Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713

User:DÜNGÁNÈ instigating other user against me

Resolved

 – No personal attack here; Gun Powder Ma withdraws complaint. No further drama desired. Quigley (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I did not even know User:DÜNGÁNÈ until yesterday, but just saw by chance that he has been instigating at least one other user (User:Aua) against me in a veritable pamphlet. The same he did on List of inventions in medieval Islam, where he suddenly came out of the blue, having to the best of my knowledge never shown an interest in the article in the past. This has clearly had an effect on User:Aua (who is new to me either) who ironically first seemed to regard me as Sinophile, but then promptly swung around to classify me as "equally critical of all non-Western lists. Whatever happened to honest contributing!" (1).

Given how elaborated and unprovoked DÜNGÁNÈ's attack on me has been, I request a disciplinary block. By stirring up resentment against me he is bringing WP down to a low human level and there should be no excuse for that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: he has also been instigating other users against User:Aua. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I seem to be one of the "instigated" in this complaint, Gun Powder Ma did not alert me to this board. On the other hand, he did notify four other users heretofore uninvolved in this matter. The justification for this apparent canvassing is that they are "active at Talk:List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world", but the arbitrary list could just be a few of Gun Powder Ma's wikifriends. I don't think DÜNGÁNÈ's post to me was instigative. It simply alerted me to a series of instigative posts by Aua at Talk:List of Chinese inventions#This article is trash, which lamented the length and details of the entries, accusing contributors and discussants, including me, of being prideful Chinese (not true on both counts). Also, it's not true that you "did not even know DÜNGÁNÈ until yesterday". You have a history of hostility against him dating back at least a year, from accusing him of having a "false Chinese ethnic pride" and a "deep-rooted anti-Western bias" to telling him that he "confirm[s] the stereotype that Wikipedia is only flocked by nerds and singles with no life". This common type of battleground language makes working in China-related articles very stressful and sensitizes users working in this area to ethnic attacks against users perceived to be Chinese. Quigley (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that User:Quigley holds a grudge against me and, just as User:DÜNGÁNÈ now does, likes to talk about my person, not my edits. He is the person User:DÜNGÁNÈ has notified about User:Aua. But this is all ancillary to my inquiry here which is how the community views DÜNGÁNÈ's attack on me. I repeat I do not know DÜNGÁNÈ, the one-year old link you have posted is about some user named Дунгане. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a grudge against you, and it's uncivil for you to suggest that. DÜNGÁNÈ, fyi, is Дунгане in the Latin alphabet; he got a username change. To address your complaint, this mountain of a molehill began when Aua confronted you about your blanking at List of inventions in medieval Islam. Aua wrongly perceived from your username that you were ethnic Chinese, and that you were removing entries on that Islam list as a way to bolster Chinese inventions. Aua then made a series of offensive comments at Talk:List of Chinese inventions#This article is trash suggesting that the featured list is a product of "national pride run amok", promising to cut it down, eye-for-an-eye, to hurt (the supposedly prideful Chinese) Gun Powder Ma. DÜNGÁNÈ's message to Aua was not an attack on you, but a demonstration to Aua that your agenda on Wikipedia is clearly not to bolster Chinese achievements, an idea you agree with. Now it seems you've reconciled yourself with Aua, so the sensible solution to this problem is for you to make a similar friendly overture to DÜNGÁNÈ instead of asking for a block. Quigley (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, Дунгане has had several name changes. Дунгане's battlefield mentality seems to originate this time last year; his own behaviour has been less the exemplar.Nev1 (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(ri) I feel like I have to say something since I have the distinct pleasure of being both instigated and instigated against. First, a reply to Quiqley: no, I did NOT come to the Chinese list seeking revenge. If you check my edit history, you will see this [1] before Gun Powder Ma did anything to me and before my reply to him. Timestamps don't lie, although I can understand why you would think that way given my earlier confusion about his contribution pattern. I need to assure you again that my edits to the Chinese list were before I ever encountered Gun Powder Ma or ever heard of him, and my concerns about the length were expressed before and I still stand by them.

Back to the issue here: DÜNGÁNÈ. He is pretty edgy, and on consistent basis too. I don't know about a block, but he definitely needs to be less defensive/offensive when dealing with other contributors. You saw the way he jumped on the IP's suggestion, and then the way he assumed I was a sockpuppet, and how he assumed that me asserting there is lots of national pride was an attack on the contributors.

I didn't deal with the issue perfectly, but you really can't say I was being offensive (save for an ESL remark, which was totally justified. Remember DUNGANE corrected my grammar).

People, just take it easy.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Huh? Is this report a misunderstanding? I think matters started at Talk:List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world#Gun Powder where Aua made a misguided post with erroneous claims of vandalism directed at Gun Powder Ma (GPM). Then Bloodofox gave a polite comment supporting (by implication) the edits made by GPM to the article. I added a more pointy response to Aua noting that use of rollback and claims of vandalism where inappropriate. One of Aua's replies seemed to suggest that the "Chinese list" had some problems, and there may have been a hint that GPM had some preference for deleting items from the "medieval Islamic" list than from the Chinese list. At that point, DÜNGÁNÈ made a comment in reply to Aua, but indented the message as if replying to GPM. My reading is that DÜNGÁNÈ was supporting GPM and refuting Aua's position. Just prior to leaving that comment, DÜNGÁNÈ had left a message at User talk:Aua#Personal attacks which I interpret as providing strong support for GPM. As far as I can see, WP:CIVIL has only been breached by Aua, but it looks like that is behind us now. GPM: What is the problem? Johnuniq (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This is getting confusing. :-) I have actually a simple and straightforward complaint: My report is about a personal attack on me by User:DÜNGÁNÈ and nothing else. I am totally fine with User:Aua and comments by User:Quigley are largely irrelevant and have unfortunately only served to distract from the topic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I see how you are confused, but the message left by DUNGANE was not in defense of Gun Powder Ma, but rather it was referring to me saying there was lots of national pride on the Chinese list talkpage, which DUNGANE took as a personal insult to himself and other contributors for some reason.

Cheers

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, even though I've tailored my comments to your complaint, your behavior as the complainant is not above scrutiny on this board. Let me say it more clearly: there was no personal attack by DÜNGÁNÈ in the discussion you point to. DÜNGÁNÈ simply provided diffs to Aua to demonstrate that you were not, as Aua originally thought, a nationalistic Chinese editor. DÜNGÁNÈ did this to save a featured list from what he feared would be retributive blanking by Aua against an article Aua thought you favored. Aua has since clarified that retribution is not his intent, so neither you nor DÜNGÁNÈ have any reason to perpetuate this silly dispute. Quigley (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, DÜNGÁNÈ's post complained of cannot remotely be characterized as a personal attack. Sadly GPM carries his battleground mentality with him wherever he goes. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Still grinding axes, John? Hmm, but now that you say it I have to kind of agree: on a closer look this seems to be more in line with the usual renrou sousuo, certainly a sign of low moral standards but not a personal attack per se. So let's drop this, enough WP drama for today. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2011 (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.

Andrzejbanas

Resolved

 – User:Andrzejbanas notified of thread; 86.135.7.232 warned. No admin action necessary unless 86.135.7.232 acts in an uncivil way again. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to get this user banned/blocked for a certain period? He has removed all the song genres from Judas without a proper explanation, and I can see from his talk page that he has already been warned about this. 11:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User:Andrzejbanas was not properly notified about this on his user talk page. Instead 86.135.7.232 made a threatening remark to Andrzejbanas. Andrzejbanas made a perfectly reasonable explanation for his removal of the material: it wasn't sourced. WP:ANI is not the appropriate venue for this kind of dispute, and suggesting bans or blocks or, indeed, getting the user "indefinitely banned forever" is over the top and is not assuming good faith. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The previous "warning" came in the form of another specious "I will get you banned" comment from an IP on the same ISP as this one. Wasn't you, by any chance? Anyway, Andrzejbanas is perfectly right. The genre field is not a plaything for anonymous music experts to decode: unless the genre is self-evident then it does need a source, and seeing as no two reliable sources seem to be able to agree as to exactly what genre Lady Gaga belongs to removing the text from the infobox for now is the right call. No administrative action required here, at least so long as nobody is edit warring. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello all. I removed the genre as there was no obvious explanation within the article suggesting the genre(s), nor was there citations in the infobox. I'm willing to discuss it on the talk page, but I was a bit too bold perhaps. Hope you still don't want to ban me! ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin John: conflict of interest?

At the Talk page of Vincent van Gogh I recently opened a thread entitled "Editorialism" where I expressed particular concern about these remarks "While most of Vincent's late paintings are somber, they are essentially optimistic and reflect a desire to return to lucid mental health. The paintings completed in the days before his suicide are severely dark." which were uncited and had been left unchallenged for nearly two years, in the meantime being copied by dozens, if not hundreds, of mirror sites. I maintain that no art critic now or ever has made any such comment.

The subsequent debate did not go well for me. I was accused over and over again, especially by users Modernist and TruthKeeper88 of making personal attacks. I eventually withdrew. I have archived most of it that I can retrieve here on my Talk pages. I did this because my remarks were contantly being redacted, "archived" or refactored.

During the debate Modernist contacted administrator John asking him to keep "eyes" on the debate, saying it was insane and that I was edgy and agressive. This administrator then contacted me asking me for the IP addresses I had formerly edited under. I declined to give him these, saying that I could not possibly vouchsafe that information nor did I consider it a proper request. I also made it clear that I did not think Modernist tapping the shoulder of a friendily disposed administrator was a proper dispute resolution process. The discussion is here although a significant part has been redacted by John as well as removed from the edit history.

[redacted section]

I have now established that there is a direct connection between [redacted]. If this is challenged I can provide proof by email but any reasonably enterprising enquirer can quickly establish the facts for themselves. In my opinion it would be quite impossible for John not to have known that there was a conflict of interest involved in taking up Modernist's request for "eyes".

I believe this to be unjust and I ask for remedy. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Being an admin, you'll need videotape proof, and even that will then get him a 1 hour block.  :-) North8000 (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not appropriate lighthearted attempt here, North8000, even though I think I know what you're trying to get at... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

FightingMac, speculation on-wiki concerning the identity of an editor who chooses to edit anonymously is rarely appropriate, and I don't see that this is one of these times. Nor should you disseminate information, whether confirmed or suspected, about an editor's identity, via e-mail or otherwise. If you feel it is essential to pursue this matter, you may send an e-mail to the Arbitration Committee, which has the responsibility for addressing situations involving private information (although recent events have shown that the committee's privacy safeguards are not always impregnible). If the matter does not rise to that level, then it might be best to drop the matter, as I don't see any dispute here sufficiently serious to be worth creating a privacy risk, especially given (among other things) that the editor whom you are seeking to link to an article with a "connected contributor" tag, as best as I can tell, has never edited that article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the issue. It is the user Modernist who created and edited that article (all of it incidentally with citations which are merely blogs or self-publicised, the subject is arguably not very notable) and it is Modernist who subequently asked for "eyes" from John. FightingMac (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am annoyed that this issue is treated with such levity and I shall take it the arbitration committee (yet again I now have to spend time to find out how to do this). Of course it a significant matter for an administrator you've never heard of to come bullying their way onto your Talk page and interrogate you about your edit history in connection with a content dispute, and then to discover there is a direct connection with that administrator and the user you are disputing with. That is deeply unfair. Regarding the etiquette of the situation I thought my post sufficiently resepctful of John's privacy. The template {{Connected contributor}} is presumably part of Wikipedia policy and practice. You cannot expect ordinary users to know exactly how to proceed in these cases. I read through the material at the top of the page carefully and it seemed appropiate to post here. FightingMac (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I can see John raised a genuine concern that FightingMac is using an illegitamite alternative account indeed FightingMac has admitted to have previously editted wikipedia[2] but refuses to disclose the account(s)[3] (IP usernames are accounts and are sanctionable), said disclosure can be done in confidence to a sysop rather than publicly per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Given that FightingMac's resposne was an attempt to "out" John (a very serious breach of policy) rather than to follow the rules laid down at WP:AGF, WP:SOCK and WP:HARASS, and given the above self-righteous response to Newyorkbrad - why hasn't anybody else blocked FightingMac?--Cailil ^talk 11:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  Give over. Someone may well edit legitimately for years on and off as an IP before creating an account. John lilburne (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@Cailil John never raised any such concern. I am not a sock and I have never had or have an alternative account. I have indeed edited Wikipedia for years and I include many Wikipedians amongst my close friends. It just so happens I have never felt the need to create an account. My editing for the most part was pretty ad hoc, that is to say I would read something and feel moved to contribute. Almost all of my knowledge of Wikipedia's working was gained within this account I have begun. That I was uncertain how to deal with this new issue is proof enough that I am not a seasoned sock-master (whatever). I did not out John. I can finally add that what is at stake here is not my behaviour but John's. I have now emailed arb committee about this issue. Why is my response to Newyorkbrad "self-righteous" and isn't that an uncivil remark to make? FightingMac (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

FightingMac, it's your problem if you aren't getting the hint that your actions here in attempting to do "opposition research" are inappropriate in the extreme. Attempting to post private information on another wikipedian, whether that post is accurate or not, is a very serious kind of harrassment. And BTW John's query to you is precisely what I stated - a concern over the illegitimate use of an alt. account - the avoidance of scrutiny of contribution history is against policy. It is the duty of sysops to investigate issues such as sock-puppetry and if a new account says that they've been editing for years then that account will be looked at whether it turns out to be one or not--Cailil ^talk 12:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He wan't concerned that I was a sock-puppet but that I had been editing IP. Here are the commencing exchanges from User_talk:FightingMac#Query my Talk page (note the subtle "presumption of guilt" whereas no charge was laid).

Extended content

What previous user name(s) have you edited under? --John (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC) None. FightingMac (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC) So what did you mean here when you said you had been editing for years? --John (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC) What I meant at Polanski above replying to off2riorob (we're good mates now). All this at Van Gogh begins with this absolutely fantastic flame which I ask you to familiarise yourself with first. Are you an admin? Would you care to comment on that? I put a brief comment on your Talk page but didn't check. Off this afternoon. Might edit further later this evening, otherwise tomorrow morning. Happy to address any valid concerns of yours here but I'm not prepared to spend too much time over them. I am busy and this is just a hobby. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I see, so you have never had a named account and have never been blocked, but have edited for years with an IP address. What is that address please? Yes I am an admin and have been asked to look into your edits by another editor. There is no presumption of guilt at this point and I am just trying to look into your background to see what the next step is towards resolving the situation. --John (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand what your point can be and I have to frankly tell you I that I'm afraid I don't think it worth pursuing the issue with you further. Thank you for your input. FightingMac (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

FightingMac this is dead simple. Your failure to get the point wrt alt. accounts is your problem. You brought yourself to the notice of everyone here in the worst possible way - you don't get to decide who moderates you or how they do it and if you don't like it then that's your problem too.
Not knowing the rules is not an excuse - certainly not in this instance as what you did was try to to undermine John and/or discourage them from moderating you by attempting to use private information (whether accurate or not) against him. That is harrassment as defined by wikipedia, and unless you start recognizing that your actions today have been in violation of WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF and WP:OUT you will continue to have problems because you will have learned nothing from the series of warnings given by admins and arbs--Cailil ^talk 16:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't have alternative accounts and I don't see why my own privacy is less important than the admin whose conduct I was complaining of i.e. to say why he/she can demand my IP addresses regardless of my own privacy which is extremely important to me and protected carefully. Of course I couldn't provide him/her with my IP addresses. Because you plainly don't get that is why I don't see the point of pursuing this with you. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether you were a sock or not is irrelevant. John merely fulfilled his duty by asking you if you had other usernames. In what appears to be an attempt at 'revenge' you decided to attack him with regard to an article neither he nor you have editted, and attempted to use private information as a weapon to intimidate. You are unrepentent of this & have thus far refused to recognize it. That's the problem. And as I said above you don't get to choose who moderates you - further disruption of this project whether to make a point or to haras another editor will be prevented--Cailil ^talk 17:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

But you said that socking was relevant. That I had alternative accounts. But I don't. Regarding Newyorkbrad (an arb committeee member) on WP:OUT I have replied on my Talk page here. I posted no private information about the user concerned whatsoever. It's nothing to do with revenge but with righting a self-evident injustice in a content dispute which was raised to administrator status in a ridiculous over-reaction and which in itself amounted to harassment as I made clear in my remarks to the administrator involved interrogating me. It would be courteous if you allowed me the final remark here and at any rate do not again repeat yourself. FightingMac (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, then. Maybe we should try and find a way forward on the talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, with respect Casliber, no. I did raise the issue with John on his Talk page as I mentioned in the now redacted comments. I did so in a very neutral fashion, asking him whether indeed he had any professional or personal connection to the subject of the templated article and likewise with Modernist who had created and soley edited that subject's BLP. His response was to redact my query without comment and wipe it freom the edit history and I am now asking the arb committee to judge whether all of that was fair i.e. to say his treatment of me after Modernist asked for eyes and his treatment of my enquiry of him and I do want remedy. Wasn't Modernist's elbow-nudging trouser-rolled-up funny-hand-shaking of a friendly admin something that could fairly be described as "meat-puppetry", whereas I had applied for a third opinion, a legitimate form of dispute resolution? FightingMac (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points. First I think the involved parties should have been notified, and clearly John doesn't seem to be the only involved party. Also, I'm very unclear why what essentially was a content dispute that admittedly got out-of-hand, has been brought to AN/I, days after the dust settled. Time to let this all go, in my opinion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Also to add, since this has been brought here: I'd like to request that this subpage at least be noindexed. Other than the commentary at the top everything is in the Vincent van Gogh talk archives. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Itis no-indexed and has been right from the start as all my subpages are ever since off2riorobquite rightly took me to task for not doing so (I simply didn't understand the implication - see, not such a fantastically experienced wikipedian after all. As for the issue of editing Van Gogh that's of course not what has been brought to ANI here, though I trust some readers at least will care to reflect that fundamentally what is at stake here is Wikipedia's proud boast that "anyone can edit" - not at van Gogh they can't and you must know I'm not the only one to have had a severe run-in there recently. Hell hath no fury like FA editors protecting their own and you do call them your own, don't you Truthkeeper88? FightingMac (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the noindexing. Re the other edits, yes, when sockpuppets are involved: [4], [5]. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been more generous of you rather not to "thank" me for no-indexing but rather to apologise to me for supposing that I hadn't, thus I suppose implying something dreadful to the effect that I was conspiring with Google to broadcast your involvement in the great van Gogh "dark" debate all over the internet: something like "sorry, my paranoia again"? And are you implying that I am the sock-puppeter who has been doing all those dreadful things (changing column widths or something) to "your" Hemingaway articles, an author speaking strictly for myself I was through and done with before I was out of my teens, a more lamentable poseur I can hardly imagine and that also my prejudice about all who admire him I just add in for a halfpence worth worth since we're here and I don't know why. Nothing to do with me. FightingMac (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive AFD nominations by SPA

Resolved

 – All closed, and editor final-warned

User:FireTool87, who previously edited as the IP User:184.164.148.90, is upset over the deletion of Wilma Pang and the lack of support for their position in the resulting DRV. The disgruntled editor has been rummaging through the edit histories of the closing admin and other participants in the discussions (myself included) and listing articles they've created on subjects which they believe are less notable than Wilma Pang (a bit POINTy, but not out of bounds despite some significant inaccuracies in their comments), and has now begun creating retaliatory AFDs on articles, without properly creating the individual AFD pages or listing the articles in the daily AFD log. The discussions involved are (so far):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belle Benchley (created by discussion participant User:MelanieN)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter R. Nickel (created by discussion participant User:MelanieN)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entry clearance (created by closing admin User:Spartaz)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrative removal ‎ (created by closing admin User:Spartaz)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immigration Rules (created by closing admin User:Spartaz)

The IP has also added deletion tags, without creating AFD pages, to other articles, including Harry M. Wegeforth and Stanford Roble Gym.

The nominations clearly qualify for "speedy keep" as disruptive; it's evident both that the nominations are retaliatory and that the deletion rationales are unresearched boilerplate (for example, Belle Benchley, the subject of the first created nomination, proves to have hundreds of GNews hits, was the author of multiple books published by a major trade publisher (Little Brown), described as a "best-selling author" by Life magazine, and is discussed in scores if not hundreds of published books/magazine pieces, per GBooks.) I therefore ask that these discussions be closed as "speedy keep" and that an appropriate warning, if not a stronger sanction, be placed against FireTool87. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• All closed per WP:SK#1 and WP:SK#2. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks like the AFD pages were never even logged? Perhaps they should just be deleted; I don't see much point in keeping them as records. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Who is Wilma Pang???? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

John Galt's half-sister, maybe? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

THis is unfair. I simply came across articles other users had written that were in worse shape than the one I wrote and was trying to point out to them that it was hypocritical for them to think those articles where notable while voting to delete one I created. Since they still thought Wilma Pang was not notable I then agreed that it wasn't and thought they had taught me what should be deleted. I therefore looked up how to start that process and It seems that I messed it all up and I am very confused now because there seems to be conflicting information and a double standard here.FireTool87 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A worrying user page

Resolved

 – User blocked. causa sui (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see this user page and this edit and this one. If this is the wrong place to bring this up, please delete. Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor notified [6] Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What is this... I... don't even... causa sui (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone's sick idea of a joke, no doubt... GiantSnowman 17:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably a sock puppet. Aside from the fact that he claims to be a registered sex offender, looking at his contributions,[7] his third edit ever is to nominate an article for deletion, not exactly someone with 2 edits worth of experience would know how to do.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. We don't need that here. TNXMan 17:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Meals

I have semi-protected the Jerry Meals page (which was created earlier tonight); Mr. Meals is a major league baseball umpire who made a controversial call to end the 19 inning Braves/Pirates game tonight. Most of the page history involves personal attacks and worse that violated WP:BLP; I would have deleted the page entirely, but after tonight, he is likely notable.

The reason I post all this here is that I have not been particularly active on Wikipedia recently, but saw a need and acted. I'm not up to speed on the most recent policies of the last year, nor do I currently have the time/energy to keep up with this page and the subsequent protection actions needed for it. I submit this semi-protection for review, and I welcome more active admins to do whatever they will with this page, including deleting the history if that is required. Thanks for all your help, and let me know if there's any more I can do. Eric (EWS23) 06:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I also semi-protected the talk page. Not sure what the policy is on that one, but I felt it prudent given the vandalism. Eric (EWS23) 06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure he's really that notable. If it's only for a single controversial call...he also has to meet WP:GNG and other sports article guidelines. CycloneGU (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You could be right, we shall see how much media attention the call gets in the next few days. I suspect it won't be as significant as Jim Joyce's call, but it will be something remembered for quite a while, considering the length of the game and the playoff implications for both teams. Eric (EWS23) 06:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If the called is overturned (by Pirates filing a protest), then the game has to be replayed from the 20th inning (as the call would make the runner out to end the inning), as well... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Such a protest would be denied, as judgment calls are not protestable. Only rules violations are protestable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but then again... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically, it would have only been the second out of the inning. There's a chance they could have gotten the double play by throwing to first, since the hitter tripped out of the batter's box. Eric (EWS23) 08:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

After re-reading the semi-protection policy, I unprotected the talk page for now so both the article and talk page wouldn't be protected at the same time, and I set up an expiration date for the semi-protection on the article page so it wouldn't be forgotten. Eric (EWS23) 08:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There are articles on many current (and some former) major-league umpires; I had taken it (and I think it's still true) that this is one of those jobs that confers notability on those who hold it. If we are to have such an article, of course, it should avoid undue weight on one incident, and of course must not become a forum for abuse of the subject (this is a problem we've had with articles about sports officials befor, although I am sure Wikipedia is far from the only place at which venting at umpires and the like can be found). I've watchlisted the page and hope a few others will do likewise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding notability, WP:BASEBALL/N states that anyone who has umpired a Major League Baseball match is notable, so I'm fairly sure that, if the article went to AfD, it would be kept. Jenks24 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Someone nominated it for deletion. CycloneGU (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• If the article's not deleted - as it seems it won't be -, there is a good number of old revisions that might need revdeleting... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: the AfD has been closed as "nomination withdrawn". Agree with Salvio that a lot of the history should be revdeleted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

On a point of humour, ClueBot is clueless when the majority of edits to an article are vandalism. Here are two funny diffs from the history, probably among those that need RevDeling. I have to admit I got a huge laugh when I saw them. CycloneGU (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now revdeleted much of the article's history. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I honestly can't claim to be a baseball fan; in fact, at best I'm a half-hearted Pirates fan. However, in looking at this, I'd say the Jim Joyce article is perhaps the closest we have to such a thing (see this section). As posted above: this is likely the section that will be quoted most often (number 5). sigh ... first the Superbowl loss ... then the loss of Crosby and Malkin ... now when we might have a shot at the playoffs in the first time since I can't remember when, and we get this (ummm ... searching for allowable "wiki terminology" ... ahhh ...) not optimal. — Ched :  ?  19:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations/plagiarism

Resolved

 – Noted already dealt with. CycloneGU (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with copyright regulations so I'm reporting suspected copyvios here. See All the King's Men, much of this edit can be found here and here. The end part was already in the WP article. I previously reverted a similar edit by the same user. I don't feel confident enough in copyright policy to try to instruct this user so if it is a copyvio then hopefully someone else can give proper instruction. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Dealt with by another admin. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

IP talk page abuse while blocked

Resolved

 – Talk page edit access revoked by Elockid, additional article protection by Penwhale. Nothing much to see here, revdel will occur as needed. CycloneGU (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• 71.71.196.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - currently blocked, but vandalizing/abusing IP talk page. Examples: [9], [10]. –BMRR (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk page privileges revoked. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

+ 1 week semi, due to possibility of further misuses. We might need to revdel a few of those things in the history, too... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Camelbinky

This obnoxious personal attack on me by User:Camelbinky has just been posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts [11]

"...you have an unhealthy obsession with race/religion discussions and always seem to be against any mentioning of minorities for the reason that white's arent mentioned in their articles".

I consider the suggestion that I am a pro-white racist abhorrent - as anyone familiar with my editing history will be aware, I have consistently opposed racism in any form. I call on Camelbinky to either provide evidence to the contrary (which he/she will not of course be able to do), or to apologise unreservedly, refrain from making any further attacks on me, and agree to observe WP:NPOV in regard to articles regarding race, religion and ethnicity. Failing that, I ask for a substantial block to be enacted. Such malicious and unfounded attacks have no place on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Weeeelll, it's a bit rude but I think "obnoxious personal attack" is a bit of an overstatement. ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see, I brought Andy to this forum about a week ago and he received a FINAL WARNING regarding insulting other users and since then Andy insulted User:Busstop and then took Busstop to the WQA to intimidate him, where user's told Andy there was not only no actionable issue by Bus but ALSO that Andy had been insulting and needed to cool it during that discussion. I pointed out that Andy had a FINAL WARNING and should get a block. Andy decided to bring me here. I would like to see Andy get a 24 hour block with the warning that a 3 day is next if this continues with his insulting manner. As for my words–I apologize for stating my personal opinion. But will NEVER back down to bullies who insult, degrade, and push around other user's to push their own point of view. Busstop has valid concerns and should not be insulted whereever he goes. And he is not the only one that Andy pushes. This ends now or I'll continue to point out every single time he bullies.Camelbinky (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you want WP:CIVIL issues to be a blockable concern or not? I myself wish they were. You both have certainly got away with breaking that "policy" quite a few times. I don't see anything here that should be at a forum other than the toothless WQA. Sorry for the derail, but WP:CIVIL needs to be downgraded to a guideline. It's not enforced as a policy, and hasn't been for years. This is not a civil complaint, but it's not an issue for AN/I. --Onorem♠Dil 19:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I don't see any implication that you are a pro-white racist. If anything, it accuses you of advocating for a policy of deliberate colorblindness on Wikipedia. Given your long history of telling the community that Wikipedia has no business reporting that a Jewish person (for example) is Jewish, I don't think this is an entirely unreasonable description of your views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In response I'd point out this previous comment by Camelbinky: "Your unhealthy obsession with Jews and any discussion regarding race, religion, etc and having to declare that things have to be "fair" for whites and "no special treatment for other groups" is getting annoying" [12]. That doesn't read to me as anything other than an accusation of racism. I'd also ask you not to misrepresent my views. I have stated that I consider the use of categories, lists etc to label people by ethnicity/religion etc is misguided, and that such issues should only be discussed in articles where it is of relevance to the notability of the person concerned - the latter of which is entirely in accord with current Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that in context, it actually looks like you're being accused of not being a racist. At least the latter half of the comment is, the only part that's a bit dodgy is saying that you have an "unhealthy obsession with Jews". I would say that "fair" and "no special treatment" is the same thing, so you're accused of wanting to be fair to whites and everyone else. Why that should annoy Camelbinky is beyond my understanding. -- Atama頭 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He/she also suggests that I'm a "conservative", while lacking "deference to those who've been here longer"! [13]. Evidently, logic and consistency aren't Camelbinky's strong points (incidentally, I only consider the 'conservative' part of this to be a personal attack ;-). ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Observation Having seen several posts and threads lately where both Camelblinkey and Andy have been involved, it appears that the tone and language has continued to rise to a rather strident and combative level. I'd suggest (strongly in fact) that the two of you might benefit from an extended break from one another. If the language continues at this rate, it's likely to result in difficulties for both editors. Please back away, and regain some composure before that happens. — Ched :  ?  19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The fish market is open... Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there is hinting involved here...you'd like some seafood, Alan? ...what? (Yes, I know. =P) CycloneGU (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• • I'd concur with Ched here. I think the best solution is a voluntary, bilateral, self-imposed interaction ban by the two of you. That is, what would be best for all is if you two each agree to just stop interacting with each other. The other solution is to force you both to do that. I'd like to avoid having to get to that point. --Jayron32 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment  diff It seems that Camelbinky considers the defying of WP:NPA to be a Wikitactic.  The tactic is disruptive.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this right- Andy consistently insults other users, is given a FINAL WARNING, and then CONTINUES to do so and not only does no one see this as a problem, they then say I should simply not interact with him. Instead of realizing the reason I'm getting more and more testy and upset in regards to Andy is his continued insistence on being a bully towards Busstop and others. Are we in high school? This charge was attempted to be leveled at me at Noleander's ArbCom case and it was completely dismissed as childish there and eventually the same vindication will come my way with this user too. I am not in the wrong in my analysis of the manner in which Andy is "editing" and if admins at AN/I wont do it eventually ArbCom will.Camelbinky (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you provide the diffs in which you say Andy recently insulted and bullied Busstop, that might help the responders here. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I add here that I consider Camelbinky's repeated comparisons between Noleander and myself to be further evidence of his/her 'guilt by (imagined) association' tactics - totally unsupported by evidence, as usual. See for example here [14] (where incidentally, I note that Camelbinky has never retracted an entirely unsupported allegation of antisemitism on my part), or here [15] where Camelbinky also makes insinuations about other contributors - commenting on the Noleander ArbCom case he/she notes that "Some names here seem awfully familar btw, gee wonder why". So much for WP:AGF there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cb's gratuitous misuse of apostrophes is certainly an abuse of English grammar William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont have much time today to deal with this and find the particular diff on Andy's latest Busstop insult, but more information on it can be found at the WQA that he himself brought against Busstop, where incidentially they decided Andy had no case or legitimate complaint. And yes I have compared him to Noleander and I will because no one listened to me the multiple times I complained about what Noleander was doing, and in the end I was right and it took ArbCom to do it. Why do we allow those that are anti-whoever complains, to come to AN/I and trash the complainer? (something that wasnt allowed at ArbCom's Noleander case) Unscitilating is still upset that I called him/her out for intentionally removing a wikiproject's banner and then after I am the one that reverted and brought it back, Unsc removed it again and replaced it with a generic look alike then claimed to have put the original banner back on his own "out of good faith since people complained", and then WhatAmIdoing called him out on the fact that it wasnt the correct banner and he changed it. I pointed out to everyone what Unsc did since he/she was claiming to have done something that is not what he/she did. Sorry I have to defend myself on such a thing, back to Andy. As for Andy claiming that calling him a conservative is an insult–isn't that in itself an insult on our conservative and Conservative users, to claim being called one is an insult? Perhaps because I have a degree in political science I know the difference between Conservative and conservative in a way I did not realize Andy did not. Small-c conservative does not mean anything about the political party. In regards to editing Wikipedia it refer's to the literal interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and the viewpoint of believing they must be applied strictly as they are written. Due to Andy's comments at multiple places in my opinion he IS a Wikipedia conservative. As for his Jewish/racial editing, he does in fact go around trying to make Wikipedia color blind, what is his motive? I dont know, but color blind editing is not always the work of those who have the best interests of minorities in mind, Andy needs to realize that if he wants to concentrate so strongly and forcefully on such editing and continue to tell Jewish editors they are wrong about their religion and continue in discussions with them confusing the difference of the religion from the culture and ethnic group (and in at least one case say there was no Jewish ethnic group); then yes, minority editors will not only get offended but will consider Andy's motives to be the same as Noleander's to not let Jews or minorities to be mentioned in Wikipedia in any way. If your end goal is the same as someone who gets a topic ban, even if your motives may be different, others from past experience may not realize your motives are different. Especially if you are rude, "grumpy" (they are quotations, not apostrophes btw), and insulting. I would be willing to back off if Andy apologizes (even though he did already last week and supposedly learned his lesson, but already unlearned it) and agrees that if he insults again he will not fight against a 3 day block, and Andy agrees to lay off Jewish/racial editing. I'm willing to compromise on the last part, but not on the part where if he insults again there are not SEVERE consequences. All he's learning from this is "I can insult and be grumpy and rude all I want, because whoever complains about me has skeletons in their own closet. I can just turn it on them".Camelbinky (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So once again I am subject to be subject to insinuations of antisemitism, entirely unsupported by evidence. Camelbinky, either provide such evidence, or retract your malicious and unjustified attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: would just like to say that I find the above diatribe against Andy to be unjustified, this debate is raging all over the place with a lot of the usual suspects continually reiterating positions that fall foul of WP:BLPCAT, in the discussions I have seen so far Andy is just trying to point out what BLPCAT says, as can be seen here at the BLPN. Okay so sometimes he's rude and probably oversteps WP:CIVIL but then again, having to deal with the same editors over and over, who jump all over the place and start the same conversations on AN/I, BLPN and numerous TPs, and who ignore all attempts to reason with them about WP's take on ethnicity and religion and it's inclusion as relevant or not to someone's BLP is debilitating. Oh, and also, trying to defend one's interpretations of WP guidelines/policies and avoiding WP becoming an ethnic database, only to be called racist, conservative or anti-semite is rather a kick in the teeth, methinks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment It is true that there is a certain blurring of the difference, though I am sure it is only in a minority of cases? I tried to differentiate between ethnic and religious on an atheist persons article and I received a veiled accusation of anti-semitism "I even checked your recent edits to see if you were an anti-semite".

I wanted the sentence to read "ethnic Jew" rather than "non-observant Jew" as non-observant is a religious reference, akin to non-practising Catholic/Protestant. In fact, as Catholics and Protestants do not see themselves as an ethnicity per se it would not even arise as a problem.

It is distasteful that these sort of accusations go on around an encyclopaedia. I have no problem with saying someone is of Jewish, or Chinese or Martian descent, but this refusal to allow non-Jewish editors to clarify between ethnicity and religion has, on occasion, been taken a little too far. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be best to avoid bringing in the broader questions into this debate. Unless it was Camelbinky who made that particular comment (and I've no reason to assume it was), it isn't really an issue for this AN/I discussion. What is an issue is that Camelbinky persists in making insinuations about the motivations of those that disagree with him/her, and then not providing any evidence whatsoever to back it up. I'll not deny that on occasion I've let my temper get the better of me, but I think most people can tell the difference between a short-term lack of judgement/civility and a persistent pattern of unsubstantiated weasel-worded insinuations. Camelbinky basically needs to understand that (a) Wikipedia has, by necessity to use words like 'religion', 'ethnicity' etc in their general sense, even if this isn't in accord with his/her understanding of how his/her ethnic/religious/cultural group would like them used, and (b) that disagreeing with someone who happens to be Jewish, even over issues concerning the usage of such terms in relation to 'Jewish' issues, doesn't necessarily constitute antisemitism. If an argument is valid, its validity doesn't depend on who is doing the arguing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In my experience with Camelbinky, Camelbinky's participation in the encyclopedia goes beyond incivility to disruption.  (Please see comments at here in the section "Essay wikiproject" for a diff reference that includes personal attacks against me by Camelbinky.)  (1) I see that Camelbinky reverted me once, but I am not aware of any other preceding interactions between myself and Camelbinky.  (2) Camelbinky asserts that the trigger for his/her subsequent comments are the words "not an essay" in an edit comment (ref).  (3) Camelbinky asserts that he/she lacks choice, "No choice but to bring it up" (ref).  (4) An example of the sphere of Camelbinky's influence are the associated comments at WT:5 of another editor on the contributor, not the content:  one diff.  (5) When two other editors intervened at WT:5, I do not feel that Camelbinky responded as a constructive member of the community.  Replies to one editor: "is simply a jerky jackass comment", "caustic unhelpful comments", "topic banned".  Replies to another editor: "you obviously havent been following", "I'm surprised you didnt know", "Apparently you", "I dont have to answer to you".  (6) dmcq writes at WT:5 about Camelbinky, and IMO constructively, "even if you were correct you cause Wikipedia to be a nasty place to edit in with that sort of name calling and so are acting against the interest of Wikipedia.  (7) The discussion at WT:5 has been shut down, which I believe to be evidence of disruption.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unscintillating is not saying that User:WhatamIdoing is under my "influence" and I some how control that user's comments... In fact of matter my views on the 5P and most other broad ideas regarding how policy should be implemented were formed over the many years of learning from users such as WhatamIdoing and Blueboar and other long time users who knew more than me when I started as an IP over 5 years ago and went on to make this name 4 years ago. So I highly doubt that WhatamIdoing says ANYTHING because of MY influence, as What is more highly regarded and has a better known reputation than I. I find Unscintillating's insult towards What and myself disruptive. The discussion Unsc speaks of fizzled because as I pointed out and can be seen from the history of the talk page that my description of what happened is factual. Unsc got caught by What and I doing something, once it was fixed the discussion did not need to go further and there was no "shut down" of it, there was simply nothing else to discuss. It was not about the status of the 5P as an essay, if it was it wouldnt have even lasted that long because that is a perennial discussion that has been found a compromise consensus of basically "it's not anything at all" as codified in the "FAQ" section header. Unsc is new, but did bring up that question prior to his removal of the tag and was informed by What, me, Dmcq, and many others regarding why the 5P is not labeled as policy and is not. I am sorry if newbies have to question everything because they werent a party to the earlier discussions, but that's what archives and asking older editors come in to play. Yes, deference to your elders would do some good. I learned from What, Daniel Case, Blueboar, Kim Bruning, and many others alot. I never claimed to know the Truth better than they just because I can read the literal word of a policy. Andy in particular in his disruptive grumpiness makes "proclamations" regarding what MUST be done.Camelbinky (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Since when has 'reputation' been relevant in Wikipedia discussions? What happened to 'comment on the edit, not the editor'? So no, I'm not going to start showing "deference to [my] elders" if their argument comes down to "I've been here longer than you, so I'm right". I note too that Camelbinky's voluminous screed (on a debate I wasn't part of, I'm glad to say) is long on assertions, and devoid of evidence for anything. No change there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious! "comment on the edit, not the editor" and yet all you and Unsc have done here is comment on me and insult me "is long on assertions and devoid of evidence for anything. No change there." Insult me some more. You'll end up here EACH TIME you insult ANYONE, ANYWHERE. Keep trying to attack me. I dont have to provide "evidence" it is clear what you do, you smear and take diffs out of context. I provide background of what you are doing, if someone wants diffs they can look them up themselves. Stay away from any of my comments or activities PLEASE, a voluntary ban on contact is best I agree with those above who recommended that. So I'll be looking forward to NOT seeing you at places. Back away thanks. Any interaction on commenting on where I comment and in particular ON my comment or ON me I will consider an intentional wiki-stalking and harrassment. Best to just not come around me. Thank you in advance, and Ill give you AGF that you'll not be around me.Camelbinky (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont have to provide "evidence": Yes you do. Except you don't, because there isn't any. Regarding 'Wikistalking', I'll point out that it was you who seem to have the stalking agenda. You didn't have to go crying to Jimbo when I didn't get blocked for swearing, you didn't have to comment in the Wikquette alerts thread, and you didn't need to bring up your usual nonsense about Noleander and ArbCom. But you did. You even seem to bring me into debates where I've had no involvement at all: "You've been here only one year, obviously have not gone through the archives of different policy pages and learned WHY things are the way things are (obvious to me from your comments at the 5P page and elsewhere)" [16]. I've never edited either the Five Pillars article, nor contributed to the talk page discussion. [17],[18] It will be rather difficult to avoid 'interacting' with you if this involves not playing an entirely imaginary part in debates. Since you have provided no evidence whatsoever to justify anything you have said or done, I am going to carry on taking part in whatever discussions I choose, with the intention of seeing that Wikipedia policy is respected, and that those who wish to transform Wikipedia into an ethno-religious database against policy are prevented from doing so. I will clearly have to learn to control my temper, and be more civil on occasion, but otherwise, I see no reason to change my behaviour. If you insist on butting into a discussion on the appropriateness of a 'religion' field in infoboxes with a statement that starts off "Andy, what is your obsession with the Jewish people and your inability to understand that being a Jew and Jews identifying others as Jews has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.." (so what has it got to do with the 'religion' field in the infobox then?), and then launch into a long personal attack on me, based on nothing other than your fevered imagination, you can expect me to 'interact' - here. Any more snide insinuations of racism, or off-topic garbage about Noleander and ArbCom, again entirely unsupported by evidence, will no doubt be treated with the contempt they deserve, so I'd suggest you think before you give vent again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Policies are respected you say? Oh, ok so next time you quote a policy in which I personally helped shape I'll remember to let you know, with diffs!, what exactly we meant and why you are interpreting it wrongly by taking it by the literal word. That is your problem, you come here with no information other than quoting policies. Respecting policy means knowing how it is USED, not what it SAYS. You cant proclaim to people "Policy says X, you have to do it, and you're wrong I'm right. No discussion. No compromise". Policy is nothing more than the description of past consensuses on how we have done things in the past and a guide to shaping future consensuses on similar problems. It is not proscriptive of what must be done for all time. And before you argue, this is a disagreement settled over 2 years ago at WP:Policies and guidelines, but I understand anything that happens before you were around and you werent a party too is irrelevant in your mind. Others have come and gone like you thinking policies are laws and must be strictly adhered to. Dont know where you get the idea seeing as how we've taken out anything that possibly gave that impression.Camelbinky (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Since that is not only entirely unsupported by evidence, but totally irrelevant to this discussion, which is about your repeated personal attacks on me, I have to ask why you bothered to post it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoping that feedback is useful, what I propose is that the subject of this ANI discussion ("the subject") be warned for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks.  Further, that going forward there will be a zero-tolerance policy in effect for new personal attacks by the subject, where the subject will be indef topic blocked on each Discussion/Project page on which it occurs.  Further, that the subject is not to use the words "you" or "your" in talk page discussion, as to do so will be automatic grounds for a new topic block.  Further, the subject is warned to provide evidence and avoid hyperbole.  Further, that the subject be blocked for one minute to post this warning.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Another comment I must say that the attitude "I've been here longer than you, so there (i.e. just shut it!)" is completely untenable on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Whether you have a gazillion barnstars or have been editing since the Big Bang, you are only human and to err is human, we can all get it wrong (policy, pov and so on) whether we have been on WP for 5 weeks or 5 years. So seniority on WP is not some sort of magic shield against being wrong, misinterpreting policy or suchlike.

From the same diff that Andy objects to about being jew-obsessed, [19], I quote:

• "You should really have some deference to those who've been here longer and have actually participated in many more discussions and know what was actually intended by the wording in specific policies and which policies are not used in the specific way in which they are written. There is a large amount of "oral law" in Wikipedia."

Well that's fine and dandy, but apart from lording it over (perceived) newbies, this is also plain daft - if a policy doesn't say what it's meant to say then it should be rewritten, what's all this crap about 'oral law'? "Well, yes the policy says that, but we decided this x years ago". Good way to encourage learner WP editors and kill rumours of cabals, methinks. Also, something decided two years ago, as mentioned above, is way out of date as opinions and povs change and policy and guidelines evolve (hopefully) to accommodate these changes.

Oh and there's a huge difference between 'you're a dick' (personal attack) and 'you're being a dick' (current behaviour/attitude), so for example 'your comments are meaningless or irrelevant or unsubstantiated' is not a personal attack but a comment on the comments.

Wikipedia:BITE, Wikipedia:NPA, Wikipedia:AGF CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is from Wikipedia:Blocking policy:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:

...

• gross incivility;

Unscintillating (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Civility is a policy that states:

...
We do block for major incivility. When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies.

Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the subject of this discussion correct that there is an anti-newbie "oral" tradition...such that cb's contributions did a good job in defending WP:5 from newbie improvements, and providing cover for a second editor to contribute a WP:NPA; that the contribution of a manic response with a claim of loss of self-control in response to the words "not an essay" was appropriate given the source of who said "not an essay"; that calling the compromise approach an "outright lie" was a good contribution since it instantly shut up the newbie?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point it might be best to assume that this particular quadruped is no longer in the race, regardless of whether its metabolism is still functioning, and that we should only return to flogging it if it actually shows signs of life. I doubt that any action is going to be taken against Camelbinky for now, and I'm sure that we have quite enough evidence to respond to him/her appropriately should the pattern of behaviour recur. Let sleeping dromedaries lie.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparent block evasion by User talk:71.56.23.123

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Apparently nobody cares about this, so we might as well mark this for the archives. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

---

History: 71.56.23.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a disputed edit on Virtual Console ([20]) and had it reverted per BRD, then insisted on redoing the edit without proper discussion ([21], [22], [23]). This eventually got his edits labeled as vandalism, with appropriate warnings sent to his user page ([24], [25]).

Since then, the user has argued non-stop with myself and at least one other editor over the definition of proper English and the level of knowledge and competence of WP administrators. The discussion went quiet for a little while, then without further warning Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked the IP for one year, using the {{blocked proxy}} and the message "used abusively". I've asked Alison for an explanation on the block - the IP user made a few more edits to different articles that appear to have been at least marginally constructive, so I don't think a block was justified at that point.

However, this reply is clearly from the same person on a different IP address, and only continues the argument. I informed the user that I believed this qualified as block evasion (regardless of the justification for the original block) and would be asking for an uninvolved admin to review it. I will post a link to this thread on both IP talk pages. Please review, thanks. I am an admin myself, but since I've been personally involved in the argument, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to take disciplinary action. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm one of the other users who's been attempting to deal with the anon IP 71.56.23.123. After a number of good-faith attempts, I posted a final warning regarding the edits at Virtual Console. The user appears to have either heeded the warning or found something else to do, so I've had no further dealings with the IP. However, I did notice Alison's one-year block of it (along with removing the IP's ability to edit its talk page), and I agree with Kiefer that there didn't appear to be a need for that long of a block, so I'm hoping Alison can provide further information as to the rationale for the length of it. I also agree that it appears the user has switched IPs and is at it again, taking up the argument on the original talk page. There seems to be more to the story, but I concur with Kiefer on the main point and the purpose for this ANI listing ... this is pure and simple block evasion. --McDoobAU93 22:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...Bueller? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

They've been blocked, what else are you looking for? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe they're looking for either an explanation to show why the IP address qualified for a 1 year block (something that took several trips to AIV with one problem editor to get a 6 month block for one case I've been working with) or to have the block reduced in length. Sometimes it's not sanctions editors are wanting. I know, what a concept Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm also looking for someone to review the fact that this user is EVADING this block via a different IP. How can I make the nature of my request more clear so there isn't confusion next time? :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, because sock puppets (even only semi-clear WP:DUCK) are thataway... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I presume nobody's going to evaluate the validity of the original block, then? I might as well not have even bothered saying anything, for all the good it did here. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:40, 27 July 2011 (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

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely by Bwilkins for WP:NLT violation. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User Fatimiya, fresh off a block for personal attacks [26] is now making legal threats.[27] Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No threat has been made. A formal complaint has been filed today by the Fatimiya Sufi Order with a body who investigates claims of religious discrimination and religious persecution regarding the activities of the Bahai Internet Agency and its taskforce (i.e. Edward321, Jeff3000 et al) on wikipedia. Archives regarding present outstanding issues and ones former where the aforementioned editors were involved have been forwarded to the body for its investigation --Fatimiya (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fatimiya is right off a 12-hour block that I issued for personal attacks on Jeff3000, who had nominated two of Fatimya's articles for deletion. While this is not a legal threat exactly, the clear intention is to intimidate editors into leaving Fatimiya's edits alone. He's been filing retaliatory sockpuppet investigations against any who oppose him [28] [29] [30] and there appears to be a considerable amount of meatpuppetry going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours, sound good or am I too nice? (Nuking SPIs fyi) -- DQ (t) (e) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I was apparently too nice with the 12-hour block; I had some hopes they'd learn to argue on the merits of the sources rather than on the basis of a perceived grudge. Acroterion (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just looked things over, ya it's more disruption that I thought when I did 31 hrs, upped to 1 week now. After this I recommend the scale hits the months if we don't see the stop. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As point of background, it appears that the extant dispute centers on Fatimiya Sufi Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the associated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. The editor Fatimiya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a staunch defender of the article. The article topic appears to be a relatively new and relatively minor religious sect.

I gather that the intent of Fatimiya's comments (on this page and as linked above by Edward321) is to imply that some manner of formal complaint has been filed with a quasi-judicial body with some sort of statutory powers and authority (eg some type of human rights commission). The fact that Fatimiya is consistently and deliberately vague in identifying the body involved is rather...unhelpful.

As I see it, one of two possible things are going on here. First, Fatimiya may have filed a complaint with a bona fide human rights commission or other quasi-judicial body. (I make no judgement of the merit of such a complaint.) If that's so, then WP:NLT explicitly instructs him to avoid editing Wikipedia until the conclusion of his case; if he does not do so voluntarily, we are compelled to enforce that by block.

In the alternative, a complaint hasn't actually been filed, or a complaint has been filed with a body that is lacking in statutory authority, lacking in jurisdiction, or is otherwise irrelevant. In this second case, the purpose of Fatimiya's comment would be to chill and discourage comments by his opponents with the implication of a legal threat. In that case, Fatimiya should be blocked under WP:NLT until he explicitly withdraws any threats of legal action and/or fully describes to the administrators here precisely what it is that he is threatening, so that the applicability of WP:NLT to his complaint can be reviewed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read Fatimiya's comments similar to TenOfAllTrade's statements above - I have upped the block to INDEF. Should they strike/revoke all NLT claims, someone can reset back to the original 1-week for NPA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:PeterHarlington

Thanks, WMF notified and looking into it Jalexander--WMF 01:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

PeterHarlington (talk · contribs) is a "new" user whose account was created yesterday, is issuing threats in edit summaries against anybody else changing their edits, and is making a list of "crimes" committed by other Users on their User page. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC) If you don't mind, I'm going to e-mail the emergency e-mail about this one. This edit summary is a threat of violence. I'm not one to judge the seriousness (I'm sure it's just bluster), but better safe than sorry. CycloneGU (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollback of edit to Dane Rauschenberg

This edit reverted the immediate damage to the Dane Rauschenberg article, which has been the repeated target of an individual (or small group of people) who have persistently sought to cast him in a negative light. While the editor User:Danecheatsawholelot who made the edit has already been blocked, the edit should be rolled back to remove both the unsupported allegation in the reverted edit and the allegation implied by the Danecheatsawholelot user name. Alansohn (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean rev-deleted? It can't be rolled back when it's already been reverted. 28bytes (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As I was typing I had reverted stuck in my mind, when I meant rev-deleted. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I believe this qualifies under R2 since the username itself is a BLP violation, but I have requested oversight review of this via e-mail in case I am mistaken. 28bytes (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Camelbinky

This obnoxious personal attack on me by User:Camelbinky has just been posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts [31]

"...you have an unhealthy obsession with race/religion discussions and always seem to be against any mentioning of minorities for the reason that white's arent mentioned in their articles".

I consider the suggestion that I am a pro-white racist abhorrent - as anyone familiar with my editing history will be aware, I have consistently opposed racism in any form. I call on Camelbinky to either provide evidence to the contrary (which he/she will not of course be able to do), or to apologise unreservedly, refrain from making any further attacks on me, and agree to observe WP:NPOV in regard to articles regarding race, religion and ethnicity. Failing that, I ask for a substantial block to be enacted. Such malicious and unfounded attacks have no place on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Weeeelll, it's a bit rude but I think "obnoxious personal attack" is a bit of an overstatement. ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see, I brought Andy to this forum about a week ago and he received a FINAL WARNING regarding insulting other users and since then Andy insulted User:Busstop and then took Busstop to the WQA to intimidate him, where user's told Andy there was not only no actionable issue by Bus but ALSO that Andy had been insulting and needed to cool it during that discussion. I pointed out that Andy had a FINAL WARNING and should get a block. Andy decided to bring me here. I would like to see Andy get a 24 hour block with the warning that a 3 day is next if this continues with his insulting manner. As for my words–I apologize for stating my personal opinion. But will NEVER back down to bullies who insult, degrade, and push around other user's to push their own point of view. Busstop has valid concerns and should not be insulted whereever he goes. And he is not the only one that Andy pushes. This ends now or I'll continue to point out every single time he bullies.Camelbinky (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you want WP:CIVIL issues to be a blockable concern or not? I myself wish they were. You both have certainly got away with breaking that "policy" quite a few times. I don't see anything here that should be at a forum other than the toothless WQA. Sorry for the derail, but WP:CIVIL needs to be downgraded to a guideline. It's not enforced as a policy, and hasn't been for years. This is not a civil complaint, but it's not an issue for AN/I. --Onorem♠Dil 19:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I don't see any implication that you are a pro-white racist. If anything, it accuses you of advocating for a policy of deliberate colorblindness on Wikipedia. Given your long history of telling the community that Wikipedia has no business reporting that a Jewish person (for example) is Jewish, I don't think this is an entirely unreasonable description of your views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In response I'd point out this previous comment by Camelbinky: "Your unhealthy obsession with Jews and any discussion regarding race, religion, etc and having to declare that things have to be "fair" for whites and "no special treatment for other groups" is getting annoying" [32]. That doesn't read to me as anything other than an accusation of racism. I'd also ask you not to misrepresent my views. I have stated that I consider the use of categories, lists etc to label people by ethnicity/religion etc is misguided, and that such issues should only be discussed in articles where it is of relevance to the notability of the person concerned - the latter of which is entirely in accord with current Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that in context, it actually looks like you're being accused of not being a racist. At least the latter half of the comment is, the only part that's a bit dodgy is saying that you have an "unhealthy obsession with Jews". I would say that "fair" and "no special treatment" is the same thing, so you're accused of wanting to be fair to whites and everyone else. Why that should annoy Camelbinky is beyond my understanding. -- Atama頭 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He/she also suggests that I'm a "conservative", while lacking "deference to those who've been here longer"! [33]. Evidently, logic and consistency aren't Camelbinky's strong points (incidentally, I only consider the 'conservative' part of this to be a personal attack ;-). ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Observation Having seen several posts and threads lately where both Camelblinkey and Andy have been involved, it appears that the tone and language has continued to rise to a rather strident and combative level. I'd suggest (strongly in fact) that the two of you might benefit from an extended break from one another. If the language continues at this rate, it's likely to result in difficulties for both editors. Please back away, and regain some composure before that happens. — Ched :  ?  19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The fish market is open... Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there is hinting involved here...you'd like some seafood, Alan? ...what? (Yes, I know. =P) CycloneGU (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• • I'd concur with Ched here. I think the best solution is a voluntary, bilateral, self-imposed interaction ban by the two of you. That is, what would be best for all is if you two each agree to just stop interacting with each other. The other solution is to force you both to do that. I'd like to avoid having to get to that point. --Jayron32 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment  diff It seems that Camelbinky considers the defying of WP:NPA to be a Wikitactic.  The tactic is disruptive.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this right- Andy consistently insults other users, is given a FINAL WARNING, and then CONTINUES to do so and not only does no one see this as a problem, they then say I should simply not interact with him. Instead of realizing the reason I'm getting more and more testy and upset in regards to Andy is his continued insistence on being a bully towards Busstop and others. Are we in high school? This charge was attempted to be leveled at me at Noleander's ArbCom case and it was completely dismissed as childish there and eventually the same vindication will come my way with this user too. I am not in the wrong in my analysis of the manner in which Andy is "editing" and if admins at AN/I wont do it eventually ArbCom will.Camelbinky (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you provide the diffs in which you say Andy recently insulted and bullied Busstop, that might help the responders here. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I add here that I consider Camelbinky's repeated comparisons between Noleander and myself to be further evidence of his/her 'guilt by (imagined) association' tactics - totally unsupported by evidence, as usual. See for example here [34] (where incidentally, I note that Camelbinky has never retracted an entirely unsupported allegation of antisemitism on my part), or here [35] where Camelbinky also makes insinuations about other contributors - commenting on the Noleander ArbCom case he/she notes that "Some names here seem awfully familar btw, gee wonder why". So much for WP:AGF there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cb's gratuitous misuse of apostrophes is certainly an abuse of English grammar William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont have much time today to deal with this and find the particular diff on Andy's latest Busstop insult, but more information on it can be found at the WQA that he himself brought against Busstop, where incidentially they decided Andy had no case or legitimate complaint. And yes I have compared him to Noleander and I will because no one listened to me the multiple times I complained about what Noleander was doing, and in the end I was right and it took ArbCom to do it. Why do we allow those that are anti-whoever complains, to come to AN/I and trash the complainer? (something that wasnt allowed at ArbCom's Noleander case) Unscitilating is still upset that I called him/her out for intentionally removing a wikiproject's banner and then after I am the one that reverted and brought it back, Unsc removed it again and replaced it with a generic look alike then claimed to have put the original banner back on his own "out of good faith since people complained", and then WhatAmIdoing called him out on the fact that it wasnt the correct banner and he changed it. I pointed out to everyone what Unsc did since he/she was claiming to have done something that is not what he/she did. Sorry I have to defend myself on such a thing, back to Andy. As for Andy claiming that calling him a conservative is an insult–isn't that in itself an insult on our conservative and Conservative users, to claim being called one is an insult? Perhaps because I have a degree in political science I know the difference between Conservative and conservative in a way I did not realize Andy did not. Small-c conservative does not mean anything about the political party. In regards to editing Wikipedia it refer's to the literal interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and the viewpoint of believing they must be applied strictly as they are written. Due to Andy's comments at multiple places in my opinion he IS a Wikipedia conservative. As for his Jewish/racial editing, he does in fact go around trying to make Wikipedia color blind, what is his motive? I dont know, but color blind editing is not always the work of those who have the best interests of minorities in mind, Andy needs to realize that if he wants to concentrate so strongly and forcefully on such editing and continue to tell Jewish editors they are wrong about their religion and continue in discussions with them confusing the difference of the religion from the culture and ethnic group (and in at least one case say there was no Jewish ethnic group); then yes, minority editors will not only get offended but will consider Andy's motives to be the same as Noleander's to not let Jews or minorities to be mentioned in Wikipedia in any way. If your end goal is the same as someone who gets a topic ban, even if your motives may be different, others from past experience may not realize your motives are different. Especially if you are rude, "grumpy" (they are quotations, not apostrophes btw), and insulting. I would be willing to back off if Andy apologizes (even though he did already last week and supposedly learned his lesson, but already unlearned it) and agrees that if he insults again he will not fight against a 3 day block, and Andy agrees to lay off Jewish/racial editing. I'm willing to compromise on the last part, but not on the part where if he insults again there are not SEVERE consequences. All he's learning from this is "I can insult and be grumpy and rude all I want, because whoever complains about me has skeletons in their own closet. I can just turn it on them".Camelbinky (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So once again I am subject to be subject to insinuations of antisemitism, entirely unsupported by evidence. Camelbinky, either provide such evidence, or retract your malicious and unjustified attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: would just like to say that I find the above diatribe against Andy to be unjustified, this debate is raging all over the place with a lot of the usual suspects continually reiterating positions that fall foul of WP:BLPCAT, in the discussions I have seen so far Andy is just trying to point out what BLPCAT says, as can be seen here at the BLPN. Okay so sometimes he's rude and probably oversteps WP:CIVIL but then again, having to deal with the same editors over and over, who jump all over the place and start the same conversations on AN/I, BLPN and numerous TPs, and who ignore all attempts to reason with them about WP's take on ethnicity and religion and it's inclusion as relevant or not to someone's BLP is debilitating. Oh, and also, trying to defend one's interpretations of WP guidelines/policies and avoiding WP becoming an ethnic database, only to be called racist, conservative or anti-semite is rather a kick in the teeth, methinks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment It is true that there is a certain blurring of the difference, though I am sure it is only in a minority of cases? I tried to differentiate between ethnic and religious on an atheist persons article and I received a veiled accusation of anti-semitism "I even checked your recent edits to see if you were an anti-semite".

I wanted the sentence to read "ethnic Jew" rather than "non-observant Jew" as non-observant is a religious reference, akin to non-practising Catholic/Protestant. In fact, as Catholics and Protestants do not see themselves as an ethnicity per se it would not even arise as a problem.

It is distasteful that these sort of accusations go on around an encyclopaedia. I have no problem with saying someone is of Jewish, or Chinese or Martian descent, but this refusal to allow non-Jewish editors to clarify between ethnicity and religion has, on occasion, been taken a little too far. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be best to avoid bringing in the broader questions into this debate. Unless it was Camelbinky who made that particular comment (and I've no reason to assume it was), it isn't really an issue for this AN/I discussion. What is an issue is that Camelbinky persists in making insinuations about the motivations of those that disagree with him/her, and then not providing any evidence whatsoever to back it up. I'll not deny that on occasion I've let my temper get the better of me, but I think most people can tell the difference between a short-term lack of judgement/civility and a persistent pattern of unsubstantiated weasel-worded insinuations. Camelbinky basically needs to understand that (a) Wikipedia has, by necessity to use words like 'religion', 'ethnicity' etc in their general sense, even if this isn't in accord with his/her understanding of how his/her ethnic/religious/cultural group would like them used, and (b) that disagreeing with someone who happens to be Jewish, even over issues concerning the usage of such terms in relation to 'Jewish' issues, doesn't necessarily constitute antisemitism. If an argument is valid, its validity doesn't depend on who is doing the arguing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In my experience with Camelbinky, Camelbinky's participation in the encyclopedia goes beyond incivility to disruption.  (Please see comments at here in the section "Essay wikiproject" for a diff reference that includes personal attacks against me by Camelbinky.)  (1) I see that Camelbinky reverted me once, but I am not aware of any other preceding interactions between myself and Camelbinky.  (2) Camelbinky asserts that the trigger for his/her subsequent comments are the words "not an essay" in an edit comment (ref).  (3) Camelbinky asserts that he/she lacks choice, "No choice but to bring it up" (ref).  (4) An example of the sphere of Camelbinky's influence are the associated comments at WT:5 of another editor on the contributor, not the content:  one diff.  (5) When two other editors intervened at WT:5, I do not feel that Camelbinky responded as a constructive member of the community.  Replies to one editor: "is simply a jerky jackass comment", "caustic unhelpful comments", "topic banned".  Replies to another editor: "you obviously havent been following", "I'm surprised you didnt know", "Apparently you", "I dont have to answer to you".  (6) dmcq writes at WT:5 about Camelbinky, and IMO constructively, "even if you were correct you cause Wikipedia to be a nasty place to edit in with that sort of name calling and so are acting against the interest of Wikipedia.  (7) The discussion at WT:5 has been shut down, which I believe to be evidence of disruption.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unscintillating is not saying that User:WhatamIdoing is under my "influence" and I some how control that user's comments... In fact of matter my views on the 5P and most other broad ideas regarding how policy should be implemented were formed over the many years of learning from users such as WhatamIdoing and Blueboar and other long time users who knew more than me when I started as an IP over 5 years ago and went on to make this name 4 years ago. So I highly doubt that WhatamIdoing says ANYTHING because of MY influence, as What is more highly regarded and has a better known reputation than I. I find Unscintillating's insult towards What and myself disruptive. The discussion Unsc speaks of fizzled because as I pointed out and can be seen from the history of the talk page that my description of what happened is factual. Unsc got caught by What and I doing something, once it was fixed the discussion did not need to go further and there was no "shut down" of it, there was simply nothing else to discuss. It was not about the status of the 5P as an essay, if it was it wouldnt have even lasted that long because that is a perennial discussion that has been found a compromise consensus of basically "it's not anything at all" as codified in the "FAQ" section header. Unsc is new, but did bring up that question prior to his removal of the tag and was informed by What, me, Dmcq, and many others regarding why the 5P is not labeled as policy and is not. I am sorry if newbies have to question everything because they werent a party to the earlier discussions, but that's what archives and asking older editors come in to play. Yes, deference to your elders would do some good. I learned from What, Daniel Case, Blueboar, Kim Bruning, and many others alot. I never claimed to know the Truth better than they just because I can read the literal word of a policy. Andy in particular in his disruptive grumpiness makes "proclamations" regarding what MUST be done.Camelbinky (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Since when has 'reputation' been relevant in Wikipedia discussions? What happened to 'comment on the edit, not the editor'? So no, I'm not going to start showing "deference to [my] elders" if their argument comes down to "I've been here longer than you, so I'm right". I note too that Camelbinky's voluminous screed (on a debate I wasn't part of, I'm glad to say) is long on assertions, and devoid of evidence for anything. No change there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious! "comment on the edit, not the editor" and yet all you and Unsc have done here is comment on me and insult me "is long on assertions and devoid of evidence for anything. No change there." Insult me some more. You'll end up here EACH TIME you insult ANYONE, ANYWHERE. Keep trying to attack me. I dont have to provide "evidence" it is clear what you do, you smear and take diffs out of context. I provide background of what you are doing, if someone wants diffs they can look them up themselves. Stay away from any of my comments or activities PLEASE, a voluntary ban on contact is best I agree with those above who recommended that. So I'll be looking forward to NOT seeing you at places. Back away thanks. Any interaction on commenting on where I comment and in particular ON my comment or ON me I will consider an intentional wiki-stalking and harrassment. Best to just not come around me. Thank you in advance, and Ill give you AGF that you'll not be around me.Camelbinky (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont have to provide "evidence": Yes you do. Except you don't, because there isn't any. Regarding 'Wikistalking', I'll point out that it was you who seem to have the stalking agenda. You didn't have to go crying to Jimbo when I didn't get blocked for swearing, you didn't have to comment in the Wikquette alerts thread, and you didn't need to bring up your usual nonsense about Noleander and ArbCom. But you did. You even seem to bring me into debates where I've had no involvement at all: "You've been here only one year, obviously have not gone through the archives of different policy pages and learned WHY things are the way things are (obvious to me from your comments at the 5P page and elsewhere)" [36]. I've never edited either the Five Pillars article, nor contributed to the talk page discussion. [37],[38] It will be rather difficult to avoid 'interacting' with you if this involves not playing an entirely imaginary part in debates. Since you have provided no evidence whatsoever to justify anything you have said or done, I am going to carry on taking part in whatever discussions I choose, with the intention of seeing that Wikipedia policy is respected, and that those who wish to transform Wikipedia into an ethno-religious database against policy are prevented from doing so. I will clearly have to learn to control my temper, and be more civil on occasion, but otherwise, I see no reason to change my behaviour. If you insist on butting into a discussion on the appropriateness of a 'religion' field in infoboxes with a statement that starts off "Andy, what is your obsession with the Jewish people and your inability to understand that being a Jew and Jews identifying others as Jews has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.." (so what has it got to do with the 'religion' field in the infobox then?), and then launch into a long personal attack on me, based on nothing other than your fevered imagination, you can expect me to 'interact' - here. Any more snide insinuations of racism, or off-topic garbage about Noleander and ArbCom, again entirely unsupported by evidence, will no doubt be treated with the contempt they deserve, so I'd suggest you think before you give vent again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Policies are respected you say? Oh, ok so next time you quote a policy in which I personally helped shape I'll remember to let you know, with diffs!, what exactly we meant and why you are interpreting it wrongly by taking it by the literal word. That is your problem, you come here with no information other than quoting policies. Respecting policy means knowing how it is USED, not what it SAYS. You cant proclaim to people "Policy says X, you have to do it, and you're wrong I'm right. No discussion. No compromise". Policy is nothing more than the description of past consensuses on how we have done things in the past and a guide to shaping future consensuses on similar problems. It is not proscriptive of what must be done for all time. And before you argue, this is a disagreement settled over 2 years ago at WP:Policies and guidelines, but I understand anything that happens before you were around and you werent a party too is irrelevant in your mind. Others have come and gone like you thinking policies are laws and must be strictly adhered to. Dont know where you get the idea seeing as how we've taken out anything that possibly gave that impression.Camelbinky (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Since that is not only entirely unsupported by evidence, but totally irrelevant to this discussion, which is about your repeated personal attacks on me, I have to ask why you bothered to post it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoping that feedback is useful, what I propose is that the subject of this ANI discussion ("the subject") be warned for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks.  Further, that going forward there will be a zero-tolerance policy in effect for new personal attacks by the subject, where the subject will be indef topic blocked on each Discussion/Project page on which it occurs.  Further, that the subject is not to use the words "you" or "your" in talk page discussion, as to do so will be automatic grounds for a new topic block.  Further, the subject is warned to provide evidence and avoid hyperbole.  Further, that the subject be blocked for one minute to post this warning.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Another comment I must say that the attitude "I've been here longer than you, so there (i.e. just shut it!)" is completely untenable on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Whether you have a gazillion barnstars or have been editing since the Big Bang, you are only human and to err is human, we can all get it wrong (policy, pov and so on) whether we have been on WP for 5 weeks or 5 years. So seniority on WP is not some sort of magic shield against being wrong, misinterpreting policy or suchlike.

From the same diff that Andy objects to about being jew-obsessed, [39], I quote:

• "You should really have some deference to those who've been here longer and have actually participated in many more discussions and know what was actually intended by the wording in specific policies and which policies are not used in the specific way in which they are written. There is a large amount of "oral law" in Wikipedia."

Well that's fine and dandy, but apart from lording it over (perceived) newbies, this is also plain daft - if a policy doesn't say what it's meant to say then it should be rewritten, what's all this crap about 'oral law'? "Well, yes the policy says that, but we decided this x years ago". Good way to encourage learner WP editors and kill rumours of cabals, methinks. Also, something decided two years ago, as mentioned above, is way out of date as opinions and povs change and policy and guidelines evolve (hopefully) to accommodate these changes.

Oh and there's a huge difference between 'you're a dick' (personal attack) and 'you're being a dick' (current behaviour/attitude), so for example 'your comments are meaningless or irrelevant or unsubstantiated' is not a personal attack but a comment on the comments.

Wikipedia:BITE, Wikipedia:NPA, Wikipedia:AGF CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is from Wikipedia:Blocking policy:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:

...

• gross incivility;

Unscintillating (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Civility is a policy that states:

...
We do block for major incivility. When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies.

Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the subject of this discussion correct that there is an anti-newbie "oral" tradition...such that cb's contributions did a good job in defending WP:5 from newbie improvements, and providing cover for a second editor to contribute a WP:NPA; that the contribution of a manic response with a claim of loss of self-control in response to the words "not an essay" was appropriate given the source of who said "not an essay"; that calling the compromise approach an "outright lie" was a good contribution since it instantly shut up the newbie?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point it might be best to assume that this particular quadruped is no longer in the race, regardless of whether its metabolism is still functioning, and that we should only return to flogging it if it actually shows signs of life. I doubt that any action is going to be taken against Camelbinky for now, and I'm sure that we have quite enough evidence to respond to him/her appropriately should the pattern of behaviour recur. Let sleeping dromedaries lie.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparent block evasion by User talk:71.56.23.123

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Apparently nobody cares about this, so we might as well mark this for the archives. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

---

History: 71.56.23.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a disputed edit on Virtual Console ([40]) and had it reverted per BRD, then insisted on redoing the edit without proper discussion ([41], [42], [43]). This eventually got his edits labeled as vandalism, with appropriate warnings sent to his user page ([44], [45]).

Since then, the user has argued non-stop with myself and at least one other editor over the definition of proper English and the level of knowledge and competence of WP administrators. The discussion went quiet for a little while, then without further warning Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked the IP for one year, using the {{blocked proxy}} and the message "used abusively". I've asked Alison for an explanation on the block - the IP user made a few more edits to different articles that appear to have been at least marginally constructive, so I don't think a block was justified at that point.

However, this reply is clearly from the same person on a different IP address, and only continues the argument. I informed the user that I believed this qualified as block evasion (regardless of the justification for the original block) and would be asking for an uninvolved admin to review it. I will post a link to this thread on both IP talk pages. Please review, thanks. I am an admin myself, but since I've been personally involved in the argument, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to take disciplinary action. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm one of the other users who's been attempting to deal with the anon IP 71.56.23.123. After a number of good-faith attempts, I posted a final warning regarding the edits at Virtual Console. The user appears to have either heeded the warning or found something else to do, so I've had no further dealings with the IP. However, I did notice Alison's one-year block of it (along with removing the IP's ability to edit its talk page), and I agree with Kiefer that there didn't appear to be a need for that long of a block, so I'm hoping Alison can provide further information as to the rationale for the length of it. I also agree that it appears the user has switched IPs and is at it again, taking up the argument on the original talk page. There seems to be more to the story, but I concur with Kiefer on the main point and the purpose for this ANI listing ... this is pure and simple block evasion. --McDoobAU93 22:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...Bueller? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

They've been blocked, what else are you looking for? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe they're looking for either an explanation to show why the IP address qualified for a 1 year block (something that took several trips to AIV with one problem editor to get a 6 month block for one case I've been working with) or to have the block reduced in length. Sometimes it's not sanctions editors are wanting. I know, what a concept Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm also looking for someone to review the fact that this user is EVADING this block via a different IP. How can I make the nature of my request more clear so there isn't confusion next time? :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, because sock puppets (even only semi-clear WP:DUCK) are thataway... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I presume nobody's going to evaluate the validity of the original block, then? I might as well not have even bothered saying anything, for all the good it did here. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:40, 27 July 2011 (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

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely by Bwilkins for WP:NLT violation. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User Fatimiya, fresh off a block for personal attacks [46] is now making legal threats.[47] Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No threat has been made. A formal complaint has been filed today by the Fatimiya Sufi Order with a body who investigates claims of religious discrimination and religious persecution regarding the activities of the Bahai Internet Agency and its taskforce (i.e. Edward321, Jeff3000 et al) on wikipedia. Archives regarding present outstanding issues and ones former where the aforementioned editors were involved have been forwarded to the body for its investigation --Fatimiya (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fatimiya is right off a 12-hour block that I issued for personal attacks on Jeff3000, who had nominated two of Fatimya's articles for deletion. While this is not a legal threat exactly, the clear intention is to intimidate editors into leaving Fatimiya's edits alone. He's been filing retaliatory sockpuppet investigations against any who oppose him [48] [49] [50] and there appears to be a considerable amount of meatpuppetry going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours, sound good or am I too nice? (Nuking SPIs fyi) -- DQ (t) (e) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I was apparently too nice with the 12-hour block; I had some hopes they'd learn to argue on the merits of the sources rather than on the basis of a perceived grudge. Acroterion (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just looked things over, ya it's more disruption that I thought when I did 31 hrs, upped to 1 week now. After this I recommend the scale hits the months if we don't see the stop. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As point of background, it appears that the extant dispute centers on Fatimiya Sufi Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the associated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. The editor Fatimiya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a staunch defender of the article. The article topic appears to be a relatively new and relatively minor religious sect.

I gather that the intent of Fatimiya's comments (on this page and as linked above by Edward321) is to imply that some manner of formal complaint has been filed with a quasi-judicial body with some sort of statutory powers and authority (eg some type of human rights commission). The fact that Fatimiya is consistently and deliberately vague in identifying the body involved is rather...unhelpful.

As I see it, one of two possible things are going on here. First, Fatimiya may have filed a complaint with a bona fide human rights commission or other quasi-judicial body. (I make no judgement of the merit of such a complaint.) If that's so, then WP:NLT explicitly instructs him to avoid editing Wikipedia until the conclusion of his case; if he does not do so voluntarily, we are compelled to enforce that by block.

In the alternative, a complaint hasn't actually been filed, or a complaint has been filed with a body that is lacking in statutory authority, lacking in jurisdiction, or is otherwise irrelevant. In this second case, the purpose of Fatimiya's comment would be to chill and discourage comments by his opponents with the implication of a legal threat. In that case, Fatimiya should be blocked under WP:NLT until he explicitly withdraws any threats of legal action and/or fully describes to the administrators here precisely what it is that he is threatening, so that the applicability of WP:NLT to his complaint can be reviewed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read Fatimiya's comments similar to TenOfAllTrade's statements above - I have upped the block to INDEF. Should they strike/revoke all NLT claims, someone can reset back to the original 1-week for NPA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:PeterHarlington

Thanks, WMF notified and looking into it Jalexander--WMF 01:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

PeterHarlington (talk · contribs) is a "new" user whose account was created yesterday, is issuing threats in edit summaries against anybody else changing their edits, and is making a list of "crimes" committed by other Users on their User page. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC) If you don't mind, I'm going to e-mail the emergency e-mail about this one. This edit summary is a threat of violence. I'm not one to judge the seriousness (I'm sure it's just bluster), but better safe than sorry. CycloneGU (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollback of edit to Dane Rauschenberg

This edit reverted the immediate damage to the Dane Rauschenberg article, which has been the repeated target of an individual (or small group of people) who have persistently sought to cast him in a negative light. While the editor User:Danecheatsawholelot who made the edit has already been blocked, the edit should be rolled back to remove both the unsupported allegation in the reverted edit and the allegation implied by the Danecheatsawholelot user name. Alansohn (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean rev-deleted? It can't be rolled back when it's already been reverted. 28bytes (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As I was typing I had reverted stuck in my mind, when I meant rev-deleted. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I believe this qualifies under R2 since the username itself is a BLP violation, but I have requested oversight review of this via e-mail in case I am mistaken. 28bytes (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Revisions deleted here

What's up with the rather extensive use of revdel here, for every revision between 22:01, July 26, 2011 and 00:33, July 27, 2011?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a link to a blog that personally attacked one of the editors involved in that discussion. Quigley (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And it's not as extensive as it looks, if I understand RevDel properly; it simply makes it impossible to access any version of the page where the offensive link was displayed. The text from the other intervening edits is retained; it's just no longer possible to follow those changes step-by-step. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No. It was oversighted, not RevDel'ed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, oversight would mean it doesn't show up in history, even to the admins. Those are RevDel'd, as far as I know. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Reaper is correct. If you (as an admin) can't see that revision (I can't), it's been oversighted. 28bytes (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

... Did they change Oversight from before, as Oversight used to suppress the revisions from the history (i.e. completely hide those entries)... And yeah, I'm an admin too, and I stand corrected... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two ways of oversighting things these days: one using the old oversight command (which is what you're thinking of) and one using revdelete and clicking an extra box that hides things even from admins (which is what happened here). No one really uses the first method anymore, I believe. NW (Talk) 22:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC with both above) Technically I believe both are partially right. I suspect it was revdel'd in supression mode, which is commonly called oversight. AFAIK, oversight using the oversight feature is not done anymore; amongst other things, it removes the revision completely whereas revdel'd in supression mode provides the revdel level of control but prevents admins from seeing it. See Wikipedia:Revision deletion and Wikipedia:Oversight Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks both for the clarification. The terminology can get a bit confusing. 28bytes (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Think of RevDel as "hide" and Suppression as "really hide"... I do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That was gonna be my follow-up question, Hullaballo. Thanks. Not sure what "that discussion" was, but it doesn't really matter.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Revenge of the Nmatavka

After the topic-ban passed, I wake up today to find this from an IP editor, followed by an addendum shortly thereafter. Could someone give him a very strong warning about personal attacks and sockpuppetry? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

IP flagged using {{IPsock}}. A Checkuser will need to do the low-level comparisons. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• That IP has been used previously, though. I'm unsure as to whether a long term block on that IP would be effective (this depends on the ISP providing the IP, obviously). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not after a block; I'm after a final warning. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP. There's no way to predict if or when he'll be assigned that particular address again. The Contribution history shows a mix of constructive edits and vandalism. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I'm after a final warning for the named account Nmatavka, not the IP. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I misunderstood. (And ran out of coffee.). My 2p is that if he's using a IP to make what to me are retaliatory attacks because of a topic ban, he's gone past where a warning will suffice. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I gave an only warning; the edit violates both the sockpuppet policy as well as NPA. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's review: user creates a page of naughty images from Commons (complete with homophobic comments); page is deleted; user recreates page; page is deleted and user told not to do it again; user makes homophobic personal attack; and user is....warned. That seems about right. We wouldn't want to drive away useful contributors. The only thing that puzzles me is I'm pretty sure Nick isn't in Slovakia... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

On that last, I'd say the edits are duckish enough to raise questions. The WHOIS looks like an ISP, and I don't see any indications of an open proxy. I checked for a TOR exit node and it came back negative. So from a technical standpoint, either Nick found a proxy in Slovakia he could access or there's a meatpuppet involved. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If this were out at WP:OP I'd rate it as inconclusive, but suspicious. The IP in question has an unusually large amount of activity on the internet, but no clues as to the proxy mechanism (if it exists). Sailsbystars (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Bogdan Nagachop and page moves

Original Discossion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Section being re-opened, separating this and keeping this part closed. CycloneGU (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Bogdan Nagachop (talk · contribs) has been promoting a new schema for naming of Indian articles (WP:NCINDIA) and has been moving many many articles (over 1000 in the past two weeks) citing this proposal of his as an accepted guideline (which it is not, see the talk page where there's nothing but objections). In the process he's been moving primary topics to disambiguated titles and creating multiple WP:SIA pages which are either a duplicate or subset of existing dabs (Uppal, India vs Uppal etc). The problem is that he's refusing to stop and goes on these page move sprees which include quite a few incorrect ones which are difficult to catch. He's been told many times about using the WP:RM especially for controversial moves, and just after that he went and moved Banga, India a page that was moved by consensus at Talk:Banga, India. When anyone objects, he throws up the bias card and accuses them of being anti-Indian (also [51]. Also, last two times I left him a talk page note: Please stop and Page moves, he moved them on to WT:INB -- Please stop and On going accusations by SpacemanSpiff. It's getting to be very difficult to have a conversation with all these accusations bias etc flying about. When asked to work with consensus (at least 2-3 times) he has replied: I don't have to do what "consensus" dictates. WP is voluntary.. To one thread today Crusoe8181 responded and immediately Bogdan Nagachop refactored his response to a section titled "Accusations by Crusoe8181". In addition, WT:INB and WT:NCINDIA are spots where conversation has taken places, there's a lot of them.

I'm bringing it here to see if a stop can be put to these moves until some sort of discussion and consensus happens on the proposal page. cheers. 19:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I get what he did with Crusoe8181, he wanted to reply to both individually. However, he did it COMPLETELY the wrong way. This aside, the bit about not having to follow consensus tells me he is not fit to edit on Wikipedia. Wikipedia runs by consensus, not by an individual volunteer. CycloneGU (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem doesn't exist with many moves IMO, but then there are some that he shouldn't do especially when he's making this proposed guideline on the fly and then over the next few hours he moves hundreds of pages citing it. I've asked him repeatedly to take these controversial moves through process at WP:RM but that hasn't helped (he's sent a couple through that, but that's all). —SpacemanSpiff 19:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• This "Anti-Indian" thing has been resolved. One user brought in a good example that was quite convincing. I never did say that again. Bringing up old stuff that has been solved is not honest. Consensus you find at [52] rgpk, Crusoe8181 and me agreeing, no opposition by SpacemanSpiff. Then later on SpacemanSpiff popped up on my talk several times. I asked what was wrong and said thank you for his hints and followed exactly, I stopped removing "district" from dab tags even if Crusoe8181 and me agreed "Without the word district" [53]. So, I don't know what issues SpacemanSpiff currently has???
• Sorry, what do you mean by "the bit about not having to follow consensus tells me he is not fit to edit on Wikipedia" - WP is voluntary, I can always leave. No one can force me to do what SpacemanSpiff or any consensus dictates. I dont' understand what you mean.
• The thing is, I don't know what you regard as controversial in the first place. I stopped referring to the guideline, I stopped removing "district" from the tags ... but I couldn't know beforehand that these things are wrong. Especially since the majority on the talk agreed. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So you didn't respond to my objection then? —SpacemanSpiff 20:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I missed that, it was in the section "by district" and not under "by state at least". Still, 3:1, and then later on India Noticeboard one more person even agreeing with dab "by district", I wonder what would be wrong then with using Andhra Pradesh for dab. But this is now at Talk:Hyderabad,_India#Hyderabad.2C_Andhra_Pradesh_and_WP:BIAS. What else is a problem, CURRENTLY? Did you see that there are several Banga, India? As for so called duplication DAB vs SIA, please read WP:NOTDAB / WP:SIA. These listings as exemplified at Dharampur, India can become very different from DAB pages. I also once redirected DAB pages to SIA, but after objection by Crusoe8181 I never did that again. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the whole problem, every day someone objects to something and you go on to something new. I've asked you many times to use the WP:RM process or wait for consensus to develop on the changes itself but you don't want to do either. —SpacemanSpiff 20:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by "the bit about not having to follow consensus tells me he is not fit to edit on Wikipedia" - WP is voluntary, I can always leave. No one can force me to do what SpacemanSpiff or any consensus dictates. I dont' understand what you mean.

In response, I present evidence given above: ...he went and moved Banga, India a page that was moved by consensus at Talk:Banga, India. This is doing something against a previous consensus. And telling us that you feel you don't have to follow consensus is telling us that you are God, we all must worship you and what you want to do. So even if you don't mean it, your statement comes across very negatively. As for the bit I responded to regarding the not following consensus, follow the link in the heading post to the passage in question. CycloneGU (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you all are as free as me. And if consensus is to not use the country level for dab, as is done with the US and UK, then it is fine to enforce that consensus. At the Banga, India page a new situation was discovered, the page had been moved from Banga, Punjab to Banga, India, because Crusoe8181 introduce ambiguity [54]. But the new name is still ambiguous. So I moved it away from that ambiguous name. And this was under consensus to not use country level - So what??? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to perfectly understand what you are implying here. For the same reasons you are not required to follow consensus, no one else has to follow consensus. Therefore, if I choose to revert an edit of yours, I am perfectly in my right to do so as there is no consensus I have to follow. I can even add the words "too bad sucker" if I want to and that's perfectly all right, there is no consensus to follow for including such text in an article (which, obviously, it shouldn't). Further, SpacemanSpiff is perfectly in his right to move the page back to its original location because it's in his personal opinion that the page belongs there, and he cannot get in trouble because he also does not have to follow consensus.

We could go on all day using other editors as examples in the sections above this one. The point is that Wikipedia runs by consensus. Either agree to follow consensus or stop editing. I don't ever want to see you say again that you are not required to follow consensus.

I apologize to my fellow editors for my possibly harsh tone here, but comments like that tend to piss me off. CycloneGU (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(Perhaps this comment was better further up - but show me the consensus to not use country-level in article names. The U.S. and Canada are exceptions I know of due to their size. CycloneGU (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC))

(FTR, Australia also uses city, state.) Orderinchaos 01:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I forgot they did that, too. CycloneGU (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2011 (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.

SpacemanSpiff deleting pages to advance his opinion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Doing a close because discussion evidently was continued after I marked it resolved. CycloneGU (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – Waste of time, look up. CycloneGU (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I had created a WP:SIA page at Banga, India, he deleted it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Banga%2C+India !!!!! Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. You made a move against consensus, he has to move it back to satisfy the consensus. Of course he's going to delete the redirect so the page can be moved back.

That is all, marking resolved. CycloneGU (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let's be clear, a page was moved to Banga, India per a move request/consensus at the talk page. YOu then moved it to a different title and added the names of a few more places with the name Banga. I just moved the page back. —SpacemanSpiff 20:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Let's be even more clear: Banga, Punjab was moved to Banga, India, because Crusoe8181 unilaterally introduce ambiguity [55]. But the new name was still ambiguous. Furthermore on WP India there was consensus to not use the country level for dab [56]. So I moved it away from that ambiguous name and did so under WP India consensus to not use country level. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• At CycloneGU, it was not a redirect, but a SIA page, part of a project that some people really like [57]. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

18:35, 27 July 2011 Bogdan Nagachop (talk | contribs) (moved Banga, India to Banga, Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar: there are several in India. Dab as Banga, Punjab would be ambiguous.)

That is not an SIA. That is a blatant page move. Now, let's explore the talk page. There was consensus previously to move to Banga, India. From that you can see that a move might be controversial. If you think this move still needs to be made, raise it on the article talk page. I'm now going to close this portion of the discussion as I've given instructions for handling this part of the thread. CycloneGU (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2011 (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.

Reopening

The user has apparently returned, so I will reopen this section having done some looking into the subject matter.

I recently looked at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India). Bogdan Nagachop is the sole contributor to this "policy", which he created on July 5 and has been the only one editing since. He has used this claiming there is a consensus for this "policy" (notice the quotes) for his moves. TenPoundHammer recently nominated if for MfD. I don't doubt being a single editors' opinion that it will be deleted heavily modified, but discussion is leaning towards the creation of a policy, just not "his" policy. If it IS kept, we need to do a better job getting people involved from WikiProject India into there to write a proper policy. For now, I think all of the page moves made by Bogdan Nagachop that could potentially be controversial need to be reversed and discussed appropriately per page move guidelines. CycloneGU (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have notified WP India of the deletion proposal, which no one else seemed to care about [58]. For whether I am returning or ever have left see the relevant talk page, which would be NB India. For whether the "policy" is "mine" or I claimed it to be one etc, see the deletion proposal talk page. I hope it can all be solved soon. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You only notified them two hours ago, not everyone has their computers in front of them 24 hours a day. (Not saying you do either, just pointing it out.) CycloneGU (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Should we protect Manchester City F.C.?

Resolved

 – I'm going ahead and marking this resolved. It was protected for a period of one day at WP:RfPP, there's not much else to do here for now. If after a day he still hasn't signed and people are still adding it, request further protection there if necessary. CycloneGU (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Manchester City is set to sign Sergio Aguero, but that haven't actually signed yet. And despite comments saying only official players on Manchester Citys website should be listed, and despite many people reverting, he still gets added to the articles. This is annoying, and will probably be over with in 24-48 hours (at which point he probably will have signed).

The Manchester City F.C. is semi-protected, but that doesn't help. Should maybe that page be fully protected for 24 hours to stop this?

Other pages also affected, but to a smaller degree is 2011–12 Manchester City F.C. season and of course Sergio Agüero. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Check out requests for page protection. N^oformation ^Talk 09:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I forgot about that one. Thanks. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there some kind of rule that the club's own website is the only reliable source on this subject by definition, despite being a primary? Or should we be open to what other - secondary - sources say? bobrayner (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course we should follow the secondary sources. I do not know the specifics of this case (not a huge soccer fan), but I have no doubt that the secondary will be saying things along the lines of "Aguero is almost certain to sign with Manchester City within the next two days" and "As long as Aguero passes his fitness test tomorrow, he will sign with Manchester City". It is fine to say in the Manchester City and Sergio Aguero articles that Aguero looks set to sign, but it is not ok to say that he has already joined the club when he hasn't actually signed on the dotted line. Jenks24 (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not in this type of case. If the club's own website says a player has signed, then it's fine to say that he has. If any secondary source does so - even normally reliable ones - it is better to say "According to...". Secondary sources - especially newspapers - tend to mix rumours in with fact when it comes to currently occurring football transfers and so it is always better to be cautious. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. If the content being added isn't actually controversial (it isn't; it's almost certainly a case of when rather than if the news is announced) then it is a colossal waste of time for editors to hover over it reverting good-faith edits when it seems abundantly clear that the situation will resolve itself one way or the other for certain in a couple of days. YMMV of course (plenty of completely specious transfers are added to articles during the transfer window), but in cases where everything's been done except for the photo in the new club shirt editors would be best advised doing something more productive with their time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Should the supporting template of an article have a name consistent with that of said article?

 Deferred to some other forum dedicated to dispute resolution such as WP:RFC or WP:VP. Administrative action is not requested or warranted at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is a dispute going on at Template:2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests over the title of the template. Myself and a few other editors have tried to move the template's name to Template:Arab Spring, as that is the name of the main article, only to be continually reverted by a stubborn User:Lihaas. He demands that a new discussion be started for the template, even though the main article already had such a discussion to determine the name (which was closed decisively in favour of "Arab Spring").

Per WP:AT, "titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles"; per WP:TEMPLATE, "template names are exactly like other page names"; per WP:Page name, the policy on article titles is WP:AT. Thus, template titles are subject to the same rules as article titles. I maintain that starting a new naming discussion for the template is contrary to naming policy. In addition, any move discussion on the template would be a challenge to the consensus of the main article, and should be settled there; if a main article is moved, all other pages supporting it should have consistent names, with no new discussions needed to determine names. Any challenges to the name should be settled at the talkpage of the main article; if Lihaas has an issue with the title Arab Spring, he should take that to the Talk:Arab Spring instead of jealously guarding the name of a supporting navigation template.

Community/administrator input on the matter would be greatly appreciated, as discussions between the parties involved have been unproductive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As a template no reader sees (or cares) which title it is at... so it is somewhat irrelevant. Create a redirect at {{Arab Spring}} and get on with doing productive things :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment, but some closure would be appreciated here... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I must say, for the record, that User:Lihaas needs some wikilove, as he seems to be overly contentious in his editing and has some trouble assuming good faith (yes, I know, a rare thing indeed). Please see my talk to see what I mean. He is also not very clear when raising issues. Perhaps someone un-involved might remind him to be cool man luke... I have no idea if he just grumpus or doesn't get it, but I am afraid that if no TLC is shown, he might be a regular of AN/I...--Cerejota (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's just a template; its name will not be visible to readers - that vast majority of encyclopædia users whom we are supposed to serve.

• "2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests" is clunky; perhaps in article-space there is some kind of policy-based argument for having such unwieldy text at the top of a page instead of the widely used "Arab Spring", but whatever that argument is, it can scarcely apply to templates. "Arab Spring" is straightforward, it's a known term, and doesn't seem particularly non-neutral.
• The idea that template titles should match article titles is a nicety but it can hardly be top-level policy - if anybody argues that a renaming of a template must trigger article renaming then I would encourage them to step back for a moment and look at a broader perspective. For a start, template titles are only seen/used by a small subset of the people who see/use article titles - there are bound to be times when the two sets have slightly differing interests. bobrayner (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument "Nobody cares, it's just a template" is evidently false, as this AN/I thread exists. If I may direct your attention to the talkpage, the bottom two sections both deal with the name, and were both started by IPs. Any reader with the slightest curiosity of how this encyclopaedia works might be inclined to look at a template. Step back from the whole "it's just a template" line of thought for a bit, as such thought does nothing to resolve the dispute.

Re "if anybody argues that a renaming of a template must trigger article renaming": If someone were to argue this, I would agree with you. However, that is not what is being debated here. There is one main article for this topic, Arab Spring. When it was renamed, supporting articles such as Impact of the Arab Spring were renamed without further discussion. As I demonstrated above, template names fall under WP:AT policy. There is no reason why an editor must redemonstrate consensus for a template. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is just a template (though that wasn't the point I made); your creation of this AN/I thread does not change that.

To argue that phrase from Help:Template requires all templates to follow article naming policy to the letter would be an astonishingly creative feat of wikilawyering. Let me quote the rest of the sentence, which you omitted: "Template names are exactly like other page names: case-sensitive except for the first letter, with spaces indistinguishable from underscores". Technical constraints on characters used in titles are nothing to do with the issue being discussed here. Thus, there's no basis for claims like these:

• "starting a new naming discussion for the template is contrary to naming policy"
• "any move discussion on the template would be a challenge to the consensus of the main article"
• "if a main article is moved, all other pages supporting it should have consistent names, with no new discussions needed to determine names"
• "Any challenges to the [template] name should be settled at the talkpage of the main article"

I'm not here to defend Lihaas; but if there is some other policy which actually supports those claims, please point it out - I would like to read it. bobrayner (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:TEMPLATE: Template names are exactly like other page names [the link is what I am looking at here] —> Help:Page name: For more comprehensive information, see Wikipedia:Page name —> WP:Page name: For the policy on naming pages in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Article titles

Yes, it is stretching things a bit. However, it does demonstrate that template names are held to the same rules as page names. Template naming issues specifically are not dealt with, either because it is understood that they are the same as other names, or because template naming has hardly ever been contentious.

What I intend to gain from this is a verdict on whether or not a main article move sets a precedent for supporting pages, or if RMs should be started for every supporting page, regardless of consensus on the main. In my experience, the former is the case; a move discussion on the main article that ends in a successful rename is followed by discussionless, procedural moves of the supporting pages. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1. WP:NPA we discuss CONTENT not editors so refrain from ad hominem attacks. (per Cerejota, you can see on his talk page that OTHER editors have had issue with his norway page edits and lack of consensus building. trying to accuse me is like the pot calling the kettle black)

2. WP:CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE, WP:BRD then needs talk. talk is no t voided because you deem it unncessary. if you feel it should move then the discussion belongs on that page. When consensus is garnered then the BRD protocol that calls for bold edits (note: AGF) to be discussed and then redone with consensus comesinto play. You seem to be usingl lots of content on the NAMING issue here which should be on either the tamplate page OR the discussion page for Arab Spring. (incidentally a media term, but thats for the discussion page). Furthermore, before ANI youre supposed to show attemts at resolving the disoute, of which im willing and have discussed on talk but there is still a defiocency in at attempt to resolve it. One such way would be to get another editor to put his 2 cents and gain consensus. Much easier to do that then come to ANI to force one way over the other. Your whole arguement would be much more helpful to gain consensus (and on your side at that) on the discussion page.Lihaas (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I WP:CANVASS for support? I brought the debate here because it is more visible than the template talk, so more uninvolved parties will comment. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

En.wikipedia has various tools for resolving content disputes (or naming disputes) which are definitely not canvassing. Has anybody considered an RfC, or a 3O, a request on some related project's talkpage, or even a medcab case...? bobrayner (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

They haven't even made a requested move. I strongly suggest making the requested move discussion instead of running to notice boards and dispute resolution to get support for making a controversial move without a requested move. It's by definition a controversial move when somebody reverts it and discussions about it already exist. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

But actually, there was an RM. See here. Pages like Impact of the Arab Spring were moved without discussion, because the consensus determined for the term "Arab Spring" was understood to carry over from the main article to supporting articles. An RfC would be far too much fuss for this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There was an RM for an article, not for the template. In spite of your quoting out of context, there is no rule saying a template must have the same name as its main article. I find it ironic that you say an RfC would be far too much fuss for this. I agree but also think this thread is far too much fuss for this. Just make the bloody RM for the template and stop fussing about it in other places. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2011 (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.

Please look

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is getting out of hand; it should be clear at this stage that no admin action is likely to be taken and this is not the place to clutter up with content dispute. Conduct for the most part seems fine for those being complained about here. For the "opposition" - there seems to be a tenditious/POV/editwarring/civility problem with some of the editors needing to be addressed, however without specifics there is no much admin action to be taken. In terms of the specific content here... per WP:NOTCENSORED, if Shudra offends modern sensibilities then that is no reason to scrub reference of it from the histories, we do not rewrite history. You will note, for example, African American discusses the moniker "negro" in several places, and even notes it in the lead as a historical name for that group of people. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Extended content

Allegations of misconduct on Kurmi (an Indian caste) User:Sitush has broken the 3RR [59][60][61][62]. But I have an admin warning me about edit warring on my talk page User talk:MangoWong. The admin who warned me has also reverted my edit,[63] which was to put a cn tag in the infobox on a claim which has been disputed for long. I do not see why a cn tag is not needed in an infobox(as claimed by the admin who reverted me and warned me), and why the admin would see a necessity to revert a cn tag. Could I request some fresh eyes here. Please also take a look at talk:Kurmi#Semi-protected.-MangoWong (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC) As explained in the edit summary, a citation is not needed in an infobox or lead if it is summarising or quoting something that is cited in the body of the article. And Sitush is not guilty of 3RR, as they are four different edits he has reverted (if they're different edits, it's not even edit-warring, and he clearly explained the reasons why they were all inappropriate). Also, they are changes that have long been disputed on the Talk page and consensus is firmly against them, with nobody yet having been able to produce sources. I'm afraid we have yet another caste warrior here who just won't listen when we explain our policies on sourcing and consensus - I've tried explaining it all on the article Talk page, but as usual that gets nowhere -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Uh, without examining the merits, but just on a technicality on first reading - is too a 3RR vio if there are more than 3 reverts. The policy is quite clear on "whether the same or different material each time" "on a single page". I've never particularly agreed with the brightness of that brightline rule, since I believe in defending the wiki, but my reading disagrees with yours. I did a 7RR once and came out OK due to the BLP shelter, and again, I;m not arguing the case. Your statement strikes me as odd though. Franamax (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Outside comment. I don't see any 3RR violation in the article history; if there are 4 reverts, if I'm reading the article history right, they aren't within 24 hours. And I don't see removing edits that are against an expressed talk page consensus as, in most cases, edit warring. But I don't agree that 3RR wouldn't apply "as they are four different edits he has reverted." The 3RR policy says pretty clearly: whether involving the same or different material each time [it] counts as a revert. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Ah, yes, fair point, my mistake - but the repeated attempts to make clear anti-consensus changes without discussion and without providing sources is pretty close to vandalism -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC) PS: The warning I gave was for repeating the same anti-consensus edit after having had it reverted once -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Not just a caste warrior but one of a group of editors who have recently been tendentious across numerous India-related articles, eg: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Need_some_opinions_on_Talk:Kurmi.23Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna, Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Exceptions_to_national_varieties_of_English, Talk:Sudheendra_Kulkarni. There might be a boomerang to be caught here. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Is it any surprise that folks with whom I have a dispute describe me as "caste warrior". I am hoping for fresh eyes here. And I also completely dispute the claims that citations are unnecessary in lead and infobox. Anyway, let's wait for some time?-MangoWong (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Individual cases of the need for citations are decided by consensus. So if you dispute it, which is your right, then you should discuss it on the Talk page and not edit war -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I do not see any point in discussing content issues with you. I also don't see why you would intervene by saying what needs a cite and what doesn't. You had claimed here that the lead and infobox do not need citations, that's why I had to dispute your claim here only. Can we wait for fresh eyes?-MangoWong (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC) You are well aware that there are plenty of eyes on the article. There is a sort of debate brewing regarding whether the infobox would be better removed entirely, and certainly there is some agreement for removal of the specific field you refer to. However, while it exists it remains the case that the issue is cited in the body of the article and has been discussed at length on the talk page. Adding a cite to the infobox (which you could actually have done yourself instead of requesting one) is mere duplication and clutter. None of this is relevant to ANI. It is a content dispute issue. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC) @MangoWong: Two of us opined in the edit summaries that duplicated cites were not needed, and I also explained my view on your Talk page. Now, the place to discuss content and citation of a specific article is on that article's Talk page - and if you refuse to discuss it there and seek consensus then you simply get no say in the matter. And no, you can't just keep getting your own word in and telling me to shut up and wait for someone else to come along - if you misrepresent what I have said and done and you make accusations against me, I will reply. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I will surely discuss the content issue at the article talk page. But violation of 3RR and undue admin intervention are legitimate matters for this noticeboard. Being one of the accused parties, you don't get to close this thread. Please note you may have a COI here. I request fresh eyes. You are not it.-MangoWong (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC) What are you talking about? I haven't closed the thread, and I'm not stopping anyone else commenting on the 3RR accusation - in fact, don't you remember that I specifically suggested you should complain here if you had any issues with my conduct? Yes, of course it needs someone else to judge this, and I'm not for a moment trying to do it myself - but that does not mean I cannot defend myself against your complaints, and part of that was my explaining why I gave you that warning -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I have notified user:Sitush at his talk page that I have reported him. He is confident that my report will fail. User talk:Sitush. I have also notified the admin who placed a warning on my talkpage and who also reverted my cn tag.-MangoWong (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC) This incident is regarding article Kurmi.-MangoWong (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC) The page is about Kurmi, a Hindu Jati. As such the article lacks sufficient religious understanding of Hinduism regarding the Jati. As already discussed, the varna system is not ironclad(unlike racism, where race can not be changed by religion), though several references that indicate approval of the Kshatriya status of Kurmis(from reliable sources) has been ignored. This acknowledgement is completely absent on the page, which is also against the 'generally recognized Shudra status' understanding too, & therefore disputed. Comparing with pages like Catholic Church or Protestantism, it can be said that there should be no such aversion to religious sources and these shouldn't be ignored by giving excuses like "ancient"/"mythological"/"unreliable"/etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC) The above from Thisthat2011 is completely irrelevant to this forum, as indeed it was irrelevant in several other places where s/he tried to gain attention. This is exactly the sort of peppering of multiple forums that has been going on. The article talk page and the content dispute procedures above that are the correct places for this contribution. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC) It is very relevant, considering that we are discussing notion of 'generally regarded as Shudra' here as disputed. When in Hinduism at many places Kurmis are regarded as Kshatriya explicitly. The notion of 'generally regarded as Shudra' does not hold true. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC) But that's a content issue. And you know where content issues get discussed, don't you? You certainly should, because you've been told often enough -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Let's not try to explain content issues here. The main issue here is the 3RR vio by Sitush, (which Boing! said Zebedee claims is not even an edit war and did not even warn Sitush about, while he should have been blocked. And Boing! said Zebedee not only warned me for one revert, but also reverted) and undue admin interference by Boing! said Zebedee in content related editorial matters.-MangoWong (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC) You're just mistaken, MangoWong. 3RR means no more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. The first revert occurred at 09:36 July 21 (UTC). The 24 hour mark from that first revert would have been at 09:36 July 22 (UTC), correct? Very simple. But the 4th revert didn't occur until 16:07 July 22 (UTC), almost 7 hours later than the 24 hour mark from the first revert. In other words, the 3RR limit was reached in that 24 hour period (and Sitush even acknowledged that in the edit summary of the 3rd revert), but was not breached. If you're asking for a block because the bright-line of 3RR was crossed, you either weren't aware that it had to be done in the same 24 hour period or simply misread the times that were logged with the edits. Either way you are mistaken. I don't see anything actionable, B!sZ made a good summation above as to what's going on, and I agree that all that needs to be addressed now is the dispute about content in the article, which isn't done here. -- Atama頭 20:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC) The 3RR is a non-issue. I found your comment on my talk page that reporting me here was a "morale boost" rather disturbing. Quite simply, aside from what BsZ has already said, the fourth revert was well over 24 hours after the first and I had already given warning on the article talk page that the changes being made were disruptive. You ignored that and umpteen other notices etc, which is why BsZ was right to jump in at your talk page and explain yet again. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I have to say, although I really do try to assume good faith, I really am starting to see what looks a lot like deliberate pushing at the boundaries, seeking to pressurise the people working on these articles, to trying to pounce on us for alleged procedural failures - while steadfastly refusing to discuss the actual desired content changes and provide reliable sources. If anyone has reliable sources, all they have to do is provide them and get a consensus and that will be sorted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Hi Atama. Thanks for your time and for clarifying my mistake to me. I agree that your interpretation of this being a non vio of 3RR is correct. I apologize to Sitush and Boing! said Zebedee for my misinterpretation of events/timestamps in this regard. However, I have one more important issue here. Do you think it is proper for Boing! said Zebedee to give no warning to Sitush while he performs three reverts within a 24 hour period. But places a warning on my talk page as soon as I make one revert (putting up a cn tag) and also makes me a revert warrior and also goes on to call me a "caste warrior" and what not, and expects me to provide sources for some abstract material which I have never desired to put up. He also claims that sourcing is unnecessary in the lead and infobox and has also reverted my edit even when it was explained in the edit summary and was only a (citation needed) tag. And is also now claiming on my talk page that I should discuss things before making edits. And has generally tried to poison the well against me without showing any wrongdoing on my part. Besides this mitake in reading timestamps, could he show how my edits are wrong (for the tirade which he has put up against me). He is also offering to support me if I discuss things first. Why should he participate in ed discussions? Why should I want his support in these discussions? Is he not behaving in an undue manner and taking an undue interest in content issues and is he not giving some appearance of showing partiality? I have also tried to explain some of the issues with him on the article talk page talk:Kurmi#Semi-protected. I would be grateful if you could take a look at that thread....I would ialso be grateful if you may keep a general eye on Hindu caste articles. I desperately feel they are in need of fresh eyes. Regards.-MangoWong (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I gave you the warning (which I was not an automatic templated one, and I didn't think it was unfriendly) after you'd made the same change *twice*. Have a look at WP:BRD. It's an essay, but it is meant to supplement policy, and explains pretty well the way to avoid edit warring. By all means make a Bold change (the B), but if someone Reverts it (the R), don't do it again, because that's the start of edit warring (and that's what I was warning about - I didn't want you to end up blocked for edit warring). Instead, you should do the D - Discuss. Whether a {{cn}} tag is or is not appropriate is a question for Talk page discussion, not for ANI, but you wouldn't take it there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC) A Question (ec) I'd like to ask for some feedback on one point, if I may. My contention is that my actions (in protecting Kurmi earlier after IPs once again made anti-consensus changes, in reverting the start of an edit war, etc) were procedural, and that acting as an admin to enforce a consensus decided by other people is not in violation of WP:INVOLVED - I wasn't acting to protect my preferred version, but the version hammered out (quite traumatically) by lengthy discussion and source-based consensus on the Talk page. I also contend that I have taken part in none of the actual content discussions, only in procedural discussions, and I have no idea myself what the classifications of the various castes should be. I'd appreciate your thoughts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Counting this [64], you have personally reverted my edits twice. However, you have self-reverted. And the first edit which you reverted was a citation tag. You say it is somehow unnecessary. Why? Why do you interfere in these matters? You have also put up a message regarding this edit on my talk page, claiming that I should discuss before removing sourced content. Why? I think it is not part of your admin functions.-MangoWong (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC) See above - trying to make the same edit twice, after being reverted once (not by me), is a procedural issue and it is perfectly proper for an admin to take action to head it off - but please note that I did not actually take any admin actions in response to it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I'll see if I can address both of you at once. For MangoWong, I wouldn't have warned Sitush either after that third edit, because Sitush made it obvious in the edit summary that he knew he was at 3RR. As to what B!sZ left on your user talk page, I don't see it as a warning at all. B!sZ reverted you and then left a note on your user talk page that you should discuss the matter on the article's talk page, which is exactly what people should do to avoid an edit war. It seemed to be more of an appeal than a warning. A warning typically cites a policy or guideline you're breaking, or cites what actions can be taken against you for taking a particular action. I see the note on your user talk page as just a request to bring the issue to the talk page to avoid an edit war and it was appropriate. Now, as to whether or not B!sZ became involved by acting in the role of an editor rather than an administrator... That's a bit of a grey area. I do believe that the intention wasn't to try to change the article to a preferred version. But at the same time, I don't see that it's an administrator's role to enforce consensus, at least not in that manner. WP:CONADMIN explains how administrators get involved in consensus disputes, and our role is to enforce policy (such as WP:BLP) and otherwise try to keep things from getting out of hand. But trying to maintain the content of an article to reflect a local consensus seems to me the role of an editor, not an administrator. Admins who choose to get involved in that way have to take off the admin hat, and I think that in this case, B!sZ did make himself involved (if inadvertently). Since that wasn't his intention, he self-reverted before further edits were made, and I think that is a gesture that clearly shows his intention to not be involved. Any further administrator actions should be appropriate as long as he continues to maintain neutrality in regards to article content. Anyway, those are just observations from an outside admin, anyone can feel free to disagree with me. -- Atama頭 22:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks, appreciate your thoughts. Any further thoughts regarding my semi-protection of the article to prevent IPs (who are probably blocked editors) repeating the same anti-consensus edits that have been going on for months? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC) (That had nothing to do with the MangoWong edits, btw - it happened earlier -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)) Any advice about how to "deal with" (poor phrasing) tendentious commenting on the talk page would also be appreciated, especially since it often also gets moved onto other pages. - Sitush (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks Atama for looking up my complaint and for your excellent and patient explanations. I certainly think that it should help in improving the situation. I again apologize to Boing! said Zebedee if I have been intemperate or rash or hurt his/her feelings in any way. Regards.-MangoWong (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, no worries about feelings, I've been in this kind of business long enough to be immune to such considerations. But I'm happy to apologise for going a step too far with the reversions - I should not have done that last one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC) 1) Semi-protection or other admin actions seem okay as long as you maintain that you're only acting as an administrator at the article. My advice though, and this is just personal advice (and may not even be good advice) would be that if too many people are uncomfortable with your acting as an administrator that you step back and ask someone else to do it. On the other hand, sometimes editors use WP:INVOLVED like a bludgeon to drive off a disagreeable admin, or play games (like insulting an admin then claiming any further actions are retaliation for the insult). I don't see anything like that happening here (MangoWong's questions about the matter are reasonable) but it can and does happen (I see it too often on ANI actually) so it can be a fine line between trying to be civil and fair, and giving in to an aggressive editor. I do think it's a good thing for an admin to keep an eye on things at that article while the dispute is ongoing, to keep the peace, and you have an interest in doing it, so I'd encourage you to continue. 2) Tendentious comments can be a trial because when people play WP:IDONTHEARTHAT or refuse to drop the stick nothing can get done. So just try to compromise, be patient and civil, and if you just can't get anywhere try various tools shown at WP:DR. Content disputes can drag on for months if people are completely opposed to one another and there is no real black-and-white answer. I wish I had a magic trick that would solve everything but I don't think such a thing exists (if it did then maybe I could get back into mediation again without having to give up hours of my schedule). 3) MangoWong, you're very welcome and I hope that you and everyone else at the article can find a peaceful solution to the conflict. -- Atama頭 22:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I appreciate those thoughts too. On this and other related articles, over the past few months there have been a lot of people making apparently coordinated attacks on everyone involved and trying to turn them into caste-glorification articles, with a lot of socks and meats, a good few of whom are now blocked (though I'm certainly not accusing MangoWong of being one of them). That's the only reason I became involved, to try to protect the editors working there from abuse. It's hard to steer a clear path between doing that, and leaving myself open to "involved" accusations, especially as very few admins want to work with these article disputes. Anyway, your advice will help me, so thanks again -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, indeed, thank you. One final query if I may, Atama. You refer above to situations where there is no black-and-white answer. What about when there is a B&W answer (as in, no sources being found for the other POV or sources being found for it but which are not reliable etc) ? This is at the heart of some recent tendentiousness. Should such a situation be taken to DR and, if so, how does one judge when to do it? - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Is there anyone who has had a dispute with you and you have not described them as "tendentious"/"troll" etc. about a dozen and a score times. Why do you imagine you yourself are free from these characteristics?-MangoWong (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC) For me, "black and white" is a situation where we have a clear policy that is being violated and the policy needs to be enforced. WP:V is a policy but enforcing it isn't easy, neither is WP:UNDUE. In the most extreme cases, a person who insists on including unverifiable information can be accused of violating WP:OR, and a person who habitually does so can be blocked. But usually it's a case where people disagree on whether or not sources are reliable, in which case they can ask for help at WP:RSN or just try to find some way to agree. WP:POVN is another place where you might be able to ask for help. In the absolute worst cases, where multiple people disagree, an RFC can't come to a conclusion, and mediation is tried and fails, you could end up at ArbCom. And that's never good. ArbCom doesn't help people make content decisions, ArbCom for the most part hands out bans and blocks, or discretionary sanctions, and some people aren't going to be happy. At times it's necessary but try as best you can to avoid going that far. Tendentiousness on Wikipedia has a particular definition, and there are signs when an editor is being tendentious. If someone is following that pattern of behavior, they should be encouraged to change, otherwise they may face sanctions if they continue. If they aren't following that pattern, it's best to avoid using that terminology. -- Atama頭 23:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks. I had read WP:TE and am not the only person to have pointed it out to this particular group of contributors. The NPOVN report is what caused the artiel to become fully protected for a week and, frankly, it has achieved nothing. I do realise that a week is not a long time but during it all that happened was mostly repetitive, irrelevant argument for a completely unsustainable POV (at least, unsustainable in the Wikipedia context). Almost as soon as the protection came off, IPs jumped in to make non-consensual edits, and then some registered users did the same. Then we ended up here. I will have a think about how to take this forward. Your comments are much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC) At the risk of sounding self-righteous, those of us involved in caste cleanup are seeing about 95% completely WP-inappropriate editing opposing us, and about 5% opposition which is both evidently well-meaning and following WP procedure. Setting aside specifics of individual content disputes, I tend to feel like I'm working hard to give a full story and I'm against human waves of (generally inexperienced and unwilling to learn) editors who are hellbent-for-leather to erase anything "negative" from an article, particularly the term Shudra. In the entire six months or so I've been covering that specific angle, at not a single point has an ANI, POV, or WPINDIA consensus come back to say "stop doing what you're doing" or even "modify what you're doing". Instead all we've gotten is neutral admins saying "keep up the good work." Behaviour-wise, we've had a few "don't get tetchy" or "don't fall into a revert war", but nobody outside the argument has ever told us "stop writing Shudra, stop questioning Kshatriya claims." Imagine that happening for 20 articles in a row, and every single time seeing the exact same arguments, ad hominem "you don't understand India!!!", veiled legal threats, and every single time an abject refusal to actually deal with sources that actually say Shudra. I'm not being cute here, it's pretty much the exact same argument in each article, but with different people. At this point, either I and Sitush and the others are due for a massive admin action to target out blatant malfeasance all over India topics... or we're actually doing the right thing in the face of all kinds of emotional opposition. Again, I haven't seen a single editor who didn't appear to be emotionally involved take issue with these trends in caste article cleanups, so as far as I'm concerned we're on the right track. That's exactly why I'm glad whenever an ANI comes up, because aside from extremely small procedural slips from time to time, we are genuinely working hard to ensure caste articles are not used for caste glorification, or to whitewash the not-so-pretty side of history. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I think MatthewVanitas has summed up the whole situation very well there. If we were to believe every unsourced or poorly sourced claim that castes are not Shudra but Kshatriya, we'd have to end up concluding that everyone in India was a warrior or a king, and there was nobody doing all the ordinary jobs. I have no idea which castes were what, and what proportion of castes are Shudra, but the logical conclusion of the totality of the claims the editors here are facing is clearly ludicrous -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I hate to say it, but that's generally what ArbCom is meant to fix. If consistently disruptive behavior comes from multiple people at articles that are related to a particular subject, ArbCom can hand down a discretionary sanction that says that anyone who repeats that behavior at those articles can be blocked by administrators if they persist after warnings. WP:AE is set up to assist with such enforcement. It's a long road to get there though, as I said they generally won't accept a case unless (1) all other options are exhausted (see WP:DR for a list of other options), (2) there is sufficient disruption that a remedy needs to be brought, and (3) they feel that they actually can do something to help. If all 3 of those prerequisites aren't met, it's unlikely that ArbCom will accept the case. -- Atama頭 00:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I also find it a bit worrying that two eds who may not have familiarity with a particularly sensitive topic in some far off place should get to have an overbearing influence on a whole range of articles related to that subject. This is particularly worrying where nobody seems to know what s***** means or why it is inhuman and have no clue why or how this is a sensitive topic. NPOV is OK with me, but I do not think it should be allowed to become a cover for asserting inhuman descriptions to what are humans.-MangoWong (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC) And there ^ is the unsustainable POV again. Wikipedia is not censored. The present group have been informed of that (with the link), had it explained to them etc on umpteen occasions. It does not matter what the law of India says and it does not matter if the term offends particular individuals. It was and remains a widely used term and until recently was even so in India itself. The present deprecation of the term is made clear in the article, although it is noted on the talk page that in fact the Indian government seems still to use the term itself even though apparently it is banned. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I also find it a bit worrying that two eds who may not have familiarity with a particularly sensitive topic in some far off place should get to have an overbearing influence on a whole range of articles related to that subject. Counterpoint: two eds who have no emotional investment in this particularly sensitive topic. As noted above, it is significant that nobody with a self-declared detachment from the topic is on the anti-us "side". I hate to use the term "side", but that is unfortunately kind of what it's been the last few months. One of us gets to an article, sees a bunch of inflated claims to being "kings and warriors" and descent from Hindu gods, we do five minutes of gBook searches of actua academics, and lo and behold its a caste of bricklayers or oil pressers or chartered accountants or what have you. We find sources that say "claim to be Kshatriya warriors descended from God XYZ", so we duly note that legend/belief, add details on how the Fooian caste was registered in British censuses as Shudra and by the modern Indian government as "Backwards", and then out of the woodwork come literally dozens of new-regs, SPAs, IPs, and to be fair a handful of more experienced editors, and we're simply bombarded with endless posts of "YOU ARE WRONG THEY ARE WARRIORS NOT SHUDRA!!!! CORRECT YOUR GRIEVOUS ERROR OR I WILL CONTACT THE FOOIAN DEFENSE SOCIETY FOR LEGAL ACTION!!!" We ask for cites, we provide more of our own cites, we suggest POV/ANI/DR to every person who accuses us of horribly bias and malfeasance, we refer people to WP:INDIA, we link them to gBooks and WP:N and WP:V and every other applicable policy, but the arguments just go on, and on, and on, and on. Not every single caste article, but I bet I can't go more than a few days of caste-cleanup without inadvertently hitting a "land mine" of dissent. There have been a very few cases of running across concientious editors who grasp that they can't exclude things and that it's in everyone's best interest just to be straight-up (see the recent history of Reddy), but that is by far in the minority. I used to be able to get a lot of work done on all kinds of topics, but now the vast majority of my WP-time is in circular arguments about caste and getting accused of everything from being a Brahmin to a Muslim to a racist to (literally) a paid editor working to defame and libel the Fooian caste or what have you. So you understand why I've been a little sensitive about it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC) It makes no logic IMO whether or not it is sustainable/unsustainable. And like everything else, IMO "WP is not censored" too has its limits. We won't go about writing that people of X state in Ajekika are vermin, jiljsi people are vermin, sauggfu people are vermin. Would we? It is also interesting that you acknowledge that you do your "research" (not your word) on GBooks. And my concerns about two eds overbearing influence on a whole topic stand.-MangoWong (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC) If your position runs contrary to Wikipedia policies/guidelines and you cannot cause a change in those then your position on the POV is unsustainable here. I doubt that many university press publications etc say that "Ajekika are vermin", but there are plenty of reliable sources such as those which say that Kurmi are or were Shudra. It is/was a ritual "rank" in Hinduism: that is a fact and although I am not aware of any censorship limits to WP articles, this issue certainly would not fall into any such exceptions because the term is being used in an appropriate place and with an appropriate note for balance. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC) My concerns would cover a lot of articles besides Kurmi. But presently the India noticeboard has been declared out of bounds for any discussion. I do not see a better place than that to go about holding the discussion on this issue in a centralized way. I did not say that there is a source to say "Ajekika are vermin". I would have thought that it was clear that is was only a hypothetical example. Whether my position is in keeping or contrary to WP policy is not for you alone to determine. As Atama has been indicating, we may have a long way to go if we take an uncompromising stance. There certainly are proper and improper ways to apply the censorship policy. It is not a license to say obscene things. Is it? It should not also become a license to say obscene things about the "other". Should it? And how do you know that this word falls under the category of obscene/non obscene when you would not seem to have grasped its meaning? And I still find it interesting that you do not say anything when I note that you do your "research" on Gbooks. And my concern that two eds should be allowed to exercise an overbearing influence on a whole topic also remains.-MangoWong (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I am aware that your concerns extend well beyond Kurmi and indeed cover a swathe of India-related content, not even just caste/community articles. I was also aware that your vermin comment was hypothetical. Turning to your main point, I am afraid that you still seem not to be understanding. Wikipedia does indeed contain a lot of subject matter that various groups would consider to be obscene. There are articles on religion, on sex, on genocide etc which often give rise to some people wishing that the project was indeed censored. But it is not, or at least not in the way that you wish it to be. If something satisfies the standard requirements of WP:V, WP:RS etc and is not WP:FRINGE then it is valid content. One of the great things about having absolutely no connection to India is that I can see the wood for the trees and sometimes I feel that there is a massive COI issue here and perhaps some people would gain from doing a little work in an area from which they are equally detached: much can be learned from doing so. - Sitush (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC) My concerns could take me to any article which I could expect myself to understand and improve. I do know that we have numerous articles which say obscene things. But still. There are encyclopedic needs which may have validity. But beyond the point of encyclopedic needs, when something begins to become license for malicious material, we have to put the foot down. Whether my/your point be correct or not cannot be determined here. There are other policies too besides the ones you name, which have a crucial bearing on deciding article content. Whether what you want to do / are doing would be in keeping with these policies may also be debatable. I know why you bring up COI. I have known for some time that you want folks from my demographic pattern only to be prevented from editing articles related to them. Get that policy in place first. And I certainly would not go about editing articles about things like Haiku or calligraphy unless I knew something about them. Even if I did, I would not start dominating "History of Madagascar" on the basis of my Gbooks research. Maybe I could see through the spelling or check the references (to some extent) etc. But beyond that is not wise.-MangoWong (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Please retract your comment about me wanting to prevent people from your demographic ... etc. Or show me the diff. It is another gross slur from you. - Sitush (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Sitush has not said that Indians should not edit India articles; I said that people who cannot edit a topic close to them but are overall well-intentioned, like some editors we've encountered in these caste articles, should be required to edit topics emotionally unconnected to them until they learn neutrality. I also said that it would be a very positive development if more non-Indians (like myself and Sitush) would work on India articles so that the "Fooian caste" article would not be 90% Fooians, 7% their enemy Gooians, and a few bewildered foreigners like me attempting to apply WP policies to the chaos. You fixate on gBooks: what of it? That's a place to find a lot of books in a searchable format. How on Earth does using gBooks negatively impact my credibility? Should I instead be pulling 19th century Gujarati history off the top of my head? You say There are other policies too besides the ones you name, which have a crucial bearing on deciding article content; well, let's not be coy, explain to us which policies say "even if the Kurmi were Shudra, you shouldn't say it because it's not a nice word." I'd further argue that any visceral distaste for the term that you and others evince appears to be a somewhat modern trait, perhaps a result of the Indian government/society's stringent efforts to erase caste awareness in hopes of smoothing over long-standing grudges? I have had other editors literally tell me that I can't say X or Y about a caste (despite copious footnotes) because riots are caused over lesser arguments. I say, if people can't discuss history without getting folks killed, that means they need to learn more history, not less. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC) How did this degenerate into discussion on behavior of the page when I was explicitly told "But that's a content issue.". Who is playing smart here? Please focus on the topic and don't run off to unrelated propaganda. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC) TT, once again: ANI is about behaviour, articles Talk pages are for content, WP:INDIA is for either calling attention (in a neutral way) to ongoing discussions on articles, or for discussing overarching issues bigger than individual editors (ANI for that) or individual articles (at their own pages). For anyone unfamiliar with TT's discussion habits, see Talk:Kurmi. His are the sort of endless circular arguments which have been taking up vast amounts of our time, and we dare not simply drop out of the arguments since he'll lambast us for not replying to him (even if it's the same issue we've already answered him on 5 times and already addressed 20 times earlier on the page). I'm confident that a neutral editor reading Talk:Kurmi would agree that "tendentious" may well apply to his behaviour there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Your comments are in direct contrast to what User:Sitush("The article talk page and the content dispute procedures above that are the correct places for this contribution") & Boing! said Zebedee("But that's a content issue") mentioned. You can't have different standards at different places. Anyways, I mentioned already that I had presented reliable sources regarding recognition of Hindu Kshatriya status to Kurmis in many regions and at different times, which was ignored completely. These content from reliable sources are ignored repeatedly. If ANI is about behavior, it is also not about lambasting others after rhetoric and assumptions of behavior by 'neutral editors'. I can put a dozen assumptions, too which I thankfully don't. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (od)(1)Zeedee was wrong about 3R as pointed out by two editors above (2)Zeedee by his own admission was actively editing and then using admin tools in an article which should not be done, he should not use admin tools in an article he is involved. (3)Zeedee is wrong about citations in the lead, Manual of Style (lead section) The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." (4)He uses words like caste warriors, which are highly racist.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC) sub-section Yogesh Khandke named party's statement::(1)Sitush: above dropped an intimation on my talk page that brought me here. (2)Sitush has called me a tendentious editor above, (linked diffs involving me), which cuts both ways. (3)(a)Actually he hounded me and reached Sudheendra Kulkarni, by his own admission, he played tag, and got along a friend of his along. (b)On Kurmi he thinks that he has taken a copyright on facts, and he puts his head in the sand, which is a pity (c)The GangaxGanges dispute is going to be a classic long running play, I think, the wp:Article titles bit was just a small act. What about that Sitush?? Isn't bringing that up puerile? (3)Earlier he brought a sock investigation against me, just because we had a content dispute. (4)Admins: let us not discuss content, look at behaviour. Though because hanging a sock requires a machine, I came out of it unscathed, I am not so sure with humans, as Sitush rightly pointed out, user:Zuggernaut, was put in the freezer, when his RfC, bomeranged. (6)I wanted to discuss Sitush's behaviour on the India notice board, as a third party input before dispute resolution, but wasn't allowed to. I will provide diffs of each sentence, if anybody wishes. The problem is bigger than Sitush, he actually is much more benign than the other guys. (7)Today's a busy day for me and can't hang on. I just hope no action is taken without all parties given a decent hearing. (8)I had suggested a non-controversial way of dealing with caste see my Kurmi sandbox (9)Another thing mentioned above is that 3RR is ok if it is predeclared this came from an admin, is that a policy?? (10)On the Gandhi move argument someone just said that Indian editing is a plague hit on Wikipedia, what are you doing about that?? Or am I wasting my time here, just like someone said on the Gandhi page or in the context "Gandhi fight for justice was great becuuse he had to content with British police, British judges, British jury and British government" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I am the other member of the alleged team. I invite everyone to read Talk:Sudheendra Kulkarni#Overlinking for one of the most ridiculous conversations in which I have participated ever. If there is anything remiss in my behavior, please, please trout me, or do whatever seems appropriate. LadyofShalott 05:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I am sorry LadyofShalott, I have nothing against you, nor do I have an axe to grind against Sitush, see this short thing on Sudheendra Kulkarni, comes across as ridiculous to you, perhaps because you know that there would be no confusion regarding Indian and Indian, why dont you folks follow the same logic with the Kurmi page, well we can have ghits and books and other things but that makes one only as good as a blind man of Indostan, no one above says "sacrifice Wikipedia principles", but why do you assume plague, caste warriors, pov warriors, hindu nationalist vandals and the like?? Sitush/ and I had said the same thing to Zeedee, MangoWango is right with the Madagascar example, Sitush that prevents one from making mistakes like Other Backward Caste on Kurmi page, or implicating Kulkarni on his page. You were careless about a BLP, which is a display of incompetent editing.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Words like plague, caste warriors, pov warriors, hindu nationalist vandals are indeed reflected as uncivilized expression, regardless of who it is directed at. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I hope no one minds my dropping by. Just a friendly hello and a few observations. I am the one who is being quoted above about Gandhi. I do see a pattern when dealing with India related articles. India is a nation with more than 5000 years of history. It's highly complex and to understand it deep knowledge of topics is required. Just as I won't go on editing topics on rocket science, anyone who writes on this topics does need an understanding of issues at hand. I am sure that everyone involved here is trying to help wiki. There are some limitations due to knowledge and if someone more knowledgeable than us is speaking on topics then it's good to listen with open mind. I am very sad to see Gandhi termed as Racist due to his so called caste related ideas'. What can be far from truth. Gandhi was not assassinated by Godsey, I am seeing it happen now. The same is happening here. People are termed 'caste warriors' and what not. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Frankly, a lot of this "foreigners don't understand India so shouldn't write about it" is pure red herring in my opinion. When I've written extensively on rather complicated but not unpalatable Indian topics, even caste issues like dress/cuisine/political-history, nobody bats an eye at the quality of my research. But yet when I have explicit academic references saying "Among the Shudra castes of this region are the Fooians", and a dozen other refs with similar or even more explicit statements, and I add and cite it, all of a sudden come the protests and "you don't understand India." Notice nobody objects to any "positive" material I add; never posts saying "Whoa, you called the Fooian caste major landowners who were very influential in Raj politics; you don't understand India!" Not that understanding India isn't important, but I think I'm doing a pretty solid job of summarising reliable secondary sources, and any slip-ups we make can of course be corrected by folks who notice a discrepancy ("hey, you wrote that the Fooians are vegetarian, but note [cite] that they also eat fish"). However, the massive POV issues which cause any "negative" content to be met with rage are far more troubling than a few non-Indian editors being slavish to gBooks resources because they're not long-term India hands. So far as "rocket science": this isn't rocket science. Indian cultural history bear a resemblance to cultural history anywhere, and it's not like it's so complex that very basic historical statements can't be made from secondary sources. We've also been hearing the last few weeks accusations that we "don't understand what Shudra means", despite the fact that I'm actually doing cleanup on the Varna (Hinduism) and similar articles. And some of the editors here like to hammer the cuteness, so when we don't respond to that we get reams of "OMG!!! Did you see how he's tongue-tied when I said he doesn't even know what Shudra even means!?!?!" If by "don't know what it means" you mean "don't have a personal squeamishness about a historical term that prevents one from looking at it academically", sure feel free to call it that. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Considering how "foreigners don't understand India so shouldn't write about it" could be a red harring, one should also consider assumptions like "more neutral than Indians", and "Indians should rather edit something else" the same. As far as I can see, on the topic Kurmi there is an emphasis on how Kurmis have went about for Kshatriya status, more than how Kurmis are considered Kshatriya etc., regardless of reliable sources. As far as "Indian cultural history bear a resemblance to cultural history anywhere", kindly let us know what other places(& all other places) that show a marked resemblance in history like the Indian history? That you don't know something and therefore later learn it might as well is no excuse to keep on editing pages and then learn by mistake/debate/RFC/ANI etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Dear Fellow Contributor, A lot what we know today about ancient India is due to great travellers such as Fa Hien, who were foreigners. I have no qualms about anyone. Great historians from different times have written freely about India. India as we know today is due to everyone who came there and mixed in that melting pot. These historians wrote from what they saw and based on their knowledge. Just because pediatrics and gynecology both deal with human body it doesn't mean one can be substituted for the other. I just checked your contributions and I am happy to see your contributions across hundreds of topics. I am slightly concerned as these topics are on so many unrelated fields. I welcome you to visit India. I am sure you may already have. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I say, if people can't discuss history without getting folks killed, that means they need to learn more history, not less. MatthewVanitas, if you want to perform experiments like these to find out whether what you say is correct or not, I would suggest that it is preferable that you invent your own human beings and do your experiments on them only. As for the limitations of GBooks, I think this is not the place to discuss it.-MangoWong (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC) No MV what was manifest on the Kurmi talk page, and later when my castexclass edit was reverted was sheer lack of competence.[65] The repeated reversions appear before the diff. And he had a friendly admin. Ugh.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Please do not accuse someone of incompetence without checking around first. For example, I know that caste/class are interchangeable words in the context which you refer to. The govt of India use both, the articles at WP use both. I did say on the talk page that if you really, really wanted one word rather than the other than that was fine by me. It didn't mean that I was going to change it myself. You are making another false accusation about my contributions, just as you have done above with regards to my contributions on the Sudheendra Kulkarni article. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC) All talk and no diffs makes Jack a hot air balloon.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC) The diff you requested. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I can't see any false accusations there.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC) No, but you never can, can you? Even when it stares you in the face, you find some absolutely ridiculous way to twist things. In recent days you have argued untenable points with BsZ about trivial stuff, with Salvio, with LadyofShallot, with me, MatthewVanitas and umpteen others. But you are never wrong, are you? You "win" (as you seem to see it) because you wear good contributors down. That is not what this place is supposed to be about. - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC) You win Sitush. If that makes you feel better. Also [[66]]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC) And I see that a sock/meat has been called into action again. Honestly, I need to find a way to get a hold on all of this disruptive activity, and I will sooner or later. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC) And I see that a sock/meat has been called into action again. Sitush, I agree that you seriously need to find some way to get your conspiracy theories out of your head. I have located the coordinators of these persistent attacks. If we keep inserting oceans of distasteful lies (please see my edit summaries in the diffs and see what its about)[67] and absurdities[68] and outrageously sick baseless falsities [69] in our articles, we are the ones who are coordinating those attacks. We have given a big mass of people good reason to take exception to what we say in our articles. We tell lies and people object. And we also have a strong resistance to attempts to take our lies. (Please see the other edits around the diffs). So, why should these attacks not continue? So, who else is coordinating these attacks?-MangoWong (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC) The strong resistance to attempts to take down lies[70] still continues [71], even after this piece has been identified as a lie. The article has now been protected by Boing! said Zebedee.[72] And I have a thread on my talk page titled "Edit warring notice". I don't see why I should get such a section heading for performing one revert and for trying to tag a line which is a lie IMO. Is it wrong to try to take down what look like blatant lies, even when they are unsourced?-MangoWong (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Dear Sitush, I do sympathize with you. Let me check what this link means. I will get back on this in a few minutes or may be more. The text is in someother language that I don't understand. Let's see what google translate comes up with. Hang on tight soldier. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC) OK. Google isn't of much help. It detects it as something else, but I do get the point raised there. I would have to give some points to the cleverness of that person whose post you pointed above. To test your knowledge about that topic, the person wrote something in Malyalam. You have no idea what those lines mean. But it does bring the same thought that these editors have been trying to communicate. Knowledge of a topic is important. Being neutral is what we must strive for, but it does require an understanding of the topic. I can see the same concers are being raised over and over again. I do hope that you do keep on contributing and try to be more accomodative. As Atama pointed out earlier admin MUST not get into content dispute. If that's what you wanted to point out earlier about the admins involved in this. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) "Cleverness"? You think it's cute that IPs insult people in a language that don't know, and sagely opine that it highlights the supposedly vital point that we are not Indian? If anything, the example you cite shows that the people who "know about the subject" are often more interested in lambasting and arguing than making actual WP-relevant points. Again, I submit that any disadvantage arising from our non-Indianness is, per the vast evidence from many Talk pages, far outweighed by our neutrality on issues which evidently push many contributors into the realm of emotion vice fact. We have given a big mass of people good reason to take exception to what we say in our articles - I don't care if 10,000 Indian IPs come in and object; if they don't bring in sources to support A, and can't contradict B, than B stays in. Being Indian gives them no intrinsic authority on the subject. For example, if there were a controversial and heavily-cited paragraph in Vietnam War and tons of self-declared American editors insisted on removing comments which reflected negatively on American's participation, would you say "oh, they must know more about American history, I must be wrong" or would you say "they are clearly refusing to face uncomfortable historical facts and thus are resorting to edit warring and ad hominem atacks" ? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC) If that paragraph had a potential to cause harm, I would object to that paragraph. And I have also provided some diffs in my above comment. I have no reason to think that the material in those articles is properly referenced.-MangoWong (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC) MangoWong is right in his comments. Guys here are trying to grope an elephant, and making a poor pie out of it. That is the consensus. Across a wide spectrum. Remarkable. Lack of competence. The C word. Ad hominem - Caste warriors, Hindu nationalists, pov warriors, plague, don't listen to them?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC) I am sorry for the late response; as the talk page was huge, it took me hours to go through. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Dear MatthewVanitas, I hear you. If by being neutral you mean fair and nonpartisan, then it's OK. It shouldn't be an excuse for ignorance or prejudice. I agree that what stays in wiki should be based on facts.It seems that you and Sitush have got fixated over the term Shudra. I saw the discussion over 'OBC' and 'they are considered Shudra' - OBC is category created by the GOI( Government of India). There is another category Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(SC/ST). The castes that were so called 'Shudra' are part of SC/ST category. For the list of castes that fall under the SC/ST category, check the GOI site - www.censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/SC%20Lists.pdf . I don't see Kurmis there. Yes, there is no denial that Casteism existed in India, and still there is caste based politics, but in our zeal to show this ugly face, we must not wrongly categorize castes. This wrong categorization can be the reason you may be facing thousands of people who are opposing you. The castes that fall under OBC list are not Shudra. OBC list is based on certain economic factors, but none being the historic Shudra categorization. I would advice you not to insist on the term Shudra, and to change it to SC/ST. That would be more appropriate. GOI has reservations for SC/ST category, and it has various other programs to uplift SC/ST. Let me know if you want to know more about what India is doing for the SC/ST. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Disclaimer - I personally have no interest to call anyone Shudra. The term was used to show the difference between SC/ST and OBC. This is exactly the kind of logic that Sitush and MatthewVanitas have been working hard against. There are multiple, reliable, good quality sources indicating that Kurmi were classified as Shudra. Furthermore, your analysis that since Kurmi don't appear on one GOI list of SC/ST necessarily means they have never been classified as Shudra is your analysis (which Wikipedia calls original research). Kurmi, by the way, is one of the most balanced I've seen so far--it not only states that they're historically/academically classified as Shudra, but also what the GOI classifies them as, and adds in their own claims of Kshatriya status. What GOI says is not the be all and end all of anything. For example, if the US government tomorrow decided that all native Americans, regardless of tribe, should be called "Aboriginal Americans", that would not cause us (Wikipedia) to suddenly change all of our articles to that term and erase everything that's been said by thousands of reliable sources using other names. I've been lightly involved in a number of these articles, and so far have held off saying anything here because Sitush and MV have been saying it so well...but this is, in fact the problem. I want to add, though, that this is not any sort of criticism of you (Nameisnotimportant)--this is to point out that on many of these articles, people simply don't understand how Wikipedia decides what information to include, what is important, what verification means....And that wouldn't even be a problem, because educating new users is an important part of what all of us "experienced" editors do. The problem is really twofold: a number of editors, despite receiving this instruction, essentially stay in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory and continuing making unsourced assertions; the other problem is that it seems like every few days, another "new" editor comes by with the same concerns, same arguments, etc., and its very hard to change things, especially when the number of people trying to enforce WP:NPOV and WP:V is so low. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Explain the term 'historically' and 'experienced'? Let's not get into what American Govt does, we will deal with it when that happens. From your long talk I hardly find thing that adds any value. GOI list includes any caste that was SC/ST. If you don't understand that, then it will help you to do some search on this. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC) And if you don't understand why your point about GOI isn't relevant, then please read/re-read WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, which are our core policies which all articles must follow--not just what one government says or how one editor/group of editors interprets a specific government source. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC) I don't get this, here you are talking about WP:OR and WP:V as our core policies. I think according to WP:V, any claim which is challanged should have an inline citation. I understand that this applies to the whole article. But on the Kurmi talk page, you are trying to explain to me why the cn tag was unnecessary in the infobox. Isn't there some contradiction in the concerns which you show here and what you say there?Talk:Kurmi#Fully protected. I have been describing the infobox material as false for quite some time now. And you don't think it even needs a cn tag, let alone a ref. You say that a ref can be provided to satisfy me, as if I am a stubborn kid adamant on some silly thing. Should it not need a cite after I challanged it and called it false. What is the problem if I put up a cite tag? Why should it be taken down and why would you defend the taking down of cite tag? I think according to WP:V, it should have had a cite tag and what you are saying is against WP:V. If your understanding of WP:V be poor, how could you explain things to newbies?-MangoWong (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)And looking at some of your previous comments at talk:Kurmi, I too had the impression that you say you say some quite stupefying and irrelevant things.-MangoWong (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC) MangoWong, it has been explained to you, explicity, multiple times that info need not be redundantly cited, and indeed its generally preferable not to use footnotes in the lede and infobox provided the exact statements made are covered and properly referenced in the body of the article. If the Fooian caste has 45,000 people, we don't need to put the same footnote everywhere "45,000" is mentioned; we would footnote it under "Demographics" where we go into more detail as to which census, any caveats, etc. But in the lede and infobox we wouldn't have to redundantly cite it. How many times have you been told this exact thing? This is, again, why the word "tendentious" has appeared. How can it not be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for us to have "C is true [footnote]" and then you go on and on that the same page has "C is true" without a footnote? This is about as bad as the (many) other editors who post "WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE???" on the Talk page despite having four footnotes appended to the very sentence they question. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC) "MangoWong, it has been explained to you, explicity, multiple times that info need not be redundantly cited, and indeed its generally preferable not to use footnotes in the lede and infobox provided the exact statements made are covered and properly referenced in the body of the article." I fail to hear it because I fail to find the policy which says that. I interpret WP:V to mean that anything which is challanged or likely to be challanged needs a cite. Show me the policy which would say that info in the lead and infobox need no cite even when challanged, and you can easily have me hear it. Until then....And just having four footnotes appended to a sentence does not mean it can't be challanged. If all the footnotes are bad, the challange is valid and the sentence may need a reconsideration, despite fourteen footnotes.-MangoWong (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, but you don't challenge that by adding a "citation needed" template next to citations (like you did earlier today), as that doesn't even make sense. Instead, you discuss those specific citations on the talk page, and, if necessary, take them to the reliable sources noticeboard to determine what to do. Regarding the lead/infobox/body problem, how can you say "This statement is challenged" if it is accurately and well supported by reliable sources, just located at a different place in the article? However, because this is contentious, I think we've (almost) come to an agreement at the article talk page to duplicate the sources wherever they are needed; Sitush has kindly provided 15 sources with quotations, at least some of which are clearly good, meet WP:RS, and verify what the article states; let's discuss on the talk page which we will choose. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Your first point, MW, is wikilawyering, and you know it. It is utterly specious argument. If the stuff is cited in a relevant section then it does not need citing in another section or in the infobox. Forget policy: it is plain common sense. Your second point is valid but is why consensus kicks in. _ Sitush (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I think a cn tag is a good way of signifying a challange and I believe it is against established norms of WP to take down cite tags without providing proper citations or reaching an agreement on talk. Its not my fault. And what would be the great problem if it remained? There are some benefits actually and I had explained them on the talk page. Why did you have to make it an issue at all? Only to prevent others from getting a toe in? If challanged, everything needs a cite. That's the policy. Saying anything against this is against WP:V, one of WP's core policies. It is nice that we have quotes on the talk page now. And acting in good faith according to policy is not wikilawyering. Quit the accusationavalanche and ad hominems. It was a valid request. And we don't forget policy. Common sense is good, but if I had been convinced that the material was accurate. You don't see me going into articles and putting up 50 tags among 25 sentences. Do you? I would just take down bad looking material, easily if it is OR, with some logical looking explanation if the ref looks bad.-MangoWong (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) No, if something is cited in the main text, and you disagree with that citation, you challenge it there and on the talk page. You don't sprinkle cn tags in other parts of the article. This is simply standard Wikipedia practice. LadyofShalott 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Misbehavior in a dark part of WP I think I should explain what I see as the problem. The area is very dark. Yesterday, I was trying to put back the tags on the statement which I consider to be a lie. [73] [74] [75] And I get two warnings. [76]. Unfairly IMO. All my attempts to put up the tags have been reverted. [77][78][79][80]. The strong resistence to having anyone else except a particular group of eds edit the article continues. I would not mind my edits being reverted if there be some mistake or some good reason for a revert. But I could see nogood reasons only. What is the difficulty if a cn tag would stay. People seem to be misinterpreting policy, telling me repeatedly that lead need not have cites, infobox need not have cites…. How could they misinterpret wp:V Even when they seem to be well aware of most WP policies. Sitush suddenly started claiming that I had agreed to something on baseless grounds, even when I did not. [81] And even launched a tirade on me for disagreeing with what I did not agree in the first place [82] calling me vexatious, and what not, for no reason at all. All I am trying to do is take down some misleading info. But….people capable of sophisticated levels of thinking are saying and doing illogical things. I couldn’t help getting the feeling that people want to “contain” me and “other”s. [83][84] I feel that the atmosphere around the caste articles is not conducive to editing by “other”s. All this happened while this ANI is on. When it cloeses…. The situation is sure to deteriorate rapidly Either some fresh hands are going to take charge there… or the situation will continue… to remain dark. Some folks just can’t seem to talk to me without mentioning “Block” and “boomerang” (intimidation tactics?) or without giving a warning (attempts to discredit and demoralize?) veiled or otherwise. Here is another example of a warning avalanche, much of it undue IMO[85]. The expected or possible results of warningavalance are explained in the lower parts of this thread. The need for fresh hands becomes even more apparent that these goings on are even penetrating the blogosphere. I would not have introduced this here but Boing! Said Zebedee has been telling me that it has already been here. I don’t know whether this is important or not.-MangoWong (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Link to the blog post containing a personal attack removed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) MW, you insist on passive-aggressive measures like {cn}ing "Shudra" in the infobox when the statement is clearly referenced in the lede, and to humour you I pointlessly duplicated that footnote to the infobox. I do note as well that the word "Kshatriya", also in the infobox, is unfootnoted but you don't mind that since your "side" keeps pushing and pushing that term and working for the elimination of the term "Shudra". This is not, as TT2011 keeps implying, a case of "two sides behaving equally badly", this is a case of one "side" attempting to show all angles of an argument, and the other "side" endlessly repeating points, wikilawyering, tying up huge swaths of multiple Talk pages, and for what? Literally the only thing I'm seeing you and company do on caste pages is fight to remove anything "negative" while championing legend-based Kshatriya claims. This is exactly the kind of caste-glorification that Wiki needs to be shedding the light of academic discourse on, not promoting. And to top if off, you and company accuse others of anti-Indian bias, of ignorance of India, etc. Can you imagine how terrible Wikipedia would be if only Lutherans edited Lutheran, only Serbians edited Serbia, only Greens edited Green Party? You simply refuse to believe that anyone outside can bring neutrality, and rather than bring your personal familiarity to complement our neutrality, you attack and degrade while contributing almost no content. Your position is well-explained by your phrase which I consider to be a lie; you don't say "I'm not convinced on this Shudra issue, I'd like to see more data." You know, I just glanced at Talk:Kurmi and did Ctrl-F to find each time your name came up, and practically every single post you've made there is simply complaining, accusing, and just generally dragging down the discourse. I would encourage any uninvolved person reading this to do the same, and by MWs contributions there you shall know him. I'm working hard to improve caste coverage, including near-total rewrites of Kayatha, Kurmi, Kunbi, Dhangar, Ahir, Yadav and dozens of smaller articles, and now huge amounts of my time are being taken up responding to emotional accusations. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Agree with MatthewVanitas MV has brought out a very important and dark phase of history, in which people and whole communities were banished for something as simple as converting to another faith. For marrying outside the sects. I wish the debate could be as simple as calling Salmon a fish. This is bit more complicated. I would prefer to compare this to writing evolution of mankind, which went through different phases. Somewhere in between we were apes and somewhere we were tadpoles in the primordial earth. To sum it all, it isn't good to term shudra based on just gbboks powered scholars. If you want a neutral assessment, then people should stop searching with terms 'Kurmi Shudra' in gbooks. I am sure you get my point. Context is everything, just as Sitush said on Kurmi talk page. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC) It seems to me that ANI is a nice place for playing the victim. There is a widespread consensus that the infobox doesn't necessarily require citations--I just pulled a random FA, Webley Revolver, and look at that infobox--nothing. If cn tags are applied selectively, as they seem to be here, then there's something rotten. Many of these articles indeed are in a dark part of Wikipedia, where the light of WP:V and WP:NPOV doesn't always shine very brightly. Indeed, this is taking up way too much time, and for what? Drmies (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC) MangoWong, propagating a personal attack, as you have in reposting the blog link above despite various messages on various pages that you frequentd to point out that (a) it has been dealt with here before, & (b) it is incorrect, is not going to assist your already weak cause. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I won't even use the term "dark" here since POV-pushers will no doubt attempt to trick someone into using it and then accuse of racism/orientalism/systemic-bias, etc. But I do agree that Indian social issues suffer from a particularly extreme form of POV pushing. I sympathise to a degree that caste issues underly long-standing socio-economic grievances, and that people have been harmed or killed in such disputes in the real world even in modern times. I also sympathise that there may be "common knowledge" which is simply difficult to properly cite due to insufficient scanned documents online, language issues, academic bias/disinterest/failings. However, the solution to that is emphatically not to let people cite www.mycasteisawesome.com or add completely uncited cruft, nor is it setting a positive precedent to let editors like the above purge articles of their choice of any "negative" material, dump in poorly-sourced claims to milleniae of clear lineage and sharing bloodlines with gods. And rewarding them by backing down when they cry bias, orientalism, ignorance, discrimination, etc. will just encourage such behaviour. The last thing we need is a How-To guide on Orkut saying "if anyone removes claims that our caste is an ancient line of warriors and kings, make sure you accuse them of the following and they'll back down..." All we're dealing with his is a small but extremely vocal number of editors, several of whom do just about nothing but attack people on Talk pages. These editors are not like other editors, Indian and otherwise, who write and edit dozens of non-controversial articles and then just stumble across a land-mine, these are people who edit with an agenda. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Note, since MangoWong keeps propagating a personal attack despite multiple warnings, I've just blocked them for 24 hours. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I see the same thing: By repeating that the entire world is against me as everyone is engaged in an off-wiki thing. By stating that Indian social issues are an example of extreme POV may look like the same attempt of playing the victim. Sometimes a little knowledge is very dangerous, and gravest injuries are made with best intentions. Who has got so much time to indulge in such things? I hope we are all trying to get involved in an engaging discussion. Your talk above may give an impression of having some sort of anti-india bias. I know that's not what you may have intended. I am happy to help if you need some help on India. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC) As Drmies says, ANI is indeed a nice place for playing the victim - it's also a place where you can easily get hit by a boomerang. I'd invite anyone with an interest to have a look over Talk:Kurmi and decide for yourself who's trying to build a properly sourced and well written article and who's trying to protect those trying to do so, and who's disruptively throwing accusations around (including suggesting that I'm not fit to undertake admin work there because I've been accused by some liar on a blog of accepting bribes), wikilawyering at every possible opportunity, trying to whitewash the article of anything considered "negative", decrying content he doesn't like as "lies" despite multiple reliable sources, and openly advertising his agenda ("I may still object as long as a single instance of that word remains"). You can then decide if any admin or community action is needed, and if so, against whom -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I just read that blog. Wow. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Yep, it's people who write and propagate that kind of venom that we're up against on these caste articles -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The hilarious thing (among many) about the blog is that users (as I recall, not even just MW) try to use it as an example of why I and others shouldn't be given "free reign" to spread our "ignorance" on Wikipedia. So evidently the argument is that our editing per WP procedure is directly responsible for one banned editor with his tail between his legs putting a bunch of silliness on a blog (is it even getting any hits?), and thus we should desist editing because we're therefore hurting WP's credibility. I do note that the last is a popular line from those who are stopped from POV pushing: "I'm just trying to correct the lies and YOU are perpetuating them! This is $%*$)@*#)(! and that's why nobody believes anything on Wikipedia and it's stupid and dumb!!!" In any case, Drmies, you see the kind of folks we're dealing with here. And as noted, the blogger was involved with the huge knock-down drag-out at Nair, so probably totally unrelated to the current group of folks getting upset generally about Deccan (West-Central India) issues. Wherever we go to purge out caste-cruft and demand proper citations, we'll hit suchlike landmines of interested parties who rally to "defend" a caste from "attacks". MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Addendum @ BsZ 18:22 and others: the fact that we run across suchlike people in multiple unrelated places on this topic indicates to me that, if we're serious about cleaning up caste articles (many of which get 4k, 10k, 15k hits per month, so not huge but big) then we need a coordinated method to prevent us being dragged down by every "land mine" of POV defenders we hit. We simply cannot afford to repeat what happened at Nair in 38 other pockets throughout India, as it took up massive amounts of time from serious editors who would otherwise be knocking out dozens of 1-para articles with cites per day, working on a GA, etc. We're burning hours and hours per week doing literally nothing but arguing circles as at Talk:Kurmi with people who have an abundantly clear aim to give one narrow depiction of a group, and whose "contribution" seems to almost never extend to actually writing a paragraph and putting in decent footnotes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, that's a major part of the problem, that it's not just the same people at each article. The first bunch I encountered when I started trying to help have mostly been blocked, which was relatively easy because their personal attacks, edit-warring, and sockpuppetry, were severe and blatant. But at the next article it will be different people (while we still have to keep our eyes peeled on articles we've moved on from), and they're getting less directly offensive and more wikilawyerish, and engaging in what seems like a war of attrition against people genuinely trying to get these articles into decent well-sourced shape - and the possibility that there is some off-wiki coordination going on has been raised by a few people. So I think the usual DR process is not really going to work - partly because it will take ages for each one and drastically slow things down, and partly because as soon as we get sanctions on one problematic editor or group, new ones will pop up and start all the way back at the beginning again. If anyone can suggest a good way to get some sort of protection in place for a generic set of articles against certain types of behavior by unspecified editors, I'm all ears - but if not, more admin eyes on the affected articles would be very much appreciated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Not true, BsZ : I hope you are not worried if more people are engaging in a healthy discussion. This should be seen as a victory for Wikipedia that it is successful in attracting more users. If something so crucial is being discussed we are bound to attract a lot of interest. I hope you are not overly worried about not being able to prevent users from engaging in a fruitful discussion. Blocking may not work and it may give an indication of some sort of exerting control. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Nameisnotimportant- this is not healthy or fruitful discussion. These people are just ruining the reputation of all indian editors in wikipedia - they are demanding special treatment because they are indians and are creating the image we are some sort of prima-donnas who whine, sock, troll and attack when we dont get our way. I am very happy someone got blocked finally for peddling that disgusting offwiki attack site all over wikipedia. Blocking and banning is the way to respond to any editor (irrespective of any ethnicity or nationality) who behaves in such a disgusting way. There are hundreds of Indian editors in en wiki and other indian language wikis, who are quietly going about building encyclopedias. Actions of these few who have an agenda (which is primarily concerned with glorifying their caste/group), is making all of us look like caste warrior douchebags. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Sodabottle, that's what I have been saying all along. Glorifying their caste? You have already served the verdict, My Lord! I have my full sympathies with you that you think this way. I hope you do see the core issue. Let's consider a hypothetical situation:- Someone does a search in google with 'tamil terrorist' and comes up with hundreds of articles that specify Tamils are terrorists. you will be surprised how many books you will find such references. Let me know if you want a count, google came with actually 14,300 results. Surprised? Anyways, the main point is context and knowledge of the issue are most important. I can find other ingenious searches 'Madurai dirty', 'Kasab is Indian', or anything under the sun that is very dear to someone. I am not sure how you will feel, but I will definitely we feeling very upset about that. The MO here seems simple, the angry guys are blocked as they are too passionate and as such blurt something that goes against any of the WP principles. Anons are blocked along with their IP and that too 'indefinitely'. When some rational people refer to relaible sources, the sources are termed unreliable. People have gone to lenghts to tarnish the image of Great Kings such as Shivaji. Anyone who objects to such a claim is termed POV pusher or a sock farm, and if nothing else can be proven, they are definitely meat proxies. Sometimes the 'ducks quack' or else 'something is definitely wrong, i will get to the bottom of it' . I think we must leave such childish attitude at home. This is wiki, and it needs mature peole. Now how much sane can a person remain in such an environment. I spent the entire weekend to get to the bottom of this and I can clearly see that everything that tells otherwise was discounted as unreliable. Such actions do lead people to think that something is definitely wrong. If by voicing real concerns to right people the entire band of editors from India come in bad light, then I would doubt the point in having forums to raise voice. The year is 2011 and not 19th century, and we all live in free socities. I am very happy to see that you are very passionate about topics, and are equally passionate about things such as Kasab. I hope you understand the core issue these guys are trying to address. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Glorifying their caste? You have already served the verdict, My Lord! - Instead of being condescending to people who actually do work here to improve india related articles, why not work to improve some. Go ahead and maintain some caste related articles for a few months, you will know what goes on here. People who have been blocked and thrown out have been done so for the right reasons - operating sock farms, personal attacks, operating offwiki attack sites or publicising them here are against wikipedia rules. Any editor (irrespective of nationality or ethnicity) who socks or trolls should and will be blocked. This is exactly the attitude that is wrong here - "we are indians, our feelings are hurt, so we need special treatment". This is not maturity, this is pure childishness. I know exactly what these guys are trying to do - i have seen a hundred editors in different subjects do this exactly. But only these guys are trying to hide behind the whole Indian vs non-Indian thing. If reliable sources say "madurai is dirty", (or tomorrow it is established by reliable sources that Kasab is indeed indian or all Tamils are indeed terrorists) i have no qualms in adding it to the relevant articles. I can and do leave behind my personal preferences, "my upset feelings" when i edit wikipedia. My likes and dislikes have no role to play in adding content to wikipedia. If you feel you cannot abide by seeing anything negative added to a subject that is "dear to you" wikipedia is not the place for you. You are asking "Now how much sane can a person remain in such an environment." - i have given you the answer above. Hundreds of indian editors including me work here and in other Indian language wikiprojects abiding by the rules. We dont go around complaining about our hurt feelings and asking for special treatment. --Sodabottle (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC) That's exactly the thing these guys have been trying to bring forth - why the special treatment for some people. Now, to know who has been running from pillar to post crying wolf. That's no secret. Anyways, your opinion is already clear when you say glorifying their caste. Now how many examples do you want about the complaints these guys have brought forth? About the Kurmi article it is crystal clear the way things are painted. OK tell me the difference between created and traced? Once you answer, I will show something interesting. MW shouldn't have created the title as 'dark side of wiki'. I don't support it. But don't get side tracked by the personal attack angle, let's look at other things he pointed out. They look very valid to me. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC) If you want to discuss sourcing etc for a specific article then take it to the talk page for that article. OTOH, if you are still discussing alleged misconduct then feel free to continue here. And on that basis, please could you let us know what other things MangoWong pointed out "look very valid to me". Let's at least get this discussion on some sort of logical path. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Misconduct, alleged as you say, was the reason these guys came to ANI. Somehow, I thought that you were very clear that nothing will happen here. I may be assuming things, but why did you happen to feel that way? I am not interested in being labelled 'caste warrior' or plague, etc that's what is holding me back. I hope you and MVanitas will understand. Shivaji was and is a Demi-God in India. What was the reason someone wanted to pull his glorifications. I hope it wasn't due to some google powered search. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I think the problem is well represented by the term "demi-god". Shivaji was a human being, and it would be completely inappropriate for WP to treat him as other than one. It would be inappropriate to make an article defaming him, and it is inapporpriate to have an article glorifying him. Shivaji should discuss his life and acts, perceptions and depictions of him, etc. It should be an article where both people who like and dislike him, or don't care either way, would read it and consider it informative. I would assume your angle is "nobody on WP should question his Kshatriya status", is that right? If so, there's simply no way we can just call him Kshatriya and be neutral. There is plentiful academic argument out there that he was from a pastoral jati, and then declared Kshatriya in order to crown him. If you're not happy with the full story being discussed, there's really not much we can do to help you. All kinds of political figure biographies may include facts that their biggest fans might not enjoy, but it would be horribly condescending to say "Indians just can't handle the truth, so let's treat their heroes with kid gloves." And for that matter, it's not that no Indians question Shivaji's legend, it's just that the minority of Indians heavily emotionally invested in him are apparently prepared to riot and file legal claims over the issue, but that is of no interest to us here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I will talk to both of you, gentlemen, one at a time. Sitush: a) When I specified created and traced, how come Kurmi is the first thing that came to your mind? I haven't even specified that it is related to Kurmi. So, did someone do a mischief there on Kurmi using the term? b) You have mentioned yourself as Cantabrigian? I think you will know the difference between the terms? What is the difference, Sitush? c) General Question for my curiosity: Can I use something similar on my page, not this title? Is there a verification process, or can anyone use such titles on their own Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Nameisnotimportant, I didn't say that your comment related to Kurmi. I sought clarification & pointed out that if it related to sourcing of an article then the correct venue is not here but on the talk page to that article. I still cannot fathom what your original point was nor to what the new one you raise is referring. Consequently, right now I cannot respond further, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC) If it is wrong for WP to refer to one human as demigod, how is it right for WP to refer to millions upon millions of humans as sub-humans?-MangoWong (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Leave the emotive stuff off here, MangoWong. Forget your politico-socio-whatever agenda: if something is WP:V, WP:RS etc and not WP:Fringe or WP:Undue etc then it is eligible, period. If you cannot handle this then it is probably best not to contribute to those particular article areas because you are bringing a trainload of baggage with you. If you think shudra = subhuman then what on earth are the dalits? - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Ad hominems are not meaningful replies. They probably mean you don't have a credible reply. I don't think that coming to WP means stop being humane. Dalit is a completely humane word. If you agree to replace S***** with "Dalit", we have a nice solution there.-MangoWong (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Suggest it there, then. Not here. I can guarantee you what the response will be, right now: "prove it". - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC) MatthewVanitas: Completely agree. The question is still open? I hope the source of such knowledge about Shivaji wasn't cherry picked google powered search. Please, please, tell me. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Sitush: I hope that by your last statement you are trying to prevent MW from asking you to prove something. I know that may not be your intention, but it seems like that. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I cannot understand your logic, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC) They simply don't know how to make a wise choice. How can they be expected to do something that they never learned to do?-MangoWong (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC) ... and I don't understand ^ this one at all but it seems like MW is tarring a group (which group, with what, and why for is anyone's guess). Are you two having some sort of private conversation in a public place? Look, I am a bloke, ergo, I do not do hints very well. If someone asks me to mow the lawn, I will mow it; if someone says that the grass is long, I probably will not make the connection. Either say what you want to say clear and loud, or forget the cryptic comments. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC) We have a good option there. Take it.-MangoWong (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Name, I've noted you've made several mentions of "cherry-picked google searches". First off, I'm not using random Geocities articles off Google, I'm using GoogleBooks, which is no different from going to a library and just opening a lot of books about a subject, except it happens to be infinitely faster. So far as "cherrypicking", yes, I do run searches for "kurmi shudra", but I also run searches for "kurmi kshatriya", etc. And I do note that the sort of people who complain about Kshatriya status tend to post gBooks links with "kurmi+kshatriya" in the code, and then often fail to address the extensive Shudra sources we provide. So far as Shivaji: can you honestly tell me that you are unaware of a legitimate scholarly argument that Shivaji was declared Kshatriya for political reasons, vice sudden really good research coincidentally discovering that he was Kshatriya "all along"? If you're seriously unfamiliar, I suggest you read up on the subject, no offense at all meant, it'd probably be really interesting to you. Do you have any reason why we should not explore that angle other than upsetting some Marathas? To both Name and MW, and this part is just my general impression of the situation so nothing authoritative: it's appearing to me that a lot of the people shouting at me/others about ignorance, mistreating castes, etc. are themselves perpetuating the evils of the caste system. If every caste that had some Shudra heritage stood up and said "yes, I had ancestors that were oil-pressers or whatever, but it's time to move beyond that, admit that my ancestors were oppressed and that these past evils need to be made up for through education and economic opportunities", that would be a positive step. Instead, frankly, what we have is editors running about going "oh no! The Fooians weren't ever icky, icky Shudra!!! How dare you!!!" Treating "Shudra" as a dirty word is just perpetuating the belief that manual labour is shameful, and that this shame carries generation after generation. This may be my American bias, but in my country people take pride in saying "my grandfather worked in a coal mine, and my father worked in a steel mill, but they encouraged me to study hard and now I'm a doctor." If we encourage people to deny the past out of embarassment, we just legitimise the same prejudices that caused people to be hurt for eons in the first place. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC) That means "NO". They won't even explore the chance of an agreement.-MangoWong (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC) And they won't even seem to understand the trouble with using GBooks. They seem to think that doing a search for "Kshatriya+Kurmi" could overcome the problems with doing a search for "S*****+Kurmi".-MangoWong (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC) OK. To appease your ways of right and wrong, these races should accept all that you are saying. To disapprove and to discount the facts that Yadavs brought forth to prove their Kshatriya lineage, someone went to great lengths to tarnish the image of historians such as James Tod. Who would do that? Who would start on a half-witted attempt to distort a great scottish historian? James Tod's fault: James Tod mentions Yadavs as Kshatriya. I would think someone who wants to misrepresent the facts, ignoring any other facts. Section "Reputation" was added, adding citations which don't have any links. Purpose: to show any source that wrote Yadavs as Kshatriyas as unreliable. So much for your sense of right and wrong. Why can't you accept that you just can't se anything else except what you think is right. I can go and remove that section as there are no citations that prove that point. But I will leave it to the gentleman who did it to have the honour. If there is any admin who is looking at this page, I will invite you to look as James Tod. Look at the section 'Reputation'. Talk page gets even more interesting. So much for your quest to bring the truth out. I am doing a lot of research on what all has been done. I will add more here on ya'all quest of 'bringing out' the Indian history. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC) That was jaw dropping!!!! Here's a diff of the pre Sitush version [86], and here's the current version. [87]. So NPOV.-MangoWong (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, it is NPOV. Good work I did there, even if I do say so myself :) - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC) That means "NO". They won't even explore the chance of an agreement. Agreement on what? Calling Shivaji a demigod and censoring any mention of the official legend maybe not being exactly accurate? Agreement on taking at face value the legendary claims of a given caste and not at all bringing up the academically-discussed issue that they might not be the descendants of Vedic kings and gods? I literally do not understand what you want us to agree on other than "don't use the word Shudra because it's nasty" and "we should take group claims at face value." The latter is, incidentally, why people love to quote Tod: he had no interest in really digging into origin stories, so an editor can quote Tod as though he were an actual academic verifying that everything the Rajputs told him was true, as opposed to an adventurer who wrote down cool stories. And they won't even seem to understand the trouble with using GBooks. By all means, enlighten us. What is the problem with using gBooks? That the results you find don't match what you hoped to find? I do note that one quite a few Kshatriya vs. Shudra arguments, the only pro-Kshatriya links seem to find are Tod-style non-experts, sources which mention that a group claims Kshatriya status (which we are happy to note in every article where applicable), and the occasional source which uses the term with no context or claim of looking into the varna issue because their work simply isn't about varna (in which case their use of the term "Kurmi Kshatriya" doesn't mean "yes, I looked into it and the Kurmi are indeed Kshatriya." There are just about no groups in India that can be called "Kshatriya" without some extensive explanation as to how they claim to be called that, and the controversies involved. I got involved with this in the first place because dozens (if not hundreds) of articles were happy to put Kshatriya in the lede, in the first paragraph, or even the first sentence, and 90% of the time it's simply nowhere near that clear or definitive. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC) About Shivaji, if there is so much complaint of 'demogod status' etc., why are no efforts made to clarify 'Kshatriya' status also. The reference clearly mentions not only Kshatriya line, but also of opinion that Shivaji was fit to be a 'Chhatrapati' for subdueing Badshahis and for his vast army. This part is left out ignorantly in all the e-melee of loose talk on Wikipedia against who is what and why, and otherwise. About Kshatriya status, the situation is the same. In spite of links that clarify the social Kshatriya status in Hinduism, the efforts are more on clarifying Shudra status, the realpolitic and so on. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC) About the propaganda of "There are just about no groups in India that can be called "Kshatriya" without some extensive explanation as to how they claim to be called that, and the controversies involved.", I think this does not look too neutral from Wikipedia point of view. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Those are pure content points, Thisthat. Take them to the relevant article or to the India project pages. This page is for incidents. honestly, this thread could run and run here and we'll not advance the stuff you keep referring to by one iota. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC) If these are content points, why are these raised here in the first place? Why is this loose talk? Please don't make ANI some kind of personal message board. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC) @Sitush, why is your behavior completely different at this discussion /Talk:Thomas_the_Apostle#Blatant_anti-Hindu_POV_on_this_page death of Thomas the Apostle? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Dragging this back to behaviour issues: I don't at all feel that we're excluding Kshatriya info from these articles. We're adding Shudra issues that were completely absent, but it's not like we're challenging clearly-cited and contextualised Kshatriya info. In fact, I was the one who fleshed out the huge "varna politics" section in Kurmi which documents their Kshatriya legal claims. Again, I just think these accusations of misbehaviour are misguided, and those opposed are showing no interest in actually evening out K/S coverage, they're just desperate to remove "Shudra". If you want better Kshatriya coverage, get some references and add it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC) MatthewVanitas, the agreement would have been about swapping the word “S*****” with “Dalit”. I was expecting to shake on it. It would have been a good solution. You could have kept noting whatever historical social injustice, or caste origin issues you can think up, and few would have objected. You would not have had any need to fight all your life on one cyber issue, and WP would not have any need to keep those articles locked etc. But how can you agree to any solution? You have no way of knowing that it would be a good solution. And if you agree, you will have nothing else to do. There would be no newbies who do not know anything about encyclopedic writing, and whom you can swat daily so as to give you your daily adrenaline rush. Anybody who knew anything about the subject would have readily agreed to the above solution, but how can you? And why do you assume that I am trying to press Kshatriya claims. I have no interest in pressing any Kshatriya claims or whatever claims. I have been saying clearly that I am opposed to using S***** only because it refers to what are humans, as sub-humans. It is an inhuman thing to do and is unnecessary too. That's all. Crystal? There are numerous troubles with using GBooks. It would take pages to explain. For starters, how do you even know that you need to search for “Kurmi+Shudra”? How do you know how much focus this point needs? Without reading the books thoroughly, how do you know what the book says, or is about? How would you know that your quote is not a grotesque misrepresentation? Without knowing anything about the academic field, without engaging in any meaningful discussion/dispute with anyone else other than your own group of likeminded folks, how would you know which sources are better, and for which point? Besides that, using Gbooks, it may even be possible to turn Jesus into a Muslim and Mohammed into a Christian and also provide a proof for 2+2=5. Having 5-10 sources for things like that would not make them fit for inclusion. Searching for “jesus+father+son”, you might get a million results saying Jesus was the son of God/Joseph/someone else. How would you know which ones are important? How would you know whether the point is a debate or not, or whether the debate needs mention or not? If we do not know how to make that choice, we would only be creating problems for ourselves. You have to know something about the subject to understand that much. If there is no shortcoming in using Gbooks, and in writing articles without having any familiarity with the subject, look around on WP. Which other topic continually gets hundreds of people claiming “You know nothing about this subject”. Why does no other topic face this same criticism continually. You may recall that I could sense that much even in my very first interaction with you. How could I see that much already? If you do not give up your silly ways, this is a criticism which will keep haunting you continually. The criticism is correct enough. Only that you have no way of realizing it, unless you visit India, spend some time here, and get some firsthand info on the subject. The criticism that your familiarity with the issue is zero is not overcome by having two other guys say the same thing. (0+0+0=0). And that some other folks appreciated you also does not change anything. (0+0+0+0+0+0+……….=0). And your claim that in order to accept some caste as Kshatriya, academics need to verify that they are direct descendants of some God, is beyond ridiculous. To do that, one would have to establish the existence of God first. Don’t just say that that there are hardly any Kshatriyas in India. Go to any street in a town/city/village in Rajasthan/Bihar/U.P. etc. and see for yourself. Either do that, or stop fighting around those articles.-MangoWong (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Sure you have to be careful with using GBooks - or with using libraries, or with using books, or any source. That's why we have policies such as WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (which by the way means that you can't use your personal experience to add information). There is no way that we are going to tell editors that to edit articles on India they have to have spent some time in India or be academic experts on the subject. But this is becoming a content debate and needs to be closed, I see no need for Administrative action here. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2011 (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.

Anders Behring Breivik

Anders Behring Breivik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User: Johnmylove has now re-inserted the same claim that Anders Behring Breivik ‎is a hindoo a number of times, and has breached 3RR,

[[88]]

[[89]]

[[90]]

[[91]]

There seem to be other instances of this hindoo POV pushing, but I won’t list them.

Added to this is that he claims its well sourced when (as far as I can see) only one (possible not RS) source makes the claim. I asked the user to take this to the talk page and informed him that he was in danger of breeching 3RR [[92]] the reposes was to accuse me of having a personal agenda [[93]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Since launching this he has reverted again [[94]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There does appear to be a misrepresentation by Johnmylove as to what the sources he cites actually state. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have well sourced material...Respected administrator, I would like you to read the source well yourself and provide whether the particular information is correct or not AS the User:Slatersteven seem to have remove my material again and again by having different accounts on wikipedia...I want to you take severe action against User:Slatersteven for trying to push personal agenda on the site. I would not mind editing the articles as long as I have the proof and well sourced material. Thank you --Johnmylove (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a PA, and if you have evidacne for the claim I susgest you raise an SPA.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'source' is an anti-Hindu website, with no evidence of any credibility whatsoever. Not that this matters, given WP:3RR policy, and your personal attack above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable; this is disrupting Wikipedia, damaging a BLP, and a very high visibility current events related article. I have left a final warning for Johnmylove for disruption. Further activity along these lines will result in a block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

They're not the only one using non-RS on that high-vis BLP. That's why I wish the BLP1E redirect here hadn't been undone. We should be covering the event, not the person.  Chzz  ►  19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There really should be a note added to BLP1E enforcing that it is doubly important when it come to white supremacists, Scientologists, Republicans et cetera. These Internet Sleuth Squad character profiles are well beyond a joke now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; as one user put it on the talk page, This article takes any flimsy claim from any newspaper and prints it as gospel. Trying to moderate it in any way is futile. Trying to do any kind of reasobable editing of this article would result in deleting 95% of it..

It's "trial by Wikipedia".

Right now, on the talk, is an extensive discussion about whether or not this living person is insane - not referring to any RS, or anything - just, a lovely generic chat about this person, throwing in opinions. And that's not random, new editors; it's people who really should know better.

These kinds of gross BLP violation should be dealt with - and that simply is not happening. I'd hat/remove comments on the talk, and I'd edit the article to remove some of the speculative stuff, but I know from experience that won't be effective.  Chzz  ►  21:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Quit bitchin' about it and go edit the article.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've edited it twice as much as you [95]. How 'bout we quit talkin' 'bout users, and start a-talkin' 'bout content instead?  Chzz  ►  01:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Anders Behring Breivik [...] is a Norwegian right-wing extremist[7] - ref is [96], which does not use the word "extremist" at all...
• ...and the confessed perpetrator[8][9] of the July 22, 2011 Norway attacks, with 172 victims of whom 76 died.[10][11]

First ref says, "at least 96 people were injured" and avoids giving deaths; "Police on Monday revised down the number killed on Utoeya, citing difficulties in gathering information".

• The terrorist attacks included detonating a car bomb in downtown Oslo, Norway, near the offices of the Prime Minister, killing eight and wounding 26. - new numbers again. Unreferenced.
• This was followed by a mass shooting on the nearby island of Utøya, where he attacked teenagers attending a Norwegian Labour Party youth camp, killing 68 and wounding 66.

Again, numbers unrefereneced.

And, if this is a bio, is this all appropriate in the lede? Fair balance? Oh, but, he is only known for one thing?

"Why is this on ANI? 'coz it's a BLP, and needs admin attention.  Chzz  ►  05:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. The article is a mess. Everyone piles in with their 'no true Scotsman' arguments, and their gratuitous coatracking of everything from Darwinism to Hinduism. I've visited this festering pile of POV every so often to try and at least make it stink a little less, but eventually the stench overcomes me. I think that this article probably indicates the limit of what the Wikipedia methodology is capable of - or more accurately, it shows what happens when you go beyond the limits. Maybe we need to take WP:NOTNEWS a little more literally, and not report on anything for a month after it happens... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If there's any consolation, current news events are one of the few areas where Wikipedia usually isn't the top Google hit for a particular subject. By the time the grownups have turned their attentions elsewhere we've normally expunged the worst of a given article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What's a good way to see page view stats? I have a feeling that, despite not being at the top of Google, a majority of page views for unfolding news events occurs as they unfold and not 6 months from now when the dust has settled and we can actually start making a reference worthy article out of this.Griswaldo (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's be WP:ITN's fault then. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - deleting links without consensus

I wish to report MatthiasHuehr (talk · contribs) for persistently removing external links from articles, either with no explanation or with insufficient reason, refusing to enter into discussion and achieve consensus, despite being asked or warned accordingly. Notices in connexion with this have been posted on his talk page here, but note that he has deleted some, including the standard notice about this incident, so you have to also examine the page history. Two latest examples of this disruption and attempt to engage in edit warring are at Streckelsberg and Birnen, Bohnen und Speck. It should be noted in both these examples that there is evidence that he may also be continuing his disruption by logging in as User:212.185.54.2 to disguise his activity as there is a similar pattern of edits. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bermicourt, you told MatthiasHuehr here that this issue has been discussed at WP:Third opinion. Could you please provide a link to that discussion? Thank you. — Satori Son 18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Satori. It's here where you can see the background and the response which supports the notion that the link was reasonable. But no input from MatthiasHuehr - he just waited awhile and started the process again. I don't feel particularly strongly about these links - if there's a consensus following discussion that they should be deleted, then fine. But this editor doesn't engage, he just carries on deleting. Check out his contribution history and I think you will see more of the same. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I See at the repeated linking to such websites as an abuse.

Marions-kochbuch.de has to be in Germany is anything but the reputation of a reputable website. The operators make with their business practices outlawed in Germany media money animated by people supposedly free content to use them and then to sue in court. I have a report from the German TV reported as a reference. Links to such websites do not belong in the Wikipedia it. The other link on page, which aims to promote holiday apartment Engen as a business purpose. Here we have an economic interest, which uses Wikipedia as a link farm in order to promote these services. The linked pages exist only in English because the two sides in the German Wikipedia Rules should not be linked. The interest in the restoration of links is therefore for me more than serious.--MatthiasHuehr

Why didn't you say so earlier? Your previous reason for removing the links was "not in English". If your new reason is to be taken seriously, why did you remove links to other sites too? Regardless of what the reason is, I think a little more AGF would be appropriate: "deleting comments from user that spamed seo-links in many articles" is not appropriate, any more than accusing somebody of using en.wikipedia as a linkfarm by, err, updating an article about a German recipe with a link to a German recipe webpage, or updating a German geographical article with a link to a page (on a different site) about that location... a definition of "SEO" or "linkfarming" so wide that it includes practically every good-faith EL on wikipedia.

(Disclaimer: I'm the person who gave the original 3O) bobrayner (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many reasons to delete these links ... PS Bermicourt understand German --MatthiasHuehr —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC).

Among those "many" reasons, could you give a reason which is valid? I don't think the one about linkspam can be taken seriously, nor the "not in english" one. Is there some other reason which actually justifies this editwarring? I think it might be better to discuss on talkpages, rather than hammer the revert button. bobrayner (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the "not in English"? This guideline, Wikipedia:External links#Non-English-language content, would seem to disagree. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That guideline says "strongly preferred". Alas, Birnen, Bohnen und Speck recipes on the intertubes are mostly in German rather than English. Nonetheless, when an English alternative was found (hosted on the same site), MatthiasHuehr kept on removing it anyway, with new justifications - mostly linkspam, SEO, unreliable source &c and even "in the link is the recipe, not nececarry to tlink this". And then after a few reverts, a mysterious IP came along and performed exactly the same edit with no summary. That IP also removed a perfectly good link from Streckelsberg; MatthiasHuehr had removed that link repeatedly and was on 3RR. bobrayner (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, because of the nature of the subject, there are only German links. If we delete them willy-nilly we will lose a lot of useful information for those able to read them (albeit perhaps with a translation tool).

The key point here is that Matthias ruthlessly and repeatedly deletes links without consensus or engagement. You get no response either on his page or the talk page to open up a dialogue in a rational way. He won't play by the Wiki rules. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

74.178.219.79

This editor "74.178.219.79" has a history of adding unreferenced materials to television station articles, and generally disruptive edits. I am not aware of a previous block, if any, but this needs to stop. This IP is one of many who several of us believe are the same person doing the disruptive editing by IP hopping...see here for more. I am hoping that by taking the action here, that something will be done about this issue. The IP(s) never respond on their talk page. Almost all of this editor's edits have been reverted. [97]

I was told on the vandalism page to take this report here. Hopefully someone more qualified than I can help make a decision about this IP-hopping disruptive editor. If there is anything else I can do to help please let me know. I know I am not the only one who wants this stopped. If, however, this is the wrong place to report this, then I apologize profusely. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 01:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting. The IP editor is not technically edit warring, and seems to think the information being added will help the article, but in general is not going back to the article to try to readd the information. If the editor does that and ignores warnings, then we have a serious issue. At present, I might say give the editor another day and see if it starts making the same edits. This looks like a drive-by edit situation on all articles in question. It also seems edits stopped at 21:54 UTC, 6 hours ago.

With that said, I agree with another point; if the editor is being informed that the edits are not contributing positively to the article, and keeps making similar edits, a stop needs to be enforced. I'm not sure it's to that point yet. CycloneGU (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but I also mentioned the editor is one of several within the same IP range that does this. When other IPs from the same range get blocked, he just jumps to another IP and off he goes again. Its been going on for quite some time. This isn't just a one day thing. I'll refer again to this page. All of the IPs from 74.178.xx.xx are from the same ISP, in the same region/city in the United States. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 05:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like we need a range block then if that's the case. CycloneGU (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the WHOIS for this IP and did the maths for the range it falls under. It calculates out as a /18 address range. That's a goodly chunk of Jacksonville, FL to knock out. Is the collateral damage a reasonable trade for kicking one disruptive user out of the mix? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how many other users are using the range. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I might be wrong here, but wasn't there a long-time vandal who's modus operandi was doing this same sort of thing, and focused on the Houston area TV stations? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is. User:Mmbabies is still activly IP hopping to evade his community ban. I have gotten tired of reporting him. --Gridlock Joe (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Running the 74.xxx... IPs through the rangeblock calculator, I get 74.178.192.0/19. That would get all the 74.xxx... IPs in Anna's sandbox, but not any of the others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Urk...you're right, my maths were off. Big fingers, small keys. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Yogesh Khandke

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing because marking it resolved clearly did not work. CycloneGU (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – Blockhammer tossed by EyeSerene. One week block. CycloneGU (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been involved in a variety of disputes related to Indian caste articles (see the section above, WP:ANI#Please look for some examples), and has repeatedly exercised fairly bad, incivil behavior. YK has repeatedly raised, in a variety of forums, a blog impugning the reputations of several longterm WP editors (claiming they are editing for money to deliberately slant the caste articles), made vague attacks, and cause other problems. I'm sure that other users could drag up more diffs than I, but I present just two, which I think, in and of themselves, are grounds for a block for personal attacks. In the middle of a discussion on User Talk:MatthewVanitas, MV mentions that he's been working on these articles for quite a long time. Yogesh reponds by saying "It has been reported that the fellow who bombed Oslo has been preparing hard since 2009." That is, YK is directly and unambiguously comparing MV and Anders Behring Breivik. To me, this is just a ridiculously obvious and wholly offensive personal attack. After being told that MV considered this a personal attack, Yogesh's response was only to state, "You are jumping the gun and putting words in my mouth, please keep the thread in one place. All I want to say is this (<embedded link cut>), which is also all that I have ever said.". So, no retraction, no acknowledgment of how offensive this claim is--in fact, an attempt to distract and go back to something else entirely. It appears to me that YK simply does not understand how to avoid being offensive, or knows and chooses not to, and thus fails to understand that this is intolerable. I'm involved on Indian caste articles and definitely with MV and associated editors, so I can't take action myself, but that looks to so obviously cross WP:NPA to me that I think it's block-worthy. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Off to notify now

To provide a little more context about this infamous blog: long/short someone who is very likely one of our banned dozen-puppet sockmasters from Talk:Nair's fight last month wrote a blog with a very detailed story about being aware of some plot by which several editors who were cleaning up Nair (including me) had been paid $400/hr to go disparage the Nair community on WP. Really silly stuff, and User:MangoWong was blocked temporarily for repeatedly linking to this attack page. Even after MW was blocked, Yogesh continued to post it, and when links were removed for it being an attack page, instead of going to ANI or DR went directly to User:Jimbo Wales and to Sue Gardner frantically warning them of dire consequences to WP's credibility (from a ludicrously untrue blog that had barely 100 views at the time). It's a free country so he can whine to Jimbo as the spirit moves him, but you can obviously see from his part in the discussion that he's pushing this anonymous blog to discredit other editors with absolutely zero evidence: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_79#Why_Wikipedia_is_not_reliable.

Despite being told by various uninvolved folks on Jimbo's page that this was ridiculous, and Jimbo saying "In the meantime if anyone has actual evidence of wrongdoing, i.e. emails with headers intact offering cash for admin actions, I'm always keen to review such. But it sounds made up out of thin air at this point in time.", Yogesh has continued to drag up this blog. Most notably recently, apropos of nothing he brought it up at a WPINDIA discussion: Such an attitude was the reason for my bringing the blog to the notice of the founder. Every one should remember that he has promised to look at the issue, it is only a matter of months.[98]. So among many other attacks, he continues to bring up a smear blog that everyone has told him to shut up about, and then lies about Jimbo being about to smack us over its claims. When I called him on that, he replied Does anyone think that people are retarded and think it is about money? (I said the same thing to Zeebedee, four days ago[6]) Or is a lot of noise being made to divert attention, also check this[7].[99] again trying to avoid being pinned down despite it being clear he's trying to use the attack blog to cast aspersions.

Long short, this guy is a prolific waste of everyone's time, does very little editing other than picking fights, and is indulging in increasingly blatant PAs that are far beyond civility. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Maybe I'm just clueless, but the comment about how the attacker was preparing hard since 2009 seems innocent and pointless. I don't think the editor meant to try to connect MV with the attacks in any way. Thus, I think his comment that words are being put into his mouth is also justified. With that said, I get the connection; I just didn't read it that way. CycloneGU (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My reading is that he was clearly making the comparison, that it was tantamount to a personal attack. Not to mention so wildly out of proportion that I'm at a loss for words. Also, would support a blanket ban on him linking (or even mentioning) the blog. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, this is me at a loss. Have you seen how much I normally rabbit on?

It isnt not innocent; it is a deliberate comparison

MV says :. I'm putting in a ton of work to improve caste articles

YK responds: It has been reported that the fellow who bombed Oslo has been preparing hard since 2009.

This isnt innocent and YK isnt someone who is new or doesnt know English. It is clear he is comparing MV to Anders Behring. This isn't the first time YK has been insulting people who dont agree with him. His MO is to phrase his insults in such a way that he can claim his innocence later saying he didnt mean that. Here he is comparing disccusion with Fowler&Fowler to "wrestling with a pig" and here he is again referring to Fowler as a kupamandukas (means ignorant frog in the well). This is a pattern - he regularly rants when he doesnt get his way in discussions and manufactures conspiracy theories. A week ago he also claimed I have also read that certain admins slaughter hundreds of new Indian editors for nationatialist pov. What is this page going to do about this malise?. He was repeatedly told to bring the matter to ANI or create an RFC against the admins concerned. But after repeating the same accusation again and again, he finally refused to go to ANI saying Brother I will go for AN/I, I will jump into a well, since you were so free with kind advice to me, what about a little wisdom to the fellows? Of course it is your life. This is his pattern - when he doesnt get his way in discussions, he will bring up Indian vs non-Indian editors issue, muckrack in noticeboard and user talk pages and refuse when asked to take it take it to ANI or RFC. Claiming "Every one should remember that he [jimbo] has promised to look at the issue, it is only a matter of months" when jimbo has closed the discussion saying the accusation was manufactured "out of thin air" and bringing up the ridiculous attack blog again is disruptive to say the least. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is perfect Sodabottle. While you mention Fawlerx2, why do you not as a neutral fellow also present wild accusations by Fawlerx2? About user:Fawlerx2, the esteemed editors have ignored blatant anti-Indian Government POV pushing here. This is just one example. You can not come here just to throw more muck in the name of other editors. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, so Yogesh is promoting a blog that accuses a number of us of bribery and corruption at every possible chance, and is comparing one of our editors to a mass-murdering maniac, but it's Sodabottle who's throwing the muck? That's an, erm, interesting way to look at things -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What have neutral admins done about editors with such anti-India POV? If someone points that out, he does not become a POV pusher. I asked clearly why Sodabottle have not also mentioned allegations from Fawlerx2's side as well. I can ask you too, why have you not presented allegations thrown by Fawlerx2 before pointing out what Yogesh replied, for which there are no replies. As you are taking an active part in the discussion here, being active is something you are clearly fine with. So tell us what have you done about such allegations from editors such as Fawlerx2. If tomorrow Yogesh points out arguments that others have alleged randomly, a question will arise what you, as a neutral active admin, done about all that? It appears that you have already decided in your mind that "Yogesh is promoting a blog that accuses a number of us of bribery and corruption at every possible chance, and is comparing one of our editors to a mass-murdering maniac". If things have been already decided here, why do we need the pomp and show? What have you decided already about random allegations thrown about by others and what have you done about it? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

thisthat2011, anti-India POV claims do not excuse personal attacks, intemperate language and convoluted logic. Please stop making insinuations against Sodabottle. If you feel so strongly about Fowler&fowler please set up an ANI or RFC against him and prove your point. And stop mis-spelling editors names. That is a personal attack on your part. How would you like it if we responded with a crude and lewd contraction of your name. And dont for a moment think that you have the "Theka" on defending the country on Wikipedia! AshLin (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I learn something more peculiar and novel every time I am part of discussions with smarter and higher-authority people. Not once anyone has bothered to know reliable source for such Anti-India nonsense, though it is common sense that everyone should be bothered about reliable sources. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I do understand and appreciate Qwyrxian's Wikipedia editing philosophy of solving disputes via amicable ways instead of "fighting" over them. In this case though, focusing only on behavioral issues, I do not see a problem with Yogesh Khandke. He is a patient, mature and balanced editor whose positions are well reasoned. I am saddened by the approach User:Sitush and his otherwise productive collaborators have taken - Sitush wishes to get rid of editors with whom he has had content disputes with. First a failed sockpuppetry case involving Yogesh, then on-going attacks and baiting to somehow drag him at ANI. Banning Yogesh would cause damage to Wikipedia by eliminating a viewpoint and making articles one-sided. Unless India related editors develop the ability to develop articles for the "other" side, editors like Yogehs are needed to keep a watch on articles. This thread should be closed ASAP and people should return to improving articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, Yogesh by his own edits and actions has brought this against himself. Calling him a "patient, mature and balanced editor whose positions are well reasoned" indicates that your own judgement is highly questionable. If you wish your point of view to prevail, you have to abide by the principles of the 5 Pillars. This is absolutely the wrong way to further your country's POV, as opposed to those of Fowler&fowler and others, as you publicly claim that you would like to do. And stop mis-spelling Yogesh's name too! AshLin (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• We should not reward an editor who may have found a way to be absurdly over-the-top offensive while not actually using words that a court of law could unambiguously interpret. There were two editors in dispute, and one of them makes a remark about a terrorist who has been preparing hard since 2009—that meets any common sense definition of an attack, given the background, and given the failure to retract. Repeatedly posting to an absurd and obviously incorrect trolling blog shows that Yogesh Khandke needs a substantial wikibreak. In addition, the persistent pushing in articles related to India needs to be brought under control. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Presently, except for Sitush, MatthewVanitas and Qwirixian, nobody else seems to be able to get a dot in into the caste articles. And they are all like minded eds. Why should only these three get to dominate those articles? Are they omniscient? And what's wrong in discussing a blog which is already well known and is obviously saying baseless things. It was being discussed as an issue which could be an adverse reflection on WP, not anybody personally.-MangoWong (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The caste articles, the POV, all of that is currently irrelevant; if anyone wants to look at my or Sitush's or MV's editing styles, our "bias" feel free--I believe the other section is still open at the top of this page...heck, talk about it here. I'm not afraid of a boomerang when I threw a perfectly straight javelin. But the current concern is a blatant personal attack. This thread should not be closed (IMLTHO) until we get clarification that this was or was not an over-the-top personal attack. Either I (me, not anyone else, me) have lost my ability to understand basic English, am completely insane, or this is a totally unacceptable personal attack that demands immediate blocking. It is impossible to, as Zuggernaut says, "return to improving articles" when one of the other editors has just compared you to a person who admitted to intentionally killing over 80 people because of their political viewpoints. That's the whole point behind having a policy forbidding personal attacks: once the occur, editing collaboratively is impossible. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian. If any of you object to Fowler&fowler, Qwyrxian or Johnuniq's edits or you dont like the POV they push on caste articles, oppose them tooth and nail with debate, discourse, ANI, what have you but all the time within boundaries of civilty and 5 Pillars. If you make sense and have meaningful refs, I will vote for your case, if I'm convinced as I have in the past against a few of Fowler&fowler's edits. AshLin (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

AshLin, I do not, for a moment, doubt your sincerity in what you say. However, trying to discuss anything or fingering the caste articles in the smallest of ways, seems to have become the surest way of getting oneself blackballed and blocked.-MangoWong (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith, MangoWong. If you intend to fight and win battles against seasoned editors on issues you feel are contentious - some advice. Firstly, do your research better than they do theirs. Beat them at their own game. Secondly, master and internalise the 5 Pillars and learn all the accepted norms of conflict resolution on Wikipedia - there are many things to learn, such as you cannot canvas support. Learn the numerous ways to tackle contentious issues. Thirdly, be absolutely sure that you are "correct" in this regard, rather than having a general feeling of being wronged. Be prepared to have an open mind while doing your research; if you find your argument is weak, avoid the conflict. Fourthly, persevere to get the change made. Be prepared for long discussions and debate, within 5 Principles, till you get your point across. Lastly, understand when it may be a lost cause and live to fight another day. At a level of 250+ edits, I would recommend staying off contentious articles till you learn the ropes. AshLin (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The "blog" in question (the only post on a new Blogspot account, put up specifically for this one post) is incontrovertibly a work of the most distilled crackpot paranoia at best, and a flagrant personal attack of the worst sort at worst. No editor in good standing here should ever have linked it here except to highlight that an editor had stooped to such depths. That Yogesh continues to link it with "please don't sweep this under the carpet" rationales either suggests a level of such profound cluelessness that allowing him to continue to edit here would be dangerous, or a vested interest in baselessly attacking the characters of other editors acting in good faith (despite his repeated protests to the contrary). The next time anyone links to it they should be blocked, and if that doesn't resolve the problem it should be blacklisted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Blacklist first would probably be better, as the consensus seems to say that it shouldn't be linked? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The blacklist would help, though not entirely, because the last several times its been raised its just been described rather than linked (sometimes with enough info to make searching for it possible, sometimes not). The mentioning of the blog, especially the "Jimbo's looking into this" seems to be an attempt to intimidate. Also, note that while the blog mention is bad, I actually think that the original diffs I raised--comparing MV to the Oslo terrorist, are much worse and much more directly a violation of WP:NPA. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Yogesh Khandke for one week, both for the utterly unacceptable comment he made regarding MatthewVanitas's edits and for the other evidence presented above of his ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing. I had considered an indefblock because I strongly believe that users who make the editing atmosphere unpleasant for others are a net negative, no matter what content edits they've made, and we're better off without them. Editor recruiting and retention is a growing issue and combative attitudes are actively destructive. However, I decided to to err on the side of caution... although I consider any return to editing after the week is up in the light of WP:ROPE. Review welcome as always, EyeSerene^talk 11:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I was stopped from doing the same by your celerity. I further endorse every word of the above, including the timestamp. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You were more lenient than myself. I was going to make it a month. Block endorsed, absolutely, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with WP:ROPE, and appreciate the support. I/we probably let this go farther than it should before taking it here, and given how serious an impediment this has become I'm going to start being more deliberate about collecting diffs for the sort of behaviour that is massively slowing down caste article cleanups. On Talk:Nair the technique was more massive socking and blatant personal attacks (commenting on the morals and hygeine of other editors' mothers, etc) which was fixed via substantial blocks. On these Deccan caste articles there's been more subtlety, and wiki-lawyering, but equally nasty and chilling effects. Last week a couple of folks were on a kick of posting on multiple talk/user/project pages "the changes made at caste articles violate Indian hate speech laws", quickly followed by "oh, not a legal threat at all, I'm just saying..." Once that petered out, the focus has been pulling the emic/etic card (with a dose of Subaltern studies) to insist that self-identified Western editors "just don't understand India", despite the fact that we're backed by reputable Indian editors who somehow manage to edit without rallying to the flag at every turn. We have several relatively new Indian editors on caste articles who are doing great work, or are very new but willing to learn, so that's an even clearer mandate to stomp down on these discourse-lowering jabs on caste articles: endless accusations and sly attacks while refusing to file proper ANIs they know won't hold up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the use of filing any ANI if admins would jump in on one side and even go to the extent of misinterpreting policies, and simply ignore any complaints from the other side?-MangoWong (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, that you feel there are two "sides" here is disturbing. There is only one side on Wikipedia; those who want to write neutral, well presented and reliably referenced content. No other approach is valid. If you're seeing this in terms of a battle between ideologies you're on the wrong site.

Re the rest, I hope that Yogesh Khandke understands that the leniency shown this time will not be repeated, and that other editors of a similar mindset take careful note of the comments above. Re blacklisting the blog, my personal feeling is that it's probably not worth doing. All sorts of people set up grievance sites about Wikipedia when we don't let them peddle their POV on site; as yet the righteous hordes galvanised by their shocking revelations have signally failed to descend. If linking to it becomes a widespread and persistent problem my views would change, but for now I prefer simply blocking anyone (per the usual policies) who uses it on site as a vehicle for unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks. EyeSerene^talk 16:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi EyeSerene, as one of the targets of that blog, and of Yogesh Khandke and others who were pushing it, I thank you for your actions here - it's heartening that every time one of these tendentious editors comes to ANI, we get more uninvolved editors and admins becoming aware of what's happening and providing their assistance, and we always get support for the hardworking editors trying to create properly sourced articles. I think your coming down on the side of leniency was good judgment too - no unbiased observer could possibly accuse the outcome of being too harsh, which I think is an important line to follow. I also agree that we shouldn't blacklist the blog. For one thing, it's so laughably inept that no honest person could take it seriously - and leaving it there kinda makes it part of the rope. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi EyeSerene, thanks for mentioning that there is one side in Wikipedia -of "those who want to write neutral, well presented and reliably referenced content". In the same discussion above there are allegations against me as 'defending national POV' etc. when I pointed out that some user has made anti-Indian Govt. nonsense without any substance. Many editors & admins have not shown inclination to inquire source of such unsubstantiated allegation, instead went about pointing fingers at those who point it. Is it not in the interest of Wikipedia and members who adhere to neutral standards to avoid making it look like 'national POV defense' which is basically unsubstantiated nonsense, and also to avoid those who point out as 'national defense POV' people just so that admins/editors can avoid being neutral and inquire about reliable sources? Not once has these editors, who have replied to my messages above, inquired about secondary reliable sources, I don't know by what standards. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And that ^ is another example of the tendentiousness that Thisthat2011 espouses. It is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on a huge, repetitive scale. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2011 (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 close merger discussion at Talk:Raja Yoga#Merge_proposal

In February it was proposed that Yoga Sutras of Patanjali be merged into Raja Yoga. There seemed to have been an overwhelming consensus against merger, but the discussion was never formally closed, and the templates remain on the pages. Now a couple of more people have weighed in to offer further agreement to reject the merger. Could an administrator please close the discussion and remove the templates, assuming you agree that consensus was reached? (note: I should not do so because I participated under my pre-change username) The discussion is here: Talk:Raja_Yoga#Merge_proposal. Thanks -- Presearch (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Alphasinus

I have had a number of disheartening experiences with Alphasinus (talk · contribs) the user is interested in "Pan-Germanism" and has a habit of editing without or against consensus in order to enforce his viewpoint. He conducts slow revert wars that make it impossible to report him for 3rr, but that does not make the fact that every time I log on he has reinserted his pOV version instead of the sourced version that I have spent time writing, and without adressing the arguments on the talk page. Typical edits include inserting inserting definitions of ethnic groups as "Germanic" withotu providing a proper source for this definition (he has done this repeatedly with Norwegians, Danes, Swedes, and Dutch). He has also repeatedly copypasted the entire article on "X culture" into the article on the ethnic group (with Danes and Norwegians). He is now editwarring to remove mentions of the influence of Pan-Germanism on Nazism, and of the anti-semitic and anti-Slav elements of pan-German ideology from the lead of the article on Pan-Grmanism. In spite of all available sources including the ones he himself inserted into the article making an important point of these aspects. In all these cases he simply reverts without edit summary or without adressing discussion on the talk page. I would like some extra pairs of eyes on this situation as it is getting frustrating.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note, I have taken the liberty of correcting the user name in Maunus's post above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

~:If you could take a closer look at the edit, you would notice that i didnt remove what you added, but rather placed it in the proper part of the article. It's undue that the intro now talks more about Adolf Hitler and National Socialism than the very idea of Pan-Germanism.Alphasinus (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You removed it from the lead, in spite of the fact that you have repeatedly been told that the lead is supposed to summarise al relevant aspects of the topic. You did it without an edit summary and without adding any new argumens to the talk page. You have done it several times now. This is disruptive editing. In his edit[100] you even use the edit summary to misinform about what you are actually doing. It is not ok.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting 1 week protection of Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship due to Vandalism

Resolved

 – Appears a user is blocked and referred otherwise to WP:RfPP for protection request. No further work to do here. CycloneGU (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

User Spacejam2 has been warned to cease his moves of the page without discussion on either the talk page or on WikiProject Poland. Requesting 1 week protection of Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship. This particular page is used as example in the Manual of Style to use the Polish name if the English Name is not established

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Poland-related_articles)#Administrative_divisions

Ajh1492 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFPP. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if an administrator gave a warning to the user. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Now blocked for edit warring and move warring, which continued after they were notified of the ANI complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attacks / Threat of Violence from 70.16.235.20

Resolved

Please see Special:Contributions/70.16.235.20, threatening violence against another editor. Tgeairn (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by Bsadowski1, edit also revdel'd. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 22:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thread archived unresolved

Resolved

 – This looked unresolved, restored here and removed from archive. Will be rearchived after another 24h lull. CycloneGU (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This (link removed as dead link, see "Tokerdesigner, again" CycloneGU (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)) thread was put to archive unresolved with an ongoing discussion. Is that usual? Mjpresson (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably not a normal practice, but as it was unresolved I've taken the liberty of restoring it from the archive this time due to the ongoing unclosed poll in the section. It was archived due to no replies within 24 hours. To keep it from being archived, make sure replies is made in the thread daily until resolution. CycloneGU (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks! Mjpresson (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds familiar, somehow...

Raging and raging in the lengthening thread
The mood will not heed the moderator;
Rules sprout loopholes; the FAQ cannot answer;
Mere trollery is loosed upon the site,
The lambent prose is loosed, and everywhere
The assumption of good faith is crumbled;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some resolution is at hand;
Surely Going Viral is at hand.
Going Viral! Hardly are those words onscreen
When a vast image out of Fandom Wank
Troubles my stream: somewhere in the wilds of the net
A community with zeitgeist and common purpose,
A cause right and pitiless as the sun,
Is searching for a forum, while all their LJs
Trail threads of the approving, supportive THIS’s.
The tweets move on again; but now I know
That 287 TLDs of peaceful sites
Were vexed to nightmare by a raging thread
And what rough horde, its cause come round at last
Slouches toward my website to be borne?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 19:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wut? — Scientizzle 19:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am disappoint. – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the poem, but you forgot to sign you post, which I believe is now a bannable offence per Decree #1147-C. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't want to sign it when I didn't write it in the first place. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get. Explain would you? CycloneGU (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The first line links to the source of the poem, along with several other musings on internet life. (See also The Second Coming (poem).)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarek. This stuff is gold. --Diannaa (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum - Civility issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Today's lesson: if you don't want an editor to blow up at you, don't go onto his talk page and call him a dick. 28bytes (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Today lesson part 2: if you don't deal with incivility, editors may retire. Wikipedia needs to be a collegial environment, or only those with very thick skins, or no interest in collaboration, will remain. Footnote: the reporting editor was not the one who called Malleus a dick, as 28bytes' close implied. Rd232 ^talk 10:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

---

I hate to bring anybody here because this really isn't my thing, I'd rather be editing than report an incident about someone but something really should be done of Malleus, perhaps a suggestion to take a break from Wikipedia?

He has personally attacked other editors and when I raised the issue with him, he just insulted me and the other editor some more and accused me of not being able to tell my own arse from my elbow, which I can (even if my human anatomy knowledge is slightly lacking). That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 02:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And another. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 02:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I gather of the conversation, Malleus was polite, if blunt, until Boycool made the comment "When you continue to act like such a dick about this, it makes one wonder why you reviewed the nomination in the first place". That's all I have to say. ceranthor 02:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

His sarcasm may have provoked me, but I'm at fault for this. --Boycool (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing constructive will come from this thread. Cheesy Dude, you probably have the best of intentions, but I would recommend withdrawing this. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is our monthly "Malleus is uncivil" thread. Sorry Cheesy Dude, this won't result in anything happening. I'll second Jenks24's advice, just ignore the situation and try and stay clear of him. Dayewalker (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Where's your monthly thread on the editors who've been uncivil to Malleus? Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
      • You don't ever seem to need any help. You get along here just fine. Dayewalker (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• • You and the other guy got what you deserved, honestly. GIGO. Tarc (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Really? You felt as if I got what I deserved? How so? That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 02:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Hey, I'll be the first, make that second, to admit that I got what I deserved. --Boycool (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2011 (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.

Personal Attacks, Harrassing Behaviour, inappropriate warnings and inappropriate use of Twinkle by User:FaktneviM

FaktneviM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been harassing User:Jeffro77 incessantly on Jeffro77's talkpage over the last couple of days, apparently as a result of a content dispute elsewhere. I stepped in yesterday as a relatively uninvolved third party and tried to get FaktneviM to back off. That failed, and he is now edit-warring with me on my own talk page.

Warnings given to FaktneviM

• 3RR: [101] by User:Bidgee
• Harass4im: [102] by User:Danjel (me)
• Harass3: [103] by User:Danjel (me)
• Personal Attacks & Inappropriate Warnings (non-template message): [104] by User:Jeffro77
• Refactoring/Editing other users' comments (non-template message): [105]

Personal Attacks/Harassment on User:Jeffro77

Jeffro77 has been tremendously patient in dealing with FaktneviM on his talkpage. There is a long threaded discussion at Jeffro77's talkpage which is littered with personal attacks. First, there are two inappropriate warning templates: for personal attacks [diff: [106]] and for promotional material [diff: [107]]. Later Jeffro is accused of being a "frivolous" hypocrite [diff: [108]]. A barnstar was given, then revoked [diff: [109]]. FaktneviM has also edited Jeffro77's content, requiring Jeffro77 to undo the changes [diff: [110]]. I would go on, but it should be pretty clear that Jeffro77 is weathering a storm. The section on his talkpage stands for itself.

Comment: It has been particularly frustrating trying to work with FaktneviM. I'm aware there's a language issue, but it is not the underlying cause of the problem here. For transparency, the initial content dispute is located at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Jesus reference mislead. FaktneviM has also claimed that the Userboxes on my User page constitute "preaching", "offensive, uncivil, hatred, lofty and other very bad things", "hatred and pride" and "bombing with propaganda, spreading hatred thoughts and intolerance".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

He just doesn't seem to understand[111] (I don't mean the language difference).--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

On 26 July, FaktneviM also lodged a fraudulent complaint against me at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism[112]. He did not advise me that he had lodged the complaint. Unsurprisingly, it was summarily dismissed as unactionable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

3RR on my talkpage

FaktneviM is now engaging in an edit war with me on my talkpage.

Revert 1: [113] Revert 2: [114] Revert 3: [115] Revert 4: [116]

...and an inappropriate warning: [117]

He is aware of WP:OWNTALK. It has been mentioned to him frequently, for example [diff: [118]].

More than Language Background other than English issues

While I'm conscious that there are some clear issues of literacy/fluency in written English, I think this goes beyond that. This is a matter of maturity and an inability to conform with some pretty basic rules for collaborative conduct on wikipedia. If there is anyone who can speak Czech (?), then by all means see if you can get some sense out of this situation. -danjel (talk to me) 11:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I also warned FaktneviM about his restoring of comments removed by Jeffro77 on his user talk page but has clearly ignored the warning given. Bidgee (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins has given another warning as an uninvolved admin. If this starts again I'm sure someone will block, but for now let's hope that settles at least the user talk warring. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

+++++
Hello all. I just firstly (and very last too) read this ´page´ (I try to avoid perfect adjective what I recently thinking about this all).

I could fully and sincerely confirm all, what is stated here, is truth. That is the one side. Reverse side of the situation is: These all "diffs" just show for me another evidence and typical example ´How Wikipedia´s editors, not only admins (but all, in general) ´pluck things out of context´. I don´t expect you read all that "stories" (I mean ... all topics, .... with examining whole text ... not only one diff out of context). But consider, I now seen again how this all society and communion is full of hypocrites and evil-doers. If you would like, ... block me! .... I will be free again of this mock encyclopedia. I have no interests lost another expensive time and my weak mental health here anymore.

If Jeffro saying here, ´he is frustrated´, I have to say the same! We both are absolutely incompatible personalities as I speculated this reason on his talk page. Although, in the last discussion on his talk page, which is mentioned here ... We were not in a quarrel. It was partially most productive talk, which we both have so far! I also pleased him several times for deleting private link, which he used only! for purpose to damage my interests. Reason was NOT, as he claimed - avoiding misleading others. That was only repeatedly said excuse. In fact, NOBODY, excluding me, and people to whom I would like to tell them, ... Nobody other has right to know my personal values ... on ARTICLE TALK! Jeffro used this tactic with the link for continuing in attacking.

I also call for Danjel´s conscience (NOT ONLY his) in contact with me. User_talk:FaktneviM#At_minimum

See for more ... my User Page, ... my Talk Page

But I will not responding anymore. (Maybe only in case of some very big + well-mind surprise)

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
+++++

The link to which FaktneviM refers was in this edit at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. The context for the link (a diff from a Wikipedia subpage, and not a 'private' page) was also provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You should be ashamed for that. I said it already in a talk, but again. You should show big shame for that. Very bad from you, indeed. Shame you! --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM has now requested speedy deletion of all of his/her user subpages, including that one. I have complied with the request, as it is policy that users can have their own subpages deleted on request, but I do wonder why that request has come now. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to finish my Wikipedia account some time before these problems starts. However, problems with my pages was like catalyst for me and I had to (in fact, I hadn´t, but I want) end all my activities vigorously and conclusively. For that aim was some cleaning of my pages quite useful. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM's posts to Jeffro77's talk page have been absurdly persistent and unconstructive. At first I though that the solution would be a ban from editing that page, but looking at other pages I see that the problem goes much further and deeper than that. FaktneviM has also started harassing Danjel, following that user's good faith attempt to help. FaktneviM has also responded to good faith and perfectly civil posts from another editor at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses in a paranoid manner, evidently seeing a personal attack where none was intended or given. He/she has a history of responding angrily and uncivilly to any editor who expresses a view he/she doesn't agree with, using such language as "stupidity, pride and nasty behavior", "despicable", and so on. It seems to me that the editor has serious problems with trying to collaborate with other editors. There are also other serious problems, such as the editor's apparent inability to see that his/her belief that something is The Truth is not a valid criterion for how an article should be edited, repeated use of inappropriate warning templates in a vindictive manner, etc etc. I am not sure that the editor will ever be capable of fitting into Wikipedia's methods. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

<blockquote>FaktneviM has also started harassing Danjel, following that user's good faith attempt to help.</blockquote>....Please. Show me at least ONE act from Danjel, which you consider as ´good will´. I felt (+and history revision of my talk page, +and his talk revisions history page, ... both prove it clearly) only bad-will. Nothing, what I recognize as normal behavior if someone wants tell me something. He was clearly bad+bad+bad+bad. See that history revisions carefully. Nothing positive from him. Another lies (as good will from other editors on Article Talk page - Where? That was only provoking me and personal attacks. Tell me - What was at least ´little good´ there. Again. Nothing. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I read some of that again and probably some cleaning should be useful. Problem is, that, when I tried to change culture of Wikiproject members discussion,-including me, I was always taken aback and frustrated, because not-wise Ẅikipedia rules do not allow edit comments to (something like general cleanup of quality talking) for example very suitable for most of WikiProject sites discussion. But when I tried to change it, always someone Undid that. Because Wikipedia rules are so rigid, and goes against sense of civility. I still hope ´my cleaning plans´, which every time someone stop will fulfill someone other (for example here) . But generally, for this rigid encyclopedia is no hope for future.<blockquote> if other editors agree, I ''could'' clean up the thread somewhat.--AuthorityTam</blockquote>. It´s funny that if I tried several times same changes, always were opposite and hatred. Just absurd encyclopedia with irrational procedures and moreover different rules for different wikipedians. Just absurd. And as Jeffro saying with his favorite idiom,- "It´s irrelevant". So bye. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FakteviM, It sounds like you want to make a Right to Vanish request. Follow the methodology on the page and don't log in, don't think about this account/wiki, don't respond. The thread will die of old age and get forgotten. Hasteur (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I am not sure what I really want. Surely I leave from -WikiProject Jehovah´s Witnesses, and all other project, where I was active too (-Christianity, -Latter Day Saint movement), -several non-religious related topics, which I previously edited. This probably in summary results I leave from English part of Wikipedia. Still my "global account" have 51 living accounts, in 8 I was actively involved). Since I leave English part, I´ll probably go to my home wiki after return from wikibreak, and other wikis, which seems me much normal and productive, than here. I am quite convinced, that main problems were not in language. That´s get even worse. But mainly about community, which is hardly to comprehend for me and I am not willing to accept hypocrite rules specific for English, which do against sense of that recommendations. Other problems with editors, with which I was not able to mutually cooperate productively. Even with efforts was rather disruptive for me and perhaps for them too, and in summary, it was lost of time and energy. Gain of experiences seems quite good, but for me is ´too low reward´. In this sense, I suppose, "Right to Vanish" will be applied on English only and not globally for all wikis. Or reversely? Other option I´ll fully retire from all WikiMedia projects. Who knows? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RTV, fine, but in the meantime harassment continues...

I'm going to assume that FaktneviM will exercise his/her right to vanish tomorrow, per the statement on his/her talkpage.

However, RTV applies to people in "good standing", and the still continuing harassment of Jeffro77 (for example refactoring on another user's talkpage [diff: [119]] and another spuriously given Barnstar User_talk:Jeffro77#A_barnstar_for_you.21) does not speak well to this. As before, I don't think that it is unreasonable for FaktneviM to immediately STOP all communication with or about Jeffro77. -danjel (talk to me) 07:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a small issue with the text given with the barnstar. However, FaktneviM's refactoring in the diff linked above seems more an effort on his part to cease hostility, by striking inappropriate comments that User:Lighthead had made against me, (albeit misguided per Talk page guidelines). (Lighthead has befriended FaktneviM online as a member of the same religion as FaktneviM.) Lighthead has been 'monitoring' the dispute and started making inappropriate comments at User talk:FaktneviM#Email and then at User talk:Lighthead#Response, however FaktneviM requested that Lighthead stop; as a concession to FaktneviM's request, I also struck my reply to Lighthead. (I'm tentatively optimistic that there will not be any collateral from Lighthead.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Disturbing shoot first policy

I am seriously concerned about the block that was issued for 206.190.68.46 back in January. Since when does WP policy have us blocking IPs for a single edit, that wasn't even close to be serious vandalism. It was simply the addition of unsourced information, which happens all the time. We should be more welcoming to IPs, and not "shoot first", assuming bad faith. If you check the edit history of this IP, it is a public IP, and all most all of the edits have been helpful. I just wanted to raise this issue, since it frequent affects how I edit, since I spend much of my time in coffee shops, airports, etc. Before you tell me to try "getting an account", please cite the WP policy that requires this. Thanks! 206.190.68.46 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, I realize this is a bit stale, but I just saw the message, and found it disturbing. 206.190.68.46 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If you know the block was not directed at you, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. While there are cases of worse abuse, it is not uncommon for shared IPs to be blocked because they are such easy targets of abuse. –MuZemike 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to contact the admin who applied the block and ask him why, rather than bringing it to a forum such as this. Having said that, in the one edit that led to the block, the IP signed the comment using an administrator's username (User:Resolute, who was the blocking admin). Deceitfully trying to use the identity of an admin seems like a blockable offense to me. Peacock (talk)

It was hardly a "single edit" that led to the block. There was a pattern of persistent addition of the same text from multiple IPs; an immediate warning was appropriate for this edit to Craig MacTavish, because it indicated the same person was editing again, albeit from a different IP. When they made another malicious edit, the block was in order.

Policy does not require you to get an account. However, the blocking policy means that all users of an IP may have to suffer for the actions of one malicious user of the IP. (If malicious users keep getting the IP of your favorite coffee shop blocked, you may just have to pick a higher-brow coffee shop to edit from. :) ) We try to limit or mitigate collateral damage with those blocks, but it can't always be avoided. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How fortuitous that I just happened to see this thread. Based on the edit history of the Craig MacTavish article, the same unsourced, BLP violating content was being added repeatedly by a slew of IP addresses. I jumped directly to the L4 warning for this IP address on the belief that it was a single IP hopping vandal, then blocked when that person followed up with a spurious warning to another editor while spoofing my name. That was six months ago, and to the current editor on that IP, removing the old notices are certainly fair game. Regards, Resolute 20:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The person in question had been edit warring. The fact that they were using different IP addresses each time should not give them a protection from being blocked that would not have been afforded to someone using a single IP address or a registered account, and when they then started impersonating another user the block was fully justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(resp to IP's opening statement) If you're too lazy to create an account? that's your problem, not ours. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't called for. The IP is correct, they do not have to create an account. But if IP thinks we are obliged to permit IP to post as an IP, when that address is being used inappropriately, IP is mistaken.--SPhilbrickT 00:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Seconding Sphilbrick. That was neither polite nor required, nor supported by policy or practice. IPs are important members of the community, and many many named editors spend time editing as an IP first. Treating them like people is as required as it is for "real" editors, as opposed to driving away potential content-builders. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Veteran IPs know the risk of not creating an account, such as in this situation. They needn't complain about anybody recommending they create an account. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If he didn't know the risk, he does now -- the risk is exactly the same kind of dismissive condescension to which you just subjected him. In other words, the risk you are describing is your own behavior. I think you ought to strike the comment. causa sui (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take it as purely coincidence that the "MacTavish team bus vandal" (persistent vandal for 6-7 years) got blocked for vandalizing Ed Snider yesterday. TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Insertion of Foul and Abusive words and repeated vandalism on Mohun Bagan AC

Dear Admin, This is nothing new but it is really reaching its limit. For the past few days user 14.96.114.8 has been continually been editing the article on Mohun Bagan AC by inserting foul and slang words inside the article. plz feel free to verify the same from the user's profile as logs of only insertion of inappropriate and racial slurs will show that his foremost object of visiting Wikipedia is to vandalise its property. User 115.242.174.192 has been mass erasing data from the same article. again plz verify the same. Hope you will do the needful and protect wikipedia. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.sinha04 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What do those words mean exactly? As a non speaker of the language it's hard to gauge whether it's vandalism or not. N^oformation ^Talk 09:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP has made precisely 3 edits. The first may or may not be problematic, the second appears to be an unsourced change, which would be hard to call vandalism, and the third edit is possibly problematic. I tried to use Google translate, which said it was in Italian then promptly failed to provide a translation. Unless the OP tells us which language this is, there's not much we can do, even if the editing is problematic. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP is located in Andra Pradesh India, so one of two languages seems right, either Telugu or Sanskrit.

I checked some of the text in a Sanskrit dictionary | here and got some matches, but nothing coherent. We may need a native reader / speaker of Sanskrit (or Telugu). @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 18:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, I don't believe there are any living native readers or speakers of Sanskrit.  :) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think they're mostly names actually -though I'm not to sure about "Khanki". Could the complainant tell us what he thinks the words are and what he thinks they mean?Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed the IP hasn't been notified. Will do that now.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well there's been no more activity and no response. I'll post a note on the page but it doesn't warrant more active admin response unless he comes back.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Should ongoing AFD discussions started by a now-banned user be summarily vacated and closed?

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

This user was a single-purpose account registered to promote and defend the coverage of Fly (programming language) on Wikipedia. When the article went up for AFD and the discussion was clearly not going his way, he left several harassing comments and pointily nominated several other obscure programming languages for deletion in classic "If I can't have mine, then you can't have yours" fashion. Subsequently he was indefblocked by Ruud Koot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and talk page access was then revoked by Smartse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

As an uncontroversial indefinite block (at least three admins including myself agreed with it), I judged that the user was now community banned. Therefore, I closed several of his pointy AFDs out of usual process as disruptive contributions by a banned user.

Later, Ruud Koot appeared on my talk page asking me to reverse my closes since some of the discussions had been forming consensus to delete. He clearly had a point, since WP:SK indicates that bad faith or pointy nominations should not be closed if uninvolved editors think the discussion is worthwhile. Somewhat serendipitously taking the opposite view, Pepper (talk · contribs) left me a comment soon after, asking me to close the pointy AFDs that I'd missed, citing the indefinite block.

The contradiction is amusing, since both options appear to be reasonable courses of action. It's an interesting test case based on a contradiction between WP:SK vs WP:BAN, so hopefully some third opinions will help resolve what to do. causa sui (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the AfD nominations preceded the indef block and de facto ban, it seems to me that WP:BAN wouldn't be applicable, hence no contradiction. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a possible way to resolve the cognitive dissonance. However, does it match precedent? In abstraction from this specific situation, if a disruptive SPA is de facto banned due to disruptive contributions, shouldn't we revert those disruptive contributions that were the basis for the ban? That seems to be the spirit of the banning policy. causa sui (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the disruptive SPA angle, so your point is a good one. Hmm, I'll have to think a bit more on this... ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp: if he's blocked first then put up the AFDs, revert (and summarily close). Otherwise let them play out. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Note, though, that the user couldn't have made nominations if they were already blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A number of the nominations didn't really make sense as AfDs (as they clearly had sources), but a few actually did and would quite likely get deleted if the AfDs were reopened. snaphat (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I would close them with a note on the talk page saying that there is no objection to their being reopened. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the whole "point"y AfD issue is that if a user nominates articles and is banned, say, ten minutes later (not saying that's the case here, just saying), that the "point"y AfDs can be closed. However, if there is an AfD among them that has a "Delete" comment by an uninvolved editor (essentially, not a sock), then the AfD should remain open as it could be presumed that this editor would be able to reopen the AfD if it were closed. CycloneGU (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts go along the lines of CyloneGU's. I feel like having a banned user nominate an article for deletion (no matter how bad the article is) is not right. If I were a (new) user who was actually trying to create an encyclopedic article and it got nominated for deletion, I wouldn't feel too bad. If the nominator was a banned user, I would feel like it was completely unfair. However, if there is another editor who also believes the article should be deleted, then they should in affect be the nominator. I feel like the banned user's opinion shouldn't count, and this already happens other places (RfA etc.), therefore the article they nominated for deletion shouldn't count unless there is another user sharing their opinion. "Pepper" 22:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the few areas in which the treatment of de facto and de jure bans varies. The rules on bannage have been abundantly clear for years: revert anything a banned user does on sight. However, from what I can see, this user has been indef blocked and talk-restricted, but is not under any formal ban. Bans are social measures used to exclude editors from the community, rather than merely anti-disruption tools. I'm very much in favour of letting noms by users who are merely indef blocked run as normal if they seem to be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. If you want to propose that the block be considered a formal ban then so be it, but I'd have left the noms to run in this case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A banned user can't nominate something for deletion, Pepper. I would say unless they were banned because of an improper AfD nomination, then their AfD nomination is as valid as any other. It should be judged on its own merits, not the character of the editor who nominated it. AfD doesn't equal 'deleted', and editors in perfectly good standing can make an improper nomination for AfD. So again, consider the nomination on its own, don't close things just because a person you don't like was the one nominating it, but because its actually improper, and if its fine, let it be. -- Avanu (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This AfD discussion ended in delete despite being started by a banned user, and the deletion was upheld at DRV. The community evidently holds the very sensible position that we cannot invalidate the good-faith opinions of later !voters just because the nominator is banned. Reyk _YO! 22:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. If the only person who thinks an article should be deleted is the now-banned nominator, then it can probably be a speedy keep. But if others are supporting deletion, then the discussion should play out to its natural conclusion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the discussions should continue if other editors find them to have merit.  Sandstein  06:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I say relist those that have other editors leaning towards delete and let the AfDs run? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have raised a request for community input at WP:VPP#Comment needed: What should we do about processes (such as XfD) created in violation of banning/blocking policy, but had at least a handful of other valid supporting views of nom? for situations similar to what we've been talking about here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• For my part, I'm persuaded that the AFDs should be reopened or relisted. I'll do it in the next couple days. Thanks to everyone who chimed in. causa sui (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks, bad-faith and slow edit-warring

JerryDavid89 (talk · contribs) was pretty sure[120] he personally attacked someone at Talk:Gilad Atzmon [121], but ultimately doesn't care (see first diff). JerryDavid89 has also attempted to remove some content over the period 1:00 27 July to 16:44 29 July on Marty Peretz four times.[122][123][124][125] The justifications, given in edit summaries have included "ridiculous amount of material here. "Wikipedia: the tabloid controversy conservatory"?!" and "there's still far too much "controversy" as far as I'm concerned". I've reverted these attempts twice. I first said, "If it is undue, you can still trim and preserve some content", to which an edit summary replied "that's what i did... [126]. I attempted to explain to the editor on they must have misunderstood what preserving meant[127] on 15:59 29 July. I rewrote the material, by shortening it, and reinstated it in condensed form on 15:47 29 July.[128] It was promptly reverted at 16:08 with no edit summary.[129] This was reverted by another editor who said "Unexplained removal or a large amount of content" to which the editor replied with the fourth revert, "actually, was explained".

In addition to their lack of concern over personal attacks the slow edit warring behavior, their talk page replies (including one that cautioned the editor about our ArbCom Arab-Israeli sanction) suggest no concern for our standards.[130] Can this be dealt with? Shootbamboo (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this myself (since its an attack on me) and would note that my one block was when I asked someone about whether their sexual interests were being gratified by attacking me or women on wikipedia, merely based on a reading of their editing history. He similarly assumed I am an antisemite and insulted me about it because I have done edits he disagrees with on the Israel-Palestine issue. So I do think what's good for the gander is good for the goose. (Though I do think it is appropriate to warn people about WP:ARBPIA.) Thanks for noting this, Shootbamboo. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I myself in the last week have had to deal with JerryDavid89 biased edits, this time reverting1, 2, 3 the removal of questionably sourced and/or WP:Undue and WP:Coatrack material, refusing to discuss these policy issues, refusing to edit cooperatively by looking for sources, and resorting instead to personal attacks.1, 2, 3, 4. So it does seem to be a pattern. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There also is this attack by JerryDavid89] on the admin who warned him on his talk page about not doing personal attacks, clearly insinuating the admin does not like Jews. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

---

He's only a minor annoyance so far, but he's now resorting to anonymous IP socks to get his precious sentence into United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, so someone should tell him what's what in a semi-official manner... AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Disturbing content on User_talk:MickMacNee

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not much point to keeping this open any longer. CycloneGU (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Resolved

I was browsing through Recent Changes and stumbled onto this person's talk page. Pretty disturbing and long note, but I thought I should let somebody look at it. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 19:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is really not worthy of further administrative reporting - ask the arbs to hurry up and close the case or block his talkpage access until they do. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbs? I didn't see any link to a ArbCom discussion. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 19:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

He deletes anything he doesn't like. The guy's in the process of being banned. Decisions been made, but until it's implemented he's ranting at every opportunity. DeCausa (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If he's being banned NEway, can an admin. just block his talk page access until the ban takes effect and it's blocked NEway? CycloneGU (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. CycloneGU (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(It was since reverted by Off2riorob. CycloneGU (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC))

(Non-admin comment) I've seen some of this editor's posts in the past and he didn't strike me as one who would post something like that. I don't know what's made him go beserk (for lack of a better word) but I just want to offer the suggestion that he's not always been like this. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, he's SOL if he continues. Sorry for wasting your time. Rainbow Dash (WikiBrony!) 19:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If he's about to be banned, he's already SOL. CycloneGU (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

He's been indef blocked and Talk page wiped pending implementation of the arbcom decision. I think this thread can be closed. DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've indef blocked him and locked his talk page. He's about to be banned, and any further interaction is just pointless drama at this point.--Scott Mac 19:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we add this removed text to this thread. Count Iblis (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

...the heck is that site? o_O CycloneGU (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2011 (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.

Mop needed for old delete job

Resolved

 – Thank you for posting. Come again.
(Seriously, I think this has been addressed.) CycloneGU (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is an old unanswered deletion vote, one in which the same content was moved to another page. Both the old page and the new page should be deleted.

Pages to be deleted

• User:Colonel_Warden/RIP
• User:Colonel Warden/Inactive accounts

Deletion discussions

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (Closed as snow keep)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination) (Closed as delete)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 16. Deletion review closed with no consensus, defaulting to the former deletion decision.

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Err, you seem to have reading comprehension problems. "No Consensus to endorse or overturn and our jury says..... I made the endorsed and overturn arguments deadlocked at 23 each give or take a couple either way and there is no way to take any kind of meaningful consensus from that. There are arguments on each side and closing with any kind of outcome would simply be a massive great super vote. So trouts all round and feel free to relist this if anyone can stomache running this absurd discussion a third time... – Spartaz Humbug! 14:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)" How did you conclude from that it is "defaulting to the former deletion decision"? FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

... especially when the admin who closed the 2nd MfD wrote at DRV: "Closing admin's comments I undeleted this because I was taken aback at the heat here, and the insistence of the letter of process over the result. In retrospect that wasn't good, because I again short-circuited this process in an annoyance at process - I could redelete it, but that's just likely to cause more problems. Sorry. I'm really past caring about this, and saying no more. The person closing this should do as they see fit, it can either overturn the deletion and allow the page to remain, or endorse deletion and re-delete the page. Either will be a not unreasonable close of a contention DRV. I suspect if it remains more drama will occur, but I'm bowing out.--Scott Mac 08:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC) " FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't User:RickK appear on the list? Count Iblis (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Raeky and Twinkle

Before anything else, I feel a disclaimer is appropriate. On July 18, I made this edit to Creation–evolution controversy, as I felt the wording was not as NPOV as it probably should be. However, it was reverted, and it seems the consensus is to keep this wording, so I didn't press the issue. Earlier, an IP made the exact same edit, and it was then reverted as "vandalism". I then left a uw-notvand template on User:Raeky's talk page, and tried to show Raeky that the edit was not vandalism and was made in good faith, but was unsuccessful.

I'm requesting that an administrator review User:Raeky's use of the Twinkle tool, and, if appropriate, to remove his ability to use the tool. Raeky is mislabeling edits as vandalism,[131][132][133][134] and templating IP addresses as such, and has a misunderstanding of what is and is not vandalism, even after being explained that such edits fall under WP:NOTVAND.[135]

"Random new accounts and IP's making the edit without an edit summery is essentially vandalism, specifically if the edit is against consensus and been reverted numerous times."[136]

When I made the edit, it was apparently in good-faith and not vandalism, but because the exact same edit was later made by an IP address, it "was clearly not good faith edits, they was POV pushing edits"[137].

Here, Raeky admits that "for dealing with these POV edits, it's clicking the vandal edit is an easy one click solution, that happens occasionally". Raeky is not marking the edits as vandalism because they fall under Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, but because doing so is "easy". This is not the intended use of Twinkle. Wikipedia:TWINKLE#Abuse specifically says that Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. This is why I have brought this to the attention of the administrators, so that the issue can hopefully be solved.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, hopefully it wasn't too drawn out, I just wanted to make what I was trying to say clear enough. - SudoGhost 16:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bitter much? I've explained my reasoning to the best I can on my talk page, but I see you want to keep it going by coming here. Irregardless of your edit, the article in question is plagued with POV pushing edits, and this particular edit is a POV pushing edit. It's not just the first time this particular sentence was removed, it's always removed, and almost always removed by IP addresses who have never edited before, or brand new accounts who have never edited before. After some point the same series of edits and changes become more, and to me it becomes vandalistic. It seems clear SudoGhost is either hurt that his edit was reverted or an extreme-rule follower. There are WP:IAR and WP:UCS, but a quick browse through the history of these creation/evolution articles, this type of reverting isn't uncommon. *shrug* — raekyT 16:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusing good faith editors of vandalism is not a 'shrug' issue - it chases off good faith contributors. Do you understand what WP:vandalism is? Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure I do, I interpreted these brand new editors, jumping straight to a highly-controversial topic, and making a highly-controversial and debated edit, that has been changed multiple times already this week, as a likely WP:GAME with sockpuppets. Unless you edit these creationist/evolution articles, then you can't understand how much WP:GAME actually takes place. A brand new editor first editing there making a common POV edit, is likely WP:GAME... more likely than them being a legitimate user... If I'm incorrect in this assessment, then I am, but that was my reasoning for the edits. — raekyT 17:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a contentious statement, I'm not a creationist and even I think it's a pretty loaded statement, so it makes perfect sense that it would be removed often. Someone viewing that article and feeling strongly enough to make that first edit isn't going to know to scroll through talk pages and understand consensus or even that Wikipedia works through consensus. There is no WP:GAME there, and there is no vandalism. Everyone who makes that edit is not automatically a sockpuppet, making the WP:GAME argument completely unfounded without some kind of proof of sockpuppetry. - SudoGhost 17:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion on the edit or reasoning, just explaining mine. Theres a core set of editors on these particular pages that come here JUST to game the system, to disrupt it and to try to push their point of view. They use new accounts, ip's, etc... Afterall these articles are basically refuting their faith. It is VASTLY more likely a brand new editor making a POV edit on these creation/evolution articles IS here just to game the system, at least in my point of view. It's likely a point of view many of the regular editors of those articles would feel as well. Virtually every edit there gets reversed, and most are POV pushing. Just because YOU disagree with the consensus doesn't make the edit alright. Maybe I was wrong about it, but you keep pushing it further, like on my talk page, and now here... — raekyT 17:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Just because YOU disagree with the consensus doesn't make the edit alright." Who said otherwise? What I am saying, is that you still fail to see that the edits are not vandalism, that you're abusing the Twinkle tool, and that even still, you fail to see why it is an issue. If it were that one time, I wouldn't take issue, but you've shown that you have no intentions to change this behaviour, and my concern is that if you are allowed to continue to use twinkle for "ease", then you'll continue marking edits as vandalism when you disagree with them, and scare away potential contributors to Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 17:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you don't get to use WP:IAR to call edits that aren't vandalism "vandalism". If the talk page consensus supports keeping the existing language in the article, put that in the edit summary when you revert, instead of clicking the "[rollback (VANDAL)]" button. 28bytes (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No. In adition to the rollback options there's also "undo" and "Restore to this version" buttons (both in and out of Twinkle). Unless it meets a very narrow definition of vandalism, you don't use the rollback options at all. If you can't seperate the good items from the bad, edit the page to undo the changes and note it in your edit summary. In short, put down the automation tools and edit by hand. It'll help you identify at a quick glance what does and does not qualify for various methods of reversion. Hasteur (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Raeky, it is pretty clear here that you do not understand the very, very narrow definition of the word "vandalism" as it should be used as a rationale for undoing the edits of others. That does not mean that I agree or disagree with your reverting the edits; I am taking no stance at all on that issue. However, I would strenuously suggest that you stop using the word "vandalism" to describe anything at all, since it is clear from the times you have used it that you have no idea how to use the word correctly. Instead, please try to describe exactly what is wrong with the edit in question. The more detailed you are in your rationale for reverting an edit, the more likely people will come to your side in any dispute over the issue, and the less likely people will get hung up over the words you use and completely miss what may otherwise be good work on your part. Instead of drawing attention for the wrong reasons, just avoid the word "vandalism" altogether. Strike it from your vocabulary, and instead be detailed in the specific reason for reverting someone. --Jayron32 17:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Raeky! I have a huge amount of respect for your work on Wikipedia and commend you for being so diligent at keeping Wikipedia accurate and free from vandalism. Unfortunately, I have to agree that, in this case, you may have made a mistake in labeling one or more edits as vandalism that were not actually vandalism. This is a very important issue for the health of the Wikipedia community and I think it needs to be taken seriously. Although Twinkle is a very useful tool, using it incorrectly can drive away potentially constructive new editors. If you are willing to correct this mistake and agree to only label obvious vandalism as vandalism, I think we can probably close this thread. Although it's often a pain in the ass, sometimes we actually need to take the time to talk to new editors in good faith, regardless of how misguided (or even malicious) they may seem at first glance. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already said I probably made a mistake in labeling, and everyone seems in agreement that I did, so I did. It just gets a bit annoying when you watch edits on an article that 99% of all the edits need reversed... *sigh* — raekyT 17:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I must profess a great deal of sympathy for Raeky's position here. I consider these edits to be a form of subtle vandalism. The obvious strategy here is to repeatedly make a change to the article that is easy to make and creates maximum inconvenience to reality-based editors to fix. It isn't obvious vandalism, so the grownup in the room has to go through a more lengthy process to get the article back to it's consensus state. It seems to me a valid use of WP:IAR to defeat this disruption by using the simplest possible one-click way to revert it. Having said that, if anyone objects (as someone now has), it's probably better to revert without labeling the edits vandalism. It's not that much more difficult. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's like "Don't Template the Regulars", though. Anyway, slightly off-tangent: I once blocked an admin for using admin rollback (at the time) while violating 3RR; the end result is a messy argument from other parties (and not the blocked party, in fact). Still, though: fixing vandalism is hard work, but one must be careful of misinterpreting others' intent. I used to hear complaints about misuses of TW (which I once used but no longer); it's convenient, but sometimes a proper message to the editors, instead of the stock responses, are helpful. (This is also why that when I do use edit summaries, I try to be informative.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

After this AN/I discussion, the user is still inappropriately marking edits as vandalism. Misinformation in good-faith is spelled-out as not being vandalism, and even if the edit was made in bad-faith, it does not fall under one of the WP:VANDTYPES. Even if malicious or disruptive, that edit was not vandalism. There was no valid reason to mark that edit as vandalism, time issues is no reason, as it was the only edit Raeky made after this AN/I discussion. Raeky has shown that the user cannot tell the difference between vandalism, and not vandalism, yet will continue to use tools to mark such edits as vandalism, even though that same tool has a non-vandal rollback button right next to it, and writing an edit summary would have taken 10 seconds. The user's use of Twinkle is inappropriate. WP:TWINKLE says One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's access to use Twinkle revoked or one's account being blocked. The user does not understand Wikipedia policies and is not using this tool within these policies. Raeky seems unwilling to manually edit when the situation calls for it, preferring to abuse Twinkle in order to save time (what time was saved in this last edit?) therefore I highly recommend that the user's ability to use Twinkle be removed. - SudoGhost 07:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Note The recent re-write of Twinkle took away the ability to individually blacklist users. On the twinkle docs it's noted very explicitly that edits performed by twinkle are to be treated no differently than manual edits. If this is still a problem then it is time to convince a Administrator to issue a block to prevent further disruption of the community and the Wiki. Hasteur (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The user has not made any edits since then, so I think blocking would not be appropriate right now. However, if the user continues to mark edits as vandalism when doing so is inappropriate, I think a short block might help prevent such actions in the future, because simply asking doesn't seem to be the answer. - SudoGhost 08:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

111.184.196.225

Resolved

 – IP identified. Nothing to do here for the moment. CycloneGU (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed a impersonating message at Thumperward's talk page left by 111.184.196.225. I'm confirming this IP address a troll user; also sighted his contributions that appear to be nothing but vandalism. So where was I? Oh, yes. I will revert any harassment that gets in my way. He was replacing other content with gibberish, for example: "whgxtm4mwcmm48wil48n783cmyou7m4doenc". If you are deeply concerned about the message on Thumperward's page, it can also mean he is assuming bad faith and being uncivil. He is already blocked for 2 weeks, but when the block lifts, he just might go back to vandalizing. In closing, if you think this report is unjustified, please contact me on my talk page. Thank you. StormContent (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting AN/I. Can you please tell us what kind of administrative help you require? CycloneGU (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The administrative help I require is blocking. If he keeps attacking and biting others after multiple warnings, I can ask a sysop to block the IP address indefinitely. Then revert any attacks made by the IP. However, since i'm an auto confirmed user, I can't block vandals, delete pages under AfD or CSD, or protect pages. After all, those options are what sysops can do. Pages are for good-faith assumption only, not for uncivil comments. Also, he is possibly a sockpuppet of Sven70. If Sven70 and 111.184.196.225 edit wikipedia with vandalism only, then it becomes definitely clear that sven70 is a sockpuppet. THATS when you block him. Thanks for listening. StormContent (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi StormContent. We don't block IP addresses indefinitely, but if he resumes editing disruptively when the current block expires, we will of course re-block for a longer period. 28bytes (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

28bytes is correct. I'm surprised it's a two week block, myself, but just in case IPs change (even permanent IPs can be released manually and changed to something else on the next reconnect), we never keep IPs permanently blocked. CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocks are only when the IP resumes on vandalizing just after several blocks. Maybe 6 blocks or higher? I don't know how much blocks does it take to impose an indef block. StormContent (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

On IPs, never. On registered accounts? Depends on what type of incident it is. But a vandal blocked permanently at one IP can move a year later and resume vandal "work" at the new IP while a new editor at the old IP is permanently blocked (or worse, a registered user is sockpuppeted to the vandalism). See the problem here? CycloneGU (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely a sock of Sven70. Note that when I tagged it as one he reverted it with "Persecute (the) disabled elsewhere, Fuckhead!"[138] Yawn. He's being watched, StormContent - trust me :> Doc talk 03:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL I trust you always. Hey, I better halt this discussion until tomorrow! It's way past my bedtime. Good night! StormContent (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Doc: love that. =D SC, I'm going to mark this resolved, hope that's all right since we'd IDed someone we...don't want here. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange edits by User:96.238.130.153

Resolved

 – User blocked. Timestamped for time of Materialscientist's post as about to be archived in 10h. CycloneGU (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I encountered the strange edits by 96.238.130.153 (talk · contribs) on the Mulatto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, where they were changing words, some of which were just odd choices, like changing "person" to "human". I left them a v1 warning. They continued with the bizarre edits in several other articles, as well as going back and making the exact same changes to the Mulatto article again. Looking back at their edit history, they have this same modus operandi for at least the last ten days, including changing "American" to "U.S.", changing "20 years" to "2 decades", and making other really strange edits that don't have any substantive change to the articles they're editing. Nobody seems to have noticed this edit pattern despite all of their edits having been reversed by a large number of other editors over the last ten days. I haven't gone back to look at any more edits beyond the 20th of July, but this pattern is rather worrisome. They're currently, as I type this, on a final warning for just the edits they have made tonight, but they may need a longer timeout than normal. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Digging further into their edits, all of the edits this IP has made since July 1 are the same bizarre pattern. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked for a week. If anyone is willing to change the block settings or unblock, please go ahead without asking me. These [139] [140] representative edits make me believe it is nothing but trolling. Materialscientist (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask for a second pair on eyes please?

Resolved - editor has redacted. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

See this thread querying an article I deleted on my talk page. I'm very uncomfortable with the close juxtaposition of the term "legally speaking" and "false statements" which seems too close to a legal threat - especially as the user claims not to be a lawyer. I have asked them to redact their statement twice but the have not. Two questions. Am I being unreasonable and is it appropriate for someone to do something about it if I am being reasonable? Cheers. Spartaz Humbug! 08:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I do not think that Marshalsumter intended to make a genuine legal threat. Nevertheless, he should go back and strike out "legally speaking" for his own protection, and replace it with "according to WP policy", which I gather is what he actually meant. He should also be intructed that using the word "legally" here on WP is a VERY BIG DEAL that can have very serious consequences. An editor who makes anything that in the slightest way might be construed as even a hint of a legal threat can be instantly summarily permanently banned without being given the benefit of a doubt or a chance to defend themself. Again, I do not think that a serious legal threat was intended, but it would be best if he went back and edited the phrase "legally speaking" from his posts to make it perfectly clear that he did not mean to make a legal threat. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your comment. Marshallsumter (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Parties to ArbCom cases blocking each other

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No admin action required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC))

---

Resolved

I've been following the MickMacNee arbitration case, and I noticed that one of the parties (User:Rd232) blocked one of the other parties (User:MickMacNee) for an edit made during the arbitration case. As far as I can make out, the edit that the block was carried out for was this. I agree that this was a blockable offence, but what Rd232 should have done is reported that edit, rather than carried out the block himself. I note that User:HJ Mitchell has since taken over the block, and User:Scott MacDonald has since made the block indefinite. I agree with both those actions, but that doesn't make the initial block by Rd232 any more acceptable.

Administrators have been desysopped in the past for blocking those they are in dispute with at ArbCom. Whether that should happen here is not clear (that would be up to ArbCom), but I'd like the community to reaffirm the principle that while administrators are involved in an arbitration case, they should refrain from using their tools with respect to other parties in that arbitration case. I'm going to notify the non-blocked editors I've named above. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Erm, what? At the time of the block Mick was already on his way out the door (Arbcom vote to ban) and he knew it, and consequently had thrown restraint to the wind. The case was effectively over (without motion or sanction against me), and nobody else had stepped up to put a lid on Mick's increasingly unpleasant attacks. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. PS Only today an established contributor retired at least in part because incivility was effectively rejected as being an issue. At time of writing the relevant thread is still on this page. Rd232 ^talk 01:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although not ideal for it to be Rd323, because Mick wouldn't accept the legitimacy of the action (hence my taking it over), calling somebody a "stupid fucking moron", combined with Mick's recent behaviour and ArbCom's failing to get its arse in gear and drop the hammer, is pretty straightforward. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with HJ Mitchell here. It would have been better had someone else taken care of the issue initially, but since it was an obvious block there's really nothing to complain about here
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a very, very longstanding principle, Rd232, and is well described in the Administrator policy. I had already alerted the Arbitration Committee to this issue, and since you have done this, there has been an added Finding of fact to the case and closure may now be delayed while active arbitrators reconsider.[141] Given your statement above, it is clear that you do not understand that you had a conflict of interest here. Per Carcharoth, I agree that a block was appropriate for Mick. But with 800 other administrators, it was the role of someone who was not a named party to the same current arbitration case to make that block, and it is clear there was no shortage of uninvolved administrators who were willing to do so. Risker (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um, Risker, of course I understand that it wasn't ideal to do it myself. But I felt in the circumstances, as I said to Mick, that the need "cap the well" was pressing, and that the need to cap it was so obvious as to override issues of involvement. Probably the ANI thread I saw and commented on this morning (mentioned above, with User:Thecheesykid retiring) factored in that. And I have to stress I wouldn't have done it had Mick not already been halfway down the road to a ban, per the Arbcom vote status at the time, which he was clearly responding to. Rd232 ^talk 01:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, wait a second, since when do arbs add findings of fact after all the sections have passed and voting to close has begun? That strikes me as _very_ not cool. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I indef'd Mick and locked his page to avoid further drama when there was now an obvious conclusion. Do we really need to waste further time on this? It was worth the effort and discussion when there was still some chance of rehabilitative Mick, but now there's not. With due respect to Carcharoth the actions HJ Mitchell and I have taken renders the moot. Trout slap Rd232 for not leaving this to someone else (it might help if he indicates he realises that) and then let's all move along.--Scott Mac 01:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Rd232's decision to block, rather than report those attacks, shows poor judgment. The case hadn't yet closed, and he was posting on an arbitration page where he (and other parties) had started posting in response to what MickMacNee had said. If he was, as Rd232 said, "on his way out", why did Rd232 feel a need to respond there to what he had said? Anyway, maybe it is best to let this be dealt with in the ArbCom case. WT:ADMIN might be a good place to reaffirm any principles needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, actually it does not render it moot. The principle of conflict of interest was just reinforced in the Racepacket case that recently closed, and that administrators are *not* getting this message is genuinely unfortunate. As you correctly point out, both you and HJ Mitchell also identified a problem here and were willing to take action. To be honest, I'm half surprised nobody did it yesterday; Mick's postings over the last 48 hours considerably exceed even my level of tolerance for incivility, and I'm supposedly incredibly lax on this point. Risker (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"To be honest, I'm half surprised nobody did it yesterday..." probably because civility enforcement is so broken nobody has the balls to take it on even when utterly obviously necessary, and people were waiting for Arbcom to block him and thereby avoid the need to grab the bull by the horns. I'm trying to imagine how pleasant an ANI thread "please block Mick" would have been... Hey ho. Rd232 ^talk 01:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec w/Rd323) Nobody blocked him yesterday because nobody wanted to offend ArbCom's sensitivities and get themselves added as a party to the case. I certainly wouldn't wish to blame any individual arbitrator (and certainly not you, Risker), but if the case had been closed yesterday and the hammer dropped, as has been inevitable for at least the last few days, Rd323 wouldn't have had anything to act upon and Mick's rants wouldn't have been an issue. This is just another case of the "Arbitration" Committee getting in the way, rather than helping a situation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it'd help if clerks or ArbCom members took a more active role in responding to inappropriate behavior on ArbCom pages.   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, an ArbCom clerk had already taken action. See what I've noted below, and see the action taken here. The clerk also hatted the thread in question. Possibly further action should have been taken, but you can't reasonably say here that the clerks were not taking an active role. Carcharoth (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting points, all. The postings by Mick that managed to even raise my eyebrows were on his own talk page, not the case pages; any administrator could have acted there, and it is that which surprised me. The case was already set to be closing ahead of the usual schedule; normally the voting period is one full week after the posting of the decision, which was admittedly quite delayed. I agree that in a perfect world, all active arbitration case pages will be regularly monitored; however, there was exactly seven minutes between the edit and the block, which is hardly even enough time for anyone to read the page, let alone respond to the edit. HJ Mitchell, this is a bright line offense for administrators, and it is critical that administrators understand that. This is the kind of action that is most likely to lead to administrator sanction, and it has been a longstanding policy of this community. The fact that nobody even bothered to report these issues anywhere is a concern in and of itself. Risker (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

One full week? Then why does it say "The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• For my part (no offense on the resolved tag being removed, I see now this is a different issue), I don't see what Rd232 did as a huge issue. A thread DID come to AN/I about Mick's behaviour on his talk page. Granted, by that point he was already blocked from the rest of the site. But the last thing we needed with Mick already knowing he was being banned was for him to run amuck just because with a free pass until ArbCom decided to actually enforce the ban. I cannot argue with any administrator, involved or not, applying a block if Mick is being disruptive. The actual ban, on the other hand, is an ArbCom bit and applies from the day they decree; a block is simply for disruptive editing and that is what Rd232 applied from what I can tell. CycloneGU (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• This shows really poor judgement and if there's time before the current case closes, I hope there's some acknowledgement of that. It didn't make a huge difference in the sequence of events here but it's a real problem if blocking under those circumstances is considered anything other than a bright line fail. RxS (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that it's not an acceptable block. Plenty of admins around, kicking your "opponent" while they are down is just not cool. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Who the hell cares? The action was blindingly obviously sensible. HJ Mitchell certainly at least used to clearly like Mick, that he endorsed the block outright means it was clearly the right thing to do. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So, we're going to unblock him and then re-block him two minutes later per the imminent ArbCom ban, strictly on principle? Come on! He knew a block/ban was coming, and he disrupted as much as he wanted to in order to get everything he could get in before somebody put the hammer down on him. –MuZemike 07:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Committee is considering a finding of fact that Rd232 misused their admin tools by blocking a fellow party to an arbitration case. If so, the same finding would need to be made concerning HJ Mitchell, who is also listed as a party to the case and who reimposed Rd232's block [unnecessary additional text removed,  Sandstein  07:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)].

But while several arbitrators have asserted that there is a rule by which no party to an arbitration case may take administrative action against another party, I have not found this rule enunciated in any previous decision or policy, and am not certain that it has merit. Administrators must not use tools while involved, yes, and such involvement may result from being party to a dispute that is being arbitrated. But it is not clear to me why one should become involved only because one is named as party to the case. First, there seems to be no process or rule governing who is named as a party and who is not, which gives the whole matter a haphazard and random appearance; second, there is a difference as regards involvement (i.e., perceived bias) between blocking another party whom one has previously opposed and one whom one has previously supported; and third; WP:UNINVOLVED exempts previous administrative actions from creating involvement, so being party to an arbitration case solely because of one's administrative actions should not by itself create involvement.

As others have said, a rule creating involvement simply as a result of being a party can also be counterproductive: arbitrators and clerks are notoriously reluctant (so as not to say negligent) to intervene against disruption by parties in open cases - perhaps, wrongly, to avoid the appearance of bias on their own part. And non-party admins will seldom act - either because they don't watch the relevant pages or because they do not want to be capriciously added as parties, too, as a result of taking action (as happened to me and HJ Mitchell in this case). As a practical matter, this may leave only admins already party to the case in the position of taking timely action.

But the instant case allows the Committee to discuss and clarify this. If the case does not result in action against Rd232 and HJ Mitchell, we can conclude that, as per my argument above, blocking other parties to an arbitration case is not prohibited per se, but only if it would have been prohibited (because of involvement) if the blocker had not been named as a party. (I don't know whether these two admins would have been considered uninvolved but for the case.)  Sandstein  07:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For christ sake why the hell is anyone whining about this. Mick was clearly acting in a totally unacceptable way and its blindingly obvious how Arbcom is going to close the case. Regardless they can change the block if needed when they actually close the case. While Rd232 may have acted improperly who really cares? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Right result, not the best path to get there. If WP:BURO and WP:IAR mean anything, they mean that this kind of after-the-fact nit-picking isn't really very helpful, if the right result was achieved -- and it was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Can one of those who think this block was a problem explain why this doesn't apply: "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." DeCausa (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What seems to have been missed is that an ArbCom clerk had already acted here (five minutes after the edit in question, User:AlexandrDmitri). The logical thing to do would have been to go and ask that clerk to take further action. It seems that instead of doing that, Rd232 was carrying out the block and posting this block notice to the editor's talk page. In effect, Rd232 was usurping the role of the clerks and taking on himself to block and lecture a fellow party in an arbitration case. In mitigation, I managed to completely miss this aspect of things myself when looking at this yesterday. Carcharoth (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Shit happens. As Rd232 says in the arbcom talk page he missed that until the block was completed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Rd232 objects to the changing result of the arbitration case, will "shit happens" be an appropriate response? The point is not that he missed it, but that he shouldn't have been busy typing up a block notice in the first place. He should have been trying to contact someone who would have been in a position to carry out any action needed. He appears to have assumed that no-one else was around, and that immediate action was needed, and that he was the one to take action. None of those assumption hold up when examined. Carcharoth (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Carcharoth's edit summary said: point out what should have been obvious. (a) "You stupid fucking moron." (b) Just deleting it wasn't going to stop Mick on his rampage. DeCausa (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether the action was correct, but whether it was appropriate for the admin concerned to take it. It is a question about judgment, not about rules. Whether or not the result of MacNee's case was a foregone conclusion is irrelevant - this action sends out a very poor message to non-admin users. What kind of justice system is it in which the plaintiff can sanction the defendant prior to the judge's verdict? It also adds unnecessary drama in a sort of farcical reprise of the "Assassination of Jesse James". Ben MacDui 10:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Point of order 1: I most definitely was not the plaintiff. The only reason I was even a party to the case was that Mick got pissed off at me over some admin actions of mine, and subsequently in one of the ANI "Mick incivility" threads I made some comments in the direction of "something must be done" and then got upset. Point of order 2: the verdict was in. Indeed, Mick was responding to the verdict. I'm starting to get pissed off at people genericising what is a very specific set of circumstances. Rd232 ^talk 10:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Another point of order. You were a named party and had a FoF about you and admonishment put up for discussion. Surely you must be able to see that you were an active party to the arbitration and therefore were no longer neutral with regard to Mick? This block was exceedingly poorly conceived and its very disappointing that you don't seem open to feedback on this point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another point of order: the FoF and admonishment were failing (and also not grounded in policy, by the by). Another point of order: the increasing volume of discussion about this may obscure it, but I have said I wouldn't do it again. I'm trying to explain why I did it. Rd232 ^talk 10:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, the title of this section is incorrect as MMN did not block Rd232 (and wasn't capable of doing so). IMHO, this is a good example of where WP:IAR was applied appropriately. I fully support the block. MMN was going to be banned for a minimum of a year anyway. Does it really matter that he has been prevented from adding further rants and PAs for a few days before Arbcom turns the block into a ban. Hermann Goering committed suicide before he could be hanged. The net result was the same, he was dead. There have been enough editors driven away by MMNs continual failure to interact with others in a manner that is compatible with core policies, let's not drive away an more by calling for RD232s head over this. Let's all get back to editing and improving Wikipedia instead of arguments over an editor who is all but banned from the site until such time that he can show he is capable of editing in accordance with the requireds standards. If you really want summat to do, I've got a GA in the offing, which has good potential to make FA. Assistance there would be welcome. Mjroots (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The section title refers to the general principle. Can we please not make unpleasant analogies with Nazis, suicide and death? Carcharoth (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"The section title refers to the general principle." ANI is for incidents, not general principles. Your presentation of the incident stripped of much context is part of the problem here. Rd232 ^talk 10:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

To put it another way, Carcharoth, it's like when a manager tells an employee "you're fired" and the employee retorts "You can't fire me, I resign!" The employee is still out of the job when all is said and done. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This is about Rd232, not about MickMacNee. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

@Rd232. Quite the reverse. The issue at hand is your lack of appreciation of the effect of the action (i.e. incident) in the context. Of course MM should have been blocked, and yes, he's been "fired" - but you should not have been the one to do it. Ben MacDui 10:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well let's spend another 5000 words on it, maybe I'll get it then. Rd232 ^talk 11:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth started this thread with the remark I'd like the community to reaffirm the principle that while administrators are involved in an arbitration case, they should refrain from using their tools with respect to other parties in that arbitration case.. If the intention was not to discuss the incident, it shouldn't have been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. There is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard for such purposes, beside Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or pages related to ARBCOM. Rd232 ^talk 10:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Wrong location. Sorry about that. I actually think WT:ADMIN is the best location. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest someone closes this. seems to be fairly pointless. DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2011 (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.

Generalized Death Threat

[142]

Here's a generalized death threat in which FaZeClan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) threatens to kill everyone if the page gets deleted. I'm not sure about generalized death threats, so I brought it up here for discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also noticed that he appears to have made an alias: FreshKilljoy47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) b/c his youtube page:http://youtube.com/freshkilljoy47 is the same as the link referenced on user:FaZeClan.Curb Chain (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I blocked the obvious sock and left a cool it note on their talk page. I don't think they have any newbie rope or tolerance left but its such an obviously inexperienced that I'm inclined to laugh it off and see if they can turn it around Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, my thoughts exactly: glad I brought it up here for discussionCurb Chain (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner, 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.

---

I've had the misfortune to get embroiled in monitoring Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs), who I recently blocked for a month due to a serious failure to disengage from mutilatio ex equus mortis. It appears that Tokerdesigner has, in a completely unsurprising move, chosen to use his month off to compile yet another list of injustices on his talk page. Could someone who has sensibly remained uninvolved have a look and decide what, if anything, needs done about this? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude is paranoid, obviously. At this point, even a brief skim though his contribs makes it abundantly clear that the (drug addled?) person behind he username is basically unfit to edit constructively here. I wish it weren't so, but this guy has been given every opportunity and then some. Increase the block to indef and walk away.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 11:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...but MfD the user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

mutilatio ex equus mortis, from the people that brought you Romanes eunt domus. People, if you are going to make up fake Latinisms, at least try to make them grammatically correct. – ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nil illigitimo clockwork, costus illigitimus (I'm sure you get the gist lol) Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole fun of pidgin Latin is to mutilate it. :) Nevertheless, I'm not entirely comfortable with increasing the block myself right now. If the soapboxing in question gets to Biblical proportions like the last one then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully support an indef block on Tokerdesigner. He seems incapable of comprehending and abiding by our content policies if they happen to contradict his own, shall we say... unique ideas about the proper way to smoke pot. This has been going on for years now and is unlikely to ever stop. I have been involved ina content dispute with him in the past and so will have to recuse myself from admin action here, but hopefully someone will step up and take the necessary action. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

*cough*At least the editor didn't print a book with an incorrect Latin title. ;) - SudoGhost 17:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Latine dictum, sit altum videtur. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner's soapboxing is clearly not going to stop. I suppose I should be flattered to not be considered a sockpuppet in his recent user talk page screed despite having blocked him for a week last month. I'd support an indefinite block and revocation of his user talk page privileges (since he's just using that page to continue the same behavior that got him blocked). I'd do it myself, really, I don't think anything I've done should make me involved. As long as nobody has a reasonable objection or expectation that he'll suddenly change. -- Atama頭 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth considering a topic ban on cannabis related topics, rather than an indef? How are his contributions in other areas? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonexistent. This is an WP:SPA, every edit I've looked at, going back several years is aimed at promoting his philosophies about safe pot smoking and/or discouraging the use of cigarettes or joints. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

These are his article edits not related to cannabis, out of all of his non-deleted edits:

All non-cannabis article space edits

Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche on February 18, 2011. Robinsons Galleria on January 27, 2011. Vascular plant on January 25, 2011. Symphony No. 9 (Bruckner) on January 23, 2011. Wood flour on January 3, 2011. Wood flour on December 21, 2010. Jorge Luis Borges on August 24, 2010. Troll on August 24, 2010. (Technically 2 edits.) Pijin language on November 9, 2009. The End of Man on October 30, 2009. The Bloody Exorcism of Coffin Joe on October 30, 2009. Damned – The Strange World of José Mojica Marins on October 30, 2009. The Strange World of Coffin Joe on October 30, 2009. Embodiment of Evil on October 30, 2009. 48 Hours of Hallucinatory Sex on October 30, 2009. Mozart and Beethoven on April 21, 2009. Choral symphony on March 11, 2009. Philip Glass on December 26, 2008. Maxwell Street on September 17, 2008. Maxwell Street on September 3, 2008. Maxwell Street on September 3, 2008. Maxwell Street on August 26, 2008. Maxwell Street on August 25, 2008. Maxwell Street on August 21, 2008. Symphony No. 39 (Mozart) on August 21, 2008. Carl Nielsen on April 7, 2008. Concerto for Orchestra (Lutosławski) on April 1, 2008. Symphony in F sharp major (Korngold) on April 1, 2008. Concerto for Orchestra (Lutosławski) on April 1, 2008. Concerto for Orchestra (Lutosławski) on April 1, 2008. Solomon Volkov on March 31, 2008. Alexander Glazunov on March 11, 2008. Sanding block on March 7, 2008. Ivan Sollertinsky on February 12, 2008. Plastic shopping bag on September 25, 2007. Plastic shopping bag on September 24, 2007.

Out of 1,330 edits, 37 of them were to articles that weren't related to cannabis. (There were also a handful of talk page edits to non-cannabis topics also but I didn't bother to document them.) The majority of those edits were minor. It has been 5 months since his last non-cannabis edit. It's pretty safe to say that he is a single-purpose editor and a topic ban would be a de facto site ban. -- Atama頭 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's been a while, but that he has contributed to other types of articles indicates that there may be some point to topic banning rather than just outright banning / blocking him. Largely SPA, but not entirely. His problems seem related to the topic.

He might chose to walk away from other topics if topic banned, but perhaps a mid-term topic ban (1 month? 3 months?) with a community review to be based on his contibutions elsewhere in the meantime? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess a topic ban can be attempted, maybe he'll work on music-related articles. That seems to be the only topic that he has made any real substantial contribution to that isn't cannabis-related. I'll note that even many of those edits seem to have a good deal of WP:OR in them, which is part of the problem that he has had with his cannabis-related work also. If he is banned, and violates the ban (as I would predict he would) then it would probably just lead to an indefinite block anyway. -- Atama頭 23:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This has suddenly changed to an SPA issue? Would that address the topic of this thread which is epic soapboxing and incivility? Mjpresson (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because if an editor is causing trouble that is exclusive to a particular topic area, sometimes they can be productive outside of the area, that's the whole point of having topic bans. A ban is easier to support if we can expect that the editor could be productive elsewhere, and one way to show the possibility of that is to show what work they've done on other topics (a real SPA would never have had any activity anywhere else). As I said, though, my experiences don't make me optimistic about the potential for the topic ban to work, but violating a topic ban would lead to an indefinite block anyway, so either way we can stop the disruption. -- Atama頭 00:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support A topic ban or indef block. Looking over his contributions I think he does more harm than good to project. A topic ban will, in my opinion, probably lead to a future indef block but if we want to be conservative then that would be the way to go. N^oformation ^Talk 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• My only concern with a topic ban is that his problem appears to be... well, um... mental. I'm no psychologist or psychiatrist, but it seems obvious that the guy is slightly unstable, and probably suffers from paranoia problems (which, as far as I understand, is a possible side effect of smoking too much reefer). I don't say that to disparage the guy, but to make the point that even if he complies with the topic ban (which I'm guessing will be a large "if") and moves to another area, all we'll be doing is spreading the problem around to other areas. That being said, I'm not adamantly against letting the block expire and enacting a topic ban, and I'm certainly willing to give an editor every possibility (to the point of slight unreasonableness, actually), but I'd hate to see him running around stirring up shit and driving otherwise productive editors away before we really give up on him.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't entirely appropriate as a line of discussion. If there's a topic ban from the community, they can stop editing or find other areas to productively edit. If they edit disruptively in other areas then that's handled. The objective of the topic ban is to handle the glaring problem but leave open a path to recovery and redemption, if they can move into a productive editing mode. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Right... like I said, I'm not adamantly against the topic ban idea. Go ahead and try it. <shrug> I'll just hang on to my "I told ya so" for later, is all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I have little confidence that it will work, since he's more a SPA than not, but it's worth a try. If he is topic banned, his user page needs to be cleared of all cannabis-related material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I'd already said that a topic ban might be worth an attempt, but I suppose I might as well make a formal approval of the idea. -- Atama頭 07:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, (indef. block preferred, can agree to ban, but...) myself being one of his obsessions. Mjpresson (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but not really. If it's going to be a topic ban, I suggest it be a "sudden death" style ban. Just one violation and an indef block is applied. This should apply equally to article space, talk pages, and his own user space, which should be purged of all the ranting an raving that is currently collected there as part of his soapboxing crusade. I predict he will rapidly violate any such topic ban and will end up blocked anyway, so what the hell. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support — Indef block, or a topic ban if there is no consensus for an indef block. I suggest we avoid using words that refer to the editor's mental state or possible drug use in this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Four days in and nobody has objected to a topic ban. I'd say we have a consensus here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2011 (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.

Blocked while reporting a vandalism by User:Bokpasa.

Hello,

Since I asked the admin who blocked for some "clarifications" but that I got no answer, I'm reporting this issue on this board (note that this request isn't for contesting the blocking but to discuss an issue of vandalism) :

While reporting an ongoing vandalism on this board, another contributor, Jasper Deng, reported me (later) as being the vandal [143], after which I was blocked by Ioeth (I assume the good faith of both, but I think that Ioeth's action was a little bit precipitated and as a minimum of honesty Jasper Deng had to report both me and the involved IP, but he reported just me...).

Btw, if we take a look on the articles cited by Jasper Deng:

• Marinid dynasty, disruptive edits started on December 2010, the current version is the one edited by Bokpasa (no discussion, no justification, references deletion & OR). this edit's comment is particularly interesting.
• Almoravid dynasty: disruptive edits started on December 2010, same remark about the current version
• Same remarks about the articles Almohad caliphate and Saadi dynasty.

By the same way, it can easily be seen that I didn't add/remove information from these articles while reverting the IP's edits, I was just putting the article on its pre-vandalism version: [144] [145] [146].

But now since these pages are protected, Bokpasa has to be identified to edit them (as he's doing right now (can be seen on each article's history page), WP:DUCK!!). For information, this user is particularly known for his vandalism on Morocco related articles: [147][148] (you can easily see that he was blocked for disruptive edits on the same articles than right now).

Note that he's also blocked on ES.Wiki and FR.Wiki for excessive vandalism... on that same articles than here...

Also for information, these are some previous issues involving Bokpasa: History of Morocco, sections 7 to 16 of the article's TP (Bokpasa is signing here his messages MOI instead of his own username), Incident noticeboard, User:Bokpasa tendious editing and personal attacks.

Btw, Jasper Deng also referred to some "EW with some IP's", but I suppose that nor him nor Ioeth toke a look on the concerned entries (a simple section search with my username can give that): [149] [150] [151].

As I wrote on my TP, I don't contest my blocking, I just need some "clarifications" ;

My questions are:

• Can these articles be putted under their pre-EW form (2010/12 versions)? Or should we let Bokpasa act as he want?
• Can Bokpasa's act of contributing anonymously to avoid being blocked be considered as a kind of "Reverse Sockpuppetry", as he started to contribute with his own account after his IP range was blocked?

Thanks in advance for the answers.

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say you got no answer? You only asked about 5 hours before asking here and the admin involved seems to have gone inactive before you asked. It seems it would be more resonable to either wait longer or say you asked but haven't got an answer yet but it's only been 5 hours. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'pre-EW' point but if the article has had significant changes since December 2010, it's unlikely reversion to the December 2010 version is going to be justified, particularly not just because of the claim of a 8 month edit war. On the other hand, if an editor has recently came along and modified the article and these changes are disputed, it may be okay to revert (but probably not to edit war) these changes (even if the version you're reverting to is from December 2010) while they are discussed. BTW, I fail to see how you didn't add or remove info if you were reverting to an earlier version (whether or not that reversion was justified) unless only formatting or organisation changes had been made. Note that removing recently added or disputed info or re-adding recently removed info is clearly still removing/adding info. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You were blocked because you violated the three-revert rule, which applies all the time unless you're reverting obvious vandalism, and the blocking admin most likely determined that it isn't the case here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: You mean 29 hours? I didn't see that he wasn't active for more than 24 hours, that's why.

@Penwhale: Right, as I said, I don't contest the blocking itself, I'm here to ask to stop Bokpasa's vandalism and POV (which is recurrent since december 2010 and which is highly contested as shown by the diffs I cited) as it is mentionned in my two questions.

Omar-Toons (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message at his talk page. Let's see what he replies... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies I saw the date wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Can someone try to make sense of this edit by Bokpasa that was written as a response of my message to his talk page? 'Cause I'm having difficulty. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Also, he marks all his edits as minor. This, to me, is very problematic (and on top of that, the editor's English skill level makes it a bit tough to communicate... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, he's not here to contribute to the WP project but to impose his PoV, I don't think that he cares about the fact that his English skills are very very bad.

I tried to understand what he wrote on your TP:

• The Almohads was/were not a dynasty but a country (I don't understand the "according to..." sentence)
• 2nd line: ?
• The kingdom of Fez existed (?)
• 4th/5th lines : ?

I didn't get the point...

Omar-Toons (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Application not working

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing, no admin. help required. CycloneGU (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

---

I used to check this website: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest to see the number of hits each page gets, But for the past week the results have been blank. Whats wrong with it? Pass a Method talk 17:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's working fine for me; have you tried clearing your browser cache, and that sort of thing?

Also, this shouldn't be on ANI (it isn't an incident needing an administrator); the helpdesk is a better place to ask questions like this.  Chzz  ►  17:51, 31 July 2011 (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.

Evasion of block by IP sock of "Since 10.28.2010"

Resolved

 – Just another blocked drive-by IP. CycloneGU (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Unblocked now, appears no action required. CycloneGU (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• 71.146.19.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Since 10.28.2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• By his own confession here, evasion of block is established here, here and here. Could any patrolling Admin please look into this? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked the IP. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

NB, there was no socking - he was logged out, and made all those edits PRIOR to me blocking him. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - was just about to say same - and I just did on User talk:Edgar181,

Unless there are deleted contribs, the last edit from 71.146.19.240 (talk · contribs) (07:03, 31 July 2011)[152] was before the block (10:22, 31 July 2011) [153]  Chzz  ►  16:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Note, there is also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Since 10.28.2010 - which appears invalid, to me.  Chzz  ►  17:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked. If anyone thinks my unblock was wrong, feel free to reblock, or let me know, and I'll reblock.--SPhilbrickT 17:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked the edit times before I blocked the IP, but Worm That Turned is right the edits were before the block. I must have misread the dates somehow. Thanks for unblocking, Sphilbrick. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:12Rolando

Resolved

 – Blocked. GiantSnowman 19:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• 12Rolando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This editor has been a long-term nuisance for us over at WP:FOOTY, as he continually creates articles about himself and his friends, all of which have been repeatedly deemed non-notable and deleted (by CSD, PROD, and AfD), under a variety of different names and spellings. Examples:

• Himself = Rolando Lewis Teixeira, Rolando Lewis, Rolando., Rolando Lewis Texeira, Rolando Texeira, Rolando (football born 1991)
• His friends = Dane Hadley, Desroy Peters, Ivando Clarke, Renice Sam, Damian Lorraine, Kenvorn Cuffy, Jenson Davey, Gerron Texeira, Shane Williams (footballer born 1989), Bradley Ollivere, Akeme Ryan, Ivan Clarke, Zimron Texeira
• His sports club = Royal Saints F.C., Brownstown Royal Saints Football Club, Brownstown United

I have tried pointing him in the direction of the appropriate notability guidelines, and warned him that his edits could be considered disruptive, as well as asking for some response/acknowledgement - all of which has fallen on deaf ears, given his latest incarnation, created about an hour ago. I'm getting pretty exasperated, and bring it here for further discussion and action. Regards, GiantSnowman 17:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing his contributions, it's clear he is not listening, so I have blocked him indefinitely and left him a note explaining that once he understands the problem and agrees not to repeat it, he may resume editing. 28bytes (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. GiantSnowman 19:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Jasonyauyc2003, persistent re-addition of list to Pro Evolution Soccer 2012

Hi, I need someone to have a quiet word with User:Jasonyauyc2003. He keeps adding an inappropriate list (per WP:VG/GL#Inappropriate content point 6, and general consensus at WP:VG) to the Pro Evolution Soccer 2012 article (diff). I have tried to explain this to him on my talk page but he refuses to discuss it further, instead just re-adding the list without comment, which is the only edit he makes to WP. I have left warnings at User talk:Jasonyauyc2003 to encourage him to stop, but to no avail. He has said he's not interested in talking to me, so I need someone else to tell him about the need for consensus rather than forcing things through by attrition. Thanks, Miremare 18:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Issue with User:Yosesphdaviyd

Said user has created several articles - David L. Gray, Joseph Walkes, and Phylaxis Society in particular. I will also note that per a COI posting, this user is an acquaintance of Gray, but assured via reply that he will be neutral. I cannot currently find the report, however.

In the Gray article, it seems the strength of notability is based on something that isn't really notable, that being accomplishments and honors within the realm of Prince Hall Freemasonry. The user seems to think Gray is a notable Catholic apologist, but I did not see anything that would verify that in my searches. The AFD on Gray and the AFD on Walkes were started by User:MikeWazowski as was a CSD on Phylaxis Society.

As can be seen, Yosesphdaviyd has accused Mike and myself of collusion on both AfDs (and I don't know Mike from a hole in the wall, by the way). I actually had something on the notability talk page to figure out what other people thought of "fraternal accomplishments" meeting some aspect of WP:N. Nevertheless, this is not the first time Yosephsdavid has, for want of a better phrase, had a tantrum because he refuses to understand policy the way everybody else does. He then goes back, reads the policy, and decides he's going to do things the "right way", but seemingly doesn't.

As for Phylaxis, the sourcing is nonexistent, and Yoseph claimed the CSD was "racist and prejudiced" because we had an article on its counterpart Philalethes Society and that wasn't deleted (an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aergument). I can't grab that because the CSD is over and done with, and I am not an admin. I would point out that Philalethes is about 50 years older then Phylaxis and had five independent sources in the article anyhow, so states of content weren't even comparable.

Yosesphdaviyd has the capacity to be a good editor, but he's basically going about things all wrong and causing more disruption than anything else. I think that he's not 100% correct in understanding what is article-worthy, so he has started to run (making articles) before learning how to walk (understanding WP basics). Most seriously, allegations of collusion and racism should not be arguments used as excuses for not knowing policy, and I'm not even sure Yoseph knows how serious making those statements is here on WP. In short, I think he needs a mentor, but he needs a mentor who is not someone he has dealt with thus far, and I think he needs to be told what is and what is not acceptable behavior here on WP or he's going to get into more trouble than he does good. MSJapan (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Response

MSJapan - I am new here and I will get better IF I think it is worth of the trouble staying around, but there is a way to help me get better and there is a way to rub me wrong and you have been rubbing wrong since I got starting. I have been putting together articles that are, yes, comparable to OTHERSTUFF on wiki. Yes I think you have a vendetta against Prince Hall Freemasons and you being a Mainstream Freemason I can assume why, but I won't. The speedy delete against the Phylaxis was wrong, knowing that it has had significant influence in Prince Hall Freemasonry, but that was my fault for not fully developing the article before I published it. As you have noticed since your issue with me began I ALWAYS make the changes that you have troubles with and I will continue to do so, but, again, you have went about helping me completely the wrong way kid - even this was going about it the wrong way - you're wasting my time that I could be using to fix these problems.--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that why you're prodding everything you can think of related to Freemasonry? I'll add that to the record. See contribs MSJapan (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been going through the prods one by one on their merits. Some have been appropriate; others have been ruled out on technical reasons (reprod) rather than being struck for the topic clearly being notable. However, the volume does raise the question of whether all the proposed deletions are to make a point. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Response: Those were good mark ups MSJapan. They were not retaliatory as you assumed. I went through a whole category that S. Brent Morris was in (Persons knows for their Contribution to Freemasonry) and found several of the articles seriously lacking, but you arbitrarily undid each of my edits as if this were a game. Why not let them go through the process? If they are good then they are good - if not then they go. As Fred said - no notability no article. Let them go through the process. I read Wiki all the time - I never knew stuff could be suggested for deletion until one of mine was. Now that I know . . . I just have to figure out how to do it right I guess. I'm not going to remark them, but I think you should allow them through the process instead of game playing. I would also like the Moderators here to issue a separation order against you to cease from contacting me or editing anything I post. I feel threatened and harrased by you. You are a cyber bully. --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you check the instructions for WP:PROD again, you'll see that any editor can remove a {{Prod}} tag for any reason, or no reason, so MSJapan was "going through the process". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Only just spotted this, so better update you all on what I did earlier. I speedy deleted the page User:Yosesphdaviyd after it had been requested according to CSD:A10 (attack page). It appeared to be nothing more than general "cabal" accusations against the people with whom Yosesphdaviyd has been in dispute. It also made accusations against a specific group of Freemasons, though with no real life individual names. As such I wasn't sure it was in keeping with our "No personal attacks" policy, but it was clearly an example of WP:BATTLEFIELD, and so I came down on the side of deletion. If anyone disagrees, or thinks I interpreted the policy too harshly, you are welcome to revert my action without needing to consult me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and good, except he has recreated the pages. If he's going to leave, he needs to leave, not soapbox in his userspace. MSJapan (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Resolved

 – This appears to be resolved. If there are any further issues, please let us know. CycloneGU (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Genocide Denial Watch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sascha Kreiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was told before I came here that you were a highly fanatical genocide denier. It won't stand; I will rever every single one of your racist and horrific genocide denial edits. (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[154]

...Face it, your days of advocating for pedophiles are over.... Sascha Kreiger (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[155]

The comments by these two editors appear to be personal attacks and I request that they be asked to withdraw them and to avoid making similar comments in future. TFD (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Both User:Sascha Kreiger & User:Genocide_Denial_Watch have been blocked indefinitely for Meat-puppetry and harrassment--Cailil ^talk 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

On further investigation it was clear that User:Anonymiss Madchen is the account brought these two in[156][157]. Anonymiss Madchen was warned a month ago to stop harassing Paul Siebert and even agreed to apologize[158]. Rather than do so they seem to have disappeared for a month and returned to the old behaviour - today Anonymiss Madchen attacked Paul Siebert again and, according to the above two accounts, organized a group to harass him[159]. Thus I've warned Anonymiss Madchen for meat-puppetry and blocked her for 3 days for violating WP:BATTLE--Cailil ^talk 18:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: After reviewing (and declining) an unblock request from Sascha, I went ahead and semi-protected Rape during the occupation of Germany as there is obviously offsite canvassing and it's unlikely they've just decided to give up and go away. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

user:Tahert14 : Disruptive nationalistic edits on Ottoman linked articles, possible sockpuppetry (WP:DUCK)

Hello,

The user Tahert14 [160] seems to be a new SP of FAIZGUEVARRA. He started to edit (again) Ottoman Algeria related articles by changing some information by meaning that Algeria wasn't an Ottoman province.

For information, three previous cases were reported to ANI: [161] [162] [163]

Thanks to block this sockpuppet and to put a semi-protection on these articles again since it appears that this vandal will not give up.

Thanks.

Omar-Toons (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotection requests go to WP:RfPP. They can block users as well, but someone here may take care of that shortly. CycloneGU (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am an outsider, and my attention was brought to this due to an RFC at Talk:Ottoman Algeria. After looking through user:Tahert14's contributions, I agree that his primary activity on Wikipedia is POV-pushing. I don't know if he's a sock or not. He does not seem to want to adhere to Wikipedia policies. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think his/her edits are too nationalistic. Furthermore, [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], and [169] are same person. Did you report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations ? Takabeg (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Imho reporting all these cases to WP:SPI will take too much time and a simple WP:DUCK should be good enough. I say that it will take too much time because this guy crates as many SP's than he starts using a new one as a previous one is blocked, then we can't stop him by this way. For example, on Fr.WP we found 36 SP's and 5 open proxies used in 2 months... Incredible?

Omar-Toons (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Report of Vandalism

Resolved

 – See below. --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian people is constantly vandalised by IP users. -- 7D HMS (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably better to report this at WP:RFPP. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Marking as resolved, page was protected by User:Favonian --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A Naughty person is posting polite notes.

See also: BLP dispute in progress at Talk:Harold Covington

[170] Always seems a shame to see people alienated from a community. This bloke clearly writes a funny page visually, I had a look, no idea what his grievance is though. Takes a LOT less effort to make a friend than deal with an Enemy -penyulap 2011. Harold, via the IP user talkpage has been notified of this complaint. Penyulap _talk 21:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume he's complaining about his article, Harold Covington.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for sure, but it looks like all the problematic content was stripped out of said article a day or two ago. What admin action are you looking for here, Penyulap? Or is this just a heads-up that someone has made a negative blog post about Wikipedia? --Dianna (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am definitely aware of his blog (apparently blacklisted) and am tired of helping him. My efforts at helping him were useless; he basically kept a sarcastic attitude and in the end spat in my face. I will simply laugh at whatever he posts knowing it is baseless cruft. CycloneGU (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for having no personal plan Diannaa, I expected upon sight that other people would know all about this one, and it seems that is exactly the case, Cyclone may already know where actions have been taken and can provide a shortcut to those existing plans of action. I think there are articles or sections critiquing wikipedia somewhere, but this doesn't appear to be up the editing and playing nice alley. Penyulap _talk 06:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam stylesheet

Resolved

 – Deleted per request. CycloneGU (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please delete User:Pritam2003/common.css (it is automatically protected). Thanks. MER-C 12:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done per WP:G11 ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Report of Vandalism

Resolved

 – See below. --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian people is constantly vandalised by IP users. -- 7D HMS (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably better to report this at WP:RFPP. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Marking as resolved, page was protected by User:Favonian --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A Naughty person is posting polite notes.

See also: BLP dispute in progress at Talk:Harold Covington

[171] Always seems a shame to see people alienated from a community. This bloke clearly writes a funny page visually, I had a look, no idea what his grievance is though. Takes a LOT less effort to make a friend than deal with an Enemy -penyulap 2011. Harold, via the IP user talkpage has been notified of this complaint. Penyulap _talk 21:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume he's complaining about his article, Harold Covington.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for sure, but it looks like all the problematic content was stripped out of said article a day or two ago. What admin action are you looking for here, Penyulap? Or is this just a heads-up that someone has made a negative blog post about Wikipedia? --Dianna (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am definitely aware of his blog (apparently blacklisted) and am tired of helping him. My efforts at helping him were useless; he basically kept a sarcastic attitude and in the end spat in my face. I will simply laugh at whatever he posts knowing it is baseless cruft. CycloneGU (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for having no personal plan Diannaa, I expected upon sight that other people would know all about this one, and it seems that is exactly the case, Cyclone may already know where actions have been taken and can provide a shortcut to those existing plans of action. I think there are articles or sections critiquing wikipedia somewhere, but this doesn't appear to be up the editing and playing nice alley. Penyulap _talk 06:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Inquiry

Greetings all. As some of you may know I'm an editor with a lot of stake in the project who's contributed tens of thousands of edits over the years. In the past few months, however, I find that all my edits and discussions are being veritably stalked by an admin who, becoming involved on the pretence of "mediating", in every issue of every dispute invariably opposes my position whatever that may be. I've literally had no discussions without this happening since I met the man, and he's openly expressed his apparent distaste for my style of conversation, and I am fairly certain he may harbour considerable personal dislike for me. The thing is really getting out of hand: I can no longer imagine being able to discuss issues with other users without an actual admin inevitably coming along and throwing his weight against me. That happens every time, and I no longer think there's any doubt to the clear pattern of personal bias against myself, or at least any edit I might conceivably support. As you can imagine, this can be very frustrating, and has soured Wikipedia quite thoroughly for me. I will deliberately not name any names just yet, as this is not really a report.

My inquiry here, is whether this is acceptable behaviour, and if not - where and how is the proper venue where one might address the issue? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

is it this bloke "Please stop wasting valuable time of other users. PANONIAN 12:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)" ? Penyulap _talk 22:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You question contains insufficient information to produce a valid answer. Just link and be done with it.©Geni 22:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

@Penyulap. Um.. no. That fellow's not an admin.. was that a joke? :) But it does not matter who it is at this point, I'm only asking for instructions.

@Geni. I'd rather not.. I don't want to offend the guy, really. I just want to know what one does when faced with such a situation? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a joke, (I don't know how to ID admins 4sure) the text is just typical of the problems newbies face, avoid discussing the content of the content, stay on track with the article saying 'jack said this and jill said that' never try to work out on the talkpage if jack was right and jill was wrong, that's totally illegal and you'll run in circles with those people till they force you to leave or bite. Feel free to start a chat on my talkpage if you think I can help. Penyulap _talk 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, DIREKTOR. There has been little inclination on this board recently to discipline admins who behave badly, and it is not really the right place. I would suggest sending an e-mail to a trusted long-term admin and ask them to have a word with the problematic editor? assuming you feel you do not have enough material for a request for comment. --Dianna (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Can you please support the statement "little inclination on this board recently" with some examples? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Admin conduct can be reviewed by the arbitration committee, if a request is made, or (sometimes) an RfC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And what's the point of that drama when there is a lack of a majority who will actually do their jobs and make admin policy mean something (by enforcing it)? RfCs can accomplish the same non-outcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@Aaron, if I knew I was going to be called upon to present diffs I would not have made this cynical remark. It's just the general trend, in my opinion. Sorry to have said --Dianna (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you need to apologise, particularly when you are not alone in that opinion. But in saying that, I don't think we can ignore the genuine efforts some users to make to discipline poor admin judgement and conduct; it's just that it seems such efforts are often overpowered by those who put individual admins ahead of the rest of the Community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In non-emergency situations, arbcom generally relies on Requests from the community before investigating. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I put the cart before the wrong shovel above, what I meant was more like "I'm always concerned if/when administrators are held to a different standard. If there have been some instances lately that were worse than what is percieved as the "usual" double standard, I'd like to see them, because I don't like it when that happens." As opposed to saying "Oh yeah? Prove it!" which is more like what I initially wrote. Apologies. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Rule 25--Adam in MO Talk 17:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam stylesheet

Resolved

 – Deleted per request. CycloneGU (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please delete User:Pritam2003/common.css (it is automatically protected). Thanks. MER-C 12:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done per WP:G11 ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Gothic Forest

This user has been an active genre warrior since February 9 of this year, and has performed 222 edits as of this post; not all of that has been unneeded genre changing, but theres's been enough of that from the account to bring to attention here. (S)he frequents pages related to metal, folk, and/or ambient music; the user has also edited music pages with the subject matter being rather ambiguous in the genre department. Gothic Forest has never attempted to discuss the genre changes with other editors, let alone try to reach consensus. Also, as far as my knowledge extends, (s)he has never added sources to the genre manipulations. Pages that Gothic Forest has regularly edited include Antimatter (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with 12 edits, and The White (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with 8 edits. With the Woodsmoke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) album page, (s)he even made an "extra" section, alongside three other edits on that page, detailing how one song had "elements of Folk metal [sic] in it". This person doesn't add "extra" sections all the time, but this is just an example of the habitual NPOV and OR breaching performed by the editor. However, as to my knowledge, I think it's noteworthy to state that there are no sockpuppets here. The user has been warned multiple times about not doing this type of editing activity, but (s)he has continued to do so regardless. As has happened before with other editors doing similar activity, I would probably recommend that this user be blocked temporarily. Thank you for your interest. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 19:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a project board where a person who likes finding refs might be teamed up with this editor ? Seems like an attempt at matchmaking might be constructive ? Penyulap _talk 21:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Matchmaking? I don't know if there is something like that on Wikipedia. However, there is the Adopt-a-user program which has a few similar traits to the proposal. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't care to go search for references to suit every genre modification that Gothic Forest does. Also, I don't think Gothic Forest would be interested in such a system, because (s)he never has communicated with other users about anything; to put that in perspective, all of this person's editing activity has been on the articles. This does include said genre warring. Also, I saw the message that you posted on the user's talk page, which appears to be both praising his/her editing activity and condoning the addition of unreferenced material to Wikipedia. I'm saying this with all due respect, but I'm being honest when I say that I'm uncomfortable with that message; my reasoning is that the Wikipedia principles of verifiability and reliable sources would appear to be at direct odds with your commentary on the user's talk page. Another thing, telling the user that you "love [his/her] editing" and to "enjoy what [(s)he is] doing, and keep up the good work as best [(s)he] can" is really counterproductive. As you can see by this essay, such genre changing is highly discouraged and frowned upon by Wikipedia. This user has been warned by three users, including myself, against this type of activity, yet has persisted. I don't know if I'm missing anything about your posts, but their nature seems rather dubious. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting traditional adoption, which requires two way communications, rather a strategy tailored to two users. (I know you don't care to put in the refs, just as everyone doesn't want to join the copyediting guild , I'm not suggesting you do it personally, just that a very small effort is made to find someone who is). I think Gothic Forest actions are both good faith and typical of a new user, Gothic Forest defines a wikichild. I know editors have posted warnings, but I see zero evidence the person is aware of such warnings. Give the user the chance to come further on board, you catch more flies with honey as they say, and I stand upon what I said on refs, just add citation needed tags to her work where appropriate if it concerns you that much. At least wait until this user shows any sign of malicious behavior rather than good faith editing disruptiveness, that is, a more serious disruption, or some sign of foul intent. Penyulap _talk 06:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have invited Fluffy[172], a friendly looking Gnome I saw on the relevant project page to assist Gothic Forest. Fluffy, if your too busy, you may know someone who could assist ? Penyulap _talk 07:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

While I'm flattered to have been thought of for this, my availability in the near future is spotty enough that I'm not able to devote adequate attention to a new user who needs a lot of coaching. I would suggest that you encourage the user to try adoption, since the process of improving their editing is going to call for Gothic Forest to participate as much as any adopter/mentor, no matter who that is. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a rather different view. Communication with other editors is not an option but a requirement to work on Wikipedia; without it, consensus building, mentoring, article development and all the other collaborative activities we rely on simply can't happen. Gothic Forest hasn't responded to a single talk-page post, moderated their editing in response to those posts, or posted on a talk page in any WP space. They haven't even used an edit summary, which would at least be something. As a consequence I've blocked them for 48 hours - hopefully it's long enough to get their attention. If not and/or the disruption resumes, their next block will be indefinite.

Penyulap, thank you for your good intentions in attempting to find a solution. However, I'm slightly surprised that you posted on their talk page "...references are not always needed for good editing. I stuffed a big slab into a top quality article I work on, the bit I put in was about the same size as one of the entire articles you've been editing, and there is not a single reference in the whole thing". This is in fact a direct violation of one of the core principles of Wikipedia; WP:V. Some blatantly obvious material (like 1+1=2) may not need a reference, but in general you should always provide at least a source if not an inline citation. It would be helpful if you could modify your post to Gothic Forest to more accurately reflect policy (and perhaps dig out a source for that "big slab" you added to whatever article it was!) Regards, EyeSerene^talk 16:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in here, EyeSerene. I find the block to be appropriate and convenient. I hope that Gothic Forest will think about his/her editing activity over the duration of the block. Genre warring to this extent is certainly unjustified.

@Penyulap: The "no proof" statement can go either way; there is no proof that this person hasn't seen the messages, either. Going around and editing genre sections to suit one's own point of view is not good faith editing. It was worth assuming good faith before all those warnings were given to him/her, but not so much anymore. EyeSerene also took issue with the message you posted on the user's page, with the questionable promotion of adding unsourced, questionable content. However, your teaming idea, I guess, had some good ideas in theory; in practice, though, is another concept. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 18:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well lately I've found plenty of reasons to NGAF, I give permission, and ask, that you delete my 'good intentions' from Gothic Forest talkpage, in it's entirety. Especially the part where I try to establish rapport by finding common ground. Thanks in advance.

I had been thinking Fluffy, as you hang about that area you might have thought of someone who likes that sort of thing and has time on their hands. I don't think it matters now, as it's off in a different direction, and the backup plan I had, I think I'll keep to myself for the same reason, and also the tact required. Penyulap _talk 18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Backtable, I don't think it is appropriate to present a single, or even two dozen editors collaboration[173] as 'Wikipedia'. The essay would need a lot more work to gain wider appeal, it's poorly written, single point of view only, the picture would suggest it's meant to be humorous, however the text has none. Overall, it's tedious. It does assist other editors to stereotype new users, and may encourage inflaming arguments, as well as Biting, by creating or promoting a new insult. Penyulap _talk 19:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of help Backtable. If the block's too short - it's possible they may not notice it if they don't log in for a few days - let me know.

Penyulap, I'm not particularly comfortable removing anyone's posts but since you've kindly given your permission I'll do as you've requested. I think you have the right idea in trying to establish a rapport and your good faith does you credit, but first we've got to make them sit up and take notice that we're trying to communicate with them. If they respond positively, your plan would be an excellent next step. EyeSerene^talk 18:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks EyeSerene, feel free to try my idea, however I'll leave Gothic Forest to all of you. Personally, in real life, I don't open a conversation with a punch in the head, or a slap to the face, so to speak, I doubt that strategy is the best possible one. But I guess it's generic, and time economic. Penyulap _talk 19:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll choose not to interpret your post as suggesting that I couldn't be bothered to invest the time and effort in anything other than a "generic solution", though I do hope you aren't in the habit of posting that sort of thing. In this case, unfortunately experience has shown that when a user ignores multiple attempts to communicate, blocking is the only strategy that prevents further disruption to our articles. Given a choice between leaving an established editor with a productive record to grin and bear it, or temporarily inconveniencing a disruptive editor with the exact opposite record, it isn't a difficult decision. WP:AGF can be incredibly elastic but, as has often been stated, it isn't supposed to be a suicide pact. EyeSerene^talk 20:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're choosing not to misinterpret my remarks, I do see you are willing to put in a great deal of effort. I'd say I'm just investigating economy of effort in conflict solving here. With the distinctly negative labeling of editors and a talkpage that is ALL negative (now). I see two out of three future paths as negative. They leave, they stay, or they turn to sock-puppetry and vandalism. So it's a 2 out of 3 chance editors who are already here will either be dealing with conflicts or writing the encyclopedia themselves. (ok so demographic research is needed for exact figures, so I hope you'll entertain me on that one point). Are we smacking them into leaving, or whipping the slaves ? A new user is a blank page, and I'm thinking using just the red pen, on it's own, won't help skew the workload in your favor. Anyhow, I guess we better stop now, I'm looking for a smack it seems, so far off topic. (and please don't think I'm promoting a fresh perspective ahead of anyone's tried and true experience, I'm not, it's just an idea, that's all.) The opportunity to give Gothic Forest a cookie, kitten or barnstar for their better edits, to bait the mousetrap of conversation has passed. I think if they walk away, we may never know how bright they may have been. Penyulap _talk 22:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by user:TenPoundHammer

<span class="anchor" id="Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs)"> On Remergence I declined an A7 speedy by TenPoundHammer because my view is that multiple albums is a sufficient claim to notability to pass the speedy rules. Not content with this, TPH has now renominated the page a further 2 times despite my explaining the reasoning for the declined speedy. This forced me to protect the page for an hour to prevent further tag warring my TPH. Since TPH clearly doesn't want to listen to me, please can someone uninvolved explain to him/her why their actions are disruptive and why they shouldn't renominate declined speedies. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Someone tell me how Remergence is not an A7. I tagged it twice but Spartaz removed the tag both times, saying that they're notable because they had multiple albums. That is not AT ALL what WP:BAND says; it says "multiple albums on a notable label". And their label is clearly not notable, since it's currently tagged for A7 itself and there is only one other bluelinked act on it. I think that Spartaz is being a complete process wonk, even going so far as to full protect the article. It is very obviously A7 in my book, and yet Spartaz is denying it just to make process for the sake of process. I really think this should be A7'd instead of slogging its way through AFD or PROD for God knows how long. I would like an uninvolved admin's opinion, because IMO this couldn't be more obviously A7 (and probably G11 too, since there are a bazillion links to the band's website in the text of the article). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• (ecx2)Further reading. I have now unlocked on the implied promise not to tag war but I'd still be grateful if someone could take some time to explain things to TPH. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Only if someone will explain to Spartaz that "multiple albums" by itself is not, and never will be, an assertation of musical notability. It has to be multiple albums on a notable label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin) TPH, why not take it to AfD? - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Because I feel so strongly that it's a slam-dunk A7. AFD will take too long. And I bet you anything it'll just rot in AFD for two weeks and then get closed as no consensus because no one gives a crap. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, TPH, but here's the opinion of the most profoundly exclusionist admin you are likely to find: it's not A7 material. Neither was Atom Sounds, and I might take that to DRV. A7 has nothing whatsoever to do with notability, and the claim that they have released multiple albums and singles is enough to cross the threshold of importance that A7 requires. It would probably be toast at AFD, but they are two separate processes with two separate thresholds.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• If speedy is declined, take it to AfD. They have multiple albums, Spartaz is an excellent admin. and has a pretty firm grasp of guidelines for speedy deletion, so let users decide over a week whether it should go. CycloneGU (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Prodded the article. I still think Atom Sounds is an obvious A7 since "Atom Sounds" + "label" turns up 0 hits on Google News and as I said, there was only one notable act in the roster. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  WP:GHITS isn't reason enough for deletion by itself, perhaps a WP:GNG test is needed at deletion discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The fish market is open. CycloneGU (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this situation highlights the need for CSD to include the wording "credible claim" and not just "claim". It's essentially a license for anyone who wants to get their article here a minimum of 7 days to make up any kind of information that could be interpreted as a "claim" and force it to AfD.--Crossmr (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This × 9001. I've seen cases where A7 was declined because the article had something obviously BS like "is often considered the best producer in the world". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There is another issue here: if a speedy has been declined by an admin, an editor should not renominate it for speedy (in the same category at east). Debresser (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We should really add such a rule explicitly to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It is inevitable that people will tag articles and then some percentage of the time the reviewing administrator will disagree. It is not acceptable to retag the same way in hopes of getting another admin to agree with you. LadyofShalott 01:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

and in the same vein it's just as troublesome for such obvious cases to be forced to be put through an extended process because someone is being far too liberal with their interpretation of "claim". As TPH stated above, and I've observed as well in some of these cases, people will make absolutely ludicrous claims in an article, completely unsourced, and then an admin will come along and deny it despite clear evidence that the claim is false/insufficient even if it were true.--Crossmr (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference being that once a speedy has been denied, it became a matter of opinion, and therefore per definition can not be a speedy any more, which is for non-controversial deletions. Debresser (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"AFD will take too long" is one of the seven pillars of deletionism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Bugs is being trite here, but let me back him up with a less drole take on the matter: Deletion isn't a race. There is no impending harm to Wikipedia if something takes 7 days to be deleted, and there is absolutely no shame if a CSD request gets declined by an admin. If the article is so blatantly bad that it deserved to be speedied in the first place, you'll have a landslide support at the AFD discussion you can rub in the face of the admin who declined it. If not, then maybe it wasn't all that clear-cut in the first place. Seriously, there are bigger things to worry about than whether something takes a few hours or a week to be deleted, especially if someone thought it was borderline enough to decline the speedy request. --Jayron32 03:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It may not even be borderline - it just may not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. LadyofShalott 07:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• CSD's threshold is importance which is a far cry from notability and is a much lower threshold to pass. That is the essential difference between CSD noms and AfDs. The benefit of an AfD is that if the article is recreated with essentially the same material, THEN it is a candidate for CSD under G4. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• On a side note, I found TPH's arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kixeye of the tendentious variety. Perhaps he needs a break from all deletions? FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  That would be like taking a kid into a candy store and saying he can buy anything that isn't candy. Granted, every editor could use a vacation once in a while. Works wonders.

  The fish market is still open, FWIW. CycloneGU (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  I don't see those arguments as tendentious at all. Reyk _YO! 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I have added

If speedy deletion has been declined once, the page should not be retagged for the same type of speedy deletion. The fact that speedy deletion was declined proves that deletion of that specific page is contentious, and therefore per definition the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion, which should be uncontroversial.

to the lead of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Please have a look. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the change, I feel it needs to be discussed more, while I agree with the sentiment I think that the current wording is to vague as to what constitutes "declined once", for example creator logs out and as an IP removes the tag with the word "declined" what happens then. Does it apply to all criteria, for example WP:CSD#G4 should be excluded unless an administrator has reviewed it; like wise WP:CSD#G12 has legal implications. It is for that reason I have reverted it. Mtking ^(edits) 10:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I can't believe some of the newbie arguments here from TenPoundHammer - No, the labels have to be "important" (which I would see as a simple filter against trivial self-publication), not "notable" and this is certainly not WP:Notable (to avoid just this situation). Then to try and use the wiki-recursive argument that "because the label's article was deleted the label was non-notable" (One of the most pernicious arguments around WP), then even to extend that into the "Delete the label and you get to delete all related artists too deletionist bonus prize" claim. I'm reminded of Wasp Factory Records, when nearly all of UK industrial music was deleted with a similar strategy. And is that really our old friend WP:OSE with that, "I've seen cases where ..."?

As a practiced editor and deletionist with one of the longest hit lists around, you ought to know better that this. Trout. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Whales have been spotted in the harbour if they are more suitable. CycloneGU (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have decided to be bold and nominate this article for deletion. I enumerated the reasoning at the AfD page. Yes I'm open to taking a trout to the face for stepping on the issue, but for every justified deletion there are many new articles created that are of even lower quality and standards. Hasteur (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the addition I made to WP:CSD which Mtking reverted. I think his call for more detailed discussion is legitimate, (although I don't think there was need to revert an addition which in broad lines was agreed upon by several editors here), so I opened a discussion on the talkpage at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Declined_speedies. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There was recently a discussion at wt:CSD about a similar change, and it met with some resistance. Please have policy/guideline discussions at the relevant talk page. Or at least announce them there. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy says, "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page" and "Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below, rather than being deleted." There generally has to be a good reason to deviate from norm. WP:CSD#G12 might be a good reason. WP:CSD#A7, not. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• The bottom line is that A7 is only for clear-cut cases. If another editor acting in good faith believes there's enough to make A7 unsuitable then it isn't an A7. --Michig (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• The Discography section is a claim to notability and defeates A7 (arguably). Another editor in good standing removing the CSD tag means that it is no longer speediable. It needs to go to AfD. That it will be SNOW deleted is beside the point. Editing warring over a CSD tag can be read as an attempt to intimidate administrators and should be discouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bowser423

I wanted to bring the attention of what appears to be a young user who has been rather disruptive in recent weeks. Firstly, the user has been involved in borderline edit wars on Tropical cyclone and 1996 Lake Huron cyclone. Second, the user has created many nonsense articles, all of which (I believe) have ended up deleted or on AFD. Some active ones:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bowser423/What a tropical cyclone is not
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Alert Message Encoding
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cieluza
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOR:CON
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Evac

Also, this AFD (and this edit in particular) shows his habit for disruption.

I am somewhat involved in this case, so I didn't want to do any rash action, so I wanted to seek the input of other admins of what to do. I did a search through his contributions, and the ratio between useful edits and edits that were reverted or resulted in AFD was fairly substantial. Could some administrator help out? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the user has tried gaming the system by adding {{humorous}} tags on questioned articles to prevent some of them from being deleted. In general, I feel that the user lacks an understanding of Wikipedia policies, and lacks competence. Darren23^Edits|Mail 14:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Definite competence issues here, with large helpings of WP:IDIDNTHEARYOU and disruptive activity along the way. His contributions have not improved at all despite being told by many editors that they are not ideal. Might need to look at forced mentorship here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Strange Passerby, User:Bowser423 has been making questionable edits as of late, and it appears they could be on the border of a WP:3RR violation on the page Tropical Cyclone. That being said, I feel Bowser wants to contribute to the project and could become a active member of a meteorology based wikiproject if he becomes more disciplined. Perhaps some form of mentorship with a member of WPTC might be a better solution to an outright block? -Marcusmax(speak) 22:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any other thoughts on this? How could we go about a forced mentorship sort of thing? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

For the option of forced mentorship, there's a section at WP:MENTORSHIP regarding Involuntary mentorship.

For other options, I don't think his activity qualifies for blocking at this stage. It's not vandalism, as it's done in good faith, just with a limited understanding of relevant content guidelines and policies. Another option could be a community sanction against his creation of new articles, or limiting him to only creating new pages after submittals through other users or through Wikipedia:Requested articles. Last option could be encouraging him to investigate if a relevant Wikia project may be a better fit for his new articles (such as http://weather.wikia.org, or http://hurricane.wikia.org )

I'm not sure the best path ... possibly start with mentorship and move to sanctions later if that doesn't resolve the issues? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright. At the very least, I'll offer to give him a hand, give him some guidelines, whatnot. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

user:TheBlackGumper : Sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Reaper Eternal. --Taelus (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the best place but I was reluctant to open a sockpuppety case as it could be one of several well known blocked users. TheBlackGumper (talk · contribs) started where the recently blocked Caiboshtank (talk · contribs) left off, reverting referenced edits involving the term British Isles. Seems like a duck to me. Bjmullan (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Tripower

Tripower (talk · contribs) has been deleting cited and relevant material without explanation for several years, for reasons that are obscure in part because he has (until now) never made a Talk: page comment. He most recently deleted this material from Nat Turner's slave rebellion and this material from Miscegenation. Looking at his edit history, I discovered this is not the first time he has done this - he was deleting the same material in 2008. I've warned him to stop doing this, but he has merely edit-warred, including (apparently) as 75.75.22.150 (talk · contribs). Rather than edit-war with him, I've brought the issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have provided my reason for this edit (The entire Miscegenation article for instance is entirely political in nature and seems to have an agenda rather than to simply be informative). I do find many of the Wikipedia User Interface structure very difficult to navigate and have no idea how to create a talk page. The person, Jayjg, seems to have some particular interest in my posts perhaps because this user agrees with the position being espoused in these articles. With respect to the Miscegenation article it is flagged for the very reasons I have stated and needs to be completely gone through and edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripower (talk • contribs)

Please do not modify my comments again. Do you have any specific reason for removing that reliably sourced information? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Diff. in question. CycloneGU (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Tripower has attempted three times to change text in the topic post that would change the meaning of the post.

• Example 1
• Example 2
• Example 3

I have placed a 3RR warning on his talk page as a final warning given there are already so many warnings there. A block may already be warranted; I will leave this to administrative discretion. CycloneGU (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose a block, and think the warnings to date are over-the-top. This editor has made good-faith attempts at communincation, and has clearly stated that they are unfamiliar with the conventions here. Rather than plastering thier talk page with icons of stopping hands, exclamation points, and final wranings, how about we try talking to them a little bit? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page does look a bit cluttered with all those templates, and I think it might do well to remove some of them (though I must point out that the 3RR one is as a result of trying to change this post thrice and should stay - though I forgot to sign it, I now notice). Also given the issue was just brought up, it's far from resolved, so we still have to address the problem here. CycloneGU (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And yet, he has reverted once again. Nothing seems to be getting through. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what Aaron thinks then. CycloneGU (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the previous warnings with and edit summary saying I'd done so and left another message. I do hate the downward spirals we frequently get into with newer editors, but I've provided a clear way for them to progress this (talking to me) and if they choose not to do so I'll not object to any further administrative action. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Claimed suicide threat from open-proxy recently used by a known troll

Already taken care of. –MuZemike 06:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just posting here as I haven't responded to any of these before. See User talk:216.6.232.237. The IP is an open proxy, and one which was used by an IP-hopping user in attacks on other users just a couple hours before the suicide threat - so the legitimacy of the post is questionable. I did post a {{Suicide response}} reply, just to cover any potential legitimacy; but am also posting here in case there's any additional follow-up required of which I'm not aware. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A few IPs of User:Sambokim need blocked and probably some page protections

Sambokim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an indef blocked user. Quick background: he's a non-native english speaker who seeks to use wikipedia solely for promotional reasons. He is the PR for Anyang Halla and cannot help but attempting to insert links to the teams various news items on as many pages as he can as often as possible, and frequently jams in irrelevant links or copies content wholesale from the articles and tries to make them article content here. He has poor communication skills and attempts to talk with him are often ignored, or when answered it's clear he doesn't really understand.

He created a sock account Madforhockey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which Elen of the Roads blocked, along with a couple IPs, but he's been following up with a couple more. Most of his IPs are quite static, so if you want to give them a month or two it shouldn't be a problem, as well, a semi-pp on the articles he normally targets should work as well. We did it before but now that it's expired he's back again

IPs:

• 203.90.45.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.90.43.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.90.37.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.32.86.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think what you have here in terms of IP are a home/work scenario

Articles:

• Ric Jackman
• Samuel H. Kim
• Brad Fast (I thought he'd be done with this one, the guy retired)
• Brock Radunske

He mainly targets his article, as well as the foreign players' articles to push in their news links to try and promote the team. In the past he used to copy and paste from their articles into the wikipedia articles turning them into press releases. There is no point to notifying him, his accounts are indef, and he won't respond anyway. You can really only get an answer out of this guy in e-mail and even then it's hard to follow and despite my asking him numerous times there, he won't communicate on wiki. Note this is a duplicate request to User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#A_possible_ducky-sock it seems Elen got tied up/missed my last report to her there, I'm sure she wouldn't mind if someone else blocked him this time around.--Crossmr (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted WP:RFPP and asked them to semi-protect those articles.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Consider using the wikipedia embassy appropriate to the users native language to translate warnings, bans, and the explanation of his violations to him. Penyulap _talk 06:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And it was summarily dismissed despite the fact that we've done it before and it worked while enacted--Crossmr (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've checked back through the history of some of the articles and there are other IPs used in the 203.90.XX.XX range. A quick check with the rangeblock calculator says that blocking the 203.90.32.0/20 range will cause minimal collateral damage (and less so as these are Korean addresses), so I've blocked that entire range for three months. I've done the same with 122.32.86.41, which also locates to Korea and is clearly the same guy. Hopefully this will be of some use, though I think that if he finds a way around the blocks page protection will be a better option. A request will be more likely to succeed if this doesn't work. Best, EyeSerene^talk 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, we protected them in the past, at the end of last season he was getting into it a bit, you can see that on the Brock Radunske and Brad Fast articles. Ric Jackman is a new player just coming on this year, so he's just getting started with that. The season starts in about 6 weeks, so there is likely to be several new stories come out during that time.--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Give me a yell if he edits through Eye Serene's rangeblock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing by User:AngBent on several articles and war edits with sockpuppetry

User:AngBent is busy since several days on edit wars on many articles related either to Greek topics and some other ones. From the nature of the edits he seems to have a chauvinistic Greek and pro-Pyongyang Communist agenda. There are at least a dozen articles involved. He also edited as Special:Contributions/46.177.71.53 and Special:Contributions/46.176.13.209 (precisely the same type of POV edits). This seems to be going on since at least two months, some edits have been reverted but he is going on with disruptive edits.

I first reported this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎ but the answer was "Declined. Please take this issue to WP:ANI".

Typical examples (among a dozen articles at least as 99% of his edits are crude POV-pushing):

• Hu Qiaomu : [174] and [175]
• Culture of North Korea : [176] and [177]
• Imperialism : [178] and [179]
• Macedonian Struggle: [180] and [181]
• Aromanians : edit war with use of sockpuppet, see [182]

--Pylambert (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Pylambert is behaving in a condescending and uncooperative manner. Regarding his assertion that I have a pro-Pyongyang agenda, my answer is this; I edit North Korean articles in order to make them less offensive and more encyclopedic. Unfortunately, most of these articles look like a 1950s McCarthyite propaganda brochure, like "Oh, look at these evil commies and their ridiculous and dangerous beliefs". As this is an encyclopedia, it must avoid an ironic and biased view of things. This does not mean that I, in any way, endorse Kim's dictatorship, but even if I did, it is not Pylambert's job to play God. Regarding his assertion that I have a chauvinistic Greek agenda, I challenge everyone to look at my contributions, and they will see that the majority of them are backed by serious references. Of course, as a Greek, it is natural that I have a certain love for my country (and the bias that comes with it). Yet it is ludicrous for him to describe everything he doesn't approve of as vandalism (he seems to have a history of conflict with other users). While he accuses me of supporting Pyongyang, it is he who appears to endorse Stalinist methods, by his cavalier disregard of everyone else's opinion, and his REMOVAL OF REFERENCED EDITS, that took me hours of serious study to complete. I urge Pylambert to reject this black and white worldview. Fortunately, his previous request was WISELY DECLINED.

And one final thing; why didn't he just start a discussion with me, to tell me about his complaints and grievances? Instead, he seeks to censor me using immoral tactics. People who refuse an honest conversation and show fanaticism can't really accuse others of being chauvinist. Pylambert, if you offer me an apology, I'm willing to forget about all these things, and please, stop being so dogmatic. Read some Voltaire, it will help you. AngBent (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

The vandal is also busy on a an edit war with use of a sockpuppet on the Western Thrace article: [183] as AngBent, then reverted by another user ("Undo POV"), then a mysterious IP, 46.176.88.230, only active today but obviously of the same sockpuppet nature as 46.177.71.53 and 46.176.13.209 , reverts ([184]), is again reverted by another user ("Rev sock of a POV-pusher"), then a fourth sockpuppet IP 46.176.224.54 ("specialist" of suppressing Bulgarian topographic names, see [185] and [186]) rereverts. No possible discussion with such a vandal, as with all chauvinists. --Pylambert (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As there is still no reaction from the administrators, I consider they support the actions of the POV vandal or rather let it to the "invisible hand" to repair his multiple vandalisms, including those on unpatrolled articles. As I don't want from an ethical point of view to belong to the same project as chauvinists or stalinists, be they Greek, Turkish, Moroccan, French, Belgian or whatever else, I choose to withdraw definitely from Wikipedia after 6 years of contributions. --Pylambert (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I will not tolerate being called "chauvinist" and "Stalinist". Just look at my contributions and those of Pylambert, and you will quickly see that is he who is always trying to impose his views on reality. At no point did he attempt to start a discussion, he just proceeds with personal attacks. Why is this tolerated? Is it okay to call everyone whose views he doesn't like a vandal? Is it okay to call every unregistered user a sockpuppet of mine, while he very well knows that unregistered POV-pushers interfere in political articles of all types? All this could have been avoided if Pylambert just offered me an apology, and had the courage to join me in an honest conversation. As for his choice to leave Wikipedia permanently, I urge him to STAY. He can still be helpful, provided he stops his crusade of censorship, and name-calling.AngBent (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Pylambert demonstrates his intolerant nature, and now "discovers" conspiracy theories and sock puppets. Has it crossed your mind, Pylambert, that there are other people who can't stand your patronizing and moralizing behavior, not to mention your ludicrous attempt at censorship and cyber-bullying. You keep labeling everybody a vandal and a chauvinist. Are you 15 years old, or what? I'm sorry to disappoint you, but people can't stand censorship. As I wrote before, you really need to read some Voltaire. If you look for "vandals" and "chauvinists", then you only need to look into a mirror. And you should immediately stop this farcical attempt to censor me, just because you don't like my REFERENCED edits. If you continue behaving like this, then the whole community of Wikipedians will turn against you. So, stop embarassing yourself; your previous request was unceremoniously declined, and this one will also be declined. And your history as a user isn't exactly perfect. There comes a time in life where one must accept that he doesn't possess the ultimate truth. Now is the time for you to learn that lesson, to finally mature, and learn to accept different opinions, backed by facts. Your continuing denial of an honest discussion shows your true (totalitarian) colors. AngBent (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

It is absolutely necessary for Wikipedians to control people with a Manichaean worldview. In our previous discussion (Pylambert's monologue of personal attacks, that is) I was called a "typical Greek chauvinist vandal". I think this shows Pylambert's true colors to everybody. I won't tolerate such insults to my personality. I still have faith in Wikipedia's determination to stop censorship. AngBent (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

Well, the edits to Culture of North Korea are very obviously not "crude POV-pushing" so I have no idea why they were cited. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lewontin's Argument / Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy (scientific paper)

Resolved

 – Trolling by indef blocked sockpuppets of banned Magnonimous (talk · contribs) Mathsci (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Lewontin's Argument (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy (scientific paper) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

SlowhandBlues has copy-and-pasted an article to produce two different POV-forks, (with no indication in the history of one, as required to preserve authorship history/copyright). He/she has also been editing this page under two different usernames - a direct contravention of policy. While I can see that the latter might have been a genuine mistake I consider the former to be provocative, as well as contrary to established policy.

Can I ask that, for a start, someone with the necessary tools reverts this, while we discuss what other action (if any) needs to be taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, a very new user. Mathsci (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There also appears to be a User:SlowhandBlue - supposedly an anti-impersonation doppelgänger account, but actually also in current use. [187] I must say that it seems strange for a new user to unilaterally appoint him/herself as a 'mediator' - not that this seems to have been very effective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of posting the required notification to SlowhandBlues' Talk page. As the other two accounts appear to be sub-accounts, I have not posted notifications to them. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooops! I thought I'd done that. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not request a speedy delete for the second article above? Mathsci (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I just G12-ed it as a copy without attribution. I find it very interesting that Silver seren (talk · contribs) copied a template onto the talkpage that claimed this article had survived an AfD, when it was the _original_ that had survived the AfD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I didn't notice that edit by Silver seren. Mathsci (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Silver seren just moved the "Lewontin's Argument" page to the title above, so I gave SS a WP:ARBR&I warning for disruptive editing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's some more background for comment:

• AfD result keep Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lewontin's_Fallacy
• Retitled to form article on Lewontin's argument, the initial argument made in 1974 [188]
• Discussion of title [189]
• New article made about the paper (written as a rebuttal to Lewontin's Argument), subject of the above noted AfD [190]
• Rationale described [191],[192]
• Notification to discussion where new article was proposed [193].

Number 67, The first link in the fifth point can no longer be seen, however I do have a screenshot of it if requested 16:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC) the text of the summary is: "(bold), Neutral title, preserved original text. lewontin's argument article is now free to take the shape of it's subject" ³SlowhandBlues¯ 16:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

confirmed sock of banned Magnonimous (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps, ³SlowhandBlues¯ 15:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The diffs above provide no justification for creating this kind of fork with identical but unattributed material. SlowhandBlues has not taken into account the lengthy discussion on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like an explanation for why SlowhandBlues also chose to contribute to the same talk page as SlowhandMediator - and indeed, why this username exists at all, given that it has made no edits elsewhere. Not to mention why a username was chosen which implies some sort of position of authority? And why the 'doppelgänger' account is also being used? All of this makes following contribution history unnecessarily complex, and seems odd behaviour from a new user. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit is not encouraging. [194] The closing administrator had already explained on his user talk page that nothing in the outcome of the AfD is binding,[195] a page edited just before by the doppelganger account SlowHandblue in his only edit outside his user space [196]. Something doesn't seem quite right here. Mathsci (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Now that Sarek has deleted the fork created by SlowhandBlues, I'm not sure there's any further need for administrative assistance here. Mathsci (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Recap Administrative intervention is required to undo the move to Lewontin's Argument because it is an incorrect demonstration that previous contributions were for that subject, while editors were actually intending contribution to it's rebuttal. Simultaneous violations of WP:Copyvio, and Guidelines on Merging, especially that history cannot be merged. ³SlowhandBlues¯ 17:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

At a minimum the moving editor should have used WP:HISTSPLIT; ³SlowhandBlues¯ 17:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That interpretation is incorrect. You created a fork, against wkipedia policy, and that fork was speedily deleted by an administrator. You are now in addition wikilawyering. None of these things was helpful. Because of your familiarity with wikipidia processes (page protection, AfD, etc), could you please say whether you have edited wikipedia before these accounts were created? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

At a minimum, can I ask that SlowhandBlues be reminded that using multiple accounts to contribute to a singe discussion is against policy, and that creating a POV-fork in the middle of a discussion does not constitute 'mediation'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2011 (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.

Claims of vandalism

Could an admin have a word with User talk:Ifcp1 who is reverting editors claiming that their edits are vandalism when they clearly aren't. His edit summaries can be seen here Mo ainm~Talk 16:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hear hear. This user doesn't seem to be familiar with wikipedia guidelines and is very quick to brand legitimate edits as vandalism. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Both of you need to take a neutral point of view to updating articles, its clear from both your edits that you despise Linfield Football Club — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifcp1 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Which of these do you feel these edits fall under? If it doesn't fall into one of those very specific criteria, they aren't vandalism (at least not by Wikipedia's standards, which has a very narrow definition of vandalism). - SudoGhost 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume the above unsigned is from Ifcp1? (haven't checked the history).Thanks sinebot :) Ifcp1, I've left a clear warning on your talk page; if this continues you will face sanctions. Please take special note of the edit warring issue. Your above post also indicates you may be having difficulty complying with our neutral point of view policy. It's hard to write objective, neutral content if you care deeply about a subject and feel a need to defend it. It may be helpful for you to work on other articles where you personal feelings don't come into it. EyeSerene^talk 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I may not be up to date with the workings of wikipedia, but i believe there is an agenda by Mo ainm & EamonnCa to tarnish the name of Linfield FC and other football clubs in Northern Ireland, they should also take the neutral point of view, their negative attitude towards anything that is from Northern Ireland should be looked at, its a shocking trend going on in Wikipedia, as a fan of football in Northern Ireland and a website editor on Irish League football i take offense at this agenda and feel i am being singled out. ifcp1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifcp1 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:IDL. That you feel strongly about a subject may make it difficult for you to see NPOV. I think you'll find that I have been fairly neutral, I have actually added a lot of content to the Linfield page which reflects positively on the club. Please do not conflate your own POV with NPOV. What counts on wikipedia is verifiability, not what paints the article's subject in the best light. The edits that you have removed are all cited with verifiable sources per WP:V, and removal of sourced content can be considered vandalism. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that as an admin I can't make content decisions so this is now me talking as a fellow editor, and that this page isn't for resolving content disputes:

Ifcp1, I've looked at the edits you removed/inserted on those articles. Some appear to be adding national flags to players. I'm not an expert on this with regard to sports articles, but in military history articles (where I spend most of my time) there's a consensus not to use flag icons like that. To find out if this is the case in those articles the best place for you to ask would probably be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. There may even be an answer in one of the project style guides on that page.

Other edits you object to seem to deal with sectarianism. This is a delicate area on Wikipedia as I'm sure you appreciate and is subject to an Arbitration Committee ruling, so it's an area where all editors need to tread with care. It's unfortunate that such an ugly phase of history touches even sports clubs, but if the content is relevant to the club history, complies with our policies on reliable sourcing and verifiability, and is written in a neutral way that favours neither side, it's allowed in the article. We don't want attack articles that only exist to belittle a subject, but neither do we want whitewashed articles that don't mention unpleasant but important issues. It might be that you think the material is offensive to the club, but if it doesn't break Wikipedia rules it's allowed (just as material complimentary to the club is allowed if it follows the same rules).

Finally, it's best if you can stick to commenting on edits rather than the editors themselves. You've accused a couple of editors of having an agenda, but you can't know that. For that reason, unless you have very convincing evidence to the contrary (and can prove it), stick to discussing edits. It doesn't matter who makes the edit, only if it's policy compliant. I hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

EamonnCa1 i think it is quiet clear you do not have a neutral point of view on the subject, your edits on the subject show clearly that you are anti Northern Ireland, i take no biase on any football club or nation regarding their religious backgrounds, you edited details on the Portadown FC page when you knew they had no connection to the club, trying to link the club to paramilitaries, i think you should refrain from editing on subject you have no interest in and continue with your GAA edits. Ifcp1 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

EyeSerene the flags issue has been somewhat of an obsession for Mo Ainm, he has been on a crusade on wikipedia to remove all sign of the Ulster Banner(Northern Ireland flag) , the flag has been used on all football pages to show which country the player comes from or is eligible to play for, its widespread used om here, also the issue on sectarianism is another part of the Linfield page that has been constantly edited by users Mo Ainm & EamonnCa1 to show a slant on Linfield FC, last year i edited that section to show the work that Linfield Football Club has been doing over the years to stop these problems but these edits were removed, they were showing the positive work and also the negative problems that have accured in sectarianism, but the positives keep getting edited out, this shows i have taken the neutral point of view always. Ifcp1 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:MOSFLAG before you write half truths about me, flags are not used to show what country a player is from but they denote the sporting nationality of the player, and the flags I removed are from uncapped players who are eligible to play for ROI or NI. You are just using it to show the persons nationality.Mo ainm~Talk 21:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You removed flags from players who have been capped at full international level and removed flags from players who have been capped at various other levels, Eamonnca1 i wiould appreciate it if you would remove the Sectarianism content you are intent on connecting to Linfield Football Club. Ifcp1 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is all relevant and sourced content complete with citations that meet WP:V and is worded in a neutral tone per WP:NPOV. I'm sorry that you don't like the facts as presented, but "I don't like it" is not sufficient grounds for deleting sourced content from a wikipedia article per WP:IDL. Wikipedia is not a fan page, it is an encyclopedia. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@ Ifcp1, that is a blatant mistruth please retract the comment or back it up with a diff. Mo ainm~Talk 23:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ifcp1's edit warring is getting so blatant it's almost painful to watch. [197] [198] [199]. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Eammonca1 can you tell me why the Conor Hagan incident was not listed on the Cliftonville page instead of the Linfield page, wa it not an act of sctarianism by supporters of Cliftonville FC, is it because they come from a predominantly Catholic background?Ifcp1 (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please take that question to the appropriate talk pages. Further edit warring could result in you getting blocked from editing. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Eamonnca1 it is being discussed here, theres no need to sidestep the quesion, it is prove of your one sided agenda, its sad that you are trying to get another user banned from wikipedia as i have tried to discuss the matter civilly with you and Mo Ainm, i have asked you to post the positives as well as the negatives. Ifcp1 (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you have personalised the discussion and attributed an agenda to others rather than WP:AGF, which is hardly WP:CIVIL. As I have already indicated, I have previously made edits to the Linfield article which include the negatives as well as the positives and the downright neutrals. Now please use the appropriate talk pages for the discussion where other editors of those pages can see it. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I've now blocked Ifcp1 for 48 hours for continuing to edit war and placed them under 1RR on those articles per WP:TROUBLES (sanctions logged). Invoking the arbcom ruling may seem a little harsh on football-related articles, but considering the subjects of contention seem to be the Ulster banner and sectarian issues at the clubs I think it's justified in this case. EyeSerene^talk 08:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good call. Reading even just the exchanges here, there's no doubt that it is the Troubles aspect that was engaging Ifcpl1, not the quality of the footie. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami mass renaming script pages to alphabet pages, when they are not alphabets

In the move log one can see that this User:Kwamikagami moved several articles called X script to X alphabet [200] This is incorrect for many. No proper discussion took place, no move reasons are given. He is just moving. Also he deleted a dab page at Arwi which distinguished between the language (or call it dialect if you like) and the script. But interestingly the Arwi article has a subsection on the script, i.e. Arwi itself is not the script. Please can someone stop the article moves and page deletions? Please see also his talk page and this section at Editor assistance/Requests where other users complain about the moves. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Even more disturbingly, User:Kwamikagami engaged in the discussion at WikiProject Writing systems about his first move of 48 articles, and then proceeded to move another 20 messages, without discussing the moves with anyone. Moves which he has repeatedly defended without apology to the community, and which he has not reverted, knowing the furor it has caused. At the editor assistance request, I've been informed that this is part of a larger pattern of disruptive moves for this editor. I would appreciate an admin removing his ability to move articles until the RfC at WikiProject Writing systems has completed, and any other assistance (eg, a stern talking to) that can reasonably be rendered. VI_WS ^talk 18:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"I would appreciate an admin removing his ability to move articles"—You do realize that the only way to do this is by blocking him? I don't think a block is warranted at this point. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe step one would be to remove his Admin rights. So he can at least not delete articles to make way for the moves. And if he goes on with moving, yes please, block him. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just staring at the edits, it seems he'd be making double redirects as well... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are fixed by a bot within a couple hours. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

With Arwi, I was responding to comments on the talk page suggesting that it's Tamil as used by Muslims but not a separate language. Basically, Tamil written in the Arabic alphabet and used for religious purposes and consequently with a lot of Arabic loans. Calling that a "language" would seem to be an exaggeration, and I haven't seen anything to the contrary. It could be, of course, but no-one has provided anything that I see. It doesn't have a separate ISO code, for example, and much of the time we don't accept things as separate languages even when they do. It would seem that the prime definition of "Arwi" is how it's written, so separating the script would be unwarranted, and in this case a WP:CONTENTFORK. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to discuss content issues. You deleted claiming "G6. Technical deletions. Uncontroversial maintenance..." - By this you violated WP:ADM : Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers; ... They are never required to use their tools and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved. WP:INVOLVED Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize he is an admin - that changes things. He certainly doesn't act like an admin. The fact that he takes it upon himself to undertake drastic changes without consensus is a huge red flag for me in any administrator. These are supposed to be people who resolve and mediate conflicts, not cause them. I guess I request a conduct review for a suspension of admin privelages, then. Is this the proper place to make that kind of request? VI_WS ^talk 03:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else as disturbed by the fact that Kwami never divulged the fact that he was an admin as I am? How does someone this deceitful and clandestine even get admin privelages in the first place? VI_WS ^talk 03:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a fairly prominent box on his userpage that says "This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia (verify)." If admins went around starting every conversation with "I'm an admin and I want to do X" the natural reaction would be that we were using the implied social context of being an admin to win debates. I'd much rather admins not brag about their status since it is plainly displayed in the user list and not a secret to anyone. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that the original act of moving 48 pages is the sort of thing that I would expect an administrator to do, carrying out what they considered to be an act of cleanup, and say something like "Oh, I was just doing some administrative cleanup and thought this would be uncontroversial", making it much less of a transgression. Also the continued moving after that point isn't just the act of someone who doesn't understand community consensus, it is someone abusing their power and knowingly acting against the community consensus that they are tasked with upholding. This conflict is not about the original moves, it's about the Kwami's continuing disregard for the effort to form a consensus, a fact that is all the more disturbing given his position. VI_WS ^talk 03:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can move large numbers of pages; I don't see abuse of admin tools here unless kwami made moves only an admin can do (that is to say, deleting pages to make way for the move), and even that is not an abuse of admin tools if there was no prior dispute about naming. (It would be if he did that sort of move as part of a move war, but the first time is fine; as far as I can tell, it was only after the moves that anyone complained). Furthermore, in the message above I don't see the OP listing any specific examples of articles where kwami's "script -> alphabet" move is problematic, and the EA discussion linked to seems to have been started at the same time as this one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there was a prior dispute about naming, which Kwami participated in, and then proceeded to move 20 more pages without consensus. That is the behavior that concerns me. I don't know what tools were used to do that, all I care is that Kwami acted in a way that he knew to be contrary to consensus and has neither apologized for his actions, nor reverted them. I happen to believe that a position of trust demands a higher standard, and Kwami has consistently fallen well below my expectation of the standard of conduct for an editor, let alone an admin. VI_WS ^talk 04:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just browsing through Wikipedia when I stumbled upon this discussion. In my humble, honest and neutral opinion, as per common rule of Wikipedia, editing, or in this case, moving pages which are controversial must be accompanied by a discussion and a proper consensus from the Wikipedia community, and this rule applies to normal users like me and also to administrators as well with no exceptions. Guidelines are there to be followed, observed and obeyed because if left ignored, arguments such as this one will definitely arise. I hope that everyone will keep their cool and a proper consensus can be achieved. Good luck and peace, be cool always. Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 13:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

While "Kwami has made a series of bulk page moves" is not exactly an uncommon ANI topic, in this case I can't see much in the way of a consensus that he's wrong to be making them. There's an open discussion about it and he's said he's fine with them being moved back if there's consensus to do so. As such, I don't see that there's much in the way of abusive use of tools going on, even if the moves did involve some housekeeping deletions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

While Kwamikagami may or may not have abused his tools, some of the comments in this ANI thread bear witness yet again to his abuse of the trust vested in him as a sysop. Thus is not the first time he has made contentious, unilateral, board-wide edits to linguistics pages in the face of serious protest. This ANI started by User:Bogdan Nagachop and the comments by Usr:VI are only the tip of a behavioural iceberg. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we move all of these back? One example is Sinhala script (a good article) being moved to Sinhala alphabet, despite the fact that the article still says "Sinhala script" throughout the article, despite that Sinhala is an abugida and not an alphabet, and despite the fact that there was clear consensus on the talk page that "Sinhala script" is preferable to "Sinhala alphabet". This was certainly an abuse of administrator tools. Kotakkasut is spot on in his analysis. Can we move these articles back? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I said that I would not do so myself, but I believe Kwami has had the opportunity to revert his bad-faith moves, and has proven that he is not willing to do so. I would certainly appreciate anyone taking it upon themselves to revert them until we have a consensus opinion at Writing Systems. VanIsaac_WS (VI) 18:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, 1 August 2011

Resolved

Doncram blocked for 3 months by Elen of the Roads — Ched :  ?  14:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I reluctantly make this request for an extended block of Doncram for a serious of edits culminating in this one. Recent noticeboard archives are littered with threads related to Doncram's behavior, including plentiful remarks by him about others, as are the sections of WT:NRHP and various related pages. Time and again, Doncram's been brought up for personal attacks and for denominating disagreements as "lies" or those who disagree with him as "liars". The edit that I link above was made in the middle of a section in which he multiple times accused Elkman of falsehoods. Forgive the confusing narrative (perhaps you'll need to read the section to understand what's going on), but Doncram's continued "lies" and "liars" statements were the primary subject of the entire section, and he responded to these claims with comments such as the one I linked above, with statements such as the edit summary of "new accusation of being called lying, seems false." In other words: "you're telling a falsehood when you say that I say you're lying". We've already had too much tendentious editing by Doncram for a very long period of time, and threads like this are severely disruptive of the encyclopedia — among other things, this thread has prompted Elkman to take down a website upon which many of us in WP:NRHP depended, due to the ways in which Doncram has continued to speak. I've already issued Doncram a final warning, but since that time, he's made multiple statements such as what you read above. At the rate things are going, I suspect that someone or another will soon request arbitration. If for no other reason than the improvement and maintenance of the encyclopedia, I believe that an extended block is needed. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I took Nyttend's statement about a warning that he links to very seriously. I replied this diff, including (1)I have not characterized Elkman as lying, ever, as far as I know. A lie is a deliberate untruth. Elkman's assertions that I have characterized him as lying, at my Talk page and repeated here, are false however. I think Elkman conceived the idea that I was calling him such during one previous wp:AN episode, when he described a Minnesota article he had developed in a way that I understood as him saying that he had misidentified a person as being an architect in that article. I do perceive the Isabella Ranger Station article as one where he was misled by ambiguous information in NRIS, i.e. that he put CCC into the article in the infobox= field, which I removed, as probably false. He agrees that was probably false, so I don't see why he should take offense. Nyttend seems to have accepted Elkman's assertion that I have characterized Elkman as lying. I believe I have not. Show diffs, or please stop repeating this, both of you."

Nyttend had the last word in that discussion, archived in full at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Isabella Ranger Station, and Nyttend did not choose to provide any diff. Since then, at the wt:NRHP discussion Nyttend links to, Elkman repeated these accusations, and I asked him to show diffs, and the edit that Nyttend leads with here is me responding, fairly I think.

I am not happy about being dragged to wp:AN discussions repeatedly, and don't think it is necessary for Nyttend to have opened this, rather than having responded in the previous discussions. I don't have time for this, but will try to return later to respond if needed. --doncram 18:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this edit is the one that pushed me over the edge. Doncram has long accused me of not knowing the difference between an architect, a builder, and an engineer. Now, he's accusing me of not knowing the year in which a structure was built, versus the significant year(s) listed in the National Register database. Basically, whenever I fail to use weasel words in an infobox or in an article, I'm being accused of lying. And, since I'm providing a database query tool that others use, I'm being accused of helping other users lie about content. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend's first diff and Elkman's diff are from one current discussion at wt:NRHP, perhaps easier to read completely at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Architect vs. builder in the NRHP infobox generator. I don't agree with Elkman's characterization, here. It all relates to previous discussions, yes. I don't know what to say further. Why not discuss it there, in the discussion there. --doncram 18:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish that Doncram would recognize how his behavior affects other people -- and quit behaving in the ways that the rest of us find so disruptive. The recent three-week-long block kept him off the site for more than three weeks, and I think he has been somewhat more careful not to start battles than he was in the past, but it seems (based on confrontations here and elsewhere) that the time away did not cause him to rethink his behavior. (He has asserted repeatedly, for example in his complaints at User:Orlady/List, that the consensus conclusions of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs were wrong.) Elkman's taking his infobox generator offline ought to have shown him that his behavior has negative consequences, but it seems that it is only producing a new outpouring of words to the effect that he is being misjudged. I'd like to suggest a program of self-flagellation (or maybe self-slapping with a trout) in the public square, but we don't have a public square. Like Nyttend, I don't particularly like the idea of blocking him -- because I would prefer for him to stay at Wikipedia but change his behavior, but I don't think that we have any other effective means of preventing further disruption. --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "why not discuss it there" — because everyone who frequents that discussion page lacks the technical right to implement the sanctions that I am requesting, except for people like Orlady and me who obviously are involved. I don't care what terminology you use: when you continually accuse multiple people of falsehoods in their words, it's no different from when you outright say that they're lying, and when you effectively tell them that they're lying when they say that you're calling them liars proves my point — either you just said that, and thus they tell the truth already, or you didn't just say that, and thus you make them true. My "this one" link is an example of the diff that you require; and please note that there's no way for me to continue a discussion if I already have the last word in it. Even if you think you're right in a situation, there's no good reason to persist to the point that another good-faith contributor becomes unwilling to participate: that's most definitely disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia. Finally, of course nobody likes being brought to the noticeboards repeatedly; it's simply that your editing patterns have not changed since the previous discussions, and the fact that lots of different people are raising the same issues may mean that the majority of people who pay attention to your editing patterns are disturbed by them. The previous discussions were attempts to ensure that your editing did not go in certain patterns; since those attempts have not worked, I have started a new discussion to seek an admittedly-unpleasant solution that I believe to be the only one that will have a chance of ending this disruption. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

From an outsider's point of view, it would be awfully nice not to have to wade through all these Doncram-related threads on the noticeboards, but to do that either Doncram has to change his way of editing, or he needs to be blocked. Of course, multiple threads about a specific editor could just indicate that someone is being ganged up on, but there have been too many editors who have complained about Doncram's modus operandi for that to be the case. In addition, in reading these discussion, I don't believe I have ever seen Doncram admit to being at fault: everything is, from his perspective, caused by someone else's actions. Even without investigating every reported incident, it is extremely unlikely that this can be the case. It is much more probable that Doncram is unable to recognize when he is in the wrong, is unable to see the points of view of other editors, and is unable to change his behavior to alleviate the concerns his editing creates in his fellow Wikipedians. Those are hardly attributes which contribute to collegial cooperation, and therefore not indicative of someone who can fit into the Wikipedia mold.

Having said all that, I'm not convinced that an extremely long block is a good idea at this time. Rather, with the hope that Doncram can still be valuable to the project, I could support a block of a couple of months to give him time to reflect about his way of working and change it when he returns. If he exhibits the same problematic behavior at that time, then I would say a much longer block, perhaps even an indef block contingent on his asking to return with a pledge of change, would be justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• AFAIK this is my first post to the month after month (... after month, ... after month) perennial Doncram threads at AN and AN/I. While I don't see an individual post or thread that may be worthy of a block, I have to wonder when I see continual posts of "one" editor debating with multiple other editors. Perhaps any individual post is not "disruptive" in and by itself, but the conglomeration is a huge time sink that the project could well do without. The entire Doncram/NRHP subject gives the distinct impression of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is disheartening, and frustrating for multiple other editors on the project. I would strongly suggest that Doncram take a self-imposed hiatus from all things related to NRHP for a minimum of 3 months. I fully credit Doncram for his good faith, and admittedly good efforts to our project "en toto", but I fear at this point a break is indeed required. There are many other areas to work on throughout the project. I fear that if this advice is not adhered to, then indeed a much longer, and much more restrictive solution will be forthcoming. Cheers and Best to all. — Ched :  ?  04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I note that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram didn't get much attention, I'd like to see more of the normal dispute resolution steps taken before we go to a long block. However, would a topic ban for a couple of months seems a reasonable middle step? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm planning to submit a request for arbitration. This pattern of behavior has indeed gone on for far too long, and there have been multiple threads on multiple noticeboards with no end in sight. There's no way he would consider taking a self-imposed hiatus or adhere willingly to a topic ban. He'd just come up with a bunch of legalese and protracted policy discussion to explain why he should be allowed to skirt the edges of the ban. Sanctions by individual administrators haven't worked very well in the past; it's only led to larger walls of text and even longer sections at noticeboards. I hardly see where an entry in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct would lead to something more productive and more conclusive than any of the arguments that have already come up in the admin noticeboards and at WT:NRHP. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'd be happier with a request for arbitration, more painful in the short run but "stickier" in the long run than if we just decide here. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Arb requests take a long time, and can't usually be justified without prior dispute resolution steps. Personally, I'm in favour of blocking him for a couple of months here and now. If he comes back afterwards and does the same thing, we can go to arbcom, but it seems silly to bother them and go through all that rigmarole for something this obviously one-sided. Anyone with me? Ironholds (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think a short block at this point will change anything, except giving the editors who have been trying to clean up after him a chance to get ahead. I think the only thing that has a chance of changing anything going forward will be a full ArbCom case, where the various editors who are familiar with him can explain why they think his editing style is unacceptable, he can provide his evidence for why it improves the encyclopedia and why other people's behavior has been unacceptable, and ArbCom can determine the facts and remedies for all. Failing that, a community ban should be imposed, and I don't know if there's currently consensus for that, and I don't know if anyone who hasn't be following the issues all along is going to read through the wallsotext to decide.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'd agree with the idea of a block for three or four months, with the proviso that if that doesn;t work, we've already decided exactly what to do next, so no more lengthy discussions will be necessary. I he comes back after a three-month block and does this again, I'd say OK, straight to ArbCom. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am firmly of the belief that it should not require Arbcom intervention where an overwhelming majority of good faith editors are in agreement that an editor is disruptive. As I have never seen anyone agree that Doncram is not disruptive for a considerable amount of the time (regardless of good work that he does do), I have blocked him for three months to reflect on his approach to editing Wikipedia. As it says on my talkpage, if consensus changes, please feel free to unblock without the need to consult me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

looks like the "topic ban" idea is moot now. — Ched :  ?  14:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Could I get a temporary block of 74.177.46.240

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Penwhale. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP has removed the PRODBLP tag from Mar Contreras five times and removed from Fabián Robles three times. They have been warned twice on their User talk:74.177.46.240 page. Bgwhite (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24h. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Alecmconroy

User has taken a break, let's leave it for now. --John (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi all. The other day, I received a snide and threatening message from User:Alecmconroy. While the basis of the message was with regards to an unnamed deleted image, I felt the message was more of an attack directed at me than it was a request for clarification, so I dismissed it as a threat/sordid message I routinely receive from disruptive users. However, today, I received yet another threatening/condescending message from the aforementioned user. Within a few minutes, he attacked me yet again at a BRFA for a proposed bot of mine. At this point, I looked into the user's contributions and made several highly disturbing finds. Alecmconroy attempted, in bad faith, to nominate one of my uploads, and one of Masem's (he had a dispute with Masem earlier) uploads at FfD. Furthermore, as demonstrated in this dispute, he has a backwards and egregious misunderstanding of how media file policy and copyright is enforced around here, and is more than willing to disrupt the project to prove his point (e.g. attempts to change WP:NFC - when reverted, he is willing to edit war to keep it in). That said, I would like to respectfully delegate this issue to the community so that appropriate action may be taken to prevent further damage to the project by User:Alecmconroy. Sincerely, FASTILY (TALK) 05:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC) There's a much larger context here, as always. In any case, I won't repeat any of the above behaviors or seek out the specific individuals. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Add to the above the upload of File:Rebekah Brooks 18 July 2011thb.jpg, a non-free image reduced to a ridiculous degree so as to make it completely useless, obviously another WP:POINT attempt to lead NFC policy ad absurdum. This behavious really does need to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I added a higher quality image that was deleted as 'not-free'. I made a very low quality one to see if that stuck. Again, note I didn't insert it into an article. Blurred images are not 'absurd' they're used in criminal cases all the time. What we have here is not an intimidating rogue user-- we have some major changes in how people are interpreting longstanding policy, and it's generating lots of confusion. If our struggling for clarity looks absurd or 'intimidating', there's a deeper reason. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Nothing has changed in NFC policy in the past several months, maybe even years, save for the actions of Delta, and that's only to the vigor to which NFC is managed. News press images used without direct commentary on the image have long been disallowed (since at least 2007). --MASEM (t) 06:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Confirming Fastily's assessment wrt to me: Alecmconroy removed an image and then subsequently AFD'd it, but later described that they didn't want to see the image deleted (see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 2 (first one, it looks like). Clearly trying to pick a battle in the WT:NFC but extending it elsewhere. Prior to today, I didn't have any interaction (that I'm aware of) with the editor. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC) User:Alecmconroy just attempted to inappropriately change the title of this thread here -FASTILY (TALK) 06:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC) and do you seriously feel intimidated by me, Fastily? Do you, an admin with years of experience, feel 'intimidating' is an honest and fair summary of my discussion today? A text conversation between strangers and I'm "intimidating" you? If that's somehow true that I 'intimidated' you, I do owe you an apology. If I just bug you, you owe me an apology for conflating violence with debate. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC) duplicated posts collapsed here The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Add to the above the upload of File:Rebekah Brooks 18 July 2011thb.jpg, a non-free image reduced to a ridiculous degree so as to make it completely useless, obviously another WP:POINT attempt to lead NFC policy ad absurdum. This behavious really does need to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I added a higher quality image that was deleted as 'not-free'. I made a very low quality one to see if that stuck. Again, note I didn't insert it into an article. Blurred images are not 'absurd' they're used in criminal cases all the time. What we have here is not an intimidating rogue user-- we have some major changes in how people are interpreting longstanding policy, and it's generating lots of confusion. If our struggling for clarity looks absurd or 'intimidating', there's a deeper reason. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Nothing has changed in NFC policy in the past several months, maybe even years, save for the actions of Delta, and that's only to the vigor to which NFC is managed. News press images used without direct commentary on the image have long been disallowed (since at least 2007). --MASEM (t) 06:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Well, the talk page disagrees. People forgot 'guidelines' aren't WP:OFFICE. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC) You just tried to justify your POINTy upload to Future Perfect as if it were a sincere endeavor...but it contains this line from you, "The project is dying, and people who delete images over copyright paranoia are A part of why we are dying." That is disruptive and doesn't help the project at all. How many new users might see that? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry-- expressing opinions isn't disruption. As for the dying-- that's not my prediction, that's in the numbers. If we stomp on newbies and delete their work, they won't stay here. If you look at the numbers, the exodus has already begun, don't take my word for it. We reverse that trend by holding a mirror up to ourselves-- by having this discussions over guidelines and how they apply to specific images. The discussions that ensue may be contentious, but they're not a disruption unless you choose to make them into one. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC) User:Alecmconroy insists on keeping a badly formatted duplicate copy of this thread [201] below. I'm going to stop reverting him lest I should breach 3rr. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry bout the formatting. Edit conflicts where text disappears just get the text added right back. But not trying to be intentionally 'badly formatted' about it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I didn't want to see any images deleted, I merely believed the guideline as currently written required its deletion. There's a difference. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC) You likely need to review WP:POINT to understand what not to do when you dispute a guideline. Enacting the negative action to demonstrate a point is a textbook example from that. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Discussion is not disruption. That it proved my point about fair use is just sauce for the goose, there was no disruption to Wikipedia. If I momentarily disrupted Fast's controversial deletion spree by forcing him to discuss them, I take solace that his is not Wikipedia. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Block suggested for Alecmconroy This user has clearly been harrassing Fastily. Having made an unholy mess of this report, which he refused to cleaan up himself, he made a bad faith report at WP:AN3. He attempted to archive that report himself with a bad faith personal attack on Fastily.[202] In addition he tried to close this report on his own conduct.[203] I suggest some form of block for this ongoing disruption. Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Support Please. Excessive violations of WP:POINT, WP:NPA. After all this, the user is still attempting to defend their actions. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I do defend my actions. Fastily behaved unwisely and rudely to me, I felt offended, and I sought ample discussion to alert the community to the problem. I've been threated with a block for 'poor formatting' once today by the admin I was in a dispute with me-- if you want to threaten me with a block for mere discussion too, I must confess to being little desensitized to threats of blocks and bans at this point. I did nothing wrong, and if I was incivil, it was extremely mutual. --Alecmconroy (talk) You have continued unjustified personal attacks, the latest being in response to an explicit warning from Future Perfect at Sunrise which you copied to his user talk page.[204] The disruption is meanwhile continuing elsewhere with edits like this.[205], refactoring the comments of others. This needs to stop. Mathsci (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Mathsci, this conversation is unlikely to serve any useful purpose. If you feel I have truly unfairly maligned Fastily, you may refer the matter to Arbcom which I will accept as a authority. If they conclude Fastily could, indeed, have blocked me for formatting, if they concluded made bogus claims about my upload, then I will apologize. If we don't block over good-faith formatting errors, if my complaints to 3rr and FFD were sincere not trolling, and if my uploads were made in good-faith, then Fastily will owe me an apology and a resignation. I doubt arbcom will have the time and I doubt Fastily would care to take the risk. But if you want a 'justice' from this, that's the direction you should look. In practice, it'll be a long time before I upload an image to EnWP again and perhaps it's time to find a new hobby. It's been a good decade. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC) You have disrupted WP to make a point. Your actions, including continued personal attacks and taunting, can be dealt with by any uninvolved administrator. I have no idea why you mention ArbCom, before you have even attempted most forms of DR. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I mentioned it since you accused me of a personal attack without investigating the facts. You want me gone, I'm basically gone already. If you want me to apologize, you need someone I trust to convince me I was incorrect in my facts. And I don't inherently trust self-selected groups of admins. The outcome will be you will block me or ignore me or else I'll wind up deleting my account or ignore you. I will go on with my life creating, you will go on deleting, people will keep getting mad at you time after time after time after time until eventually they go somewhere you won't bother them. This is not a personal attack. This is not a disruption. This is a discussion about openness. If you don't like how I discuss things, take comfort in that our paths will likely never cross again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecmconroy (talk • contribs) You have repeatedly accused Fastily of lying (see the diffs above) and that is a personal attack / harrassment. One instance of that was redacted by FPaS on WP:AN3. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Yep. If he says I've been acting in bad faith in my discussions at other pages, that's a problem. If he says he can block me for 'formatting errors', that's a problem. The heading accuses me of near-criminal acts, that's a problem. If someone wants to redact those facts, I won't edit war over it. If someone wants me to retract those claims, file a RFAr. If you want me to go away, just be quiet and you'll probably get your wish. Why the continued questions? Are you hoping to mediate a resolution or merely to goad me into a satisfying block? You don't seem like the latter type, but it's not unknown on wikis. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Please take into account the warning from FPaS and de-escalate matters. That just involves toning down your language, dropping the accusations of lying and not mentioning ArbCom. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Oh please. Strong oppose to blocking alecmcconroy. This is ridiculous. Fastily, considering the work you do in the image deletion department (even, recently, right down to a daring request for deletion of Bishzilla's portrait..!, which fortunately you had to ignominiously withdraw after a snowball KEEP reaction), I would have thought you'd expect people to get a little hot under the collar sometimes. Perhaps it's unfair, but surely it comes with the territory? And as Alec says, you're a big strong admin, are you really that easily intimidated? And incidentally, no, Alecmconroy's attempt to change the title of the thread to something neutral was not inappropriate at all, see the instructions at the top of this page: "New threads should be started under … an informative title that is neutral." You yourself gave the thread an inappropriate, attack-mode title, and then you complain when Alec makes it strictly neutral. Are you that unfamiliar with ANI etiquette? To all: you're dealing with a useful long-time contributor in an extremely heavy-handed way, and I'm sorry to see it. Bishonen | talk 10:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC). PS. I've supplied a neutral title for the thread, per the ANI page instructions. Please don't revert me, it's not right. Bishonen | talk 10:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC). Well, no, we probably don't need to block Alecmconroy at this point, as long as he heeds the warning and doesn't continue with the image disruption. But, Bishonen, I must strongly object to your suggestion that this kind of behaviour just "comes with the territory" and that those of us admins who do image work should be expected to simply put up with it. No, no, no. Nobody did any harm to Alecmconroy. He made two or three poorly thought-out non-free image uploads; they were deleted through two regular FFDs; they were both extremely obvious, open-and-shut cases and it was all his own fault because he hadn't worked out the copyright status properly and lacked understanding of NFC policy; and most importantly, Fastily was merely the admin who happened to call the obvious consensus closure on those two FFDs. From there, Alecmconroy launched into a ridiculous spree of personalizing the whole matter into a conflict with Fastily, hounding him across multiple unrelated venues with insulting and belittling comments, and ended up with a rampage of WP:POINT moves. No, we should not excuse such behaviour so easily and dismiss it as simply somebody "getting a bit hot under the collar". If he is now offended enough to consider leaving, that's a pity, but I don't see anything "heavy-handed" about the way he was treated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC) This. My involvement simply started from trying to explain the legal and philosphocial relationship between Fair Use, the Foundation's Resolution on non-free content, and en.wiki's NFC, with the point that we cannot change what the Foundation laid out. This subsequently led to the questionable remove and deletion of my image. Now, if Alecmconroy came out earlier and wonders why his press photos were being deleted, several steps in the process could have been removed including avoiding this situation. Instead , as I see what led up to that, he was basically being retalitory due to images being deleted including disruption of others work (outside of talk pages). I don't think the block is needed now, but certainly there needs to be reminder that such actions are completely uncalled for, and if there is a legit grip with the reasons for removal of non-free content we can try to discuss it but our hands our tied to a degree by the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 12:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I'm not blameless here-- I've realized that this is a testosterone environment and have slowly adapted against my nature to work in it. I hope I'm not as bad as the portrait Fut paints, but I'd be the last person to know if I was. I can't speak intelligently about me, that's for you all to do. But the fair use deletions-- something has gone wrong here. I sense we'd rather delete an image than fix its tags. I sense that fair use is being used as leverage in pov-wars, with people using fair use to kill pics they oppose on pov grounds. We are clearly demoralizing huge swatchs of people with fair use deletions. Most of all, I suspect we're crippling our very own articles by this. When we can't show a picture OF testimony in a democratic government that has a semi-public license in a section all about that person giving that testimony-- something's broken somewhere. This should be an easy common-sense decision for us at the copyright level. Are we really having to argue over whether "The Sum of the World's Knowledge" can include historic pictures of legislative bodies? Whatever guidelines we use are failing the common sense test. an admin to intentionally deleting an image of parliament is almost like a reductio ad absurdum of how wikipedia bureaucracy can go crazy -- the mere fact that it happens is a red flag. The fact that it seems to be happening to others is a bigger flag. And then, of course, "cause we said so" just doesn't work on wikipedia. If you can't explain, in common sense, why something should be, people just argue about it until a consensus or a fight breaks out. Lots of people quoted me guidelines with obscure codes they know by heart... but nobody could explain why the article would be better if we deleted the picture... nobody even tried.... and that means something's broken, aside from just me. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Not often I agree with Bishonen, but oppose block for the moment, as this clearly needs to Go to RfM/RfAr, as neither side is showing signs of backing down. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 10:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC) For my part, I'm not 'backing down', but I'm one night's sleep away from a good vanish. I don't expect this to go to RFAr-- they're too busy already-- the last thing they need is to see a two-bit php programmer who spends more time on code than content. I 'offered' to go through an RFAr if someone really wants an apology from me. I'm not 'backing down', but i'm not obsessed with getting an apology either. I don't need one-- I'm basically content to vanish-- it'd probably be good for my career :) The bigger issue is that if you obsessively delete fair use images whenever justifiable, people won't contribute images anymore. If you threaten people with bogus blocks, most people won't know it's BS, and they'll think we're ruled by tyrants. The "Fair Use Jihad" has to end, or we might as well all just move to Wikia. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC) You appear to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia has similar goals and constraints as Wikia. This is utterly false. I understand you're upset about the removal of non-free content. But, we are not going to liberally include non-free content as Wikia does, no matter how upset you become. The WP:NFCC policy is deliberately strict, and Wikia has no equivalent on any of its projects to my knowledge. You assail Fastily for his deletions as part of a "fair use jihad". Yet, his actions are perfectly in line with the ideals of this project. If you can't grok our reason for being here, then perhaps it is best you take your talents to one or more Wikia projects. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I perhaps would not have been quite so blunt as Hammersoft above, but I must admit that the "Fair Use" or NFCC subject is indeed a contentious area at Wikipedia. I don't see that really changing much unless or until we stop using NF material all-together to be honest. On the other hand, I think perhaps Fast is being a bit overly sensitive here as well. It's perfectly understandable when an editor goes to great lengths to provide good faith offerings to the project that they will be upset when their material is deleted. I think that a "thick skin" is required with the territory we're discussing here, and I can't really see any violation of WP:NPA at the moment. Per the honorable Ms. Bishonen above, I am opposed to any block at this time. — Ched :  ?  14:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I mostly agree, though I don't think it's inevitable that NFC usage (and removal) will always generate ill will. Without casting any aspersions on whatever Fastily did or how he did it (I haven't checked any diffs and so only have Alecmconroy's irate characterizations to go by), NFC rules have often been enforced in a very heavy-handed way that is contrary to the general spirit of the project, such as through mass taggings and deletions, removals of images for easily curable procedural violations, etc. It seems that Alecmconroy genuinely doesn't understand the reasons underlying NFC policies, and invoking the Foundation doesn't help with that, but instead just adds to the authoritarian taint that has long been associated with NFC "enforcement." There are some very simple and pragmatic reasons why we don't push everything to the limit of legal fair use, and patiently explaining those would go a lot further towards defusing the hostility. We also need to show more sympathy for the work someone tried to put into to locating useful non-free images, even if ultimately we can't or shouldn't use them, rather than acting like traffic cops. Probably a good idea for anyone working in any policy-specific administrative area is to rotate around, spend some time starting or expanding articles or uploading images, rather than just doing that one administrative thing. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I would strongly recommend that before anybody jumps into the old "those evil mass NFCC enforcers" complaint routine, they should make themselves acquainted with the facts of this case. This wasn't even a matter of NFCC enforcement. Alec uploaded two images with mistaken copyright declarations. They were nominated for FFD on copyright, not NFCC, grounds by an unrelated third party. The fact that a fair-use rationale as an alternative wouldn't be able to rescue the images was mentioned but played a subordinate role in the discussion. Alec was duly notified of the FFDs, was actively editing while they were running, but chose not to participate. Both parallel discussions resulted in an obvious delete consensus, which Fastily merely carried out as a matter of routine. Alec then jumped on him without even taking notice of what had been said at the FFD, as if Fastily had made a unilateral undiscussed decision. No, I'm not willing to show more "sympathy" for people in such situations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC) "They were nominated for FFD on copyright, not NFCC grounds". That's the whole point. You should be taking an image request and finding an image. When users find an image on their own, you have to help them classify it properly. You have to fight for the good of the article. If I'm your problem, problem solved. If deletions are the problem, like all the talk page complaints suggest, then your problems have only just begun. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC) If an image can't be fixed, it's supremely irrational to expect of admins to fix it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011

An IP-hopper carrying a grudge has taken to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011 to add frivolous checkuser requests against La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who is in conflict with the IP. This IP was amongst those listed in the original report (filed by me), and I'm quite surprised it wasn't blocked (even for a short time) based on behavioural evidence. I have to log off now, but I'd appreciate an extra pair of eyes or two. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have said many times I am on dynamic IP which is not within my control if it flips. Seeing how she likes to accuse people of sockpuppetry, why was La goutte de pluie's case of using sockpuppets to revert edits never brought up? evidence here and here202.156.13.11 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Your IP is a StarHub IP; StarHub changes addresses every few weeks, not every few minutes. Your explanation is suspicious. In any case, I would have blocked the IPs (if not for behavioural conduct) for 3RR, but I would rather not use my tools since I am involved in the dispute. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:186.211.99.74 Edit warring

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Reaper Eternal. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

186.211.99.74 is still disruptive editing on the page The Eternal Idol. Still reverting after the final warning I gave to him. Should we give him an only warning, or a block? Also, I'm going to request a Page protection of that page. If you have any concerns, please reply here. Thank you. StormContent (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal beat me to blocking him. If he's the only IP editor causing problems, you won't get page protection, as blocking him will stop it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User ClaudioSantos (again), personal attacks

Disruptive user ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also known as PepitoPerez2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is making numerous personal attacks against other editors, likening them to "buffoons" and "donkies". When reproached for this, he simply claims, in broken English, that this is how people interact in Spanish (namely, with insulting epithets and pejorative metaphors).

I quote him here:

"Your last comment is what we call here "un ladrón bufón" (a burglar playing also as a buffoon)." [206]

"[In referring to another editor] We say "un burro hablando de orejas ("a donky speaking about ears")." [207]

I will not go into his extensive history of disruption, right from when he was an IP-hopping editor. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You state he's using multiple accounts. Have you opened a sockpuppetry investigation? That seems to me the next logical step to take. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, AFAIK he is only using the ClaudioSantos account now. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter if he's socking or not? Uncivil editor is uncivil. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. So this didn't go to WP:WQA...why, exactly? That seems a much more apropos venue for the issue. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I brought it here because of exasperation with this user. He started off editing as an IP on Action T4 and reduce the pace to a shambles, despite the repeated intervention of admin TeaDrinker, who could not control him. He posted messages in ALL CAPS AND BOLD again and again on the Talk page, claiming that wikipedia was conspiring to murder people. Eventually he registered an account, which was blocked, and now another account, ClaudioSantos. As ClaudioSantos he is engaged in numerous edit wars on euthanasia-related pages, for instance:

1. Trying to insert the word "murder" onto Dr Jack Kevorkian's page
2. Trying to put an Infobox Criminal on Kevorkian's page
3. Trying to delete nearly all of the content on the pages Suicide bag and Exit International
4. Trying to slant the whole page on Euthanasia to say that the Nazi WW2 extermination program, which used the euphemism "euthanasia" to camouflage outright murder, is akin to modern euthanasia.
5. Etc etc .. too much to go into here.

Bottom line is that this is a highly disruptive, bafflegab-generating, intensely POV editor who is harming the project in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways. His egregious insults were the final straw. So I guess this is more, in the end, than an etiquette issue, and I should have said so in the beginning. This is really an extension of a previous incident on this noticeboard → here A search for "claudiosantos" on this board raises several other incidents on this editor, lodged by other editors (not me). Jabbsworth (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See also his list Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Jabbsworth, who reported me here becasue alleged PA, he is currently being involved in a WP:WQA as another user feels Jabbsworth has been personally attacking him[208]. Few days ago Jabbsworth was unblocked after being permanently blocked due 6-sockpuppets. His 6 sockpuppets has also a long record of edit wars. Just one day after being unblocked Jabbsworth got another block due edit warring. I have also felt rude his comments remarking the users' religion[209][[210] and language[211][212]. And more than one user expresively asked to stop that sort of comments. It seems that as he is against my position on euthanasia then he encourages other users to report me to the ANI. Ironically the above user who complaint about Jabbsworth rude behaviour was in the past encouraged by Jabbsworth to report me to the ANI to get a block for me ate the euhtanasia articles. For my comments: the above comments were clearly explained in the respective talk page of that article, those are spanish expressions, adages, proverbs used to explain certain situations, and I expressively said that I was not referring to the users but to the situation, precisely "a donkey speaking about ears" is a proverb used when someone accuses or remarks faults allegedely commited by another people while he himself is commiting those faults, it is like a donkey speaking about other's ears. I do not know what is the respective english expresion. But after all I know why Jabbsworth did intrud in a conversation between me and another user just to encourage the other user to report me to the ANI because of my proverbs. Look my last editions on Euthanasia or in Richard Jenne and in the respective talk pages, to realize what are my real edits, all well sourced and all my efforts to argue in the dispute resolution there using reliable, verifiable references, etc (See for example this or this). For a change, it seems Jabbsworht is just trying to resolve the dispute through eliminating me out of the field. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

1. My own etiquette case involves a user who cannot produce any evidence of a PA, other than that I quoted his misspelled word with a (sic) next to it,
2. My recent unblock and puppet case involved me using multiple accounts to try to avoid persistent wikistalking and even real life stalking, and the evidence was accepted by Arbcom, so do not raise it again.
3. I have made no rude comments on anyone's religion, merely highlighted that some of the POV edits on euthanasia are coming from the religiously motivated (which everyone knows is true),
4. Likening people to "buffoons" and "donkeys" is not excused by claiming cultural differences. Perhaps, since you are a native Spanish speaker, you should take your insults to the Spanish version of wikipedia where nobody will take exception? Jabbsworth (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The correct link to that earlier IP-case mentioned is this one. It is a case out of 2009, so I have no idea what is the worth of it in 2011.

Secondly, Jabbsworth a.k.a. Ratel a.k.a. TickleMeister has a particular disrespect for people who's first language is not English. Referring to other peoples spelling mistakes is extremely annoying and, to my opinion, a PA. By the way: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Jabbsworth. There Jabbsworth disruptive and annoying style of editing is discussed. No matter what happens, he claims to be the innocent victim and the other guys is the bad boy.

Thirdly: it is just a content dispute. To my opinion ClaudioSantos is strongly against euthanasia, while Jabbsworth is strongly in favour of it (to the extent sometimes that he is promoting it).

In my opinion, the only way to solve this dispute is giving a topic ban to euthanasia related articles to both Jabbsworth and ClaudioSantos. (And I would accept one too, if necessary) Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment above comes from someone who believes I am "promoting" a non-profit by adding the number of staff and names of key directors to the organisation's infobox on the organisation's wikipage. Is this a sane viewpoint? You do the math, dear reader! Jabbsworth (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is adding this picture neutral or a provocation? I take it as a provocation and POV-pushing... Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You Jabssworth subtracted to the equation that NotBW is also reverting your attempts to publish in wikipedia parts of a manual to commit suicide, which is one of the well known purpose of that organization: to teach how to commit suicide. And NotBW not solely warned that is not the purpose of wikipedia to teach how to commit suicide, but he also (plus) warned that it also could bring adverse legal consequences for wikimedia foundation, because assisting suicide is against the law in most of the United States including Florida. Perhaps readers know more than subtract. Notice that NotBW never suggested that Jabbsworth's point of view was insane or illegal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Three month topic ban proposal

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.

---

Note: This proposal has now passed the bare minimum 48 hr discussion period and may be closed by any uninvolved administrator who believes there is a consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed for community consideration:

Jabbsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are both topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed, and banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed, for a period of three months. Any checkuser-verified sockpuppetry used to evade the ban by those users during the ban period will result in a six-month editing block on that user. Either user may make minimal reports to uninvolved administrators should they observe a topic ban violation by the other party that is not responded to, 24 hrs after the violation and in absence of any administrator reaction, but may not discuss it further after notifying of the diff and the applicable ban.

• Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic and interaction bans based on observed exchanges between editors both at WP:ANI and on the Euthanasia talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - a reasonable solution to the users disruptive contributing/interactions in the Euthanasia and related topic area. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree unless the ban specifically relates to Euthanasia and its subpages (ie Voluntary euthanasia, Non-voluntary euthanasia etc). This is, in fact, a proposal I put to ClaudioSantos myself, suggesting to him that we only make arguments on the Talk pages diff. Of course, he declined. But do not extend the ban, for me at least, to articles I have defended with consensus support, such as Jack Kevorkian, which ClaudioSantos has tried to vandalise by calling the man a "murderer" and changing his Medical Infobox to a Criminal Infobox, etc. For heavens sake, don't punish someone who is defending the Project from this sort of rubbish! Likewise, don't ban me from pages like Suicide bag, because this page is now under attack by an editor with a grudge against me (Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) who is trying to have it reduced to a stub on specious grounds. And at least leave access to all Talk pages. Thanks. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If he's not editing on the topic, there's nothing to have to defend (and others editing in consensus can do usual work on it). The proposed ban includes talk pages as both you and ClaudioSantos have had aggressive head-butting sessions on those. It's just better for both of you to step away from the topic and each other, and work on something else for a while. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok George, if that's what you want. I'm only trying to improve the euthanasia space, which has been sorely neglected and recently messed up by people with political or religious axes to grind. But there are a few good editors getting involved now too, so let them at it! Please consider topic banning Night of the Big Wind too please, as he's been fanning flames from the get-go, and he has invited one above as well when he said Claudio and I should be banned, "and I would accept one too, if necessary". That's an admission that he's been heavily involved in the disruption. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen much disruption involving Night of the Big Wind, but if others feel he should be included then the case can be presented. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A ban will not change that it was a jury who condemned Jack Kevorkian as a murderer so I was just editing the thing based on reliable sources. And be aware also that you Jabbsworth publicly attempt to pressume and publish my alleged religion, my country of location, as you have done repeatedly is a sort of WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT. You Jabbsworth were already warned here. Your double standars are proverbial as I have noticed with my proverbs but also was noted by NotBW -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please calm down and discuss constructively here, ClaudioSantos. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the NY Times link in Claudio's post. -- JN466 05:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• strong support A classic tracert more or less confirmed my suspicion that you might have a conflict of interest in the whole Euthanasia-sector and Exit International. But is still only a suspicion. To me it seems a reasonable solution to the users disruptive contributing/interactions in the Euthanasia and related topic area. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow. Okay, we're going to have to give you a chance to reword that there, because I just read that comment as saying that an entire country has COI and shouldn't be editing certain pages. That's an inappropriate remark to make. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
    • This better? (after 3x bwc) Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Although Jabbsworth is not bound to publish his private information, does not should he let the community clearly know if he has a relationship with Exit International as it could constitute a COI given his clearly strong and biased engagement in that article and in Suicide bag which is also related to that organization?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to comply. I have absolutely no relationship to Exit International (a non-profit, BTW). I am guilty of owning a copy of The Peaceful Pill Handbook though, and like the vast majority of people, I support the concept of voluntary euthanasia, because I've seen people dying in agony, despite painkillers and hospice palliative care. I have no desire to force my religion down other people's throats, forcing them to die an undignified and horrific death because my god or ideology dictates it. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, at any rate you are trying to force your POV on euthanasia here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• But first, would either Night of the Big Wind or ClaudioSantos do Wiki a favour and go to Jack Kevorkian and fix the claim that at least 17 patients who suicided "could have lived indefinitely". Might be OK for a newspaper to say people can live indefinitely, but Wiki hopefully has better scholarship than to perpetuate such an absurd statement. Moriori (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It was not NotBW neither me who added that sentence to that article. But at any rate, if eternal life is your concern may you should read that sentence literally. As "living idefinitely" strictly does not mean "living forever", but precisely: an undefined time. I now have to wonder if killing is precisely defining life's lenght. Whatever. You Moriori perhaps should also find absurd the wide spreaded slogan: "right to die", as if someone could be forced to live forever. Should it be rewritten "right to not live indefinitely"?. Whatever again. What I certainly have to write here is that the "right to live" is also a quite absurd statement that -nevertheless- had to be included into the law, precisely because people are indeed being killed. For example, in the German Weimar Constitution, there was not explicity a "right to live". But this apparently natural and self-evident right had to be included after WWII in the German Constituion and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, precisely because of the 60 million of murders, included those commited by doctors under the guise of euthanasia during the Nazi regime. Perhaps it should be noticed here that also the informed consent binding medical doctors, was also not a gift from the good doctors, but it was included into the law because of the indeed coercively medical practices in the nazi europe, but also at other places like the forced sterilizations in the United States. Excuse my non-indefinitely long response. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - CS seems to be edit warring again already on the Jack Kevorkian page. Let's end the disruption. Dayewalker (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Edit warring? For restoring a quote trimed by Jabbsworth just because a medical chief was critic to Kevorkian? In a paragraph with balanced pros and cons? A paragraph that was accepted by consensus with NotBW?. You must be joking or are you biased yourself? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • You are up for a three month topic ban on the articles, and in the middle of that you've made the same edit three times [213] [214] [215] in less than two hours, reverting two other editors. Regardless of the content, that's edit warring. If it's that important, the best thing for both of you to do is to just leave it for some other editors who's not about to be topic banned. Dayewalker (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, half of Kevorkian's "Legacy" subsection is occupied by a scathing comment from a man who runs the palliative care unit in a Catholic hospital. It should have been completely removed because it is nothing more than mean-spirited sniping, and has naught to do with his legacy, but I left some of it in to satisfy Claudio. That was not good enough for him. It's his all or nothing, take no prisoners approach that's making editing anywhere in his vicinity toxic. What's the Spanish word for "compromise"? Jabbsworth (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You should have read it properly, Jabbsworth. In fact the guy said plain: I like the way he stirred up the debat, but his methods were wrong. Then you should not chop away half of it. Page protection is requested to stop another of your editwars, but at least that is better then the page protection you have requested on Suicide bag to protect your own edits from evil guys. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Full Support I've protected three articles fully for 2 weeks because of the two and edit warring. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Ask admin to be fair in order to be constructive Hey George, above you asked me to be calm. But I think it is absolutely not constructive that Jabbsworth have been referring publicly to my personal info, my "religious agenda", my "incomprehensible grammar", my "tenuous grasp of English", my "broken english", my "poor reading comprehension", and just here above referring to my edits as "vandalism", "rubish", etc.; and I am not the only user concerned (he said "grudge", "insane point of view", "bloody minded" referring to NotBW, etc.). In more than one opportunity I have complained about these disruptive provocations to you George, but I have got no response at all. So I also find far from being constructive that again and again you solely ask me to calm down, but again and again you let that sort of things pass, without not even a shy demand adressed to Jabbsworth about his disruptive, provocative and rude behaviour to the oher users. It seems a clew of certain sort of bias from you. If you would at least attempted to stop that sort of comments perhaps I would not had to publish mine nor to defend myself from those PA's. To get an objective panorama you also should have read my edits during the last days. For example you should take a look of Talk:Euthanasia and talk:Richard Jenne, wher I have been just providing sources and arguments, thus making strong efforts to argue and avoiding Jabbswroth provocations. While Jabbsworth again and again was solely "replaying" my comments with provocations and nothing else. So be fair to be constructive. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree: I propose a complete ban for Jabbsworth. He needs and interaction ban with everybody here. It is proverbial Jabbsworth ability to hunt wars and disrupt users. Jabbsworth is now also engaged in a clear war not only against me but also against another user, just because Jabbsworth attempts to force by any mean his pro euthanasia agenda and attempts to eliminate any obstacle including opposite users. Take a look on his last comments to NotBW and his warring edits on the respective articles. For me is clear that Jabbsworht is now provoking and attacking NotBW. Just a couple of examples: Jabbsworth is expressivelly telling to NotBW to "stay away from the articles I (Jabbswroth) have created"[216], and Jabbsworth uses his usual provocative PAs, such as referring to NotBW as "risible","pathetic","pointless", etc.[217]. I found Jabbsworth very agressive against the people. Jabbsworth deserves a ban. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You're cherry picking comments off talk pages, out of context, which is typical. Anyone interested enough in this subsection is advised to look at the edit histories and talk pages of Suicide bag and Exit International to see how User:ClaudioSantos and User:Night of the Big Wind are tag-teaming to revert and destroy perfectly good articles, mainly because I am trying to expand them. They have added no data to these articles, merely tried to remove information (cited to RSes). This kind of battleground activity should be strongly discouraged. Jabbsworth (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Jabbswroth you think that you are the victim here. You Jabbsworth in two weeks got involved in two wars with two different users (and NotBW used to be your wikifriend who you encouraged to ask for a topic ban against me!). And anybody can take a look into your pass accounts (Ratel, OzOke, TwikleMeister, etc.). It is proverbial how you get involved in similar wars against other users in the past, same modus operandi: stressing and disparing user with PA's, references to his grammar, edit warring, in order to put them out of your way. Yes Jabbsworth of course you believe that you are the reasonable guy as well as you also think that "nazi euthanasia started with reasonable premises" as the first murder was commited against a boy "born blind, ill and idiot" (sic!). -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't just think I am the victim here, I'm sure of it! Jabbsworth (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, therefore so few minutes later you disqualified another user's (Hemshaw) comment tagging it as "ridiculous" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To both of you (J and CS) -

At this point, you're both behaving disruptively both here and elsewhere. Again - please calm down and knock it off while this is being discussed. You're both approaching the normal blockable point for disruption.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please George for the sake of objectivity, show me clearly where did I allegdely edited disruptively at AFD Richard Jenne or here, and why it is understood as disruption. I have kept very cautious at AFD Richard Jenne referring solely to arguments. And here, I do not understand if you mean that notifying PAs and provocations here is a disruption, while it is the legitime and appropiate place to do so, precisely to avoid reply PAs and provocation elsewhere. Am I wrong? What should I do if the provocatioons and PAs continue? Should I keep silence? Is it drisputive to ask this? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the list would be the majority of edits you made responding to or interacting with Jabbsworth. Pretty much every response you've done in the last several days. If you think you're being reasonable in the way you are handling this, you are missing something fundamental about assessing your own behavior, and your competence to keep editing Wikipedia at all is in question.

Please stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite easy and quite unfair to accuse someone saying "the majority" because "yes". If you think you're being unbiased, fair and reasonable in the way you are handling and judging this, you are missing something fundamental. Therefore I will voluntarily ban me of any further interaction with you George. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:30, 28 July 2011 (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.

Recommendation: block Jabbsworth for block evasion and other abusive sockpuppetry, temporary topic ban for others

While Jabbsworth (talk · contribs) was deemed to have had a legitimate reason for sockpuppetry on his second case involving TickleMeister (talk · contribs), it begs the question of the account ever having been legitimate at all. As the account was created less than 48 hours after Ratel was blocked for sockpuppetry, the TickleMeister account was always a block-evading sockpuppet, never eligible for any unblock on the basis of additional future sockpuppetry.

Even the first TickleMeister sockpuppetry case rings of habitual abusive sockpuppetry. A new account AllYrBaseRbelongUs (talk · contribs) was created on July 27, 2010. The following day, TickleMeister tried to negotiate his departure in exchange for an improper external link. I suggest that there is sufficient evidence of abusive sockpuppetry and block evasion to block Jabbsworth (talk · contribs) at the minimum. I am unsure if this is a matter for more stringent action.

As for any other editors who have engaged in edit warring on Euthenasia-related articles during this maelstrom, they should be encouraged to accept a voluntary topic ban of sufficient duration to allow tempers to cool. (The 90 day period seems to be a good ballpark figure.) Should the relevant editors accept the topic ban, page protection should be reviewed.Novangelis (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had behind the scenes negotiations with Arbcom on this issue, and some serious stalking issues are involved, unrelated to any of the articles under discussion. You are not privy to what was discussed, so your call for a ban is completely ill-advised. Nor is it part of the current discussion either. I believe you have written to admin Georgewilliamherbert by email in an effort to lobby to get me banned because of your long history of wp:OWN at aspartame and related articles. I have deliberately kept away from aspartame and aspartame controversy because of the hostile atmosphere there, which does not allow any editing that is not favorable to a product with which some editors have intense hidden COI issues (which I raised here at ANI, see log). In fact, so much well sourced data was excluded from those articles that all the excluded data had to be moved to another wiki, namely SourceWatch, see aspartame. Readers please note, almost all data on that linked page was excluded by user Novangelis from the wikipedia page. IMO your input here amounts to wikistalking and harassment. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your baiting me will not work. I seriously doubt that ArbCom ever approved your creating the TickleMeister account two days after you were blocked for sockpuppetry in a !vote as Ratel/Unit5. If I'm wrong, ArbCom can correct me.Novangelis (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not meant to bait you. I'm defending myself with the truth. Let others see what you have done at the aspartame articles, and look at the screeds of excluded data, and decide themselves. If the cap fits, wear it. As for Ticklemeister, as I said you are poking your nose in something you know nothing about, and I'm not going into all the private details on this forum. Drop it. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

On point - and please stay on point, everyone - Jabbsworth seems (to me) to be moderately confrontational but not disruptive in general in other areas now, outside the conflict with CS. The former sockpuppetry has been reviewed, acted upon, and the current account's status reflects admin and arbcom's most recent judgements in this matter. There's no call to re-re-examine those prior incidents per se.

If there is a broader pattern of disruption outside the disagreements with CS, that rises to the level of administrator attention, it will become evident shortly after the topic and interaction ban becomes effective.

People are surely aware of the history and will be closely scrutinizing all editors involved for some time.

Other admins may see this differently, but I am not willing to act based on the current situation (beyond the in-discussion disruption mentioned in my last message above, and more generally the topic ban which is the focal point of the current disruption). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, it seems for me that you are biased George. The interchange between Jabbsworth and NotBW, where Jabbsworth has been calling NotBW "risible","pathetic","pointless","if you do not like me then stay away from the articles I built", "insane point of view", "bloody minded", etc. and where two articles Exit international and Suicide Bag were involved in edit wars and had to be protected, evidently that denies your point of view George. Jabbsworth is currently behaving very disruptive and extremely agressive with other user than me. And I do not mean to be rude by saying this: but as long as you do not see this, you are encouraging his disuprtive behaviour. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also I think the Arbcom procces should be published and publicly scrutined, as the unblock affects a lot of users who has been affected by the serious disruptions provoked by Jabbsworth sockpuppetry. Prime facie wikipedia clearly claims that sockpuppetry is a serious breach against community trust. Perhaps the lack of clearness is the reason that I find very difficult to believe that this sockpuppetry, clearly used solely to evade a block of 55 hours and to edit warring could be allegedly an attempt to avoid stalking. Why then he returned with his sockpuppets precisely to the article (Aspartame) where he was being stalked, if he was so wishful to not be identified and stalked?. Also I do not understand how it is allowed to someone to use 6 times sockpuppet even for avoid wikistalking. Why did not he warned the arbcom about the stalking before? why just wait until the 6 time? I At any rate, community deserves to know the process as the unblock affects the trust of the community. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a question: who consider you to be "the others". I guess Claudio, me and several others? Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Back here

I requested the return of this case. The archive bot was quicker then the final decision. And something has to be done to solve this nightmare. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I retrieved it from the archive as the history will show. It appeared to be an unresolved case where a poll was taking place, and I saw another one like this go into the archive yesterday. 24h isn't a good archive timeframe for things like this. I'm not involved with this poll and have no opinion, but I've tagged it to stay a few more days in case the final decision isn't made immediately. CycloneGU (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We are past the 48-hr minimum community enforcement discussion period (actually at around 96 hrs) and any uninvolved admin can action the proposed community sanction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that, but nothing had been enacted yet so I simply brought it back for enacting. When it's enacted, the enacting admin. may remove the stamp at the top of the thread keeping it from archiving for now. CycloneGU (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest to modify the text so reports (after 24hrs since the violation and is not acted upon) are to be posted at WP:AN3 or WP:AN/I, and the interaction ban is exempted for the purpose of notifying the user with strong scrutiny on the actual text used to notify the other party. The filing party may not post to the report afterwards, and the responding party may freely respond on the corresponding report. In addition: (1) Frivolous reports constitutes a violation of topic ban (reports that are not accepted, but are not deemed to be frivolous, may still be exempted if community deems it so); (2) Blocks due to this topic ban shouldn't be just flat 6-months, it should be modified as 1st offense constitutes a 6-month block; subsequent blocks may be longer. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've enacted the topic ban as noted above. I enacted it as it was initially endorsed, as that was the version that was approved by community consensus (the only people objecting to the ban proposal were the subjects of the proposal). Any modification to the ban should be done only after a new proposal, if it gains similar community consensus. -- Atama頭 19:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

31.47.14.109 and BLPCAT

Resolved

 – IP blocked by John. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a short block may be necessary to get the attention of Special:Contributions/31.47.14.109. They have been adding information to the religion attribute in the Bashar al-Assad infobox that doesn't comply with WP:BLPCAT over and over and over again. As you can see from User talk:31.47.14.109 they've been given multiple warnings about this. I gave them a final warning yesdterday. There's a discussion section on the article talk page Talk:Bashar_al-Assad#Shia_or_not_Shia. The IP hasn't commented there. We've also put a prominent comment in the article to alert editors that the entry needs to comply with BLPCAT. The IP even removed that here. I hesitate to call the IP's edits vandalism because there's really no dispute that Assad comes from the Alawi community so from the IP's perspective adding religion = Alawite probably seems uncontroversial. It's apparent that it is much more difficult to find a BLPCAT compliant source that actually supports that. Assad self-identifying his religion as Islam is the best that I've managed to do. A short block and a few words from an admin are probably needed to get the IP to stop and understand that his edits have to comply with BLPCAT. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone ? The IP is still making the same edits. They aren't going to stop unless someone stops them. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. --John (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Gagik Tsarukyan

Gentlemen, can I use information about Tsarukyan's very popular nickname from "The Times", Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, The Moscow Times and Routledge books? Erik1987ghazaryan deleting this info as wandalism.

In Russian Wiki Erik1987ghazaryan is a sockpuppet of two another accounts (see Russian Wiki Requests for checkuser). Razbirzti Guru (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you couldn't; I've reverted Erik1987ghazaryan, since English Wikipedia policy doesn't support his claims. However, please be careful to follow the instructions: you must notify someone whose actions you're discussing by leaving a note at their talk page. Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Razbirzti Guru (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Lloydbaltazar

Resolved

 – User blocked for 48 hours for 3RR violation by Satori Son. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Lloydbaltazar#5th_warning_WP:3RR_on_separate_pages speaks for itself, although the user does not. User is non-responsive to a long list of warnings by several editors. Has crossed WP:RR, and keeps going. There is also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lloydbaltazar History2007 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on the welcome message on his talk, this has been going on since 2008. It's time for someone to give this person a clue. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure: do you mean to say "Has crossed WP:3RR, and keeps going"? Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that he has crossed WP:4RR now and keeps going. You can count it too. History2007 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is all the time wasted by all the other editors reverting him, discussing it & the time posting warnings, etc. And the user is the definition of "non-responsive". This just eats time from other editors that could be put to better use. History2007 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I have given the account a 48-hour block for blatant and extensive edit warring. — Satori Son 20:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Marina Poplavskaya - possible legal threat

• Marina Poplavskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Margopera (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

I think this constitutes a legal threat.

I have sympathies with the article subject, regarding their concern; however, I think that legal matters should not be dealt with on-wiki, and therefore the user should be blocked, simply to ensure their concerns are dealt with appropriately, off-wiki.

I see two concerns in the post;

a) declaring our photo to be "against the law". I know of no policy/guideline reason that the photo would be removed, as it appears to have a valid copyright status, having been taken at a public event - but, I would find it challenging to even discuss that with the user, with the apparent threat of legal action. If there is a legal reason the photo should be removed, that needs to be discussed off-wiki. If there isn't a legal reason, then we could discuss it in the usual manner (I could advise on policy/guideline, suggest FFD if appropriate, and so on).

b) In relation to Facebook, it says a Wikipedian "has violated my rights and, by opening facebook page under my name. I believe it is called "identity theft" - something which is unlawful and will be prosecuted." - although this is not a direct legal threat against Wikipedia, it is a legal threat against a Wikipedian. Again, making any further discussion of the issue very difficult.

I empathize with the article subject, and certainly want no punitive action, but I do not think this matter can be sorted out on-wiki, with "legal" looming over us. If I'm over-reacting, please do let me know, and I'll accept that.

The above all came to my attention from Wikipedia:BLPN#Marina_Poplavskaya. I'll add a note of this thread over there, and inform the user of this discussion

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is getting long and some of this is outdated, so I've collapsed this top portion. More can be collapsed if needed. CycloneGU (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, I think you're right although I'm not super knowledgeable about this subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I think blocking might be overreacting, she's being polite towards Wikipedia and hasn't made any further attempts to edit the article. I don't really see what it would achieve other than probably alienating her. She's not a wikipedian and not really interested in our procedures, she's just waiting for us to resolve whether or not we're going to remove the photo. But I don't have any experience myself of this kind of issue on WP. Aegoceras (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) putting on photographer's hat I don't know how European laws are set up, but United States case law has found that publishing photographs that were obtained through violations of law is unlawful. While the festival may have been a public event, if an admission fee was charged and paid, a contract was entered into, where the person paying the admission fee agreed to be bound by whatever restrictions on behavior the festival organizers had in place...including a restriction against photography. So the complaint could be found to have merit, at least in an American court. Insert standard "I am not an attorney" disclaimer here. With all that said, no matter whether the complaint has merit or not, my 2p is that there's a definite WP:NLT in place against a user of Wikipedia regarding the publication of that photograph. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks, N5iln; I agree. I had similar thoughts re. the legality, or otherwise - but don't think we can, or should, discuss it on-wiki, unfortunately.  Chzz  ►  15:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC) It's complicated by the fact that it isn't just the photo (and its uploader), there's a separate a legal threat (albeit due to a misunderstanding of how those Wikipedia-based automatic Facebook pages work) against the editor who created the article. It's all a bit unfortunate. Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Not a proof of anything, but that photo was taken using a Canon EOS 5D, which is quite a sizable DSLR. If the festival bans taking photos indeed (and AFAICT it's at least partly open air, and the picture seems to be outdoor), I doubt he could smuggle that so easily. Taking a photo of a person who does not want it published might be unethical, but I believe it is legal in most countries. No such user (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC) The question in this entire situation is whether indeed there was a rule prohibiting photography. I guarantee you images at musician's articles such as Taylor Swift, Beyonce Knowles, and Bruno Mars (among many, many, more) were all taken in concert venues where photography was forbidden. The question is whether this image qualifies as fair use for helping understand the subject, and whether the subject (who is obviously here) is willing to allow it for that purpose and only on her biographical article to help readers understand the subject (her, in other words). If she is still adament about the use of the photo, I'd be curious if there is a fair-use image that we CAN use. Some of you may not be familiar with Jackie Evancho, but that image is a fair-use image submitted by her own mother. It appears on her Twitter as well (which her mother also uses, I've seen tweets saying "This is Lisa"). So if she is willing to submit a picture we can use, that clears the entire issue and the other image is deleted immediately without question. If she doesn't want a picture on her article at all...well, we can't promise that, a fair use image can still appear at any time so we have to determine whether this image can be acceptable. CycloneGU (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Its got a commons licence, was taken by a user, it seems fine to me. Perhaps ask the uploader was photography allowed at the venue and allow him to retract the picture if he wants. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I've already notified de:Benutzer:MatthiasKabel, but he hasn't edited since mid-June. No such user (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Also notified to his account here - User_talk:MatthiasKabel#Ani_-_pic - I support blocking for the legal threats.Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC) The Jackie Evancho image is not "fair use" at all. It has Commons license. There's no justification for "fair use" in the case of Marina Poplavskaya. Voceditenore (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Oops, I better clarify. Seems I got the two mixed up in there. I meant as in it's being fairly used in an article on the subject in the case of Evancho. My question rather was meant to question whether the image of Poplavskaya is being fairly used or whether it ought to be removed. Because the image was provided to us by someone who took it, general fair use rules don't apply. CycloneGU (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I see what you meant now. I thought you were referring to Non-free fair use. Anyhow, it would be good to get some adminstrator input here concerning the original issue re WP:NLT. Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC) This is not a legal threat. It's the copyright holder stating her opinion that we are infringing on her intellectual property rights. Nowhere does she actually threaten to sue us, but actually politely asks us to remove the image. We ought to take that request seriously and consider it. causa sui (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC) To me it reads as a legal threat, albeit reasonably politely worded. However, before taking any sort of action against the complainant, it would be best to find out if the complaint has merit, which you all are already working on it but have not resolved yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I think opening a deletion discussion at Commons will be helpful in this case. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC) I agree with you re the subject's photo concerns, but the concerning bit was: "I hope you can sort out this matters, since, I suspect the same user, who opened this page, has violated my rights and, by opening facebook page under my name. I believe it is called "identity theft" - something which is unlawful and will be prosecuted. [218] (my underlining). Voceditenore (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC) "Copyright holder" is a difficult term in this case. The person who took the image is technically the copyright holder of the image and has released it into the public domain. The image is suggested to have not been allowed to be taken in the first place. That is more of a legal route and would have to be verified by a ticket stub or something that explicitly says photography is not permitted at the venue in question. At this time, I don't think we have anything to worry about, but then again, I'm no legal expert. CycloneGU (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC) - Nominated for deletion discussion at Commons - here. - Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Note that the opinion at Commons is that the image was taken in a public place at which there is no evidence that photography was not permitted. The uploader has confirmed that he took the picture himself, and has several others taken at the same time to confirm this. That being the case, there are no compelling grounds to remove the picture from the article at this time. I appreciate that the subject is being polite, and might even give us a picture that she prefers, but she needs to take this offwiki and through OTRS. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Please have a look at deletion discussion at Commons - here, I've a uploaded a photo which should clarify the situation at this event. MatthiasKabel (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Well that simplies it - how can she possibly say the image could not be taken and cannot be posted? Perhaps she thinks the image casts her in an unflattering light for some reason. Either that or a troll is impersonating her. CycloneGU (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we know it's her?

I have no problem with BLP subjects discussing their concerns about their articles, images etc. but Margopera could be anybody. The account could have been set up by a "trollz and lulzer" trying to cook up a little drama. IMHO before any action on such an article or image on behalf of a BLP or corporate subject is considered, the subject should be prompted to contact OTRS so their identity can be verified. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why requests for removal of because of ownership of the copyright go to OTRS, where we can deal with claims of ownership properly and confidentially. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Just speaking as one of the previous editors of Marina Poplavskaya, I don't believe its an imposter, though obviously the procedures for identification have to be followed. BTW User:Dr. Blofeld just left a message on User talk:Margopera asking her if she wants to supply another photo - should this be reverted? Aegoceras (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading the talk page I agree that it most likely is her but prompting her to contact OTRS is not pointless process wonkery. We don't want to send a message to potential troublemakers that they can get articles and images deleted/protected by impersonating the subject. We need to be all but certain that they are who they say they are and the best way to do that is through OTRS. Alternative ways of determining their identity is if they state their intentions on a blog or website known to be under their control and which predates the WP article in question. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not imo - the simple questions are often the best. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and backed the good doctor on the statement over there. CycloneGU (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

2nd legal threat

Margopera has just made another comment on their user talk page [219], asking that we please remove the page, but saying [it] is my right to use further protection of the law.

I suggest (again) that we block the user for legal threats; I note that, above, many people earlier agreed that a NLT block was appropriate for the original comment (though some disagreed), and I think this thread has drifted from the request up top; I'm concerned that, in all the speculation over the legality of the image, we're entering the murky world of providing amateur legal opinions.  Chzz  ►  10:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's no longer simply the photo. She now wants the whole article removed because she did not give permission for it to be created and the creator didn't coordinate with her first. I left her another message [220] urging her to use the OTRS system and directing her to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. I have a lot of sympathy for her. She doesn't know how Wikipedia works. She doesn't even have personal web site, by her own choice. Quite the opposite of the usual publicity seeking I see all the time in WP articles about (and alas, often by) current opera singers. Anyhow, if she has to be blocked, please do it gently, if such a thing is possible. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We've seen this kind of thing before, where a user doesn't want a wikipedia article about them. It's important to be certain that the user's real-life situation is notable and doesn't violate any wikipedia rules. If it meets the criteria for inclusion, then the article can stay, and the user has to be indef'd until or if they retract the legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Non-admin. - This is a clear legal threat. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  Fully agree it's a legal threat, even if it is bluster like with Harold Covington which I got myself heavily involved with. Not in the mood to repeat that yet as it seems she hasn't read anything we've said. Can we e-mail this user? CycloneGU (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A block would violate WP:BLP. Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure? Legal threats are not allowed. Now, if the article violates BLP, then it should be altered or deleted. But unless the user has a clear, legitimate grievance about the article, then the user must be indef'd until or if they retract the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could Count Iblis - or anyone else - please explain the above comment to me? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  17:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to concur with Bugs. WP:BLP requires unsourced negative or contentious material to be removed from an article, no matter who brings the material to the attention of others (or removes it). The "contentious material" in this case is a simple photograph, which by all appearances was lawfully obtained, appears flattering to the subject, and is appropriate to the article in which it appears. The only person apparently considering it "contentious" is the person described in the article. Using a legal threat is not the appropriate procedure, as I'm sure most if not all commenters here can agree. The prescribed action in the event of a legal threat is an indefinite block of the user making such a threat, the lifting of which is contingent on retracting the threat or resolving the legal action. WP:BLP doesn't enter into that equation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem as Baseball Bugs already mentioned some paragraphs above, is that the BLP is herself getting involved here. Then, the BLP policy mentiones that the BLP should be given more room to deal with problems than we would allow other Wikipedians: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material." Now a NLT violation as happened here is no big deal and we can igore this. In general you wouldn't do that, because the consensus about legal threats is to have zero tolerance on legal threats. But the spirit of the ArbCom Ruling is that BLPs editing themselves should be given special consideration. Count Iblis (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree. WP:NLT is a bright line, and I can't see any exceptions being made because a BLP subject happens to be less than flattered by a particular photo or paragraph. If such exceptions were to be made, we would see a flood of politicians, actors, athletes, and celebrities in general diving into a frenzy of removing unflattering material from articles about them, and tossing legal threats around with impunity simply because "special consideration" is given for BLPs, under a particular interpretation of a particular ArbCom ruling. I also think you're interpreting that passage far too broadly in this case, because the BLP subject is NOT trying "to fix what they see as errors or unfair material"; instead, she's using a threat of legal action to remove one photograph she is unhappy with. NLT doesn't give any "wiggle room." --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a good way forward is for Margopera to have an email exchange with User:Mdennis (WMF) (Maggie Dennis or Moonriddengirl) to clarify matters. A block doesn't seem helpful. Mathsci (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I should read user pages more often. I had no idea they were the same as I've only encountered her through the volunteer account. But yes, might be worthwhile to inform her of this thread. CycloneGU (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I've asked MRG to comment here. CycloneGU (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to interact with this one as a volunteer. :) In my opinion (in that capacity), we would better serve this BLP subject and Wikipedia if we can encourage her to stop with the legal threats and start working within processes, as well described to her at her talk page by User:Voceditenore. If she continues with legal threats in spite of our efforts, then we might have no option, but I am mindful of the Board's BLP Resolution in urging us to treat "any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and [encourage] others to do the same." We may not be able to make her happy, but we may be able to at least give her the sense that she has been heard and her viewpoint respected, thus living well up to that whole "patience, kindness, and respect" bit. Alan makes a good point about the bright line of WP:NLT, but I think we can almost always find wiggle room, if there's a good reason. :) That said, User:Count Iblis, I really don't think a block would violate BLP. I've seen BLP subjects blocked for such before. Sometimes they won't be talked down. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that such people can be blocked if necessary. I just interpret that particular paragraph in the BLP policy as saying that if you can afford not to block, you shouldn't even if other Wikipedians would be blocked. So, basically a higher threshold for blocking for people who have just arrived at Wikipedia and edit or raise concerns about their own BLP. Count Iblis (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:NLT. User has other channels they can use to rectify this situation. --John (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, and she will undoubtedly be ever so much easier to handle when she utilizes them, because that won't escalate her unhappiness at all. *sigh* (Not much point in saying I object to the block, given that I objected before you did it. WP:NLT, at least, recognizes that a block is optional, even if typical.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  Well, she did say, and I quote, "this is my final letter". It sounds like she wasn't going to comment further at Wikipedia NEway. But I agree, in case she tries to now, this will just escalate her and basically, if she wasn't going to carry the threat before, she might now. CycloneGU (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

More Posting

All right, if the way this is typed is any indication, this is not her, but a troll. I'm going out on a limb here. Until we can identify that it's really her care of OTRS, I'm going on the belief it's a troll. I'm not going to pay it any attention and recommend we let this thread die. Selling photos for 50€ each outside the event? PLEASE. Pay this troll no attention.

And if I am in fact wrong, I am ready to retract that comment. But I wonder if a sock check is appropriate. CycloneGU (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and retracted the comment above not because I've heard a confirmation saying it's her, but because I have wrongly jumped to a conclusion before learning all the facts. I did this on my own without anyone suggesting I should do so. I feel it's the right thing to do for someone whom it sounds wishes to try to work with us, and is taking the step to verify with OTRS. As for the photo; that is still up for debate regarding its legality, but I think the community has spoken regarding their views. CycloneGU (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It didn't say "outside a festival" - xe indicated that a photographer who was "kicked out from the signing session", later sold pics on the web. [221] Chzz  ►  23:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I got a very nice response to my e-mail, fwiw, and she has followed recommendations to contact OTRS. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Once the OTRS confirms it's actually her, I'll happily retract the comment. The last post at the user page just sounded trollish more than anything else, hence my concerns. CycloneGU (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, similar comments were made about User talk:Orly taitz, but she turned out to be the real Orly Taitz. Some Wikipedians still don't believe it's her, though, and are demanding additional evidence. :) . Count Iblis (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The last comment is a little bit strange. Neither I was kicked of by security, nor I sold any of my pictures ever, I'm just a hobby photographer and a volunteer for wikipedia. I can't also remeber anybody else was kicked of. But I feel sorry, if she doesn't like to be photographed. At least I use my real name also. ;-) MatthiasKabel (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Article subject, NLT, DOLT

Placeholder. Please don't close this thread, yet; I want to add something, but don't have time right now. Should be within 24 hours, easy. Collapse the done stuff, if you like, but please leave it on ANI for a little longer. Ta.  Chzz  ►  00:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Now added, see below. Thx,  Chzz  ►  10:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll put a 48h stamp at the top of the section. I think we should keep this up as it sounds like we might have an OTRS confirmation of who she is. CycloneGU (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there's lessons to be learned from this. And I still think the better option would've been a block, at the beginning of this thread; I think it'd have been a fairer, more drama-free solution. Once any subject starts talking about legal action, it puts editors responding in a very awkward situation.

I knew it wouldn't be appropriate for me to say "No, it is not illegal to take a pic at a festival" - because IANAL. And for the same reason, I'd have to be very careful discussing the other aspects of the article after the user appeared to threaten legal action against another editor.

Realising blocks were not punitative, I thought the best course would be a block, - with no ill-feeling intended - and then for the subject to discuss it off-wiki. I wish that had happened. Instead, several users started to debate the legality, or otherwise, of the picture.

Then there was a second, clear legal threat. The user had been warned for the first. So I re-requested the block, but it didn't happen, until 8 hours later (and plenty of admins saw the 'red flag' I posted). Instead of a block - despite nobody arguing it wasn't a legal threat, and several directly agreeing - we had more comments about the person. So, yes, I do consider the subject with "patience, kindness, and respect" - and the most patient, kind and respectful way to resolve their concerns would've been a block, then off-wiki discussion - where we could have explained how things work, without escalation, without a need to discuss it in public, and without the subject making comments that they might later regret.

It is indeed unfortunate that we have to block in those cases, but I do think that NLT is a policy that we should enforce. Chzz  ►  10:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

She responded very well to a personal e-mail and might have reacted somewhat better to an initial explanation of why she should not threaten legal action other than the template, which isn't the friendliest approach. There's a difference between an entrenched POV pusher who tries to use a legal threat to control an article and a panicked and upset BLP subject. I believe when we have the opportunity to help avoid escalation of that kind of unhappiness, we should take it. I think WP:DOLT, which you referenced in your header, offers very good advice in its nutshell: "When newcomers blank articles or make legal threats, they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive or wielding a banhammer." I'm inclined to agree with Jimmy's take on this, too: "Banning them on the spot for a legal threat is not a very helpful response, usually." This woman's legal threats are almost certainly based on a misunderstanding of law and it's not likely that we will be able to satisfy her on all points, but often people just want to be heard. Giving them an opportunity to calm down reflects well on us, and her comments were safely contained at her talk page, where she was being patiently addressed by people who may have been able to talk her down. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

For the same reasons mentioned above, a NLT ban did no good in any case. She was merely posting quietly within her talk page, so what were we keeping her from doing since she wasn't editing anywhere else? CycloneGU (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

The editor withdrew the legal threat, so I unblocked. --John (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. It sounds like she wants to work with us. I'll go ahead and retract my statement earlier in that case. I've also attempted to answer some of her questions below the unblock. CycloneGU (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Marina Poplavskaya is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Poplavskaya. The AfD was not initiated by the subject, but by another editor in an apparent good faith attempt to "resolve" her complaints. But I'm not sure this is the most appropriate way to handle the issue. None of the normal criteria for deletion apply and it's liable to simply entrench opinions and create a permanent record of the whole kerfuffle. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that this is probably not going to help. :/ User:Jclemens is handling her OTRS correspondence; hopefully, he'll be able to help her find appropriate means of resolving some of her concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Just saw this per MRG's note on my talk page. I will try and get back with her tonight. Shame that no OTRS agent (including me!) saw this and connected the dots earlier. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)