to be removed and oversighted. It almost seems like this is some kind of secret court! I will respond to the accusation on the SPI page.

I am attempting to integrate myself into this community and the hostility I have experienced from some editors is alarming. Thankfully it seems there are some good people out there too. Horatio Snickers (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to 'integrate yourself into the community', I suggest that you do so by actually contributing something useful to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be having problems with our reading. I did not claim that you were a sockpuppet, I merely voiced a suspicion that you were. It was intended as an invitation for others to look at matters and review your behavior. For myself, I don't really care about your integration into the community. What I would like to see is positive contributions in the form of article editing. I'm not seeing that. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Horatio, I don't really think your comment in the VP discussion is a problem. And the copyvio doesn't actually look like a copyvio, though I could be wrong. The SPI will end however it ends. And if you want to ask dumb questions at the ref desk, I'll let them handle you themselves. But if you add any more crap to articles, I will block you indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Clear legal threats

By User:Manish 8726: [189], [190]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

And can I get some eyes on Swaminarayan‎? The "other side" is inserting the decidedly non-neutral [191]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked for edit warring. User:PantherLeapord warned that they were also edit warring as this did not come under a 3RR exception. Dpmuk (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed on the indefinite topic ban for Yogesh Khandke

Yogesh Khandke was given an indefinite topic ban on everything related to colonialism and Indian history here. I have asked the administrator for clarification on the scope of this TBAN but he has not bothered to respond. I would like to know just how far back in time is YK allowed to edit? I am of the opinion that the article Anti-Muslim violence in India falls under the scope of the ban as it covers Indian history from just before partition up to 2002. This needs to be clarified. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

(1)My topic ban was related to Aryan Invasion Theory some thing that happened thousands of years ago, my involvement in the discussion is limited to events taking place after 1983 and later, very much contemporary events. My topic ban was discussed during user:MRT3366's AN/I case and my editing was not considered inappropriate. My editing subjects have been at a barge pole's length away from the scope of my topic ban imo. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

YK, please could you provide a link to the discussion that delivered this result? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The topic ban terms are extremely broad, but in my opinion, Yogesh's edits to Anti-Muslim violence in India do not fall under the topic ban because he was alive during most of those times. In his own words, he was a teen in 1983. Events of that time are contemporary events, Yogesh has been staying away from the topics that actually initiated his topic ban, and so there is no need to nit·pick. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary history is also history. Yogesh has clearly violaed his topic ban. And he hs been doing so consistently over the past 6 months - exhibituing the exact same behavior pattern of tendentious editing and promotion of fringe views that led to the topic ban in the first place. I am extremely surprised no one has noticed, if I had knewn of the topic ban I would have requested enforcement sseveral months ago.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Last year's events are also recent history, going by the strict definition. So should Yogesh be banned from editing them too? Absurd. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Anir1uph. While I didn't read the entire ban discussion, it appears that the focus is colonialism, not recent events. Yogesh should be careful to avoid the bahvior that led to the ban, but I do not see that edits relating to events in their lifetime should be covered by the ban.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

When referring to history, the boundaries generally apply to anything prior to contemporary history (which, as explained by Anirluph, includes what happened last year and even yesterday). These "history topic bans" must be exact in their definition of history and not simply assume what is included into them.

In fact, with a TBAN on "Colonialism and Indian History", I would assume that any pre-Colonial and post-Colonial Indian history would be fair game.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say "History of Colonial India", it says "Colonialism and Indian History". And events in India after 1983 are very much "Indian History". Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No. "Colonialism and Indian history" can be understood as a single topic. When making restrictions on history, boundaries must be placed on the timeline. Current events, which fall into the realm of contemporary history, are not what people have in mind when they refer to history. And the definition of a "current event" is different depending on the person.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Stating that history is whatever happened before one's lifetime is absurd. It means that for my grandfather a topic ban on history would still allow him to edit articles on World War I. History includes topics described by historians using historical sources and methods - and which includes recent history but not current events. The 2002 Gujarat Violence the 1983 Nellie Massacre, and the history of anti-Muslim violence in India (which deals extensively with colonial and early post-colonial examples) which Yogesh has been extensively involved, are obviously topics of relevance to Indian History - and his editing has been furthering the exact same political points of view that were problematic in his editing of Indian history. Furthermore Yogesh's behavior in editing these topics have been EXACTLY the same that lead to his topic ban. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, yeah. "Current events" are...current...not "within your lifetime". Would the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan be a "current event" for me? "Current event" does not vary and the statement that they do is...puzzling at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. By that logic World War 1 would have been a current event for Frank Buckles in 2010 since he was the last surviving American veteran who died in 2011.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not commenting earlier on this, as the admin who originally imposed the restriction. I'm a bit on the fence about this one. On the one hand, I personally would have understood the restriction to be applied widely, including recent history, and I think I once told Yogesh I believed he was breaking the restriction when he was commenting on one of these issues. This is especially since it has been my impression that his conduct in this "recent history" area has been problematic in a similar way, and motivated by a similar set of political-ideological issues, as his conduct in the ancient history area (echoing Maunus' observations above). On the other hand, I can't overlook the coincidence that a similar case is currently under consideration at WP:ARCA, where the arbs recently topic-banned somebody from "Argentinian history" but are now telling him in a clarification request that he is free to edit recent history after 1983. In the end, we might just have to look more closely at whether and how Yogesh's behaviour in the recent history domain is independently objectionable, and if so, reimpose a more clearly defined/clarified/widened form of the topic ban under the discretionary sanctions rule (which wasn't yet in place when the original community topic ban was imposed). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the ARCA ruling is motivated by the fact that the topic that proves difficult for the particular editor to edit usefully ends in 1983, and is no longer relevant for subsequent periods of Atgentinian history. This is not the case in the case of Yogesh's ban because the subject matter that has proved difficult for Yogesh to approach in a useful manner is still present and in effect up untill the very recent history of India.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(1) @user:Kim Dent-Brown: During another editor's AN/I case my comments were hatted for being from a topic banned editor, in response, I said the 2002 events were contemporary events, I was not contradicted,[192] later on the same admin's page when "Darkness Shines" requested clarification, I presented my argument, I was not contradicted.[193] (2) @All: The events which I'm editing are contemporary events to me and a majority of Wikipedia editors, the examples given above: "my grandfather", Frank Buckles are extreme cases. 35% of prolific editors are over 40 years old. Statistically the average age of a Wikipedia editor is 32 years. Aren't these events contemporary ((meaning: belonging to the same age, living or occurring in the same age or time) for the average Wikipedian? Would an editor banned from editing American history and colonialism be banned from editing Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan too? Is his assassination an event in American history, esp. when deciding the scope of a topic ban of someone who was banned for his edits related to 2nd millennium BCE in North American history (3)(a) My ban area is Indian history; the disputed historical event was whether The Aryan migration theory is disputed or not[194] the time frame of this incident is 2000 to 500 BCE. (b) I was sanctioned for slow edit warring. (b)When I my edits were called garbage and reverted, I hit back by undoing those reverts and calling them vandalism.[195] That was the editing behaviour and editing area that caused me to be banned. (4) Since the ban (a) I've stayed many tens of centuries away from date of the dispute I was banned for. (b) Since my ban I've put myself on a zero revert policy, i.e I don't revert anyone who undoes my edits. (c) My last block was over a year ago, and I've made over three thousand[196] edits since on a broad variety of subjects. (d) Since my topic ban I've learnt that it helps the project for editors to be civil and have endevoured to be so. (4) I've made zero article space edits to Anti-Muslim violence in India so the question of edit warring etc. doesn't arise. (5) The said article discusses 1946, 1983 and 2002 as major events, in talk page discussions I've stayed away from 1946. (6) The ban didn't specify a date, I've given no reason imo since my last block a year ago, for the ban to be made stringent. I've tried to make positive contributions to the project as I enjoy doing so, I've taken my ban in the right spirit, by trying to address the causes of sanction, I leave it to the community to judge. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've made 3 edits out of the 3921 edits to 2002 Gujarat violence and zero edits to 1983 Nellie massacre so I don't have extensive involvement as alleged above. I'd be happy to have any of my edits scrutinised for my inability to be useful in any area of Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As a direct participant in the ARCA case, the topic ban was actually the broad Latin American history spectrum. Again the key word here is "history", and what the arbitrators meant by it was "non-contemporary history" (as is common by most individuals).

Bushranger and Maunus are unfairly looking for loopholes in my statement. Yes, obviously WWI is not a current event...but no respectable historian would call it "contemporary history" either. However, Reagan's assassination attempt is certainly within the boundaries of contemporary history (although not a current event).

I haven't checked Yogesh's contributions and in no way am I either supporting them or opposing them. All I am defending is the fact that the history topic ban is ambiguous and in need of more specific restrictions. Yogesh should not be punished for the ambiguity of the ban. I am also not blaming the banning administrator, who is acting based on what seems a common procedure.

The point of my statements it that there is a lesson to be learned from these events (for all administrators and arbitrators), which is that topic bans on "history" must either be specific or include a few more lines that also TBAN contemporary history and current events related to the topic. Perhaps a mention or discussion of this is worth at the WP:TBAN page.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, I just had toRv the bot, this needs a resolution. Would an admin please give a timeframe which YK is OK to edit in? 10yrs ago? 20yrs ago? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone got any idea on this as yet? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:176.58.218.42 vandalism

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

---

User is vandalizing Nationalism page. Jahgro (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Peter Seabrook article

An editor keeps erasing my entries and seems intent on using wikipedia as a publicity platform for Peter Seabrook instead of a balanced article which includes criticism. Using wikipedia in this way constitutes a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabrook.Ellis (talk • contribs) 10:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be edit warring with a number of other editors. Please don't do that. If you have a dispute about the content of the article, please discuss it at Talk:Peter Seabrook, and quote published reliable sources for your views. This does not need administrator action, unless an administrator decides to block you for continuing your edit war. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we have another "defender of justice". Seabrook.Ellis's edits have been troubling, to say the least, with a lot of unreferenced BLP additions to Peter Seabrook about some sort of controversy concerning the use of peat. Given the relative youth of their account they need a quick heads up about BLP policy and referencing as well as WP:SPA. Blackmane (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for not notifying me (the other editor) about this report, as explicitly requested in the edit notice. Your username would appear to indicate that you are the one with the conflict of interest and your edits reveal that you apparently have an axe to grind with the subject of the article, Peter Seabrook. Just don't grind it here. --ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggest Seabrook.Ellis reads WP:BOOMERANG and an admin reads this Arjayay (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the user subpage. It was an attack page alleging criminal activity naming specific individuals - in other words, a huge BLP violation.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation / opinion

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

---

Hi, I'm writing this message because I have had recurrent issues of personal conduct with the user Guardian of the Rings (talk · contribs), because I feel he is being casually abusive in his dealings with me. I don't feel I am doing anything to provoke this, save perhaps this snarling edit summary (as he called it). But I wrote this only after messages which I deem offensive, as he accused me of "blindly reverting as if you had no functioning brain" and referred to my talk page messages as "babble (that) is merely a breath of desperation. The underlying content dispute, about a template, is being solved in a discussion at TfD. In the future these problems could be avoided if we simply avoided talking to each other, but at least for the duration of the TfD, I want to be able to say my opinion without being constantly faced with similar messages: diff, diff. He also repeatedly deleted my messages from the TfD diff, diff. I tried to talk to him on his user page, and the discussion seemed promising for a while. But his edit summaries remained the same, "just surrender, you really have nothing of use to add to this discussion anymore", and ultimately he deleted the user talk discussion and told me: and perhaps you could mind your own business by staying within the confines of your WikiProj as much as possible and bear in mind WP:COMPETENT...it seems you have no inkling of half the things I am talking …. But there is no reason why I should limit myself to one WikiProject. I'm not topic-banned from anything, so he has absolutely no right to kick me out of the discussion. I want to continue to contribute to the discussion and the WikiProject, and without being faced with "snarling messages" each time. Clearly, one of us (or most likely both) is doing something wrong, and an outside view would be welcome to make it possible for both me and Gotr to discuss the template without being at each other's neck every time.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Same problem different day: from the archives. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried the dispute resolution noticeboard? I'm not an expert on dispute resolution, but it seems that such requests usually go over there before coming to ANI. CtP (t • c) 20:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN is for content disputes, AN/I for behavioral. N^oformation ^Talk 20:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This does not appear to be a content dispute. As the filing editor here has stated: "The underlying content dispute, about a template, is being solved in a discussion at TfD". This is a behavioral issue and belongs here because we have no other place to deal with behavior. This is an incident I feel needs administrative attention. I don't know the full ins and outs here but clearly the content dispute is being dealt with.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

So the Etiquette Noticeboard, or whatever its title was, disappeared? GotR ^Talk 22:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Closed after a community discussion N^oformation ^Talk 22:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. These large developments often pass under my nose. GotR ^Talk 23:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

To save the passerby's time, Underlying lk has not noted the unexplained, the frowned-upon, wholesale reverting of edits, parts of which have no relevance to the content dispute, which evoked this (overly) bitter response. The rest, I don't believe he has [consciously] hid, although I interpret failed retorts that mimic the post being reported to as counterproductive and indicating he has exhausted his talking points, due to the inherent lack of a substantive opinion. GotR ^Talk 23:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You say that your bitter response was caused by my reverting, which might very well be, though it doesn't explain why all the bitterness continued when I stopped reverting. But don't you think that my 'failed retorts' might have been evoked by failed retorts of your own, such as "what a small mind, can't even focus on the more important of *two sentences"? This is not a situation that can go on indefinitely, it makes it impossible to discuss changes when every next message leads to more squabbles. I think you will agree that the attempt to solve it between us proved fruitless, which is why I am asking for help from other editors, not because I intend to waste anyone's time.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I view the first half of this response as a matter of personal opinion; your reply immediately following is, too. Well the lack of a substantive response to the finer details (if needed, link in 13 hours) of my defence begs any rational person to ask whether you have one at all or may well be evading the issue altogether for no particularly good reason. This aspect of your conduct I remain wholly dissatisfied with. GotR ^Talk 03:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

My interactions with GotR were mostly at wp:Naming conventions (Chinese) back in February and twice on List of islands of China in June. The first started with and edit war (GotR warring against 3 other editors) starting here [197] and ending here [198]. GotR did bring it to the talk page when asked [199] and although he did begin with a lot of unproductive bluster (and made one more revert in the edit war), the discussion rapidly became more productive and ended well [200].
The next two times, GotR’s behavior was much more abrasive (“casually abusive” is an apt description). I believe that in the naming discussion, with every post GotR added he managed to disparage an editor, or disagreeing editors in general. His use of this quotation [201] sticks out in my mind as a rather clueless attempt to disparage another editor, as GotR was apparently unaware of the hypocrisy. Also his removal of another editor’s counter-accusation of POV pushing [202] was quite rich (to use a somewhat archaic term) and his edit war to keep it out was over the top (continue through the diffs), which I brought to his attention on his talk page [203].
A little later, GotR was involved in an edit war on the article page (beginning here [204]), but did come to the talk page when I started a discussion on it. His post was inflammatory [205] “otherwise it is an unequivocal attempt to push the nefarious 'Taiwan is not part of China' POV.” He did clarify without the nasty bit when asked [206], but with some additional posturing and without really adding much clarity.

Here are some other diffs showing belittlement of another editor based on perceived neck skin color [207], using vulgarity [208], and possibly threat [209]. These last two appear to have been nipped in the bud (ani:cluckwik and [210]) after only the single pair of incidents. Calling people rednecks also appears to have stopped as has disparaging people because of their geographical location. I remember a few instances of these, but GotR is quite prolific and I am having difficulty finding other diffs, though this [211] is in a similar vein.

I followed GotR’s interaction with eh bien mon prince (Underlying Ik) and my general impression has been that ebmp has gone out of his/her way to engage GotR constructively and has gotten nothing but abuse in return. GotR’s responses on this page that 1) it is all ebmp’s fault [212] and 2) ebmp has no case [213] seem quite far-fetched to me.

A lot of my contributions are in WikiProject:China areas, which GotR also frequents, and I would like to be able to interact with him civilly and constructively, and not have to observe his personal attacks on other editors. Given my knowledge of GotR’s history, this will require some sort of administrative action, perhaps warning from an administrator to stop personal attacks and edit warring, and blocks of increasing duration when GotR engages in them anyway. (But this is my first post to ANI, IIRC, so what do I know?) GotR does make an enormous amount of edits to Wikipedia and I was able to bring him around to a constructive discussion once before, so I hope he can be convinced to interact better with others.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Breastfeeding and -- autism?

This is not, strictly speaking, an ANI matter, perhaps, though it could easily turn into one. I'm just here to get some attention. There's some contentious back-and-forthing in the article history and the talk page, and the issue concerns a supposed relation between (lengthy) breastfeeding and autism. No dispute resolution or mediation seems to have been tried (as far as I can tell), and I think the matter needs attention from outside editors--preferably, of course, knowledgeable ones--before it gets out of hand. Thanks, and with apologies; I'd look into this more, but I have a date: ten years ago, to the day, Mrs. Drmies and I tied the knot, so we're off for some off-wiki festivities. Happy monogamy, or of course polygamy if that's your game, Drmies (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't you get enough attention on ANI/2? Happy Anniversary!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the same points of contention were raised (by the same editors) in a parallel discussion at Talk:Breast_milk#Benefits_in_cognitive_development. The two discussions should probably be consolidated and handled at the Breastfeeding Talk page. I'm not a doctor, and I don't want to play one on Wikipedia. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

IBAN requested

I am requesting an IBAN between Dharmadhyaksha and myself, throughout all namespaces in english wiki. I have previously asked this editor to not follow my contributions, yet he persists. This revert proves without a doubt that he is both stalking me and reverting my edit for no reason, the article being an obvious fork of Martyred Intellectuals Day. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous observation: Looking at the talk pages of both parties and edit summaries, I think there's a boomerang about to hit. 2.121.145.49 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The unilateral reversions are concerning - and the fact that they're at the brink of 3RR doesn't help much either. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If all namespace interactions are banned, how would you guys interact on content discussions especially as this is not the first page you two have interacted about and had differences and would not be the last either. I guess the AfD will take care of whether the page in question is a POV fork or not. Are there any other recent edits/reverts which he has contributed only after you started your contributions on a page? Please provide them.  A m i t  웃  

He followed me here, two days after I had created the article, that revert is his reinsertion of OR which he added and I had removed. He followed me to Anti-Muslim violence in India, a new article I had created and his only contributions to the article are to add pointy tags and raise cain on the talk page, for no purpose other than to waste my time going by his comments, see this talk page section re both the tags and his actions on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I need some clarifications about WP:IBAN before we move to all these baseless accusations that i am particularly only following this user and not simply editing the article falling under WP:INDIA, which i have been editing all life long. So... Can i propose IBAN for any user? For example, can i propose IBAN with this IP 2.121.145.49? I have never interacted with them before so i don't care even if we were IBANed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• You can't have edited WP:INDIA articles all your life, that's simply impossible. You clearly have an issue with Darkness Shines (and some other users, for that matter), given how often you are listed in a thread against Darkness Shines. You also give every sign of having stalked their edits, and reverting based on who made the edit, not what the edit contained. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Two people editing contentious political articles are bound to interact. That's just how editing works.Pectore^talk 23:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

One editor following another for no reason other than to goad and annoy him is not interaction, it is hounding. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

For instance, why do you think he made this snarky comment Geez!! Now non-Wikipedians are coming and complaining about Darkness Shines. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC) When that thread did not even involve me. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

One-strike block of user Ryan032sucks

Usernames that are personal attacks are never tolerated. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. As described in the written policies concerning vandalism, there is an escalating series of warnings to be issued to non-constructive editors. And certainly, accounts created solely for disruptive purposes can be blocked post-haste. But if someone such as User:Ryan032sucks issues one single offensive edit, they should not be instantly blocked. Judgements based on the user's choice of name are not reliable or objective. In addition, one editor's "Zero Tolerance on Vandalism" policy does not override the procedures followed by all of Wikipedia. I move that the block issued by User:Mufka be lifted in the interest of fairness and equality. 76.21.5.244 (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC) The username is inappropriate. If you look at the username policy, Wikipedia:Username policy, section Disruptive or offensive usernames you will see that "Usernames that contain or imply personal attacks." This username contains a personal attack against another editor and will remain blocked. GB fan 11:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC) That account was set up specifically as an affront and attack to another editor and then deliberately undid one of their edits. The user knew exactly what they were doing and the block is good. Canterbury Tail talk 11:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Well said. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated NFC violations

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

---

• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#Repeated violations of NFCC and personal attacks for previous incident.

Less than a month ago EnglishEfternamn (talk · contribs) was brought to this page for repeated violations of WP:NFCC#9 (including non-free media on their user page) After 7 removal attempts they stated that they would stop. However this edit shows that they are ignoring the issue and re-inserting the file in question. Short of a block I am unsure of what will make the user stop. Werieth (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. I took this and this (check the edit summary!) into account in making the block. --John (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Fairleigh Dickinson University and PublicMind

This is a continuation of a slow-moving archived discussion at WP:COIN that hasn't seen any comments in a month. In a nutshell, User:Mfuzia was reported as a COI editor for his extensive paid promotion of Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU) and associated pages, especially in connection with a program called PublicMind. (Allegedly there is off-wiki proof of Mfuzia's employment at FDU, though it hasn't been shared due to WP:OUTING concerns.) There was some discussion over the egregiousness of Mfuzia's conduct but there was consensus that he had engaged in ongoing WP:PROMOTION, that he should stop making direct contributions related to FDU, and that the FDU article would require substantial cleanup. Moreover it was determined that Mfuzia had engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETRY with User:Crcorrea. No final disposition was made, though User:DGG wrote, "If there are no continuing problems, there's no need to block." User:EdJohnston wrote, "In my opinion, if Mfuzia will agree to take a complete break from all FDU-related edits he can avoid a block."

As you might expect from my presence here, there are continuing problems. Mfuzia took a month-long break but just yesterday created an all-new, fully-formed article for PublicMind. The new article probably satisfies WP:GNG but that's not the point. The article appears promotional, but more importantly, Mfuzia was told by administrators not to add FDU-related content yet he continues to do so. I believe some sort of sanctions are in order, and speedy deletion of PublicMind might be appropriate as well. In addition I support the original request that Mfuzia be required to prominently and fully disclose his COI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The center is probably notable enough for an article, but the new article is not appropriate. I've deleted it by G11, but will certainly send the contents to any good faith uninvolved editor who wishes to use them as a start for a proper article. I support blocking the editor indefinitely, and unblocking only if I can be convinced he will stay away from FDU, Public Mind, and all related topics. I essentially extended him a last chance after some really outrageously promotional editing, and he is not able to keep from doing it. I don't think I was wrong to hope for the best, but it did turn out poorly. I do not want to immediately block before the ed. has a chance to respond. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've notified User:Mfuzia that editors here are proposing to block his account. This should serve as an encouragement for him to participate here and agree to follow our guidelines regarding COI. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware I had been banned from editing Fairleigh Dickinson University and all related topics. I also find it amusing that you have determined that I have engaged in "MEATPUPPETRY". This is all far too involved for me, my life does not center around Wikipedia, and the obsession with my "outrageously promotional editing" (hilarious use of outrageous by the way, I didn't realize something as simple as editing a couple Wikipedia pages could be so egregious) is old news. If I cared more, I would be offended, but considering you have done nothing but make assumptions about my intentions, I feel no need to defend myself. In a country built around "innocent until proven guilty", your conviction to stubbornness is impressive, without any real evidence. If my edits are so upsetting and warranting of deletion, so be it, I do not claim to be perfect, and I won't lose any sleep over it. However, if I see something that could use information, or needs some buffing up, I intend to continue doing it, regardless of what schools' page, or anywhere else for that matter, it is on. If it is inappropriate by Wikipedia's standards as an administrator deems it, I, or someone else should remove it. Lastly, I could also refer you to hundreds of other well written university pages so you can get into an edit war over their editors motives on this free, open, internet encyclopedia, if you feel so inclined. Thank you very much for reading. Matthew Fuzia (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block, enough is enough. This is COI editing of very much the wrong kind. Seeing Mfuzia's response here pretty clearly shows that this user just doesn't get it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support block - per DGG's recommendation. User:Mfuzia is not a general purpose editor, he seems to work only on matters related to Fairleigh Dickinson University. He does not seem to be willing to edit in a neutral and non-promotional manner, and he doesn't wait to get consensus from regular editors before making his changes. He finds ways to add FDU-related material to more general articles where they might not be important enough to deserve space. For example this edit to the PPACA article. Mfuzia's comment above shows that he truly is not getting the message: Lastly, I could also refer you to hundreds of other well written university pages so you can get into an edit war over their editors motives on this free, open, internet encyclopedia, if you feel so inclined. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support block - obviously NOTHERE to do anything other than promote this one narrow subject area. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

One thing he's partially right about--there are a number of almost equally bad university pages. I hope that I or somebody is able to get to them someday. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• That's true. I've marginally improved a couple, but generally given up at how bad they are, particularly as I lack experience in that area of editing anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Indef: Yknow something? I think he's mocking us... MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 22:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior at Digvijaya Singh

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

---

A section above, Wikipedia:Ani#A_complaint_about_User:Sitush, was closed without action taken, since it was judged to be a content dispute. That's true in part, but the other part is that we have a very decent BLP with two tags on it, and a talk page full of wikilawyering, with walls of text and persistent accusations and commentary of the "I did not hear that" kind. The instigator here is what appears to be an SPA, Soham321. It seems, for instance, that the "political dynasty" claim (found toward the bottom of the article), is reason enough for a POV tag, whereas the claim is reliably sourced to this article. It also seems that Soham is unwilling to allow commentary by Aditi Phadnis to be included, when that person is plenty notable and the commentary well-sourced. Note also the repetitive yammering over a couple of edits reverted by Sitush in the middle of the unwieldy talk page, Talk:Digvijaya_Singh#Recent_reverts. Those particular edits and reverts are old news, in a way, but they go to show that this has been going on for far too long.

Looking through the talk page discussion and the ANI thread, it seems pretty clear to me that Sitush is judged to be editing well within the guidelines set by BLP, NPOV, RS, and whatever else you want to throw at it, according to such users as Yogesh Khandke, RegentsPark, and (on the talk page, see section "Other Controversies"), A.amitkumar. Note that I have hereby pinged them, and I do not wish to suppose that they all agree with Sitush, just that they have, at various points disagreed with Soham's various, lengthy, and numerous complaints.

To cut a long story short, since we've wasted enough dinosaurs and electrons on this, action needs to be taken here. A block for disruption is a possibility, but it seems to me that a topic ban for this particular article (which could be extended to others if Soham persists) is no more than appropriate, given the enormous amount of energy this is taking. Let's not drag this out any more: I'm hoping for a quick solution, though I am open to other suggestions. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• One more thing: I just noticed there's some back-and-forthing on Soham's talk page about personal attacks; I have not looked into that and thus have no opinion on them. I urge both editors to keep their cool, and I hope that was a redundant comment. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh. See, I said you should get your bit back. Quick solutions for contentious editing on Indian articles - you are a legend... Joking apart, Mr. Sitush takes far too much stick in this area, and needs support (or, ridiculously simply... his own bit), and I agree with what you say. That's of no use whatsoever, of course, since I have no bit, and I now return you to your regular programming. Begoon ^talk 23:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@Begoon, "ridiculously simply... his own bit" has been suggested in more general terms but is not going to work here or indeed in any of the many articles where I find myself in trouble. Soham means well, I suspect, but there is a distinct lack of clue and it is not improving even when others try to point out their misunderstanding of OWN, NPOV, BLP, RS, CONSENSUS etc. The obvious solution would be a limited topic ban that enables them to learn our ways in a less charged environment (these Indian politicians are up for election over the next few months, so things are only going to get worse for those of us who are trying to keep things even-keeled). Soham has already been warned about ARBIPA and so a discretionary sanction could be imposed. Whether that would work if based solely on matters relating to one person in Indian politics is less certain because Soham has had difficulties with at least one other such article also, although I acknowledge that they seem since to have backed away from that voluntarily. As to the reason for their behaviour, well, I vacillate: sometimes it seems like competence issue, sometimes like IDHT, sometimes like POV/COI, sometimes just troll-ish and so on. It really is rather baffling to me. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Point taken - sort of... WP:INVOLVED is therefore wrong if it prevents editors with the best interests of the encyclopedia as their motivation from acting in said interests. On this particular case I may be mistaken, but in general it would take quite an essay to convince me that long-time experienced users of your calibre in a contentious area do not need, and would not use the admin bit well. Whether you want it is of course another issue, and that would be up to us to encourage you. These are the broken areas, which therefore need the most attention from editors proven to have our best interests at heart. Anyway, off-topic, and said now. Best. Begoon ^talk 00:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Begoon, thanks, and if it were up to me I'd warn Soham and then wait for the next edit to bring the block hammer down: their edits have a knack for being disruptive, so that wouldn't take long. But I can't do that, nor do I really want to--the subcontinental business is already difficult enough, and before you know it someone says "oh you're Sitush's drinking buddy". Well, I'm not (we're thousands of miles away), but I am a friend of his, and I appreciate what he's doing for the project. All the while I will maintain that I have no problems with being objective in this area, but for me to block Soham is like throwing chum in sharky waters. So what I want is a solution built on a consensus, not just on one admin's (!) decision. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well yeah, and hence why you asked instead of acting. That's what we're all about, and it's proper and good. I just think we desperately need good actors in that area, and if you can think of a better one than Sitush I'm all ears. Begoon ^talk 00:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I was going to raise this at ANI as the back-and-forth is very unhelpful. I had hoped that Soham could become familiar with Wikipedia's procedures, and I've spent a significant time urging that, but if something isn't done now, the user will harden in their habit, and will cause lots of disruption before the inevitable happens. I was going to ask that an admin issue a clear notice that Soham must stop talking about Sitush, and must start applying WP:AGF, and must engage with the discussions. Soham regards Wikipedia like any other website where opponents are parried—whoever has the greatest dedication will win. Perhaps a firm resolve here could persuade Soham to focus on article content, and to realize that we don't cherry pick text from policies to counter opponents (particularly when inexperienced). Sitush's above suggestion ("a limited topic ban that enables them to learn our ways in a less charged environment") is exactly what is required, but that's a radical idea as the community generally wants to see more blood before acting. My concern is that there is a potential for Soham to become a useful editor, but that will never happen unless firm action is taken now. I guess all we can do is form a consensus per Drmies—a short block if disruption continues. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq, my apologies--I meant to give you a shout-out/ping as well in my posting. Actually, I think that a topic ban is preferable over the threat of a block, so if you want to go "per Drmies", I'd prefer it per toward a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Agree I would agree on the topic ban, to prevent further time drain of other editors, we could possibly use Sitush elsewhere instead of he logging in everyday to justify a counterclaim on that talk page and also if this ban would push Soham productively to other areas of WP (seeing the contribs of Soham being lately solely to this one page makes him almost a single purpose account).  A m i t  웃   03:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have the following comments to make:

• User:Drmies is an admin on this site, and i respect this fact. Never the less, i had taken him for DRN where the mediator had ruled in my favor and against him. For link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_71 (title of the discussion is 'Narendra Modi'). This was after we had a somewhat nasty exchange on his talk page. After the DRN,however, i had apologized to him and he claimed he had accepted my apology.
• User:Drmies made the present complaint about me after User:Sitush (with whom i have been having a long running dispute on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digvijaya_Singh ) wrote on Drmies's talk page complaining about me. The fact that Sitush and Drmies are on familiar terms is evident when Sitush also disclosed about the birth of a new child in his family and Drmies congratulated him for this. I thought this was odd considering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum
• Sitush was seen asking User:Johnuniq on Johnuniq's talk page on how to handle me. Again odd considering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum and indicating that the two are on familiar terms.
• The only editor in the main article under discussion who had also participated in the previous ANI complaint against Sitush that i had made was User:A.amitkumar and he had expressed his agreement with me that Sitush has taken ownership of the article under dispute in violation of WP:Ownership. It is true that i had a disagreement with User:A.amitkumar after i objected to some of his edits, but we reached WP:Consensus after he allowed me to make some modifications to his edits. Sitush, however, unilaterally removed all of amitkumar's edits (and also my edits) from the main article. The complete 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section was unilaterally removed by Sitush in the face of objections by me and User:A.amitkumar.
• There is a 'factual accuracy is disputed' tag on the main article as of now. This was based on my discussions with Sitush on the talk page by another editor indicating that there are others who agree with my position.
• My understanding based on when TransporterMan had ruled in my favor (and against Drmies) in DRN is that in a disputed edit, at least two reliable references must be given. That is why i had objected to Sitush inserting widely speculative claims of Aditi Phadnis which in my opinion violate the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in a DRN. That is why i had asked Sitush to provide another reliable reference for the claims of Phadnis. TransporterMan had written the following in the DRN: "Whereas WP:V or WP:BLPREMOVE provide minimum standards for inclusion, the "belongs in the article" language of WP:WELLKNOWN (and it's repeated in the second example of that section, not reproduced here), seems to say that material reported in multiple reliable sources should be included, and would appear to have been adopted as a bright-line test to resolve disputes just such as this one. It would take some digging to find it, but long ago I went to some effort to find out what "multiple sources" means in Wikipedia policy (though more in the context of the various notability standards, rather than this particular policy) and found a very clear answer that it merely means "more than one," and does not mean "many." This is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_71 (The title is 'Narendra Modi').
• I also believe the following sentence inserted my Sitush is erroneous: "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic succession that is common in North India but rare in the South.[29]". I have given my reasons why i believe this edit to be erroneous in the talk page. Let us name the disputed sentence as Edit 1. After my initial objections to this sentence Sitush had modified it to make it Edit 2. I found even Edit 2 to contain an error and after a somewhat lengthy discussion with Sitush in which he allowed me to have the last word i modified Edit 2 to make it Edit 3. When he saw this, Sitush reverted the edit back to Edit 1. I have explained why i believe Sitush's edit is wrong on the talk page of the article. See the sections 'Inaccurate edit of User:Sitush' and 'Inappropriate phrase used by Sitush'. This kind of behavior, i have explained in the talk page (see Section 'Disputed Edits'), makes WP:Consensus impossible to achieve and is indicative of WP:Ownership.
• I did not engage in edit warring on the main article with Sitush and allowed him to retain whatever edits he had put in place in the main article even though i continue to believe them to be erroneous.
• I am a relatively new editor at wikipedia and i do not have 'friends' like Sitush does. Never the less, i believe i have a lot to contribute to this site. As an example, please consider the content i had added on the page of Voltaire in which i had given a primary reference to my edit. (Yes, it got reverted but i have initiated a discussion on the talk page) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voltaire&diff=567483169&oldid=567479275
• If the person judging my case decides to ban me, i will accept the punishment and quitely go away. Soham321 (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as per Drmies, Amit, and the wall of text by Soham321 right above me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I had to check the first link in the above where it was promised I would find the mediator ruling against Drmies (here). That's a bit of a LOL I'm afraid because it shows that Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures are even worse than I had imagined. With infinite patience, Drmies pointed out that some edits by Soham were not really what is expected, and gave two diffs: diff1 shows Soham adding a section with title "Usage of Foul Language" to a politician's BLP, and diff2 shows Soham adding a section titled "Alleged involvement in Haren Pandya's murder" to the same BLP. I suppose the DRN volunteers are used to situations where one bad group of POV warriors is battling another bad group of POV warriors, but even so, the reply to Drmies is most disappointing. The two diffs I just repeated are instantly recognizable by any experienced editor as off-the-wall unsuitable, and the fact that the mediator was able to keep a straight face while suggesting some middle ground is, well, breathtaking. I'm firming up in my view that if the community doesn't get set a higher standard on early policy enforcement, we are going to be overrun with nonsense. The DRN incident was three months ago—no wonder Soham is so confidently brushing advice aside now! Soham's last comment (an echo of a "if [I] do get banned from the site, it won't be a big deal for me" reply made two days ago diff) is a worry as it indicates that further engagement may be unproductive. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The diffs which Johnuniq is citing were not disputed at all by me in the DRN. This is what the mediator told Drmies also in the DRN. I have given the link to the DRN discussion as well as the title and i request readers here to see the discussion rather than believe the disingenuous and misleading statements of User:Johnuniq. Soham321 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, my statement which Johnuniq is referring to was simply to state that i am not a professional wikipedia editor. It is not my full time job and i do not stand to make any money by making edits or participating in discussions on the site. Also, i would like Johnuniq to explain why Sitush wrote on his talk page on some advice on how to handle me. Does Johnuniq know Sitush personally? Soham321 (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is my experience that DRN never works for India-related stuff. Perhaps it does for aspects related to Indian geography but it never has for caste, religion or politics on any occasion where I have been involved. That is why I have decided not to waste my time with it in future. That it hardens the position of clearly misguided contributors is probably because (a) the subject matter is unfamiliar to those who are mediating and (b) there seems to be a desire to be all things to all people. Perhaps, though, I've just got a very jaundiced opinion. - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• DRF may or may not work for certain topics but it needs to be present as a mediation mechanism. Also, editors who show disrespect for wikipedia rules and guidelines by simply removing disputed content which has been taken up for discussion in DRN should be penalized in my opinion. Soham321 (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• It's old age, Sitush... Drmies (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - a ban from articles relating to politics in India, broadly construed and to include all namespaces. Thought I'd best make this clear, since people are picking up on one of my comments above. I've no opinion regarding the length of the ban. - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I considered writing that i also support a ban on Sitush from writing on the Digvijaya Singh page, but then decided against it. Instinctively i am against banning anyone from any page unless it is something really serious. I am satisfied that we have the 'neutrality is disputed' tag (put be me) and the 'factual accuracy is disputed' tag (put by another editor--based on the talk page discussions between Sitush and me) on the main article which as of now is composed almost entirely of words written by Sitush. Soham321 (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as phrased by Sitush just above. We really, really need to protect useful editors from the attrition and burnout this kind of wikilawyering and stubborn WP:IDHT causes. Length? Either one year or indefinite. As second choice, I'll support any other topic ban people can agree on here. Bishonen | talk 08:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC).

• I just noticed that my edit "Views on Hindu nationalist groups" (with a different section heading but same section content) on the main article under discussion which had been unilaterally deleted by Sitush has now been restored on the main article thanks to another editor. Strictly speaking, a version of this edit had been in place and i had simply made some additions and modifications (english corrections and making it conform to WP:NPOV). Soham321 (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban or any administrative action: Action on Wikipedia isn't punitive but it is preventive. Soham321 is prepared to abide by consensus regarding his behaviour, if an uninvolved admin delivers the message, the community should wait and judge before taking action against him, he is a new editor,[214] only a few months here, the community shouldn't wp:BITE him. He could be given a warning per (User:Drmies): "Begoon, thanks, and if it were up to me I'd warn Soham and then wait for the next edit to bring the block hammer down" Also Soham railing and ranting against Sitush would make things worse, my experience is that whatever his limitations, he is evenhanded, and the community has immense faith in him, we think him to be a Herculus in the Aegean Stables Augean stables that the Indian related content are.(Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) They have had umpteen warnings and explanations but have chosen to ignore them, For example, this thread warns and advises, as does this one. Then there were the comments about OWN in the prior ANI thread linked above, Talk:Digvijaya Singh is full of them and I'm pretty sure that there are loads more that have been deleted from their own talk page. In addition, we have ludicrous situations such as this (yes, I lost my temper there and walked away for a bit) and, really, despite all the words about accepting consensus they are not in fact doing it, perhaps in part because they seem not to understand what the policy means. Consensus, to them, is more or less a case of my way or the highway. Misrepresenting what people have said is another trait and seems to be used to bolster their wayward interpretations of policy etc. Really, it is quite scary and I think they should count themselves lucky that no-one has suggested an outright indef from the project for reasons of competence. That they are new is belied to some extent by the fact that they have been citing policy virtually from the get-go, albeit usually doing so incorrectly. If they can cite it, they can read it. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sitush, writing about me, says: " That they are new is belied to some extent by the fact that they have been citing policy virtually from the get-go...". In other words, he is suggesting that i am a sock puppet of some other (more experienced) user. I deny this accusation completely. The reason i came to know of some WP rules and guidelines relatively quickly because i was interacting (and clashing) with more experienced editors and they were bringing up the WP rule book to support their stand. And so every time this was done to me i knew more about WP rules and guidelines. Of course, i did some reading on my own as well. Soham321 (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• One more warning delivered at AN/I, wouldn't hurt the project, I request the community to give him one more chance. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I went back to the archives to see if other editors have complained about User:Sitush. I found this very interesting thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Editor_.28Sitush.29_behaviourial_issues
• There is also mention of Drmies in this discussion. Specifically: "BTW I have an impression that the user talk:Drmies page is used by the clique to coordinate attacks against disagreeable contributors. One can see how they discussed (and defamed) me there, without even notifying me, although I did not cross their paths except this single message...".
• I was impressed also by: "All these edits of Sitush are just to agitate other editors. He knows that it works well. He knows that Mr.T gets short tempered and would violate WP:3RR and then he can be blocked. He also knows that i have for various times abandoned editing such articles where someone is simply playing in a puddle and throwing dirt. That is also true with various other editors and not just me. He is using all these strategies to irritate us all.I propose that he be topic banned from editing this and other related articles. He may choose any of his buddy-editors to edit the article instead of him; you know if he is really very caring about the readers and Wikipedia and such moral stuff. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)" Soham321 (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Personally, I have always avoided confronting Sitush on the main article with respect to reverting his erroneous edits because i know he is more experienced than me when it comes to 3RR and this statement of User:Dharmadhyaksha struck a chord with me. Soham321 (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The last bit indicates to me that you need a full site block or, at the very least, a complete topic ban from all Indian politicians. Sitush has never, as far as I know, been sanctioned, despite being brought to ANI dozens of times. In fact, most times that people complain about him, the complaining editor is either warned or sanctioned. Plus, the only mistake I've significant mistake I've ever known Drmies to make was to give up his administrator status. Out of an overabundance of discretion, I took a look at the talk page, and it is clear that you don't understand or don't care about WP:BLP. Deliberately including random rumors, unproven clams of malfeasance, etc., are one of the worst things we can do, and the fact that you're doing it on a politician up for election soon strongly implies that you're acting out of personal interests to damage this person's performance. Of course, we all know that I'm either Sitush's drinking buddy and/or sockpuppet, so I can't block you myself. I hope there's still some admins left who are willing to intervene on matters of this type. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• The 'Views on Hindu Nationalist Group' in the main article under consideration is a section that had been put in the main article by me and unilaterally deleted by Sitush. It has now been put back in the main article by some other editor. And some other editor has put a 'factual accuracy is disputed' tag on the main article based on my discussion with Sitush on the talk page. So claims that my edits or my posts are all nonsensical are themselves nonsensical in my opinion. Soham321 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• The 'Other Controversies' section had been put in place by User:A.amitkumar and not me. I myself had told him in the talk page that i did not believe this section has biographical value, but i reached WP:Consensus with him after he allowed me to make some modifications to his edits. Soham321 (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• I find it curious that User:Qwyrxian should write: "Deliberately including random rumors, unproven clams of malfeasance, etc., are one of the worst things we can do, and the fact that you're doing it on a politician up for election soon strongly implies that you're acting out of personal interests to damage this person's performance." In other words, according to Qwyrxian (Q) i am against Digvijaya Singh. However, Sitush has been accusing me of being biased in favor of Digvijaya Singh. May i suggest that Q and Sitush first confabulate with each other and decide whether i am against or whether i am biased in favor of the concerned politician. Soham321 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm traveling and don't have the time to see how disruptive Soham321's edits are but there are definite competence issues here and the fact that this is still going on (I warned Soham as far back as July 26th here), and looking at Soham's comments above, makes me think a topic ban is a good idea. --regentspark (comment) 22:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• After the warning of RegentsPark i had clearly desisted from reverting Sitush's edits on the main article and had confined myself to discussing his edits on the talk page of the main article as can be seen. My posts on the talk page had two consequences: first, a complete section titled 'Views on Hindu Nationalist Groups' which had been inserted in the main article by me and removed by Sitush was re-inserted by another editor. And secondly, a 'factual accuracy is disputed' tag was put in the main article by another editor. In my opinion, RegentsPark should have avoided making a judgement on my edits when he claims he has not even seen them. Soham321 (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• The diff that regentspark gives is of the 'Other Controversies' section which was posted by User:A.amitkumar and subsequently reverted by me since i thought they were not conforming to NPOV and did not have biographical value. Eventually, after regentspark's warning amitkumar put his edits back on the main article. I then interacted with amitkumar on the article talk page and he allowed me to modify his edits to make them conform to NPOV, so we reached thereby WP:Consensus. But then, the entire section 'Other controversies' was removed by Sitush. In fact, 'Other Controversies' was a part of a secton called 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' and this whole section was removed by Sitush. One section of this portion ('Views on Hindu Nationalist Group') has now been re-inserted by another editor. Soham321 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Soham321, just as a clarification, I'm not commenting on the content of your edits (and this is not the right forum for that anyway). Rather, it is the way in which you respond to comments or other editors that is the problem. A topic ban is not necessarily a bad thing. Work in other areas, demonstrate better awareness of how to deal with other editors and with conflicts, and the ban can easily be lifted. --regentspark (comment) 00:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• If you expect me to grovel before Sitush, that is not going to happen. The fact that i was able to reach WP:Consensus with User:A.amitkumar after initially having serious differences with him shows that i am capable of reaching consensus in a reasonable manner. The link i have given earlier to another ANI thread shows that there are other users who have experiences similar frustrations with Sitush that i have had to go through. User:Pectore also has in this very thread voiced the same frustrations of interacting with Sitush that i had to go through. The very fact that i was not indulging in edit warring, was allowing Sitush to retain what i believed to be inaccurate edits in the main article, and was confining myself to criticizing his edits in the talk page of the main article should count in my favor in my opinion. Soham321 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC

Groveling before anyone is not required. Frankly, the fact that you seem to think that that's what is being asked of you is probably the best indication of the fact that you don't understand how things work here. --regentspark (comment) 01:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The word 'grovelling' came to mind because i went from the thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Editor_.28Sitush.29_behaviourial_issues to the very interesting user talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mrt3366 where an admin writes to the user: "I'm not expecting any gratitue and I don't expect grovelling either." Soham321 (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• RegentsPark writes: "it is the way in which you respond to comments or other editors that is the problem." I would like to point out that there are other editors who have the same view of User:Sitush. For instance: I have the same impression as Dharmadhyaksha. I have been following the article and its talk page for some time. It is obvious that Sitush is constantly doing and saying things which would constitute blatant baiting (WP:BAIT}. He appears to be baiting MrT3366 in particular (who does not seem to understand how ridiculously common and succesful baiting is on WP, or what baiting is). I would urge that suitable action be taken to prevent Sitush from baiting others.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC). And also, I was wrong in writing this all. I did not realize this before. The more chance you give Sitush to speak, the fouler it starts getting. Please close this thread. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC) (All quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Editor_.28Sitush.29_behaviourial_issues ) Soham321 (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC) A few more examples: However, I am horrified at Sitush's vile language directly at my Talk page, at Talk:List of Other Backward Classes, and in edit summaries at List of Other Backward Classes. "crap" "fuck" "bullshit" "twaddle" are Sitush's words, within the past hour or two. This is inappropriate, entirely unprofessional badgering, IMHO. --doncram 22:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC) ; I don't know much about Doncram but Sitush's tirades and personal insults seem quite outrageous, being contrary to WP:OWN and other behavioural guidelines. Warden (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC) ; And I would add this is a very consistant form of conduct by Sitush. A little surprised there isn't some slight boomarang for his behavior on the involved articles. This seems to be something of a pattern I have noticed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC) (All quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive778#Doncram_on_Indic_communities ) Soham321 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I reinserted the Hindu nationalist material. Digvijay is mostly notable for being a controversial politician, and he became very famous after stating his allegations the RSS had some sort of cover-up involvement in the November 26, 2008 bombings in Mumbai. My experience with Sitush on this page has been negative. I dug up the controversy section (as is), because it was a well-sourced section with verifiable and notable information relevant to Digvijay's broader notability. However, upon digging this back up, I self-reverted and deleted a few of the sections, as they were not as germane to his notability. This prompted Sitush to go on a long rampage of sanctimonious edit summaries, given that he didn't understand I merely resurrected the material (from his edits[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digvijaya_Singh&diff=prev&oldid=567644204] until [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digvijaya_Singh&diff=prev&oldid=567646095]). I don't think banning Soham will improve the content in any way on the page, and that Sitush is hardly blameless in this matter. Hence, Oppose topic ban.Pectore^talk 23:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Not my edits: they were there before my time. You are miffed, Pectore, because you dislike my removals of other stuff elsewhere per WP:BLPCAT. And you are still miffed now. I am trying to improve the standard of the Singh article across the board, almost everything before the "Controversy" section that you reinstated is indeed my work - roughly, we've gone from this to this, via your effort here. In the complex interim, Soham has added nothing other than rebuttals of criticism and long-winded attempts to have certain well-sourced items that might reflect poorly on the man removed. My biggest single removal has indeed been the huge, meandering controversy section, some of which is now incorporated within the chronological structure of the article in order to minimise the "moths to a flame" nature of such sections when separately identified. Your reasons for opposing an action against Soham seem to me to have little to do with their behaviour and a lot to do with your present feelings regarding me elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• The section that Pectore has restored in the main article had been inserted by me into the main article, and subsequently removed by Sitush along with some other edits of mine and also of User:A.amitkumar. (Strictly speaking, the section inserted by me, deleted by Sitush, and now restored by Pectore had existed in the archives of the article; i modified it to make it conform to NPOV and added one additional detail to the section.) I had only voiced my concerns about Sitush's editing in the talk page of the article and did not indulge in edit warring with Sitush on the main article. Soham321 (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, until the community decides one way or the other, i am not going to participate in any more edits on any main article. However, i will continue to post on the talk pages of articles and talk pages of users. Soham321 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose t-banLooking through the diffs given by Sitush in their 00:33, 9 August 2013 comment, I think Sitush is trying to whitewash the article of negative content about the subject. That he is doing it before an election year is setting off some alarm bells for me. I think Soham321 and Pectore are trying to make the article NPOV and should be given all support and Sitush should take a break from editing the article.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Trust me, Soham321, ranting against Sitush isn't going to get you anywhere. It will only make matters worse for you. I think I need to be a more detailed with this, check his talk page, he's been accused with being anti-foo from all angles, anti-Hindu, anti-Muslim, anti-Sikh, anti-Modi, anti-India. So editors/admins trust his judgment. So when anyone rants against Sitush, it is like ranting against the judgment of scores of editors. You're not the first and will not be the last. It would do good to digest user:PinkAmpersand's comments on user talk:OrangesRyellow's talk page, date stamped 21:15, 24 June 2013. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Soham you write: "After the warning of RegentsPark i had clearly desisted from reverting Sitush's edits on the main article and had confined myself to discussing his edits on the talk page of the main article as can be seen." Would you please provide diffs to provide evidence. Assuming Soham is heeding to warnings, it is a clear sign that he is amenable to advise. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am not sure how i should provide diffs for what i have not done. There was in fact one occasion when i did make a modification to Sitush's edit in the main article. The sequence went like this. Sitush had an edit (call it edit 1). He changed it (made it edit 2) after i criticized his edit on the talk page. But since the edit continued to remain erroneous in my opinion i continued to be critical of it and he let me have the last word. So i removed what i thought to be the error in his edit, and made it edit 3. Sitush then did not revert the edit back to edit 2. He reverted it back to edit 1. Details about this incident are present in the talk page of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digvijaya_Singh#Disputed_Edits ). When he did this i did not attempt to edit war on the main article but confined myself to pointing out his behavior in the talk page. It is my belief that this kind of back and forth makes WP:Consensus impossible to achieve. Soham321 (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You could provide RP's warning diff and a link to the history of the article page as evidence of your not editing the page after RP's warning. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the article history of the page under discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digvijaya_Singh&action=history I notice that i have in fact reverted Sitush on a few occasions (and gave my reason for doing this in the edit history). But in the event that Sitush reverted my revert (which actually always happened), i let the edit stay on the main page of the article and continued to give my views on the edit on the talk page of the article. In other words, I was careful not to revert the same edit a second time after regentspark's warning. Soham321 (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

OK your last edit was at 18:09, 7 August 2013‎, when did RP warn you? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

regentspark had written on my talk page: Soham, you can't go around reverting other editors and claiming that only your version is neutral. Also, edit summaries like this one are combative and pointless because it is meaningless to invoke policy without explanation. If you persist in doing this, you may end up blocked. --regentspark (comment) 01:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This was my explanation to regentspark for why i had reverted the edits (for which he had served me a warning): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digvijaya_Singh#An_explanation_for_the_benefit_of_regentspark_and_others

For the specific edits which i had reverted (for which i had received the warning from regentspark), i eventually reached WP:Consensus with User:A.amitkumar who had inserted them in the article after i made some modifications to them. That was before Sitush unilaterally deleted those edits. Soham321 (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support I just received a ping to this AN/I from User:Soham321. I believe it is because I made the first comment on the recent DR/N filing on the content dispute. While I recused myself from the DR/N request, I need not do so here. The issues involved appear to be long standing and difficult for Sitush, and others. There is clearly disruption. Enough in fact to block for at least a temp period. However, I believe Topic Bans to be more effective in cases like this as it seems the editor can be reasonable in other areas (please correct me if I am wrong). While I do not speak for all of the volunteers at DR/N, I feel inclined to agree with the closing statement from User:Steven Zhang who stated: I think the boomerang effect applies here, and would suggest that if this sort of conduct continues, that Sitush should consider ANI." It appears that this sort of conduct has indeed continued and here we all are. I would never have considered even bothering with getting involved with this AN/I had the editor not requested my input. This is my input. Sorry.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 04:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have already made it clear that if the community wants to impose any kind of ban on me i will accept it (even though i may not agree with it). Incidentally, the reason i wrote to you (and also to some others) was not the reason you think it to be. The reason was that you (and a few others) have yourself complained about Sitush's behavior with other editors in the past (which i have referred to by giving direct quotes and references earlier in this article--in my response to regentspark). Because the problematic feature here is not my editing the article page since i clearly allowed edits i considered inaccurate to be a part of the main article. It is my behavior with other editors according to regentspark. As regentspark wrote earlier in this discussion:"it is the way in which you respond to comments or other editors that is the problem." Soham321 (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting that Soham is accused of being both pro-Digvijay and anti-Digvijaya. Does that not make him neutral? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• In the talk page of User:Dharmadhyaksha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dharmadhyaksha ) Sitush asked me why i am canvassing for support and i have explained to him my reason. Soham321 (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly canvassing editors who have disagreed with Sitush looking to pile on as much against the editor as possible. I was foolish enough to believe I was pinged because of the DR/N, but you just clarified that it was because of my past disagreements with the editor. If you have done this before...you can be blocked right now without further warning.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 05:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

True, but that seems to be a benign error because of lack of knowledge about wp:CANVASS, or he wouldn't have been so very candid about it. As I said there should be a summary of what the community finds wrong with his behaviour, and he be given a warning, any further transgressions would be dealt with through necessary administrative action. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That rather assumes that this was done out of ignorance alone, but if you are not interested in looking to see if he has done this before, I am of the mind that a block may still be appropriate here.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I can assure you that i had no knowledge of WP:Canvass. Moreover, i only gave the link to this discussion to certain editors. My message was completely neutral in that i did not say anything to these editors other than 'the following discussion may be of interest to you'. Soham321 (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC) To answer your other query about whether i have done something like this before, the answer is a categorical No. Soham321 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Which only leads to the question, if you didn't know now, how do we know this behavior was never done before. Can you assure editors that you have never canvassed editors before? Regardless of the neutrality of wording, you were not neutral with whom you selected. I find the whole thing rather disruptive as it appears do others. Again, I am still of the mind that a temporary block is in order regardless of the outcome of the topic ban discussion.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I can assure all editors on my word of honor that i have never done any canvassing before. Considering that i am not participating in the edits of any WP article since the present discussion started and do not intend to participate in making any edits to any WP article until the present discussion has concluded, imposing even a temporary block on me does not seem a reasonable punishment to give to me considering that i am a new editor and had no idea about WP:Canvass. Soham321 (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you seem to think editors wish to punish you. *sigh* Wikipedia does not punish editors. A block or topic ban is meant to be preventative. It is my view that you have clearly shown that prevention is in order now. it may even be a matter of a lack of competence.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent me. I would not be participating in this discussion at all if i thought a majority of editors wanted to punish me. Soham321 (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You do think Wikipedia punishes editors. "[I]mposing even a temporary block on me does not seem a reasonable punishment to give to me considering that i am a new editor " Those are your words to which I responded. It appears you lack the competence to edit on Wikipedia.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I used the word 'punishment' as a kind of synonym for blocking or banning me. Soham321 (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You believed that Wikipedia punishes editors. It is exactly what you said and this is a perfect example of your back peddling.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly asking that a temporary ban be imposed on me and i gave my reason as to why it should not be imposed on me. I used the word 'punishment' as a kind of synonym for 'temporary ban'. Feel free to quibble about the word 'punishment' if that makes you happy. Soham321 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, i admit i have canvassed with editors who had issues with Sitush's behavior in the past, but i did not know this is in violation of WP rules. I will point out though that Sitush had approached User:Drmies and complained about me to Drmies soon after he came to know of my prior disagreement with Drmies. (This happened when i gave Sitush the link to a DRN discussion involving Drmies and me which contained some informative text of the mediator TransporterMan.) Soon after that, Drmies filed the present complaint against me. Soham321 (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Some relevant discussion regarding this point has taken place between Sitush and me on my user talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#Beware_of_canvassing Soham321 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In any case it was reckless and not polite to drag me into this dispute. I was never seen around articles in question, I commented about Sitush only once (2½ months ago) after Sitush broke into my user_talk on a completely unrelated pretext, that had not any further development. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly support topic ban per Drmies, and as phrased by Sitush - to avoid doubt, since I just realised I didn't make that explicit in my comments above. I'd also support a block to prevent disruptive editing, if the current level of time-wasting wikilawyering continues, and someone were to propose such a remedy. Begoon ^talk 15:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Soham has referred once or twice to a previous interaction with me, now at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_71#Narendra_Modi. I wish to point out that that discussion has no bearing, as far as I'm concerned, on this particular issue. I also thought that problems was done with, water under the bridge. My thread was sparked by the Singh issue, no other.

  I'd like an uninvolved admin to gauge consensus here so we can move on--thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• The diff of Sitush canvassing for support with Drmies: Sitush and Drmies This was just prior to Drmies initiating the present complaint against me. Sitush knew of my prior disagreement with Drmies (when i had taken Drmies for DRN) when i gave him the link to the DRN discussion since Sitush wanted to know precisely what TransporterMan had said with respect to giving at least two reliable references for any disputed edit. For the diff: Sitush and Drmies 2. Sitush has said on my talk page that he knew about my disagreement with Drmies all along and he just wasn't sure which DRN i was referring to. However two things to note. First, this was the only DRN involving Drmies and me. Second, Sitush approached Drmies (canvassing for support against me) soon after i gave him the link to the DRN discussion involving Drmies and me. Soham321 (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• The fact that Drmies has not been participating in editing the article under discussion but was quick to initiate the present complaint against me after Sitush canvassed with him for support against me (when he came to know from me about my prior disagreement with Drmies) reflects poorly on the judgement of Drmies in my opinion. Soham321 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• On another note, here is another diff of Sitush asking for support/advise from User:Johnuniq on how to handle me: Sitush and Johnuniq Soham321 (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Soham, you are failing to consider AGF and putting your own spin on events relating to the canvassing issue which. you will note, I tried to warn you off prior to realising that it had already been raised here. The canvassing issue is a sideshow to this report, which is concerned primarily with disruptive editing at the Singh article. I think that many people might be willing to accept that you were unaware of the conventions regarding canvassing but you most certainly were aware of the other issues that have been raised. It is those that you need to address, not this distraction. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding your response of 16:56 9 Aug above, Soham. Are you saying that this thread should be closed with no outcome because you consider it to be procedurally flawed? I realise that this applies principally to block situations but have you ever seen WP:NOTTHEM? - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link. (I had not seen WP:NOTTHEM before.) I thought it is fair for me to talk about you canvassing with Drmies, etc. in view of what i read in WP:ANI_Advice; see point 2 in particular. Soham321 (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• If asking another editor for advice on how to deal with someone is canvassing, then we all need to be blocked. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Since i have never asked another editor for advice or support on how to deal with someone, i do not need to be blocked on this count. Moreover, asking other editors for advice on how to handle some other editor seems to be violative of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum. Further, this kind of behavior inculcates cliquishness where a clique of more experienced editors can get together and start targeting a new editor. Since i have your attention, could you please confirm whether you are a wikipedia Admin anymore? Soham321 (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Not asking another editor for advice or support is supposed to be relevant to you not being blocked? Clearly you need a mentor and should be seeking advice. Perhaps that could be an alternative or addition to the topic ban or block.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It will make more sense if you read my response together with what Drmies (to whom i was responding) had written. Soham321 (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you have some issues as an editor. One being a constant misinterpretation of others that appears designed to simply make the previous post have less weight. I can no longer assume good faith or no clue with you. I think you know exactly what you are doing. I recommend a 30 block for disruptive behavior and a requirement that you join the Wikipedia adopt a user program when you return to be mentored be an experienced editor. The topic Ban should also apply in my opinion.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you also in view of the angry tone you have been adopting towards me in your recent posts that i have lost confidence in you being a neutral participant in this discussion. The steps you are now recommending are not designed to reform me; rather they are designed to chase me away from the site. Soham321 (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, you follow up almost every post with such nonsense as to simply unweight the last post. You have filled this AN/I filing with huge walls of text.

• Could an uninvolved admin please collapse all of the larger chunks of text from Soham321 so we can get a better understanding of this filing without the undue weight of that editors interruptions?--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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

"Iraqi air force" legal threats

87.210.135.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has requested the speedy deletion of Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses. In a posting that includes "The leadership of the Iraqi air force, "the former" deplores this publication and otherwise may turn to international justice and demand compensation for psychological damage caused by this article..." Fairly sure that's an unambiguous legal threat, etc, just passing the ball for comment, no opinions here. Benea (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted it as a pile of incoherent gibberish. Just move on and ignore it, IMO. Tarc (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked per Wikipedia:No legal threats. Gamaliel (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You indeffed an IP for an incomprehensible legal threat? While I tend to agree with Tarc, a block is certainly within your reasonable discretion, but indef is way overkill on an IP. Monty₈₄₅ 00:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Monty, that was anything but incomprehensible. They used an awful lot of words...but strung together they say "legal threat". Those that violate NLT are idef blocked until they retract the threat in an unambiguous manner. Seems easy enough. If they don't want to retract the threat, they don't really want to edit here and build an encyclopedia. Seems simple.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 00:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Except we don't indef IP editors because an IP shifts owners, unlike an account. If we indeffed every IP who made a legal threat, we would have alot more then 78 IPs in Category:Indefinitely blocked IP addresses. Monty₈₄₅ 01:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Indefinite_blocks. Monty₈₄₅ 01:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The IP does appear to be quite static (the IP has been harping on that article since last october), so a very long block would be appropriate, though I would not go for indefinite. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What are the other options besides indef?--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 01:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I typically place a block for about the same length of time that the IP has been in continuous use by one person, which in this case would be about a year. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there is some evidence that the IP is editing from an open proxy, the block should be modified to a year (also per Monty).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So then by that logic the legal threat is no big deal when its an IP, but when its a registered user we throw the book at them? That doesn't sound right. Why should IPs get away with a lesser block when nearly everyone else registered is indeffed? This makes no logical sense.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 01:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, come on, because IP addresses are used by different people, so you're not just sanctioning the individual, you're sanctioning other individuals who might be allocated that address.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This was part of my reasoning. I saw that the IP had been making similar non-legal edits and complaints to the same article for some time, indicating that this editor was almost certainly the same individual. I will split the baby in half and shorten the block to two years. Gamaliel (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gamaliel. To Mark Miller, basically, what Bbb23 said. Some IPs are shared by multiple people, and some IPs change owner on a time scale of anywhere from years to hours. Giving them shorter blocks than we would give an account is simply due to the difficulty in knowing who is using an IP. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean your are assuming that the IP will change hands? And in only issuing a temporary block you are really just cutting someone slack who has the potential to be the very same person acting as a different individual after the block expires? What this says is, we are limited in what we will do, because of the inherent nature of IPs that we have no answer to. I assume that someone who ends up with a blocked IP after the other individual no longer has it (for whatever reason) could well be under the time of the block and could still be blocking an innocent individual. So this still makes no sense, although Gamaliel's decision could be seen as a compromise.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you Monty for those links. Didn't see them earlier!--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• The entire thing is ridiculous, particulary when you consider that most of 'The leadership of the Iraqi air force, "the former"' would now be quite dead, usually from 9mm hemorrhage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but the part that should be looked at as the actual threat is "...may turn to international justice and demand compensation for psychological damage caused by this article". It still meant to create a chill effect.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think there are quite a few indeffed IPs that shouldn't be. This one is another - a year block is about right. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Over on Jimbo Wales talk page under the thread "Question" there is an article posted there by an IP about Wikipedia Whistleblowers that seems to demonstrate the reasoning behind why we don't indef IP users. It wasn't the intent of the article, but a case there does demonstrate to me the validity of why we do not block IPs indefinitely.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 22:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims

These claims in the lead at Mindfulness-based stress reduction seem to be promotional and without scientific evidence. "It is thought to be effective for treating ailments including alleviating pain and improving physical and emotional well being for individuals suffering from a variety of diseases and disorders…….Through meditation individuals increase their self-awareness, which leads to a greater unity between the mind and body. Research into meditation and its health benefits has been widely accepted and the concept of mindfulness-based stress reduction was created out of the desire to understand these benefits more closely. A mindfulness-based program is beneficial to those suffering from chronic illness, anxiety, depression, as well as other problems. The benefits of using a mindfulness-based program have been proven to be effect regardless of type of program or length." I think an Administrator needs to look at this.--LarEvee (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't strike me as that extraordinary. Go through and substitute placebo for it, and there would be plenty of evidence to back that up too. Turns out the placebo effect is quite powerful. Really, the problem is that the language is a bit weasely, and oversells itself, but its not so blatant that normal editing can't fix it. Not an admin issue. Monty₈₄₅ 00:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, is there a psuedo-science or medical club here that I could get advice from?--LarEvee (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never done anything there, so I can't speak from experience, but Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard might be helpful. Monty₈₄₅ 02:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence for mindfulness based interventions, much of it now emerging into the peer-reviewed literature and thence into treatment guidelines from NICE and others. The text may not be referenced well but this is certainly not fringey nor pseudoscience. If you think so, then I'm afraid you're not up to date with the science in this area! What administrative action (blocking, page protection etc) is being requested? If none, I suggest this needs closing and taking to the talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Richard Warren Lipack

I recently encountered Richard Warren Lipack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Based on edits like this one (including the delightful section "'They had the internet already discovered back in the 1800′s!!!! They have SO MUCH HIGH TECH STUFF that they have been hiding from us for centuries!!!!' This claim by Nguyen is scientifically correct and today is supported by the recently discovered only extant manuscript journal of telegraph inventor William Fothergill Cooke."), I think it is safe to say that Mr. Lipack's judgement about the nature of reality can legitimately be questioned. On his talk page, he admits that he is also Epochwiki77, which brings us to Epochwiki77's magnum opus, William Fothergill Cooke. A quick perusal of that article's history shows that it was essentially created by Epochwiki77, and relies heavily on http://www.w1tp.com/cooke/ , which, unsurprisingly, is the account of a private journal of William Fothergill Cooke that was discovered by one Richard Warren Lipack.

My first instinct is to revert the article back before Epochwiki77's first edit, block both accounts, and just deal with this with some combination of WP:IAR, WP:COMPETENCE, and WP:ILLEGIT (on the argument that the name "Epochwiki77" was chosen to hide the relationship to Richard Warren Lipack). Before I do that, I'd like to hear suggestions.—Kww(talk) 06:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a topic ban is in order as it seems like the editor has single-minded focus on Tequila. The amount of work that went into the contribution to Tequila's article is substantial though it completely off-topic and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Or just keep Tequila's page protected.

I don't think a site-wide ban is called yet but a review of William Fothergill Cooke might be in order. I just think that if he could make a diligent editor if he accepted Wikipedia standards on RS. I don't agree with his worldview but if he can keep the conspiracy rants out of his work, he could be a productive user. Newjerseyliz (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think an indef block is more than appropriate at this point. We should not be wasting a second more of time discussing semi-literate tinfoil rants about lizard people, Illuminati, and a D-list reality tv personality. Drop the hammer, and we find better things to do. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Oy vey...I just looked through this and my brain is oozing out of my ears trying to escape. Support indef - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that the same editor has also used Epochwiki77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Users shouldn't be banned, especially indefinitely, just because they have kooky ideas. I mean, who knows what kind of ideas other editors have that they never express? I'm sure there are regular editors and Admins who have peculiar beliefs. We can't police minds, only conduct. The content he posted was not encyclopedic and didn't have credible sources and it was rightly reverted.

Remember, the focus on contributions, not contributors. If he can read up on Wiki policy and standards and adhere to them, he shouldn't be prevented from editing. But if there is a particular hot topic that he repeated edits in a disruptive way, he can be given a topic ban, not a site ban. Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The user is not (with any luck) being blocked because of holding these ideas, we don't practice Thoughtcrime around here. They would be blocked for acting on them, edit warring to insert them into a WP:BLP, and posting crazy, semi-coherent screeds within edit summaries and to user's talk pages about how to contact them to discuss/demand that this material be retained. This is base incompetence. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that this was acted on so quickly, without even hearing from the individual you've now indefinitely banned from the website. I don't think he was incompetent, he just didn't honor Wiki MOS, perhaps due to ignorance about policies and practices. I guess I don't understand why, when so many other issues on noticeboards and dispute pages linger around for months without a resolution, that a total ban was decided upon in less than 24 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjerseyliz (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. Edits show that this contributor is clearly not competent to edit Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block and overhaul the William Fothergill Cooke article. GiantSnowman 13:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Aha - with those links from KWW, now it becomes clearer. It looks like the entire focus of this user's edits is popularizing this "Codex Lipack", allegedly a diary of Cooke that he found (and named after himself, of course). That's the source he's using for all of his edits to the Cooke article (which is probably the epitome of Wikipedia:No original research) and that's the motivation for adding all the conspiracy stuff to the Tila Tequila article, since it seems that she may believe him, and she's sort of famous. I don't see any productive edits in that. (It's theoretically possible there are some, because of the great-wall-of-text style he uses, but finding any in the cruft is a real challenge.) If Newjerseyliz or someone else is willing to personally mentor this user, we can let her try, but I suspect the game may not be worth the candle. Otherwise, I support indefinite. --GRuban (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, would anybody be opposed to me being BOLD and reverting to this version which was the last one before Epochwiki77/Richard Warren Lipack started editing? GiantSnowman 14:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Good work. GiantSnowman 14:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from the articles on William Fothergill Cooke and Tila Tequila, and support roll back of both articles to their state pre this editor and Epochwiki77's contributions. I agree with NJL that a blanket ban or indef block is too big a hammer to bring down right now, but I have to be honest and say that I do think it may be necessary in the future. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block This user is textbook WP:NOTHERE. Whether this is due to a competence issue, or the fact they just want to mess around and troll isn't relevant; they're not constructive at all, so they need to go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block on the basis of competency and no evidence that they're here to benefit the encyclopedia. Other edits by Epochwiki77 are only a little better, and we don't need to enable hoaxers or the deluded. Acroterion (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked both accounts.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

After less than a day's consideration? Why the rush? Why not wait for the user to respond to this posting? He hasn't even been on Wikipedia today to see the notice of this discussion and there is no "block" posting on his Talk Page that even informs him a) what happened on the one day he's not on Wikipedia and b) how he could appeal a block.

People say that these banning actions aren't personal but the only conclusion I can draw is that a half dozen editors thought he was a kook and wanted to kick him off Wikipedia. I'm not defending the quality of his contributions but the process here stinks. Some editors get away with atrocious behavior and don't even receive a warning while others get immediately and completely banned without a fair hearing. Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law, and Lipack can respond on his talk page, if he so chooses. But yes, using Wikipedia to promote crackpot nonsense will usually lead to a quick exit. WP:NOTHERE and the like. Resolute 23:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I doubt he knows what is going on since there is no notice on his Talk page telling him he is blocked, telling him why he was blocked or telling him how he could appeal. Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The block message he receives tells him how to appeal, Newjerseyliz. For me, it wasn't so much his beliefs as it was the suspicion that he was intentionally perpetrating a hoax.—Kww(talk) 00:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see any message on his Talk page that would back up the policy to "notify the blocked user". Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It's an automatic function of the blocking software, Newjerseyliz. The block notice used to be the only thing that notified the user. Today, it's primarily a notice to other editors. When he attempts to edit, he will get a message that points him at a permanent link to this discussion and also gives him instructions on how to appeal.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Other affected articles, including Coca-Cola

Per this and these two press releases, we also need to closely scrutinize and/or revert his contributions to Coca-Cola. It appears this user has been significantly abusing Wikipedia to provide support for his personal agenda. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Those contributions begin here, by User:Epochwiki77. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Behavior of some Users against me

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

---

In the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Assistance I already describe the situation: here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Assistance#Behavior_of_some_Users_against_me and no need to write it here again (please read it there in mentioned link). What is more interesting, the behaviour of the User:AndyTheGrump is still abusive. During discussion of this issue he wrote: I'd say that 'poor manners' sums it up nicely. Instead of apologize, he again call me man with extremaly poor manner, and moreover, he thinks that it sums up nicely. So 3 Users discuss the personality, but not an issue. Please your comments about this situation: is this kind of behaviour acceptable in Wiki? Please comment and take necessary measures for the behaviour of User AndyTheGrump.Thansk in advance. 46.71.203.2 (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This is getting silly: see Talk:Atheism#Some very interesting and very important statistics. The IP seems to think that "please-please your comments must be reasonable" is a good way to start a thread, and that "please don't pretend that such statistics are not concern to this article" is an appropriate response to polite comments. So yes, I'll say it again: 'poor manners' sums it up nicely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In the link I mentioned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Assistance#Behavior_of_some_Users_against_me) I wrote and commented all this questions. Dear administrators, please read it. And as you see, AndyTheGrump is still very abusive, and this will become a precedent for other users to act like this. So, please don't allow it. Thank you. 46.71.203.2 (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No one is being abusive to you. Multiple editors disagree with you, and that is all. If you want to press your point, go pursue the options at dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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