Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 101.0.79.22 (talk) at 09:29, 11 April 2013 (→‎Proposed topic-ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Continued editing of BLP articles without reliable sources by User:TheShadowCrow

    TheShadowCrow is topic banned from making edits related to Armenia or biographies of living persons, both broadly construed, for a period of three months. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Despite being blocked for such behavior in the past and warned multiple times, User:TheShadowCrow has continued to insert edits into BLP articles without reliable sources. He has inserted that Gegard Mousasi is an Iranian citizen without any reliable sources stating so, going as so far as to rudely challenging me on my talk page when I reverted his edit. This user has since re-inserted the edit, again without a reliable source. This is nothing new and has been part of a troubling pattern. This user was blocked before for multiple violations of WP:BLP after multiple warnings so it's not like this is new. In fact, this user has just finished serving a 3 month ban for an unrelated violation and already has multiple warnings for violations of WP:BLP on his talk page unrelated to the Gegard Mousasi edit. In the past, administrators had floated the idea of a topic ban from WP:BLP articles but refrained with the assumption that he would review the policy and learn from his mistakes. Based on the continuation of this, I don't think this has occurred. Although, TheShadowCrow has shown some productivity in his edits, I believe the damage far outweighs the good at this point, and if you can't learn to abide by Wikipedia's policies after 6 blocks in a 1 year period, it's time some type of permanent sanction is imposed. A topic ban may now be appropriate. BearMan998 (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I showed a link where the person in question calls an Iranian "my country man" so the debate was over and solved. Bear man has a serious problem of always pointing out my block log multiple times whenever we are on the same page. Most of the time he is practicly insulting and taunting me. He seems to think that he is in a position of power and that he is some how superior to me. In fact, he forgot all about the BLP in question and just started typing paragraphs about my block log. I think he is the one who needs discipline now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were blocked for three months for socking, one month for ARBAA2 infractions, one month for socking, two weeks for ARBAA2 infractions, 72 hours for BLP violations, 24 hours for personal attacks. They've been unblocked for a couple of weeks now and what I see is personal attacks, a battleground mentality, and BLP violations. I don't see much of a reason to not block for really, really long, but I'd like to hear what, for instance, Giant Snowman thinks--they've had a set of run-ins with them. [Also: edit conflict. ShadowCrow, I think you should try and keep quiet, since you're arguing for the opposition. Your BLP evidence is lousy and unacceptable.] Drmies (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see the math behind me being banned for being banned in the past. I was not trying to start a conflict. Bear man is being very hostile to me and I think this is being very overlooked. And my edits with GiantSnowman have actually been peaceful and constructive. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)I see three twitter links, not reliable sources, just saying. Not going to comment on blocks or anything, but just fyi, sourcing the person for claims is almost always not appropriate. I can go start the twitter account "carieunderwood" with name "Carrie Underwood" and claim to be her saying whatever I want. But that doesn't make it reliable. BearMan looks right to have removed it as unsourced. Also, now that Drmies has said everything I was thinking, pending Giant Snowman changing my mind, Support an indef block until this user tells us honestly they will refrain from editing BLP articles, and a 3 (at least) month topic ban from BLPs to start if and/or when the block is lifted. gwickwiretalkediting 00:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • User now seems to be a bit remorseful, there wasn't any major WP:DDMP type problems, so.. WP:ROPE applies here imo, with the knowledge that next time, it will result in a significant ban/block. gwickwiretalkediting 01:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is definitly the real twitter account of Gegard Mousasi. He uploads amateur photos of himself and has talked to the UFC President and had contact with many other MMA noteworthies on twitter with that account. I have seen twitter be used as a source before and don't see why it shouldn't be now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the specific source being challenged? If sanctions is what ye seek, ANI is thataway.  little green rosetta(talk)
      central scrutinizer              00:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, as stated above, I have had recent run-ins with this editor, who I feel has numerous problems. They fail to understand - or if they understand them, accept - WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V - and there is a recent (still live) thread at BLPN which might be of interest. Other than their failure to understand BLP, RS and V, they also exhibit other concerning traits, such as (admitted!) WikiHounding - check who the previous editor was on each of these diffs (1, 2, 3, 4) - as well as disruptive and POINTy editing (AKA removal of masses of content with no rationale provided, while trying to prove some pro-English bias that simply does not exist) at 1, 2, 3, 4. They also seem to display OWNership issues, especially on anything related to Armenia. So in summary, TheShadowCrow has a slight attitude problem, and also displays a troublesome lack of competency in, or respect for, key Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Given this recent behaviour, as well as the historical issues, I would propose a topic ban related to Armenian topics and/or BLPs (both broadly construed) - recent discussion with this editor leads me to think there is some small glimmer of hope, and I would not want to indef them when there is potential to turn this around. I am just about to go to be (1am UK time) but saw this and thought I'd leave a quick message, and I'll pick up the thread again tomorrow morning. GiantSnowman 01:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is paying attention to Bearman's hostility or that our edit conflict (a natural, unavoidable part of life on Wikipedia) was solved when I provided a source for what Bear wanted. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'd do well to heed the advice that you stop replying here. You just proved you have a lack of competency in understanding our reliable sources policy. A twitter post (even 3) is not a reliable source for any statement, much less one like nationality. Your edit conflict (term not used right btw) was not ever resolved, because you never provided a reliable source. To GS, based on this post, would you support an indef (indefinite =/= infinite) until this user tells us they will re-read and adhere to all policies, and then a 3 month topic ban from BLPs and Armenia related articles broadly construed? gwickwiretalkediting 01:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I don't reply I'm going to be blocked! The reliable source page says, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It also says "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;", which there always is with Twitter. How can you prove that he made those statements? You can't. It also says "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;", exceptional claim is basically a big claim. You're claiming this user is of a certain nationality, based on something that looks like they *may* have said it themselves, even then it's almost a bit synthesisey. More quotes, since you seem to need them: "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." " This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". Basically, twitter is never a reliable source, because you can't verify its authenticity. gwickwiretalkediting 01:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • How was I supposed to think all that through? The rules say there can be an exception to twitter, and you say there is no exception to twitter. I honestly thought I was adhering to the rules of Wikipedia. I didn't want to cause any trouble and I'm really sorry that I did. I'm just trying my hardest to contribute like everyone else. Since my sources are faulty, I'm putting Bear's version back and won't be changing it without a proper source. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • It should be added that you made the edit without any sources and didn't come back with the Twitter reference (which doesn't really prove that he is indeed a citizen) until after the fact. And this is not the first time either. BearMan998 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I would also like to add that while I appreciate the apology, we have seen this before here and here only for you to revert back to your old ways shortly there after. In fact, after your second apology, you immediately took pot shots at other editors and an admin as seen here. As GiantSnowman mentioned, I too am support of a topic ban of Armenian related topics but would add BLPs as well as nearly all the issues are limited to these two categories. BearMan998 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

            • Is the twitter account in question "verified" by twitter or a RS? If not, this is a non starter and the account can't be use for pretty much any purpose here.  little green rosetta(talk)
              central scrutinizer                              02:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's when they have the light blue star, right? No, it doesn't have that. However, a source has recognized this as his official account (HMTTT is a thing where they post tweets of fighters on their website to show whats new in the twitter world. Mousasi's account is in the edition I linked). Although I think the source is credible because it's one of the most famous and popular MMA news websites, I'm not going to take the risk and say it is.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm sorry--what are we trying to find out? Whether some tweet has a fucking blue star? This is an encyclopedia, where we should be writing articles that we wouldn't be embarrassed to publish in print. There isn't a damn thing on Twitter that we could accept as a reliable source, and I don't give a fuck whether someone acknowledges something as their official Twitter or not. RS is the name of the game, not what someone typed in on their cell phone. Also, will someone point this user to the MMA restrictions, with all this stuff about disruption and consequent blocks? Drmies (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Also, Bloody Elbow is not a reliable source. Bobby Tables (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I'm reading "User:TheShadowCrow has continued to insert in the Gegard Mousasi MMA article that Gegard Mousasi is an Iranian citizen under the claim that a twitter post supported this, therefore he should be topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics and all BLPs (both broadly construed) for a period of 3 months." This discussion has stalled becauase the remedy requests do not match the provided evidence, which also lacks sufficient diffs directed towards supporting both evidence and remedy. BearMan998, if you want TheShadowCrow warned/topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics or from all BLP articles, you should focus on what you want and provided evidence with diffs to support that request. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a problem. Here is the first revert without any reliable sourcing. Here is a second revert using Twitter posts as a basis. Now this wouldn't be egregious if it wasn't for the fact that this is a continuing pattern with this user who was blocked before for multiple BLP violations, so ignorance of policy shouldn't be an excuse now. GiantSnowman has had several run-ins with this user concerning BLP articles and you can see his evidence in his fist post in this thread, and the evidence that GiantSnowman should present a clear picture. It's this recent behavior fresh off a block plus historical issues which leads credence to such a move at this point. BearMan998 (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also note that TheShadowCrow was given a clear and explicit warning for persistent violations of BLP articles on June 2012 here and here. Specifically, this was for adding content with no source or poorly sourced material and edit warring to retain such content in the article to such an extent that WP:BLPSE was considered at the time. Based on the edits I mentioned above and the edits that GiantSnowman brought up, I think these violations of adding content with no or poor sources and edit warring in an attempt to retain them have continued despite multiple warnings. This is why I think formal topic ban is needed as warnings have little effect. BearMan998 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would ask right now, if the user will submit to following the WP:COI guidelines, as the user apparently has an interest in inserting the information into these articles. Also, The user should understand that Twitter may not be considered a reliable source unless the information can be backed up by another RS. Finally, the user should consider that the WP:Consensus is against adding this information from this source. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Per recent developments, no longer reasonable. gwickwiretalkediting 01:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Proposal: WP:ROPE

    This is dropped with a stern warning that the next BLP violation, or anything that looks remotely like one will earn them a stern and long block with little chance of an unblock. Basically WP:ROPE, we can hash out the length/etc. in the discussion below. gwickwiretalkediting 22:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: topic ban

    I propose that TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) is topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics and all BLPs (both broadly construed) for a period of, say, 3 months.


    Unfortunately, I have to bring this back up again as it appears that this discussion had failed to put the editor on notice that further BLP violations would result in some form of sanction. TheShadowCrow has inserted content in the Karo Parisyan article that is not supported by reliable sources and is again edit warring in an attempt to keep it in the article. This was the first edit which lacked a reliable source, specifically, the second part which states "and nearly submitted him in a kimura twice" A kimura for those of you who do not know is a joint lock which can break an opponent's arm. I removed this part as it was unsourced and a very subjective statement. TheShadowCrow inserted again here but this time with a source. However, upon reading the source, the source clearly states that Parisyan only attempted two kimuras with none of them threatening his opponent and both were never locked in so it's not even worth mentioning. I directed TheShadowCrow to review WP:STICKTOSOURCE as this is an obvious and blatant violation of this. However, instead of doing so, TheShadowCrow has since reverted it again here and also left me a message here stating his intent keep this material despite lacking a source. This is making it very obvious that the user will not adhere to policy in regards to BLP articles and is making clear the WP:COI connection that Sephiroth storm brought up above as there appears to be an obvious attempt to insert content in order to slant towards a certain view point. BearMan998 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The content is supported by a reliable sources but Bear doesn't like it. There really isn't much more to say, just see for yourself.
    I think this proves that he has lots of personal feelings, no good faith, and a superiority complex. Hopfully the Admins will see this and actually research the situation this time. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS: Is anyone claiming Sherdog.com isn't a relible source?
    WP:BLP: Unspecified
    WP:STYLE: What grammer mistake did I make?
    WP:BATTLEGROUND: Bearman is the true violator of this rule. He is constantly hostile with all of my edits, has no good faith or civilly, is harassful, and is eager to bring every single edit I make here, even though they are too minor.
    If my edit cannot be proven unconstructive, there is no reason for any type of punishment. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shadowcrow:
    1. We have been over twitter already. RS gives an acception for tweets if it is made by the topic article.
    2-3. There are plenty of comments. Be specific.
    4. Bearman is extremely hostile and uncivil towards me and you and the other Admins turn a blind eye to this. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template:Cue In regards to twitter being a reliable source see WP:UGC I myself prefer (and I think most wikipedians do too) WP:UGC's view on twitter "whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." compared to WP:RS but I do agree that the policies/guidelines are somewhat confusing in regards to twitter as a reliable source
    • In reference to number four your accusations makes it seem at though you are not Assuming Good Faith
    --Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ShadowCrow, I'm going to sum up here, since it seems unclear to you:
    1. Your Sherdog link does not say he "nearly submitted him," it says quote "Parysian immediately went for the same exact kimura he won his initial UFC match with but St. Pierre defended it and got the top position and held it the rest of the round." He never even successfully performed the move. You can't call that "near submission" any more than you could say "Mike Tyson nearly defeated Boxer X by TKO" if Tyson never knocked out Boxer X even once.
    2. The Twitter account is not verified, meaning anyone could be posting on it. Impostors are all over Twitter, so you can't just quote a tweet and call it a reliable source.
    3. You cannot interpret the phrase "my country man" as proof this person is Iranian. He could be mistaken on the other person's nationality, just expressing friendship, and so forth. We need a solid third party source, or a verified, unambiguous statement from him before we could add that.
    4. BearMan998 is obviously frustrated, and I can understand why. I believe you're editing in good faith, but instead of asking "Is this a valid source?" you're plowing ahead and putting more stuff on that page that doesn't meet criteria.
    You need to slow down and listen to people explaining the rules. Wikipedia is pretty strict when it comes to statements about living persons. And you can't re-interpret a source ("near submission"). If you'll take some time and get second opinions on these citations, things will go much smoother. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And here we go again. Today TheShadowCrow made this edit with a very misleading edit summary stating "no flags." However the edit not only removed flags which I am okay with, but also restored unsourced POV content into the article. This involves the statement "The judges may have given the fight to Lawal because he was on top of Mousasi for most of the fight and because of a point deduction given to Mousasi following an illegal up-kick" which is not found in the cited source. This was unsourced POV commentary that was removed from the article yet TheShadowCrow chose to restore it with other edits and not mention it in the edit summary. I would fully support a topic ban for 3 months or preferably a longer ban as this discussion has failed to lead to any improvement in the understanding of policy. BearMan998 (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, at this point ShadowCrow needs a break from these articles. He still hasn't grasped that he cannot add unsourced personal opinion to an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support though I'm not sure why the 3 month limit. I'm not at all confident that we won't be having the same discussion again 3 months down the road. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Having read all the "stuff" it does not appear that a draconian solution is what would best serve Wikipedia here - especially since the editor is now clearly on notice that there might be a problem. Collect (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting uninvolved admin to close

    Please can an uninvolved Admin review this thread as a whole, complete with proposals for sanctions, and decide what (if any) need to be implemented, so we can close this either way? GiantSnowman 11:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Unforgettableid reported by User:Yworo

    I've asked User:Unforgettableid twice not to post on my talk page, but he refuses to comply, continuing to harass me for "proof" that it's considered ill form to continue to do so after being so requested. Someone enlighten him, he's lacking in plain WP:COMMONSENSE. Of course, he's removed both requests from his talk page before his last post on mine. Guess he imagines admins won't look at the history. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unforgettableid notified of WP:HUSH. Yworo, please stay off his talk page as well. Poking at him after telling him not to poke at you is not collegial or reasonable.
    Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear sirs: Yworo claims harassment because of some user warning templates I put on his talk page. He made some edits, and I responded with the templates.
    Do you agree that there was merit to my responses, and that I responded coolly and calmly?
    Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Were you asked to stay off their talkpage, and did you understand the request? There are millions of editors who could place a valid warning if needed and nearly a couple of thousand admins. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    if Yworo has banned Unforgettableid from commenting on his/her talk page but continues to post on Unforgettableid's [1] then it's not unexpected for Unforgettableid to post on Yworo's. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You both need to avoid each other then. And Yworo, you need to dial back the "pimping", "common sense" and the calling someone an ass. Seriously, you are asking for trouble and you accomplish nothing by this type of inflammatory language, regardless of the reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your replies.
    I would like to try to avoid Yworo by avoiding editing the same pages as he does. But this would currently be difficult. He has lately been looking carefully into my past contributions, visiting various pages I have created or edited, and modifying the pages. Some examples of pages which I have created in the past decade, and he has touched in the past week, include: Alameda County Study, Linux conference, Scrabble variants, Go Home Lake, Desktop Developers' Conference, Linux Symposium, and List of open-access journals. Many of his edits have been helpful. But he has sometimes reverted my work without stating why he doesn't like it: example 1; example 2; I can provide more if you like. Do the reversions seem like WP:WIKIHOUNDING to you?
    About WP:HUSH: Does the policy create a posting prohibition if Yworo merely requests it, or does it only apply if I have been " placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' " on his talk page?
    Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone asks you to not post on their talk page, you shouldn't unless you really have to, and if you really have to, you take extra steps to be respectful. This is just how you would treat someone in the real world, and Wikipedia is the real world. Policy quotes aren't necessary for this. Common sense and basic respect overrule policy. This is because they are the basis for the policies. The WP:Five pillars cover this, in particular #4 and #5. If people would just treat others here the same way they would if they were face to face and knew each other's real names, most problems here would go away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair explanation. Thank you. Bumping thread for 5 days — dear admins: I wonder if you could please also respond to my question about Wikihounding? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bobrayner's behaviour in ARBMAC territory

    Sorry to raise this issue so soon after this recent incident. If I were to publish the full list of Bobrayner's disruptive edits, it would take me all night because believe me, I have seen one single issue to go back five months. I will not lie about the fact that I too am listed on the ARBMAC disciplinary register and am currently debilitated by 1RR imposed as part of a deal to unblock my account. This 1RR is severely testing me however and I feel that looking at the actions these past minutes prior to this post, something is happening that must stop immediately. Bobrayner and I have a couple of issues which we have not been able to resolve through dialogue but sadly, these few issues cascade when it comes to number of articles affected by the problem and sadly all in ARBMAC village.

    For two days (5-7 April), Timeline of Kosovo History was peaceful whilst Bobrayner did not edit. On 3 April, a contribution of mine was cancelled[2]. My first action was a revert[3] when it registered but with a summary. This was followed by a part restoration in which I returned the source[4] that I removed. Labelled as "silly", my contribution was reverted once more[5]. I was placed on 1RR for a reason and one such purpose is that I engage in talk. Taking this option, I launched a discussion[6] in which I explained that the town is called Đakovica per WP:AT and by most common English, but observing historical accuracy, the town name is Yakova for the period in question. BR's insistence on the Albanian name Gjakova was down to the sources in question[7], one of which is in English and uses Gjakova. I reminded him about historical accuracy[8], then checked the sources only to discover that they themselves were later publications and not from the time in question[9]. However, by now he was gone, not to return for two days. I then embarked on a number of edits to Timeline of Kosovo History making sure I did not step over the bone of contention which would have violated 1RR. With Bobrayner out of site, I then sought advice from User:Antidiskriminator who is better versed in Balkan affairs than I am and we have held a conversation here. With efforts to communicate exhausted, no sign of BR and probably no hope of two-way agreement, I felt I had fulfilled my requirements so returned to the issue just over 24 hours later[10], [11]. More clean-up along the same lines followed when guess who's back?[12]. The same reasoning, the sickening "Let's stick to what the sources say" slogan. At attempt at justification by BR came here[13]. I explained that content from sources were one thing but titles used in sources are a different matter where Wikipedia:Naming Conventions is the case; BR's post had also provoked this reply[14] from AD. BR then replies with this[15] remark in which he adds nothing new to his previous position (ie. just following what the sources say). It now became clear to me that he is POV-pushing so I replied here where I pointed out that I had also switched a Serbian-name settlement for its Turkish (ie. historical) equivalent[16] but he did not worry about that in the least. I did revert[17] without breaching restriction, but did so after posting a huge list of sources which were all history books that addressed Ottoman-era towns and the message was that if you seek citations, you will find that sources may use any of three names, the modern Albanian, the modern Serbian or the then- and still modern Turkish. Consensus widely follows the latter option which I too was observing. So what reason had we for sticking to the non-WP:AT and non-historical name? No reply as yet...

    ...however, beginning here, BR began rifling through my recent edits, particularly where sensitive ARBMAC issues are the case but nothing beyond naming convention or matters pertaining to Kosovo sovereignty and made mass reverts of my contributions. My switching of Peja to Peć hardly needs explanation, the second is the target but the first is also a disambiguation page.

    His next actions one by one were the following:

    Now get ready for a bit of humour

    • This edit was to switch the /š/ from a word that even contains the diacritic in the article title and on its own page. The stated purpose was that this was in accordance with the "sources", as if they were some kind of literary English authority. Proof that this was the purpose is submitted here. Note how BR was never interested in the English variation, just fishing to uphold the Albanian version of the name. However he was wrong, I explained to him that the Albanian name is Korisha (with /sh/) here in second part of single comment. Nevertheless, he returned to the /s/ misnomer here, something I leave according to 1RR terms - my later edit was not a revert.

    Now it gets worse, look at the following

    • BR wipes the article of all article titles and replaces these with their Albanian forms. This means he switched Pristina which is NOT Serbian (ie. Priština) to Prishtinë, the Albanian name of the town not used in English. Notice also the mess on Zvečan and Leposavić on opening lines which were cleaned up but that his revert cancelled, plus the return of verbiage "for the sake of". BR in the knowledge that all his changes are consistent with the Albanian language only reverted again and cited "no consensus for change". Since when did fixing redirects or observing WP:AT need "consensus"? Yet there had been no consensus either when the section was introduced here by this user who came and went the same day and never used the talk for anything. As it stands, it is inconsistent with the rest of the article.
    • Next came this mass wipe-out of my work in which every single entry is returned to its non-WP:AT/non-English variation. Note that the page is one of several controversial agenda-pushing pages based on Kosovo. Despite this, the presentation is mostly bad and the sources are negligible. He reverts once more citing "what the sources say". I've told him many times, if the sources were good enough to verify everything down to the names used then he could have the articles moved (ie. Gnjilane to Gjilan). Be that is it may, the summary is one of BR's templates and I'm sure he never even checked the sources of which he prated. Firstly they are listed without links, and secondly, they are all in Albanian anyhow with the exception of one from the Kosovo government. Please see.


    ARBMAC violation
    We have SUPER STRICT policies on how we edit Kosovo-related articles, and careful editors often walk on egg shells to circumvent saying anything that can remotely suggest favour towards the split in sentiment. 99/193 UN states currently recognise Kosovo's independence and the situation is fragile on how we present sovereignty. A Kosovo-note template was devised to facilitate many of the country vs province issues and you can be sure that its removal by anyone from any article is guaranteed POV-pushing. To prove that BR is most definitely POV pushing and WP:NOTHERE whatsoever to write an an encyclopaedia, I need to draw admin attention to a less recent incident plus discussion. The word "border" is a nasty issue for Kosovo. Many of us prefer terms such as 'frontier' because if anyone were to push the Serbian viewpoint, he would be referring to the border ONLY if said to be between Central Serbia and the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo held by rebels". On 2 January 2013, BR stepped onto 1RR per week Republic of Kosovo. Discarding a mountain of effort, he thought it wise to make this edit[18]. Then I, realising that text had been removed at some stage, re-instered the NPOV FULL PICTURE which gives everyone's position[19]. BR didn't like it so he began this thread[20] in which you see that I made a proposal which Antidiskriminator approved but BR never replied to.

    I am not happy with "border" but am fine with the modifier administrative as it imparts the de facto status without harming content or presenting falsehood.

    • BR takes issue. He refers to "administrative" as 'weasel' wording. To him, stick two fingers up at NPOV, let it be known that what there is there is a BORDER just like between Mexico and the United States, that the entity to the north is Serbia, that Serbia's borders are marked without Kosovo; and the fact that Serbia doesn't give exit stamps to persons entering Kosovo coupled with 90 odd states still not recognising Kosovo means NOTHING. If you move to explain this, it is 'wiesel wording', if you report "Kosovo is a fully fledged state", you are a good editor.
    • Bobrayner reverts once more. And the summary? The greasy "sources" argument once more, this despite WP policy to be neutral - and these attempts at neutrality, agreed in the conversation of January by Antidiskriminator; Bobrayner having walked out, NOBODY having come to represent his position. And how does BR justify this depredation? The "sources" (irrelevant) defy my "TRUTH" - as if only I have endeavoured to be neutral. It would have been a different matter if my edits hinted at DENYING Kosovan statehood, but I swear I aim to be 100% balanced.

    Last but not least...
    The final case takes us back to Koriša bombing. My later edit (not to breach 1RR) has since been reverted. The revert shows you my revision too. All looks sweet and innoect doesn't it? I say "Yugoslav", he says "Serb" because of the 'source'. Here is a synopsis: from 1992 to 2006, Serbia was part of a union with Montenegro (FR Yugoslavia, then Serbia & Montenegro). In this time, the republics had their own police forces and Serb police units were deployed during the Kosovo crisis, as indeed were Serb paramilitaries (rogue government-backed but non-governmental private enterprises comprising Serbs from all over, eg. Bosnia & Croatia, not just Serbia), but above all there was the Army of Yugoslavia (VJ) - article: Military of Serbia and Montenegro.

    This is the biggest issue of them all. Some editors work their backsides off to correctly produce accurate information (eg. Serb police & paramilitaries, plus Yugoslav army). We all know that mention of Serb troops and Serb forces per se is a complete no-no, just as would be Serb government if the body in question were the central Yugoslav government. Reasons for people wanting the "Serb" highlight in place of Yugoslavia is purely to tarnish the nation, excuses include Serbia having been so big compared to Montenegro and also Montenegro's leadership having turned its nose up at the federation from 1998: none of this affected the army and they still wore VJ uniforms. But Bobrayner has known this for many months now and has engaged in countless edit wars AND conversations trying to push his "sources" point across despite having been told so many times that there are problems with some sources and they are not always accurate. For example, This BBC source labels Milošević as Serb President when he was infact Yugoslav president when published. Actual Serb president in 1999 was Milan Milutinović, not my renedering of events, the FACTS, 'Serbia' is so often used as an unofficial name for FR Yugoslavia. However, precision trumps speculation every time, and we know it is precise that Serb can only be applied to police and/or paramilitary but "forces" is vague, and "troops" is incorrect. Any user that just reads about a battle between the KLA and Serb troops will take it that either Serbia was independent (wrong) or that within FR Yugoslavia, the republics had their own armies rather like police (also wrong).

    But this has been spreading like a disease for five months:

    Finally, I recently used a reliable UN source to explain the full Serb/Yugoslav situation to BR here, it begins here. Now you can only imagine my disgust at this slimy summary in a move that plays on my 1RR.

    Bobrayner is unequivocally a highly disruptive user who plays with fire in the ARBMAC area and has NO interest in dispute resolution and does not respect consensus. These are my issues, other people have other things to say about his poor behaviour. I would not object to a block but may I recommend a temporary topic ban if nothing more. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Serious case of Tl;dr here, but judging from another related dispute between these two editors that Bobrayner just reported at WP:NPOVN, my impression is the tendentious editor is clearly Evlekis, and a heavy boomerang is in order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, i didnt read it at all, but i know from before, and from some other unrelated place that i find simillar that different editor should be blocked. That is not the way neutral admin should comment such a problematic area. If you dont know anything about the problem, and you dont, as you didnt even look at it, dont comment at all. --WhiteWriterspeaks 00:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "the tendentious editor is clearly Evlekis" is your opinion and you're entitled to it. Not very reassuring for me however that the first external editor attacks my position and insults me with a blatantly unfair term in light of the above evidence which took more than two hours to compile and account for my experiences only. We are dealing with a user who is pedaling a "sources" myth but evidently doesn't know how to use them. He doesn't understand that there are WP policies and agreements, such as how to present military operations from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. If I move away from this section just for a moment then perhaps I'll make myself clearer: there is an article called Republic of Macedonia, it contains many sources and equally the country is mentioned in many other articles which also contain sources. Now a lot of the sources will refer to the country as FYROM (or Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). The sources may be reliable and the content valid for use; the source would not however present an editor with the licence to go amending Republic of Macedonia to FYROM anywhere he sees fit, yet this is exactly what has been happening with Bobrayner. Concerning his report, I made one edit which restored sourced material that involved a removal of several hundred characters and this type of change normally requires consensus, I also observed that TWO, not one, TWO editors had approved the version I was restoring. Even so, I will not sport the label "tendentious" when it is not true, or when the descritpion of me is confined to gross POV-pushing editors working alongside each other, therefore I will not go near that article for now. Just as many of the pages are intact per Bobrayner's revisions. However, some answers from the accused would be nice before we start slinging mud at submitters. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 06:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noticed something else. When I was blocked for breaching 3RR back in March, the announcement[38] by ItsZippy requested users restrain from edit-warring on the pages mentioned and do more to prevent others from doing so. Here is how Bobrayner responded to that request: while the cat is away, the mouse will play. And although I never said this when defending myself or requesting unblock, the announcement that was I blocked contained the following passage, "I am also concerned by the long-term disruption caused by Evlekis". I contend that this is itself an opinionated statement because I am only considered "disruptive" by specific editors never seen working against one another. From others the feedback is warm and inviting. It's time we put a stop to this protection racket and started focusing on who is here to build an encyclopaedia, who observes consensus, who negotiates when circumstance is stale as opposed to who simply performs blind blanking sessions over and over per own opinion and interpretation of source when he doesn't like something. I don't required a Boomerarg block - if I'm not welcome I'll quit anyhow. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns requiring arbitration enforcement action should be reported at WP:AE. In a much more concise and less inflammatory manner, preferably.  Sandstein  09:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with both FutureP and Sandstein on how this should be handled and Evlekis can take his report there. That being said, I think that Evlekis has violated his 1RR[39] restriction on Koriša bombing: first revert (includes removal of the term Serb, second revert (removal of the word Serb), which had been readded by bobrayner and which had also been removed and replaced again about a week ago by Evlekis [40]

    --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This needs to go to AE. I wil have to drop it for now. To answer ZjarriRrethues, I did not spot what I did - and before you think of any funny replies, I don't give a monkey's toss what your opinion is or whether you believe me. All you need to know is two things. First is that I could not have reverted myself anyhow because Rayner was already edit-warring and restored his own apologetic excuse for a revision, the second is that I made the following edits with 1RR in mind just not realising that I did on technical grounds violate the principle. The term 'Serb' now stands and it would have done had I self-reverted, but having read the sources or what I could get access to, nothing was said of "troops" and we know to which entity troops belonged. I know you are personally sad about the loss of another of your Sinbad Barron allies (Neutral Fair Guy) and your personal friend Keithstanton but that's bad luck. If your latest buddy 'Hope meets success' who seems to know more about Wikipedia than I do doesn't take a back seat, he'll be joining the rest of your proxies. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. Tiderolls 13:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Behavior dispute at Male privilege

    I am reporting myself for this edit, which another user found to be inflammatory. There is already a hostile atmosphere there. Intervention in whatever form is appropriate would be appreciated. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see the need for the strike. We aren't censored and people are free to express themselves in a variety of ways assuming they stick to the merits of the article. It isn't necessary that you or I like the phrasing. Sometimes discussions are heated, which is why you need thick skin if you participate in a collaborative project. The rest of it needs to go to WP:DRN, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:UseTheCommandLine violating WP:OWN, and reverting removal of unsourced, biased material.

    Hi there. Recently, I came across Male Privilege and found it to be lacking encyclopedic quality. One section in particular, Male privilege#Male privilege in the U.S., had multiple issues: it is poorly sourced, appears to be a copy-paste from a college-student's essay with inline APA style citations and no actual references, and it solely covers the topic of Gender pay gap, without any sources clearly linking pay gap to the concept of male privilege. I attempted to delete this section, stating that it was inappropriate subject matter for the article, even if sources were found, because it belongs in the Gender pay gap article. I also erroneously removed primary journal articles that were used as sources, attempting to follow WP:RS, which was discussed on the talk page and I conceded that they should be re-added. Anyways, user:UseTheCommandLine, proceeded to revert all of the edits I had made, and then complained that I removed sourced (no it wasn't) content. She also still seems to fail to understand that inequality does not always mean oppression, and that a whole section on gender pay gap, which has its own article, doesn't belong, when it does absolutely, positively, nothing to demonstrate how it relates to male privilege.

    When I proceeded to then go through the article, not removing any content, but instead adding inline tags on the material I wished to discuss on the talk page and remove or cite, User:UseTheCommandLine again reverted my edit, without first discussing on the talk page. She also went on to edit content that I had written on the talk page, which I find deeply offensive and also worthy of administrator intervention. It is not appropriate for another wikipedia editor to edit my signed content on a talk page. She appears to have reverted it, though refused to apologize, and decided to instead fork the discussion into a new topic because she felt the word "terrible" was too "hostile" (Essentially, "I don't like you, so I'm just going to ignore you"). I have tried to AGF through this entire thing, but frankly she has been violating WP:OWN the entire time by not allowing other editors access to the page, demanding that I run every edit by her before making them, and then making her own edits without discussion on the talk page first. She has a history of displaying this sort of behavior on the similar page, White privilege, which recently was locked for a week due to her edit warring, immature behavior, and inability to reach consensus with the other editors on that page. She appears to have a strong feminist ideology, which she has been POV pushing onto these two topics and possibly others for quite some time, without offering anything constructive. I would very much like to be able to edit Male Privilege so that it meets the basic criteria for encyclopedic standards, and I believe User:UseTheCommandLine has been actively opposing my ability to do so, not because I have violated any wikipedia policies, but because she has an agenda to push. Although there is a pending WP:DRN, which I started, I felt that her continued behavior following my request for dispute resolution has crossed the line into something an Administrator needs to be involved in.

    Kindly, Rgambord (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. I just read over Talk:Male_privilege#This_article_is_terrible. and it appears to me the editor may lack knowledge of some of the intricacies of encyclopedia writing. For instance, when you mentioned you wanted to remove the gender wage gap section because the source didn't discuss the link between that and male privilege, he or she didn't seem to understand this was problematic, which indicates they might be writing the way they would a research paper. The editor also seems to have opened two separate AN/I reports at the same time, including one on his/herself. Perhaps a bit of mentoring would help. Sædontalk 10:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that User:UseTheCommandLine has decided to take an extended wikibreak. I would like to revert to my most recent edit prior to the beginning of the edit war, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Male_privilege&oldid=549106687 I am aware that this leaves the article POV (critical of the concept), but I intend to continue editing it to add more balance. I feel that the bad parts need to be cut out before I am ready to start adding in content; after some basic editing, I will attempt to find an interested editor on one of the feminism groups on wikipedia who will be willing to collaborate with me to provide a balanced and informative article. Also, I would like to request that User:UseTheCommandLine be blocked from editing this page, so that we don't end up with another edit war should she decide to return to wikipedia. I will attempt to collaborate with the editors on White privilege and Christian privilege to reach a consensus on how to format these pages. As I stated on Talk:Male_privilege, I also think the most neutral and encyclopedic thing to do might be to rename articles to: Gendered privilege, Religious privilege, and Racial (or ethnic) privilege. Though I do agree that white christian males enjoy a great deal of privilege in the western world, I would argue both that this does not adequately cover other regions of the world where these groups may be a minority, and also that white christian males experiencing privilege does not mean other groups or minorities do not enjoy certain privileges, and that those privileges aren't detailed in credible sources. I await input before I take any action so as not to further inflame the situation. Thanks! Rgambord (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, it has been 24 hours since my previous edit. I'm going to go ahead with editing the page as I detailed above, and add this to the article's talk page. If any objections are raised, please notify me on my talk page, or on the article's talk page. Thank you, Rgambord (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTFORUM at White privilege

    Apostle12, despite having been on WP for many years, consistently breaks WP:NOTFORUM or WP:SOAP, and has just done so, again, at White privilege with these edits. This is a consistent, recurring pattern over that this editor engages in over many different pages. The list is far to extensive to delve into here, but these these examples might be sufficient to establish a pattern. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 04:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (I should also mention that I have many, many times called this behavior out as WP:SOAP, which seemed to be the appropriate guideline, though perhaps in retrospect WP:NOTFORUM might have been more clearly applicable. Mea culpa. But in no case was the response anything other than a flat denial of violating any of WP's policies, either in spirit or letter.) -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 06:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm, I read the first diff and I'm not seeing what you mean by WP:NOTFORUM. He seems to be clearly discussing the article and proposing changes.--v/r - TP 12:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with TParis. Seems to be using sources to discuss the merits. He is sharing some personal experiences but acknowledging they don't belong in the article. These are controversial topics, and I don't see fault in his attempts to discuss. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    the mention of sexually transmitted infection rates is clearly off-topic. Honestly, I'm tired of the thinly veiled racism he displays at every turn. So, fuck this place. I'm gone. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 13:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So based on your new user page, I'm guessing that in "UTCL Land" that folks who do not explicitly agree with your viewpoint are racist and sexist? Clearly your POV is beyond ranges that allows collaboration and open discussion. The user is trying to discuss statistics. Statistics do not tell racist stories, they don't tell any stories. It's what you interpret from the statistics that can become racist. Discussing the topic, even proposing to discuss it, is not automatically racist and sexist. But that's beyond your alarmist and extreme viewpoint so what's the point of trying to reason with you?--v/r - TP 15:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevant to this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Behavior dispute at Male privilege Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:UseTheCommandLine violating WP:OWN, and reverting removal of unsourced, biased material. Rgambord (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rgambord. Looks to me from the edit history like you were the one in the wrong removing masses of sourced material from male privilege under flimsy (probably POV-driiven) pretexts. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I will make two last posts before commencing my wikibreak. This will be one of them.

    If you have any doubts as to whether I an simply a WP:POVPUSHer, or whether I can WP:AGF and come to consensus even on contentious topics, then I urge you to review my edit history. It will speak for itself, either reinforcing the judgement you have clearly made about me already, or, I hope, undermining that preconception.

    I have tried my hardest to listen and operate within the stated boundaries of policy. I have asked for help, I have asked for input on my behavior, and have not found it forthcoming. For instance, I have had a request for editor review up that is as-yet unreviewed, that has been there since my third or fourth month of editing. I have been diligent in my attempts to become a better editor.

    But this is all a moot point. I happen to edit sometimes at topics which some people take offense at. I have a thick skin, but have been accused, upthread, of needing to be moreso. This is dismissive of the very real and corrosive effect that a hostile editing environment has on the fundamental goal of WP, to produce an encyclopedia. Tone matters. I try and give every possible opportunity, when faced with a hostile environment, for everyone, myself included, to ratchet down a hostile tone. And then I go to noticeboards, which by and large have proven to be less than useful in the face of concerted POVPUSH.

    "Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -- Paolo Freire

    My last edit for the time being will be at Talk:White privilege pointing to the discussion here. I will also note that another editor there who has in the past been quite critical of this concept has taken Apostle12 to task for the statement I reference in my initial posting. I do not expect to edit at WP for at least 3 months, if not longer. I have found many people here to be intelligent and good hearted, but I have no time or inclination to continue dealing with racists, sexists, or trolls of any stripe. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Taking on the cabal, brother! 'luck. Basket Feudalist 16:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get it, you opening this thread makes you part of that hostile environment. You are having an effect on another editor that is hostile. Do you want to try again with them in a way that is more welcoming to their POV?--v/r - TP 16:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a minute. The "POV" expressed here (for example) by Apostle12 (talk · contribs) is racist. Why should we be more accommodating to people who use this site to express racist views? Perhaps I'm alone on this one, but it seems to me that the problem here is that our articles on racial topics are being heavily edited by people with racist views - to the point that other editors are being driven off. We're pretending that UTCL is the problem, and demanding that he be more "accommodating" of people who say things like:

    If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior. It is not up to those of us who have been victimized by violent black criminals to abandon our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype" AHEAD of actual changes in behavior among black men... Perhaps non-criminal black men should emulate asian men, whose stereotype is one of studious reflection and harmlessness--a stereotype that can be just as misleading when it comes to individual behavior. ([41]).

    People here talk endlessly about WP:CIVILity. Here's what civility actually means in the real world: it means that racism isn't acceptable, and we don't ask people to "accommodate" it. MastCell Talk 17:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear, hear. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen.Slp1 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't agree more. This isn't the kind of POV we should be more accommodating of, and suggesting we should be shows one of the many problems with Wikipedia. AniMate 18:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    MastCell, in the above quote box you have artificially, and I believe disingenuously, compressed my statements, eliminating anything that does not support your erroneous premise that what I wrote is racist. For the record, here is what I wrote:
    This article (Criminal black man stereotype) fails adequately to address some unfortunate realities.
    I and other family members have been the victims of violent crime on a number of occasions--both on the street and in our homes. On each and every one of these occasions, the perpetrators of the violent crimes (armed robbery, felonious assualt, criminal trespass, assault with a deadly weapon, rape) have been black males. When I look at the statistics for violent crime in ANY large American city, black males outnumber any other group as perpetrators of violent crime; this disparity becomes even more striking when one looks at the percentage of violent crimes committed as compared to the percentage of black males in the population of those cities.
    The "criminal black man stereotype" exists, not for historical reasons, and not because of racial prejudice, but because black males commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes--in other words the stereotype is NOT wrong. In the private sphere, I am committed to judging all individuals based on what I can learn of their characters; in the public sphere (on the street, for example) I do not have the time or ability to discern character, therefore I cannot afford to give unknown black males the benefit of the doubt. If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior.
    It is not up to those of us who have been victimized by violent black criminals to abandon our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype" AHEAD of actual changes in behavior among black men. Often this is a matter of preserving life, limb and integrity, especially in the public sphere. I acknowledge that the stereotype is a tragedy for black men who are not violent criminals, which is thoroughly regrettable. Perhaps non-criminal black men should emulate asian men, whose stereotype is one of studious reflection and harmlessness--a stereotype that can be just as misleading when it comes to individual behavior.
    It might be accurate to call me a pragmatist when it comes to considerations of race. It is not accurate to call me a racist, and in fact my own heritage is multiracial. Apostle12 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This edit, isn't. As for that edit, I continue to hold that discussing racial stats on racial topics, although controversial, is not racist by itself. Apostle12's error was in adding in his own personal commentary and mixing it in with claims of statistics. My suggestion would be that Apostle12 should remove his personal remarks and fill in the blank spaces with links to these statistics he is referring to. Other than that, a warning to Apostle12 maybe that he is stretching good faith. Except for pedophilia, I haven't seen blocks for editors having opinions. I've seen blocks for racist actions, I've seen blocks for racial slurs, but I've never seen a block because an editor (on a topic about crime based on race) made a comment that was personal and contained racial remarks. Hell, we have neo-nazis editing around this place and the topic has been brought up a few times of Nazi or national socialist (however the name ends) userboxes on user pages. Thanks to all the worthless "yeah me too" comments that added nothing of substance but edit conflicted with me x3--v/r - TP 18:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But TParis, it is indeed racist. The worst kind of racist original research: the cherry picking of (unsourced) statistics purported to dispute the existence of "white privilege", culminating with claims about the high level of STDs in African Americans. Do you not see that something here does not compute here?
    And I am sorry about your edit conflicts but actually, showing that there are several admins who disagree with the way this has been going down is extremely important. Slp1 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the differential outcomes (white people v people of color) I referenced, S1p1, could be interpreted as complimentary with respect to African Americans, some not--I offered no such interpretation or analysis. My point was merely that so far the White privilege article has cherry-picked differential outcomes that could plausibly be linked to privileges that white people enjoy. My point is simply that many such differential outcomes do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege; I believe some relevant discussion should be included in the article.
    With respect to original research, I am a stickler about that. If I were to create a section within the White privilege article discussing differential outcomes that do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege, I assure you that impeccable sourcing would be included. Apostle12 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but your very statement here shows that what you are doing is the epitome of WP:OR. Here and elsewhere you are discussing the truth or otherwise of "white privilege" using your own arguments (in this case cherry picked statistics). If you want to create a section about differential outcomes that do not fit into the conceptual framework of white privilege in the article, then you need to find sources about white privilege that discuss precisely that. If it deserves a mention in the WP article then there will be scholarly journal articles and book chapters, or other high quality sources discussing these differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims.Slp1 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely that "if it deserves a mention in the WP article then there will be scholarly journal articles and book chapters, or other high quality sources discussing these differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims." I assure you that any section I write will be based entirely on RS. Many of these sources, some of which already appear in the article, caution against over-reliance on the white privilege conceptual framework and point out the limitations of this framework. My original comments had to do with UsetheCommandLine's proposal to change the first sentence of the lede, which I generally supported. My only objection was that the first sentence not include a reductive list cherry-picking those topics where the impact of white privilege might be plausible. So I spot-lighted a few examples of differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible. Apostle12 (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Breaking my rule already. You say you've seen people blocked for racial slurs?
    While I'm here, two points.
    1. statistics are not immune to criticism or judgement simply because they are numbers. statistics can be collected in a biased way, or presented in a racist manner. taking statistics out of context is a big red flag for this, which is exactly what this editor was doing. It was not in any way germane to the discussion about the content of the article.
    2. you seem to be suggesting that goint to DRN or ANI is prima facie evidence of hostility. that seems to imply that my options when dealing with hostile editors are either to tolerate them, or to leave. why, then, do we even have a noticeboard, if it is not to have some kind of enforcement mechanism for acceptable behavior?
    I also want to call attention to the other filing about Male privilege, above. It seems to be to be mostly the same issue.
    I am seriously gone now, for real, no takebacks. olly olly oxen free. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @TParis Actually, I think much of what you wrote here is pretty worthless, and if you're concerned about edit conflicts, the "worthless" messages were posted 8 minutes apart. That's hardly a deluge that would stop you from replying in a timely manner. As for your reaction to the original complaint, it looks like you only read the first link, which I agree is the least problematic. However the other three are, each relying to some extent on Apostle12's real world interactions with scary black people, are problematic. Looking at those three along with the edit that MastCell brought here make me distinctly uncomfortable about this editor's interactions in race related articles. A block may not be in order, but a topic ban certainly may be in his future. I get that you are apparently super sympathetic to Apostle12 for some unknown reason, but I think a firm clear warning about keeping his personal life and personal opinions about other races off article talk pages is much more helpful than the hand-holding you've been giving him here.
    And for the record, I worthlessly agree with what Slp1 wrote above as well. AniMate 18:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still with TParis. The comments may be unintentionally inflammatory (and worded awkwardly, note the last of this comment admitting it was a stereotype), but some saw the Pound Cake speech in a similar light. Anytime someone has an opinion on the culture surrounding race, they are treading on thin ice, but not the same as racially motivated vandalism either. Was it insensitive? Perhaps. Was he intentionally claiming one race is inferior to another? I didn't see it that way. Like TParis, I think he is pushing the boundaries a bit more than he should, and maybe more than he realizes, but when discussing statistics and race, this is always a risk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Animate, for more nonsense. Anytime a sensitive topic is approached from an unpopular viewpoint, labels are thrown out. Pause for a moment and consider that maybe fear of unpopular opinion has contributed to bias in the popular direction. I'm going beyond the topic of racism here, whether it's religion, sexism, racism, sexual orientation, politics, you name it, there are degrees of opinion. Folks are too quick to draw a line and say your one side or the other. It's a load of crap. If Apostle12 has actual statistics to refer back to, they should be discussed in the context of those articles. If not, then he's as you describe him. But until you know which one it is, hold your labels. The correct response, from UTCL to Apostle12, before coming here should have been "Hey Apostle, put up or shut up." Instead, UTCL ran here to scream racism/sexism because their viewpoint is not being explicitly agreed to. That is what makes Wikipedia hostile. Has anyone yet asked Apostle to show us what stats he is referring to? Hell, we're being accused of being hostile to Christians, Pagans, and atheists at the same time because no one stops to think they should have to get along with whatever labels they can come up with to throw at the other person.--v/r - TP 19:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @DennisI couldn't disagree with you more. He's cherry picked statistics to make a point and has made several really inflammatory, completely unhelpful or encyclopedic remarks about black people, from how often he and his family are victims of crimes by black people to his college girlfriend who lived across the street from the Black Panthers. Not only are his actions completely inappropriate, they also make for a hostile editing environment. For someone so interested in editor retention, I'm surprised by your reaction here. UTCL hasn't behaved perfectly by any means, and I would advise all involved to kick this up the ladder of dispute resolution as it may be to complex or a noticeboard. In the past, surveys have shown that Wikipedia is overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male. Dismissing a report like this and minimizing the actions of someone who appears to be pushing a racist POV does nothing to make this an environment any minorities would enjoy participating in. Try to remember that in the future, especially if you want to try and retain people who don't look like you.
    @TParis Ironically, I received a couple of edit conflicts while trying to post this reply. I'm tempted to characterize what you wrote as nonsense, but I don't think that's going to be helpful. Also striking out where I called your statements worthless. Attacks like that aren't helpful, so I'll let you be the only one that throws them out. I think most people reading the links provided by UTCL and MastCell can see how problematic his personal stories are and that they do nothing to help the articles or editing environment.
    I again encourage those involved in the dispute to kick it up the steps of DR. If an RfC/U has been tried, why not go to mediation. Getting rid of civil POV pushers can be a hassle, and I know it can be frustrating when the admins that happen to be active don't see what you see when you lodge a complaint. Unfortunately, I don't think there is something immediately actionable here, so I'm going to recommend closing this. AniMate 19:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, I had hoped someone would ec with me. You don't know he's cherry picked anything until he points out what he's looking at. Please put the argumentative tactics away and ask the guy to support his claims before you throw them away. He's probably wrong about the stats, he's definitely wrong about his personal perspective (stats show that white males commit the most gun massacres), but the primary issue here is that he hasn't shown where he is getting his stats and instead of addressing that, you're rolling over it at racist instead because it's easier to ignore him that way.--v/r - TP 20:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to put what you say a different way, if you don't mind. I actually don't doubt that Apostle is right about the stats- in that he could probably find citations showing that his claims are true. But the problem is, as you point out TParis, that it is equally possible to find stats proving the opposite point. That's why I strongly disagree that asking Apostle to support his claims about the statistics is actually productive. WP needs and wants secondary sources about white privilege that analyze, contextualize and draw conclusion from all the various statistics. Then we summarize them. The talkpage of the article is simply not the spot to discuss personal experiences of black violence or to develop one's own research about whether white privilege exists or not. And, as an addendum, if anything shows what the intent, it is, as I pointed out previously, the inclusion of the STD stats of African Americans which has absolutely zero to do with even the topic Apostle was claiming to be proving. Slp1 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree the talk page is the wrong place for discussing his personal opinion; all of Wikipedia is. But the first diff wasn't about his opinion, for the most part, and that was the diff UTCL highlighted as problematic. If he has reliable sources, he should produce them so their value can be considered for the article. They shouldn't be dismissed as racist having never seen them. If he can't produce them, or if he has misconstrued their context, then we shrug it off as racism.--v/r - TP 21:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I agree totally that sources are required. But it is critical that the sources be about the topic, not just sources that "prove" the individual points Apostle wants to make about "differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims". What was inappropriate about that edit was that it was cherry picked original research, and unhelpful for the building WP. I can do the same thing with golfball dimples. I can easily find sources for the fact that there are between 350-400 dimples on golfballs [42][43][44], but that would be ignoring those that have fewer [45] and those than have more [46]. That's why we need secondary sources to bring it all together for us. Answer for the record: typically 300-500 dimples, up to a max of 1040). Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it interesting that some of the commentators here have chosen to focus on the last point I listed (the over representation of African Americans among those who contract STDs each year) while discussing the fact that many differential outcomes (white people v. people of color) do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege. Was I racist when I referred to the over representation of black females among those who enjoy very high levels of self-esteem, with more positive outcomes (fewer eating disorders, less depression, less suicide) than other ethnic groups? Or was that merely sexist? Was I racist when I referred to the overrepresentation of Japanese, Chinese and Korean students at American institutions of higher learning - or was I merely demonstrating "inter-asian" racism for contrasting them with Laotian and Cambodian students? Perhaps I was stereotyping Ashkenazi Jews (as opposed to Sephardic Jews) for their overrepresentation in the sciences and among Nobel Prize winners. There also seems to be an assumption that I must be white (actually I am multiracial), or that family members victimized by black criminals (the discussion from "Criminal black man stereotype" talk page) were not "people of color" (some are). Lots of assumptions, all intended to paint me as a racist. I am particularly concerned about MastCell's distortion (see above) when he created a quote box that excluded any of my statements that might detract from his apparent intent to portray what I wrote as racist, especially when I wrote about the tragedy of the criminal black man stereotype for the majority of black men who are not criminal.
    The fact is I seldom reference personal history on Wikipedia talk pages, despite UsetheCommandLine's efforts to create the opposite impression. When I do so, it is to explain why I might be committed to a certain editorial perspective that relates specifically to article content. As for personal opinions, it seems to me that talk pages are the appropriate place to express such opinions. Almost all of what appears on this page has to do with the sharing of personal opinion. In my opinion, entirely necessary and entirely appropriate, as long as opinion and original research stays out of Wikipedia articles. Apostle12 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Look dude, your rants are getting annoying at this point. I am trying to defend your position, so it'd be helpful to me if you could just go ahead and start backing up your remarks with reliable sources.--v/r - TP 22:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) No, as multiple editors and administrators have stated here, the talkpages are not the place for your personal opinions, and that the specific personal opinions you expressed were inappropriate in the context of building this encyclopedia. And no, racism has not been the main argument for why that edit was inappropriate. See above. Anyway, that's my last here. I agree that this should be closed, as no administrator action is required for the moment. Hopefully Apostle12 will take note of the various comments here.Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be assured, S1P1, that I have taken note of the comments here. With regard to my comments on "White privilege" Talk, I could simply have eliminated the last example I gave, and next time I probably will. Even though multiple sources support the facts I offered (e.g.http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/AAs-and-STD-Fact-Sheet-042011.pdf), it seems apparent that truth is no defense here.
    In this regard, TParis, I see little point offering reliable sources for each of the points I made. It would not be difficult to do so, but the primary objection seems to be that I spotlighted realities that have negative connotations for certain ethnic groups. If you truly believe backng up my remarks with reliable sources would still be useful (other editors thought not), I will do so. At this point I don't think it even matters that I am indeed a member of some of the ethnic groups affected--as Dennis Brown pointed out, Bill Cosby discovered this unhappy fact when he endured intense fallout after delivering his "Pound Cake" speech. I am surprised that you saw my attempts to defend myself as "rants." In any case, thank you for defending my right to frankly discuss controversial topics here at Wikipedia, even if it riles certain sensitivities. Apostle12 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    MastCell, I concur.
    As a rule the problem has not been UTCL. I was an editor at White privilege for over four years, and during that time I encountered only one editor who was more abusive than Apostle12. Besides violating WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP Apostle12 has shown little regard for WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CANVAS, among others. After a recent RfC/U went nowhere, I decided to take a step back from editing White privilege; frankly I was exhausted from getting bullied.
    Personally I think this is a loss. UTCL and I both made a lot of uncontroversial edits (e.g. spelling changes to conform to Standard American English) to help maintain the quality of the article in addition to the ones that drew Apostle12's wrath. But whatever you might think of me and UTCL, it is hardly unthinkable that allowing Apostle12 to continue to violate Wikipedia policy, especially those that are aimed at protecting other users from abuse, will drive good editors from the article.
    -- Marie Paradox (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to step in here and mention that I am not siding with or lumping myself in with any of the editors on White privilege. I'm fully interested in collaboration, however. I'm not going to entertain UTCLs accusations that I am sexist for my edits to Male privilege. I have edited numerous articles on wikipedia and I have not treated the topic any differently than other articles. I removed content which was unsourced or dubious, with the intention of recruiting an interested editor to add reliably sourced sections concerning privilege, but UTCL immediately reverted my edits and violated WP:OWN in her actions and language. There is no requirement that I leave poor content in an article until good content is found to replace it. UTCLs actions have been, on the whole, unhelpful and bullying, and she refused to AGF from the outset, or to follow WP policies or common sense, because she immediately characterized me as a sexist without any basis for that claim. For someone like her, who is so concerned with a hostile atmosphere, she sure doesn't mind contributing to it. I have never before had a problem with another editor, or found another editor's actions to be so childish and unprofessional. UTCL epitomizes the angry feminist stereotype. I will copy my most recent post from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:UseTheCommandLine_violating_WP:OWN.2C_and_reverting_removal_of_unsourced.2C_biased_material. to Talk:Male privilege, and I'd appreciate if those involved in this discussion would civilly comment on my suggestions. Thanks,Rgambord (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    The people who try to bring a POV'd article to the center are the ones most often accused of being "POV warriors" (and other wiki-nasty things) by POV warriors, because they are much more credible and harder to "get rid of" and thus a much bigger threat to the imbalanced status quo at an article than actual POV warriors. North8000 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Animate, your comment " Try to remember that in the future, especially if you want to try and retain people who don't look like you." could be construed as calling me a racist, as if my objective is to retain only white people. (That I'm relatively white is already known since I publish my image on my user page.) Am I going to make a deal of it? No. It is called opinion, and in the heat of a discussion and I allow for such things. It is also wildly inaccurate. We retain editors by allowing them to express and discuss freely, without shoving political correctness down their gullets. As long as discussion is focused on the merits of the subject matter and not overtly and intentionally offensive, I'm pretty tolerant of opinions I disagree with if they aren't founded in hate. If you want to run people off the project, the quickest way to do it is to tell people what to say, what to think, and make damn sure they don't color outside the lines. Or insinuate that someone who disagrees with you is a racist.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In no way did I mean to insinuate that you're a racist. I should have stated more clearly that the project has real problems when it comes to outreach to and retention of minorities. What Apostle12 is doing here seems absolutely crystal clear to me, and I was honestly stunned to see more than one administrator defending it. What I was trying to suggest, poorly apparently, was that this situation needed to be looked at in a different way than you were seeing it. I think it was a wonderful opportunity for you to attempt some editor retention. I also think you blew it. That doesn't make you racist, and I reject fully that you have done anything racist here. I also think if you had read all of what Apostle12 wrote and tried looking at it from UTCL's position, you would have had an excellent opportunity to retain an editor. AniMate 23:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes, a comment is accidentally worded so that it sounds much worse than the original intent. I did have to look at your comments twice, but I've seen you around enough that you weren't trying to insult me, it was just worded poorly. The timing was perfect to demonstrate my point, however, that we all word things poorly in our rush to communicate from time to time. Honestly, I don't know his history, but I'm not prepared to take strong action based solely on the diffs presented here. What I do focus on is getting people to overlook simple things, and the comments presented here were not so strong as to demand action. Sometimes, we tend to overreact as a community and push people away by over-policing, and we do this too frequently. Again, I don't have the full history but I saw reason to slow down and have doubt. Perhaps it is so subtle is requires looking deeper, perhaps we are not being as tolerant as we should. I'm not condoning anything, but before we block or topic ban someone, I think we should be damn sure it is the right choice and the only option, and the evidence is more solid than just the diffs presented here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic-ban

    Based on the foregoing and his overall record of contributions, I propose to topic-ban Apostle12 from editing in the area of human race and ethnicity, in light of this principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This just seems like a complete no-brainer to me. Apostle12 has absolutely no business writing commentary like this on article talk pages. When somebody posts long screeds on talk pages about how such-and-such an actor is obviously the best actor in the world, it's irritating. When another editor spends volumes on trying to defend their country's ownership of some disputed territory, it's troublesome. When another editor, here Apostle12, uses our talk pages to interlace personal (i.e., arbitrary and capricious) commentary with cherry-picked statistics, without reference to secondary sources (or, given the nature of this topic, ideally tertiary review articles or really high quality academic books), and then lumps all of that together to draw a conclusion that (surprise!) proves that, in fact, there really is a legitimate justification for racism, well, that person should be shown the door. Quickly. If a topic ban will get rid of the problem, fine. If it won't--if this points to an underlying attitude that will simply be perpetuated in other, similar topics, then a block. Wikipedia is not a free speech zone where whoever wants to rant is given a forum and a microphone. We have a purpose: building articles out of high quality sources (and the topic itself will indicate what types of sources are needed). Apostle's editing directly hurts that goal, by 1) demanding an answer, thus transforming a talk page into a waste-of-time battleground and possibly trapping other editors, 2) creating a hostile environment that makes others less willing to contribute, if they know they have to wade through thinly veiled racist crap to actually get to the article. I could imagine a commitment that Apostle12 could give that would make this unnecessary, but me feeding it to him won't work--if he can articulate what was wrong with the aforesaid commentary and specifically state what he won't do in the future, I could see him avoiding the need for this. But, if not, he needs to be stopped, ASAP. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best example of the commentary is his story about his family's experience with violent crimes here that apparently justifies the criminal black man stereotype. Stating that non criminal black men they need to emulate stereotypical asians.... if you can't see the problems there, you must be blind. AniMate 00:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: The editor has been misusing WP as a platform to air his own positions. "No-brainer" sums it up nicely. Surprised that the proposal is only for a topic ban. I would have supported a community ban. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Defense

    I offered no "personal commentary about (my) first hand knowledge of how bad black people are." I referenced the fact that I and several members of my immediate family have been victims of serious violent crimes (armed robbery, felonious assualt, criminal trespass, assault with deadly weapons, and rape) and the perpetrators were all black males. Some of my ancestors were white, some black, some native American, some Ashkenazi Jews; and various family members are white, asian or, like me, multiracial and multiethnic. The only thing we have in common with respect to the "Criminal black man stereotype" I was discussing is that we have at times been attacked, held at gunpoint, robbed, threatened or raped by black men. As an early participant in the civil rights movement (efforts to expand voting rights in the American South, 1963) I have supported all efforts to end race-based discrimination in the United States and I continue to be committed to racial and ethnic equality in all realms. I do not believe black people are "bad." Quite the contrary, I am an admirer of black culture and its contributions to American life, both in general and the contributions my many black friends have made to my own personal life. I do lament the violent subculture that has taken hold in every American city, beginning with the Black Panthers during the late 1960s and continuing to the present; in this respect I am no different than most black conservatives. At the risk of sounding like Archie Bunker ("Some of my best friends are black"), I have maintained close friendships with blacks since my youth, our children have grown up together, and all of my children and friends know that I am a person committed to judging people solely on the basis of their characters. That said, as I pointed out in my commentary, I have found it necessary in the public realm, where I do not have the ability instantly to assess character, to be wary of black men who present themselves, through dress or demeanor, as members of violent subcultures. This necessary caution does not please me, and I wish it were not so, however I do not think it is racist; my wariness merely represents prudence, learned through long, harsh experience.

    When it comes to editing Wikipedia articles having to do with race or ethnicity, I challenge anyone to point up instances of wrongdoing. Even in my editing of controversial articles, like The Black Panthers article I have consistently guarded against any editor who attempts to insert racist content, or who strives to bend the article in a non-neutral direction. Sometimes achieving neutrality has to do with mitigating harsh judgments of the Panthers by adding more supportive material (many Panthers were good people committed to racial justice), and sometimes achieving neutrality has to do with adding sourced material that is highly critical of Panther methods (anti-white rhetoric, criminality and violence).

    But, I am getting off-topic. My point is that I am capable, despite certain negative personal experiences and defined perspectives, of editing without racial bias here at Wikipedia.

    With respect to the objections UsetheCommandLine originally raised regarding some examples of differential outcomes that would be difficult to attribute to white privilege, I can see that the last example I offered, while true and easily sourced, came too close to that invisible line where offense can be taken. The other differential outcomes might be interpreted as congratulatory of positive black outcomes (high self-esteem among black girls), supportive of positive black outcomes (majority black presence among NBA and NFL players), or more or less neutral with respect to black outcomes - I should have stuck to those.

    I do believe it is counterproductive to penalize Wikipedia editors who are willing to discuss racial matters frankly. Apostle12 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We are here to discuss reliable sources and represent them fairly in our coverage. These representations of your experiences are simply not germane. There is nothing there in your experiences for anyone to reply to or comment upon. Your friends, your assailants, your activism, your race, your family's race, are all off-topic (as you note). So long disquisitions on them are bound to be disruptive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose - AQFK pretty much sums it up, but I wanted to point out that the editor has supplied a RS that supports some of the comments he's made ([47]). I propose an alternative: this editor is warned to keep his personal opinion to himself and stick strictly to reliable sources which he is required to present at the time of comment on racial topics.--v/r - TP 01:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually they haven't supplied a reliable source for the comments in any way. Precisely the opposite in fact. Exactly as I predicted, they provided a source simply showing that African-Americans have higher levels of STD. But that is exactly like me providing a source for a golfball with 350 dimples... the question is does the source support the notion that there are "differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible" as claimed by Apostle12? No. In fact the text says the exact the opposite: "While everyone should have the opportunity to make choices that allow them to live healthy lives regardless of their income, education, or racial/ethnic background, the reality is that inadequate resources and challenging living conditions make the journey to health and wellness harder for some, and can lead to circumstances that increase a person's risk for STDs. African Americans sometimes face barriers that contribute to increased rates of STDs" and goes on to list as factors (amongst others) the higher levels poverty, and poorer access to health care of African Americans as compared to other populations. It finishes up with the statement that "research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience." This source does nothing to support Apostle12's use of the talkage to speak about theories that "the impact of white privilege is less plausible". It says the precise opposite. --Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you still. He supports "differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible" with this source by this line "The quality and consistency of STD care can also be affected by the fact that African Americans tend to use medical care services and treatments less than whites, which research suggests may be partly related to mistrust of the medical system." He is arguing that it is not white privillage, but mistrust of the healthcare system which affects the STD care of African Americans. A counter argument is made in the same sentence, "In addition, research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience." But the point he is making is supported by that source.--v/r - TP 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you still! It is disingenuous to claim that this sentence is making any claim abou that "white privilege" is less plausible. Why do you think that "mistrust" is there? If it isn't clear enough for you, the article actually spells it out for you "research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience" --Slp1 (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    After ec: I'm sorry, but that's your own WP:SYNTH about what the author means. Before (edit conflict): Striking oppose. I'm fighting a barely defensible case that I barely believe in on principal grounds and it's just not worth the effort when Apostle12 continues to do the crap we're discussing here. I'll save my efforts for a user who is legitimately interested in the topic and not trying to toe the line while pushing his own agenda.--v/r - TP 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - The editor has a COI but has attempted to bring some sources to it, while the personal history and preferences of editors are something that come easily, Apostle12 just went to a great deal of trouble with the 'defense' statement and at least tried to keep personal matters out of it. The subject matter is going to be a nightmare for just about any of our editors. This has gotten the attention of more eyes and as a result might introduce a better atmosphere. Warn Apostle12 as per TParis's suggestion and I second that any controversial (not just racial topics) be backed up with reliable sources pre-emptively and doubly so for contentious material. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per TParis. Unquestionably, he has ruffled some feathers and many of his comments leave much to be desired, but I think TP's idea is more likely to have a lasting positive impact here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will limit myself to saying that I agree with Brad's proposal for a topic ban, and that some of the responses in this thread make me ashamed to be part of this project. We're talking about someone who goes around talking about the criminality of black men and how they should try to act more like Asians. In any reputable volunteer organiation, someone like that would politely but firmly be told that he or she was no longer welcome. But here, the first admin responding couldn't be bothered even to click on the supplied diffs before dismissing the complaint, and the second views this as simply a matter of "ruffled feathers". MastCell Talk 03:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, it comes down to this. The threat of being called a racist, homophobic, sexist, bigot, fascist, elitist, ect has the exact same chilling effect as legal threats. When you use them unrestrained (because some people, maybe even the subject, do deserve the title), then you are biasing Wikipedia to popular opinions. I'm not saying unpopular ones deserve equal attention or weight. I'm saying the OP didn't even both asking for sources and immediately started this thread calling the subject a racist and you've propagated that name-calling. So, Animate, yes, you should be ashamed.--v/r - TP 14:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    TP, I agree that terms like racist can be used too cavalierly. But this is a case of "If the shoe fits, wear it." Honestly, can this be taken any way other than racist?
    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior. It is not up to those of us who have been victimized by violent black criminals to abandon our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype" AHEAD of actual changes in behavior among black men. Often this is a matter of preserving life, limb and integrity, especially in the public sphere. I acknowledge that the stereotype is a tragedy for black men who are not violent criminals, which is thoroughly regrettable. Perhaps non-criminal black men should emulate asian men, whose stereotype is one of studious reflection and harmlessness--a stereotype that can be just as misleading when it comes to individual behavior.

    Seriously, which part of this isn't racist? That black men have not met his standard of speaking out against crime, so it's okay to treat them all as criminals for his safety? Or the bit where he says they should "emulate asian men" because their stereotype is "studious reflection and harmlessness."
    Yes, he points out that stereotypes don't fit everyone... but he still treats them as valid. That it's okay to treat all black men as if they were criminals and, besides, they should act like another group's stereotype!
    I just don't see any way to avoid the fact that this is a racist statement. And it should not be endorsed on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "so it's okay to treat them all as criminals for his safety?"
    "That it's okay to treat all black men as if they were criminals" Ummm...he didn't actually say those things. That's your original research. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you kidding me? Right there in his statement: Often this is a matter of preserving life, limb and integrity, referring to our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype". That's not OR, that's fucking blatant. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere does he state that it's okay to treat all black men as criminals. Sorry, it's just not there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you're willfully blind. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I just don't believe in imaginary things. But we don't see to be making any progress here, so let's just agree to disagree, OK? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: Okay, as Kyohyi points out, this statement is from last year. It's pretty clear in its intent but, if it hasn't happened since (and doesn't happen again), there's no point pursuing it now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response by Apostle 12

    The request for sourcing at time of comment on racial (or other controversial) topics is an easy one to observe. While I am a stickler for sourcing when editing articles, this is the first time sourcing has been requested for Talk comments. Perhaps this should become a WP policy for all Talk commentary. Question: Would it be useful for me to go back and provide reliable sourcing for each of the examples I gave on White Privilege Talk and on Criminal Black Man Stereotype Talk? I can certainly do so, however I suspect it might turn out to be more disruptive than not.

    For the record, I have never referenced personal experiences or perspectives while editing any article, especially those having to do with race; at most such experiences have served as a reality check, and the emotions associated with such experiences serve only to increase my commitment to racial impartiality.

    There is also no need to relate further personal experiences on Talk if the consensus is that such storytelling is objectionable. I have done so only rarely (UseTheCommandLine mined my edit history to provide examples) and this is the first time anyone has objected. Except for UseTheCommandLine, other editor comments have been positive. I do believe occasional storytelling is a positive endeavor, as long as it is not heavily laden with agenda.

    I have observed that legal sanctions against racial commentary have been counterproductive in repressive societies (the former Soviet Union and Singapore come to mind), and those societies tend to make little progress in this area. My personal preference would be for more open dialogue. Apostle12 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a forum to dialogue about race. This is not a blog or a chatroom. This Project is not about your personal opinions of the Soviet Union or Indonesia, or how their societies deal with race, nor is it about your opinions about how black men, or asians, or urban areas, are or should be. The Pedia has a specific mission and your purported autobiographical material, personal observations, and the conclusions that you draw from them (your "storytelling") are getting in the way of it to such an extent that it has wound up here. However this goes, the advice you have received is to discontinue. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Irrespective of how this community sanctions discussion concludes, the conduct at issue here is also within the scope of the discretionary sanctions provision at WP:ARBR&I#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended), that is, "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". On the basis of the talk page contributions linked to initially, which are at least prima facie problematic in the light of the principle linked to by Newyorkbrad, I am issuing Apostle12 with a discretionary sanctions warning as provided for at WP:AC/DS#Warnings. This allows any further potentially problematic conduct to be reported and sanctioned via WP:AE.  Sandstein  10:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. I was earlier prepared to let this off with a warning, but two factors lead me to see that this is not enough. First, Apostle12 has continued to use this very page as forum for their personal experiences and for arguments that "racial commentary" and "storytelling" should continue. Second, and much more seriously, despite the extensive comments above about the kind of reliable sources required to avoid OR, and promises from Apostle12 that they are stickler for good sources etc etc, the source they have come up with to support their cherry-picked statistic about "white privilege" being less plausible, [48], while confirming the statistic about STDs in African Americans, draws precisely the opposite conclusion from the one Apostle12 was trying to use it for. It is this misuse of sources to make a completely different point, despite extensive and recent coaching that tips me over the edge. Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I haven't seen any evidence that would warrant such a drastic sanction as topic-banning. I think that a reminder that talk pages are for improving an article, not for telling personal stories or general discussion should be sufficient. @Apostle12: You've ruffled a lot of people's feathers. While I don't agree with them, the fact is that this is a collaborative enviroment. You have to figure out a way to get along with everyone. If you're saying things that are pissing other people off, stop saying them. Otherwise, you will get topic-banned the next time around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support due to consistent soap boxing and consistently using his own personal experience for the basis of profoundly negative comments on talk pages. as an aside; I'm generally sympathetic to a very limited amount of off-topic posting if a person has a particularly salient point which may have some possible relevance, but the editors comments are determined from his own limited experiences with little critical analysis. There is a reason why people shouldn't base arguments off personal experience; it's subject to "hidden persuaders" like cognitive bias, hidden variables etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban On all race related topics at Wikipedia, editors with unpopular viewpoints are sanctioned for far less than their opponents are. If Apostle12 is topic banned, he will be another example. He has done much less than what people with the opposite perspective can get away with. For the diffs presented in this thread, Sandstein's warning is enough. Akuri (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The one instance that is being discussed is over eight months old. At this point I believe any sanctions would become punitive, instead we should take him up on his offer of not having any more personal commentary on these articles, and remind him that he should stick to talking about article content. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that's a valid point. (And it's the only valid objection so far, IMO.) Though the comment he made was pretty blatant, 8 months really is long enough for this to be stale. If it doesn't happen again, that should be the end of it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't see any reasonable basis for a topic ban. The claim of "racism" seems terribly weak to me and based more on personal attitudes on the subject, which is why people shouldn't be sanctioned merely for expressing an objectionable opinion or being perceived as having a certain attitude on a subject. Detailing one's personal experiences or personal opinion is hardly a problem unless that is all the editor is doing and this does not appear to be the case here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So I got a couple of people emailing me about this. I should have turned emails off, frankly. I logged in to change my user page slightly. But I wanted to clear some things up and hopefully, provoke a little more discussion here.

    I, of course, Strongly support the topic ban. But I challenge anyone to show where I called Apostle12 a racist. I may have said something at one time like "that sounds racist" or perhaps "it's very hard for me to AGF based on that comment" or the like, but it was users like TParis who initially made hay of the connection between racism and Apostle12's statements. I left in a huff, certainly, and I do not dispute that.

    In going over this discussion, one of the things that troubles me is that people are focusing on these statements in particular. They were simply the most egregious ones I was aware of, and knew roughly the dates and times and places. But to be absolutely clear, the reason I filed this incident in the first place is because of the extensive, consistent, counterproductive soapboxing that i had repeatedly attempted to civilly suggest was unwelcome, and which despite this was continued.

    And honestly, some of you who are admins are clearly not doing your due diligence. I am quite sure that this pattern of violating WP:NOTFORUM can be demonstrated throughout Apostle12's edits. Take a look at some of his speculations on Project MKULTRA or the 1951 Pont-saint-esprit mass poisoning. or look at the sourcing dispute I had with him about Huey P. Newton. Take a look at his comments on the Franklin child prostitution ring. Take a look at the failed RfC/U. This is an editor who flaunts or ignores policy when it pleases him and has a long history of doing so. And to see policy flaunted, especially for relatively new editors like myself who take great pains to learn policies and try and follow them, falsely believing that they are "the ropes" to be learned here, seeing them undermined, especially in this way, leaves me little faith in this Project.

    Which, at base, is why I have decided to leave. I am still not sure whether this will be temporary. I have things in my life going on that require me to be less distracted for the next several months, and WP is one of my major distractions, so there will be, as noted, a minimum of 3 months of proverbial radio silence. I know I've broken that already, but I wanted to publicly acknowledge the words of affirmation I have received, and correct what I felt to be mischaracterizations.

    I admonish all of you, please, look at the history of Apostle12's edits. I did not simply fly off the handle here. This was simply the last straw for a sustained pattern of abusive and policy-violating behavior, and for which I had no other recourse. Whatever you think of his racism-or-not-racism, that is not specifically why i filed the dispute, simply a strongly aggravating factor. I also challenge you to find similar disruptive or tendentious behavior or edits in my own history. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ shutdown -h now 01:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The MKULTRA comments seemed completely legitimate to me. WP:NOTAFORUM is not some absolute prohibition on all comments that do not explicitly concern edits. So long as editors stay mostly focused on content, commenting about the subject shouldn't be a big deal.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is likely, that what is being pointed to is Apostle12 calling the other editor a troll. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not clear either whether the views of the small tag team currently editing Race and intelligence from a race realist perspective should be taken into account. On previous occasions that group has accused Dougweller and KillerChihuahua of various misdeeds (meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry). Accusations of bias are now being made about MastCell following his comments in this thread.[49][50][51][52] Mathsci (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to call me and The Devil's Advocate scientific racists, do it outright. It would be a personal attack, but it would be less passive-aggressive than your hiding the link to the scientific racism article behind the words "race realism".
    Why should our opinions count for less than yours and your own little group of supporters? Akuri (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinions or supporters. Very few editors edit the mathematics articles I edit. I have the same reaction to you as MastCell. Bewilderment and astonishment at the degree of gamesmanship and attempted wiki-litigation in your edits. BTW "race realism" is the term used by the late J. P. Rushton to describe his own work. Try clicking on race realism to see the problem with the redirect.
    You have on several occasions explained how you have apparently been "studying" past arbcom cases or failed arbcom requests. That seems to be a misplaced effort. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. Even after making only 45 edits, a large proportion of them seem wholly unrelated to that goal. I have no idea why you grilled Dougweller on his talk page as you did (when editing in the range 101.0.71.0/24) or why you have apparently done the same to MastCell. They are fine administrators, well aware of how to perform administrative tasks as well knowledgeable in their own areas of expertise (archaeology and medicine). For your 40th edit you posted a "discretionary sanctions" warning on the talk page of ArtifexMayhem.[53] In the circumstances it would seem to carry no weight at all (e.g. it's unlogged). All very odd for a newly arrived user. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no opinions or supporters? Really? And this finding of fact and this one, those are about what you did in a topic area where you have no opinions? Most people who have no opinion in a topic don't become so involved that they are the subject of multiple ArbCom rulings about said topic.
    You see, if I'm going to edit race and intelligence articles, and you're going to show up to claim things like that in every discussion that's even remotely related, it's essential that I know about this history. If I didn't, I couldn't tell so easily when you say things that make no sense. 101.0.79.22 (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose weak oppose It appears the comments in question are 8 months old. The user may have a troubling POV, but nothing has been presented to indicate he can't work within the rules. Hobit (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    These aren't 8 months old: [54][55]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I don't know if those had been raised before, I'd not seem them. One is still quite old (5 months?) the other much more recent. I'm not certain that topic-banning this person is the right call, but my AGF bucket is now empty. I'd prefer we wait an see if the warning is enough, but the topic ban isn't unreasonable, so moving to weak oppose. I'd like an acknowledgement from the user that personal stories and feelings on issues don't belong on the talk pages. I will say that on a quick pass the article appears to be fairly balanced. If this user is contributing in a useful way in mainspace on the article, I'd hope the closing admin would take that into account. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is kind of my point, all the problems were on talk pages, not articles, and they weren't overt. The solution isn't the ban hammer, not yet anyway. We do ourselves a favor if we use the least aggressive method of dealing with a problem that will get the job done. Since the person is communicative, there is a lot of time between problem edits and he is not combative, then a warning and education are a better first solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Biala Gwiazda is at it again with Rutgers-Newark

    Last month, User:Biala Gwiazda persisted in edit-warring at Rutgers-Newark by trying to move the page to Rutgers University, Newark and retitling the schools name in the article. I sought third opinion, page protection, and ANI last time and the result of that discussion was that Rutgers-Newark is the right name per WP:COMMONNAME and other policies. Apparently, despite just warning him on his talk page that further attempts to rekindle an edit-war would be reported and to advise him to seek a consensus at the talk page, the user seems to want to get back into edit-war. Request administrative assistance to "nip this in the bud" once and for all.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently, after looking at the user's contributions, this is his recent return to editing after the edit-war concluded in mid-March (SEE: [56])--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits in question: --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • At 00:07, 9 April 2013 by Biala Gwiazda [57]
    • At 00:33, 9 April 2013 by IP user 71.172.142.178 who I suspect because of the MO is Biala Gwiazda [58]

    Update: Starting this forced the user back to the talk page at Rutgers-Newark and discontinue his reverting editwar, but I think we still need an administrator to referee it, because the discussion is a repeating loop because of the user's intransigence. I will seek another opinion at WP:3O as well--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your threats arent needed nor do they scare me or anyone else. None of your threats made me go back to the page, i completely forgot about it and chose to finish the discussion there. Regardless where the discussion is, you're not helping in resolving the issue nor are you co-operating. I suggest stop complaining and hiding behind your screen and contribute something worthwhile to the discussion instead of harassments. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kavdiaravish/User:Stonex201

    This user, posing as a PhD student, has been spamming articles with links to en.wahooart.com (a commercial site). After his (presumably) first account was caught, he apparently stopped editing and came up under a new account. For reference see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#A large number of articles need checking and User talk:Drmies/Archive 47#The best way to check all of the articles by an editor. I'll be starting an SPI shortly to look for other socks, but something needs to be done about all the articles at User:Writ Keeper/sandbox and the articles created by Stonex201 and any other accounts. I'd also like to see wahooart.com put on a blacklist (or better yet create an edit filter so we can easily detect future socks). Ryan Vesey 01:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering all of the problems (OR, copyvio, factual innacuracies, etc.) I think our best solution might be to nuke all of his articles and those of his socks. One article made it to DYK after extensive work by other editors, so I assume the nuke function would pass on that one. Ryan Vesey 01:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree with Ryan Vesey: one article (Young Man at His Window) was thoroughly rehabbed and is worthy; a few others have been scrubbed of copyvio and gross errors but what remains is usually negligible (e.g., The Seducer, The Meaning of Night (painting), The Blue Room (painting)). A few of the articles—particularly Gilles painting (sic)—are about works so famous that I'm surprised they didn't already have articles, but in this case the Watteau article actually says more about the painting than the painting's own article does. Eventually somebody may develop some of these stubs but until then these are mere placeholders with (perhaps) too little content to reward the reader's search. Ewulp (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. See also the wahooart favicon. Coincidence? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point, I'm going to let the ban discussion sit for a little bit to gather some more comments. Assuming no dissent, I'm then going to go through the list and delete anything that a) hasn't had significant contributions by other editors (so y'all's stuff will be safe) and b) hasn't been stubified. Not all of it is showing up on a quick Google search, but at this point, all of the stuff with decent grammar has read as if it came straight out of some other book, and I have little doubt that that's in fact what happened, probably from the very books that have been listed as sources. No doubt that the OP thought citing the source makes the wholesale copying okay; it does not. (As an aside, what's in my sandbox now is really more Ryan's show than mine, but I'm going to use it for this anyway.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've started deletions; I'll be doing them in batches (it's kinda too depressing--not to mention mind-numbing--to do it in one sitting). I've already passed over some articles with major edits by others, but if I accidentally deleted one that someone is attached to, just let me know and I'll restore it (sans copyvio, if necessary). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done some minor work on one of the deleted articles, but i fully understand the rationale behind the mass nuking of articles by proven copyright violators (i read the darius dhlomo discussions with great sorrow), and i know i can ask content to be userfied to see if there is anything worth salvaging (without any copypasting of course). its a minor inconvenience compared to the task of policing wp. How the hell do you folks (well, we folks) do this ridiculously hard work of policing 4 million articles? copyvio and BLP vio are simply unacceptable, and must be removed if there is any doubt, collateral damage be damned (mostly). other problems are less, well, problematic.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, all I can say is: the next time someone asks whether IP editors are worth it, point them to IP99 and tell them to stop whining. 99 has been a friggin' champion with dealing with this mess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We've got another sockpuppet actively creating articles, can we get a quick block? Ryan Vesey 03:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Obvious sock is obvious. Blocked. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, that should just about do it for the deletions (big thanks go out to Ewulp, 99, Drmies, et al.). Just let me know if I deleted something that was salvageable, and I'll restore it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban discussion

    I just looked at the contributions of Amritj12 (talk · contribs). If you have that powerful admin tool in your pocket or thereabouts, have a look: I deleted all of their contributions as blatant, and I mean absolutely BLATANT, copyvios. I would like to see a ban, de facto and de jure and de rerum naturae, so we can (more) easily delete the many contributions by this editor and their socks. Having placeholders is one thing (personally, I feel it's a very good thing), but all of them would have to be pruned for spam and copyvios, and by keeping the articles, and the master's name, we're in fact rewarding them for breaking the rules. And sheesh, these are just bad, bad copyvios. Know how you can tell if one of their sentences isn't copied from a book or some art site on the bad? Cause they can't write English worth a s--t. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as above. All of the articles I've looked at (ones by Ankushk) so far contain significant copyvios. It's pretty easy to tell the difference, as Drmies said: in these articles, it would appear that a sentence is grammatically correct if and only if it is a copyright violation. (Plus, a ban would let me reclaim my sandbox.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Writ, can you make an edit filter so we can discover any new instances of wahooart being used as an external link? I think that would be the best way to catch future socks. Ryan Vesey 18:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check out Special:AbuseFilter/545. No hits so far (it only checks for relatively new accounts creating new pages), in log-only mode for now, and I'm sure an EFM wizard can make some more optimizations (it seems to be fine on runtime, but is that really the number of conditions it should be consuming?). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Is the Wikipedia article about Albert Bierstadt copied from them, or is theirs copied from Wikipedia without attribution? RNealK (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Their article here is copied from us without attribution. Much of the text copied into their article was introduced into ours with this edit, but it is evident that multiple changes occurred to that before our article reached the version seen in theirs. Ryan Vesey 04:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Kavdiaravish's disruptive sockpuppeteering as well as his articles that have significant copyvios demonstrates that we cannot waste any more time on dealing with him. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I don't typically support indefinite ban discussions, partly because I find them a bit redundant to indefinite blocks, and partly because I'd prefer to guide users to better behavior rather than block them. However, in this particular case I do think it is warranted if for no reason then because of the "clean up" factor that Drmies mentions. So support per all the above. — Ched :  ?  06:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    HOPEFULLY BEING RESOLVED
    Working to steer the relative in the direction of helping us improve the biography in question Nick (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi. I'm bringing this to you because quite honestly it looks to be getting out of control. CACook7 seems to be having problems with the article John Call Cook and is claiming through the text of his user talk page that User:Huon is reverting all his edits out of spite. This has escalated now to the fact that CACook7 has taken the matter of edits to the article and associated issues to the Wikimedia Foundation. He has also made a legal threat to rescind all of his past donations to Wikipedia, if necessary via court action.

    The suggestion has also been made (twice now) that our ethos is that we back each other up, even when we know we're wrong. I have made it very clear that this is simply not the case, and I don't appreciate the intimation. I may have some odd principles, but I'm not an ass-licker. I follow rules (except when they're there to be ignored).

    The note I left was almost immediately deleted on CACook7's next edit, and he's now essentially repeated the same thing. I realize I've only been here for just over a week, but I've watched Wikipedia for more than 6 months prior to joining to learn how you work, and I'm well aware of the Civility policy, which my message broke for certain, and WP:NLT and WP:NPA which I'm pretty sure CACook7 has broken. The thing is, this is escalating quite fast and I think it's time to get external involvement to cool things off by whatever means necessary. The user claims to have tried normal dispute resolution, so let's try something not in the normal list. Your help will be welcomed, regardless of the outcome. Humblesnore (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    All contributors involved have been notified (except me, I sorta know that I've put this here already!) Humblesnore (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still very much a fan of the restorative powers of a nice warm cup of tea and an extended period of quiet reflection in this case. The intricate ways of the wikipedians can be as tricky and frustrating for a new editor as the ancient labyrinth, particularly where in a case like this it is wished to pay tribute to a recently deceased relative. That said, I'm sure a kind uninvolved editor might be able to add a few pointers/ words of advice without further escalating the drama --nonsense ferret 11:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy with such an outcome. I've tried my best to explain to CACook7 the rationale for my Cook-related edits (see for example this explanation for these edits) but obviously I failed, and by now whatever I write seems to be ignored or dismissed as poor judgement born of my supposed biases. Huon (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would ask for an admin-level or higher to work with on this matter. nonsenseferret had prior showed reason and compassion, but has now joined in the pile-on. I did ask in IRC that MartijnH help, but apparently he was away. Humblesnore's only purpose here apparently was to horn in and pile on as well.
    I am not here to discuss this with editors anymore; this is for admins and above. It is senseless to have duplicated the John_Calhoun_Cook bio in John_Calhoun_Cook, John_C._Cook, and John_C_Cook as Huon had done, reversing my disambig to the two known as John C. Cook during their lives. These changes were made against me for apparent emotional reasons, and corrupted the normal course of internal references to Wikipedia articles. Huon insisted on turning over my article at John_Call_Cook while I was in the middle of editing it, after it had been published by MartijnH. These and other aggressive and assaultive actions by Huon have caused me to lose all confidence in him. All articles and references related to mine are now a mess, with senseless thrashing about by emotional editors protecting their own. I have demonstrated that I conform to true and honest rules of Wikipedia; but I will not countenance mini-dictators pushing people around to show how powerful they are with arbitrary actions.
    I now better understand how Wikipedia articles are designed, but anticipate harassment from certain ones on anything I do after this little episode, and so request an arbiter of higher rank to turn to when insincere re-edits are made of my pages. I ask that proper disambigs be restored at John_C._Cook. John_C_Cook, J._C._Cook, and J_C_Cook. And that the mess of this argument be removed permanently. This is all I have ever asked, aside from being LEFT ALONE. CACook7 (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was never here to "pile it on" and "horn in". I came to your page to warn you about a personal attack against Huon. I then later noticed your statement about our ethos being to "back each other up, even when we're wrong" - which I didn't like, and found offensive. And I told you as much. You deleted that, and then repeated it. The only person here who has done anything wrong right now, is you, by threatening to rescind your donations (which you can't do anyhow - it's been tried before), and generally making things very difficult for yourself, very quickly. Don't get me wrong - we're HAPPY to leave you alone, as long as you follow the rules and understand what you're getting yourself into by making legal threats and accusing others of vindictive behaviour. Any legal threat on here stands a risk of you being indefinitely blocked until you withdraw it. I'm gonna butt out now, since you clearly seem to think I'm as bad as everyone else in this mess. Trust me though, turn down the attitude, sit back and take a chill pill. We're not all out to get you. Humblesnore (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks in user page

    I have repeatedly been forced to remove personal attacks by user Rak-Tai from his user page and also from my user page, where he accuses me of harassing him personally as well as enlisting my "cronies" to remove articles that he had written. I do not have any "cronies" here on wikipedia but if I did, it wouldn't be the kind of thing I would do. User Rak-Tai denies that what he is doing is considered a personal attack and instead says that he is "only stating facts". I have in the past advised him to take his accusations to the administrators but he never did. User Rak-Tai holds a personal grudge against me because of an AfD I started on an article that he had written. After our first disagreement about his censorship on the Pattaya article and Prostitution in Thailand article I did indeed loosely monitor his edits for similar behaviour as, at least to me, this type of behaviour borders on vandalism. I hope that user Rak-Tai can be made to see that personal attacks are not permissible on wikipedia. - Takeaway (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Takeaway, I can understand your anger - but I have undone your reversion on Rak-tai's talk page. Despite what he's done, and an administrator will take him to task for that, he has asked you quite strongly and clearly to stop editing his talk page, something which he has every right to do. If you wish, I will remove the edits, but when he asks you to stay off his page, and you persist in editing it, that does look like harassment, regardless of the reason why you did it. Sorry :( Humblesnore (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He has the right to ask me to stay off his page but, seeing that this is a clear-cut personal attack, it would seem that I too have the right to remove it from his talk page per WP:RPA. - Takeaway (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, now I've seen RPA - I understand that is correct. My apologies to you Takeaway. I will remove the personal attack in accordance with what you had previously done. Humblesnore (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What exactly is the issue here, I see lots of heat but bugger all light. Is there a list of these AfDs, evidence that the nominations are spurious or in bad faith etc ? Or is everybody having a moan because it's the start of the week and there's nothing better to do ? Nick (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given the user a final warning, asking them to stop posting accusations on their user page without evidence. If they have a genuine concern, they should bring it here, with adequate evidence. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot believe we're actually wasting time on this - ignore the user page and move on with life, Takeaway. It's not worth getting upset over. It's certainly not worth edit warring with a user who has left Wikipedia and is only returning to maintain their user page in the state they want it to remain. I'd maybe have considered some sort of action against Rak-Tai but you admit the allegations he is making against you are substantially true, that you did loosely monitor his edits, so I cannot see what the trouble is. You should have ignored him in 2010, nobody should be asking you to ignore him three years later. Nick (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why Rak-Tai chose to reply on this issue on Nick's talk page instead of here but it is there that I posted my subsequent reply. - Takeaway (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyvios by User:Eric abiog

    The above user has multiple warnings for copyvios, as early as September last year. Today, he created this page, which copies a plot summary from [59]. The user appears to be unresponsive to communication (0 user talk edits).

    I will open a WP:CCI shortly. MER-C 12:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've started with a timed block. If he continues, I think an indef would be in order. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The CCI is at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130409 if anyone wants to help. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious editing by KatieBoundary

    KatieBoundary (talk · contribs) has launched on a campaign of article blanking at Yasheng Group and Silk Route Museum, claiming that the material is unsourced. While it is true that the sources for Yasheng Group are largely primary sources or trivial (business listings at NYT and the company's own SEC 10-K filings), denoting a certain lack of notability, the sources can be trusted to verify the existence of the company. Katie's actions appear to be predicated on her assertion that the Yasheng Group is a fraudulent company set up by David Korem, a renowned fraud. However, no evidence has been provided to verify this assertion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition she has mis-used an edit warring template against both WikiDan61 and myself, and almost blanked Silk Road Museum twice, despite my finding of a primary source for uncontroversial material such as floor area.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply of Katie Boundary - WP:V says, "any material challenged... must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Removal of unsourced content is challenging it. So it must be attributed to a reliable published source. There is not a single reliable source for any of the content in either article. Observing VP:V is not being tendentious. Incessant argument that WP:V can be ignored, and accusations of tendentious editing of those who follow WP:V, is. KatieBoundary (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    :The "biggest floor space in China" and multiple inconsistent claims all over the fraud notice websites, used as a phony claim in a pump and dump scheme for a nonexistent museum, is not "uncontroversial". All false claims are "controversial". Please follow WP:V and WP:RS. KatieBoundary (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

    • Re WikiDan comment - "the sources can be trusted to verify the existence of the company" - A fraudster's own webpage is not "trusted" to verify the facts it asserts under WP:V or WP:RS. I have repeatedly asked WikiDan to follow WP:RS, but he refuses, instead making up his own bases for WP:V.
    • Note that the Yasheng Group article and Silk Route Museum article utterly lack notability, and have no secondary sources whatsoever. Moreover, they are accused of being part of a massive Chinese securities fraud scheme[60].
    You have not given any evidence at all that the museum is connected in any way apart from the company being one of the sponsors of a fund setup by the museum. You have also misused warning templates against me, and just blanked the article again. What is controversial about the museum article?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    ::I am not supposed to "give evidence" - You are supposed to obey WP:RS. As I wrote, the talk page section pointing out a total lack of any WP:RS sources was blanked, and massive unsourced content removed. I deleted the content, and restored the talk page section. (Evidecnce - They have the same office address in the (inconsistent from year to year) corporate filings, the same tiny office space used by David Korem. But again, I am not supposed to "give evidence" - You are supposed to obey WP:RS. ) KatieBoundary (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • You have now violated 3RR by removing the material 4 times in 2 hours. I would be delighted if you could show me any of this evidence you keep talking about but haven't actually shown anywhere. I am obeying RS and you are, actually, responsible for justifying your actions, especially when you have broken 3RR.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    I am not party to the matter, but I rewrote the entire article I did which included the material she was concerned about (I was able to source it)). As for the inappropriate use of edit warring templates they are correct Katie, that template was used incorrectly :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 14:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    ::I am not a party either. I am a geologist. I found out about these phony companies when they advertised owning all the mineral and fossil rights in the Gobi desert, and when I contacted my Chinese colleagues at the California Academy of Sciences, working in the Gobi desert, they supposed "museum" did not exists, and the CEO Chang Sheng Zhou was listed as having been in prison for securities fraud. I looked into it, and there were no sources at all in the article. KatieBoundary (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If you have looked into it, please feel free to share the sources that you uncovered. Your Chinese colleagues, and a sketchy stock alert website, are no more reliable sources than anything else that you have complained about. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The securities fraud is legitimate see this, the museum itself is the source for the association with the group here. The group reached a settlement with a former shareholder. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 15:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it sponsors a fund set up by the museum, which is not the same thing.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (A part of this section appeared to have been duplicated somehow, so I've removed the other copy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

    Thanks, I think it was an edit conflict of mine.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Solarra: actually, no, this does not verify securities fraud. It verifies that Yasheng and a complainant entered into a settlement agreement without either party admitting any wrongdoing or liability. Such a settlement is not an admission or proof of guilt. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true, but it does establish that validity of the claim that the company has engaged in fraud, as do the sources Katie cites, enough to warrant inclusion. The whole goal here is mutual consensus and for all parties to be satisfied by what is included in the article :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 15:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, a settlement does not "establish the validity" of the accusation. It merely states that they paid a settlement to make the plaintiff go away. Sometimes that's cheaper than a full court trial. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    *Will you three please stop playing WP:OR detectives, trying to reargue whether WP:RS is still a policy? Neither of these articles have any WP:Notability secondary source. None has a single reliable source cited anywhere at all. An anon IP came in and blanked the talk page pointing this out, then wrote a huge mass of unverifiable nonsense, and you three are trying to reargue whether WP:RS still is a olicy at Wikipedia, replaced by whatever detective work you come up with. WP:RS is dispositive. If there are reliable secondary sources to establish notability, then the article stays up. Reliable primary sources can be cited, but only qualified that the content comes from the sourc3e itself. But that is only if it is reliable, such as Harvard University posting its own museum square footage. A museum that claims in various places to be the biggest in the world, but has somehow avoided being written up in any newspaper or arvchit3ectural review, is not reliable. If there is a WP:RS, it can go in. If not, it cannot. Case closed. KatieBoundary (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I reread WP:Notability and WP:RS among other websites, honestly after spending over an hour attempting to find a WP:RS which would satisfy all parties for the museum itself, I am unable to do so, while I can source the claims Katie makes, I cannot source the museum itself outside user generated sites (TripAdvisor, etc) which would not be acceptable per WP:RS. I suggest we redirect the museum article to the Yusheng Group page, as that meets WP:Notability (barely) but frankly after trying to find a source for over an hour I am beginning to side with Katie that the article itself shouldn't exist, although for different reasons. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 16:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not entirely surprising given that none of us read Chinese, so I left a request for assistance on the WikiProject noticeboard.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    More importantly, will the lot of you stop filling up the space with rehashed arguments. If this gets much longer, admins will ignore it and let it archive itself from the reams of TLDR that is already starting to fill up this space. Blackmane (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    :Gilderien just wrote, “I have not added any content to this article beyond minor copy-edits”.[61] In fact, Gilderien added huge amounts of content that are not "minor copy-edits",[62] all without a single reliable source. So did WikiDan61.[63] So did Solarra.[64] All of this is in violation of WP:RS. It is not tendentious to require WP:V. KatieBoundary (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and that was a revert of basically a page blanking. It is highly mis-leading to call these edits adding content.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While content that does not have a reliable source can be removed, it only must be removed if it is controversial information about a living person. There is no policy or guideline that says that non-BLP unreferenced content must be removed. There is, however, also no policy or guidline that says sources must be available online - offline sources are equally valid, and the possibility of offline sources being available must be considered before deciding an article "must be removed" - and if it really does have no place in the encyclopedia, the place to 'remove' it is Articles for Deletion, where I see the articles in question now are. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V says, "any material challenged... must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Removal of content having citation needed tags up for months is challenging it. So it must be attributed to a reliable published source. Observing this policy is not being tendentious. KatieBoundary (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    KatieBoundary (talk · contribs) appears to be the former PPdd (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely banned by Toddst1 for a number of questionable edits to various articles. A review of the articles this user is editing and the content this user is attempting to include in articles seems to confirm that this user is one in the same. An Admin may have more tools available to connect any remaining dots. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    File an SPI report then - absent one, you might be breaching AGF alas. Collect (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Copernicus mass sockpuppetry

    In the two recent months a mass sockpuppetry has disturbed the article Nicolaus Copernicus to disturb three years of a quiet consensus [65]

    • User:207.112.105.233 and User:70.28.16.8 from Toronto disturb the talk page. From the language it's an obvious sockpuppet of User:Serafin and the IP betrayed itself [66]
    • User:Astronomer28 is a single-purpose account raised in 2008 to help User:Nihil novi, who sockpuppeted years before as Logologist on the same article.[67] Astronomer28 was suspected in his first appearance in 2008 [68] but his new sockpuppetry is apparently technically improved since Logologist's earlier puppets. Five years later Astronomer28 came back to revert reliably for Nihil novi every single time and for him alone. He was warned about an indefinite block for any further revert before having a consensus but being a throwaway account ignored it.[69]
    • User:Mieszko 8 is a single-purpose account caught and blocked for sockpuppeting.[70] During the block, he continued sockpuppeting [71] and is now back for more reverting. --89.204.155.98 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    H'mmm... does the Sock go round the Puppet, or the Puppet round the Sock?!?! Basket Feudalist 15:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At least one of the above IPs looks to be a sock of Serafin. See the just-reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Serafin. The two IPs may be the same person. I had previously warned Astronomer28 (talk · contribs) that he was getting near an indef block due to his warring at Copernicus and the time may have come for that. Mieszko 8 (talk · contribs) has just been blocked two months by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I would be surprised if User:Nihil novi has anything to do with this; he is an established editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a sockpuppet and have only advocated the NPOV. I did not set up the account to help Nihil novi or anyone else, but rather because I was interested in the debate. My account is completely legitimate. I request my editing privileges be restored so I can edit articles. Thank you. Astronomer28 (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the user William M. Connolley has erased my resolution proposal on the Talk page. Astronomer28 (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Turn on pending changes. This is what it is for.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          05:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No it is not. PC is no more effective at stopping edit-wars or determined sockpuppets than semiprotection, and in fact may give the latter an audience. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 07:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been on semiprotection almost all of the time since at least 2008. But the parties edit-warring now are established editors, so neither semiprotection nor pending changes will solve that. I sanctioned two persons who I thought were among the worst offenders yesterday (as somebody noted further up in this thread), but got bogged down over contemplating with whom to continue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Experts needed at Nikah mut‘ah, disruptive editing

    I need some experts over at Nikah mut‘ah. Over the last week or so there have been organized efforts by some IPs to edit the page with some other editors preventing them. Problem is while the IPs are undergoing 3RR and other disruptive editing I don't have enough of an idea around the topic to determine if they have a point or not (though some edits are blatantly not appropriate.) I've blocked one IP for edit warring and disruptive editing last week, and another account indefinitely today for impersonation of another user, but I admit to being at a complete loss on the article content. If anyone has some knowledge of Islam and can assist, please take a look. Canterbury Tail talk 17:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Re-blocked edit warring IP, and added pending changes protection to the article. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 21:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP was edit warring in preference to his/her own WP:NOR-violating version of the article. Good block, good protection. That said, the article could use some more Western analysis of the topic, in which the custom is compared in various ways to prostitution. Reliable sources can be found at Talk:Prostitution in Iran. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: Talk:Tea Party movement

    Five days ago I asked for an admin to close a discussion and make a finding of consensus or no consensus. I was told that the discussion had to run at least seven days. Well, now it's been seven days. At that time, the raw vote was 6-4. Now it's 8-3. Please read this, determine whether we have consensus (and for what). post your findings and close the discussion. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't RfCs run 30 days? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't an RfC — which invites input from editors previously uninvolved in the discussion. It simply asks for a formal statement of "support" or "oppose" from editors who are already involved, along with their supporting arguments based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. An informal survey to determine consensus among editors already present, regarding an editing proposal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The words "at least" are important - discussions such as this run "at least 7 days" ... while there are still policy-based comments being added, why rush things? We're not in a big hurry around here - the project won't die if the discussion continues (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Five days ago, the "vote" was 6-4. Now, it's 8-3. Consensus has become even more clear. Future changes in position by active editors on the page are extremely unlikely. One editor supporting the minority is using the continued lack of finality in this matter as an excuse for tendentious editing, as Arthur Rubin and MastCell have observed. Perhaps I should be seeking sanctions against him instead. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a democracy. A "vote" could be 9-1 and closed in favor of the 1 if the 1 is consistent with policy and the 9 aren't. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never seen them go that way, Bushranger. in this case, as I explained,the eight are consistent with policy and the three aren't. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also a non-zero possibility that one or more of the participants in that talkpage discussion will be topic-banned or otherwise restricted in the ongoing ArbCom case associated with this article. I'm not sure how that possibility weighs into the question of assessing consensus or closing the discussion, but potential closers should be aware of it. MastCell Talk 18:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)::::There is a lot of tendentious editing and discussion going on at the TPm article and Talk page.

    Here is a related issue (WP:CAN), since someone has opened a thread User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#Re:_.22Anti-immigration.22
    I have mentioned this to SilkTork User_talk:SilkTork#TPm_related_Canvassing.3F in the hope of drawing attention to the tension level, maybe expediting the decision in the TPm Arbcom case, which might help stabilize the editing environment there.--Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 18:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please quote the language from WP:CANVASS that forbids convincing someone who has already participated and "voted" in a survey, RfC or other matter, to change his vote. Thanks in advance. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, so this isn't an RfC. Are admins supposed to decide if consensus exists in closing an ordinary article talk page discussion? Maybe they are, but I can't recall having seen this done. Why don't you open an RfC? The input of uninvolved editors should be valued as they have no stake in the outcome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Because that would give the aforementioned editor 30 more days to edit tendentiously. I'm hoping this would put an end to his disruptions so that we can move on. MastCell is an admin. He hasn't indicated there is anything even slightly improper about a previously uninvolved admin determining consensus and closing a discussion when asked. I respectfully suggest that you rely on his judgment in this matter. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins aren't gods and nor do they have Papal infallibility. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since nobody else did, I've opened up an RfC.[72] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gee, thanks. Thirty more days of an editor's tendentious editing, that has already been described that way by at least one admin. I'm so grateful. Has it ever occurred to you that there might be a very good reason nobody else did? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrongly so described by an Admin who is a protagonist for your POV Phenix and Winslow, and he has been explicit he is not acting as an admin. Try and keep it factual rather than 'spinning". You organised a straw poll its not even an RfC and it devided on normal grounds. Use the mediation which is in place and stop forum shopping ----Snowded TALK 13:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "wrongly" opinion is predictable, since the tendentious editor in question is part of your shrinking minority. And yes, the survey to determine consensus is divided on normal grounds: a large group of editors who offer sound arguments, based on Wikipedia policy and a wealth of reliable sources; and a shrinking minority that relies on tendentious editing, guilt by association, and misrepresenting what its tiny number of sources actually say. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Another editor has unilaterally closed the RfC, mischaracterizing the suggestion in the RfC guideline to engage in normal talkpage discussion before opening an RfC as an injunction against opening RfCs without prior consensus. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    To Phoenix and Winslow: You've already tried once to get a early close on the question. That admins and respected users are gently telling you "No, we don't think early closure is appropriate here" is annother hint. From my uninvolved viewpoint and only looking at this thread I see 1 editor who is attempting to get a final conviction read so that the handcuffs of shame can be slapped on. Bold, Revert, Discuss is your friend. I assume someone's done something bold, there was a revert, and now you're discussing. Is it going to be the end of this (democracy/liberty/wikipedia) if the issue is talked out until a consensus is established? There might be a very good policy based reason for why someone is holding out for their viewpoint. I see you trying to use the "Vote Count" argument which is relied upon in the case of a weak argument position. Now that a RfC has been opened it's strongly suggested to run for a minimum of 30 days. Let it run and have some tea. Hasteur (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Is it going to be the end ... if the issue is talked out until a consensus is established? It's clear that a consensus has been established in my opinion; the minority is unwilling to accept it.
    • There might be a very good policy based reason for why someone is holding out for their viewpoint. I don't think so. It's a highly politicized subject, and I think the minority may be resisting consensus due to interests that do not coincide with those of the Wikipedia project. Time will tell (better, at least).
    • I see you trying to use the "Vote Count" argument which is relied upon in the case of a weak argument position. I've also relied very heavy on such policy sections as WP:WEIGHT, which are sections of our "pillar" policies of Wikipedia. These are relied upon in the case of a strong argument position.
    • Now that a RfC has been opened ... It's been closed, I didn't close it, and I really can't stand tea. Care for a beer?
    Seriously, just asking for an admin to take a look, that's all. If the admin feels this should run a bit longer, or that it should go to RfC, I'll accept that. But for now, the lack of finality is being seen as a license by some to engage in disruptive and tendentious editing. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mishae removing spaces and carriage returns from infoboxes

    Hi, folks. Could an uninvolved admin take a look at this situation with Mishae (talk · contribs)? Over the past year several editors (e.g. this and this; this discussion is also helpful) asked Mishae to stop unnecessarily removing spaces and carriage returns or new lines from taxobox code. His apparent reason for reducing a taxobox from an easily edited form to something on all one line such as he did in this edit is that it saves server space to remove those spaces and newline characters (he says it saves 30 bites: diff. I doubt that.) He's been at this for some time and I'm mystified by the concern over server space (so much so that he even edits the auto-generated talk page headings to remove spaces).

    We started a new discussion with Mishae in which a few editors again cautioned Mishae to stop and to please reinstate the taxoboxes. I thought there was an understanding at first, but his taxobox changes were only half undone, e.g. diff (he still left "ordo" and "familia" on the same line and spaces between the parameter and the equals sign were not restored). The discussion has had no participation since last night on 8 April, but it was my understanding that Mishae understood that several editors have told him these edits are becoming disruptive. On 9 April he ignored our suggestions and warnings and carried on with removing spaces and newline characters: diff, diff. I would appreciate someone taking a look at this since he has ignored the concerns of other editors on his talk page and in other discussions over many months. Thanks, Rkitko (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not really an admin issue, however, Mishae SHOULD quickly stop removing the carriage returns in infoboxes. They were designed a specific way, and BS reasoning about "server space" is just ridiculous. When they're told ONCE to stop, they need to stop (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is an admin issue. This has been a long term issue with Mishae. Having been warned not to condense the taxoboxes any more, I feel that a block is necessary to change the behavior. I'd support an indefinite block until he agrees not to condense any taxoboxes or some type of short term block. Ryan Vesey 20:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If he has been asked to stop more than once over months and still does the same thing, hasn't it become an admin issue, especially when others have to go clean up after him? I thought he agreed to stop the last time we discussed it. Rkitko (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are a trator Ryan! I thought I can trust you and you are the same as everyone else! I was doing those edits with other constructive edits! Both Rich Farmbrough and the same Ryan told me its O.K. to do it as long I do other edits as well (its in one of our first discussions)--Mishae (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Misha, I have worked to assist you in situations many times. I have never told you I would take your side on any issue. I pointed out to you that condensing the taxoboxes was disruptive, yet you continued doing so. I also never said it was okay to condense the taxoboxes, I did say that there wasn't a problem if you removed spacing in section headers or after asterisks in bulleted lists if you had another purpose to the edit. Ryan Vesey 20:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Does anyone have a diff showing that he was warned previously and agreed to stop making these types of edits? A brief look through his user talk page only shows the discussion from yesterday. If there is evidence of a clear prior warning, and agreement that Mishae would stop making these edits, then I would say that a short block is in order. The argument that it saves server space is somewhat ridiculous. Even if it did save 30 bytes of server space (which it doesn't), and even if you could do that for all 4.2 million articles (which you couldn't), you'd save a whopping 120MB of server space. Considering that Wikipedia likely has exabytes of server space, the savings would barely be measurable and would have to be described using scientific notation (i.e. "he saved 1.1E-9 percent of available server space"). The theoretical savings in server space do not outweigh the increase in difficulty of reading the wikitext of these articles. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 20:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, my confusion then, sorry... However, I wouldn't be happy if a block will be issued for our missunderstanding or at least until Justin, Dennis and Worm That Turned will show up!--Mishae (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that this is no longer a "misunderstanding", and that you have been told to stop multiple times - we don't need other admins to show up - this is the admin noticeboard, after all. As blocks are preventative, all you need to do is confirm that you will never screw up infoboxes that way ever again and we can move on (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What about restoring those he's already edited? I've gone through dozens already, but it could take some time and Mishae edits much more than I have time to go back and selectively revert. And since this has been thoroughly explained to him through the linked discussions above on numerous occasions I find it very hard to believe that this has been a misunderstanding up to this point. Rkitko (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, it's ultimatum time - Mishae, if you do it just *one* more time, I will block you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So now its a threat, great?!--Mishae (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it's a warning. You're doing something that people find disruptive. You're being told to stop doing that. Even though you think it's helpful, the vast majority of editors do not find it helpful. Consensus seems to be pretty clear on this issue, as I've not seen a single editor who has agreed that saving a couple bytes of server space is preferable to making the wikitext of an article significantly more difficult to read and edit. Editing against consensus is disruptive. Disruption results in blocks, although in most cases, the disruptive editor is first given a warning to ensure that they are aware that their behavior is disruptive. This is that warning. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 21:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be clear, I had warned Mishae at the beginning of this most recent discussion on his talk page that his edits were disruptive and advised that the best thing to do would be to not remove spaces or carriage returns. So he had been warned. Rkitko (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Its sad though that no matter how hard I try, I still get critisism instead of praise. Sure, I don't demand it, but if you will look beyond taxobox edits, I am quite of a good editor who can add sources, categories, expansion of the article in general, etc...--Mishae (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • O.K. Let me make one point clear here, it was missunderstanding between me and Ryan! I will still wait for Justin to show up since I am his adoptee!--Mishae (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Mishae, the only thing that needs to be made clear here is that you will *stop* removing newlines from taxoboxes (or any other infoboxes), or you will be blocked. It is nothing to do with Ryan, or Justin, or anyone, and if you do it again then I will not be waiting for them. Do you understand that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like all blocks: until the community is convinced that the problem will never recur (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you just make sure it doesn't happen, you'll never need to know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is I sometimes can't trust myself, thats why I want to wait for Justin to come here!--Mishae (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are a human being, and you are the only one responsible for your actions. If you're telling us that you will be unable to stop yourself from doing harm to the project unless you're being babysat by a mentor, then perhaps Wikipedia actually is not the best place for you until you can accept responsibility for your personal actions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't trust yourself? WTH? This is not like a "rollback" button where you may accidentally click it when you didn't mean to. This is a deliberate edit that you're doing that should be relatively easy to stop now that you've been told to. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I see on your talk page that you are autistic and suffer from OCD - and I guess that's something you need to work on as part of your mentorship outside of this ANI discussion. Should I need to act in future, I will bear that in mind and will adjust my decision accordingly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When Mishae was last here for personal attacks as well as a similar refusal to follow the advice of other editors on an issue, it was pointed out to him that it is okay for an autistic person to edit here, but they must still function within our guidelines. The discussion I pointed out was a while back, and Mishae has gotten much better in regards to the insults, but I really think we need to consider him to be at the end of his rope. I'm fine with him not being blocked here, but I'm not inclined to give him a fourth chance after that. Ryan Vesey 22:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Ryan for being a human being, now to the Bwilkins comment. We have mentors for a reason, and saying that Wikipedia is not a place for me sounds very unwellcoming! Considering that I wrote almost 2000 articles for the project (yes, majority of them were stubs), it sounds like like someone is being unthankful. As far as Jauerback, it wasn't very nice. Yes, as a matter of fact some people don't trust themselves, because they don't want to be caught in a lie or missunderstanding and its normal, I don't know why you are so shocked by it? As far as my disability goes, try to imagine yourself... You are working hard on this project and all you receive is critisism with which you can't deal with. Sure, its imposible to imagine because you are born without it, so you wont feel the same pain as I am feeling. Yes, I understand that Wikipedia is not a clinic, but at the same time please accept that working in a group due to my autism is not my strengh :( On the other hand I am glad that I could make some friends, help them writing some articles and at the same feel like I am home... You know, its very hard being in a skin of a different person, because autism doesn't make me who I really am, and unfortunatelly I need to live with it, no matter how much I hate it... There is a benefit to it though, due to it I edit and write articles with beyond believe speed and accuracy, that yes, its hard for other editors to catch up, but thats my strengh, strengh that should be appreciated! Considering that English is my second language and I was bannished from the Russian Wikipedia, I am still looking for my home, and I came here because I thought that at least here I will feel like home, but maybe I was wrong...--Mishae (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on Mishae's inability to confirm that they will not repeat the disruptive editing that has led to this ANI report, I recommend an indefinite block until such a time that the community is convinced otherwise. I'm 100% welcoming to new editors who take responsibility for their actions, and who are willing to follow the rules - whether or not they disagree with them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd personally prefer to wait and see if he does the same thing again - he's been warned now, so I don't think we should escalate unless we see a further similar edit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why being so harsh? Every time I have a discussion here I understand my actions, so I will confirm my actions as being disruptive and will try to prevent them in the future. However, I do understand that every discussion here will lead me to a block eventually. By editing Wikipedia I get away from my real life problems, and it makes me feel more closer to the community of normal people...--Mishae (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, here's what you really should try very hard to achieve - do not make *any* white space changes in edits at all. I see you have even been adjusting the white space in other people's comments here in this discussion. JUST STOP IT ALTOGETHER. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yelling at me wont solve anything! Now to Bwilkins: Please understand the difference between willing and can follow the rules. We all have wills and dreams, but sometimes, some people can't follow them and need an additional help with it, I am such case, and thats why I need Justin here as soon as possible! It doesn't mean though that I am refusing to folllow the rules, just sometimes when it comes to lieway, its difficult to know which one to follow and which one is an option... And people can't ignore white space removal? If so, I am viewing it as obsession with trying to find a reason how to block a user! All of the disruption is in your heads, pretend like its not there and everything will be back to normal! Why can't people learn to appreciate the hard work instead of critisising someone for their actions which only included 10% of the whole edit?!--Mishae (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your continued arguing that you're not doing anything wrong, that the disruption is in everyone else's heads, and that you should be allowed to do anything you want and we should have to ignore it, just proves that you are not currently capable of listening or of taking part in collegial community interaction. So I have blocked you for 24 hours. If I didn't do this and you kept on arguing in this style, I believe you would get a more severe block from someone else, so I honestly think this is for your own good. Please spend the time away from Wikipedia, and think about your recent behaviour before you come back and attempt any further discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mishae, the conduct issues aside, I don't know if anyone has told you (maybe they haven't so I will), every edit that you make CONSUMES space on the server. That's because the old version of the article or template is still kept exactly the way it was (you can see it by clicking "view history" and selecting any of the old versions), taking up as much space as it did before. Your new version then takes up space of its own, on top of the space that the old version was using. I just wanted to make sure you understood that. So taking out newlines to "save space on the server" does the exact opposite of what you intended. And the extra space is used not only on the server, but also on all the mirrors and copies that people download (most people read Wikipedia by browsing the web site, but some prefer to download it to their hard disk and read it locally).

      By the way if anyone cares, the total size of English Wikipedia text (all versions of all pages, uncompressed, plus some formatting and metadata) is on the order of 10TB. It compresses down to about 60GB due to so much similarity between successive page versions. So it's not anywhere near exabytes, but even still, 30 bytes here or there won't make any difference. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      People have told him that many times, going back months - but he appears to be incapable of listening. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reccomend indef per WP:CIR - here he claims another user's comment (made last May on his talkpage) says the complete and exact opposite of what the user actually said. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      He does have genuine problems, and he did back off from a similar confrontation a while ago - and he does do a lot of good work too. I'd favour some more rope - see if he's more reasonable when the current 24 hour block expires. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The arguments about each new version of the article taking up space are possibly a red herring here: they are arguments in favour of "Removing undesirable white space, such as multiple carriage returns, while mildly beneficial, should not be done unless you are doing a necessary edit at the same time, but you can of course feel free to make such edits while you are doing a constructive edit". The carriage returns and spaces within templates which Mishae removes are not agreed to be undesirable. Most editors, as shown in comments on his talk page - and in the way that {{Taxobox}} is set out on its documentation page - believe that these spaces are helpful. So Mishae is editing against consensus. Even if he is making a constructive edit at the same time, this removal of spaces and carriage returns is disruptive editing, as it leaves the page more difficult for following editors to read and edit. See his last article-space edit. That is the problem, and has been pointed out since June 2012. PamD 07:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, he's been told that too, but it doesn't sink in -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for unblock! I would like to say that what an anonymous editor have said I agree with. Question: Why did user Rkitko decided to remove years from this article: Cotoneaster humilis even thought that a reference was present... Shouldn't he be blocked now? Lets discuss his behavior!--Mishae (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Because botanical author citations do not conventionally include years, unlike zoological author citations; see Author citation (botany). Rkitko's changes were correct by convention and a stylistic improvement to the article; his behavior was fairly restrained and productive. Demanding that people be blocked when they know what they are doing, and you do not, will probably not lead to a happy life on Wikipedia for you. Choess (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Its funny how people like you decide to teach me a lesson without knowing the whole situation. FYI, I was a Wiki editor for 4 years, and just this year I got into a hot water because of the bullies like yourself! And I didn't demand a block I asked a question, should be simple to understand.

        "Demanding that people be blocked when they know what they are doing, and you do not, will probably not lead to a happy life on Wikipedia for you." - interesting comment. So what you are saying is that its perfectly fine for users to discuss my block even though some of them aren't admins, and yet I should put a gag in my mouth and not ask any questions what so ever?! Wondering if Wikipedia be happy if they will have less editors... I keep up the good work, don't know about people who commented here. Sometimes people block others because of boredom (not my case though). As far as wheather or not it will be a happy life for me or not is not up to you to decide, you aren't God aren't you? Plus, how did I knew that what he did was right? You gave a link and I thank you for it!--Mishae (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate Non-Admin Closure of Deletion Discussion

    Inappropriate NAC by a very good faith editor, discussion reopened, user notified, no harm done. J04n(talk page) 11:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The deletion discussion for Screaming Banshee Aircrew has been closed by a non-admin, King jakob c 2. I do not believe this person, having only been an editor since February 2013, being based in North America and having made contributions mainly on the subjects of angling and river systems, is an appropriate person to make a non-admin closure on a discussion of the notability of a UK goth band in this way; the discussion was still ongoing but it appears his decision may have been made erroneously on a simple headcount. Can this please be reviewed? Paul S (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course, you have discussed this with the editor first, and allowed them to revert .. right? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverted closure and relisted the AfD. Agree that this user is somewhat inexperienced, and probably should wait a bit longer before closing any more AfD's. Also agree that Paul S should have contacted the user before bringing it here. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 21:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still, no one has notified him of this ANI report. I've just done that and tried to explain some of the reasons why closing was a bad idea. In the future, please leave a note on the editor's page when you bring them here, as it states at the top of the page. There is a template for it there as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. I was trying to find exactly what to do and wasn't sure this was even the right place to post Paul S (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note, I've actually been around since August 2012 as King jakob c but lost the password in February so had to create this new account. King Jakob C2 00:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Snotbot is malfunctioning during Task 5

    Snotbot is changing headline hierarchies that do not need changed - it has already changed Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) twice, which was not necessary. I have reverted these changes on both occasions.

    Please confirm instructions for Task 5.Gareth544 (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not a malfunction. The lowest level headers that are used in articles are second level. "==". Snotbot is just implementing the manual of style. GB fan 22:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for that correction GB fan, the stated article now both makes sense and confirms with WP:MOS. While Snotbot may not be malfunctioning, its Task 5 corrections to the article simply replace an existing problem (formatting) with a new one (flow), and so Task 5 could be better implemented. I'm also now aware that headers should be of a maximum second level (although I'm not sure when or where I have "already been told not to use level 1 headings)" and won't make that mistake again. Every day's a school day! Gareth544 (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You could have just asked me about it, rather than bringing it to ANI. Also, you're kinda supposed to let me know about ANI discussions that involve me (and since my bot isn't a human, a discussion that involves my bot arguably involves me). If you have any specific complaints about how "task 5 could be better implemented", please contact me on my user talk page. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 21:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    On Tuesday, 9 April 2013, unregistered editor User:Legend41, identifying himself as the husband of Erica Muhl, telephoned from Los Angeles at approximately 2:40pm local time to object to my “repeated deletions” of “virtually the entire article” on his wife. (Apparently he had looked up my number in the telephone book, since I do not mask my identity on Wikipedia with a pseudonym.) I was a little taken aback since I scarcely recognized the name but, upon investigation, I discovered a single recent edit, made on 8 April 2013: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Muhl&diff=549413048&oldid=549338801. I explained that this edit had restored the only three sources previously found in the article, which he had removed in his own edit. At the same time, I had reverted the addition of several unsourced paragraphs of material. I suggested that he restore those paragraphs, only with the addition of reliable sources. Although he claimed to understand what a reliable source meant in Wikipedia terms, at the same time he suggested that I should telephone family members to verify the truth of these additions, or alternatively he could send me an extended CV which supports the claims. I explained at this point that such things do not constitute reliable sources on Wikipedia, and quoted to him the verifiability, not truth criterion. Brushing this aside, he again accused me of “repeatedly” deleting material, and I found a pair of edits from over a year ago (4 March 2012): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Muhl&diff=480109302&oldid=480109206 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Muhl&diff=480109206&oldid=480103086. I pointed out that my edit summary on that occasion explained that unsourced material challenged since 2009 was being deleted. I also explained that removing long-challenged claims like these is standard practice on Wikipedia, since ample time had passed for sources to be found and provided. At this point, Legend41 threatened legal action if I ever deleted anything further from his wife’s biographical article on Wikipedia, and told me that his wife has considerable experience in such legal matters. I told him that intimidating behavior of this sort is in direct violation of Wikipedia guidelines, that I was reporting him to the appropriate authorities (which I am doing now), and that our conversation was at an end. Because this editor is not a registered user, I am unable to take any further steps to notify him of this report. It appears that I had made only one previous edit to that article, on 13 June 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Muhl&diff=296232620&oldid=288273481. This was a correction of punctuation and several calls for citation made in 2009, presumably some or all of the claims which I eventually deleted three years later. This is the first time in nearly seven years of editing on Wikipedia that anything remotely like this has happened to me. If this is not the right place to report this form of threatening behavior, I would appreciate a pointer to the correct authority.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As we have sufficient jurisprudence to do so, I have indef-blocked for inappropriate off-wiki contact/harassment. Although there has bee no formal on-wiki legal threat, the phone call above is extremely chilling, and dangerous. Jerome, if you feel physically threatened, please contact your local police (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (methinks the OP thinks he's unregistered because his userpage is a redlink ... the edits made by Legend match the rest of the description) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, that sounds likely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    this is just a clarification question, how should we handle the content issue in cases such as this where an individual user has obviously been targeted. My gut is to say we restore content in accordance with wikipedia's guidelines as long as we can determine that no legal problems exist within the content (I understand that we need to take legal threats seriously, and explore them as an actual complaint of content) but in this situation a specific user has been identified. Do we immediately restore the encyclopedia to normal operations, or are there some things we should do beforehand as to not exasperate the situation? I agree with the actions taken in this situation, it is just a question of clarification and to see what policies may apply.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As per the requirements for sourcing on a bio of a living person, I reverted to the version that actually had ref's. Probably the WP:WRONGVERSION, but ref's are important (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes. This is exactly why I use an anonymous handle unique to Wikipedia. That's exactly the kind of behavior we do not want happening to our regulars. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is really guaranteed anonymous with a fake name here, which is why I just use my real name. Privacy on the internet is an illusion, it only takes one slip up or bad friend or email where you use your real name, or one edit while you are logged out. As for BWilkins comments, I agree wholeheartedly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, Dennis. This was one reason I decided in the first place not to bother with an anonymous handle. Thanks to Bwilkins for swift action, and for the expression of concern. There was no threat of physical action, only legal, and though I relish the thought of having the perpetrator hauled off to a police station for questioning over this incident, I don't see any purpose in reporting him at this stage. To User:Boing! said Zebedee, yes, I misspoke. I meant to say that this was a redlinked editor, and so there is no Talk page where he can be notified of my action in reporting him (or am I wrong?). Concerning the content issue here, I notice that the article in question has been tagged (not by me, I hasten to add) for possible non-notability. This in fact was why I reverted that edit in the first place, since it had removed the only tenuous claim to notability that the article possessed. Is it perhaps time that this issue is seriously considered, especially in the light of such strenuous efforts by an individual associated with the article's subject to overcome Wikipedia's requirements of verifiability? Given that I could be seen to be an aggrieved party here, I think someone else probably ought to initiate the festivities.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You can always use a registered user's Talk page to contact them, even if you are the first to create it - they'll still be alerted to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that, thank you. This knowledge may come in useful, though I hope never to encounter a situation like this again.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis, I appreciate the advice, but I'm already aware of that. No one else knows I use this handle on Wikipedia so, unless I forget to log in, it has no link back to me offline. It's not perfect, but it's pseudoanonymous enough for me. Awesome Face — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jerome, if you edit with a handle, law enforcement or very determined stalkers might be able to figure out who you are, but you'll have a reasonable amount of protection from incidents like this. It's like locking your door when you leave the house. The lock might not stop somebody with a big enough sledgehammer, but locking it is still a generally useful method of preventing unwanted intrusions. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    the blocked editor has an unblock request on their talkpage that expresses concern with edits being made to a BLP. Aside from their inappropriate response, shouldn't someone point them towards OTRS so that their issue can be resolved? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I went and declined the unblock. OTRS is a good place to go when reporting BLP violations, but that's not the problem here. Legend41 wants to add content, so it's best he stay onsite. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should remind him that he has not been blocked because of his actions on his wife's article but because called up another editor without provocation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the more curious and chilling things I have seen on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, could it be worth temporarily semi-protecting the article as a pre-emptive measure against any logged-out edit warring? – Richard BB 09:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I had just asked this question, some where, Why Ghosts Only on Wikipedia? and Now after 5 days so upsetting and disturbing things have happened to Jerome. The part of the word, where I live, things do not stop at just a telephone call. My God so chilling. Be brave and true to your job. ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page abuse by a blocked IP

    Please review the following talk page edit by a blocked IP and take appropriate action: [73]My76Strat (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've revoked talk page access -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've revdel'd the edit and contacted the WMF as a precaution. Mike V • Talk 02:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They did the same at User talk:80.255.2.225 and User talk:211.154.151.184 - I've rev deleted both of those -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Toby irvine article

    Theironmandevil created the article "Toby irvine". I immediately noted the improper capitalization and took a look. As it was not referenced at all, I BLP PROD'd it. Upon further review, it looks like articles on this subject with the correct capitalization have been deleted twice before. Once at AFD [75], and once via CSD A7 after the current misspelled one was created. As the article makes some type of bare assertion of notability, and I have no way of seeing the deleted versions, could someone with the tools take a look and speedy it if it's substantially the same as the other ones? Sperril (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's essentially identical. The only difference is that people added a "Filmography" section and a stub note to a couple of the earlier ones -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks., Indecency and And insults!!!

    Semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    hi,i,m Florence use in fa@wiki and en@wiki , i have any Personal attacks., Indecency and And insults (with arabic and Farsi language) from Lavasan , Lavasooni and any he IP and have 2 SP

    This and This and check user he is have Lavasan = Lavasooni; unable to confirm any relation between Lavasooni and the above-mentioned IP addresses and chang IP in time - and fa@wiki he is Endless blocked User(6 time Blocked) in This , Please check , thanks a lot Florence (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)( Copied and pasted from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Personal_attacks..2C_Indecency_and_And_insults.21.21.21 by Shirt58 (talk · contribs))[reply]

    • I've reverted and semi-protected your talkpage for the time being. Blocking is probably pointless as the user is editing from a wide range of dynamic IPs (2.176.0.0/16) and a rangeblock would have some collateral damage. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Odd pack of new users - sockpuppetry?

    I don't know quite what to make of these new user accounts, but I thought it was worth bringing up here. They have all created huge, non-English (...gibberish?) user and user talk pages, maybe someone is trying to use Wikipedia as a blog or something? I have no idea. Does this sort of thing happen often? If it's not one person abusing multiple accounts, I'm still getting a strong sense of WP:NOTHERE. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The user pages appear to be in Tagalog. I cannot see them violating any policy, but I share your sense they are not here to improve Wikipedia. Then again, I don't believe in pre-emptive actions, watching the accounts is all I'd recommend for now.Jeppiz (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The content appears to be a copy paste from a chat/instant messenger program. It should probably be deleted. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To see how it should look, hit edit, select all and click the <pre></pre> link at the bottom, then preview.--Auric talk 18:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not doing any harm. I recommend waiting until they disrupt Wikipedia. But yeah, they're blatant sockpuppets of one another.--Launchballer 19:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk pages should be tagged with {{subst:uw-userpage}} and eventually nominated for deletion per WP:UP#GAMES. The content is patent nonsense per WP:PATENT. Leaky Caldron 20:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If one were to be anal retentive and exceedingly literal in interpretation, and it was a reprint of a chat log, it would be copyright infringement for at least half the discussion, if not all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know what I think? I think this is two users here. Oikawa00 uploaded some of the conversation, Oikawa01 uploaded some more out of revenge taking offense, Oikawa02 (Oikawa00) retaliated, etc.--Launchballer 21:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've formatted the User and talk pages of Oikawa00 so it can be seen that it is not patent nonsense, but the record of a chat.--Auric talk 02:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It is still patent nonsense, regardless how you format it. It's just better formatted patent nonsense. "kau naman manlilibre eh.. go kahit san hehehe.. " Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it. I'm reasonable and I cannot be expected to make sense of it. Even if it's in a foreign language, and not therefore strictly "patent nonsense", it has no place here. Leaky Caldron 08:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Any reason why this is not at WP:SPI, to find out the relationship between the editor(s)? GiantSnowman 09:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Star767 - sockpuppetry, divisive and destructive wholesale editing

    User:Star767 just has to be a sockpuppet. He started editing as User:Star767 on 7th February 2013 and he hit the ground running. From the start he demonstrated advanced knowledge of Wikipedia procedures [76]. He did little on his 1st day but his 2nd day included posts on a Wikipedia:Copyright problems issue. On his 3rd day he was using Wikipedia:HotCat. There is nothing on his user page about his background or any specialist field of interest.

    He has done a high volume of edits on all kinds of subjects, however fairly recently he concentrated on philosophy and more recently he has concentrated on psychology. Many of his edits on psychology involve serious destructive surgery, deleting whole chunks of cited text on the spurious basis of not being relevant, for example: [77] [78] [79][80]. I agree with User:Gregbard's statement that he "proceeds with supreme confidence" [81]. I have personally informed User:Star767 of my misgivings with his work: [82]. I also notice that he has a naive understanding of psychopathy. I personally have been a Wikipedia editor for more than 7 years.

    Two other editors have expressed misgivings about User:Star767's work

    --Penbat (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur with Penbat, this editor is problematic and is claiming not to remember his previous IDs. In my experience that is normally associated with the need to hide some history. No problem with a clean start, but mass drive by tagging and deletion is disruptive.----Snowded TALK 16:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion about the alleged sockpuppetry, but the content of the above edits in psychology seem very reasonable to me. (I'm a psychologist myself.) I first noticed Star767's edits on the sexology pages a few weeks ago: Those changes were also quite productive, IMO.— James Cantor (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Im not suggesting User:Star767s edits are all bad but in the round they are destructive and unhelpful, often involving a lot of unwarranted deletion of cited text, messing with categories, templates etc. User:Star767 has now admitted editing on Wikipedia on and off since 2004 but conveniently cant remember any of his/her previous names User_talk:Star767#Problems_with_your_work_on_Wikipedia. One possibility is that User:Star767 is permanently banned user User:Zeraeph - there are some similarities in style.--Penbat (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Same on philosophy, some good ones, but then masses of tags and unjustified deletions and a load of time required to wade through them all ----Snowded TALK 16:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If I could add my two cents: Up until this point I have had no hard evidence of wrong doing, nor hard evidence of sockpuppetry. However, Star767's edits have been a problem in the philosophy category, and I have had to revert a substantial number of them. I am not a psychologist, so I have no complaint in that area, and was willing to accept this person for whatever value he or she has to offer. But now we have complaints in that department too. So we have a mysterious editor of dubious value. I don't really know what to do, however, I believe I read a guideline somewhere about "assuming good faith is not a suicide pact." This person singlehandedly launched a campaign against a template I created for providing reference resources, and the community ate up everything Star767 fed to them. Unfortunately, since logic is the area in which I make my most significant contributions, I have no choice but to recognize that it would be a genetic fallacy to demand that we ignore this person's campaign. So I am a little peeved. Perhaps the rest of you could see the wisdom in my reference resource template (which was pretty labor intensive, btw) and bring the issue to a close. Greg Bard (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Fladrif

    As for the sockpuppetry claim, I really have no interest one way or the other. Star767's explanation here[90] seems fishy. User: Mattisse seems not entirely out of the question. But that's a matter for checkuser
    What I will comment about is that this filing, regardless of the SPI allegations, is substantively nonsense. I see no irregularity whatsoever in Star 767's edits or talk page comments, and most seem to be both reasonable and an improvement. Penbat's coordinated attack and filing here appears to me consistent with and part of a pattern of WP:OWNERSHIP by User:Penbat of a vast array of poorly-written, ill-sourced, unsourced and ill-conceived articles, and dismissive WP:HARASSMENT and WP:INCIVILITY toward any editor who questions or attempts to change anything in the walled gardens he has claimed as his own private domain. Dozens, if not hundreds of articles he has created are empty shells, glorified disambiguation pages lacking any meaningful content which he has promised for years were "in progress", with vast arrays of highly questionable interlocking categories that he has constructed without sourcing or justification. Anyone asking for sourcing is dismissed as ignorant of the subject matter. Edits to his articles are systematically reverted with a "it's my way or the highway" dismissiveness. This filing should result in some serious WP:BOOMERANG effects and significant sanctions imposed on Penbat.
    Penbat blocked for tendentious edit-warring at Narcissism [91], unblock pointedly declined [92]
    Penbat incivility to Star767 at various articles: [93],[94]
    Penbat incivilily to User: Chiswick Chap at Talk:Bullying [95]
    Penbat incivility to IP editor at Template talk:Bullying [96]
    Penbat incivility to me at Talk:Abuse [97]
    Penbat uncivil edit summary to User:Nameoftherose while reverting to restore his own unsourced text at Psychological manipulation. [98]
    Penbat incivility to User:Zodon at Talk:Abuse. [99]
    I could go on with dozens and dozens of more diffs, but I have neither the time nor inclination. Fladrif (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Fladrif (talk)

    Excuse me this ANI is about User:Star767, two other editors broadly agree with my findings, and User:Star767 effectively admits being a sockpuppet. You obviously have nothing to say about the subject of this ANI. And i am not going to waste my time refuting the list of junk you have just thrown at me.--Penbat (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong, sport. Read WP:PETARD. Once you made the ill-considered decision to file this complaint, you opened up this AN/I to be about your editing as well. You have a lot to answer for, so I suggest you start thinking about what plausible basis you can defend yourself against a block, ban or other sanctions, rather than complaining that your tendentious editing, harassment and incivility shouldn't be under tight scrutiny by AN/I. Claiming that its a waste of your precious time to answer has been pretty much your approach to everything at Wikipedia, so I'm hardly surprised by your attitude. Fladrif (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your aggressive tone speaks for itself so i will leave it at that except I notice that you seem to be unique in not having a user talk page which is very strange: User talk:Fladrif, are you hiding something ? .--Penbat (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    To get back to the matter in hand im sure User:Star767 is not User: Mattisse as she occasionally interacted with me but only in a civil fashion. --Penbat (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just my two cents. As soon as Star767 came on board, s/he essentially began targeting me and following my work in the same manner that Mattisse did in the past. I've been watching his work for some time, but without definitive evidence, it is difficult to state for certainty that s/he is Mattisse. I would recommend waiting and watching. True colors will be revealed before long. Best regards, Cindy(need help?) 01:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    VilanoXII - Possible trolling or a disenfranchised sock?

    Resolved

    This is a bit trivial, but could I get some admin eyes on Contributions/VilanoXII? They are posting some rather questionable barnstars on several user pages. I suspect it's a sock of a blocked user, but I have no idea who it may be. Thank you - MrX 18:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked them for trolling. Looks familiar, but I can't remember who that is. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. It might be Horrifico who exhibited similar behaviour a couple of months ago. - MrX 19:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism account

    User:Michael2000-007 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Well, SineBot's failed. For now, I've chucked a warning at him and if he vandalises Wikipedia again an administrator can deal with it.--Launchballer 19:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help resolve an editing dispute at List of United States state legislatures

    First, I am a novice editor. I created my account to correct inaccurate information on the page List of United States state legislatures. The information is out of date and just plain wrong. This information changes each week, and sometimes daily, and I have tried multiple times to update the information. Unfortunately, User:MrOllie keeps reverting the article back to inaccurate and out of date information. He defended his revision at first by saying I was link spamming. I explained that I couldn't care much about the link, I am interested in the information being accurate. In my most recent edit I removed the link from the citation. He then proceeded to inform me that the information wasn't a primary source enough, to which I explained we take the trouble to call state house clerks and legislatures to collect this information and we maintain it on our website. I have made an effort to update the information (these numbers are fact, they aren't any kind of opinion or editorializing) and clean up the formatting on the page which is all over the place. I've looked elsewhere and this information is not readily available in a regularly updated format. It's ok to have outdated information, but then why not change the title or the article to outdated List of United States state legislatures, or keep the information and let me know how I should improve my citation so that I'm not violating any rules? I have not hidden the fact that I work for a state government affairs firm and am an expert in the subject material. I have also notified User:MrOllie each time before I make a change to the page, but have gotten no proactive conversation back from him/her. Please advise. Gcrackers82 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at the disputed edits. First, Gcrackers82 did the right thing to bring the issue here and did not engage in a revert war; good for him on that. Second, I don't want to take the time to check the factual correctness of the edits, but they seem facially reasonable. He updated the results from the end of the last election to the present time (maybe some legislators resigned or died in the meanwhile). The best way forward might be a WP:3O and generally the dispute resolution process. Chutznik (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nageh (talk · contribs)

    Resolved
     – User warned.—Kww(talk) 21:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is repeatedly calling constructive valid enforcement of non-free content policies vandalism. When I attempted to discuss this on his talk page he reverted it calling it vandalism too. Werieth (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for the record. I am being accused of things I didn't do (I did not upload any non-free image as the user accused me on my talk page using a script), claim that I called his image removal vandalism which I didn't do at all (in fact, I reverted the user on the article a single time, stating that the usage was ok, because I believed so – I only called his wrong accusations and his other modifications on my talk page vandalism), I even asked the user to use plain words to explain what I did wrong instead of using script-based tags with wrong accusations, but as a result the user brought me to ANI and Kww warned me on my user page. I guess I am missing something here. Nageh (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not gonna say Werieth wasn't overreliant on the templated warning, because they were. But the template does talk about a file "uploaded or added to an article", so it wasn't wrong per se. Werieth was right, you did (unintentionally and in good faith) break the rules about non-free content by adding a non-free image to an article without a non-free rationale, even though you didn't upload it. Changing all those little things on your talk page wasn't a good thing, though I suspect it was an automated thing that Werieth didn't realize would happen. That said, calling their edits to your talk page "vandalism" is also not cool: see WP:NOTVAND. Generally, the word "vandalism" shouldn't be slung around carelessly, as it has an oddly specific definition on Wikipedia, and an accusation of vandalism can be seen as a personal attack if circumstances clearly don't meet this definition.
    So, to recap: Werieth is advised (by whom?) try relying less on templates and scripts and more on actually talking and usinghandwritten notes. Nageh is advised to avoid using non-free images on pages without the proper reationales and calling things vandalism that aren't. I think that's really all that needs to be done here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Werieth had left a second, non-templated warning, which Nageh described as vandalism.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The accusations weren't wrong: he had removed it, and left an explanation as to why. You put it back. That you did so because you didn't understand the policy is obvious, but that doesn't meam that you aren't responsible for your actions. The message he left on your talk page clearly says "... it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added...", so it was completely applicable. You, however, called it "vandalism". When he then include a plain language description, you reverted it, calling it "vandalism" a second time. In short, you undid a valid edit, referred to the editor that made it as a vandal, ignored his efforts to explain, called him a vandal again, and then misrepresented the situation on both my talk page and at ANI by claiming that all of his accusations had been script based, completely neglecting the second cycle.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Kww, with all respect, I definitely did not misrepresent the situation on purpose. I did revert his edits because I did not see what he was trying to tell me. That was certainly my fault. Reverting the user a second time was triggered by a section labelled "Warning", which I thought was highly inappropriate and appeared to me like vandalism. However, acquitting each of my own reverts with vandalism was wrong as well. So I understand now what went wrong all along, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I hope we can agree that Werieth try prefer plain non-template words in the first place, and I shall not assume bad faith either in calling his (or such) edits vandalism. Thanks both Kww and Writ Keeper for weighing in. Nageh (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Interim remedy requested

    User:Arthur Rubin (or Arthur Rubin ... I assume it's the same guy) appears to have a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia's rules on civility, personal attacks and collaborative interaction. My complaint only relates to his activities as an editor, although he is also an Administrator; it is my understanding that title implies at least a basic knowledge of Wikipedia policy. My concern is that Arthur Rubin's repeated, unsubstantiated, disparagement and maligning of his fellow editors is disruptive to collaborative editing efforts, and results in an unpleasant editing environment. It's already a contentious arena where many editors hold strong opinions, and tempers are already short and frayed, so Rubin's unnecessary caustic commentary on editors is especially detrimental. A few examples:

    I've asked him to provide evidence or a diff of this happening. He has ignored the request.

    I've asked him to provide evidence or a diff of this, or redact his accusation. He has ignored the request, even after additional explanation on his Talk page.

    I've asked him to provide evidence or a diff of this. He has ignored request. (It never happened.)

    When I demanded an explanation of his "considering the editor's past record" slur, he claimed he confused me with another editor. (It's still wrong to comment on editors, especially in edit summaries, where it can't be easily redacted.) In a separate instance of accusing me, again without substantiation, of making a tendentious edit, he again claimed he had me confused with another editor after I pressed him for proof.

    Arthur Rubin and I often disagree, but I value his perspective and input in discussions. However, his baseless commenting on editors instead of content has got to go. He "has failed to respond to requests for rationale and evidence" to substantiate his personal attacks and mischaracterizations of fellow Wikipedian's intentions, not just with me, as that ongoing ArbCom illustrates.

    Today, after User:SilkTork offered to moderate discussions at that article, but insisted that "in order to move the discussions forward there should be no personal comments", Arthur Rubin felt the need to question further that simple reiteration of policy:

    I would like to see SilkTork's efforts be successful, and not be derailed by more of the same. I'm requesting that someone uninvolved please give Arthur Rubin the clarification he has requested. Specifically, "comment on content, not on the contributor; don't make accusations about personal behavior that lack clear evidence; editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. My patience with him is exhausted, as is any remaining good faith, so I don't dare speak directly with him again about this right now. Help would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an important difference between personal comments (i.e. "User:Xyz made a mistake" or "I disagree with User:Xyz" or "User:Xyz misinterpreted my remarks") and personal attacks (i.e. "User:Xyz is an idiot" or "User:Xyz lacks the intelligence required to understand my remarks" or "User:Xyz is Turkish, and therefore we can't trust what he says"). Nothing in the diffs provided above rises even remotely close to being a personal attack, and therefore I can't see how any policy has actually been violated. If you already have found someone who has agreed to moderate your dispute, you'd likely be much better off going down that route rather than inflaming the situation by posting a complaint here. Let your moderator clarify their own comment; I don't see any reason to branch off the discussion here. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 22:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)\[reply]
    Scotty, I notified him immediately after posting this discussion. The very first comment is where I informed him on his Talk page. I didn't template him per "Don't template the regulars," but I most certainly informed him that I brought the issue here.
    If three of you, respected all, say there is no offense in the behavior I outlined above, then I certainly am obliged to self-review to see where I'm mistaken or out of line. So just to clarify, you are saying when I read at the "No Personal Attacks" policy page, in the What is a personal attack section, just after where it says "some types of comments are never acceptable:"
    • "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."
    I have misunderstood that policy, correct? Accusing someone of tendentious behavior and dishonest behavior, without providing evidence because he didn't have any, as Arthur Rubin did above in example 2, does not rise even remotely close to being a personal attack? Is that what I'm hearing? I'd rather be called an idiot; at least that can be waved off as a nonsensical outburst. He made a baseless attack on my character. And instead of coming here to complain, I first asked him to either redact the personal attack, or add his evidence to his personal attack — either of which would have brought his comment into compliance with WP:NPA and diffused the situation. He's done neither. As for being "less bristly" and assuming good faith, KC, with most any other editor I would, as that is good advice. But you seem to have forgotten that this little routine is not new for him, and it has cost me a lot of needlessly wasted hours.
    To recap: I haven't notified Arthur Rubin of this discussion, and he hasn't violated NPA. That is what is being conveyed? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accusing someone of tenditious editing without providing evidence of such *is* a personal attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Xenophrenic added me to ANI concerning the same article without providing a reason or difs, was that a personal attack as well, if so, why were there no repercussions?[100] Darkstar1st (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This thread should probably be considered in conjunction with the above thread "Re: Talk:Tea Party movement", as the name calling "tendentious editor", etc. have all occurred in relation to that issue, which is ongoing. The decision in the related Arbcom case is also pending. I do not agree with Arthur's characterization of Xenophrenic's editing as tendentious, as he was arguing based on reliable sources which others were trying to exclude in an effort to push through a one-sided phrasing when there are clearly more than one reliably-sourced POV.
    Bringing up that accusation here in terms of its being a personal attack may have been improper, but the Talk page behavior surrounding the accusations of tendentiousness have been counterproductive in an already encumbered editing environment. It resulted in the thread mentioned above being opened on Arthur's Talk page. Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 08:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I specified precise reasons why X's comments were tendentious, and pointed to the section where he/she made those comments. I didn't point to the specific comments or diffs; but that's not necessarly unless he claims some of the comments signed by him are not his, or to note his repeated removal of the personal comments (not attacks), which were made after I made the comments, so I couldn't point to it yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IP disruption at WP:ITN/C

    An IP - User talk:72.93.33.119 - is almost certainly a regular user who is editing logged out (has knowledge of ITN/C-specific procedures, such as marking items "ready" and shifting items from full blurb items to the "recent deaths" (RD) section). All of the IP's contributions, Special:Contributions/72.93.33.119, all of the edits have been disruptive and unconstructive to ITN/C processes. I just wanted an outside admin to look at this: it's probably sockpuppetry, but since to the large number of people commenting at ITN/C, it's difficult to identify who this person is. The user has already received 2 warnings for disruption yet has continued, and I don't know if a block with "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" would be necessary in this case. Thanks, SpencerT♦C 00:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No Wikipedia writer is known to be involved. This is a solicitation for a Wikipedia editor, not an ad for one. And if an editor had responded, guess what? We'd argue endlessly and get nowhere as there is no consensus, nor likely to be, on the question of paid editing. No administrative action is required.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This might be interesting. Not sure if any article has been created, but I do believe this sort of thing is frowned upon. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    See other advertisements at the same site I (and probably others) have watchlisted all of those identifiable, so we will see any attempts to create an article. As Wehwalt said, it's not prohibited, but the products of this require close scrutiny. FWIW, I think an experienced WP editor would want to charge considerably more than the ads on that page offer. We have however had examples of even low-cost work producing acceptable articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User G-Zay and BLP concerns

    Per a discussion here, I have decided to open a thread here concerning G-Zay (talk · contribs) and claims that he is violating the BLP guidelines. My main concern, and that of the other editor who chimed in is that he is taking advantage of our trust in foreign language sources (in this case, Japanese), in order to write libel about persons and companies.

    Yesterday, I responded to a request on OTRS here that details quite thoroughly what he is doing. This includes falsifying information from the Japanese sources, as well as mixing it up with legitimate truth. He also does not use page numbers for this information, and I invite him to provide page numbers that corroborate this. One example is this section, which cites the "Final Fantasy VI Advance Official Complete Guide" for information on the game's development. The problem is, the book does not mention anything on the development of the book, including claims that are outright contradicted in reliable sources. Rumors are also included, as seen here, and then added to gaming forums as something that was found on Wikipedia and needs attention drawn to it. Articles most affected by these issues include Hiroyuki Ito, Yoshinori Kitase, Motomu Toriyama, Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, and Chrono Trigger. This would all be fine and well, but this information is now finding its way into news articles as “fact” and could lead to issues of circular referencing of these fallacies down the line.

    He has also been banned from other sites for doing these things, and has engaged in sockpuppetry on those sites as well. This includes creating accounts in online cafes in order to avoid topic bans, so I any action taken here should take that into account.

    I think a topic ban needs to be explored, as this user has already been reported to ANI in December, and nothing came of it, even though there was evidence that he performed the issues brought up above. This includes the part where he said, "There was also a rumour I created in July 2012 about GamesMaster magazine revealing Final Fantasy XV having already been in development for 4 years with Hiroyuki Ito as the director. The rumour spread around the internet but was eventually debunked once the deputy editor of the magazine confirmed the rumour was not published in the magazine. However, my intention making that rumour was not to mislead people, but for the rumour to eventually reach Square Enix so they could publicly debunk it themselves or provide statement about it." The fact that they have admitted to doing this on another site means that there are likely many issues that are on this site as well. The whole thread ended with nothing being done, but it is still concerning to have this brought up before nonetheless.

    The user who sent the request has offered to send us the pages in question if we would like to check these claims, and I would like it if G-Zay could respond to these accusations, as they are pretty serious no matter what the truth is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks really serious in my opinion and Ktr101's examination of the situation is accurate. Also, damaging the integrity to Wikipedia is not acceptable behavior. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    These are very concerning allegations. Diffs would be helpful, but from a sense of G-Zay's contribs, I see that there's some merit in the allegations. So, support a topic ban. Chutznik (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of specific concern to me when I saw the ticket is the claim that the editor allegedly added this, referencing an offline source (which may or may not have been Japanese), and then one day later allegedly posted this in a forum, stating that he had "found" it in Wikipedia. The previous ANI report seems to back up the use of the "Galvanizer" alias. This is very troubling for obvious reasons, not the least of which are the possible real-life effects a rumour started in a supposedly trustworthy source (Wikipedia) might have on a company, its products or employees. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot see the OTRS matter, but the timing of these two allegedlys are really close. 17:20 Nov 25th versus Nov 26th and it just happens to be by the guy who essentially wrote the Ito article and still does? [101] This is highly suspicious. It doesn't seem to be the first time either. 'Fake news' removed by an I.P editor. [102] The content was also added by G-Zay. If true... I think we need to react appropriately, this is a major concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 04:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP or not, the subject of the articles doesn't matter here. What matters is someone who appears to be introducing subtle hoaxing in numerous articles. Hoaxers don't get topic-banned: they get sitebanned or simply blocked indefinitely, since we have no reason to trust anything that they've written. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While true, we should at least have hard evidence of this matter before we commit to the ban. Right now it looks bad, real bad, but I'd say we should at least see the evidence before banning. If we have clear evidence of the information being false, anyone who attempts to use it in a circular referencing or tries to reintroduce it can be notified and directed to why it is false. That and I do not believe in banning before seeing and verifying evidence of wrongdoing. I'm tagging Hiroyuki Ito as disputed for the time being, other things may be wrong with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblocking Rolandhelper with my own email masatiaroland@gmail from OTRS

    As I said,I want to be unblocked because my English was better and not to edit war anymore. I used OTRS so I can unblocked. According to me,if I talk Σ, I will suspected,if I talk Boing! Said Zebedee,BSZ will have no opinion and I blocked immediately. I used the RolandhelperIII as a back-up account so I use it temporarily. I don't like this blocking admin and supsector checkuser,so I want to be unblocked immediately. I hope this result.--RolandhelperIII (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=549816658"