Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive769

Many a journey to Atlantis -- odd WP:SOCK/WP:FAKEARTICLE creations

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

---

• JourneytoAtlantis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis13 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis2012 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

These accounts each made their own sandbox, which was typically the only location for each accounts' edits. These sandboxes start as complete copies of various real articles (e.g., Big Brother 13 (UK)) that are transformed into completely fake articles (e.g., User:JourneytoAtlantis4/sandbox) in which the contestants are generally replaced with fictional characters among other changes.

The accounts were created in the order shown above, but haven't necessarily been serially abandoned. There are examples of older accounts editing new sandboxes and vice versa. All of the sandbox pages should probably be deleted as WP:FAKEARTICLE violations, but this is a little too strange for a standard WP:MFD. It's seems like WP:SOCK violations should be considered, unless anyone has a different idea of what's going on...

Since account #21 is the most recent account made, I guess I'll leave an ANI notice there... — Scientizzle 18:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow. A contribs nuke/stern warning/block may be in order here. – Connormah (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Various websites exist to allow people to play their own reality TV style games. Several of these websites encourage their contributors to use Wikipedia to host their forum games. They show up often at MFD and routinely deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST. I'm not sure that's exactly what's going on here, but all the user subpages for the users listed here should be promptly deleted per NOTWEBHOST in any case. Peacock (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) has blocked the lot of 'em and purged the userpages. Thanks! — Scientizzle 20:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked everybody except the earliest account, who I've welcomed but warned against creating socks and fake articles. I also deleted all those pages. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Hurting Flashtire

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

---

Either he is very confused about how stuff works around here [1] [2] or downright trolling. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Guessing from the pages hit, my money is that it's trolling and, moreover, another User:Technoquat sock. --MuZemike 02:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They've just been indeffed by Floquenbeam (Trolling only account). Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 02:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:RBI is probably the best strategy here. His socks are pretty obvious in how juvenile they are, so we really don't need these threads to shine a magnifying glass on them. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it'll set him on fire and he will be destroyed like so many ants on my sidewalk? DMacks (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Tnemirepxe-Hcaerb

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

---

I just indeffed Tnemirepxe-Hcaerb (talk · contribs) as a response to an ANI report, am I missing something or am I correct in thinking this is blatant gaming the system and trolling? – Connormah (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good block on "breach experiment". Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I also deleted both their user page/talk and removed their talk page access per WP:DENY. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks! – Connormah (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling it's the same troll as in the section above. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me. – Connormah (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Many a journey to Atlantis -- odd WP:SOCK/WP:FAKEARTICLE creations

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

---

• JourneytoAtlantis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis13 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis2012 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JourneytoAtlantis21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

These accounts each made their own sandbox, which was typically the only location for each accounts' edits. These sandboxes start as complete copies of various real articles (e.g., Big Brother 13 (UK)) that are transformed into completely fake articles (e.g., User:JourneytoAtlantis4/sandbox) in which the contestants are generally replaced with fictional characters among other changes.

The accounts were created in the order shown above, but haven't necessarily been serially abandoned. There are examples of older accounts editing new sandboxes and vice versa. All of the sandbox pages should probably be deleted as WP:FAKEARTICLE violations, but this is a little too strange for a standard WP:MFD. It's seems like WP:SOCK violations should be considered, unless anyone has a different idea of what's going on...

Since account #21 is the most recent account made, I guess I'll leave an ANI notice there... — Scientizzle 18:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow. A contribs nuke/stern warning/block may be in order here. – Connormah (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Various websites exist to allow people to play their own reality TV style games. Several of these websites encourage their contributors to use Wikipedia to host their forum games. They show up often at MFD and routinely deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST. I'm not sure that's exactly what's going on here, but all the user subpages for the users listed here should be promptly deleted per NOTWEBHOST in any case. Peacock (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) has blocked the lot of 'em and purged the userpages. Thanks! — Scientizzle 20:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked everybody except the earliest account, who I've welcomed but warned against creating socks and fake articles. I also deleted all those pages. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Hurting Flashtire

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

---

Either he is very confused about how stuff works around here [3] [4] or downright trolling. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Guessing from the pages hit, my money is that it's trolling and, moreover, another User:Technoquat sock. --MuZemike 02:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They've just been indeffed by Floquenbeam (Trolling only account). Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 02:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:RBI is probably the best strategy here. His socks are pretty obvious in how juvenile they are, so we really don't need these threads to shine a magnifying glass on them. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it'll set him on fire and he will be destroyed like so many ants on my sidewalk? DMacks (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Tnemirepxe-Hcaerb

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

---

I just indeffed Tnemirepxe-Hcaerb (talk · contribs) as a response to an ANI report, am I missing something or am I correct in thinking this is blatant gaming the system and trolling? – Connormah (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good block on "breach experiment". Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I also deleted both their user page/talk and removed their talk page access per WP:DENY. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks! – Connormah (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling it's the same troll as in the section above. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me. – Connormah (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by 173.77.173.111 a.k.a. Hudsonapa

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

---

Per WP:NLT,

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

a.k.a.

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

may be blocked, for the following blatant legal threat: [5]
See also this vandalistic/censorious talkpage deletion edit related to the same dispute, in which near-identical phrasing is used, though I suppose WP:CHECKUSER will be needed to ensure they are in fact the same editor: [6]
Short version of dispute, just for background: Various parties including myself and a notable professional pool player believe that the article Andy Segal is being edited by Segal himself and/or close associates, and is abusing Wikipedia for self-promotion, including self-aggrandizing claims that do not have reliable sources. Various {{citation needed}} and other dispute tags have been in place and unaddressed in any way for over 1 month.
It's noteworthy that the anon message implies that it was posted by Segal personally.
— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"...you will be contacted regarding a slander suit." You mean that threat, after the "cease and desist"? Per NLT, block the IP per "...it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." WP:GAB is always available. CU will be unwilling to connect the IPs to the named account, but this is an unambiguous legal threat. Doc talk 07:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, that was the threat I linked to. Did you find a different one? :-) Anyway, why would CU not pursue this, if necessary (WP:DUCK was cited, below, so maybe it isn't), since these two are obviously the same editor? It seems to me that the entire point of WP:NLT and the blocks it puts into place are to deal with actual persons making legal threats not their virtual online pseudo-identities, so playing "let's pretend this is really someone different" games would appear to thwarting legal policy, which generally trumps editing and wikiquette policy. DUCK aside, why would CU be out-of-band for this? I've not been spending any WP cycles on CU and most other policy matters for some time, so I may have missed something. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

CU is not (officially) willing to make connections to IP addresses and named accounts for reasons of privacy. That's been the traditional standpoint, but perhaps things have changed. Doc talk 07:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But CU's principal function is tying various sockpuppets to a master by IP address data. I must be misunderstanding you. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No CU in my personal experience has ever directly tied an IP to a named account. They've said they can't do it for privacy reasons. Maybe I only got CU's who believed that it was improper to do so. Maybe things have changed. As an aside: this is an admin board, right? So why the hell do so few admins actually deal with simple things here? At the rate RfA is going, you all better get your shit together and patrol this board so us non-admins don't have to do it for you. And many thanks to the dedicated ones that still solve things quickly here :) Doc talk 07:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm misunderstanding how sockpuppet hunting works via CU, then, despite having successfully outed a couple of puppeteers thereby. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 08:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Did any CU confirm an IP address to be linked to a named account through CU evidence in one of your SPIs? Or did they use DUCK to avoid that technical tie? Maybe I've been steered wrong... Doc talk 08:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a word on my understanding of CU - CheckUser is used to tie registered accounts via IP (and via other things), but if two accounts are linked, the IP addresses used will not be published as that will reveal information about the person in violation of privacy policy - you'll find plenty of "Confirmed A = B" results, but they won't reveal the IPs. For similar reasons, CU will not publicly tie a registered account to an unregistered IP. -- Boing! said Zebedee / on Tour (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my understanding as well. IP XXX.XX.XXX.XXX can not be publicly tied to (e.g.) Satan'shelper (talk · contribs), but Satan'shelper2 (talk · contribs) can be tied to the registered account. So CU can say the two registered accounts are connected (and use IP data to connect them without publishing those IP addresses), but they cannot publicly disclose an IP as either one (or any registered account). Doc talk 08:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for making clear legal threats, IP has 1 year (remains blocked for legal process) and indeffed named account as clearly related.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I imagine that Hudsonapa will make use of WP:GAB, and I wouldn't even oppose, as long as the editor commits to avoiding more legal threats, commits to abiding by editing policies like WP:V instead of adding more unsourced material to any articles, and commits to no more deleting of others' talk page posts. but I would have to oppose, because it's a single-purpose account that is clearly operated by the subject of the article or a close associate; it has never edited Wikipedia other than to edit Andy Segal in suspect ways, add Segal-related material to Trick shot, censor dispute on Talk:Andy Segal and issue the anonymized legal threat at User talk:SMcCandlish. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Updated 07:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC), after I looked at Special:Contributions/Hudsonapa. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.

• Good call. "We cannot comment on pending legal issues" is what all good companies do in this situation. Let them bring it to court. Their pulpit here is gone once they issue the threat. Doc talk 07:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Potentially offensive userpage declaration

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

User indeffed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Please see Badud (talk · contribs). I don't think it is appropriate (political reference is one thing, but the nationality reference seems very battleground-minded). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit history also shows 5 reverts in 24 hours. Someone needs a talking to. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  20:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Badud has been notified of this thread. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Good, I was just going to say something about notifying him...I am not sure what the applicable policy would be here. Wikipedia's not the place for unregulated free speech, however this was not a personal attack against another editor, yes it overgeneralizes, but I would say he's entitled to his opinion. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC. Leaky Caldron 20:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What's the goal here? Blocking? Go Phightins! (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say warning, at first. No need to get the big guns so early... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

For what? I think a general note would be appropriate but looking through Twinkle I'm not seeing any applicable templates. Talk page as a forum? He's just stating his opinion. Personal attacks? It's not directed at one editor. I guess vandalism, but it's not really there either. So that brings it to a personalized note of sorts. I suppose that could work, but from whom? Go Phightins! (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to forum shop but since you mentioned his reverts: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Badud_reported_by_User:Piotrus_.28Result:_.29. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:Userpages#What may I not have in my user pages? applies here. I've deleted the userpage and left Badud a warning. De728631 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

He has re-added what appears to be only a wording change - meaning is the same as the original, and as such probably needs the same treatment dangerouspanda 08:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Screw this. They've done nothing but edit war, make nationalistic comments about specific editors on their talk page, and refuse to discuss their edits. This isn't a newbie, it's a troublemaker. Blocked indef, user page deleted and salted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Links to hacked and malware-infected websites

At work, one website linked here served up Zbot Trojan horses and Blackhole exploit kit redirects and infected a ridiculous number of computers on my work's network after that website got hacked. I then found that the website was linked to at Ronski Speed. I therefore disabled all links and put up gaudy warnings about the site as seen in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronski_Speed&diff=511167026&oldid=497847196 . I rolled back my edits after I checked repeatedly with Malzilla to see if the site still hosted the malware and I got 404s. Did I do the right thing in disabling the link and putting up a garish warning? Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, is there a template or policy on dealing with malware-infected sites? Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of {{MalwareLink}}; but it's a horridly ugly tag, is currently unused, and I just noticed is also listed for deletion at TfD. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will use it because I just asked my work web proxy vendor to rerate the site and it refused. Apparently, it found more malware on the site. Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The site has been cleaned up, so my web filter vendor has removed it from its blacklist. I still think that the template is useful especially for cases when big websites like MySQL or Cryptome got hacked to serve the Blackhole exploit kit. Jesse Viviano (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As to how to handle such hijacked links; per WP:ELDEAD, such links should be treated as dead links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that rule gets trumped when the site in question is the subject's official site in one part of that page at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Another part states that hijacked links count as dead links. The link in that part of the policy points to Domain hijacking, but this is a case of a zombie computer, not a hijacked domain. The policy therefore contradicts itself in regard to zombie computers. Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

When in doubt, take it out, or <!-- comment it out, like so --> with an explanation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

When a site contains malware, remove the link to it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the discussion here, I've proposed that we make point 3 of WP:ELNO an exception to the "official is okay" standard; if this pass, it would mean that official sites hosting "malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the state of Florida" would be prohibited by WP:ELNO. Your opinions on the proposal would be welcome. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Links to sites creating a likelihood that users' computers will become infected with malware should, for obvious reasons, not be included anywhere on Wikipedia. In general, it would probably be best for such sites not to be mentioned at all, but if not mentioning them creates an obvious omission (e.g. it's the subject's official site and if it's omitted, someone is going to add it unsuspecting of the problem), then it might make sense to make some notation of the problem.

Any instance of an editor intentionally seeking to inflict malware on readers should be reported to the Arbitration Committee or to the Office. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka

I have brought this a week ago and on the advice of an Admin, one of the editors has taken it to the DRN and it was resolved. But User:Himesh84 is constantly pushing his Original Research as a single person. We need Admin intervention at this stage.Sudar123 (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I was the DRN volunteer in the case. Never been involved with Sri Lankan articles and I have no position on the civil war, but this was straightforward WP:OR. The statement that Himesh84 wants to include isn't explicitly mentioned in the source. Himesh argues that it's implied, but that's exactly what makes it OR. The other editors involved in the case (User:Jobberone, User:Obi2canibe, User:Sudar123, User:24.177.125.104, and myself) agreed that a source was needed that explicitly stated the claim. Instead of finding a new source, he's edit warred on the article. This is worrying, given how sensitive and controversial the topic is.--SGCM (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've read over the DRN discussion and looked at the article's history. Even though a unanimous consensus was not reached (Himesh84 refused to budge), it seems clear to me that Himesh84's proposed changes are being objected to by several other editors and not supported by anyone else. And even though a DRN process "is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions", I would propose there is more than enough reason here to insist that Himesh84 should carefully explain (on the article's talk page, not via an edit war) his objections to the current wording of the article, and not make any more attempts to impose his changes on the text unless he can first convince other editors to agree with him.

My first impulse was to say that this looked like a content dispute / edit war between two factions (with neither one being right or wrong) — but on further reflection, it seems to me that it's a case of one editor against several, with an all-but-unanimous consensus being rejected by an individual who is argumentatively restating his position (as opposed to discussing it) and has been repeatedly edit-warring in defiance of consensus. Himesh84 needs to step back here and consider that even if he is convinced that he is right and everyone else is wrong, he needs to do a much better job of explaining why there are problems with the existing text and why he believes certain changes need to be made. Drop, for the time being at least, any arguments based on dictionary definitions of common English words, and try instead to understand why everyone else seems to feel the existing text is OK, and focus your comments on why you believe there are major problems that require changes. If you think there is an NPOV problem with the current text, that may be a valid issue, but it needs to be discussed (and, if necessary, escalated through established dispute resolution procedures which do not involve repeatedly making changes which everyone else objects to). If Himesh84 refuses to change his behaviour, is unable to mould a revised consensus through a genuine give-and-take discussion, and insists on going back to edit warring, he needs to be blocked in order to prevent further disruption. — Richwales 04:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicely said, I strongly agree with your assessment of the dispute. DRN is an informal, not a binding, process, and serves as a noticeboard for building consensus. When consensus has been all but reached, with the exception of a single editor (the one making the edit in contention), then that editor needs to engage the other users by directly addressing the policy arguments. Edit warring and criticising others for not understanding the English language (example: "This is not something about wikipedia policy. This is about English. Even I have used my time to search meaning (sic) of the English words") are not conducive to consensus building. To be fair, it takes two to edit war, and Sudar123 should not have responded to Himesh84's behaviour.--SGCM (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to look at this, and I concur. Both sides are already in edit-war-block territory and should desist, but it is clear that Himesh84 has failed to gain consensus for the change he wants to make, either at DRN or on the talk page, and any further attempt to make it would be disruptive. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is a great insult to the Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan government officially rejected this report. It is clearly linked by Obi2canibe in his edits. UNHRC is the authorized entity and country's final official responses are come to the UNHRC. UNHRC officially asked to implement LLRC recommendations(refereced). After UNHRC officially selected and urged to implement LLRC implementations , process recommended in this report has no value. But when someone reading this article that person will definitely feel lot of countries currently supporting the implementation method specified in this report. It is completely wrong. Now they officially supporting and asking to implement LLRC recommendations. This wikipedia page tries to give a completely wrong bad impression about Sri Lanka. People (Obi2canibe) who likes Tamil Ealam (Tamil Ealam is a name proposed for the separated country within Sri Lanka) trying to use this rejected report(by Sri Lanka and UNHRC) to create bad impression on Sri Lanka. That's why current recognition to this report is highly important.

I tried to clarify things very clearly. Obi2canibe was in misunderstanding and write to the discussion. "They both contain similar, if not the same, recommendations". This is only where not using word over is correct. I clearly clarified that LLRC recommended local solution and UNSG's report recommended international solution and LLRC,UNSG's recommendations are completely opposite using facts linked in his version of the article. He didn't accept those are different when it is clearly visible. I asked from him "Are both recommended to resolve issue locally or internationally ?" Even he was in misunderstood, he didn't answered to clarify his statement. If so I could further clarified it. Instead answering they or him with multiple accounts closed the discussion. Wikipedia administrators must understand that it is very difficult to agree or gain consensus to a something by Sri Lankan and Tamil Ealam supporter. But correct thing should be in the Wikipedia without creating bad impressions on countries using not supported implementations by UNHRC. Obi2canibe said "Neither the draft resolution tabled by the USA nor the final resolution adopted by the UNHRC mentioned the UN panel's report". These logic are very much primitive. UNHRC selected LLRC implementations after tabling,voting.... Why to worry about a implementation mechanism not even considered to tabled ? They chose the best one to tabled.That's it. --Himesh84 (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to promote or defend any countries. We're here to build an encyclopedia. If you want to include a claim, find a source that explicitly states the point you're trying to make. There is no conspiracy going on. I and the other volunteer, Jobberone, have never edited any of the Sri Lankan articles, and don't have any positions on squabbles between Tamil or Sri Lankan supporters. The DRN case was closed because you did not make any arguments on the applicability of policy, and failed to convince any of the other editors of your position, leading to filibustering.--SGCM (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

But is Wikipedia is to spread wrong image about countries using outdated reports ? --Himesh84 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You have missed the 2nd party involved in this edit war. It was between Himesh84,Obi2canibe and later Sudar123 joined to the edit war.--Himesh84 (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody should be edit warring.--SGCM (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Highly disagreed on that. Dispute solved means, all the parties involved in the dispute must agree on the solution. If all the persons except one person agreed to a solution it doesn't say it is the correct decision. Some of the Aristotle's observations were confirmed to be accurate only in the 19th century. Before that all said Aristotle is wrong. It is just an example. --Himesh84 (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Consensus. Consensus is not unanimity, which on Wikipedia is nearly impossible. When all the editors share a similar viewpoint, with the exception of one, and that one editor has failed to use policy arguments to support his position, then there's no need to continue filibustering a DRN case. My advice, which I honestly hope is helpful, is that you'll respond by directly addressing policy arguments, or by finding a new source that explicitly makes the claims you're arguing for. One of Wikipedia's core principles is that it is based on verifiability, not truth.--SGCM (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If a core principle says it is not about truth why/how the hell Wikipedia claiming it is an encyclopedia ?--Himesh84 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia like all encyclopedias is a tertiary source, not a secondary source. It does not have the resources or the editorial oversight to make claims, true or not, only to report claims made by others that are verifiable and reliable. This is why original research is not allowed, and why it is considered a core principle of the site.--SGCM (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

UNSG report has very dangerous recommendations which could severely affect sovereignty of Sri Lanka. UNSG's implementations suggest to bring Sri Lanka to an international court and give a solution in there. The final decision from the international court can be anything. Even creating new country "Tamil Ealam" is also possible. Ealam Tamils want to divide Sri Lanka and create new country with proposed name "Tamil Ealam". They tried to get the approval of the UNHRC to the report but failed. Still they used this report to spread bad impression saying this is the mostly accepted approach to solve the problem. But LLRC is the officially recognized and selected implementation. But still the Administrator approved version says there are lot of International recognition to the SG's implementations. Even it includes recognition of countries who voted to LLRC implementation in UNHRC. This version gives completely wrong idea. This wrong version can create very bad image on Sri Lanka which can later affect to tourism,... hit Sri Lankan economy and create a separated country. That's why this wrong and outdated version needed to correct.

I know why everyone else seems to feel the existing text is OK. Because they supporters of Tamil Ealam. They have a plan. That's why they refused to accept that UNHRC accepted LLRC implementaion over SG's implementations while even Sri Lankan government received a letter from UNHRC to asking implement of LLRC recommendations. --Himesh84 (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I stated my opinion on talk page --Himesh84 (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Himesh, please assume good faith and do not assume that anyone who disagrees with you is in a conspiracy or is on the other side in your political dispute. You have explained your position at length, on the article talk page, at DRN and here, but you have not convinced anybody. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and it is now time for you to accept that you do not have a consensus for the changes you want to make and drop the stick. JohnCD (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. Wikipedia has failed to built a system so that it says it is. They have built a system which can gathered most number of users and way to get most number of hits. This report criticize Sri Lankan court system and law. But UNHRC asked to implemented LLRC which based on local court system. It is officially asked by a letter. UNHRC even didn't bothered to consider tabling UNSG's implementations. But your Wikipedia page showing a completely wrong picture to the world. Please admit that no one talking about this outdated report except Tamil Diaspora and Wikipedia company ( I don't know who funded this company). Even the person who created this report (UN secretary) now asking to implement LLRC recommendation. http://www.thesundayleader.lk/. I am not asking why Tamil diaspora not accepting LLRC. But why Wikipedia company not accepting LLRC over UNSG's report while Bank ki Moon , the person who created UNSG's report accepted LLRC is the correct approach ? I am not changing my position since all the countries and even UNSG's author had changed their positions and accepted LLRC recommendations are the correct approach. But your site trying to mislead readers. Please revisit your policies and try to implement a good policies to become encyclopedia over most popular view. If it is not possible at least drop the claim Wikipedia is a encyclopedia to prevent readers getting mislead --Himesh84 (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for The Truth, it is not a place to Right Great Wrongs, and as mentioned above you really should drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The situation here is more nuanced than simply "majority opinion rules". Wikipedia's policy is to seek a neutral point of view — which, to quote the policy, means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." We are not supposed to be deciding which viewpoint represents "the truth", presenting only that view and marginalizing or ignoring all other views. If there are two or more significant views represented in reliable sources, we are supposed to explain that there are differences of viewpoint and explain the different views.

There are, to be sure, sometimes still potential problems with implementing this policy. The available sources (particularly English-language sources, since most editors and readers here will be primarily familiar with English) may not cover the various aspects of a controversial foreign situation adequately. Certain kinds of sources — such as, in this case, statements by the Sri Lankan government, the LTTE, individual spokesmen or critics, other governments in the region, or even UN bodies or officials — could be inherently biased and not usable as reliable objective sources of information (except perhaps as information about what a given government, agency, or person thinks about the situation).

Additionally, we are forbidden here to engage in our own "original research" — including, in particular, synthesis of multiple separate sources to create a claim that isn't backed up by any one source on its own. Sometimes the line between OR/SYNTH and commonsense understanding of plain English can be hard to draw, but when lots of other editors are complaining about OR/SYNTH issues, chances are there is a real problem with the way someone is trying to use the source material in question. In such cases, the best answer is usually not to belabour the point by insisting that our reading of the materials is obviously correct and that everyone else is being dense.

The point of seeking consensus is not to determine "truth" by majority vote. Rather, if all (or at least most) editors are trying to follow the policies, we assume that a consensus (maybe not unanimous, but as close to unanimous as we can get) are most likely understanding how the policies apply to the situation at hand, and their collective judgment is probably the most suitable way to deal with the issue being worked on.

I would urge Himesh84 to very carefully study Wikipedia's core content policies (namely, "Neutral Point of View", "Verifiability", and "No Original Research"), and come back to the article under discussion here with a way to describe the UN report that acknowledges and explains all the various viewpoints — based on what as many different news sources and scholarly treatments say about the matter — but without taking sides, without injecting your own personal observations or opinions into your writing, and (if at all possible) writing in such a way that someone reading what you wrote (and knowing nothing else about you) would not be able to tell where you personally stand on the issues in question. Until you can do this, you are going to find contributing to Wikipedia to be frustrating, if not completely impossible. — Richwales 22:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Rich, you didn't get me. I have understand Wikipedia policies. I understand that there is a serious problem in the Wikipedia policies which can't claim it is a encyclopedia. Ban ki Moon added the content of his report to the UN 2011 report. Two months later, after UNHRC vote , without having an option Ban ki Moon had to changed his position and supported to implement LLRC implementations. Countries officially responded at the UNHRC vote. But these Wikipedia policies still showing the picture before the UNHRC vote. Lot of countries officially changed their standard and voted to implement LLRC implementations at UNHRC. Now those countries supporting LLRC not UNSG's recommendations. Since they voted to implement LLRC at UNHRC there shouldn't be any doubt about that. I am not asking to create new policies of the private company called as Wikipedia. But with these policies Wikipedia can't claim it is encyclopedia. It can give completely opposite picture.

As this wikipedia policies can't prove UNHRC chose LLRC recommendations over UNSG's recommendations, same policies can't use to claim Pentagon has to accept Mr. Obama's orders over Mr/Ms Rich's orders even Obama is the selected one in the presidential election. Sudar,Obi2canibe,SGCM can say Rich didn't participate to the US election so don't use the word "over". Can you ever find a source to claim Pentagon has to accept Mr. Obama's order over Rich's order? But what will happened in the real world when you , Obama give opposite orders to pentagon at the same time ? Will pentagon give any recognition to you ? If they always accept Obama's orders why Rich has to given this much of wrong recognition by the Pentagon ? . This is not a encyclopedia. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that states the claim you want to make. Use quotations if you have to. The government newspaper is a good start, but it has to be attributed properly so that it meets Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policies. And please don't lump me in with the other editors as if to imply there's a conspiracy against you. I wasn't initially part of this dispute until the DRN case.--SGCM (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Again you are arguing for the wrong thing. I don't want to do any more edits. I given up. But I have right to give my opinion regarding some publishers who claim they are encyclopedia and they publish wrong things related to me, my country,... Use existing Wikipedia polices and show Pentagon has to accept Obama's orders over Rich/SGCM orders to prove Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Every one in the world know about Mr. Obama, Pentagon and the relationship. So proving it shouldn't be a tough task --Himesh84 (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@Himesh84. Rich is right when he says that Wikipedia is not a vote. Consensus is established, not by the number of users, but because of the success or failure to use the applicability of content policies to argue a position. There are many constructive ways to respond, like arguing why or how WP:OR or WP:SYNTH has not occurred or by finding a new source that explicitly states the claim you're trying to make. Quote from the source if you must. There are ways to argue constructively, and I hope the advice by all the editors here has been helpful.--SGCM (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Himesh84 has quoted a Sri Lankan Government Minister's view in the Sri Lankan Government's Official Newspaper - Daily News though it is well neutralised by User:Richwales. But the second source Himesh84 has quoted contains many important facts about the LLRC and the Sri Lankan Government. I have added some of the important facts from the second source since LLRC is quoted in the lead para of the UN Panel's Report.Sudar123 (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added the following.Sudar123 (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The UN resolution calls for an “action plan” from the very government that is responsible for the military’s killing of tens of thousands of civilians in the communal war with the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), as well as other gross abuses of democratic rights. President Mahinda Rajapakse set up the LLRC to fend off international criticism and whitewash the government and the military. The Sri Lankan government lobbied heavily against any resolution calling for even limited action on human rights. Within Sri Lanka, the government has used the issue to stir up nationalist and anti-Western sentiment, claiming that the country is the target of an “international conspiracy.” After the UN resolution was passed, President Rajapakse told a public meeting that “Sri Lanka, as an independent country will not give into any arbitrary interference in its affairs.” Rajapakse’s real concern is that, if it suited Washington’s interests, his government could quickly become an international pariah in the same manner as the Gaddafi regime in Libya. Moreover, he and his ministers could suddenly find themselves facing trial for war crimes.<ref>[http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/slun-m28.shtml "UN Human Rights Council passes resolution on Sri Lanka"], ''World Socialist Web Site'', 28 March 2012.</ref>

World Socialist Web Site is not a reliable source, anymore than the official government newspaper.--SGCM (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks SGCM for your advice. I want to finish my comments on the LLRC issue with this podcast highlight for the time being.Sudar123 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Mark Schneider, Senior Vice President and Special Advisor on Latin America at the International Crisis Group(ICG), discusses(with Kimberly Abbott of ICG) on the recent visit to Washington of G. L. Peiris, the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, and the pressing questions that the minister left unanswered.

The report of the LLRC was just released in December, and Peiris has said that the Sri Lankan inquiry is just now beginning. That’s been his excuse for not allowing any sort of international inquiry into what happened during the war and specifically in the last few months of the war. Is the international community buying this?

No, in fact the clearest evidence of the unhappiness of the international community is the adoption in March, March 22, of a resolution by the UN Human Rights Council. A resolution that was cosponsored by forty different countries and that was approved 24 to 8, that essentially says wait a minute, what are your plans for implementing the recommendations of the LLRC? And then it states specifically that the report does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international law. And so, it presses the government to come forward and say what it will do to investigate those allegations and to hold people accountable for those who violated them. And remember, what we’re talking about here are very specific allegations of the targeting of civilians, the shelling of no-fire zones. Where the government said this is a no-fire zone, we’re not going to be attacking it, civilians went in there, and then they were attacked. The killing of surrendering LTTE cadres, sexual and gender based violence, disappearances, these are the kinds of specific allegations that the UN Human Rights Council, the Crisis Group, and others have essentially said to the government, you have to investigate, these are violations of international law, these are your international obligations.

What I'm going to say here will probably offend some — and I'm sorry about that, but I believe it needs to be said, so please bear with me and try to understand the points I'm hoping to make.

First, WP:VNT ("verifiability, not truth") is widely misunderstood. It doesn't mean "we don't care whether something is true or not, as long as it's 'verifiable'". What it means is "we can't say something just because we're sure it's true — we need to verify it before it can be included". Quoting WP:VNT, "Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability."

The Sri Lankan conflict is inherently a controversial topic, with strongly held views on both sides (as we've all seen illustrated here). A prolonged and very bloody (I use this word in its literal sense, though the figurative/expletive sense may also apply) civil war was fought, and the government won, but there seems to be little or no progress towards a genuine reconciliation, and I doubt anyone can really say what the future will bring to the island or the people who live there. There is a very strong drive, on both sides, for people to present their position as being right and true, and the other side's position as being wrong, evil, and dangerous.

We (writers in Wikipedia) can not allow our writing to be taken over by such partisan motivations, no matter how worthy we might think our cause is. Even if you (I'm speaking to everyone here, not just Himesh and Sudar) think the matter is cut and dried, the fact is that the available reputable sources do not view the Sri Lankan conflict as a one-sided matter, with one side obviously 100% in the right, and the other side totally in the wrong and not worthy of any justification or defence. Thus, Wikipedia's NPOV policy demands that we need to present all significant views represented in reliable sources, make it clear to the reader which side is making which claims, and give the reader enough information to allow him/her to draw his/her own conclusions. This is what it means for Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia (as opposed to a political tract or a propaganda vehicle). If any of you cannot, in good conscience, contribute to an end product that will give readers a balanced, comprehensive treatment of the overall subject, please do us all a favour and gracefully withdraw from work on this and related articles, and allow people who are able and willing to research and write dispassionately to do so.

We need to discuss the UN Secretary General's accountability report, because it is/was a significant piece of the overall picture. We don't suppress it simply because it was not ultimately accepted, any more than (say) we would ignore John McCain's 2008 US presidential campaign because Obama won the election. And saying (please excuse me if I'm misunderstanding, but this is what it sounded like to me) that the UNSG report needs to be minimized or censored for the sake of Sri Lankan national security, the country's tourism industry, or other such considerations simply doesn't fly here on Wikipedia: we report what is verifiable from reliable sources, presenting information from those sources in their proper context, and if some people get worried or offended, we may be sorry, but that's just too bad. Material from the Sri Lankan government, or from Sri Lankan news sources that are most likely subject either to outright censorship or to strong pressure to echo the government views "or else", can be used to illustrate government positions, but need to be taken with a grain of salt if they presume to state plain facts.

And it's certainly OK to put the UNSG report in context — explaining (with the aid of reliable sources) the effect (or lack of effect) of the report, its relation to the Sri Lankan government's competing LLRC report, etc. — but we do not say (in the neutral, authoritative voice of Wikipedia) that the LLRC report was a whitewash, or that the Sri Lankan government is resisting calls to investigate its own war crimes, etc., etc., unless such claims are presented in a neutral and balanced manner and properly attributed to reliable sources. For example, material from the "World Socialist Web Site" may be used as evidence of what the people behind the World Socialist Web Site think about the Sri Lankan crisis, but can not presented as objective, neutral fact.

Finally, no one has any business here painting editors who don't agree with them with broad brush strokes and accusing them of being supporters or dupes of the other side. That is a variety of personal attack that is simply not allowed. I, for one, am willing to overlook such comments, provided they stop now and do not happen again, but I can't necessarily speak for other editors' level of tolerance for this kind of stuff. Just for the record, I have no personal or ancestral ties to Sri Lanka (or to India, in case that might matter), and I don't have any strongly held views on the Sri Lankan conflict, but based on what I am aware of, it appears to me that both sides have committed excesses and neither side is fully in the right (and if that means that everyone is going to think I'm supporting or been blinded by the "other side", so be it). — Richwales 18:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Accuracy matters, but must be verifiable. The article should be presented in a neutral fashion, with due weight, and using reliable sources. I was brought into this mess via the DRN request, and I regret continuing my involvement after the DRN was closed. It was irritating that I was accused of being part of a conspiracy for closing the DRN, when I have never touched a Sri Lankan article, prior to the DRN, in my entire span of editing Wikipedia, and have no position on the Sir Lankan civil war, which is controversial and should be represented in a neutral manner. As for the actual dispute, Himesh and Sudar have backed off from edit warring. Both users seem to be willing to discuss changes on the talk page. The conduct dispute, as it concerns ANI, has been resolved.--SGCM (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Richwales has said. I would only add that, although anyone can edit is an important principle, so also are WP:Neutral point of view and the need to edit in a collaborative and WP:CIVIL way, and sometimes these conflict. To quote WP:Competence is required: "Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively. If this continues to be disruptive, a topic ban is generally appropriate." I hope this will not become necessary here. JohnCD (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support. I concur that both Himesh and Sudar appear to be conducting themselves appropriately at the present time. — Richwales 20:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Richwales, JohnCD and SGCM for your neutral comments and solved the issue amicably, but the WP:Synthesis is infected in many of the Sri Lanka related articles and it will create endless Edit Wars if we are getting involved. But I couldn't persist at this point to bring your notice one incident called, "Sahilal Sabaratnam incident" where he was arrested by FBI for his purchase of weapons to LTTE when he was a Communication Director at Canadian Tamil Congress. And the incident was quoted at the Canadian Tamil Congress page and the Canadian Tamil Congress is branded as an "Affiliate" on the Wikipedia Pages.

I have removed the above incident from the Canadian Tamil Congress page because the Congress was nothing to do with his personal actions and involvements. There is no evidence or citation to support he was authorized by the Canadian Tamil Congress to execute it. The incident happened in 2006 and still the Congress is active and for its recent CTC Press Conference and Channel 4's "War Crimes Unpunished" screened at the Canadian Parliament was attended by two parliamentarians Rathika Sitsabaiesan and John McCallum. One of the citation used is from the Sri Lankan Government's Official Media - Sunday Observer. This issue is very cleverly synthesized with Canadian Tamil Congress. It is because of one Robert Hanssen, do you think entire FBI is an affiliate to the KGB?

I think this issue also will come under your moderation.Sudar123 (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Tyler Barushak

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

---

Resolved

 – Emailed ArbCom, subsequently nuked by Hersfold. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that this is relatively minor in the scheme of things, but after I posted something on his talk page and he did nothing, I didn't want to blank it without consensus. This is clearly a violation of WP:USERBIO. As recommended, I attempted to make contact with the user on his talk page and he hasn't replied, so I wasn't sure what the appropriate next step would be. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw some issues and dealt with them (see the page history and the note I dropped on his talk page). Were you talking about something else? Short biographies on userpages are generally allowed, and I'd say what remains is OK.--Chaser (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Jayemd (again)

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

---

I don't believe that User:Jayemd gets Wikipedia. There was a previous ANI discussion (started by me) which ended with a suggestion of mentoring, which Jayemd has not pursued. Then there was a sockpuppet investigation for WP:GHBH which was confirmed. After that, some dispute resolution suggestions at Talk:Kashmir conflict (diff) and Talk:Evolution (diff) that were anything but helpful, essentially saying "revert without discussion unless someone asks" and "vandalism is addictive". Around that time, he starts vandalizing again by creating Pieces of Both Genitalia and redirecting it to Gay (among other articles) and makes Justin Bieber jokes (diff). In the last couple days, he wrote about his "personal rivalry with Britain" (including calling Brits "attention rapists") on his User page (User:Jayemd#YouTube and issues with Great Britain). At this point, User talk:Jayemd and User talk:Jayemd/Archive 1 are filled with warnings, many by me but also by plenty of other editors. I'm wondering what (if anything) should be done at this point. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm indefinitely blocking for really obvious competence issues; should he show any understanding of why he was blocked, it can be lifted, but not until then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Quick RFPP

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

---

Resolved

If an admin has a sec would they mind checking my WP:RFPP (semi) on Water fluoridation controversy please? A dynamic IP is edit warring, has been reverted by 4 (maybe 5) editors and refuses to discuss their edits. Since the IP is dynamic I can't 3RRN it and I'm requesting here because of the high frequency of the reverts. Thanks! Sædon^talk 02:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Note:Not notifying the IP of this report because it is not about him/her per se, just about the PP. Sædon^talk 02:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies! Sædon^talk 02:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sure thing. That user, it's worth keeping an eye on the other article they edited. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

diff Dare erase it. If you delete this article named "Sergio Urias" i will sue Wikipedia for 1 million dollars and I will not stop until I win that demand' Jim1138 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sergioandernesto legal threats

Legal threats made at Talk:Sergio Urias. Editor creating promotional articles solely in support of E&S Writing Co. and the principle players, Sergio and Ernesto. Cindy(talk to me) 02:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka

I have brought this a week ago and on the advice of an Admin, one of the editors has taken it to the DRN and it was resolved. But User:Himesh84 is constantly pushing his Original Research as a single person. We need Admin intervention at this stage.Sudar123 (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I was the DRN volunteer in the case. Never been involved with Sri Lankan articles and I have no position on the civil war, but this was straightforward WP:OR. The statement that Himesh84 wants to include isn't explicitly mentioned in the source. Himesh argues that it's implied, but that's exactly what makes it OR. The other editors involved in the case (User:Jobberone, User:Obi2canibe, User:Sudar123, User:24.177.125.104, and myself) agreed that a source was needed that explicitly stated the claim. Instead of finding a new source, he's edit warred on the article. This is worrying, given how sensitive and controversial the topic is.--SGCM (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've read over the DRN discussion and looked at the article's history. Even though a unanimous consensus was not reached (Himesh84 refused to budge), it seems clear to me that Himesh84's proposed changes are being objected to by several other editors and not supported by anyone else. And even though a DRN process "is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions", I would propose there is more than enough reason here to insist that Himesh84 should carefully explain (on the article's talk page, not via an edit war) his objections to the current wording of the article, and not make any more attempts to impose his changes on the text unless he can first convince other editors to agree with him.

My first impulse was to say that this looked like a content dispute / edit war between two factions (with neither one being right or wrong) — but on further reflection, it seems to me that it's a case of one editor against several, with an all-but-unanimous consensus being rejected by an individual who is argumentatively restating his position (as opposed to discussing it) and has been repeatedly edit-warring in defiance of consensus. Himesh84 needs to step back here and consider that even if he is convinced that he is right and everyone else is wrong, he needs to do a much better job of explaining why there are problems with the existing text and why he believes certain changes need to be made. Drop, for the time being at least, any arguments based on dictionary definitions of common English words, and try instead to understand why everyone else seems to feel the existing text is OK, and focus your comments on why you believe there are major problems that require changes. If you think there is an NPOV problem with the current text, that may be a valid issue, but it needs to be discussed (and, if necessary, escalated through established dispute resolution procedures which do not involve repeatedly making changes which everyone else objects to). If Himesh84 refuses to change his behaviour, is unable to mould a revised consensus through a genuine give-and-take discussion, and insists on going back to edit warring, he needs to be blocked in order to prevent further disruption. — Richwales 04:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicely said, I strongly agree with your assessment of the dispute. DRN is an informal, not a binding, process, and serves as a noticeboard for building consensus. When consensus has been all but reached, with the exception of a single editor (the one making the edit in contention), then that editor needs to engage the other users by directly addressing the policy arguments. Edit warring and criticising others for not understanding the English language (example: "This is not something about wikipedia policy. This is about English. Even I have used my time to search meaning (sic) of the English words") are not conducive to consensus building. To be fair, it takes two to edit war, and Sudar123 should not have responded to Himesh84's behaviour.--SGCM (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to look at this, and I concur. Both sides are already in edit-war-block territory and should desist, but it is clear that Himesh84 has failed to gain consensus for the change he wants to make, either at DRN or on the talk page, and any further attempt to make it would be disruptive. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is a great insult to the Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan government officially rejected this report. It is clearly linked by Obi2canibe in his edits. UNHRC is the authorized entity and country's final official responses are come to the UNHRC. UNHRC officially asked to implement LLRC recommendations(refereced). After UNHRC officially selected and urged to implement LLRC implementations , process recommended in this report has no value. But when someone reading this article that person will definitely feel lot of countries currently supporting the implementation method specified in this report. It is completely wrong. Now they officially supporting and asking to implement LLRC recommendations. This wikipedia page tries to give a completely wrong bad impression about Sri Lanka. People (Obi2canibe) who likes Tamil Ealam (Tamil Ealam is a name proposed for the separated country within Sri Lanka) trying to use this rejected report(by Sri Lanka and UNHRC) to create bad impression on Sri Lanka. That's why current recognition to this report is highly important.

I tried to clarify things very clearly. Obi2canibe was in misunderstanding and write to the discussion. "They both contain similar, if not the same, recommendations". This is only where not using word over is correct. I clearly clarified that LLRC recommended local solution and UNSG's report recommended international solution and LLRC,UNSG's recommendations are completely opposite using facts linked in his version of the article. He didn't accept those are different when it is clearly visible. I asked from him "Are both recommended to resolve issue locally or internationally ?" Even he was in misunderstood, he didn't answered to clarify his statement. If so I could further clarified it. Instead answering they or him with multiple accounts closed the discussion. Wikipedia administrators must understand that it is very difficult to agree or gain consensus to a something by Sri Lankan and Tamil Ealam supporter. But correct thing should be in the Wikipedia without creating bad impressions on countries using not supported implementations by UNHRC. Obi2canibe said "Neither the draft resolution tabled by the USA nor the final resolution adopted by the UNHRC mentioned the UN panel's report". These logic are very much primitive. UNHRC selected LLRC implementations after tabling,voting.... Why to worry about a implementation mechanism not even considered to tabled ? They chose the best one to tabled.That's it. --Himesh84 (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to promote or defend any countries. We're here to build an encyclopedia. If you want to include a claim, find a source that explicitly states the point you're trying to make. There is no conspiracy going on. I and the other volunteer, Jobberone, have never edited any of the Sri Lankan articles, and don't have any positions on squabbles between Tamil or Sri Lankan supporters. The DRN case was closed because you did not make any arguments on the applicability of policy, and failed to convince any of the other editors of your position, leading to filibustering.--SGCM (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

But is Wikipedia is to spread wrong image about countries using outdated reports ? --Himesh84 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You have missed the 2nd party involved in this edit war. It was between Himesh84,Obi2canibe and later Sudar123 joined to the edit war.--Himesh84 (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody should be edit warring.--SGCM (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Highly disagreed on that. Dispute solved means, all the parties involved in the dispute must agree on the solution. If all the persons except one person agreed to a solution it doesn't say it is the correct decision. Some of the Aristotle's observations were confirmed to be accurate only in the 19th century. Before that all said Aristotle is wrong. It is just an example. --Himesh84 (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Consensus. Consensus is not unanimity, which on Wikipedia is nearly impossible. When all the editors share a similar viewpoint, with the exception of one, and that one editor has failed to use policy arguments to support his position, then there's no need to continue filibustering a DRN case. My advice, which I honestly hope is helpful, is that you'll respond by directly addressing policy arguments, or by finding a new source that explicitly makes the claims you're arguing for. One of Wikipedia's core principles is that it is based on verifiability, not truth.--SGCM (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If a core principle says it is not about truth why/how the hell Wikipedia claiming it is an encyclopedia ?--Himesh84 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia like all encyclopedias is a tertiary source, not a secondary source. It does not have the resources or the editorial oversight to make claims, true or not, only to report claims made by others that are verifiable and reliable. This is why original research is not allowed, and why it is considered a core principle of the site.--SGCM (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

UNSG report has very dangerous recommendations which could severely affect sovereignty of Sri Lanka. UNSG's implementations suggest to bring Sri Lanka to an international court and give a solution in there. The final decision from the international court can be anything. Even creating new country "Tamil Ealam" is also possible. Ealam Tamils want to divide Sri Lanka and create new country with proposed name "Tamil Ealam". They tried to get the approval of the UNHRC to the report but failed. Still they used this report to spread bad impression saying this is the mostly accepted approach to solve the problem. But LLRC is the officially recognized and selected implementation. But still the Administrator approved version says there are lot of International recognition to the SG's implementations. Even it includes recognition of countries who voted to LLRC implementation in UNHRC. This version gives completely wrong idea. This wrong version can create very bad image on Sri Lanka which can later affect to tourism,... hit Sri Lankan economy and create a separated country. That's why this wrong and outdated version needed to correct.

I know why everyone else seems to feel the existing text is OK. Because they supporters of Tamil Ealam. They have a plan. That's why they refused to accept that UNHRC accepted LLRC implementaion over SG's implementations while even Sri Lankan government received a letter from UNHRC to asking implement of LLRC recommendations. --Himesh84 (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I stated my opinion on talk page --Himesh84 (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Himesh, please assume good faith and do not assume that anyone who disagrees with you is in a conspiracy or is on the other side in your political dispute. You have explained your position at length, on the article talk page, at DRN and here, but you have not convinced anybody. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and it is now time for you to accept that you do not have a consensus for the changes you want to make and drop the stick. JohnCD (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. Wikipedia has failed to built a system so that it says it is. They have built a system which can gathered most number of users and way to get most number of hits. This report criticize Sri Lankan court system and law. But UNHRC asked to implemented LLRC which based on local court system. It is officially asked by a letter. UNHRC even didn't bothered to consider tabling UNSG's implementations. But your Wikipedia page showing a completely wrong picture to the world. Please admit that no one talking about this outdated report except Tamil Diaspora and Wikipedia company ( I don't know who funded this company). Even the person who created this report (UN secretary) now asking to implement LLRC recommendation. http://www.thesundayleader.lk/. I am not asking why Tamil diaspora not accepting LLRC. But why Wikipedia company not accepting LLRC over UNSG's report while Bank ki Moon , the person who created UNSG's report accepted LLRC is the correct approach ? I am not changing my position since all the countries and even UNSG's author had changed their positions and accepted LLRC recommendations are the correct approach. But your site trying to mislead readers. Please revisit your policies and try to implement a good policies to become encyclopedia over most popular view. If it is not possible at least drop the claim Wikipedia is a encyclopedia to prevent readers getting mislead --Himesh84 (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for The Truth, it is not a place to Right Great Wrongs, and as mentioned above you really should drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The situation here is more nuanced than simply "majority opinion rules". Wikipedia's policy is to seek a neutral point of view — which, to quote the policy, means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." We are not supposed to be deciding which viewpoint represents "the truth", presenting only that view and marginalizing or ignoring all other views. If there are two or more significant views represented in reliable sources, we are supposed to explain that there are differences of viewpoint and explain the different views.

There are, to be sure, sometimes still potential problems with implementing this policy. The available sources (particularly English-language sources, since most editors and readers here will be primarily familiar with English) may not cover the various aspects of a controversial foreign situation adequately. Certain kinds of sources — such as, in this case, statements by the Sri Lankan government, the LTTE, individual spokesmen or critics, other governments in the region, or even UN bodies or officials — could be inherently biased and not usable as reliable objective sources of information (except perhaps as information about what a given government, agency, or person thinks about the situation).

Additionally, we are forbidden here to engage in our own "original research" — including, in particular, synthesis of multiple separate sources to create a claim that isn't backed up by any one source on its own. Sometimes the line between OR/SYNTH and commonsense understanding of plain English can be hard to draw, but when lots of other editors are complaining about OR/SYNTH issues, chances are there is a real problem with the way someone is trying to use the source material in question. In such cases, the best answer is usually not to belabour the point by insisting that our reading of the materials is obviously correct and that everyone else is being dense.

The point of seeking consensus is not to determine "truth" by majority vote. Rather, if all (or at least most) editors are trying to follow the policies, we assume that a consensus (maybe not unanimous, but as close to unanimous as we can get) are most likely understanding how the policies apply to the situation at hand, and their collective judgment is probably the most suitable way to deal with the issue being worked on.

I would urge Himesh84 to very carefully study Wikipedia's core content policies (namely, "Neutral Point of View", "Verifiability", and "No Original Research"), and come back to the article under discussion here with a way to describe the UN report that acknowledges and explains all the various viewpoints — based on what as many different news sources and scholarly treatments say about the matter — but without taking sides, without injecting your own personal observations or opinions into your writing, and (if at all possible) writing in such a way that someone reading what you wrote (and knowing nothing else about you) would not be able to tell where you personally stand on the issues in question. Until you can do this, you are going to find contributing to Wikipedia to be frustrating, if not completely impossible. — Richwales 22:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Rich, you didn't get me. I have understand Wikipedia policies. I understand that there is a serious problem in the Wikipedia policies which can't claim it is a encyclopedia. Ban ki Moon added the content of his report to the UN 2011 report. Two months later, after UNHRC vote , without having an option Ban ki Moon had to changed his position and supported to implement LLRC implementations. Countries officially responded at the UNHRC vote. But these Wikipedia policies still showing the picture before the UNHRC vote. Lot of countries officially changed their standard and voted to implement LLRC implementations at UNHRC. Now those countries supporting LLRC not UNSG's recommendations. Since they voted to implement LLRC at UNHRC there shouldn't be any doubt about that. I am not asking to create new policies of the private company called as Wikipedia. But with these policies Wikipedia can't claim it is encyclopedia. It can give completely opposite picture.

As this wikipedia policies can't prove UNHRC chose LLRC recommendations over UNSG's recommendations, same policies can't use to claim Pentagon has to accept Mr. Obama's orders over Mr/Ms Rich's orders even Obama is the selected one in the presidential election. Sudar,Obi2canibe,SGCM can say Rich didn't participate to the US election so don't use the word "over". Can you ever find a source to claim Pentagon has to accept Mr. Obama's order over Rich's order? But what will happened in the real world when you , Obama give opposite orders to pentagon at the same time ? Will pentagon give any recognition to you ? If they always accept Obama's orders why Rich has to given this much of wrong recognition by the Pentagon ? . This is not a encyclopedia. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that states the claim you want to make. Use quotations if you have to. The government newspaper is a good start, but it has to be attributed properly so that it meets Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policies. And please don't lump me in with the other editors as if to imply there's a conspiracy against you. I wasn't initially part of this dispute until the DRN case.--SGCM (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Again you are arguing for the wrong thing. I don't want to do any more edits. I given up. But I have right to give my opinion regarding some publishers who claim they are encyclopedia and they publish wrong things related to me, my country,... Use existing Wikipedia polices and show Pentagon has to accept Obama's orders over Rich/SGCM orders to prove Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Every one in the world know about Mr. Obama, Pentagon and the relationship. So proving it shouldn't be a tough task --Himesh84 (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@Himesh84. Rich is right when he says that Wikipedia is not a vote. Consensus is established, not by the number of users, but because of the success or failure to use the applicability of content policies to argue a position. There are many constructive ways to respond, like arguing why or how WP:OR or WP:SYNTH has not occurred or by finding a new source that explicitly states the claim you're trying to make. Quote from the source if you must. There are ways to argue constructively, and I hope the advice by all the editors here has been helpful.--SGCM (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Himesh84 has quoted a Sri Lankan Government Minister's view in the Sri Lankan Government's Official Newspaper - Daily News though it is well neutralised by User:Richwales. But the second source Himesh84 has quoted contains many important facts about the LLRC and the Sri Lankan Government. I have added some of the important facts from the second source since LLRC is quoted in the lead para of the UN Panel's Report.Sudar123 (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added the following.Sudar123 (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The UN resolution calls for an “action plan” from the very government that is responsible for the military’s killing of tens of thousands of civilians in the communal war with the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), as well as other gross abuses of democratic rights. President Mahinda Rajapakse set up the LLRC to fend off international criticism and whitewash the government and the military. The Sri Lankan government lobbied heavily against any resolution calling for even limited action on human rights. Within Sri Lanka, the government has used the issue to stir up nationalist and anti-Western sentiment, claiming that the country is the target of an “international conspiracy.” After the UN resolution was passed, President Rajapakse told a public meeting that “Sri Lanka, as an independent country will not give into any arbitrary interference in its affairs.” Rajapakse’s real concern is that, if it suited Washington’s interests, his government could quickly become an international pariah in the same manner as the Gaddafi regime in Libya. Moreover, he and his ministers could suddenly find themselves facing trial for war crimes.<ref>[http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/slun-m28.shtml "UN Human Rights Council passes resolution on Sri Lanka"], ''World Socialist Web Site'', 28 March 2012.</ref>

World Socialist Web Site is not a reliable source, anymore than the official government newspaper.--SGCM (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks SGCM for your advice. I want to finish my comments on the LLRC issue with this podcast highlight for the time being.Sudar123 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Mark Schneider, Senior Vice President and Special Advisor on Latin America at the International Crisis Group(ICG), discusses(with Kimberly Abbott of ICG) on the recent visit to Washington of G. L. Peiris, the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, and the pressing questions that the minister left unanswered.

The report of the LLRC was just released in December, and Peiris has said that the Sri Lankan inquiry is just now beginning. That’s been his excuse for not allowing any sort of international inquiry into what happened during the war and specifically in the last few months of the war. Is the international community buying this?

No, in fact the clearest evidence of the unhappiness of the international community is the adoption in March, March 22, of a resolution by the UN Human Rights Council. A resolution that was cosponsored by forty different countries and that was approved 24 to 8, that essentially says wait a minute, what are your plans for implementing the recommendations of the LLRC? And then it states specifically that the report does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international law. And so, it presses the government to come forward and say what it will do to investigate those allegations and to hold people accountable for those who violated them. And remember, what we’re talking about here are very specific allegations of the targeting of civilians, the shelling of no-fire zones. Where the government said this is a no-fire zone, we’re not going to be attacking it, civilians went in there, and then they were attacked. The killing of surrendering LTTE cadres, sexual and gender based violence, disappearances, these are the kinds of specific allegations that the UN Human Rights Council, the Crisis Group, and others have essentially said to the government, you have to investigate, these are violations of international law, these are your international obligations.

What I'm going to say here will probably offend some — and I'm sorry about that, but I believe it needs to be said, so please bear with me and try to understand the points I'm hoping to make.

First, WP:VNT ("verifiability, not truth") is widely misunderstood. It doesn't mean "we don't care whether something is true or not, as long as it's 'verifiable'". What it means is "we can't say something just because we're sure it's true — we need to verify it before it can be included". Quoting WP:VNT, "Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability."

The Sri Lankan conflict is inherently a controversial topic, with strongly held views on both sides (as we've all seen illustrated here). A prolonged and very bloody (I use this word in its literal sense, though the figurative/expletive sense may also apply) civil war was fought, and the government won, but there seems to be little or no progress towards a genuine reconciliation, and I doubt anyone can really say what the future will bring to the island or the people who live there. There is a very strong drive, on both sides, for people to present their position as being right and true, and the other side's position as being wrong, evil, and dangerous.

We (writers in Wikipedia) can not allow our writing to be taken over by such partisan motivations, no matter how worthy we might think our cause is. Even if you (I'm speaking to everyone here, not just Himesh and Sudar) think the matter is cut and dried, the fact is that the available reputable sources do not view the Sri Lankan conflict as a one-sided matter, with one side obviously 100% in the right, and the other side totally in the wrong and not worthy of any justification or defence. Thus, Wikipedia's NPOV policy demands that we need to present all significant views represented in reliable sources, make it clear to the reader which side is making which claims, and give the reader enough information to allow him/her to draw his/her own conclusions. This is what it means for Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia (as opposed to a political tract or a propaganda vehicle). If any of you cannot, in good conscience, contribute to an end product that will give readers a balanced, comprehensive treatment of the overall subject, please do us all a favour and gracefully withdraw from work on this and related articles, and allow people who are able and willing to research and write dispassionately to do so.

We need to discuss the UN Secretary General's accountability report, because it is/was a significant piece of the overall picture. We don't suppress it simply because it was not ultimately accepted, any more than (say) we would ignore John McCain's 2008 US presidential campaign because Obama won the election. And saying (please excuse me if I'm misunderstanding, but this is what it sounded like to me) that the UNSG report needs to be minimized or censored for the sake of Sri Lankan national security, the country's tourism industry, or other such considerations simply doesn't fly here on Wikipedia: we report what is verifiable from reliable sources, presenting information from those sources in their proper context, and if some people get worried or offended, we may be sorry, but that's just too bad. Material from the Sri Lankan government, or from Sri Lankan news sources that are most likely subject either to outright censorship or to strong pressure to echo the government views "or else", can be used to illustrate government positions, but need to be taken with a grain of salt if they presume to state plain facts.

And it's certainly OK to put the UNSG report in context — explaining (with the aid of reliable sources) the effect (or lack of effect) of the report, its relation to the Sri Lankan government's competing LLRC report, etc. — but we do not say (in the neutral, authoritative voice of Wikipedia) that the LLRC report was a whitewash, or that the Sri Lankan government is resisting calls to investigate its own war crimes, etc., etc., unless such claims are presented in a neutral and balanced manner and properly attributed to reliable sources. For example, material from the "World Socialist Web Site" may be used as evidence of what the people behind the World Socialist Web Site think about the Sri Lankan crisis, but can not presented as objective, neutral fact.

Finally, no one has any business here painting editors who don't agree with them with broad brush strokes and accusing them of being supporters or dupes of the other side. That is a variety of personal attack that is simply not allowed. I, for one, am willing to overlook such comments, provided they stop now and do not happen again, but I can't necessarily speak for other editors' level of tolerance for this kind of stuff. Just for the record, I have no personal or ancestral ties to Sri Lanka (or to India, in case that might matter), and I don't have any strongly held views on the Sri Lankan conflict, but based on what I am aware of, it appears to me that both sides have committed excesses and neither side is fully in the right (and if that means that everyone is going to think I'm supporting or been blinded by the "other side", so be it). — Richwales 18:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Accuracy matters, but must be verifiable. The article should be presented in a neutral fashion, with due weight, and using reliable sources. I was brought into this mess via the DRN request, and I regret continuing my involvement after the DRN was closed. It was irritating that I was accused of being part of a conspiracy for closing the DRN, when I have never touched a Sri Lankan article, prior to the DRN, in my entire span of editing Wikipedia, and have no position on the Sir Lankan civil war, which is controversial and should be represented in a neutral manner. As for the actual dispute, Himesh and Sudar have backed off from edit warring. Both users seem to be willing to discuss changes on the talk page. The conduct dispute, as it concerns ANI, has been resolved.--SGCM (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Richwales has said. I would only add that, although anyone can edit is an important principle, so also are WP:Neutral point of view and the need to edit in a collaborative and WP:CIVIL way, and sometimes these conflict. To quote WP:Competence is required: "Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively. If this continues to be disruptive, a topic ban is generally appropriate." I hope this will not become necessary here. JohnCD (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support. I concur that both Himesh and Sudar appear to be conducting themselves appropriately at the present time. — Richwales 20:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Richwales, JohnCD and SGCM for your neutral comments and solved the issue amicably, but the WP:Synthesis is infected in many of the Sri Lanka related articles and it will create endless Edit Wars if we are getting involved. But I couldn't persist at this point to bring your notice one incident called, "Sahilal Sabaratnam incident" where he was arrested by FBI for his purchase of weapons to LTTE when he was a Communication Director at Canadian Tamil Congress. And the incident was quoted at the Canadian Tamil Congress page and the Canadian Tamil Congress is branded as an "Affiliate" on the Wikipedia Pages.

I have removed the above incident from the Canadian Tamil Congress page because the Congress was nothing to do with his personal actions and involvements. There is no evidence or citation to support he was authorized by the Canadian Tamil Congress to execute it. The incident happened in 2006 and still the Congress is active and for its recent CTC Press Conference and Channel 4's "War Crimes Unpunished" screened at the Canadian Parliament was attended by two parliamentarians Rathika Sitsabaiesan and John McCallum. One of the citation used is from the Sri Lankan Government's Official Media - Sunday Observer. This issue is very cleverly synthesized with Canadian Tamil Congress. It is because of one Robert Hanssen, do you think entire FBI is an affiliate to the KGB?

I think this issue also will come under your moderation.Sudar123 (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have gathered following summary from your topic.

Sri Lankan conflict is not a one-sided matter

We need to discuss the UN Secretary General's accountability report

we would ignore John McCain's 2008 US presidential campaign because Obama won the election ?

LLRC report was a whitewash ?

First important thing is I am not one sided person like you all. You all had been act one sided but now acting completely opposite. I tried to balance the things in here. Did I tried to white wash LLRC , proposed to delete this page or deleted any materials or praise how Sri Lanka protected human right activities ? I just did one simple thing. I bought the reaction of UNHRC to the page. UNHRC passed a resolution which urge Sri Lanka to implement LLRC. Do you think UNHRC isn't important institution when it comes to Human right activities. Wikipedia administrators JohnCD and you warned me to stop putting UNHRC's reaction towards reports in this page. Don't you think it was one sided ? Now look at your version of the page. Now it is saying lot of countries praise UNSG's report. But does it says these countries later voted LLRC at UNHRC. It is like someone says he is going to vote McCain, but due to some reason he has given his vote to Obama. But the version you allowed contains only about his promise. But I am not allowed to add what you missed. That's who they voted.

we must not ignore John McCain and importantly Obama. But if McCain trying to get over recognition equal to US president, just ping him saying you did great job, got lot of votes, but Obama is the selected president. So don't try to act as president.

Sorry, this page is one sided and please don't blame me I was one sided. I didn't delete anything in the page. I just tried to add UNHRC reaction. I wasn't allowed. That was the story. Nothing else.--Himesh84 (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Tyler Barushak

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

---

Resolved

 – Emailed ArbCom, subsequently nuked by Hersfold. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that this is relatively minor in the scheme of things, but after I posted something on his talk page and he did nothing, I didn't want to blank it without consensus. This is clearly a violation of WP:USERBIO. As recommended, I attempted to make contact with the user on his talk page and he hasn't replied, so I wasn't sure what the appropriate next step would be. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw some issues and dealt with them (see the page history and the note I dropped on his talk page). Were you talking about something else? Short biographies on userpages are generally allowed, and I'd say what remains is OK.--Chaser (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Jayemd (again)

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

---

I don't believe that User:Jayemd gets Wikipedia. There was a previous ANI discussion (started by me) which ended with a suggestion of mentoring, which Jayemd has not pursued. Then there was a sockpuppet investigation for WP:GHBH which was confirmed. After that, some dispute resolution suggestions at Talk:Kashmir conflict (diff) and Talk:Evolution (diff) that were anything but helpful, essentially saying "revert without discussion unless someone asks" and "vandalism is addictive". Around that time, he starts vandalizing again by creating Pieces of Both Genitalia and redirecting it to Gay (among other articles) and makes Justin Bieber jokes (diff). In the last couple days, he wrote about his "personal rivalry with Britain" (including calling Brits "attention rapists") on his User page (User:Jayemd#YouTube and issues with Great Britain). At this point, User talk:Jayemd and User talk:Jayemd/Archive 1 are filled with warnings, many by me but also by plenty of other editors. I'm wondering what (if anything) should be done at this point. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm indefinitely blocking for really obvious competence issues; should he show any understanding of why he was blocked, it can be lifted, but not until then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Quick RFPP

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

---

Resolved

If an admin has a sec would they mind checking my WP:RFPP (semi) on Water fluoridation controversy please? A dynamic IP is edit warring, has been reverted by 4 (maybe 5) editors and refuses to discuss their edits. Since the IP is dynamic I can't 3RRN it and I'm requesting here because of the high frequency of the reverts. Thanks! Sædon^talk 02:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Note:Not notifying the IP of this report because it is not about him/her per se, just about the PP. Sædon^talk 02:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies! Sædon^talk 02:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sure thing. That user, it's worth keeping an eye on the other article they edited. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

diff Dare erase it. If you delete this article named "Sergio Urias" i will sue Wikipedia for 1 million dollars and I will not stop until I win that demand' Jim1138 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sergioandernesto legal threats

Legal threats made at Talk:Sergio Urias. Editor creating promotional articles solely in support of E&S Writing Co. and the principle players, Sergio and Ernesto. Cindy(talk to me) 02:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Kwamikagami on Languages of India

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

---

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs)

Kwamikagami removed the redirect template on the top Languages of India[7]. I put it back since I didn't see why he removed it[8]. He's removed it twice more and instead of giving a reason or talking on the talk page, argued about my calling it a redirect[9][10]. I'm bringing this directly to AN/I as this is clearly an experianced editor (an ex-admin), has been reported on this board before, knows he should just give a reason or leave it and intends to game the system to get his way. Could we just jump directly to the trouting? (Me, him or both.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The title mentioned in the hatnote doesn't redirect there, so why do you believe it should remain? --Kinu ^t/_c 19:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes id does [11]. What are you looking at? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the reason is pretty accurately stated in this edit summary. I don't see what the problem is. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Don't see a problem here, except failure to assume good faith. The tag clearly doesn't belong as a cursory investigation would have revealed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Routine maintenance hardly requires a discussion on the talk page, or we'd never get anything done. — kwami (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well if you had taken the time, you wouldn't be on this page. Typing "indian Languages" in the seach box redirects to "Languages of India" when I do it. So I still don't see why the redirect template was removed! I looked and looked and could not see what you are refering to. It look to me like you were just screwing with me. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

When I type Indian languages in the search window I get to a disambiguation page.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Capitalization matters. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it's because the indian Languages redirects to Languages of India but Indian languages (with correct capitalization) goes to the disambiguation page. Fixed. Communication and good faith solves all.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Time for a break. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Kwami, Richard, and Maunus, remember when you change a redirect target from an article to a disambiguation page, it's good form to fix all the incoming links to that page; they were valid links before the change, but became links to dab pages (which are seldom useful) after the change. I've fixed all article links to Indian Languages, and am about to fix links to Indian Language and Indian language now, but something to remember for next time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I went through dozens with AWB, but that one didn't show up. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fixing about 15 links to Indian language now; I haven't looked, so maybe they've been newly added, or maybe AWB had a hiccup. Anyway, no big deal, it gives me something to do (since I don't have AWB). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Sayerslle

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

---

In his edit summary ([12] "its hard to talk to dictators - its RS sourced and your pov censoring and you know it") User:Sayerslle called me a "dictator". I was unable to report this earlier as I was under the 3-day block for 3RR, same as Sayerslle. This user apperently was already blocked for a month due to personal attacks. --Wüstenfuchs 19:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, blocked more than once for personal attacks. Civility blocks are unfortunate but really the only course of action for serial offenders. Unclear what it will take for him/her to get the point. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Given Wüstenfuchs's tendencies toward intense edit-warring bordering into the land of WP:OWN, Sayerslle's remark is uncivil but perhaps understandable. He fairly regularly racks up reverts past 3RR on pages he frequents. Spend some time looking through e.g. the revision history for Battle of Aleppo (2012) (9 and 10 September are good days to look at). It is difficult to get a word in edgewise while he monitors every bit of content added whilst leaning heavily on the "undo" button. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Understandable? He was edit-warring. I made a 3RR on Hafez al-Assad article, but before that I sent him a message to aviod edit-warring, but he contniued to revert edits. --Wüstenfuchs 20:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, because when dealing with an aggressive reverter such as yourself, it's easy to get sucked into that dangerous spiral. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agressive reverter, as myself? And it's easy to be sucked into "dangerous spiral"... I just don't think so... I don't have antention to suck aniyone anywhere. But also I think it's not nice to call anyone a dictator who censors things. The User also has history of persoanl attacks, he does understands that. --Wüstenfuchs 20:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

i added a sentence fom a radio 4 documentary that said hafez al-assad 'used today what would be called crony capitalism- it descended into corruption with the ruling family and their key supporters enriching themselves on a massive scale' - you said what could go in the section of what critics of ASsad have said in the lead and what couldnt- i added it - you removed it. thats what happened.Sayerslle (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. Something must be writen in the article. The lead is only a summary of the writen article. But you called me a dictator who is censoring things. --Wüstenfuchs 21:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

sorry. Sayerslle (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the assessment of User:Lothar von Richthofen. This is a non-case, and User:Wüstenfuchs has a lot of nerve to bring this matter to the admin noticeboard considering his own appalling record (he has been blocked 3 or 4 times for edit warring, and has only just been unblocked some 24 hours ago). And as a recent message I left on his talk page will attest in detail, User:Wüstenfuchs has in fact continued to edit war since his brief return to boot. While User:Wüstenfuchs is obviously not a dictator, he is however an unabashed cheerleader for authoritarian and undemocratic regimes, and a belligerent one at that. It is a fine line, but User:Sayerslle should strive for neutral edit summaries in general. بروليتاريا (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Accusation after accusation. Now you know whom am I supporting... do I need to say anything about that at all? Christ. --Wüstenfuchs 21:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I do accept your apology Sayerslle, a very kind thing to do. --Wüstenfuchs 22:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Please consider blocking: 75.9.33.111

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

---

75.9.33.111 (talk · contribs)

This anonymous user continued to edit the page: Baton_Rouge,_Louisiana with incorrect data. Simple internet searches prove the information to be invalid. --Revmqo (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the better venue for that request. But even they wouldn't take action yet, since the IP hasn't been warned. I'll be monitoring the IP's edits for the next while, though. —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Blatant vandals and trolls don't require warnings. This particular case is not quite 100 percent, although if he does it even once more he should be sacked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

True, Bugs. There is an exception to every rule; however, the general rule is to warn and then report, and this case is one for the general rule. —C.Fred (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

censorship of 2012_China_anti-Japanese_demonstrations

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

---

I added reliably sourced material indicating apparent government management of these demonstrations but this material was subsequently removed. I cannot restore this material because I am currently in the mainland and since this article's creation the government has starting to censor it (loading the article generates a blank screen). I can use a proxy server to leap the Great Firewall and view the page but I cannot edit because Wikipedia blocks the IP address even when I'm logged in. The instructions for how a registered user can edit anyway at Template:Autoblock make little sense, either because the section they refer to does not exist or possibly because the government is blocking part of these instructions. Please advise as to possible solutions here.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There's only one source; and it's an original research from a journalist on his own blog. The other piece of content about Shanghai demo is just a crowd control procedure and should not be used to mislead the readers as "government management". Please see WP:EXCEPTIONAL. STSC (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I see now wikipedia.org is entirely blocked from the IP in my Nanjing apartment, at least temporarily. I've found another just to note that what you say is not true. I cited both NPR and an Economist.com blog and they both suggest more than just "crowd control". See also "I saw a lot of government officials during the protests, dressed in Diaoyu T-shirts and leading the slogans. They were controlling the situation. They had all of us genuine Diaoyu activists held [under house arrest], and then they took over." In any case, what I think should be of interest to admins is not another content dispute but the fact editors subject to censorship need more help.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Still sounds like a blog to me, and not an WP:RS. Admins cannot deal with content here, your best bet is the reliable source noticeboard (since that appears to be the main problem). After that, it's a matter of obtaining WP:CONSENSUS for your edits dangerouspanda 10:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The third source says "Reported by Wen Yuqing for RFA's Cantonese service" but it's a blog because, to you, it "sounds like a blog" never mind that nowhere is it indicated that it might be a blog? Is a front page New York Times article unreliable if it should happen to "sound like" a blog? In any case, I'm not asking you to deal with the content beyond accepting that it's plausible enough that I should be entitled to argue for it on the Talk page, WP:RSN, etc by getting myself unblocked. The instructions on how to do so don't make sense to me. Apparently I'm supposed to put a code in my Usertalk page but what code? If you want a fairly determined WP:CONSENSUS perhaps you can help me so it isn't dominated by persons who views coincide with that of government censors.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You're editing here, right? Then you're not blocked (either you were not blocked to begin with, your IP was blocked but you are now editing from a different IP, or your IP was blocked but is not blocked now). Singularity42 (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I can edit here but I can't edit the article at issue from a mainland Chinese IP (China's censorship of Wikipedia is selective and typically also comes and goes). When I use an offshore IP that would allow me to edit, it says I am blocked from editing. So I have gone back to my original IP to ask here why I can't edit through another IP if I am logged in under my username. By the way, "EatsShootsAndLeaves", I have to say I find it a little ironic that you've got multiple logins and while you are an admin in spite of this I can't even use one (as am blocked when using a proxy for presumed sockpuppetry)!--Brian Dell (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

...and I find it ironic that you've never read WP:Alternate account :-) dangerouspanda 12:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just make sure to link those accounts to the main one, as ES&L has done in the fine print. Oh, bother! Doc talk 12:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did read it, ES&L, a possibility that might have occurred you had you heeded WP:GOODFAITH. That doesn't mean that I don't see any irony in the fact that I am the one who is blocked because of Wikipedia's apparent anti-sockpuppet systems. You could still edit (and administrate) Wikipedia even if you were restricted to just one username, "dangerous panda" (or even just stated on your userpage what your other username(s) were!). Whether I can edit with just one account evidently depends on my IP address. The issue here is that I cannot edit the government censored articles despite my not having multiple accounts and my having no desire for multiple accounts. I'd rather all my contributions be under my real name and that I accordingly be held accountable in the real world. But I can't edit this particular article because if I am operating from a Chinese IP it is blocked, and if I operate from an offshore IP, even if I log in under my name I am still barred from editing, and not by government censors but by Wikipedia. What I am interested in is why this is. Why not just block anonymous editing from IPs that have been abused by sockpuppets, and deem logged in editors innocent until proven guilty? If there is a way around this problem or even just a policy rationale for why there is no way around Wikipedia doesn't make it clear what it is.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I did WP:AGF - there were two options: 1) you hadn't read it, and 2) you were mad at Wikipedia because of a block, and decided to be a bit nasty specifically to me as your random target because I dared to tell you that you were in the wrong place. I AGF'd that it was the first. I'm sure that you have read WP:IPBE? dangerouspanda 13:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The OP is talking about ways to get around Chinese censorship. While I sympathize with their plight, I also wonder if there are any possible legalistic consequences to wikipedi, for actively helping someone get around their government's censorship laws? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Who's gonna take "legalistic" action? The Hague? Doc talk 13:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, podner, I dunno - that's why I asked. :) Let's suppose the Chinese government is reading this, and they somehow figure out who the OP is, and throw him in jail, or worse. Does wikipedia have any legal or ethical culpability or accountability? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The OP can come hide in one of my a convenient safe houses if the Chinese government is after him, so long as he gets to New York City first. I'll pick him/her up at the airport (after much cloak and dagger subterfuge)... Doc talk 13:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Right, now that the user has finally been pointed at the pertinent request page, I suppose this can be closed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Renewed personal attacks by Collingwood26

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

---

Resolved

 – Reblocked by Thmperward

In July Collingwood26 (talk · contribs) was blocked for two weeks for this post on my talk page which abused me in fairly extreme terms because he has different views about World War II than I do. He's now posted another extreme personal attack directed at a different editor who disagrees with him at Talk:World War II [13]. Could an uninvolved admin please follow up on this? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Butting-in in support of the above, this editor has said that the reason I don't (allegedly) support a particular article about Muslim protestors is because he thinks that I am Muslim. While it's probably beside the point that I have in fact never been Muslim nor intend to be, and that I voted to keep said article in an AFD the day before, I am concerned about his apparent suggestion that my edits are less credible (than his?) because of my (incorrectly alleged) religious beliefs. It is also needlessly antagonistic with the effect of poisoning a collaborative atmosphere, and probably intended as a personal attack. And not meaning to pile it on, but the suggestion to another editor to "open their eyes" and stop being "leftist" is also concerning to me. Just saying., --Merbabu (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Block doubled to a month. Editors who cannot tell the difference between "reliable sources have not framed these battles as occurring within the particular extranational region whose terminology you prefer" and "these battles did not exist and I hate Australians" are not going to benefit the project by continuing to edit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, a quick scroll up the page will show another user who is fond of the 'leftist' accusation. Coincidence? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not remotely uncommon to see such terminology thrown around in nationalist / political spats on here. Pure coincidence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a leftist myself :-) dangerouspanda 13:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Claims of libel

User:Fairness and Truth made this new section [14] on another user's talkpage, with the text The article is libelous, completely inaccurate and blatantly biased. I've no idea if this is a legal threat or not, but he/she seems pretty heated over this, so someone who knows NLT better than me should take a look-see. User will be notified.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Victor Vancier is an article, not a user. I think it's fine to make a message on a talk page highlighting perceived errors with the article. Definitely not a legal threat, or even a personal attack on an editor. Whether it falls under a rant that we should pay attention to unless additional citations are given, I haven't checked, but don't think that would warrant action. --Activism1234 05:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my fault. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how simply using the words "libel" or "libellous" to describe material in an article can be construed as a legal threat on its own. Note the wording on Template:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. [my bolding]

Construing these kinds of comments as legal threats hampers discussion of what may be serious BLP issues. I have no idea if the claims made by Fairness and Truth are accurate, but, simply describing bits of text as libellous, is not the same thing as "I'm going to sue you for libel unless you change this.". Just my 2 cents. Voceditenore (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I attempted to check out who this “Chaim Ben Pesach” guy is, and the web seems to have almost universal disdain for him, frequently referring to him as a cult leader, etc. I don't know him, and I don't know the editor, but this smells like someone trying to spruce up his rather tarnished image. —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  05:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't know about all that, but this editor is definitely pushing a rather radical fringe viewpoint. If you see the next edit after the above [15], he is justifying the subjects referenced conviction of bombing by making a claim regarding some facet of the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict having nothing to do with the subject of the article. Guessing this isn't the forum foor that, but the editor in question here is defiantly WP:FRINGE Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Any editor with "Truth" in their username is typically up to no good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

<- See Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Victor_Vancier...don't know why its there but there it is. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

He spammed the same thing in several places: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. In addition to the other obvious problems, does that qualify as WP:FORUMSHOP? —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  08:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping is typically seen as something one does deliberately while knowing it's wrong. Brand new users can be excused for posting in multiple places because they don't know any better. More importantly, the probability that invoking RANDOMALLCPSRULES in association with new editors is useful is almost zero. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he was only welcomed on Sept 7 ... and whoever notified them of this ANI (the opener of it) forgot to sign their post dangerouspanda 10:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that he is a new user. His very first edit was on the Victor Vancier page, nearly all of his edits are on that page. Nothing else. I'd say we have either a sock or an SPA on our hands. "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 16:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Unfortunately, Mootros (talk) is committing vandalism continuously w.r.t. to Bettina Wulff. I have informed him (by template) not to do so but he simply carries on. Moreover, he now starts to retaliate through "AfD" requests (i.e. Salty Fingers (plant)) and vandalising older articles of mine through adding unsourced information (i.e.Haymon). I suggest that he be blocked for his continuous and willful vandalism. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sooo many things wrong with this. First of all, knock off the edit warring on Bettina Wulff, and this goes for both of you. Secondly, I see no reason to suspect that the AfD nomination was carried out in bad faith. Third, and this part I would have tattooed on my forehead and upload a picture of it to Commons if it helped people learn: Just because you disagree with an edit does not make it vandalism. Please, please read WP:Vandalism. Finally, please take a look at WP:Don't template the regulars, for it has some wisdom that may keep you from getting proverbial nasty looks. All in all, aside from a stern talking to to you both for the edit warring at the Wulff article I see nothing needing done here, but I defer to my fellow administrators. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Both editors have violated 3RR and so blocks would be appropriate. However, since there's now an attempt at discussion on the talkpage I have instead warned both. Further edit warring will result in blocks being handed out. Akolyth, notifying other users about ANI reports you file on them is not optional, it is mandatory - I have done it for you in this instance. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with the philosophy of not blocking once the editors have shown they will discuss. I do not like "bright line" blocks being performed without a warning first, as that ignores the human element, that we all can take it a little too far sometimes and just need someone to say "stop it". Hopefully they will be wise enough to heed your warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Conan chronologies

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

---

I tried reverted back to the article to the original version from some auto-confirmed user who edit the sources are to make them reliable and notable, however, User:Shooterwalker (talk) believes they are unreliable, are the edits factual or is this user wanting start a talk about why they aren't sourceful? If they are resourceful, please notify the user--GoShow (...............) 16:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a content dispute and should be discussed at the article's talk page, not here. De728631 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User Niemti removes all edits I make -

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

---

It is a small matter to me... someone -- user "Niemti" has an abrasive user persona (evidenced in quoted comments directed at another editor--see below). A look at his contributions (primarily in the ever-so important video game entries on Wikipedia) reveal the same abrasive manner. I came to be aware of Niemti when, after removing the criminal history information in the infobox of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Niemti undid... Niemti SHOUTS (note all caps) at other editors. He is a bit of a pest. Have a look at his edit history and you will see the same power-drunk behavior.

For example, I added the following to Innocence of Muslims: According to the New York Daily News: "a fatwa was issued against the film's producer who has gone into hiding with his family".

Removed by user Niemti at 11:56, 20 September 2012‎ Niemti (79,831 bytes) (-264)‎

== Added this to Innocence of Muslims: "thought to have been written and produced by" was changed by user Niemti to "purportedly written and produced by"

== Example of Niemti's lack of interpersonal skills (possibly due to immaturity?) 20:50, 18 September 2012‎ Niemti (15,036 bytes) (-769)‎ . . ("specific reason": unreliable source (scribd.com), idiocy ("First picture of film-maker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula") and trivia (AJ clip), Wired pdf that should be better used as just a ref. Also again, USE ALPHABETICAL ORDER, IS IT ANY HARD, NO IT ISN'T.)

== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balzacdeverlain (talk • contribs)

• "Thought to have been written and produced by" changing to "purportedly written and produced by" is probably a better change. I had originally added "thought to have been written" myself several days ago, and don't see an issue with the more precise word "purportedly" being used. That is a pretty normal part of the editing process. You also did not notify them, which is required. I did that for you. I don't see where you tried to talk with them on their user page, another prerequisite to coming here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• I just now noticed you had done 7RR on that same article a week ago. Since I had worked on it, I wasn't in a position to block you due to WP:INVOLVED, and fortunately you were wise enough to stop reverting after the warning. Your second issue, you didn't do a proper diff, making it harder to track down, but was on Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. He was brusk. Meh. These are not reasons to block or take action other than what has been taken care of with a warning from another user on his talk page [21]. I don't see a reason to issue sanction, and he has already had someone bring the issue to his attention. No need for further action here. Recommend closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

• I reverted 7 times not knowing I was reverting an admin... I thought I was undoing Niemti... my fault, of course, ignorance of Wikipedia rules is not an excuse. I called attention to Niemti because I believe he will engage in an edit-war with my user account, and this post serves to timestamp my concern. Yes, close it (I alerted Niemti at his talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balzacdeverlain (talk • contribs) 17:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably the same guy as in #Edits of the new user "Unindicted co-conspirator" in Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. --Niemti (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Balzacdeverlain, I don't care that you were reverting an admin. When I'm editing an article, I'm just an editor like you. Reverting ANYONE seven times is completely unacceptable. You are once again edit warring, and if you revert back again, I will request an uninvolved admin block you. I've already left a warning on your talk page, and a note to Niemti asking them to engage on the talk page of the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Catperson12

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

---

Catperson12 (talk · contribs)

Reported this user to AIV. Long term disruption, with many of their edits necessitating reversion. No doubt often well-intentioned, but persistent change of content, always unsourced, edit warring without engaging other editors' concerns, with no use of edit summaries to explain actions. History of warnings, some final, with a block. None of this has slowed the account's pattern, nor induced a desire to discuss their edits. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As you've been here only a week, it would be best if you provided some diffs to show some specific disruptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to trust me that I've been here, in fact, for more than seven years. Later I may have the time to assemble diffs, but is there a reason that reporting this as an IP requires more specific substantiation? For the moment, your warning of May 25 underscores that this account has been receiving negative feedback for a long time [22]. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with your being an IP, only a lack of context. Obviously, as you note, I had an issue with that editor also, some time back, and decided to quote Mike Ditka. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was Ditka--I've been watching baseball, in which,as we know, there's no crying. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Stop it!" is obviously not original with Ditka, but it's a short, humorous editorial segment he's been doing on ESPN NFL Today for the last couple of seasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• I declined to block based on the AIV report, mainly because there had been no recent warnings. User:De728631 took the extra step of adding a warning. Catperson has madde no edits since that warning. The one block occurred three months ago. And, @76, the answer is no, the fact that you're an IP does not create a higher bar for a report here, but all editors who report misconduct here should provide diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Bbb23. I've been around long enough to know that you and Baseball Bugs are valued contributors, and I appreciate the rationale for not blocking. As well, diffs are helpful. I came here because I believe that this is a problematic user who has chosen neither to engage nor respect basic guidelines, and believe that numerous edits have been either inaccurate or original research, and haven't improved the articles. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • If there's a continual problem with Catperson's edits, it would be good to document some of it, for the reasonable likelihood that this is not the end of this story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Okay. Here are some recent edits that were quickly reverted [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. These are invariably minor edits in terms of amount of content changed, but if they are not supported by references and require reversion, represent a greater nuisance than contribution. They're a time sink for those who have to trail along behind and check every edit, and for me, just to report this and list a few recent diffs. When I could be spending my precious time sampling ales. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
      • And this [34]; my take is that good-faith edits are occasionally sprinkled among apparently pointless, nuisance edits, the kind which can and do fly under the radar for months.... 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
        • It's hard to tell whether those edits are true trolling or merely incompetence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Comment: Catperson12 has one talk page edit and zero user talk edits. -- Dianna (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Catperson has made two edits subsquent to De728631's warning. One was fairly innocuous and has remained intact. The other was this one undone by 78. So, they've expanded their distinctions from town vs. city to harpsichord vs. piano.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• And more, including this [35] and [36]. At some point--Catperson has been editing since October 2011--it makes little difference whether it's trolling or incompetence. But, and I'm guessing they're cool with this, they are getting some attention. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• [37].... I'm going with trolling, though of the slowest and most uninteresting sort. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Because Catperson made more city/town edits subsequent to User:De728631's warning and failed to explain what they are doing, I have blocked them for a week (they had been previously blocked for 48 hours in June).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:218.108.168.130

The IP user has been warned enough times to halt the good faith edits it has used oni the article Sami Brady and EJ DiMera changing coerce to rape, and thus changes the edits from coerce to rape and is constantly reverting auto-confirmed users edits from their contributions and other contributions in order to make the IP user stop its edits. Please notify the user about the one good faith edits and how it can be resolved, or please halt the user from reverting other users edits such as User:Shaun9876's edits.--GoShow (...............) 03:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, somebody close this. The charge is baseless, and seems to claim that IPs shouldn't try to revert registered accounts. There is discussion at various pages (check the IPs history), and the sources, well, what can I say--they call it rape. I have reinstated the IPs edit, and this is a content matter, not something for ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, although, the IP user does have a manage to believe it was rape other than coerced, as well needs to halt from deleting the Islamophobia disambiguation from other articles.--GoShow (...............) 03:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. I believe that this is an Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents issue, given how GoShow acted inappropriately in his interaction with me at this article. Basically, I reverted GoShow when he reverted my restoration of the text that "EJ is considered to have raped Sami." This was the original text, supported by the reliable soap opera sources, but was changed by this editor back in July of this year. I restored the original text because "per the WP:Reliable sources backing the definition of rape in the first paragraph of the Rape article, which includes coerced sex (in this case, EJ forced Sami to have sex with him by telling her that he would let a man who is dear to her, her ex-fiancé, die if she did not), and per the reliable soap opera sources in the EJ DiMera and Sami Brady article, it is considered rape."

Although this was settled with a different user (User:Shaun9876, who GoShow mentioned above), GoShow continued to revert me, even showing up as his admitted WP:Sockpuppet Mr.Goblins to do so (see my talk page for that), ignoring the sources and ridiculously insisting that this definition of rape is WP:FRINGE. The user doesn't seem to have nothing but a limited understanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Despite being registered. Here is the exchange from his talk page (as GoShow). I told him that I would be reporting his conduct here. Of course, as I knew he would, he decided to beat me here first. Either way, his understanding of guidelines/policy is extremely lacking. The English barrier is apparent.

And I haven't been deleting anything related to Islamophobia. I already told GoShow: Have you never seen what it says at the bottom of IP talk pages? It says: "Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address." 218.108.168.130 (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We have already, discussed this on your talkpage about many autoconfirmed users with different users without vandalism, although the one your talking about is not, and we have discussed again to not furthur escalate the article as well with your deletion of Islamophobia sources from other articles, the discussion is closed, please stop your argument.----GoShow (...............) 04:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I already told you that wasn't my user and to stop the escalating the talk on my talk page—GoShow 05:17 20 September 2012

I can barely understand anything you just stated. But using two accounts in the way you have described is sockpuppetting, unless there is a valid reason for two accounts. Especially with those accounts not publicly tied to each other. But just leave me alone already, and I'll leave you alone. 218.108.168.130 (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have been warned it's a problem, I have already told you that from the first place before you started making accusations about your opinions. I am not trying to make a fight, but don't add more to the argument, but we agreed with your edits on that article, but not on other article you deleted which is deleting the Islamophobia disambiguation from other articles. ↓--GoShow (...............) 14:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You "talk" the same exact way as that user and took an interest in reverting me for the same asinine reasons. But claim what you want, obviously. Just don't be surprised when you get caught. And I don't have to shut up when you say so. You could also stop "talking," you know, just like Drmies advised you to do here and elsewhere. 218.108.168.130 (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

GoShow, please indent your replies here so the conversation is easier to follow. I've taken the liberty of indenting your comments above for you. Thanks - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, this needs to stop. There's no socking--will registered editors please not forget to sign in? You two bickering back and forth is silly and disruptive. IP, you got your wish in the article, and continuing this here is useless. Besides, there is no doubt whatsoever that it's the same person responsible for all edits from this IP, since you edited the soap article before you moved on to other matters to remove their "extreme left-wing bias", but that's also not a matter for this board--at least not right now. Enough already, out of everyone, including me. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, that was not me. This is a WP:PROXY, and it can be used by anyone at any time. I am not a political person, and would be on the left side if I were. I understand that you or someone else will block this IP as a proxy. But this issue is settled now anyway. 218.108.168.130 (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahem... This says something else. // Liftarn (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahem... That does not negate what I stated right above you, to Drmies. So I don't see your "ahem" point at all. Again, this is a proxy. A proxy that another person decided to use while I'm using it. Big whoop. It's something I encounter all the time when using proxies on Wikipedia. 218.108.168.130 (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If it's a WP:OPENPROXY it needs to be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

218.108.168.130 was blocked for a year as an open proxy this morning by Fut. Perf. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 18:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

revdel at Soham murders?

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

---

Is this a candidate for revdel - a single IP edit has replaced Ian Huntley with another name, presumably of either a friend (or enemy).

I've not notified the IP editor due to it being a single case of vandalism, although if others feel that the form still needs to be followed, please correct me. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"To request permanent deletion of sensitive personal information, see requests for oversight. DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone." GiantSnowman 18:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Kensho

(Restored from archive Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive769&action=edit&section=10

Unresolved

Recently User:Suchawato Mare has three times restored newer versions of the page on Kensho to his preferred version, removing well-sourced and valuable information:

• 1st revert [38]
• 2nd revert [39]
• 3rd revert [40]

I have informed Suchawato Mare three times about my objections to his edits on the Talk:Kenshō page. These were answered one time, with a long story that did not respond to my first series of objections, nor give a clear insight into the reasons of his edits. After complaining on this noticeboard followed a longer response by Suchawato Mare:

• After 1st revert [41]
• After the 2d revert, Suchawato Mare gave this response [42]
• This was my agitated response [43]
• I've waited two days, then started restoring removed sections, giving these explanations and expanding my response to Suchawato Mare's response [44]
• After the 3rd revert I posted this notification, which resulted in a long reaction by Suchawato Mare [45]
• On which this was my response [46]

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you disputing the conduct or the content? —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  06:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Both. Simply restoring your own preferred version, without discussion, is very unpolite and non-cooperative. Regarding the content, there are two problems: the removal of well-sourced info, including notes; and the use, by Suchawato Mare, of a very limited range of sources, from his own Zen-denomination. It gives me the impression that Suchawato Mare is simply not knowledgeable on the wider range and context of the topic, especially contemporary research on Zen, and does not understand how Wikipedia works. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, normally they will punt a content dispute to WP:DRN. I'm definitely not a topic expert, but my meta-analysis is that he's done several mass reverts of almost all the work anyone else has ever done on the article, back to when he started editing it 6 years ago—the first mass revert being in 2008.

—Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  07:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response from Suchawato Mare:

Joshua Johnathan seems to be acusing me of being a disruptive editor. namely, by:

• • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

However this is false.

He says he has asked me "three times, etc, etc."

making it seem like he has made every reasonable attempt to be reasonable with me but I'm just so 'uncooperative'.

The reality is, it's been only a few days at the time of this posting since he wrote any of his posts in the talk page on the article in question.

And, indeed, I did actually respond to him once in that time.

He seems to think that "Oh, if I post it three times within 72 hours or something like that" that everyone else 'must' respond to him within the timeframe of his choosing or they are being 'disruptive'.

I posted the reason for my edits on my edits summary.

I don't think it occurs to him that other people may have things going on in their lives that take precedence over responding to him on wikipedia.

Also, I could level the same accusation of disruptiveness at him, because he:

• Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.

He is also failing to "get the point" and "understand the point".

• "Failure or refusal to "get the point"

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted."

• "Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you, see if you can see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement."

This above quote is a central point, just because I disagree with him, doesn't mean I didn't hear him. Perhaps it may not have occurred to him that other people simply may not have time to respond as quickly as he wishes.

• "Failure to understand the point {{anchor|Failure to understand the point

"Sometimes, even when an editor acts in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up an editor's mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed, though it is rare for them to be permanent."

This is a central point, what he calls removing "valuable" content, I call cleaning up his mess he made of the article.

Simply because he adds more information, does not make the article better.

It can make a forrest for the trees phenomenon, where the reader gets so bogged down in "trees" that they miss the point of the "forrest" (the point of the article) entirely.

Finally, I would suggest that he simply exercise patience.

And realize that it might take some days or even weeks depending upon what a person is doing in real life, to get back to him.

I have been working on this article for several years, a few days seems hardly inconsequential.

-Suchawato Mare

It's completely unreasonable to revert and then disappear for “weeks” without discussing the changes. Discussion is fundamental here; if you can't participate in it, then don't make contentious changes. Further, pretty much all of your personal attack is false; there is no “community” or “consensus” against making changes, there is only you. Nobody else has spoken up on the talk page or reverted any changes. To accuse another editor of numerous failings when you simply disagree on the content is shamelessly rude (not to mention hard to reconcile with Buddhism). —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  08:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response by Joshua Jonathan

• "Engages in disruptive cite-tagging": in my latest version of the article, there are two {{citation needed}}-tags:

• "In kenshō one realizes that there are no inherently existing 'things', that the world we experience is empty of inherent existing "things". But according to Houn Jiyu-Kennett, this not a 'vacuum': "It is the fullest, 'nothingness' you will ever know." Suchawato Mare gave this quote on the Talk Page; I've added it to the article, but couldnt't find the source via Google. The only hit it gives, is Wikipedia.
• "Oh Buddha, going, going, going on beyond and always going on beyond, always Becoming Buddha. Hail! Hail! Hail!" Suchawato Mare provided a source for this one; that's good. That's why we use those tags.

• "Tendentious editing": it's not just one point, it's a long list of points, which Suchawato Mare keeps removing without substantial discussion. The "opposition" has hardly been explained; requests for this have mostly been ignored. "Repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" - this describes exactly Suchawato Mare's behaviour.
• "Failure or refusal to "get the point"": Kerfuffler is correct, there is no "community-consensus", only Suchawato Mare who keeps restoring his preferred version, removing a lot of sourced and valuable information without substantial discussion.
• "Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with"": also when you have little time, first discuss, then edit.
• "Failure to understand the point", "cleaning up his mess he made of the article": I've exactly pointed out what my problems with Suchawato Mare's edits are. You may prefer to call this a "mess", it still does not mean you can just remove a lot of well-sourced and valuable info. First discuss, then edit.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the thread, beacuse it is not resolved yet. What do with it now? Is there going to be any action by an administrator? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be screwed here. WP dispute resolution procedures are not geared toward the kind of once in a blue moon hit and run reverting that particular editor is doing—every time it comes up, you'll just get a lot of “he's had an account for years, and he hasn't done anything else bad recently” comments. If he continues that pattern, your best bet is to wait for him to go away and then go back to your editing. —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  04:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

How about posting it at the edit-war notice-board? Or is that too late? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked third opinions from User:SudoGhost, User:Tengu800, User:Keahapana and User:Suddha to give their opinion on my recent edits on kensho, to reach consensus. They are experienced editors with a lot of knowledge on Buddhism. I've also Suchawato Mare of these requests. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Is blocking appropriate for User:66.180.192.21?

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

---

I'm sorry if I'm over-reacting, but I came across a contribution which seemed excessively vulgar and clearly libelous. I know we're supposed to leave three warnings, but because this is a BLP I wondered if immediate blocking is appropriate. I felt I needed to defer to more experienced editors.

On September 20, 2012, the editor User:66.180.192.210 added to the article on Rex Reed the following content: "[redacted a fairly tacky insult]"

If a warning is all that's required, I can add it. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Rather than blanking it, or even asking an admin to revdel it, how about repeating the alleged libel on the highest traffic WP noticeboard? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Revdel'd, and redacted above. No sense blocking the IP, it was last used 8 hours ago, and the history suggests it was a throw-away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Review my actions

Alright, I took action on an RFPP over Sultanate of Rum. There was pretty clear edit warring going on in my opinion, and I ended up protecting the page for five days to allow for some discussion, warning Qatarihistorian (talk · contribs), and blocking Mttll (talk · contribs) due to his extensive track record of edit warring. Mttll has now complained at his talk page about my interpretation of the events at the article and so I will bring my actions here for review. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here's what I see. Pretty clear evidence of edit warring by both parties per these diffs about Qatari's editing ([47]--this is not vandalism, [48], [49]) and these diffs regarding Mttll's editing ([50], [51]--this is also not vandalism, [52]). The two of them are both engaged in discussion on the talk page, but there is nothing remotely close to consensus, because they are the only participants on these matters. They need a third party or more discussants at the talk page. So no, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the admin's conduct in this situation. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I see no real evidence (based on the article talk page) that the two editors came to explicitly agree on anything related to the content that was the subject of edit warring. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

{{User talk:Mttll}}

A comment on the transclusion above, it is true another editor is involved in the page history. However, they haven't engaged in edit warring, and my larger point was that they are not participating on the relevant parts of the talk page. So my point stands that there is no consensus over any particular content changes because the only users involved in actual discussion were Mttll and Qatari. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

E4024 was edit-warring by tag-teaming with Mttll, as he performed two quick reverts in support of Mttll. What is more important is that he wasn't involved in any talkpage discussion, which means the discussion was only between Mttll and Qatarihistorian. But this has nothing to do with Mttll's actions anyway. Athenean (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Mttlll. He did what an editor was supposed to do, added a ref when challenged [53]. A one-month block for that is totally ludicrous. Qatarihistorian on the other hand gives the impression of an edit-warring SPA POV pusher who should probably be blocked for a while per WP:NOTHERE. Qatarihistorian removed text without even bothering to look for a source or add , and then repeated the same even after a source was added.

Honestly that article is in a POV flip-flop, what sources say is more nuanced:

• [54] "While the Arabic language retained its primacy in such spheres as the law, theology and science, the culture of the Slejuk court and secular literature within the sultanate became largely Persianized; this is seen in [...] and use of Persian as a literary language (Turkish must have been essentially a vehicle for everyday speech at this time)."
• [55] "Persian became the official and literary language while Arabic was preferred as the language of the law, thus overshadowing the Turkish language."

But Wikipedia is seldom good at nuance... Tijfo098 (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And as one may have guessed, Qatarihistorian is no stranger to edit wars [56] or apparently editing logged out in such contexts [57] [58]. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support admins actions. One editor had a more extensive history of problems, so differing levels for each participant was appropriate. GregJackP Boomer! 04:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support admin actions. Though I would have blocked both for edit warring. --Defensor Ursa 04:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And Totally on a tangent, we should probably establish the Ahmadinejad barnstar to be awarded for writings like "a dynasty of Persian origin who established a Persian Empire". Tijfo098 (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Since 1)the Sultanate was not of Persian origin, 2)was not a Persian empire. --Defensor Ursa 04:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support admin actions. Just a few days ago Mttll was blocked for edit-warring on Turkey, and was unblocked on condition that he would behave. Now he has broken 3RR again, this is ridiculous. A one month block is reasonable considering his long block log and recent edit-warring. As for E4024, he was merely tag-teaming with Mttll against Qatarihistorian [59], which does not in any way mitigate or legitimate Mttll's edit-warring. Athenean (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support admin actions. Mttll has been overdoing things for a while and on more than one article. While his latest unblock was related to other articles on Turkey, the unblocking admin had made it clear then that the user needs to change his revert-happy approach when it comes to disputed edits. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is Qatarihistorian
First of all, user Mttll was conducting vandalism on a hidden agenda. He didn't like the fact the Sultanate of Rum is identified as a Persianate state, even though sources clearly indicated the Persianate nature/identity of the state due to two factors: 1) that the state was based on a Persianate court culture. 2) that the state's official language was Persian.

Nevertheless, user Mttll decided to move the term "Persianate" to the section of arts and architecture, in order to disguise historical facts. When I prompted him of this, he tried to FURTHER disguise his actions by renaming the arts and architecture section to --> culture, but that still was invalid.

The irony is, even though he wanted to discuss this issue with me on the article's talk page, he didn't want to compromise, therefore he said something along the lines of "I don't care what you think" and went ahead with his pathetic actions of distorting facts.

I even showed in my edits that I had no problem with him wanting to call the Sultanate of Rum a "Turkish" state, so long as he provided references for it. By the way, LONELYPLANET travel guides are not reliable references, I hope you people realize that.

Therefore in my recent edits, I wrote the Sultanate of Rum was a Persianate AND Seljuk Turkish state. It can be both at the time. They don't conflict each other by any means. Now the problem with user Mttll is his clear nationalistic agenda in the article, whereby he tries to promote only the Turkish aspect of the state while negating the sources to suggest the Persianate aspect.

In his user talk page, he is blatantly lying to the admin by telling him that I reached agreements with him. I certainly did not. And for the sake of wikipedia's reliability, I will ensure the information regarding Sultanate of Rum being a Persianate state will be restored because nothing warranted its move in that article, unless a hidden nationalistic agenda was intended. Qatarihistorian (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Addition: Actually, to further prove my point, look at user Mttll's recent changes. He was following me around like a stalker, reverting two other changes I made in other articles, even though my changes were of legitimate concern, one of which concerned a poor source from a nationalist website, which me and others are currently reviewing in the talk page before finalizing a decision. Then he comes along and reverts the changes out of thin air. Mttll is clearly a stalker with a hidden Turkish nationalistic agenda.Qatarihistorian (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• So, without commenting on the legitimacy of your edits, you can let go of the "he has a hidden agenda" arguments and calling editors "pathetic" because those won't really get you anywhere here. Also, question for Ks0stm and/or the closing admin: Was there some reason Qatari only received a warning for edit warring and not a temporary block? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Eh, speaking of agendas, hidden or more obvious, Qatarihistorian repeatedly deleted that Turkish was (still) a language spoken in the sultanate. Even after it was referenced inline from Encyclopedia Britannica (by Mttlll). And it can be easily found in other history books that are definetely WP:RS. Qatarihistorian's actions are hardly the work of a historian we want here. Mabye Mttlll has pulled off other crap, but blocking him for this is insane. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• In my experience, Qatarihistorian is a tendentious editor from the Iranian side of the Iranian-Turkic ethnic edit wars on Wikipedia. He seems to be trying to diminish the amount of Turkic influence in Iranian history even in cases where, for instance, the Turkic origins of rulers are utterly uncontroversial.[60]. In other words (based on my experience at Afsharid dynasty), he's definitely pushing a POV and will bend the facts accordingly. No opinion about Mttll as yet.--Folantin (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Qatarihistorian's latest edit [61] speaks for itself. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Tijfo: go to the page and see in the article history that I agreed with the source of the Turkish language once Mttll added it. So don't go around falsifying what happened or perhaps you are accustomed to this way of lying around here?Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Folantin: Unless you're trying to troll, you would also concede that after the conversation finalized, the article remained in its shape.Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I don't tolerate nationalism in articles. The articles I've contributed to originally owed much of their content to a pro-Turkic nationalist agenda. In such instances, I have taken actions in the past to neutralize the articles. Unfortunately, since most of these articles are sabotaged by Turkish nationalists more than Iranian nationalists, my form of neutralization is is seen by the likes of Folantin as "taking the Iranian side", which quite frankly I find laughable given his background.Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Tifjo: once again you're lying about my edit in the Huns page. I simply moved the Turkic language paragraph to the languages section. Nice try lying though.Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"which quite frankly I find laughable given his background". And my background is? --Folantin (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The battleground mentality, assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks displayed by Qatarihistorian in this thread are unfortunately typical of the intellectual climate that has dominated this domain of editing for several years. To nip this in the bud, I propose to impose the same block on Qatarihistorian as previously imposed on Mttll. I'll do that soon-ish unless I see objections from fellow administrators here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Qatarihistorian, I take it you're asserting there's nothing wrong with you removing "Many authors suppose that it may have been a member of, or related to, the Turkic language family" backed by a dozen refs from article on the Huns either? I grant that I would have written that slightly differently as there's controversy how close to Turkish their languages was, with some well-known historians (like Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen [62]) and linguists (like Karl H. Menges [63]) only finding enough evidence to ascribe them to the larger group of Altaic languages. But complete removal of the issue/discussion? Only in Wikiality! (Articles owned by nationalistic POV pushers and continuously alternating between extreme POVs seems to be standard in this area, alas. So Wikiality is perhaps closer than we think.) Tijfo098 (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove it. I moved it to the languages section of the same article. Look back into the article's history smarty pants.Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC

There is way more going on here than I can sort out, but just looking at his last 100 edits, it does seem that Qatari is rather hell-bent on removing references to Turkish language and adding references to Iranian language; in at least one case the change is obviously gratuitous. And I wonder why he did this, and what his source is for this? OTOH, I totally agree with this change. It seems like he's in such a rush to make these changes that he's being somewhat careless. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  09:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

He correctly removed a tendentious and incorrect Arab nationalist edit. Doesn't make his tendentious and incorrect "pro-Iranian/anti-Turkic" edits any less biased and unencyclopaedic. The solution is to crack down on POV warriors of all sides, not to play them off against one another in the hope that something neutral will result. I've edited these areas for a long time and I can safely say that it doesn't. --Folantin (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Folantin, you can continue to think my edits are pro-Iranian and anti-Turkic. I think of my edits as anti-Turkish nationalism. I've already stated I'm against all forms of nationalism on wikipedia. But you don't see Iranian nationalists sabotaging articles each day, which is why most of my edits concern Turkish nationalists, since they're more determined to push their points of view around here, such as the case of Sultanate of Rum where a source indicating the Persianate identity of the state was mysteriously moved to the architecture section. Anyway Mttll has my blessing to sabotage more articles where he can happily push his Turkism points of view. That's what free encylopedias get you. :D Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Kerfuffler, I'll happily tell you my changes. The Kidarites are Xionites, who according to Columbia University's encyclopedia Iranica historians are most probably of Iranian origin and spoke an east Iranian language. They were related to the Bactrian-speaking Hepthalites. Second, Qazwini article was sabotaged by an Arab nationalist and some guy changed it before I came in contact with the article. Afterward, I made grammatical changes in that article and removed the Arab nationalist POV. As for the Huns, the Huns have obscure origins but Turkish nationalists keep putting the Turkish hypothesis in the top of the page, even though it belongs to the languages section, along with the other non-Turkic hypotheses. There you go. No pro-Iranian or anti-Turkic agenda at all. Just a normal guy who wants to neutralize wikipedia and stop it from being hijacked by different interest groups of the middle east. Something you guys cannot do because I doubt you know much about what's going on, otherwise these things wouldn't have happened. But I couldn't care less anymore. Since I'm being the target instead of the actual nationalistic vandals, it's no wonder why people like Mttll even exist. I give him my blessings to push his Turkish nationalist pseudoscience and fabricated history around here, since it's probably what wikipedia ultimately deserves.Qatarihistorian (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have long experience of dealing with nationalistic editors and you clearly pass the duck test. You were desperate not to admit any Turkic element to the Afsharid dynasty, a subject you clearly know nothing about. Despite your best efforts to claim otherwise, there is no scholarly controversy over the Turkic origins and Turco-Mongolian cultural interests of Nader Shah, the founder of that dynasty. This is as clear-cut a case as possible. As another editor pointed out on the talk page, you were cherry-picking sources and were reluctant to accept the full implications of their conclusions [64] when those conclusions implied Turkic influence. Your other edits confirm your agenda. You are a time-wasting POV warrior and I support Future Perfect at Sunrise's proposal to take action against you to prevent further deterioration of Wikipedia's content. --Folantin (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I told you Nader Shah's lineage was adopted by the Afsharid clan. That doesn't mean he wasn't Turkic from another tribe, it just meant he was assimilated into the Afshar clan. If you actually know history, which you don't, then you would know this for a fact. I think you're the last person to make dubious claims on others, since your background is built on crumbling foundations. Where did you suddenly come out from Folantin? :D Qatarihistorian (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No historians of any merit think Nader Shah was adopted, as I proved on the talk page with reference to The Cambridge History of Iran, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Michael Axworthy (Nader's leading modern biographer) and Nader's own personal court historian. You failed to provide a single source stating otherwise. You are an ignorant and tendentious time-waster. --Folantin (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked Qatarihistorian, 1 month, just like the other guy. We don't need this attitude here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Bidgee alleges that I have abused my admin powers

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

---

Bidgee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alleges here that I have abused my admin powers by implementing a series of WP:CFD/S nominations.

Please can an uninvolved admin review my actions?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As stated on WP:CFDS at the very top in bold "They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal.", the IP did not tag any of the categories with the tag, therefore no one knew of of the CFDS, therefore the move is not vaild. I do sincerely apologise to you for my inexcusable outburst, I shouldn't have taken out my frustation on BrownHairedGirl. Bidgee (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that, in general, if a reasonable, good-faith objection against a speedy process is raised after the fact, in a matter where there are no obvious issues of policy violation at stake, it is often a good idea for an admin to just do a courtesy revert to allow discussion, a bit like an article WP:REFUND. In this case, however, I don't really see that Bidgee has raised any concrete argument why he thinks the new titles are bad (other than procedurally), so what's the case? Also, people, if you could take a step back from the issue for a minute and reflect: you are aware that these are category titles of template boxes, right? No normal reader is ever going to see them. I can understand why people might be concerned about the titling of article categories (they are displayed to readers), but template pages are not really part of the reader-directed interface at all, so why does it matter? (That said, personally I'd have a slight preference for the nominal, non-adjectival style too.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place for raising objections to the move, which I will do if and when the move gets nominated properly. This discussion is about the procedural issue and failing to revert encourages the gaming of the system. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Bidgee, thank you for that clarification, and sorry that I did not spot the lack of tagging.

It would saved a lot of time and effort if you had simply noted that procedural oversight, rather than indulging in a series of unfounded personal attacks, and repeatedly reverting my edits to my own talk page.

However, now that you have shown that there was a procedural flaw, I will try to remedy it.

What I will do is to make a procedural listing of the relevant categories at WP:CFD, with a note that since these relate to the desired reversal of a procedurally flawed move, that the status quo ante should be restored unless there is a consensus to rename. Per the speedies. This is less disruptive than moving the categories back again, and possibly having the flawed move done again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, they should be reverted back to the stable version since the move is not vaild and having them remain is totally against the WP:CFDS. Also I wasn't "repeatedly reverting my (BHG) edits to my (BGH) own talk page", since I only reverted once on your talk page. Bidgee (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Bidgee, unless there is a consensus to rename, they will be reverted.

Since they will be listed at CFD, the rename may be upheld. In that case, no change will need to be made ... but if the speedies are reverted first, we will have two extra sets of moves. That is pointless.

I did not accuse you of reverting your talk page; I accused you of reverting mine. Sorry that my comment about two reverts was slightly wrong. I checked again, and what actually happened was that you posted after I had closed the discussion, and when I reverted your comment you reverted me with an allegation of admin abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted when? It isn't pointless to restore the stable version, whether or not there is a consenus to move at a later time.

I'm responding to your allegation of "repeatedly reverting" your talk page which is not correct. Bidgee (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but the proposed procedure here unreasonable advantages the person who nominated the cats without following the rules - the epitome of gaming the system. It may be inconvenient, it may be a pain in the proverbial, but unless we are going to reward those who do not follow the correct procedure, the move should be reversed, and either listed in the normal non-speedy way, or the speedy listing should be closed procedurally for not meeting the requirements. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, unless you have evidence of a deliberate attempt to game the system, you should assume that the failure to tag the categories was a procedural error made in good faith. Bidgee has backed off all hir ABFing, and it would help if you would do likewise.

The proposed procedure does not give any advantage to the person who speedy-nominated categories. Unless there is a consensus to rename as proposed at speedy, the moves will be reverted. As noted above, that means that the status quo ante will be restored if there is no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not intend to suggest that anyone was actually trying to game the system in this case, but I do maintain that failing to insist on correct procedures in cases like this lends encouragement to those who might seek to do so. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, I quite agree that the procedures are important. They exist for a reason.

When they have failed, as in this case, the important thing is to ensure that those purposes of the processes are fulfilled, rather than that every step is replicated.

If the categories had been correctly tagged, then let's assume that an interested editor would have spotted them and objected. The proposal would then have gone to a full CFD discussion, with a default to the status quo ante. That's exactly what my remedy will produce. The only difference is that the categories will not be at the old position while the discussion is underway.

If these pages were articles, I would of course have move them back as soon as I became aware of the procedural flaw. However, category moves involve so many edits that back-and-forth movement is disruptive, which is why I propose to leave then in place pending the closure of the substantive discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Full discussion opened

Please note that these categories are now listed for a full discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 17#Television_navigational_boxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Apparently not resolved

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

---

Please may I ask an uninvolved admin to review this again? Some Aussie editors are not satisfied with the procedural situation, and I am being subjected to personal abuse [65][66] for following a procedure which I proposed here and was approved as "resolved".[67]

AFAICS, this is all relatively simple. An editor nominated categories at WP:CFD/S, but didn't tag them all. When I reviewed the nominations and moved them to process at WP:CFD/W, I didn't spot that only one of them was tagged.

The initial reaction was a series of personal attacks on me from editors who had not spotted any procedural flaw, but criticised me for the substance of an move which I did not initiate, and in which my role was procedural:

Bidgee (talk · contribs)

1. Complaint that there was no discussion. [68] That's a designed feature of the speedy process, which allow actions to proceed unless there are objections, which I pointed out [69]
2. A further complaint that I had done this because I was Irish[70]
3. A compliant that the IP who nominated the categories was from Ireland, and I am Irish [71]
4. An accusation that I have a POV[72]
5. An accusation that I abused my admin powers[73]
   Note that Bidgee has kindly apologised for his outbursts both above and on my talk[74].

Nick Thorne (talk · contribs)

1. A complaint based on a rejection of the speedy criterion C2C [75]

At that point, I could see no procedural error, so took the matter here to ANI. It was only then that the lack of tagging was drawn to my attention [76].

When that oversight was drawn to my attention, I listed the categories at CFD [77] with a note explaining that the default position should be to revert to the status quo ante. This will ensure that the outcome reflects whatever WP:CONSENSUS is formed, and will not be prejudiced by the flawed moves. To avoid the disruption and loss of page history caused by category moves, I did not revert the moves in the meantime. This will not prejudice the discussion.

Once that was done, the ANI thread above was closed by an uninvolved admin as resolved.[78]

Unfortunately, it does not seem to be resolved. The CFD discussion is being used for a series of procedural complaints and personal attacks on me by some Australian editors.

1. AussieLegend (talk · contribs) politely says he zie is "disappointed" at my failure to revert the moves.[79]
2. AusieLegend declines my request to take the procedural issues to somewhere that they can actually be resolved[80]
3. Nick Thorne (talk · contribs) describes my failure to revert as "contemptuous", says there is "no justification not to follow the spirit and letter of the law"[81]
4. I reply to Nick Thorne[82], pointing out WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies" ... and Nick's response accuses of me of "cavalier actions" and says "suck it up princess".[83]

Since this issue came to my attention, I have been transparent and sought review here. I believe that I have acted properly in trying to remedy my oversight, and that my solution has already been approved here. However, if another solution is preferred, I am quite happy to defer to the consensus. I just want this resolved one way or another, so that the CFD discussion is not disrupted by a procedural disputer.

And whatever the procedural solution, I ask for an end to the personal attacks, particularly the misogynist abuse from Nick Thorne. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What I actually said was "I must admit to being disappointed at BrownHairedGirl's refusal to reverse the moves, even as a token of good faith. In the event that an article is prodded and deleted it can be easily restored simply by requesting that, because the deletion is obviously not "uncontested"." I then expressed concern that not a single affected Wikiproject was notified. This was fobbed off by BHG with "Your complaint about lack of notifications is a general criticism of speedy processes as a whole, not of these moves. Please raise it elsewhere." I explained my position with "Where exactly? This is a problem that nobody seems able to fix and is widespread. The Australian project is continually frustrated by failure of editors to advise the project of changes that directly affect the project. The only way to get the message out seems to be to make mention of it whenever it happens in the hope that the message will spread, even if one editor at a time" and THAT was it. I've made no further comment in the past 16 hours. For BHG to apparently still be stewing over my comments; well, it's the sort of thing that makes me wonder if perhaps BHG needs to take some de-stressing time away from Wikipedia. Maybe it's a response to criticism by several editors combined with the realisation that the moves have been unanimously opposed, but it's a response that I don't expect from an admin. I'm sorry if I seem blunt, but I believe it's an appropriate response to being dragged into something in which I've had minimal involvement. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Aussie, I am not "stewing over your comments". I mentioned them as evidence of dissatisfaction with the procedural solution, and noted that you had been polite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a case of gross over-reaction by an administrator who seems to think that they are beyond reproach and who completely lacks any insight into how their actions are likely to be perceived by others. The expression "suck it up princess" is not a comment on anyone's gender, it is an expression applied equally to males and females and is a comment directed solely to those who need to suffer the consequences of their own actions. I wonder whether BHG recognises the irony of complaining about alleged personal attacks and then accusing me of misogyny. I suspect not, this seems to be yet another example of this administrator's lack of understanding of how their actions might effect others. Regarding the accusation of calling BHG's failure to revert contemptuous, what I actually said was, referring to BHG's refusal to reverse the move, The refusal to do that, especially after being specifically asked to do so, comes across as somewhat contemptuous. I am sure that was not the intention, but it certainly is the appearance. I note that BHG has conveniently forgotten to mention the second sentence there, taking my comments out of context certainly seems contemptuous to me. As for calling BHG's actions cavalier, the definition of cavalier is to act without due regard to the consequences. Given BHG's pole in this whole sorry affair, I think this description of their actions entirely appropriate. I do not believe I have a case to answer and I stand by my comments here and elsewhere about this business. None of this would have happened had BHG followed the correct procedure or reversed the error once it was pointed out - that is not my doing and I will not apologise for it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, I chose a solution which I believed was the east worst option. I explained my solution here, and it was approved as resolved by the administrator who closed the discussion.

Since you and some other editors are unhappy with that, I suggested that you ask for it to be reviewed. You didn't do that, so I have asked for it to be reviewed.

That is not "cavalier" behaviour, not is it "contemptuous", nor is it "without due regard to the consequences".

All I have sought here is that the procedural issue be resolved, without personal abuse. It is sad that your reply doesn't address the procedural issue, and defend your personal abuse ... as well as trying to victimise me for complaining about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you still don't get it. Well, I don't care any more, I'm done with this whole subject and have said all I intend to say. Have a nice life, - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and before I go, I note that yet again BHG has failed to follow the correct processes. At the top of this noticeboard it clearly states Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Absolutely no such discussion has taken place on my talk page. Does anyone else see a pattern here? Thought so. I'm out of here now. Ooroo. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There had been several exchanges on the CFD page, where we had not reached agreement on the procedural issue.

Given your pattern of personal abuse, I saw no reason to believe that a discussion on your talk would be productive. If you ad outstanding concerns about my conduct, you could have raised them on my talk, but chose bot to do so.

An admin trying in good faith to resolve a procedural tangle will frequently find that the solution approved by third-party review (as this one was) will not meet universal approval.

However, the personal abuse does nothing to help resolve the situation, and is a form of bullying. I want it stopped, because the abuse from these Australian editors in now becoming a pattern. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Get your own house in order before you cast around for stones to throw at others. I originally did believe that you were acting in good faith, however, that belief has been somewhat strained by your continued revision of history and your misrepresentation of what others, including me, have said. I think it is high time for you to stop and wait for the uninvolved administrator to comment on these proceedings that you claimed you wanted when you opened this discussion here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, your comments are sexist, uncivil and selfrighteous. It is never pretty when someone is a stickler about applying rules to others, but doesn't follow basic civilty themselves. In this case it is particularly blatant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented the history.

As to getting my own house in order, I have asked for this to be reviewed. I encouraged you to get it reviewed if you wanted, but rather than seek uninvolved input you chose to try bullying me through personal abuse and misogynistic attack. Enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have struck the princess comment here purely as an sign of good faith. I find your continued accusation of misogyny, especially after the context has been explained to you to be highly offensive. The ball is in your court. You do indeed need to get your own house in order. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You are using clearly uncivil and sexist language through out this dispute. Yet you claim that others have to follow the rules strictly. Your taking offense at others finding your language offensive is unimpressive.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I think BHG should not have reopened the discussion. I can understand her desire to have everything be fully and perfectly resolved before moving on, but in these kinds of situations some of the hard feelings don't just automatically disappear after an issue is "resolved". There may be some residual fall-out, and unless it is truly egregious, it's generally better just to let it dissipate on its own, even if one has to ignore some of the comments one doesn't appreciate. The only post-resolution comment that bothered me was the "princess" comment by Nick. I'm not familiar with the phrase, but in the U.S., the use of the word "princess" in similar phrases would be considered offensively sexist. I can't speak for Australia. But Nick claims he uses the phrase for both genders, and I think, in this instance, we should accept him at his word. In the future, though, I'd advise him to be a little more circumspect of cross-cultural problems with certain words and phrases. Certainly, the phrase was unnecessary, so why use it? Beyond that, I think we should move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

CommentIn Australia, "princess" is indeed used for both genders. I can vouch for this being Australian myself. Its use is a bit off-the-cuff and it's one of those context-dependent local usage words that can either be offensive or just passing comment. Blackmane (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Added comment In this particular case, as "suck it up, princess", it basically means "take it on the chin". Very common usage amongst okker Aussies. Blackmane (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"suck it up princess" is a demeaning phrase: in that sentence, princess is being used to refer to someone who is "used to getting their way, but this time your not", among other things. Yes, "princess" is often used in this manner for both male and female - in Canada too. It's often said in mock sorrow: "awwwwww, suck it up princess", or with an angry tone "right: suck it up princess and get in the back of the police car". Either way, inappropriate. dangerouspanda 20:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)\

I have stricken the phrase. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Having had time to think about things and reviewing all the various parts of the matters at hand, I have a major issue with the way this case was opened by BHG. As already mentioned above, BHG failed to engage in any discussion about her complaints regarding my posts on my talk page as required. They claim to have raised these issues on the various talk pages, but what I see is just a run of the mill robust exchange between two editors of the kind you can find anywhere on Wikipedia. At no time did I take any of BHG's comments personally, and I certainly did not intend my comments to be taken so by them and in no case did BHG bring up the issues raised here. Had this been done any misunderstandings could have been dealt with on both sides. When I read BFG's post on the CFD page here I see it refers to the move discussion and taking it to ANI - no mention of any objections to what I have posted. I find it particularly ironic that in that post BHG talks about good faith yet when I come here expecting to see a discussion about the move, I find instead that discussion relegated to the sidelines with an all out attack against me about things they have completely failed to discuss anywhere else, taking my comments completely out of context which is inexcusable in someone with BHG's experience and an Admin too. I see a distinct pattern of behaviour where BHG seems unwilling or unable to understand how their own actions are likely to be perceived by others. They then exhibit a classic glass jaw when called to task rather akin to the child who cries for their mummy because the other kids won't let them win. It is not good enough and this case should be closed forthwith and the discussion about the move should return to the CFD page where it belongs. I am unlikely to reply to any further posts by BHG here short of a genuine apology. However, I reserve the right to reply to posts by third parties. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, as I said at the top, there are two issues here: the procedural question of whether the moves should be reverted, and your abusiveness. You have chosen not to discuss the procedural issue, and that's your choice.

Nick's comments about "cries for their mummy" are again offensive and abusive, and serve only as as a personl attack. Once gain, I ask you to stop.

If an admin's actions are questioned, they may resolve the disagreement either by doing what's asked, or by seeking a third-party review. This is the second time that have I sought a third-party review of this issue, and I have clearly stated my willingness to accept the result of that review.

Nick's says that I didn't understand "how their own actions are likely to be perceived by others". On the contrary, I have accepted that my actions are questioned by some others while supported by others. Nick's position appears to be that because I seek review rather than doing what he wants, he entitled to make repeated personal attacks. At no point has Nick indicated any willingness to see the procedural issue resolved by neutral third parties, which seems to me to a gross breach of the core policy of WP:CONSENSUS; instead he simply wants to bully me into doing what Nick wants.

I am still being being subjected to personal abuse here, I think that this is a wider issue which affects all admins. Is it really acceptable for an admin to be repeatedly abused when they have explicitly sought review of their actions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

BHG, I refuse to be further provoked by you. I am taking this page off my watchlist. Say what you like, I won't hear it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why there's any need for the level of hostility seen in this thread. From what I can see, when everything else is boiled away, the important parts are 1) the categories were nominated for speedy rename (as C2b?), 2) the categories were speedy renamed, 3) the speedy criteria was objected to, and 4) the rename is now being given a full discussion. Sure, a speedy change that was objected to (on criteria grounds, not on procedural grounds) probably should have been undone prior to a full discussion, but in the grand scheme of things it's really not that important since the outcome of the current discussion will determine the names of the categories in future, regardless of what they're currently called. There's no rush here and a slight grammatical error for the duration of the discussion isn't the end of the world. Have patience, assume good faith and don't get so worked up over relatively trivial things like this. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that observation, NULL.

I don't actually see anyone offering any critique of my explanation at CFD of why I accepted the nomination as meeting the speedy criteria. Editors disagree about the merits of the underlying convention, which is fine, but that's not a fault of speedy. There was a procedural flaw, which I set out to remedy, and I have repeatedly expressed my willingness to accept a difft procedural remedy if that's the consensus of uninvolved editors.

What still concerns me here is the hostility and personal abuse I have received despite seeking review. If editors respond to procedural disagreements by hurling abuse rather than seeking consensus solutions, then an admin's role becomes far too stressful. I remain disappointed that this sustained abuse appears about to be let pass without so much as a civility warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You're accusing every editor that has opposed your renaming as not acting in good faith, and yet you're doing the very samething! I was going to give you another chance but my good faith in you as an editor and Admin is all but lost. Bidgee (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Bidgee, that's simply untrue. I have disagreed with their reasons, but I have not questioned their good faith. However, I have asked them to discuss the substance of the disagreements without making personal attacks. You were kind enough to withdraw your attacks and to apologise for them, but sadly your withdrawal was followed by abuse from a campaign of Nick Thorne. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Folks, I've not looked closely, but the walls of text you all are generating on the topic are not helpful. It looks like both sides have over reacted to what seems to have been a simple misunderstanding. Everyone needs to drop the stick at this point. If for some reason you can't do that then each side needs to clearly identify what it is they want to have happen (in say a sentence or two). Hobit (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I want: 1) editors unsatisfied with my procedural solution to leave off the personalities, explain their preferred solution and let uninvolved admins decide what to do; 2) Nick Thorne to desist from and withdraw his misogynist personal attacks, or be warned/sanctioned. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Comment Reading through the history of this, I have to say I fully support BHG, Nick Thorne seems unable to grasp that what he is saying is a personal attack, therefore he either doesn't care or has WP:COMPETENCY issues. A stern rebuke should be in order at the very minimum GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the remark used has been struck out by Nick Thorne after a few comments above. My question is, does BHG want both uninvolved admin review of her actions or actions to be taken out for what she perceives as NPA. (which isn't to say that they're not NPA, nor that they are, I'm entirely neutral on the matter, just throwing the question out there.) Blackmane (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Blackmane, I would like both; 1) uninvolved admin review of my actions, with a view to deciding both what do and whether I have acted wrongly; 2) review of Nick Thorne's conduct. However, if admins don't want to do both, then either would be useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I am uninvolved and have been around for awhile. I don't see that BHG did anything out of line. Could it have been handled better? Sure, but no one is perfect and BHG did the right things to try to resolve this. In this case, as in some disagreements that BHG and I have had in the past, I have found that she listens to input and corrects any errors on her part if she can. I'm not going to comment on the second part of her request as to NT, that should be commented on by an admin IMO. Hang in there girl, you did OK. GregJackP Boomer! 11:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick Thorne has asked me to comment here as an uninvolved editor (note that I'm also an admin, so I'll be commenting with that hat on as well). I agree with NULL's comments above; this appears to have been a procedural foul up which has been blown out of all proportion (I note that no-one has suggested that BHG has a history of making dubious moves, so there seems to be no reason at all to doubt her explanation of events). The responses to this seem to have been rather over the top, and I'm surprised that such a minor issue has caused such heated comments. I'd suggest that all the editors involved take a break from the discussion, and then reflect on whether an apology is in order. However, I do think that BHG should have moved the categories back to their original names when asked as the moves clearly weren't uncontroversial, though I can understand her reluctance to do so given the tone of some of the comments. Given that this is now at CfD and it looks like the moves will be reversed there doesn't seem to be much further to discuss. I'd note that cross-cultural language issues may have contributed to this situation; "suck it up, princess" doesn't have sexist connotations in Australia, though it's not something people would generally say to someone they don't know (to provide context, people in my very white collar Australian workplace sometimes direct the term as a joke towards friends who are whinging about work and this is considered totally fine, but they wouldn't dream of saying it to people they didn't know as it would be considered impolite). Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for your comments. Just for the record, my reluctance to revert the categories back was simply because I thought that would involve far too many (bot-driven) edits, and was best left until the matter was substantively resolved. When I adopted that solution, it was approved by an uninvolved admin, but when further objections were raised I repeatedly said that I was happy for it to be reopened. All I sought was that those who disagreed also seek 3rd-party resolution, rather than resorting to personal abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I unreservedly apologise for any offence I may have caused BHG. I am shocked that any of my comments could have been taken as sexist, they certainly were not intended that way, so I apologise for stating things in a way that gave that impression. I will choose my words more carefully in future and try to avoid being drawn into acrimonious debate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Closure?. Based on my comments as an uninvolved admin, Nick-D's more comprehensive comments as uninvolved admin, and Nick Thorne's apology, can this discussion be closed now? It would be helpful if BHG would agree to closing the discussion, but even without that, I see no reason to keep this open.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  This has already taken up more than enough of people's time, so I'm happy for it to be closed. Since an uninvolved admin believes the moves should be reverted now, feel free to do so.

  Thanks to all who have commented, and to Nick for the apology ... but most importantly, for Nick's assurance that he will chose his words more carefully in future. That gives me some confidence that when further procedural tangles arise in future, they can be resolved with less drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, BHG, nicely put. I'm going to close the discussion. Either another admin can revert the moves, or, as Nick-D said, it will happen in the natural course at CfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Edits of the new user "Unindicted co-conspirator" in Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

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

---

Unindicted co-conspirator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hey guys, I'm seriously tired of this.

For the past several says, "Unindicted co-conspirator" makes lots of mostly really bad edits to the aticle Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Misinterpretion of sources, sensationalism, also just very poor writing on many levels. And reverting, repeatedly.

Not working on any other articles, too.

Do with it what you want, I give up. The article should be probably redirected to Innocence of Muslims anyway. --Niemti (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also just to remind of the unaddressed issue at #TheDarkPyrano100's possible many IP socks. --Niemti (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Niemti ordered me to put my External links in alphabetical order and warned me to do so a few times.

I do not see anywhere in the Wikipedia guidelines that this is the rule. Also, he has removed relevant, well sourced information about Nakoula being a government informant. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula&diff=513430577&oldid=513415297 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula&diff=513431801&oldid=513430848 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unindicted co-conspirator (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing about alphabetical order was uncalled for, but the rest and gist of the complaint has merit. The way you go about things has been problematic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it's customary to accompany accusations with diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like the "Unindicted co-conspirator" is here to promote the fringe view that Nakoula worked for US government [84]. Not only this is fringe view (at best), but he also misrepresents the source he provided. Although title of the source tells: "Producer Of Anti-Islam Film Was Fed Snitch", it is clear after reading the entire text that Bakula only cooperating with prosecution and told about the alleged ring leader who was not even charged with the crime if I understand correctly. The "Unindicted co-conspirator" is not here to improve the encyclopedia.My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• He cooperated with the government for a lighter sentence. I put in Nakoula's own quotes to make it clear. No one says that he was employed by the government nor that it not what the references say. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I just fixed this [85]. No, by quoting him you are giving an undue weight to the words of fraudster whose credibility is less than zero. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the edit Unindicted made, which My very best wishes describes as "Nakoula worked for US government", as bad (I would have worded it differently, but so what?), certainly not anything requiring administrative intervention. Unindicted said that Nakoula became a government informant, which is precisely what the source says. Being a government informant hardly makes Nakoula out to be a good guy in this context. I agree that the Nakoula quote probably should not have been used, but I'm still waiting for diffs that justify this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Co-conspirator" is an SPA with political agenda. No need in diffs. Whole his edit history is right there. Yes, I still believe he twisted the sources. But I am not sure if any action is needed. My very best wishes (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry...quoting Nakoula in an article about Nakoula is giving him undue weight? This logic makes no sense whatsoever. I don't see anything wrong with any of Unindicted's edits linked here. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the concern is that Nakoula has been proven to be a liar, so we have to be careful not to cite anything he says as fact. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I doubt you'll find a single person anywhere in the world who hasn't lied at least once in their life, so stating he's a liar strikes me as pointless. But on-point, a quote is not a statement of fact. He could have said 'green space aliens from Mars told me to make a sandpit in my back yard', for all it matters. As long as his statements are attributed and relevant, they're perfectly acceptable to include in an article. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 05:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

To correct a misconception by My very best wishes, yes diffs are needed as an admin asked for them for the purpose of understanding why this ANI report was filed. Otherwise, this just needs to be closed as it isn't our job to dig through all the contribs of someone because you think they did something bad but won't point to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

To put it simple, this is already in the single diff I provided in discussion above [86]. "Co-conspirator" inserts the following text: "Nakoula’s June 2010 sentencing transcript for fraud shows that he was a U.S. government informant." Perhaps I do not know English well enough, but after reading this sentence, I would be under impression that he worked as an undercover agent of US government. Not so in the source: it tells that Nakoula cooperated with prosecution as a witness after arrest. "Co-conspirator" repeated this edit many times. He edit war a lot to keep precisely this misleading wording in the article. Why? Should this be filing to ANI? Of course not. It was not me who filed this request. The only thing that was required is to warn "Co-conspirator" to stop edit war and to make this edit, and that is exactly what I did (see my 2nd diff above). Problem was resolved. Cased is closed. It can be archived. I thought it was clear. Sorry that it was not. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be getting lost on you in the translation. In American English, as soon as you say "informant" it is clearly known they are not a legitimate employee and are instead under indictment, likely for a felony. This is another word for "snitch" or someone who "rolls over". "Informants" are generally the bad guys, who are turning in other bad guys, to get less jail time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Several SPA editors repeatedly removing cited content

Three editors have been repeatedly removing cited content from two articles associated with a company, Brookfield Asset Management. The users involved are:

AndrewWillis111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AndyWillis111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TracySteele00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The affected articles are:

Brookfield Asset Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Island Timberlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Given a quick Googling of the editors' names and their behaviour (removal of cited content that reflects poorly on the company), it seems fairly obvious that there's an undisclosed COI here. There are also sporadic additions of promotional content. The involved editors have both been previously warned about their behaviour, but the warnings have seemingly been ignored and their removal of content has continued for several months. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Without even looking for the name(s) in the company directory, it seems that these are indeed problematic edits. If a CU happens to walk by something interesting may come to light quickly. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• The content removal has resumed today: [87] [88]. There's also a new sock-puppet, Awillis111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has been removing content. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Has an SPI been started? If not, one should be. GregJackP Boomer! 21:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and started the SPI. GregJackP Boomer! 22:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

After glancing at the contributions, it was so blatantly obvious, that I didn't need to run a CheckUser on the accounts. Mr. Willis is listed on the company website's contact us page, so I assume that the three accounts with his name are him. The other one, whether him or not, was still being used inappropriately. I blocked the three socks, but left the oldest account unblocked in hopes that Mr. Willis can be engaged in a discussion regarding his edits. Any other admin who feels that the remaining account should be blocked should feel free to do so without consulting me. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Constant disruptive edits

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

---

Richmond College (Sri Lanka) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Richmond College (Sri_Lanka) has been maintained by me (Ananda DIas-Jayasinha) for sometime. This is about the history of my alma mater and I have updated it regularly when ever I found supporting information from Methodist Mission records. It may be difficult for someone in USA or England the attitude of people in the East. The history has been up until about year ago is that Richmond started in 1876 where as factually it was started in 1814 as an English School by the pioneering Missionaries. I wrote to the Newspapers and they too published the article giving the history. I find as of day before yesterday the page is being changed by several people altering historical facts. I am reproducing the amount of disruptions here below for the last 24 hours or so. I have helped several schools in Sri Lanka with their chronological history of their schools from data I found when researching for the history of Richmond and it took me almost five years to read through more than 300 documents. Can you please BLOCK any others from editing this page? I need to add some more info but is holding back because of the constant disruptions. Thank You Ananda Dias-Jayasinha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananda Dias-Jayasinha (talk • contribs)

" Can you please BLOCK any others from editing this page"? No. Absolutely not. See WP:OWN. Nobody has exclusive rights to edit an article. And then refer to the multiple policies this article violates. For a start, it cites no sources whatsoever - so we have no way to tell whether your version or the alternate one is correct. Furthermore it isn't written in a remotely encyclopaedic style: "Richmond College is now a well-established institution with a reputation as one of the finest schools in Sri Lanka" - it may well be, but we don't say such things in Wikipedia's voice, particularly without evidence. With regard to the edit-warring going on over the article, I'd suggest that you all read WP:3RR - there have been multiple violations - and then (a) find some sources to support your viewpoints, followed by (b) discussing the issues on the article talk pages. You may well have plenty of time to find sources, as I suspect that blocks for edit-warring will be handed out all round shortly - and full page protection so none of you can edit might well follow. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I also share my own thoughts on this? Aside from OWN, the fact that a supposed graduate of the school created the article and tries to stop other people from editing smacks of COI and NPOV as well. To the article creator: I hate to say it, but what I just said perfectly describes your actions.--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted the article to a pre-edit war version and protected it from editting. Go to the talk page and resolve your dispute. WilyD 15:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)All I can say is I agree 100% with Andy, and someone else has already full protected the page to prevent anyone from editing, which is a much better solution than blocking in this particular case. Focus on getting sources and let them prove your case for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion, as it looks like a lot of puffery for a foreign primary school. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And how far outside your perimeter fence does "foreign" start? Arjayay (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that the article is halfway accurate, it's also a secondary school, and it's nearly 200 years old. So on the face of it, it probably deserves an article. But yes, WP:OWN, and all that. And now, doubtless, WP:WRONGVERSION. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A cursory search with Google Books suggests it flies past WP:N, but if someone's insistant, they can start an AfD, and I (or someone else) will add the note through protection. WilyD 15:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Be sure to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability, too. The best Wikipedia articles cite a reliable source for every fact. It is essential you understand our sourcing policy too: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Isn't it obvious this is a clearly inexperienced user who has no clue how WP works? Don't we all know that the morass of WP policies are a nightmare to navigate for a new user? The user only got the usual "welcome" links today from WilyD. What's the point in jumping down his throat with aggressive responses as if he's deliberately flouting our rules (which are often counter-intuitive)? He needs to decent advice not treated like some criminal miscreant. Hopeless. DeCausa (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's not obvious to me what you're looking for here. Obviously inexperienced users is why twenty reverts today got a page protection rather than a fistful of blocks. Linking relevant policies and guidelines is (I think) a good place to start (indeed, it's why I dropped {{welcome}} templates on them - because it links to helpful places. There're enough eyes now, I think, to answer any questions. What else? WilyD 15:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think what you (WilyD) did was exactly right. I was despairing at the over-the-top reaction from most of the other posts (excepting Anthonyhcole) which is typical of AN/I. DeCausa (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Indenting it like it was a response to Anthonyhcole is probably what confused me, then. WilyD 15:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If we are concerned about the editor, likely, the best course of action is helping them on their talk page, to explain some basics about sourcing. This would actually make a difference. In this case WilyD did *exactly* the right thing in not blocking because there is no question their faith was good, even if their methods and experience are lacking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Kwamikagami and Lake Michigan-Huron

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

---

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This issue came up last week, and just today scrolled off the board. [89] Unfortunately, i must bring it up again. Under contention were two issues:

• whether the concept of "Lake Michigan-Huron" (the system of the two lakes when considered together hydrologically) should have its own article or be a section of the Great Lakes article; and

• whether "Lake Michigan-Huron" was a "lake" as normally defined, for purposes of inclusion in lists of lakes, replacing Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, and how should it be described in the article (or section)

After a very confused beginning where discussion were located at multiple places, the content discussion settled down to Talk: Lake Michigan-Huron, including a merge discussion, and another merge discussion at Talk:Great Lakes. The discussion on the Lake M-H talk page was actually making good progress, with most editors agreeing that Lake M-H as a construct which was useful for purposes of hydrology, but was not a "lake" per se. There were still some differences of viewpoint about relative weight of these different aspects, but things were moving forward.

However, in the past few hours, Kwamikagami has made multiple edits to Lake Michigan-Huron, Great Lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron which have the effect of pushing the two-lake concept, which he was pushing quite vehemently before, at the expense of the two lakes each being considered individually as a lake. These edits were not only premature, they go totally against the emerging consensus, and as such I have reverted them.

This complaint is not about the content dispute, which can be settled on the article's talk page, but about the temerity of Kwamikagami editing against an obvious consensus which he will not recognize. His behavior from the beginning of this affair has been disruptive throughout, disrespectful of Wikipedia's process, disdainful of other editors, and, perhaps worst of all, intellectual dishonest -- he writes, for instance, that he is going to restore "the earlier consensus lead" to the article, when he fact what he does is to replace the current consensus lead with his earlier one in which his POV was prominent. I believe Kwamikagami's behavior deserves some kind of sanction, and it would seem most appropriate to be a topic ban from the entire area of Lake Michigan-Huron and related topics. Since it's not really his usual area of concentration anyway, this is a minimal sanction which will not greatly effect him, but will allow the process to continue without his disruptive interference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This is a content dispute, but since I got blocked when Ken made spurious charges a few days ago (for which I got an apology from the admin who didn't fact check), I figure I'd better explain myself here.

I reverted Ken's POV to the consensus lead at Lake Michigan–Huron, which everyone but him had accepted, and restored a source; I then added in suggested wording by two other editors on the talk page. I copy-edited the rather choppy summary at Great Lakes to follow, and I reverted Ken's deletions from the long-standing consensus at Lake Huron and Lake Michigan.

No-one is arguing that Lake MH should "replace Lake Michigan and Lake Huron". What we are arguing is that the scientific treatment of Michigan and Huron as one body of water should be given its due. There are all manner of suggestions on how to accomplish that without trampling on the usual conception of them as two lakes; the emerging consensus is coming along just fine without Ken forcing his POV on it, especially now that we have editors from the geo wikiprojects contributing.

Ken's idea of BOLD is that he makes a change, someone reverts, and he changes it back where he wants it; last time he did that over an obviously contested deletion, and it took an admin to restore the article. But if another editor does that he gets upset that they're violating BOLD: This just happened with another editor at the merge discussion. The edits I made today were the suggestions of other editors; Ken needs to learn that his opinion is not "consensus", no matter how strongly he believes it. — kwami (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As can be clearly seen from my statement above, I'm perfectly happy for whatever is left of the content dispute -- in truth, there's really no one except Kwamikagami anymore who opposes the view that "Lake Michigan-Huron" is a system of interest only for hydrological purposes -- to play out on the talk page. As I said, it's making good progress. My complaint is totally about the behavior of Kwamikagami in trying to force his own point of view on the articles through deceit and distraction.

The remainder of the discussion here shoudl focus on Kamikagami's behavior, because AN/I is not the place to thrash out content disputes, but it is the place to deal with disruptive behavior by editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Before I go off to sleep, I'll make a suggestion: topic ban both Kwamikagami and me from Lake Michigan-Huron. I'll be more than happy to have the monkey off my back, this whole incident has been a royal pain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what: I just took four days off, so you made your edits without us fighting. Why don't you try taking four days off, and see what kind of consensus emerges with my edits without us fighting? I can easily work with Jason, Alan, Dan, Pfly, RockMagnetist, and the rest who are making reasoned arguments for balancing the POVs involved. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand why the discussion was able to move forward so quickly, when it had been moving at a snail's pace before -- it was because you were not there for four days to hold it back. It also explains why, when you returned to editing, you felt the necessity to immediately revert to the old non-consensus article which was not supported by the sources. As for working with others - restoring your old lead and throwing in a single sentence suggested by another editor as a sop isn't collaboration, it's an attempt at cooption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has been going on in 7 places, including my report here on Kwamikagami about a week ago. Long story short, since then Kwamikagami has gone even further off the rails. I don't have the hours it would take to summarize. A few quick decoder notes:

• A combine vs. merge discussion (which I'm neutral on) was a tangent/ distraction.
• Kwamikagami's talk page no longer shows actual discussions. In my case they deleted the points I made and said I can no longer post there because I "have nothing intelligent to say". They also rewrote their comment which I was responding to (just rewrote, not using strike marks) to make it look like something else.

This is Kwamikagami ramming their fringe view vs. everybody and an immense preponderance and probably unanimity of sources. Started with warring to remove tags, and a clear 3RR violation which was overlooked. Now certainly disruptive editing, wp:civil violations, (now throwing extreme bogus insults against me) and longer term edit warring (while more recently avoiding 3RR violations) for a start. PLEASE do something! North8000 (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor - Yesterday and today, I looked over the substance of the dispute, and the ways in which the various involved editors have conducted themselves. It seems obvious to me that kwamikagami is pushing a fringe POV, and actively forum-shopping and otherwise gaming the rules in order to do so. Their attempt to drum up support on the Geology and Geography WikiProjects is especially glaring. I'd advise North8000 to relax a little; no-one is going to die if this dispute drags on a day or two longer. However, my own feeling is that (at the very least) kwami should receive a perpetual and wide-ranging topic ban, as they seem incapable of accepting the wider world's consensus that there are five Great Lakes. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(added later) BTW, on the forum shopping, Kwamikagami didn't just shop in those places, they started the same discussion over in those locations.North8000 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That was what I meant by forum-shopping: shopping around to find a forum in which the poster's view may be supported. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping? I notified the Wikiprojects that could be expected to be interested, and at the same time: It was simple notification because we needed more input. When there is a protracted dispute on a geography or geology topic, those projects should know about it; their knowledge may be able to resolve the problem. North8000 below is worried that we don't have enough eyes, and you criticize me for trying to get more? — kwami (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From my end the caps on "PLEASE" and the exclamation point relate more to desperation than urgency. But one note on the "urgency" topic, above it looks like Beyond My Ken is at the end of their rope. They have been perhaps the main person who has understood and did the work of fixing the mis-use of sources, and the needed changes in wording to conform with the sources. I also have some concern about the article losing it's "more eyes" and related participation due to desperation and being "ground down" by Kwamikagami's relentless tactics. I would suggest an indefinite topic ban on the involved articles Lake Michigan-Huron, Lake Michigan–Huron, List of lakes by area and List of lakes by volume. The Great Lakes article is potentially also involved but I think has so many eyes on it that it can be kept from harm's way with less pain and suffering. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The unfortunate decision of an admin to lift Kwami's most recent edit-warring block has emboldened Kwami to the point where he figures he can win his little edit war, whose purpose is to abuse wikipedia by promoting the non-existent "Lake Huron-Michigan". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The block was lifted because its rational was faulty: it was based on false allegations by Ken that the blocking admin didn't verify. The fact that Bugs would say that the lake is "non-existent", when we have multiple RS's for it, many gathered by uninvolved editors, and the consensus on the talk page is that it does exist, is astounding. What happened to the Bugs who could always be counted on to say something insightful at the ref desk? — kwami (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the block was lifted because you promised not to edit war, which was a lie on your part. And there is no valid source declaring that there is any such entity as "Lake Michigan-Huron". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you had been edit-warring with bots for days because at a time when the title Lake Michigan-Huron was not an article but a redirect to Great Lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron, you insisted that the title Lake Huron-Michigan should point to "Lake Michigan-Huron", thus creating a double-redirect which the bot came along and fixed. This can be clearly seen in the edit history of Lake Huron-Michigan [90] (a name, incidentally, which appears in no source in the article). You were unblocked, as Regentspark clearly explains below, not because there was anything wrong with the block, but because you gave Regentspark assurances that you would avoid editing the articles involved for 72 hours. (Of course, you technically violated that assurance when you, once again, changed the redirect on "Lake Huron-Michigan", but by then no double redirect was made since "Lake Michigan-Huron" had been recreated -- with the old POV lead, which I had to restore to the consensus non-POV lead.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Kwami, who did you get an apology from? It certainly wasn't me. I didn't object to RegentsPark unblocking, but that was because he seemed to have secured an agreement that you would not repeat the disruptive behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bushranger, whose accusations you linked to as the rational for your block. He had repeated Ken's accusations without verifying them. — kwami (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, fairy snuff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite true. I, personally, checked the edit history of the two redirects in question and saw repeated reverts of the bots apparently creating a double-redirect loop; BMK had nothing to do with it. Instead I (ironically, given things) assumed good faith that you were not edit-warring to recreate the article and then reverting the bot for the redirects to point to the restored-against-consensus article, which, the next morning, it was pointed out was what had been happening. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was the restored-WITH-consensus article: when we finally got a proper RfM, opinion was unanimous in keeping the article. That was the whole problem with Ken violating BOLD. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Further comment - The more I look at it, the more convinced I become that Lake Michigan-Huron is a POV fork of material that belongs primarily in Great lakes, and that attempts to assemble evidence to the contrary are an original synthesis in support of a fringe position. (Apologies for linking three policy articles in one sentence.) That is a content problem, and probably needs external scrutiny through RfC. Kwami's behaviour in defence of that position, though, is unambiguously disruptive, and I feel that timely administrative intervention would be a good thing. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We have a merge discussion, which has been unanimous in voting to keep the article, because it is clearly not fringe or a POV fork, but reflects the scientific view of the lakes. The only question is whether there is enough potential for development to warrant a separate article: if it were merged, the material would be placed in the Great Lakes article, and so the 'fringe' issue would be the same; without a merge, the section in the Great Lakes article is reduced to a summary with a main-article link, and so is not a fork, POV or otherwise.

Disruptive? What of the editors edit-warring over deleting an article when there are multiple objections to deletion, and which one editor characterized as a giant 'fuck you'? What of violating BOLD while quoting it, and of deleting summary material that has been stable at Lake Huron and Lake Michigan for years? Why is it that edit warring to impose a new POV is not disruptive, but that demanding we achieve consensus before changing what had been a stable article is disruptive?

If you'll look at the changes that spurred Ken's complaint today, you'll see that they are (1) reverting to a consensus established on the talk page (one which I did not write), (2) modifying that consensus with concerns expressed by other editors, and (3) reverting BOLD changes he made to stable articles. — kwami (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've pinged Regentspark to notify him of this thread. FWIW I think that reducing the block to time served was incredibly lenient and that this display of good faith has, as BMK intimates, backfired. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Or something hopeful that didn't work out. I too was more hopeful earlier in the process. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I've been watching this thread. Though I've often disagreed with kwami, both on content as well as on his methods (particularly on moving pages), he is an incredibly prolific editor who is often right and my unblock was partly to do with that (and also because kwami was right that he had ceased editing on this topic after the warning, but my offer came before I'd figured that out). While we could easily have here a case of a prolific content editor going off the rails, I'd rather assume that is not the case and rather not hasten things along. Assuming that all parties are acting in good faith, what we have here a content dispute, the facts of which appear to be ambiguous, and, even though the complaint is brought her by another prolific content editor who is also often right, I'm not sure we should be discussing this at ANI at all. Why doesn't someone just open an RfC on whether or not the 'single lake theory' needs a mention, where and how it should be mentioned, etc.? Once consensus is clear, it'll be much easier to see what's what. --regentspark (comment) 14:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is already clear from the several locations of discussion about the topic. The consensus does not support Kwami earlier today re-introducing his favorite viewpoint, that the two-lake hydrological system is "the largest freshwater lake in the world and the largest of the North American Great Lakes." Kwami's edit summary about consensus was wishful thinking or an outright fabrication: "restore consensus lead; fix MOS problems; restore ref". He is indeed "off the rails" on this topic. Better to keep him away from it and on other topics where his thinking is clear. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding only to Regentspark. I must emphatically say that IMHO that is NOT the core content issue. If it were, this would have been settled long ago. The core content issue is Kwami editing the articles to go much much much further than that. (and, regarding it being here, in a way that is very problematic in several ways.) North8000 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

On the content issue, and looking only at the references in the current version of Lake Michigan-Huron, I'd say that the hydrological fact is interesting and worthy of mention in the great lakes article, the two lake articles, and, perhaps, in the Lake Superior article. However, it doesn't make sense (to me) to have a separate article on the combined lake because, other than hydrologically, there is no Lake Michigan-Huron. I'm dubious, but uncertain, about the redirect as well. I only add this content note to make it clear that I think kwami is wrong in this particular instance but, perhaps because the discussion is so scattered, it is hard to see where the consensus on this is (the discussion Talk:Lake_Michigan–Huron#An_attempt_at_a_synthesis appears to be a step in that direction). It is much easier to address behavior when consensus is clearly established. --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As I think I've said a number of times, I have no really strong views about the article vs. section part of the discussion. Yes, I Boldly moved the contents of the article to the section of the Great Lakes, leaving a redirect, because that's what seemed to make most sense, but that got undone and I haven't fought for it -- if having a separate article helps calm the waters, that's prefectly fine with me. I'm much more concerned that the contents, whether in a section of an article, reflect what you have said above "other than hydrologically, there is no Lake Michigan-Huron" This, to me, is the important point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Gtwfan has repeated on the talk page a suggestion they had made earlier, but which has been generally overlooked because of the mishegas, and that is to re-title the article "Hydrology of Lakes Michigan and Huron". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be a WP:TITLECHANGES discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Process Request I apologize, (if this should be at AN because it involves close requests and move it there as appropriate), but RegentsPark mentioned yet another process, formal RfC, above. Currently, there is Talk:Great Lakes#Merge proposal which was begun in response to a merge that was then procedurally undone, partly because of Talk:Lake Michigan–Huron#Recheck. If a kindly and uninvolved person of standing (Admin or experienced editor) would at the appropriate time, whenever that is, agree to review and close both of these in the exercise of wisdom and judgment -- that, I think would be appreciated, and a moving of things forward. (Jump on in, the waters fine! ;) ). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As much as I would love to make the very same arguments in yet another place, I feel an RfC is really unnecessary. As can be seen from the discussion here and on the article's talk page, there is a general consensus already, all that is really needed is for particulars of balance and weight (and perhaps title) to be sorted out. If the disruptive behavior of Kwamikagami were removed from the process, I feel sure that those would be settled fairly quickly. Starting yet another process would simply be rewarding Kwamikagami for his disruption, giving him another bite at the apple. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We just need to judiciously close the process we have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I recently became aware of this debate. Because it sprawls over several talk pages, I was unaware that there was a merge discussion going on (also, the discussion was not at the standard location, i.e., the talk page of the destination article). So I started a new one using the standard procedure in Help:Merge. This is the only discussion related to Lake Michigan–Huron that is clear and focussed. There are 10 votes in opposition and none in favor. Indeed, I had to provide the rationale for a merge myself even though I oppose it. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

I propose that Kwamikagami is topic banned from articles including Lake Michigan-Huron, Great Lakes, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron - as well as any more deemed appropriate - for a period of, say, 3 months. GiantSnowman 15:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support I wish that there was another more graceful way but I think that we have learned from extensive experience in the last week that there is not. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - See my rationale above. I also suspect that the merge discussion that kwami refers to did not reach a terribly wide audience; I suggest that it should be re-opened. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and several came from forum shopping where Kwamikagami opened a new duplicate discussion there IMHO to convince them. But merge issue is really a sidebar. For example, I am strongly opposed to what Kwamikagami is attempting to do to the content of the articles but I'm near-neutral on the merge issue. North8000 (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to Talk:Great Lakes#Merge proposal, it has reached a wide audience (but is not closed). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - this has gone on far more than long enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - to make it formal. All my reasoning is above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban should not be simply for the articles involved, but their talk pages as well. A significant part of Kwamikagami's disruption has been his intransigence there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - As far as I can tell, if Kwami says he won't edit project pages for 72 hours, he doesn't; if he is given a 3R notice, he stops editing. If the editors involved think this has become such a trainwreck, or that Kwami has gotten too personally invested in the topic or whatever, why not just ask Kwami if he would be willing to step back for a while, or limit his talk page comments. Neotarf (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And Ken, who has been reverting the contributions of other editors, deleting sources, and imposing his POV in violation of BOLD despite quoting it? — kwami (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any topic ban or block proposal for Ken, and I have no idea if he would keep such a pledge if given. Neotarf (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There are plenty of reasonable voices that I'm sure could quickly reach consensus, were it not for three individuals - BeyondMyKen, North10000, and kwami. Their endlessly repetitive arguments make up about 90% of the material in several talk page sections. At least since the previous merge was reverted, they have contributed little to Lake Michigan–Huron except to keep rewording the lead to promote their viewpoints. Recently, DanHobley tried proposing a reasonable synthesis, and the same three editors quickly got into a dogfight that resulted in this ANI. I think that if these editors genuinely want to see this article improved, all three should voluntarily step away from it for a few weeks and let others work on it. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That a completely inaccurate/ mixed up description of my involvement in this. To start with a simple blatant one "keep rewording the lead to promote their viewpoints" I have done ZERO writing anywhere in the article for the entire 8 day length of this flap, and made only three edits on it in the 8 days, each reverting to something written by somebody else. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I was a bit careless in my wording there. You haven't edited the article, but the other two certainly have. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you like, I can stop responding to Ken or North8000. You're right, nothing is being accomplished there. The rest of you are providing well reasoned POVs, and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to come to a consensus. — kwami (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a content discussion, that's taking place on the article talk page, this is the discussion about your behavior, so something is very much being accomplished here. Might I note that almost none of your reponses here have been relevent to the point of whether you should be topic banned or not -- you're just attempting to distract others from that discussions with repetitions of stuff you've said over and over and over again, and which has nothing to do ith your explaining why you have behaved so very disruptively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there is now new blood from WikiProject Geology and perhaps others — people who have experience dealing with this type of content — why not leave it in their hands. Neotarf (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Uh, isn't this supposed to be ANI, with an A? I'm perfectly happy to work with reasonable editors such as DanHobley, Alanscottwalker, and RockMagnetist, who aren't trying to pretend that sources they don't like don't exist. I took a break for 4 days, and Ken is still at odds with the other editors; I suggest that Ken take a similar break, and see what the rest of us are able to accomplish. I've also suggested developing a consensus version in a sandbox where it wouldn't disrupt the public article. Or, as RockMagnetist proposed (similarly to Ken), the three of us who are squabbling could step away from it and see what the other editors are able to come up with (one editor even suggested that everyone stop but DanHobley, which would probably result in a fine article), but let's start with the habitual BOLD violator Ken. — kwami (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• And I'm perfectly happy to work with any editor who doesn't behave as atrociously as you have. Where I think you misunderstand things is that "working" doesn't mean "giving in to Kwamikagami's ideas", it means discussing, give and take, try something, adjust, discuss, try again and so on. You just keep reverting to the same damn version you liked a week ago, no matter what anyone says or does.

  One thing that Regentspark said above struck me quite strongly "I've often disagreed with kwami, both on content as well as on his methods (particularly on moving pages)" (emphasis added) Well, we've already seen one of your methods - using your admin powers against policy on a page move - get you desysopped, and I guess here we're seeing yet another one of your methods: grinding the oppposition down by constant repetition, including knowingly misrepresenting what actually happened over and over again, never changing your mind, never considering others opinions or thoughts, just bulldogging ahead hoping that everyone else will get tired of it and go away. Your WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is subtle, but very much in effect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. Perhaps our best editor, Dan, is dropping out because of interference from you. You said you'd be willing to accept a block on this, so why are you not willing to follow me in not interfering with what they are doing? — kwami (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. User is abusing wikipedia on this subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting to the versions written by Alan and Dan, which everyone but Ken and North agree are good, knowledgeable editors. That's hardly 'abuse'. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Regretfully. GregJackP Boomer! 21:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Not only is this abusing wikipedia the recent actions smack of abuse of WP:NOTTHERAPY. MarnetteD | Talk 22:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Abusive behavior towards other editors should not be condoned. Shrigley (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Reverting while this discussion was under way was what pushed me over the edge to supporting this proposal. --John (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

He did not revert to his own version, but to the new version of User:DanHobley, a geoscientist from WikiProject Geology who was not previously involved in the dispute. Neotarf (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant; you do not revert bold changes back into an article when the issue is under discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, looked to me like there was already a consensus that RockMagnetist, Alanscottwalker, and DanHobley were trusted to be NPOV. Kwami and BYK, not so much. They have already been through the B-R-R-R-R without much success at D. IMO a lot of that can be caused by editing outside the usual area of expertise, so when they hit a snag, they don't know what to do next. The next shift has come on duty, they should be able to have a go at it without interference from the first bunch who were unable to come to an agreement. Neotarf (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to think that Ken's edits are not neutral (from what I can see it has only been Kwami that has claimed that both he and Ken are not editing neutrally, an unusual claim). IRWolfie- (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at RockMagnetist's comment above about endlessly repetitive arguments, or just look at all the personal remarks here. Or look at DanHobley's comments when he dropped out. [91] Neotarf (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverting at all during this discussion would still qualify for a topic ban in my book, just to be clear. --John (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwami agreed to stop editing for 72 hours, and he did so. In the meantime, the editors who keep dragging him here, North8000 and Beyond My Ken, were put under no restriction whatsoever, and kept making POV edits. (Just to be clear, I don't agree with the content Kwami wanted to add either.) But Kwami was right about the article, they shouldn't have deleted it with no discussion. There is now a proper discussion and a unanimous vote to keep it. Neotarf (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So Kwami has stepped back, Beyond My Ken has left the building, and the real geoscientists have rewritten the article. Is there anything left to do here? Neotarf (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't nupedia. Just because someone who identifies as a geologist (I haven't checked any of the other editors) made the edit doesn't mean it can't be reverted or the rewrite is necessarily better. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Their credentials in RL don't matter. If they are with WikiProject Geology, then they have experience with this type of content. If they were not involved in the previous dispute, they have a better chance of reaching consensus. Also you might want to glance at the rewrite: one picture is worth a thousand words. Neotarf (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Their geology area of expertise is outside the area of dispute which is naming. The main benefit is that it is extra eyes involved / handling. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think that we have seen that Kwamikagami is and will almost certainly will be relentless on this topic and at these articles. One additional less-obvious item to reinforce my point: over the last 10 months they have have aggressively deleted even the smallest of changes of mine of the type that have now been widely accepted and implemented. They are also very wiki savvy in conducting this effort including knowing how to momentarily back off a bit at the right moments to avoid any corrective action from being taken. IMHO unless something is done they WILL be back hammering these articles into likenesses of their fringe view. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That maybe true (although you are suppose to provide diffs) but from my vantage point, had you both focused on the extensive sources on the topic and taken it to DR/N or TO (or some of the other notice boards), if there was specific wording or sources you could not agree on, much of that could or would have been obviated. (Just something to think about).Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I did focus on the extensive sources, and even on the specific ones that Kwamikagami promoted (but misused); they were the basis for my edits. I'm sorry that the following rant is placed by your post because it is really directed only 1% at your mild recent post and more at ineundos by a couple of others. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of getting inuendoed as if I were just exhibiting some type of dispute behavior! Here's a quick chronology. Over time other commenters at the article have all said the same thing. Also the article had sever problems regarding categorical statements of the fringe view regarding naming in the voice of Wikipedia as fact, complete mis-use of sources to make them appear to say the opposite of what they did etc.. So, instead of just saying "somebody ought to do something" I decided to be that "somebody" for the good of Wikipedia. So, on a low key basis, on and off over 10 months I tried to make a few small changes in line with overwhelming sourcing, and also the input at the page. Kwamikagami reverted them all. More recently (2-3 weeks ago) I did another burst of editing on 2 articles regarding this, (incidentally. ALL of my edits were towards where the articles are now) Kwamikagami reverted all of those edits. So then I took a policy based-approach, tagging the unsupported claims for sourcing. Kwamikagami deleted all of the tags. I restored them and Kwamikagami deleted them again. I provided thorough rationales, and Kwamikagami provided brief dismissive notes when reverting them. At one I provided 9 rationales for 9 edits and they deleted them all on one swoop with a comment to the effect of "I have reviewed them and decided that you are wrong on all of them" So, at this point, when Kwamikagami was at 2RR and I was at 1RR I took it to wp:ani on a policy basis (removal of the tags). Others got involved and carried the ball. For the next 8 days I did ZERO editing on the article except three times restoring text in different places to what someone else wrote. In discussions I have consistently taken the high road. Even when Kwamikagami was basically calling me stupid, (some which they since redacted, not struck) banned (and deleted my post) me from their talk page because I "have nothing intelligent to say" I took the high road. I did all of the above to try to help the goals of Wikipedia, I took the high road at each stage, and followed overwhelming consensus and sources at each stage. So, if anybody is going to toss any innuendos, you'd better go first look for something to back it up!!!! And, BTW, you won't find it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I would say you did many good and right things, (unfortunately the crappy part of AN/I is the one finger pointing at someone else and the rest pointing back at you school). And I have thanked you for them, and I do again. Again, from my vantage point, you both had valid points (and seemed to support some rather irrelevant or wrong points. and talk past each other) but, by your own admission, going into it two weeks ago, you knew there were disagreements with Kwami about substance, so mayhap, you should have tried to tackle that in a neutral forum? (You hopefully know what I refer to when I speak of a recent (what 18 months?) discussion where if the active parties had been more quickly disposed to all the wide array of DR, perhaps that would have been done sooner, with less strain.)) Now. I did not have to deal with Kwami, (and I never have dealt with him before) because of where I came into the discussion, so you could well be right that the Wiki needs protection. (Also, again IMO, your position was ill-served by what someone else did, which if I am not mistaken was triggered by the first trip to AN/I) Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It didn't really come back at me. But I'm concerned about even the few mistaken innuendos, as some might actually believe them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're so concerned about people believing inaccurate statements others make about you, may I suggest you take care not to make them about others? The tags, for example, which in several cases you conceded were inappropriate. (I saw them as being disruptive, since you tagged things as lacking sources when they were already sourced.) You continue to present it as if I were being disruptive in removing them.

However, once you decided to discuss things enough to show me that you actually did understand the hydrology (and it took, what, weeks? you refused at least twice), I realized that I was wrong in my estimation of you. I retract what I said about your ability—you clearly have the necessary comprehension, even if I still don't get what your point is—and if you point out where, I will be happy to strike out such comments as wrong and inappropriate. (Give the page and quote a few words so I can do a text search—I might miss something otherwise. Feel free to start a new section on my talk page for this.) — kwami (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kwami; you put a similar post at my talk page and I answered there. Curious on what your thoughts are on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response either place would be cool....trying to reassure myself that it's real. North8000 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Interim proposal

Both Beyond My Ken and Kwamikagami will stop participating in this AN/I and allow other editors to come to a decision without the distractions of their back and forth.

• Support as proposer. And I'll start right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this is unnecessary if you are aware of it; if you find yourself being drawn into a back and forth just disengage. kwami is required to respond here due to the topic ban proposal. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - give DanHobley a chance to improve the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Rock, did you read that as stop participating in the article? Since this ANI is about me, I need to stay engaged. Last time I didn't stay engaged in an ANI I got de-sysop'd over something I thought too trivial to worry about (enforcing the closing admin's decision in a move request), and was told it was my fault because I wasn't adequately engaged in the ANI. So no, if accusations are made about me, I will respond. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So, you think you've learned something? Responding will only prove you have wp:battleground mentality, and that will get you banned. Mwahahaha... Tijfo098 (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, don't do that. We don't need more sarcasm, we need less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sadly Dan was not given that [92].Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Farewell, cruel world!

I didn't think I would break my self-imposed exile so soon, but immediately after I posted the above, I went back to the article to find that Kwamikagami has reverted all of my carefully considered adjustments to DanHobley's compromise version, and thst was just the straw that broke this particular camel's back.

I give up.

Kwamikagami, my congratulations to you, you have beaten me into a mass of protoplasm with your subtle but brutal "methods", and I am going away to nurse my wounds. How happy you must be to have done your little part to make Wikipedia just a little less collaborative than it once was.

For your convenience, I include here a list of the articles I will no longer be watching, in which you can insert your unsupported viewpoint that "Lake Michigan-Huron" is anything other than a name for a system of hydrology. Then you can also do your part to help spread WP:FRINGE viewpoints on Wikipedia, making it that much less authoritative and useful to our readers:

• Extreme points of Canada
• Extreme points of North America
• Extreme points of the Americas
• Great Lakes
• Lake
• Lake Huron
• Lake Huron–Michigan
• Lake Michigan
• Lake Michigan-Huron
• Lake Superior
• Lake Victoria
• List of islands in lakes
• List of lakes by area
• List of lakes in Illinois
• List of lakes in Indiana
• List of lakes in Michigan
• List of lakes in Wisconsin

Well done, Kwamikagami! Vaya con dios. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I only reinstituted Dan's NPOV edits, and your interference drove him away from the article. If you are no longer here to mess with the reasonable editors, and as I am not editing their work either, then we should be good to go: Dan, Alan, Justin, Rock, etc. should be able to craft a clear, NPOV article. — kwami (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Any edit that asserts there is an entity called "Lake Michigan-Huron" is a violation of POV rules and hence is unreasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Context I am sorry but anyone looking at this should read what Ken's recent edits meant to DanHobley, who spent all day reading and writing. [93]. It's too bad that people can't be more deliberative. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Deliberative? On ANI, dude? You gamma editors should scurry back to your Geography Wikiproject. You clearly don't have the right stuff to play for the high stakes with the alpha boys of ANI! Look at that pathetic DanHobley. He thinks he's an expert huh? Works for a Ph.D. in this area? Reads sources, huh? Who cares? His sources are FRINGE POV by wp:consensus on ANI! Let him scurry back to writing his unreliable fringe sources in academic journals, which Wikipedia will gleefully ignore. That'll teach him to try and influence the people's encyclopedia! Tijfo098 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

F*ck yeah! You go! If it's not about personalities, get it the hell out of Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at my current Rand McNally atlas, it shows a "Lake Huron" and a "Lake Michigan". No "Lake Huron-Michigan" nor any "Lake Michigan-Huron". Why do you suppose they left that stuff out? Maybe because there's no such thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I also wonder why my 5th grade math manual or even CS101 didn't cover Krohn–Rhodes theory. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Mine did. But I was in a progressive school. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Tij: You are bad. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no such entity called "bad". To say otherwise is prohibited by the POV rules. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Consider bringing up the specifics of the issue at WP:FTN (in a more succinct form). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong venue, try WP:NPOV/N. Oh, wait, that has a backlog. Shit nobody cares about. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Supreme facepalm of destiny. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Someone tag this under the "I shit you not" category.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Is it truly necessary for this encyclopedia to have both an article on Lake Huron-Michigan and an article on Lake Michigan-Huron? The whole concept just seems like a geologica/geographic debate on the exact characteristics of the two Great Lakes from a researchers' perspective -- I happen to think that merger with the GL article might actually work, but if it doen't I think we can just pull out the most prevalent term (Huron-Michigan vs. Michigan-Huron and use that, rather than have two identical articles except for the names. Just my 2c... DrPhen (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not two articles, it's a WP:Redirect just FYI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a great demonstration as to how we might better guide a perplexed reader who, interested in that huge lake that wraps around Michigan, searches for Lake Huron-Michigan, somehow blissfully unaware that much of it is actually named Lake Michigan, and the other part named Lake Huron, each of which has an article now that links to the other, and both of which should and could easily point out the close hydrologic relationship they share. Otherwise, I think that we do this hypothetical perplexed reader a great disservice to reinforce the misperception that the rest of the world must think of them as a single lake, especially if the only purpose in so doing is to indulge the writer. Most of us are "in on" at least a few pretty obscure and fascinating bits of trivia, but not all of them really need an article. Steveozone (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In articles, readers are not told what to think; they are informed about what RS think and it is done in an article form, not scattered about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, everyone has gotten so hung up on the minutia of policy here talking about maybe 10 sources that talk about "Lake Michigan-Huron". There are literally millions of sources that talk about Lake Michigan and Lake Huron as separate lakes. Why? Because they are! They may be the same body of water, but they are separate lakes. Given the millions of sources (and no, I am not going to even try to name them. Only a fool would argue the point.) that say they are separate lakes, aren't we giving undue weight to the few sources that describe the body of water as "Lake Michigan-Huron"? I really doubt either NOAA or the Corps of Engineers intended for anyone to take their convenient assigning of coincidentally the same name for the combined body of water as any sort of a proposal that the two lakes should be considered as one for any reason other than the hydrological factors they were talking about. This debate is about the silliest thing I have ever seen. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

99+% of sources that mention the Sun don't tell us that it's a star – should we change that article too, to better match the popular account? It's not necessary to speak of it as a star just because the scientific understanding is that it is. As for 'lake' (which has no set definition), some people feel that a lake is a physical body of water, others not. If we failed to convey that in the article, that would be wrong, but I don't think that we do. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like an example of WP:GAME by Kwamikagami and nothing else.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 19:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Solution

Without comment on the merits here: Kwami, I've looked at closing this ANI with the goal of using the least amount of sanction (if any) needed to comply with the consensus, but this is no easy task. I can't see any admin being able to close this without a topic ban for three months, unless you provided a reason why it was no longer necessary. The consensus exists, and I am giving this neutral comment to try one last time to coax a solution out of you, the only person that can change the outcome. Otherwise, this needs closing, now, as it has degrading into something outside the scope of ANI. If you truly don't "get it" and can offer a better solution, you will leave the closing admin very little choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I did the first ANI on this about 10 days ago (this is #2) and will be only partially on Wiki tomorrow and then off the grid for 9 days. Just to explain any lack of participation by myself after tomorrow. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Besides the edit-warring, Kwami's talk arguments have generally been based on Wikipedia policies and supported by sources. That's something which cannot be said about his most passionate opponents in this discussion. The de minimis solution would be to prohibit Kwami from editing the article(s) but allow talk page participation. I have a feeling however that a number of his opponents simply follow him around, just so they can disagree with him. (And I'm not alone in this [94].) If you kick this up to ArbCom, I think more than one topic ban will be issued in the area, and possibly some interaction bans as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That miles-off comment shows that you have not reviewed the (extensive) history of this situation. Which is understandable because it is spread over 7 locations and probably 30,000 words. A good place to start to get up to speed is the extensive thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive768#User Kwamikagami reported - warring to remove citation-needed tags on assertions that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not lakes Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(Notice the complete BS in the title of that thread: there were no such assertions, and the tags (for page numbers where there already were page numbers, for sources where there already were sources, etc.) were little more than defacement of the article. — kwami (talk))

In that case it should go to ArbCom. ANI is ill-suited for coming up with solutions in complex problems. The "ZOMG I've never heard of Michigan-Huron DEEELEEETE ITT AND BAAAANNNN HIMMM" that make up more than half of the uninvolved/drive-by comments in this thread are also a good argument for that. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about what you just said and implied via your link, with no real basis. Kwamikagami is the cleverest person here, they know every wiki-warring trick in the book and you are falling for them, they know how to temporarily back off a bit at the right moment to avoid corrective action and then go back to what they were doing, they know how to subtly war their POV back into the article without you seeing it or thinking the opposite, they know how to lay low a bit and then later undo all of the balancing work that you have done on the article. The content issues are (temporarily) 95% solved, they are not currently the issue. North8000 (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm really addressing kwami here, and personal observations about how many Jedi mind tricks someone knows is a bit off topic and not completely appropriate. Let's just keep this simple. I put off closing as I wanted to hear kwami's final word in the issue. This doesn't prevent any other admin from closing, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

North8000's post above yours proves my point that he should be ibanned in relation with kwami. Rest assured, I've not fallen for any "mind tricks". I can read sources myself and evaluate them well enough. Kwami can be aggressive, but it takes two (or more) to edit war. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have NOT been edit warring. STOP the false accusations. And please leave this thread as Dennis requested, which I already did until you posted a false accusation. North8000 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis, as for consensus, the only admin that had voted the last time I looked was the nominator. This is ANI, after all, and the A's have stayed out of it.

If you want evidence that I can edit amicably with others, just take a look at Lake Michigan–Huron. There is a nice consensus developing there, starting with outside input at An attempt at a synthesis. I've made suggestions based on my concerns, at Hydrological POV, people have discussed them productively, with even North8000 on board, and it looks like we're close to finished. There are only a couple points that remain, with intelligent POVs on both sides, so that should be fine even if my suggestions are rejected. In fact, apart from North8000 making the occasional misguided edit (I'd hoped we'd both stay off the page, and let others handle it), I've had no disagreement with any regular editor apart from quibbling over copy editing, if you even want to characterize that as disagreement. Yes, the people who think the whole idea of Lake Michigan–Huron is a travesty against WP:TRUTH want me banned, but that's a content dispute that AFAICT has been resolved with the near unanimous rejection of the RfMerge. Ask the knowledgeable geo-project people now crafting the consensus whether my participation is disruptive.

The reason this is here in the first place was "the temerity of Kwamikagami editing against an obvious consensus". However, the obvious consensus, as shown in the RfM, is just the opposite of what Ken claimed, and he brought me here because he had to edit war, violating BOLD (which he cites), to get his way. Sanctions are supposed to stop problems, not punish. Since Ken left with his POV pushing (he had problems with the geo-project people too, causing one to quit in frustration until after Ken had left), there is no problem here. As for whether there may be one in the future, perhaps we could have an interaction restriction between North8000 and myself (and Ken, if he ever comes back), where we follow BOLD as if it were policy: if one of us reverts one of the others, we take it immediately to Talk and let others decide. As long as North8000 and I aren't trying to convince each other, which we know doesn't work, it appears that things are moving along fine. — kwami (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Inuendo trying to "use" me here forces me to respond. Please stop trying to imply this this is multi-person issue, especially involving me, including implying any equivalency or similarity of behaviors. For example, regarding the "misguided edit" baloney, the ONLY edit of mine that has been getting reverted, and ONLY by Kwamikagami is this [95] and near-identical twins of it (two places in the article). It is a graceful compromise tweak to correct an extreme mis-representation of the 3 sources involved which makes them appear to say the opposite of what they actually say overall. North8000 (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel Pfly misrepresented that source, you could bring it up on the talk page, as I have done. The new group of editors has demonstrated they'll listen to whatever you have to say. — kwami (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Reopening. Dennis, you DON'T get to substitute your own opinion for actual consensus, even if you wave WP:IAR around as an all-purpose Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card. Now would someone uninvolved close using the ACTUAL consensus. Calton | Talk 16:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I take exception with your reverting my close without providing a proper basis other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The original close is here [96]. You are trying to pigeonhole me as closing admin and prevent me from using my judgement without providing a policy based reason for your actions. I would instead recommend reverting it back, and take any concern you have to ArbCom, and let them decide if I have exceeded the authority of WP:IAR and would welcome anyone else to do the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've restored DennisBrown's close. Sometimes the no drama route is better and this is one of those times. Let it go. --regentspark (comment) 20:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Talk:Elliott Miles McKinley

Regarding: Elliott Miles McKinley, I was attempting a review and saw irregularities that need an Administrator review. This may be all above board, but it is not clear to me what has happened. There was a deletion discussion that is closed as delete then the same deletion discussion listed as keep on the article. Then some moves and relisting as a new article. Please see discussion at: Talk:Elliott Miles McKinley. This should be handled by administrators. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I came across it too and asked for admin help. There was only one discussion and that was to delete. The article was re-created. I asked an admin to see the deleted version and compare with the new version before I put it up for CSD. I'm running out of admins that will help. I see this about once every three days and I guess people are getting tired of my requests. Bgwhite (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There aren't any deleted versions of the article. The whole history of the article is visible to everyone. It was deleted in July 2011 as the result of this discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliott Miles McKinley. It was then userfied by Timotheus Canens on 18 Sept 2012. Then on 21 September Timotheus Canens history merged the article and moved it back into the article space. This was the version that was deleted. GB fan 22:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It was recreated as a result of a deletion review dated september 6th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.147.168 (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_September_6#Elliott_Miles_McKinley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.147.168 (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat and personal attack

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

---

Jp112015 (talk · contribs) sent me a Wikilove message containing a personal attack and clear-cut legal threat due to a content dispute on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 14). Per WP:LEGAL, I believe this constitutes a block. Davejohnsan (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The user was Jp112015 (talk · contribs), by the way, and a pretty clear-cut WP:NLT vio to me. I almost logged into my admin account to take care of it too dangerouspanda 22:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response. Davejohnsan (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User Jagged_85 and abuse of sources

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

---

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For those not aware of the background to this, Jagged_85 was previously the subject of an April 2010 RFC regarding his abuse of sources: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Summary. It was agreed that Jagged_85 had been making unacceptable edits, using references which did not support the claims made. As one of the outside views noted: "the user has misinterpreted the sources, provided extremely unreliable sources, and cherry picked the information in the sources". Jagged_85 essentially did not contest the case but used as his defence that he had been rushed and careless.

The conclusion of the RFC was that: Jagged_85 would stop abusing sources and would stop making such bad edits; Jagged_85 would help in the cleanup (to put this in perspective he is currently 253 in terms number of edits on Wikipedia, and has previously been much higher; a significant proportion of his edits have serious problems); and he was told to: "avoid any questionable, inappropriate and unreliable sources, and in particular, avoiding edits which add exceptional claims, unless these have received strong confirmation from several reliable sources". Finally, Jagged_85 was warned: "if such problematic behaviour were to occur again, further action will be taken against him. Such an action would be a request for some sort of ban."

No further action was taken; Jagged_85 has made only a marginal effort to help clear-up the mess left behind him, but he stopped editing the Muslim history related articles where he had caused so much damage, and everyone was essentially happy to assume good faith and let him get on with editing other parts of the encyclopedia.

I came to the problem after the original RFC, when I got quite heavily involved in trying to clean some of the extraordinary mess left in articles such as Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe and Avicenna. As such I was watching the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 page. I then saw that a couple of editors in Jagged_85's new chosen topic area, computer games, were concerned with his use of sources and editing style. When I looked into it further I was frankly horrified, as Jagged_85 was making exactly the same sort of exceptional claims regarding computer game X being the first to have 3D polygonal graphics that he used to make about Muslim scholars inventing various surgical instruments that had existed for centuries, or suggesting Muslim scholars came up with Newton's first law of motion before Newton did.

With the help of users bridies and Indrian, who are editors in the computer games area, I have been looking into this further over the course of about a week, and the further I dig, the worse it seems. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Computer_Games_Evidence, which is the page where we've been collecting the evidence.

The list of provably false claims made on that page is staggering. And we really weren't trying very hard to collect examples. Over the course of investigating I looked into one article, Gun Fight; almost every substantial edit Jagged made to that article is problematic, trying to make what is undoubtedly an important game sound even more groundbreaking that it was. He makes wild, exceptional claims about things which he doesn't seem to understand and which are certainly not supported by the references he gives. I even found one edit so bad that it was specifically rubbished by a computer website: 'Even today, Wikipedia, that bastion of poor research, triumphantly declares Silpheed was "notable for its early use of real-time 3D polygonal graphics." No, Wikipedia, it really was not.'

I am of course happy to hear other people's views, but my personal opinion is that, given the previous RFC (which specifically mentioned a ban if he did not mend his ways), and given the sheer amount of damage he has done to the encyclopedia, by making so many referenced, exceptional claims which are simply not supported by the reference (sometimes directly contradicted by the reference), it must be time to consider a community ban. My personal opinion is that it needs to be a permanent one; we are surely way beyond second chances now.--Merlinme (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wowser. So, after peddling anti-Western Muslim propaganda in math and science articles for years, he now does the same for Asian videogame manufacturers usually at the expense of Western ones? And using the exact same methods? Who'd have seen that one coming? 86.121.137.227 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support a community ban. His editing is still very problematic as shown by that evidence, and he shows no sign of accepting the assessment of the previous RfC/U. Fences&Windows 22:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that diff. In it, Jagged_85 accuses anyone exposing him of having a "very explicitly obvious Eurocentric agenda". It figures. 86.121.137.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Much of this constitutes outright lying in Wikipedia articles. With such a long history of it, this guy needs to be permanently banned.

Also, crap, I had no idea there was a Starglider 2! (I played the first game for a few years.) —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  23:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know why WP coddles those who intentionally misrepresent sources to push their POV. Should have been banned long ago. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps to attract new editors? "Hi, I'm Jagged 85. I've been rewriting world history on Wikipedia since 2005 (and so can you!)" 86.121.137.227 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's time to block Jagged 85. Looking at the first half of the Video Game evidence, I can't tell whether xe is just unable to properly read sources, or is somehow obsessed with pushing a POV (though I can't quite see what it is, because I don't know what all of those games have in common (is it the geographic source of the company)? Ultimately, it doesn't make a difference. Furthermore, the earlier massively bad editing on Muslim science issues caused very long term problems. People familiar with the whole story regularly had to stub or at least significantly trim articles because so much of them was based on Jagged 85's work; the problem then became that users not familiar with the problem objected to what they saw as removal of sourced info, and then on article after article people would have to explain what was wrong with Jagged 85's work, insist that no, it is not salvageable in any way, etc. The reason why Jagged 85's actions are so bad is that they resemble, on the surface, very good editing--adding well formatted, fairly believable information that appears to be directly supported by specific sources. This has to be stopped, and since it is now clear that it's not just a specific topic that's the source of the problems, the only solution is to remove Jagged 85 from Wikipedia. An indefinite block is certainly called for here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the video games evidence, I've removed the autopatrolled and reviewer rights as a bare minimum. Reading the 2010 RFC/U now. T. Canens (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The pattern that emerges from the latest survey is that he is pimping various non-Western video games and their manufacturers (by necessity, these are mostly Japanese) with fake claims of various "firsts", "best-selling" and the like. 86.121.137.227 (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• As noted above, I was involved in preparing this (though completely unaware of the original RfC until recently), but I support an indefinite (permanent) site ban for Jagged85. As others have noted, he acknowledged that he faced being banned if he continued this kind of editing and nevertheless he continued, in a different subject area. Even if these kinds of edits constituted a minority of his edits as he has claimed ("cherry-picking" being an accusation he has often levelled at his detractors), the absolute number nevertheless means that the limited wherewithal of our video game editors cannot keep up with them. Further, in at least certain sub-areas, I hold that Jagged85's bad edits are the norm rather than the exception. The page above illustrates the kind of edits for which he was previously taken to task: making extraordinary and spurious "factual" claims based usually on the direct misrepresentation of his sources (and sometimes by using a source which goes against wider research, perhaps even common knowledge in the case of the Space Invaders claim). I also put together a second page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Video Game Genres Evidence (which has largely not been copy edited by other users), detailing his edits in-depth across just a few video game genre articles. It shows wider edits which added lesser or more subjective historical commentary, but with equally direct misrepresentation of sources. There is also a wide tendency to add purely descriptive information to history articles/sections to imply historical significance (Jagged85 denies this) and to use material and sources out of context generally. It also shows plagiarism to be a prevalent issue with Jagged85's supported edits. bridies (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• And I am the other video game editor who has been looking into these issues. I first really began taking notice of Jagged 85 in January of this year when I noticed that a few of his edits seemed really out of whack based on my knowledge of video game history. I then began examining some of his edits over the previous year to video game articles and discovered a large number that needed to be reverted for accuracy. I then began following his editing progress on his user contribution page, which allowed me to catch a fair number of really bad edits within hours or days of their commission. This practice also led me to become aware of the original RFC against him in February 2012. I was quite disturbed at that time, because his MO on video game history articles appeared nearly identical. I contacted a respected video game editor known for his policy expertise and diplomacy about my concerns, but unfortunately it soon became apparent that this editor had recently left wikipedia permanently, as he has not been heard from since January. As I pondered what to do next (unilateral action not being palatable to me) I noted that Jagged's volume of video game history edits had declined by the end of March 2012 and that I no longer had the time to fact-check his contributions too closely. I therefore decided to keep an eye on him and try to catch particularly blatant looking problems, but not take further action. When Bridies first noticed the problem and decided independently to get involved on the original RFC talk page, I decided the time had come to take more comprehensive punitive action.

I can state from experience that while Jagged has made a small number of high quality edits to video game articles and a decent number of neutral edits, these are greatly outweighed by the distortions he has introduced. In fact, I did not realize how bad some of his abuses had become until gathering the evidence for this ANI posting because he was adding material so rapidly between January 2011 and March 2012 and adding specific bad claims across so many articles simultaneously that it would have taken weeks of work for a single editor to verify all of his edits individually. I do not know that he really has an agenda (though his pushing of Japanese games, sometimes at the expense of more well-known Western products -- a topic I chose not to delve into too deeply in the evidence I presented -- does give me pause), but he appears to be grossly incompetent both in his failure to understand the sources from which he draws his claims and in his lack of understanding of the historical and technological topics he attempts to engage with. I will not weigh in on what I think the appropriate level of punishment should be for his actions, but I firmly believe that his abuse of sources and distortion of fact has done great harm to wikipedia and must be stopped. Indrian (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• It appears that Jagged 85 also had a long-term interest in making fake claims about Japanese inventions, not just Muslim ones. For example List of Japanese inventions, which was almost entirely his writing, contained ridiculous claims like:

"p–n junction

A junction formed by combining P-type and N-type semiconductors together in very close contact. It was invented by Isamu Akasaki in 1989.[34]"

Akasaki invented/discovered some junctions used in LEDs, but by no means invented the p-n junction (and surely not in 1989). Another related and absurd claim made on that list was that Akasaki also invented GaN. GaN was first synthesized in 1932. Akasaki was three years old back then. What Akasaki's team discovered was that Mg-doped p-type GaN was useful for building bright LEDs. (Facts source: the introduction to Nitride Semiconductors and Devices by Hadis Morkoç.) Akasaki's contribution was described in Light-Emitting Diodes by E. Fred Schubert as "the first true p-type doping and p-type conductivity in GaN". That's quite a far cry from having invented the GaN substrate or the p-n junction, isn't it? 86.121.137.227 (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I honestly remain unsure as to whether he is really biased or it is just a combination of incompetence along with focus area. He likes to add information about Japanese topics, and in so-doing has on several occasions distorted Japanese accomplishments vis-a-vis Western accomplishments in video game history and elsewhere, but if he chose to focus on Western topics he would probably end up doing the same thing in reverse. I still think its primarily an inability to engage in proper research that leads him astray and that it is easy to see bias in his work because that is a more believable explanation in some ways than his apparently staggering levels of incompetence. After chasing so many of his edits though, I really think he is just that inept. That is no excuse, however, and I think the community has been extremely patient in giving him opportunities to figure out his problems. The fact that he continued his sloppy research techniques in a different subject area after the previous RFC is somewhat mind-boggling. Indrian (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, it's pretty difficult to read remarks like this and still not see any extreme bias. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Jagged 85 indefinitely. I'd usually wait for a response first, but given the history here, I don't think there's anything they could say that will change my mind. The evidence is clear that they have engaged in long term, systematic, and widespread source misrepresentation. They've been more than adequately warned for this precise conduct during the RFC/U, but yet have persisted in this behavior. Cleaning up after them has already cost massive amounts of volunteer time, and allowing them to continue to edit will only cause more time to be wasted on checking up and verifying their work, especially since a lot of the problems involve difficult-to-obtain sources. In short, it is very far from a net positive to allow them to continue to edit. T. Canens (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there's a pretty clear community consensus for a ban. For the record, although he is interested in Eastern subjects, I don't think he showed a particularly strong bias towards them in his computer edits. The connecting thread in his edits is hype; everything he writes about has to be the first, earliest, most significant, most influential example. I don't however accept the argument that it's just incompetence with sources on his part. His standard method was to find a source which said X was a Y, and then use that reference to claim X invented Y (or was the first Y, or introduced Y, or was a significant early example, etc. etc.) Jagged_85 did that hundreds or thousands of times, and I find it hard to believe he didn't know exactly what he was doing, especially when he apparently deliberately used references which were hard to check.

Claims to be first (or otherwise exceptional in some way) using bad references are what to look out for in any sock puppet discussions, which I suspect we may get. --Merlinme (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Community ban discussion

I've unarchived this because he has posted a very long unblock rationale on his talk page. The community needs to decide if Jagged 85 is only WP:BLOCKED, thus any admin may unblock him, or if he is WP:CBANned, in which case he may only be unblocked by a consensus of editors. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see a few supports for a ban above, I'd also reiterate/clarify my support for a community ban (and a global one, if at all possible). His unblock request is derisory: he's essentially repeated his accusations of "cherry-picking", of which there was none this time. As I noted above, I picked the first 3 genre articles on my list of successful GANs, went through them, and posted the bad edits I found. I also covered what I left out. I'm certain Jagged85 couldn't come up with much of a list of good edits made to those pages, certainly not edits involving more than purely descriptive commentary. The edits on the main list are only cherry picked in the sense they were chosen to show he's still been doing what he's explicitly not supposed to have been doing per the previous RfC. Dig deeper and largely all one finds is more of the same involving subjective commentary, as well as original synthesis, plagiarism, and redundancy. His statement on his talk page that "the vast majority (I'm certain at least more than 95%) of that information matches the sources very accurately" is completely spurious. Aside from straight-up misrepresentation accounting for more like 50% (if Jagged85 can guestimate, so can I), often his content "matches the sources very accurately" because it's plagiarised. And if one takes into account that much of his recent bad editing is taking verifiable statements and putting them into contexts where they have no business being, it's no exaggeration to say that 95% bad edits is a more accurate ratio. Also, regarding his complaint that no video game editor came to him about systematic issues: I went to his talk page to ask him just what he'd done to First-person shooter, only to find it full of references to that old RfC, which in turn had linked to about a dozen threads on his talk page regarding abuse of sources. He further made it abundantly clear here and here, as well as in his unblock request that he doesn't feel he's in the wrong with much of his editing. For example, told me: "I completely disagree with your stance that only the "important" or "popular" stuff should be included. Sorry, but I just can't agree with such a narrow, restrictive view of history." (I never used the word "popular" and demanded only verifiable claims of historical significance). With regards to the irrefutably bad misrepresentations, he just maintains that these errors are to be expected of an editor with such high numbers of edits. On the contrary, there is no way an experienced editor can reasonable be making these kind of "mistakes" even semi-regularly. Highly active though he is, there are still hundreds more who are more active, yet aren't making these kinds of prevalently terrible edits. bridies (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban+global ban. As a certifying user heavily involved in the first RFC/U and the Herculean task of cleaning up after it, I can confirm that the main issues which have led to this ANI and which the blocking admin has aptly summarized as "long term, systematic, and widespread source misrepresentation" have remained exactly the same as in the RFC/U two years ago. I strongly support a global ban from all Wikipedia projects for the reasons laid out at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Global ban for Jagged 85. The damage done already far transcends the English version, affecting other language versions through translations of Jagged 85's articles. In future, faulty material translated from other language versions may be introduced to the English WP if the user – who has shown a prodigious output through the years – is allowed to continue edit the Wikipedia in other languages. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban/global ban. This is a user who clearly doesn't get it, and who refuses to get it. The encyclopedia is, sadly, a better place without him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• In case it isn't obvious from my block, support community ban. T. Canens (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • And oppose the so-called "global ban" proposal for the reasons explained in my comment below. T. Canens (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support permanent site/global ban. If achievable, Jagged 85 should be banned from all projects as there is nothing more damaging to the encyclopedia than a civil editor who systematically adds a large amount of incorrect and misleading information to articles, much of it with plausible sources. When other editors have taken the time to track down and study the references, many examples of the problem have been found: "severe misuse of sources: misrepresenting what a source has asserted; reporting only one side from a source; quoting out of context; inventing claims using a source related to the topic but which does not verify the claim" (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Johnuniq (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community/global ban. If we keep this guy around, who knows what damage could arrive in the future? ZappaOMati 22:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Regrettably, I support an indefinite ban. Regardless of what proportion of Jagged's count these bad edits represent, the scope of the damage is extensive and is much more than should be tolerated from any editor, whatever their edit count and their good intentions. Considering that these same types of problems continue to arise after all these years and periodic, time-consuming discussions, it appears that Jagged just won't, or can't, address them sufficiently. Jagged has made many good edits and should be commended for them, but at a certain point it's just time to find another hobby.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support site-ban. Disruption this pervasive after more-than-fair warning is just unacceptable and should not be permitted. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• I had thought the indefinite block was for all intents and purposes already regarded as a site ban by the community, and in fact I was about to add the {{banned}} template to his userpage just yesterday - only opting against doing so when I saw that someone had already added {{blocked}} instead. We have given Jagged 85 numerous chances to reconsider his approach to editing Wikipedia, but the fundamental issues that have been present from the very beginning persist to this day. It is not just an issue of competence, but of honesty. An editor who cannot handle himself with integrity has no place on Wikipedia. As such, I have no choice but to fully support an indefinite global ban of Jagged 85 from all Wikimedia projects, as a means of making his edits under this or any other account name viable for immediate, unconditional removal without further discussion. Preventing this sort of abuse from recurring again is more important than retaining any positive contributions he's made over the years. I wish it were not so. Kurtis (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite global ban. Frankly this should have happened a long time ago. Enough is enough. Further, given the damning evidence, it is important that all of his edits that have not been totally rewritten by others are deleted as quickly as possible. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban but please note that our community alone cannot enact global bans.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Sure. As far as I know it can only be implemented at Steward requests/Global, but with a clear consensus we could mandate an admin requesting a global ban in the name of the English WP community. Even more, from what I take from WP:BAN only a global ban could make it possible for editors in other languages to remove translated flawed material from their project on sight without going through the lengthy and cumbersome process of talking through each and every removal with well-intending but uninformed users unaware of its provenience. From my own experience in the first clean-up two years ago I know that this is a very time-consuming and ungrateful process which involves a lot of misunderstandings between these two user groups. This is why it is so important to express support for a global ban or not here. Practically, it is the decision to remove Jagged 85's material from other projects or keep it there for years to come. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is entirely incorrect.

1. There's no such thing as a global ban right now. m:Global bans is a proposal that hasn't yet become policy.
2. Even were it a policy, Jagged 85 clearly does not qualify for a global ban. That proposed policy requires bans on at least two separate projects. Moreover, there must be actual crosswiki abuse; Jagged 85's misconduct seems to be localized to this wiki, though it may have effects elsewhere through the actions of other editors.
3. Moreover, any global ban will have pretty much zero effect, as Jagged 85 seems to be pretty much inactive in other projects.
4. A ban, global or local, does not affect the status of "Jagged 85 material" on any project in any manner. The "revert on sight" part of our banning policy applies only to edits made in violation of a ban (i.e., after the ban is imposed), not before the ban is imposed. A ban is not damnatio memoriae.
5. Our banning policy (including the "revert on sight" part) does not apply in other projects, and their ban policy may well be different from ours. Moreover, since the "Jagged 85 material" was likely introduced by another editor, a ban will have literally zero effect even if it applied to all edits by the banned user since there's no edit by Jagged 85 to revert on these projects.

We would sound incredibly arrogant were we to actually go to the stewards to ask for a global ban (1) for misconduct that is solely on this wiki, (2) entirely unsupported by any existing policy, (3) entirely unsupported by even the proposed global ban policy, and (4) that has zero practical effect. T. Canens (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Global bans are more than a proposal. Global bans have already been effected, they are a daily reality, see e.g. here. If you are prepared to leave the material out of fear of looking "arrogant", then we should consult Jimbo Wales personally who may rightfully fear more for Wikipedia's reputation, because the dimensions of the misuse are simply staggering. This is just the short list. The long list you will find [here]. Despite the clean-up, we are still talking about thousands of readers reading fabricated contents month and by month in the English WP alone. These distortions have already been noted by outside observers long ago. Ultimately, it simply boils down to the question: you are prepared to do something effective about this or you don't. You give the community the means to remove it or you don't. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a global lock, not a global ban. And it does not apply here either, because, first, Jagged 85 does not even have a global account for a steward to lock, and second, there is absolutely zero evidence of cross wiki abuse. Did you even look at Jagged 85's cross-wiki contributions? They have made almost no edits on other projects in the past several years.

Moreover, a global lock has absolutely zero effect on the acceptability of Jagged 85's old edits in any project. First, it is not a ban; second, bans do not apply to edits made before the ban; third, the "Jagged 85 material" on other projects are in the contributions of other editors and would be unaffected even if Jagged 85 were to be banned on those projects.

Your argument boils down to "we must do something about Jagged 85, a global ban (or lock) is something, therefore we must do a global ban (or lock)". That's fallacy, not logic. Of course I care for the project's reputation (and it's rather surprising that you would imply that I do not, especially since I am the one who blocked Jagged 85 in the first place), but what you are proposing is to make a request that is bound to be rejected, that will almost certainly cause a good amount of ill will toward this project among our sister projects ("Look, enwiki is trying to lord over the other projects again!"), and that, even if it were to succeed (an impossibility since, again, there is no global account for you to lock), would have zero effect. Count me out. T. Canens (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As I noted below, I support a global ban as far as it is feasible; however I've not yet seen anything which makes me think it is feasible. However that does not mean "do nothing". We could, for example, at least alert other Wikis that there is a problem, and to bear this in mind when looking at pages in their wiki which may include material from the English wiki. As I understand it this is a real and current problem. --Merlinme (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Other projects (esp. Commons, a common place of asylum), tend to ignore disruption by users on other projects (at least in my experience). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected. While I still support a global ban, it seems impossible because I see WP has not implemented the necessary guidelines for this yet. This means, given his proficiency in several languages, the user can continue to edit other language version, even after a community ban here. And I am certain, he will do exactly this. So for the entire WP project this community ban will change nothing. Effectively, we are exporting the problem only to another language version which will have to deal with it all over again and may rightfully ask one day why we did not more about it when we could. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't necessarily disrupt other Wikipedia languages, which are considered separate communities and projects for this purpose. However, if he does, the global bans policy may have to be speedily ratified in order to prevent more of this. But for now, we don't need a global ban.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support global site-ban. After wreaking havoc on history of science articles for years, he was given one last chance following the RfC/U, and has convincigly proved that he is unfit to edit an encyclopedia. The reasons, whether sheer incomptence or otherwise, are no longer relevant at this point. Time to go. Athenean (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. I've explained in some detail why when I originally brought the case. I have also been discussing with Jagged_85 on his Talk page since the original block, and I find it quite alarming how he apparently thinks an acceptable defence, after five years of adding misinformation to the encyclopedia, is that he "tried his best" with sources he admits he didn't understand. I also support a global ban, as far as it is actually feasible. --Merlinme (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban This needs to be explicit. A lot of problems have been caused by this editor over a long period of time and I see no chance that if he were to edit again he'd suddenly be able to use sources appropriately. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban - Jagged 85 has failed the Wikipedia community for the last time. Giving the damning evidence that this user has done, he has now exhausted all of our patience. With that said, it's game over and as they say, "enough is enough." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Jasper Deng presents an unpopular truth, but truth it is. If there is no evidence of disruption to projects other than en-WP, then a global ban is simply not an option. A siteban from en-WP is obviously the right call (some of this stuff is amazing, and people will be fixing the damage for years to come), but until we have a consensus that certain classes of wikicrime require global bans (something that I haven't seen proposed) we shouldn't be acting as if that's already in place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban —Ruud 19:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Those discussing a "global" ban: Please stop pretending that the English Wikipedia community has the authority to ban someone from participating in other Wikimedia projects. We don't. Jafeluv (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite community ban I have had experience with Jagged85 from earlier encouraging him to contribute to articles on the History of Science in Islam, to participating in attempts to resolve his disruptive editing on Islamic science. The reports that his misleading editing has continued in his more recent editing on computer games convinces me that a permanent ban is needed to protect Wikipedia from his continued misinterpretations of sources. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Shouldn't this be closed by now? --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 04:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Al-Ahbash

User talk:Sakimonk turned the discussion personal and began to personally attack me on Talk:Wahhabi he then proceeded to join discussions im involved in Talk:Al-Ahbash and he also began to edit the article Al-Ahbash..is this not wikihounding can an admin step in here? Baboon43 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Providing diffs would be helpful. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

this [97] [98] [99] & [100] Baboon43 (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe Baboon43 is turning the tables on me. The reality is that Wahhabi has been heavily under attack by editors with a sectarian agenda for the past several months by various sockpuppeteers generally called "WikitruthsX", "Theone", "Thetruththeone", organometalic etc. I myself along with User:Pass a Method, User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Mark Arsten to mention a few have persistently been dealing with this problem (the trend was that there would be a message similar to the one posted by Baboon43 [101] [102] claiming "wahhabi" to be the root of terrorism, heretics etc. with no empirical evidence whatsoever, simply wild accusations in the exact same fashion before the page would be littered frantically wiping out blocks of text and so on, hence why I was alarmed yet again). I simply got fed up with yet another person launching a personally driven / faith based / sectarian argument against the Wahhabi movement whilst providing absolutely no verifiable, peer reviewed sources. I admit anger got the best of me since I was being accused of "pushing an agenda" I decided to scan through this fellow's edits and found out that he in fact clearly is pushing an agenda since he was persistently rev-warring over the Ahbash page with McKhan (who by the way had entirely sourced edits from Oxford univeristy Press and Oxford academic professors and so on) as opposed to a blissful representation of the Habashi sect / group / movement whatever you wish to call it founded in the 1980's. I am NOT a wahhabi however I strongly believe in giving everyone a fair, non-biased representation on Wikipedia which apparently is meant to be an entirely academic source not a space for everyone to advertise their group, product, brand etc. I was simply trying to explain to Mr Baboon43 that not everything in the real world works in black and white, most things have good and bad. I clearly stated he is welcome to add any content he wishes so long as it meets the criteria necessary.

Let me provide some differentials;

Here is Baboon43 accusing me of having an agenda after I posted an article written by the Tunisian president, whom he attacked as being a "wahhabi scholar" (lol), and in return I (yes I admit) became quite angry and responded that he in fact had the "agenda" and went on to clearly state any edits are welcome so long as they are verifiable and not based on hatred / sectarianism / extremism / faith based etc. [103]

During my scanning of his user contributions to investigate as to whether he was involved in any rev-wars / arguments / pushing false information etc. I discovered his persistent attack on User:McKhan, whom provided an excellently sourced number of edits which were being persistently wiped out by Baboon.

Please I implore you to have a look at the two versions, I personally went out of my way to please Baboon to stop him from rev-warring by making a composite article of the two versions, but alas to no avail. Baboon's rev warring to which I corrected, only to be accused of "personally hounding him" (a bizarre accusation since this is one instance of clear commotion that I simply wished to set aright) [104] reverting once [105] twice [106] reverting thrice

and so on, I am clearly not hounding him because this is one instance and in fact I am concerned for the quality of the article since information being CLEARLY CENSORED is directly from academic, non biased sources as opposed to the version Baboon wishes which is heavily skewed in favour of the group being detailed as opposed to being neutral (honestly have a look at the information he is removing [107] there is absolutely no justifiable basis for this), I say the truth is Baboon43 not only violates WP:NPOV guidelines he is also clearly rev-warring on that page.Sakimonk ^talk 23:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe sakimonk has joined discussion only to inflame the situation by choosing sides. seeing that he admits he was angry over a discussion on another talk page..the user mckhan whom he accuses me of reverting has been blocked for a month very recently and has failed to get consensus also im not the only one that reverts his edits..sakimonks personal attacks and hounding warrants a block. Baboon43 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

For those that haven't seen it, this article has been discussed here before. Sakimonk, you said "...during my scanning of his user contributions to investigate as to whether he was involved in any rev-wars...", where you then purposely took up the other side of the dispute after looking through his contribs for any disputes...that is wikihounding. "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." Following someone's contribs may be used for correcting unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy but I don't see anything unambiguous here, otherwise someone watching the two AN/I discussions, three related sockpuppet investigations, half a dozen 3RR reports and the multiple discussions on the article's talk page would have made some mention of it. - SudoGhost 00:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can argue about wikihounding even if he did follow the user to one article with bad intent. In addition, it seems that Sakimonk genuinely did feel that Baboon43 was inserting wrong information, and was acting in good faith to prevent that from continuing. (I'm not making a judgement on the content here.) —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  00:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sakimonk admitted to going through Baboon43's contribs for the sole purpose of looking for disputes, and then jumped into a dispute solely because Baboon43 was involved. That is the definition of wikihounding. If it were an issue of looking through contribs for unambiguous policy violations then that would be completely different but that isn't the case here. Thinking another editor is "wrong" is not an exception to wikihounding, otherwise the policy on wikihounding might as well not exist. Most disputes generally involve someone thinking another editor is inserting wrong information. - SudoGhost 00:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Sakimonk admitted to going through Baboon43's contribs for the sole purpose of looking for disputes" this is a fabrication, I was looking through user contribs as I am entitled to simply to find out if the user was a previous offender. I "jumped in" because I mistakenly thought Baboon43 was rev-warring with McKhan who's edits appeared to be quite well sourced. I didn't realise there was a previous controversy. Perhaps read through my explanation of the events again because I don't recall saying anything of the sort.Sakimonk ^talk 00:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And you'll notice that the description of wikihounding uses the word “multiple”, etc. Wikihounding is a pattern of behavior, not a single incident. It's erroneous to accuse someone of hounding because they followed one thread.

BTW, looking through McKhan's talk page, it's clear this war has been going on for more than seven years. I suggest that anyone taking action here should spend more than a couple of minutes trying to understand it first. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  00:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure what you mean by I inserted wrong information when i have yet to edit the article which sakimonk seems to think ill be a future vandal. Baboon43 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Listen, I am very happy to completely drop the issue if it is such a problem, I simply can't understand the reason why McKhan's edits are being censored since they, on the face of it, appear quite verifiable. This has nothing to do with a personal disagreement with Mr Baboon43, I couldn't care less for the fellow - I simply assumed he was threatening to vandalise the page wahhabi and checked his edits to see if he was a vandal, came across him reverting 13,000 or so characters and immediately thought it was ill intent since the information being censored appears to be quite verifiable. That is all. :) Sakimonk ^talk 00:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Ahbash should be thoroughly vetted by someone who has the time, I am no longer interested in engaging in edits since it appears my editing rights are threatened due to a previous run in with the chief instigator on that page *sigh*. Sakimonk ^talk 00:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have decided to retire from Wikipedia, I have tried my utmost to rectify Islamic articles on Wikipedia and I believe I have done as much as I possibly can however I find that editing on wikipedia is giving me a lot of stress and I am constantly checking my watchlist and receiving emails with notifications from other users and having pontless drawn out conversations on the global encyclopedia around the clock. It's a stress factor and distraction I can do without during my studies at University - I guess this is expected. May Allah guide me and you all to the straight path and keep us firm upon it. May Allah forgive me for any of my mistakes and I apologise for any rudeness or misunderstanding, all goodness is from Allah and anything bad is from either me or shaytan. Jazakum Allahu khair. Sakimonk ^talk 03:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Campaign to eliminate American English

Virtually all of User:82.153.125.210's edits are for the purpose of eliminating American English from articles. He/she was warned on his/her talk page, and chose to remove the warning from the talk page and continue the campaign. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• EatsShootsAndLeaves (dangerous panda) added a template about MOS, I left a more specific note backing it up. This should help them to understand why their actions are disruptive. I also left then an ANI notification (see top of page in red) which is required when you report someone here. Try to remember to notify, please, regardless if they are an IP or registered user. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Notification was left four minutes after this thread was created. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User ZarlanTheGreen

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

The affected articles are:

Broadsword (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → WQA/Broadsword (disambiguation)#August 2012 cleanup
User talk:Trofobi (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Broadsword (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → WP:DR noticebaord#Broadsword
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Edit war)

User ZarlanTheGreen disagreed with some (MOS:DAB-according) changes of "Broadsword (disambiguation)", starting 28 August 2012‎. On the talk page, he got sufficient answers to that but accused me of giving no answers, while actually he just refused to read the answers and especially refused to look in the article's history what changes he had done himself(!) and what changes others had done, but rather repeating on and on false accusations what he thought his/the changes had been. While repeatedly refusing to accept the MoS:DAB[108][109][110][111]..., he charged me with not following his own word-by-word interpretations of WP:BRD. Instead of working together on solutions, he accused me of "trolling"+[112] and opened a case against me on WP:WQA, where he got many more answers, but none of them supporting his views. My request to remove the "trolling" PA was answered by only more PAs. When WQA was closed on 15 Sep 2012, Zarlan opened a WP:DR case on the same questions, making further personal attacks there and refusing to remove them even after being asked so by the volunteer (Guy Macon). Current climax: Now, as it turns out that WP:DR, too, doesn't fulfill his hopes, ZarlanTG now starts editing the Manual of Style/DAB to his personal favour [113][114] and reverting other users there.

Additionally ZarlanTheGreen is often mixing up formats like [[ {{ == etc. not caring about the mess he leaves,[115] even if kindly asked to.[116] (As I am not a native English speaker I hope to have chosen appropriate words, if not pls let me know!) --Trofobi (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIR dangerouspanda 10:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You hardly make it clear who you consider to be lacking in competence, in what way, or what should be done about it. Also, I would like to point out that WP:CIR is an essay, which is to say the advice/opinion of some editors ...and it is not uncontroversial, as the page itself points out ...as well as stating that if one links to the page to point out incompetence in an editor, one has not understood the point of the essay.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's far from clear what administrator intervention is required. The DR process seems to be progressing. Comments on user behaviour are not necessarily personal attacks, and as for syntax errors on your talk page, I think that you can simply fix, delete or archive that section, surely? While Zarlan does not seem to have conducted himself impeccably, I see no ongoing problem here. Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC).

Nice to have learned a lesson in what user behaviour is supported by admins. --Trofobi (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to be shown what part of the MOS:DAB that is relevant or in what way, aside from the order of entries (though whether that interpretation is accurate is being argued), and I have already pointed out that I never refused Guy Macon's request, but rather explicitly pointed out that I would comply if he insisted despite the misgivings I noted. As to editing the MOS:DAB to my personal favours... that is a personal attack, a misscharacterization of events, and an assumption of bad faith. I merely reverted an addition to the page, which added something not previously present, with which I disagreed. The person that tried to add it has the WP:BURDEN of motivating the addition, and according to WP:BRD, must proceed discuss to be able to get it in. He/she may do so, and may be successful in doing so. That is yet to be seen. I could say that the person added that bit, because he/she wanted to edit the MOS:DAB to his/her favours, as its present form didn't suit their arguments concerning the Broadsword DAB page ...but that would be assuming bad faith, which is improper and unnecessary: it may have been done in good faith and it doesn't really matter either way. As to the rest, I feel no need to say anything.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this current edit war [117],[118],[119],[120],[121],[122],[123],[124],[125] have to be reported at WP:AN3, or can it be dealt with here? --Trofobi (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that, that was a bit edit war (or on the brink of it, at least), with part of the fault being on my side, as I myself have noted. The editing has died down, however, and attempts at discussion has started, so dealing with it as an edit war would be inappropriate and unnecessary. There is no need to deal with a war that is already over, that would be to unnecessarily inflame matters. I may consider a DR if discussion doesn't happen, but I see no reason for anything beyond that. I must say that this whole thing has been quite a learning experience. I have learned more about the MOS:DAB, BRD and some other guidelines and policies, as necessary, in the process of this. Generally nothing that goes against what I propose, though with some good pointers, that shall make me less inclined to revert to reverts as often in future and make things a bit less messy and edit war-y, which is good.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

...Especially as that discussion is now completed.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

FAC Sheriff Hill

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

---

Good evening

I am not a new reviewer but I am have never made a post here, so I hope this is the correct place.

I offered Sheriff Hill to FAC for a second time several weeks ago. This was the first article I edited here and a is labour of love on my part. The first review rather died, with barely a handful of comments, and the second attempt was doing likewise. Four days ago I got a response to a two month old GA nomination for Carr Hill. The review is available here. The review was a little tetchy, and a few comments were borderline argumentative, but sound overall, save one point of disagreement. That disagreement was raised at WP:GAN and the matter was clarified and closed so far as I was concerned.

In the last 48 hours, I was pleased to see that my FAC of Sheriff Hill was getting a lot of comments. user:Casliber offered some comments, followed by user:hamiltonstone and then user:Malleus Fatuorum; the reviewer of Carr Hill. In light of this activity, I rushed home and spent several hours trying to address the comments raised. I left a message advising that I was working at the issues raised and that I would continue tomorrow. I did continue 'tomorrow' (21 September) and asked a few work colleagues to proof read the article to check for errors. I then posted a comment at around 10.30am yesterday stating that I had addressed the issues raised.

I received a response, as you can see, at 14.40 yesterday. Some comments were raised and more vague suggestions for improvements were offered. Contrary to any sort of polite conduct, I was referred to as "as estate agent" (please read the review for context and clarification) but I still responded to the comments and made further edits to the article, and offered these to Malleus. This was the response:

"Then we'll have to agree to differ and my oppose will stand." Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In spite of what was a very short comment, I then spent two hours adding a public services section and asked again for more recommendations. I was told to add material that other reviewers had taken out as it made the article sound promotional(!)

By this point I was extremely annoyed but was considering how best to proceed. I posted a message back to Malleus, in terms which matched the unacceptably rude terms he had addressed me in the last 12 hours, and was pending a response when I headed to his talk page and found the following discussion:

Link to talk page; collapsed huge copy/paste.

"Hi Malleus Just wanted to post a couple of little things now that the GA review on this one has now closed (and I figured here is better than a completed review page). Firstly, and contrary to your closing comment, I actually don't think you were being especially harsh. As it happens, I much prefer thorough GA reviews, because no-one but me ever adds a thing to my obscure, Gateshead-y articles so a fresh pair of eyes is always welcome because I tend not to pick up silly errors that I make. And I agree that the article is better for it, especially now that I have a reliable source for climate data. Additionally, I would eventually like to get at least one of these articles through WP:FAC, so a comprehensive GA review helps a lot. Secondly, as regards our disagreement re:WP:UKCITIES. As you said, for the purposes of the review now concluded, the point was moot, but your reading of the guideline is genuinely new to me and isn't one I would have even considered to be honest. This is important to me as I tend to concentrate my wiki-efforts on articles like Carr Hill and I would like to know whether you are right to prevent my having the same discussion again in future. I am not a 'wiki-expert' – I concentrate mainly on editing and offering the occasional review – so I have no idea how I might be able to clarify this point, and wonder if you have any suggestions? Thanks again... Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I always tend to look at well-developed articles like Carr Hill – and it was well-developed – with an eye to FAC, otherwise GAN just becomes a rubber stamp, which I don't think is very productive. I also prefer to fix the easy things myself rather than clutter up the review, as you may have noticed. So far as our differing interpretations of WP:UKCITIES is concerned, I'm certainly not in any way trying to prevent you from having a similar discussion in the future; my comment was localised to this specific review. I'm not sure there's any general answer to your question though, maybe it's horses for courses, but has it never struck you as odd that an article such as Montpelier, Brighton has extensive coverage of church buildings without ever mentioning the religions of its residents? For me, that's a clear breach of GA criterion 3a, but no doubt other reviewers will have their own interpretations. So basically I have no right to stop you having whatever discussion you wish wherever you wish. If you go on to FAC though the rules change, and you have to satisfy all the reviewers, not just one old curmudgeon like me, which is quite a different game. Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Actually, it occurs to me that I may have misinterpreted your "... I would like to know whether you are right to prevent my having the same discussion again in future", when what you really meant was "I would like to know whether you are right, to prevent my having the same discussion again in future". If that's so, a good place to kick off the discussion would be WT:GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC) The reason why it has never struck me as odd because I have never considered it a requirement of WP:GAN. The failure to include that information in my view would certainly preclude success at FAC (something I tend to know a lot about, annoyingly) but my reading of 'broad' precludes 'comprehensive'. As you say; perhaps it is horses for courses? I am going to raise the issue at WT:GAN, simply to ensure that I don't end up crossing swords with a future reviewer– if it should be in, I'll include it in future articles– and also as I have dipped my hand into reviewing over the summer and it would help me provide better reviews I think. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC) GAN's "broadness" criteria obviously isn't well-defined, for obvious reasons. Should be an interesting discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 19 September 2012 If I know an editor's keen, I'll try to give a article a big a shove as possible towards FAC....aaaah and I've now seen Sherriff Hill. I am reminded of a scene in Green Wing where they decide to do an operation in Geordie....but my accent would be atrocious I think...apart from "alreet" and "howay then".....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I did try to give a big shove; maybe the issue is whether I shoved too hard with this particular article. Reviewing, especially GA reviewing, is a pretty lonely and thankless place by and large, but all we can do is the best we can do, and I did the best I could. If that's not considered good enough then so be it. Malleus Fatuorum 05:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Well all I can say is that Sherriff Hill FAC will be mmarginally less lonely. I've left Meetthefeebles some stuff to do. I'd be intrigued to see what else you come up afterwards with as I do like reviewing villages and towns but not hugely familiar with it like plants, mushrooms and birds...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I hadn't realised that Sherriff Hill was at FAC. I seem to make almost as many enemies there as I did at WT:RFA; I expect that'll be the topic of my next arbitration case. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Ooh err, I hadn't realised until I read this and I've been up there weilding my pruning shears after it popped up on my watchlist. :-( J3Mrs (talk) I expect I'll be doing a bit of pruning too. I notice immediately that there's nothing on climate ...". Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC) and I see you're not the only one with the pruning shears out. Hamiltonstone's been having a good go at it as well. On the face of it this nomination looks to have been a little premature. Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC) And no Public services. It does need a really good copyedit — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3Mrs (talk • contribs) It does. I'm a bit disappointed that nothing seems to have been learned from the Carr Hill GAN. To be brutally honest I wouldn't have passed Sherrifs Hill as a GA, so I've had to oppose its promotion. Maybe the work required can be done within whatever time remains at FAC, but it's getting towards the bottom of the queue now, so I'm dubious. Basically, it ought not to have been nominated in that state. I actually think that Carr Hill would stand a better chance at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC) To cut the editor a bit of slack, I was "precious" about my prose until I learned it was better to be precise but I was lucky in that it was frequently improved by an expert, and though I'm still incredibly sloppy, I do try to keep a simple past tense and use as few words as possible. I'm working on another of my "masterpieces". The important thing is learning the lesson not carrying on regardless. J3Mrs (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I'm lucky I guess, in that I've always found writing easy; maybe a consequence of having read so voraciously as a kid. But the problem with Sheriff Hill isn't just the prose, there's far too much detail on stuff that just doesn't matter at all, unless you're writing a tourist guide I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've been there too! I've removed some things that were plain wrong too, about the turnpike and the colliery. (see edit summaries) I tried to copyedit it before but some just got re-added in a different way.J3Mrs (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Wow. Have just read this. Wow. Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)" I now know that I have wasted my time. I know that the comments left were completely disingenuous and that several editors had commented outside the review in contradiction to the comments left. Frankly, I question whether or not the review had any chance once these people started collaborating.

I am disgusted by what has transpired, and request an adjudication please.Meetthefeebles (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Administrators are not adjudicators. What are you asking them to do? Block me? Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh dear, alright then some points. I am sorry that the experience has gone a bit pear-shaped currently and hopefully we can get it back on track. This happens sometimes. Ultimately it is up to the delegates to decide whether any remaining Opposes have are actionable and/or objective. Articles have been passed with outstanding opposes if this has been the case in the past. I can see how this has come about and will have a look at what Malleus has said as well. Writing these does come easier after a while. Quite often when writing one can lose distance and not see obvious fixes. One of the best pages I read since editing wikipedia is User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. I will see what we can do to get a resolution here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at the article in question, but there is nothing to be done here. Administrators do not judge content. I would suggest that you work within the system and if nothing can be done and the nom does not pass, that you seek out people known to be good at prose and ask one of them to work with you, not only to explain what needs to be done, but also why. I suggest you, first of all, wait for what Casliber has to say and be guided by it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 The only thing I'd like to point out is that the FAC was submitted about a month before the GAN was completed, so MTF couldn't have known about the section weighting issues at that time. Of course, there has been an opportunity to apply those comments to the FAC in the last few days. Outside of that, there's nothing actionable here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know when you are the one that did most of the work, and it is a labor of love, it is easy to wear your emotions on your sleeve, and I think you may be here. If they are talking about it, it means they think it is worthwhile, even if not yet ready. It isn't easy to accept blunt criticism, but it will be a much better article if you find a way to. Since I don't see personal attacks or even incivility (as we define it here), and only see blunt, informed and good faith criticism, I can't see anything that needs action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't the result of the review, which frankly I would withdraw if I could. It is the duplicitousness of the reviewers. That is the issue. Meetthefeebles (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's really any duplicity here, since you were the one who started that conversation in the first place. There was no reason to think you wouldn't see it, and it's not as though it were being hidden from you in any way. I'm sure you would've been more than welcome to chime in at any time, and still would be. I think everyone is just frankly discussing how to improve the article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ha, ha, having the "Health" section of a neighborhood leading with a "Main article: Sheriff Hill Lunatic Asylum" is cute. FA material fosho. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for a constructive comment. Meetthefeebles (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@Casliber: "I can see how this has come about and will have a look at what Malleus has said as well". Yeah, obviously whenever there's one of these daft reports it's bound to be my fault. Jesus fucking Christ! Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@MF - meaning I will try to engage/fix things. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Article CBT and Psychoanalyse. Again

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

---

I was blockt two times (1d, 7d) by two admins because I violated the 3RR. The dispute began with an table the user CartoonDiablo trys to push in the article. The 1st Discussion on DRN ended with no result. After a copple of weeks the Dispute stared again. CartoonDiablo added the table again, but now he found a user, Stillstanding who supported him. After some warring and some discussions. CartoonDiablo started another DRN. The result, as I understand it, was to replace the table by prose. CartoonDiablo added a textpassage but also added a picture of this table.

Futher the "prose" was bumbling and he added Informations you can't find in the source. CartoonDiablo found this information by original research. Because I try to prevent an editwar again I just add a NPOV-Box to the textpassage and try to discuss the alteration. But CartoonDiablo and Stillstanding stated an WAR again by revert the NPOV-Box out of the article. They don't discuss my critic on the talk page and start an "incident" After I reverted again, and remember I just insist to add this NPOV-Box, a Admin blockt me for 7d.

After that proceed, I have some questions:

1. Why it is prohibited to left a NPOV-Box at articles the NPOV is doubted? Why is it possible to delate the box by editwarring?
2. I read the DRN again. I can't found any advice it was part of the resulition to replace the table by a picutre. Why was this trick not ignored by the admin how enforce the 2rr?
3. Both "mediators" on DRN say about themself they are no experts on psychotherapy research. But I'am. They can't estimate the neutrality of the prose CartoonDiablo esthablished.
4. Why CartoonDiablo and Stillstanding doesn't have to repeat my critic of the textpassage they warred into the article? [126] Why is it possible my both disputants don't have to reply the my ciritc? The result of DRN was not both can add false information into the article. It was just to replace the table by "prose".
5. In the DRN I was not ask if I'm agree with the result. On the contrary, the DRN was closed because the same arguments were repeated. I can't even answer it. So it seems to me, the admins interpreted the result as following: three useres on DRN, no one got a clue of psychotherapy research, decided, CartoonDiablo can write whatever he wants.
6. Therefore I'm not agree with the DRN-Result. It seems to me CartoonDiablo violated the DRN result also by add the picture of the table. His answers weren't really helpfull to reply my critic abouve.

So after this lesson what en:wp think a dipute resolution is: what is the next step for me to do? The text is still deficient and exaggerate an single source. The users who warred this picture and the divicient text passage into and the NPOV-box out of the articel doesn't seems to be eager to have an expert discussion about this topic. [127] [128] The admins block me, and only me, if I try to add an simple POV-box. Is this your idea of how to establish neutral and informative articles?

And the main question is: What's next? What can I do now? --WSC ^® 16:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You can continue to try discussion, discuss it with the blocking admin, or consider filing an WP:RFC either about the issue or about the people.--v/r - TP 16:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting proposal: After the DRN fails and no admin wants to enforce the result (remove the table). Now I have to consult more instances of en:wp to ask more useres don't have a clue about the issue. --WSC ^® 16:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, your being an expert on the subject doesn't give you any special status or privileges with regards to the article. While that can be frustrating when dealing with Randys, please assume good faith and assume clue in other editors who genuinely want to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Wikipedia is for the most part written by non-experts, which is why we insist that material be properly sourced. Maybe it's a drag for an expert to have to convince non-experts, but that's how it works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the users interpretate the source wrong. As I repeatedly have shown. Of course you can always add a source, but thats useless if you not able to read the source well and interpretate the results correctley. Futher, in research areas where hourdreds of sources existing you can't pic out one single source and present it as the only one just because you like the findings or overstate it. Thats all terms you need expertise for. But it seems to me, en:wp is not interested in in-depth argumentations. DRN - one day discussed - some result no one cares about - no more questions allowed. There are similar tendencys on de.wp. But this proceed is really superficial. And the worst case is an editwar. POV, correct sources and such thins doesn't matter. The importent thing is, not to have 3 Reverts within 1 day, or whatever that 3RR means. --WSC ^® 17:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

3RR is about edtior actions. It is independent of article content (except in the limited cases such as copyright violation and contentious claims about living people). -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm? I don't want to talk about the 3RR anymore. It's ridiculus that two users always "win" against one user. That maks argumentation unnecessary. Thats why german WP don't use this foolish rule. I'd rathe talk about the DRN-result and why it's allowed to CartoonDiabolo to violate the hallow result (turn the table into a picture). And why a NPOV-box is so frightening suddenly a 2RR exist, I never heard about? And what the admins to be looking to do, to implant a discussion about the issu again? --WSC ^® 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to choose what gets talked about when you report at AN/I. Everyone's conduct in the matter is open to question - including yours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand it the result of the dispute resolution was both prose and an image. Thus far the only person who has had a problem with the content is Widescreen who at this point would need to appeal the DRN. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at it this morning and I agree with a lot of Widescreen's views here. The edit warring has masked a serious content issue which appears to be attempting to promote CBT by cherry picking evidence. Its now at the dispute resolution notice board, and its a content issue on three articles. But that is where it belongs not ANI ----Snowded ^TALK 04:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

1) DRN is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions. 2) Wasn't the DRN closed as "change to prose"? There may have been a misinterpretation over the consensus of the DRN case and the purpose of DRN. DRN closures can't be enforced, but DRN does offer a venue for establishing consensus.--SGCM (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The first DRN was closed as "The content in question should be rewritten in prose." Some background on the DRN: I brought up the proposal of changing the table to prose in the second DRN, based on the proposal by Noleander in the first DRN (including the recent one, there have been three DRN requests so far), or the use of an image as a possible compromise, to replace the inappropriately large table originally placed in the article. The image compromise was struck down, and most of the editors, including me, agreed that prose remained the best option. The discussion on the DRN may have been misconstrued. DRN is an informal noticeboard, consensus can be established but not enforced.--SGCM (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But it seems to me admins have take the result as serious as it was a court with judges or arbitrators. So the comment on my second 1week block by EdJohnston was: "Amazingly, this dispute has already been through WP:DRN which came up with a result, which WSC still won't accept." [129] So the admin EdJohnston prohibit futher alterations by overstate the DRN-result. Also the 1st admin, Crazycomputers (chris): arguing like that. His comment to my 1d block was: "Due to ongoing edit warring against consensus, Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours." [130]

The admins claimed a consensus which never exist. Now the article is still POV and it's prohibit to me to add a NPOV-box. Thats badly done work. --WSC ^® 08:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the administrators were at fault. The block was primarily for edit warring, not the content dispute. Edit warring should always be avoided, regardless of who's right or wrong.--SGCM (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard about a editwar you can do alone! It taks two useres at the minimum. But your admins blocked only one of them. Such a behavior inhibit agrumentation. Also the prohibit of adding a NPOV-box. Your admins act like bureaucrats and not for the advantage of the articles. --WSC ^® 16:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My closure of a 3RR report was mentioned above. At present, the reason why Widescreen has not been able to get his desired change made at either Psychoanalysis or Cognitive behavioral therapy is that the regular editors on those articles oppose his change. I assume he is not here to request that admins override the decision of the content editors. There is a process called WP:Dispute resolution. Widescreen has used some of the steps of that process, including WP:DRN, and each time he has not persuaded the others. Normally, plain content disputes are not entertained at ANI. My guess is that Widescreen won't accept the DRN result because he believes that his personal expertise allows him to know that the very large INSERM study is not a fair summary of the merits of the two therapies. Our policy allows you to criticize one reliable source by finding another source which disagrees, but you are not usually allowed to disqualify a source because of what you claim is your personal expertise (see Widescreen's #3). You are also not allowed to keep re-adding a POV tag to an article when nobody on the talk page agrees with you (Widescreen's #1). His edit-warring to re-add the POV tags was the occasion for his last 3RR block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ed Johnston: I'm getting angry. You talk about regular editors. Who is that? I've checkt that, here and I'm one of the top-ten editors in Article CBT for example. You never read the DRN result and you block me after 2reverts for 1 week because I try to add a NPOV-box. Don't you think thers somthing wrong with that.

You don't know anything about studies in pychotherapy research. So what's your contribution to this discussion? You set a unbalanced block and now you talk about such things like I try to disqualify a source. I can't believe that!

You did somthing wrong. Please accept that. --WSC ^® 19:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the top-ten editors in Article CBT for example - this gives you no special privileges on Wikipedia. I would strongly suggest you drop the stick and go edit other article for awhile, while enjoying a nice cup of tea to cool off, before a boomerang hits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, did anyone here read coherences? Or just the last contrib? The blocking admin gives as reason for the blocking that I'm not one of the "regular editors". So tell me again: Didn't it not count to be the top ten editors? No, the blocking admin, EdJohnston, has no idea of what the conflict goes about. Thats why he blockt the one he found was the one seems to be the weekest of all. By checking the contribs. Thats wat happend. --WSC ^® 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The only edit counter that is relevant here is "reverts per 24 hours". Your contributions to the article are more than welcome but that makes you neither own the article nor does it give you any special privileges or any enhanced credibility. And I'd be happy to learn that EdJohnston doesn't know anything about psychotherapy research because that leaves him unbiased in this matter. De728631 (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But I had only 2 Reverts within 24 Hours. And now? Why had my opponent "special privileges"? --WSC ^® 23:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record here. I checked through the material and the insertion of the table went to dispute resolution and the general agreement seems to have been that the table (created by CartoonDiablo) should not be there, but replaced by text. (see here and here). CartoonDiablo feels that the dispute resolution should not have been closed prematurely and its his right to raise the issue again (as is the case on Family Therapy). However when I removed it he immediately inserted the material again claiming that the "closed prematurely" argument. Ed was undoubtably right to block Widescreen as he allowed his frustration to get the better of common sense. But in my opinion the problem here is a CBT advocate pushing a self-created table that supports his/her particular position. The diagram itself is from an old study and its findings are controversial in the field anyway. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you, checking the case and have a look at the DRN-result. Not one admin was able to do that. I still don't understand how I was able to have an editwar by myself? It seems so, because I was the only one being blocked.

I'm curious about the next conficts in this field. Now WP had the luck one user, Snowded, was so attentive to read the hole conflict and had the expertise to understand it. But that don't seems to be a exception. Obstinate obey of stupid rules like 3RR, without have a look at the core of a conflict is useless. --WSC ^® 18:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to trust the system more. You could have raised an RfC on this to bring other editors in, Ultimately evidence will win out but you have to he patient (I learnt that the hard way on the Ayn Rand articles); WIkipedia is managed through moderating behaviour, not through content resolution and that is its strength and its frustration. Although you did provide references you just scattered them in long postings so it was easy for people to ignore them - or see you as edit warring. The dispute resolution boards came to the conclusion the picture should not be there so it was legitimate to remove it But when the edit warring started you lost it. I suggest a 2rr or 1rr limit, then you can raise the editors behaviour here with a clean slate. I've got a copy of House and Loewenthal's Against and For CBT and Critically Engaging CBT waiting for me at home. I know they challenge the way evidence has been collected and used in studies. So when I have that we can balance the text as well. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I know the german wp-system since 8.5 years. I always thouth it was unfair, superficial and controlled by admins doesn't care about the quality of articles. But en:wp is the increase of that. Bureaucratic to the bone. The DRN was a joke. It seems like the worst case is not a unbalanced article but a editwar. If I was a new author I would be up and away. And I'm sure a lot of newbys are deterred by such a proceed. But the stupidest thing is the 3RR. It's not possible to have editwar with yourself. It takes two users at the minimum. But this system pick one of them randomly and let the other triumph. A better way is to block both warriors. Doesn't matter how much. --WSC ^® 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

An even better way is not to put yourself in the position where you can be blocked. Its not necessary, it weakens your case and it is more likely to result in poor articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You might think having the speed limit at 55 (or 65, or whatever) is stupid, but "I don't like the law, you should change it" isn't going to make a judge rescind your speeding ticket. It doesn't matter what anyone else has done, just you, and if you're reverting to one version and multiple people are reverting to the other, maybe the problem isn't with them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I think Widescreen does have a case that his antagonist should also have been blocked for a period. In terms of the content issue I think he was correct (and editors at the dispute resolution board overwhelmingly agreed that the diagram should go and be replaced by text which is what happened). Even now and in the face of that consensus CartoonDiablo is still inserting his diagram on the grounds that he has reopened the DRP which he thinks was prematurely closed (for which read, did not agree with him) and trying to argue that the supper for CBT is similar to that for the link between lung cancer and smoking which is arrant nonsense. Removing the PoV tag inserted by Widescreen was provocative. OK the response is not to edit war, but frustrations of experts over dealing with subjects are well known here. While not tolerating edit warring we should not assume (especially on controversial subjects) that the regular editor (plural is questionable as there was only one other) is right. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to complete this. Cartoon Diablo is claiming that he replaced the table with am image, therefore the consensus does not apply. However to summarise comments the editors who looked at this at DRP say:

1. Dmitrij D Czarkoff "the table should be rewritten as prose" and "I fully concur with all the other participants in all three DRN cases that the table should not be present in the article in whatever format"
2. SGCM "prose is still the best option because it is more neutral while conveying the same information"
3. SGCM "the image suggestion was again struck down and most of the editors including me, agreed that prose remained the best option"
4. Kerfuffler "I can say for sure that the table is WP:OR'

Its very clear that we have a case here of an editor who cannot let go of something they have created. Three DRPs, continued slow edit warring. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The most amusing part of this is that the two edit warriors always win, because only one guy (WSC) is willing to revert them. Everyone else just talks, talks, talks... And the admins block, block, block... WSC. Epic win. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been no blocks of Widescreen since September 10. But there is a new edit war raging at Psychoanalysis between Snowded (not a party to the original dispute) and CartoonDiablo. Snowded has reverted three times and CartoonDiablo twice. Perhaps an admin who has not taken any previous action on this can look into the matter. It does not make much sense that people will continue to revert while the article is being discussed at ANI. Full protection might be considered, along with a warning to the current participants. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

See also a 3RR report at WP:AN3#User:Snowded reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: ). I will refrain from closing this one. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Protected and both edit-warriors warned. --John (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Guys, CartoonDiablo has taken this issue to dispute resolution across three articles on several occasions. The clear conclusion of that (check it out I did) is that the table/image should not be included. Despite that CartoonDiablo has reinserted the material against a clear consensus. See my summary above. I don't see any discussion of that here. I was previously uninvolved, but when I came across it I looked into the history; that is pretty clear in its conclusion that the table/image is not acceptable. I also put effort into summarising the position on his/her talk page. Its three articles involved, its been discussed several times but you have an editor who will not take no for an answer. I'm frankly surprised that those admins involved have not tracked back over the history before they make judgement calls. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Give the inability of ANI admins to tackle this in part because of the scattered evidence, it looks like a RfC/U on CartoonDiablo may be necessary. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like CartoonDiablo has managed to drive off the page all previous protesters, see Talk:Psychoanalysis#Checklist and Talk:Cognitive_behavioral_therapy/Archive_2#French_survey_table where User:Maunus first objected. (I had an essay about stuff like that this, but it was deleted for some reason...) Also, this piece of wiki-lawyering is extremely amusing, moreso after reading Wikipedia_talk:DRN#Premature closure of Family therapy? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_34#Cognitive_behavioral_therapy.2C_Psychoanalysis --WSC ^® 01:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WSC in this pedia when it is one editor against two the one will always be block first what you have to learn is that sometimes you must leave the article in its bad version while you argue your case on the talk page. The way you went about this with apparent rants on how bad en wiki is because I would not let you have your way is off-putting to many editors. It obscures you logical arguments behind a madman shouting his own version of truths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.142 (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I argued on talk page and give a coherent statement why this table/picture/prose is wrong. Everybody got a clue of psychotherapy resarch knows that. To block one author argued in this way because two others reverted his contributions is bureaucratic bullshit. Sry to say that so. At least with the explanation the admins gave: 1. I violated the DRN-result that wasn't tru. 2. There is a consensus, which never exist. 3. 2 reverts are justify a 1 week block, I'm not amused. In contempt of the disadvantage of me, the discussion seems to be on his way. Therefor I don't want to talk about this proceed anymore. Let's forget it. --WSC ^® 10:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

65.191.181.27

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

---

Repeated addition of inappropriate list entries of individuals in violation of WP:MOSLIST, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:Source list on List of CNN anchors. Continued after level 4 warning and repeated attempts to communicate on article talk page and user's talk page. After level 4 warning given, rather than going beyond the level 4, the same edits were made under the username User talk:Cameronperkins. This page history shows connection between accounts for User:Wwilloughby, User talk:Perkins FC2, and IP 65.191.181.27, editing the other editor's sandboxes. User talk:Cameronperkins has repeatedly created articles violating copyright about subjects related to CNN. History of this page [131] indicates subject may also be editing as User:Wwilloughby, with Wwilloughby also editing sandbox pages of Perkins FC2. Cindy(talk to me) 07:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Francis Bacon (artist)

User:Jon C. is continuously removing well cited content in favour of his own original research. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like both of you are edit-warring in the article starting on September 18 with your adding/changing content to the article. You said you were "restoring cited content", but I don't know what you mean by that. Jon refers to a talk page consensus, but I'm not sure what he's referring to as the talk page hasn't been edited since July. One of you should open a discussion on the talk page. I almost locked the article based on its recent history - and another admin is welcome to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I was restoring cited content, as my description had six references. This was removed by Jon C in favour of his own uncited description.

There's no right way to describe Bacon. You have to figure it out on the talk page. If you know about Bacon, and I assume you do, you'll know "Irish-born British" is not wrong, neither is what you said "described as both Irish and British", neither is saying that Dublin was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at the time etc etc. Talk pages are there to figure things like this out. Have look through the previous discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

But would we describe an English painter as "English-born British"? "Irish-born British" implies he was a Briton who just happened to have been born in Ireland. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well he pretty much was. There is more than one "previous discussion", and the 120K+ Archive 1 consists of little else. It is not a very helpful suggestion to ask for more discussion there. There may be no precise definition or formulation that has reached clear consensus, but early arguments just to describe him as "Irish" are rejected. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked 89.100.207.51 for 2 weeks because of repeated removal of the material at the top of the talk page identifying the ISP, how to respond to vandalism, and the recently added abuse template. This address has a long list of blocks, the most recent being in August for one week. If another admin disagrees with the block, feel free to adjust or unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The page as it stands now is a stable version that was previously agreed upon by a discussion on the article's talk page. I am not, as Bbb23 has suggested, adding or removing anything, merely reverting to this stable version and imploring the IP, per BRD, to open a new discussion rather than edit-warring. As soon as that new discussion has been opened I'll participate, but I'm not going to let him just steamroller his own version through. — Jon C.^ॐ 19:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Cal Rein

• Cal Rein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Powerstorm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Eyephoto08 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Webmaster7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

There is some mess of WP:OTRS and WP:BLP concerns here. The three accounts above are almost certainly some sort of WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT situation. There are apparently OTRS tickets involved (see talkpage) and this AIV report...I'm logging off but this probably needs some eyes to figure out whether it's a page that should be deleted or to levy blocks as appropriate. — Scientizzle 18:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've fully locked the article (for 3 days) and restored it to the 5/28/12 version by Graeme Bartlett (when he applied move protection). More work may need to be done, but the history is so awful, it's hard to sort out. Webmaster was blocked a long time ago. Powerstorm and Eyephoto08 should probably also be blocked but I haven't done so. I have no access to OTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Might want to raise an SPI. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC).

OTRS has been alerted to this matter through several tickets, and for the record, they are #2012091310000927 (handled by The Rambling Man, also see his talk page) and OTRS#2011102310000747 (which I handled). As you're aware, OTRS correspondence is confidential, but in this case reading the e-mails is no prerequisite to understanding the matter.

Furthermore, there is a RfD on Commons, which was speedily closed on my request. Lastly, I've warned Powerstorm against disruptive activity on his/her talk page.

1. Powerstorm is a one trick pony account almost exclusively dedicated to wreaking havoc on the Cal Rein article by removing substantial parts of it,[132], replacing the page with nonsense content[133] or outright blanking it[134] as can bee seen on the user's contribution page.
2. Additionally, the user has attempted to have the article speedily removed, then marked it for deletion (though without making an AfD request) when that was refused.[135]
3. In the course of these "edits", the user has claimed or admitted to have previously been known as User:Webmaster7, an indefinitely blocked account that was also making disruptive edits to the same article. (Same link as above)
4. Also, the user has tried to have an image with a valid license deleted (by, amongst other actions) removing the OTRS ticket tag from the image page. There, too, the user claims to have been known as Webmaster7. As mentioned above, I had the request closed immediately.

Consequently, I request the user be indefinitely blocked (again).

The activities by User:Eyephoto08, which were new to me until this ANI, also seem to be of the same disruptive nature as Powerstorm's, and I suspect we're dealing with sockpuppets. Furthermore, I suspect this is a case of cyberstalking.

Lastly, as to the question of Cal Rein/Carlo Giardina: The actor used the name Giardina for a very short period, while all his major work has been done as Cal Rein. There is no indication whatsoever that he plans to use the name Giardina in his future endeavours. IMDb lists him as "Cal Rein".[136] Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 20:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Asav, has it been established whether Powerstorm is or isn't Cal Rein, as he claims?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't answer that. I'm an OTRS guy, I don't have checkuser tools. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would willingly admit to being a permamently blocked user. (Addendum: I have absolutely no reason to assume that this user is indeed Cal Rein, again, I suspect a cyberstalker.) Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 21:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I just blocked Powerstorm for one week for admitting abusing multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• I have created a SPI report.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Powerstorm and Eyephoto have now been indeffed by User:Berean Hunter based on the SPI report. Berean made a good catch finding Eyephoto also admitting to using multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User:YasBot editing without approval

Just noting that YasBot (operator پسر یاس), a interwiki bot, has been editing without approval for a month or so now. They have correctly filed a BRfA today after receiving a note about the bot policy, but have failed to stop their bot. Noom (t) 18:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked it as it's still editing without approval. Secretlondon (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Johncheverly

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

---

Hi. Johncheverly (talk · contribs) has been causing problems. His attitude is quite incivil. On Abraham Lincoln cultural depictions, he added text which violates the WP:MOS and is a direct copyright violation. He also insulted IllaZilla (talk · contribs) by calling him a punk. What is the best solution to help solve this problem? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The best solution would be for Johncheverly to conduct his account in a much more collegial manner. I'm thinking it is likely that we may have to opt for a second best solution. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

EIther IllaZilla has many fans using the same vocabulary ("See "Illa made me do it" in edit summaries) or JohnCheverly has now logged out and is continuing the campaign of harassment through 173.76.119.10 (talk · contribs). And based on the IP's edit history, I'm voting for a single purpose troll account on the part of John. I know that's not very AGF of me. Sorry. Millahnna (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I take it back. IP doesn't look like John. Illa does get a lot of fans some days, I know from interacting with him (her?) at the film project. Must just be one of those days. Millahnna (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, JohnCheverly also sent a possibly harassing email to the Wikimedia Foundation and myself. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What specifically did this "harrassing" email say? Go Phightins! (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but Johncheverly's email said "I am writing to report attempted bullying by the aforementioned user over constructive criticism and comments I attempted to make about the Abraham Lincoln subtext in John Frankenheimer's 1962 film version of "The Manchurian Candidate." I am a 49 year old man and do not have to make smug remarks off a creep hiding behind a pseudonym." Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is a clear violation of our no personal attacks and harassment policies. Just to clarify, IllaZilla is a well-respected editor and if you check Johncheverly's contributions here and the notifications on his talk page, he was warned about a possible copyright violations and also his civility issues. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I invited Johncheverly to join this discussion to explain himself about an hour ago, so we'll see if he does. If not, I would stipulate to that being a personal attack per WP:NPA and support sanctions of some kind. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, here are some more differences of Johncheverly's incivility: [137], [138], [139]. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

For those outbursts alone, I would have supported some kind of sanctions. I understand that this can be frustrating, but WP:STAYCOOL needs to be adhered to. Granted, those edits were made in July, so I will assume that he's moved on by now. I would say we give JC until tomorrow (or depending on where you are, I suppose later today), but at the moment I would support a block for a week or two. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Question when was this email sent? Go Phightins! (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It was today. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

All right, in that case, I would say forget explanation, administrative action probably needs to be taken. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to my comments about the threatening email towards me and the WMF, the "aforementioned user" Johncheverly is referring to in the email is IllaZilla. Also, Johncheverly posted a personal attack directed towards IllaZilla on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, but it was promptly removed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to this dude's anger, which has been covered well enough, we also have:

• spamming the same crap across several pages: [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145]

• pointy editing: [146]

• obvious competency issues: [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152]

Maybe a mentor would help… maybe not. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  04:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, Sjones23. I mentioned to Johncheverly in my last post on my talk page that I was going to report him, but I didn't get to do it right away due to real-life business. I'm sure I'm going to repeat some things others have already brought up, but here's my side of the story:

Johncheverly popped up at WT:FILMS making what I saw as off-topic comments [153] [154]. I went to his talk page to explain why I'd removed them, but first I checked his contribs and immediately saw a lot of problems: His edit summaries & section headers nearly all consist of all-caps yelling, incivility, insults, or some combination thereof. Here are some of the greatest hits:

• "I just woke up and I read your smug, self-satisfied, and unwated comments on my talk page. I detest you like a cancer, you f****** a******."
• "PISSFUCKINGPOOR!!! you make the whole Regiment's service and sacrifice a complete mockery with your lousy sting article, bud!!! Do some fucking research."
• "PISS POOR. IS THAT ALL YOU CAN THINK OF???"

Granted these were from June/July, but Johncheverly had been inactive since then and seemed to be on the same course now that he was back. So I left what I believe was a very polite message on his talk page asking him not to type in all-caps (since it comes off as yelling), to tone down the offensive attitude of his comments, and instructing him on how to properly sign his posts (since he seems to have trouble with that). I decided to keep an eye on him to see if his behavior would change. He went to Talk:Abraham Lincoln and proposed what I read as original research, so I responded and pointed him to the relevant policies. He reacted with:

• "LINCOLN SUBTEXT PROOF FOR DOUBTING KNOW-IT-ALLS. IS THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU DOUBTING DUDE???"
• i put up, now you shut up. IS THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU DOUBTING DUDE???"
• "just letting illazilla know i think he is a punk. If you don't really care, then you need to shut your big mouth in the first place. And you need to grow a spine and use your real name, otherwise you're just another punk."
• "MAJOR EDIT TO LINCOLN IN POP CULTURE PAGE DUE TO LOUDMOUTH ILLA-ZILLA."

He posted the same block of several paragraphs copy/pasted from another website to 5 different talk pages, including mine: [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160]. He copied the same block of text, including bare external links and entire paragraphs lifted straight from another website, to Abraham Lincoln cultural depictions. Since this is a copyright violation, I reverted and gave him a warning using {{Uw-copyright-new}}. Now he's accusing the rest of us of being "a handful of geeky despots".

If Johncheverly is indeed a 49-year old man, I have to wonder if this is how he interacts with people in real life. I certainly want nothing more to do with him. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked - Good faith isn't a suicide pact. Between serial copyright/flooding issues and clueless editing, plus edits that are primarily hit and run commentaries that aren't helpful, all I can see is a worsening pattern of disruption, and other concerns that are probably self-evident, and it does go back a bit. I've tried, but I can't find a reason to not block, and this bizarre behavior is such that I can't determine a period that would "fix" the problem, so I have indef'ed him and will leave it to the good judgement of another admin to determine when sufficient clue has been demonstrated. He isn't here to build an encyclopedia, and other than criticize and generally throw rocks, I'm not sure what he is here for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

IP editor ignoring results of RfC to restore disputed content

An IP editor, 75.72.35.253 (talk) is restoring content to Long War Journal after an RfC [161] came to a consensus to remove the content in question. The IP then restored the deleted material, [162] [163] stating on the talk page "I'm afraid the opinions expressed here are inaccurate and the content in my edit was quite reliable and neutral." See also his edit summary of "I'll compromise only a little. See talk page". [164]

I reverted his addition of the material, and left explanations of his need to obtain consensus on the edit summary [165], the talkpage [166], and his talkpage [167]. He then added the material back. [168] [169]

If we could block the IP, or take other action to stop this, it would be helpful. GregJackP Boomer! 18:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the issue at all. I have not violated any policy and added reliable information. I have informed people about my edits and I wish they would understand where I am coming from and that I have not violated any policy. Bill Roggio is a controversial figure and it needs to be known. I did follow the synthesis policy, as I mentioned in the talk page, and am quite neutral. Bill Roggio is not at times a reliable resource, as his articles have shown, and this needs to be known.18:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.35.253 (talk)

The RfC was unanimous to remove the material. GregJackP Boomer! 19:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I started a new RfC section at the bottom. I tried to put it there earlier, but my edit wound up on the previous RfC section I don't know if my computer caused it or if it was a techical error on the website.75.72.35.253 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, then you can revert the material, and if the new RfC has a consensus to add it, you can. Until then, you can not put material back in the article after it was removed per the consensus of the RfC. GregJackP Boomer! 19:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I firmly reject a bias consensus that needs to be reviewed altogether. I'm not suggesting they are fans of Roggio, but if they are I recommend they understand neutrality. Sources need to be reliable and made the edits to firmly point out that he is not too reliable on reports of terrorists deaths and that this needs to be pointed out. I pointed out "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." The topics are related because they discussed the terrorists fate Claiming he was "quoted as well as criticized" also doesn't exactly say all my sources in that one section I edited criticized him, which is what the previous RfC was implying, if you read the talk page for yourself.75.72.35.253 (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Related: While the above content dispute rages on, and probably won't result in much more than a suggestion to follow the Dispute Resolution process, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoetheMoe25 for something actually actionable by Admins. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Admins, we need you to back us up in enforcing the results of an RfC if the dispute resolution process is going to be effective. Cla68 (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with Cla68. Also, be aware that the above sock investigation implicates the IP as a sock, along with several others, and indicates that there is a widespread problem with this editor's disruptive editing, including a lot of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT when consensus is against his position. GregJackP Boomer! 22:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Part of me 2 disruptive and uncommunicative

Part of me 2 (talk · contribs) has some constructive edits. But I find it troublesome that he has been warned more than enough times for various things, sometimes trivial things such as manual of style gaffes, but has also been accused of vandalism and edit-warring, and worse yet, that he has never, ever used an edit summary nor any talk page, not even his own, in over 1,000 edits and five months of his account history. I think it's time for me to invoke competence is required and question whether this editor can effectively communicate in English. So many of his edits are the creation or modification of tables and gnoming such as adding links. He has been notified plenty of times and given a chance to change his ways. Now I think he could benefit from some extra encouragement. Elizium23 (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Trust Is All You Need, RedParty and the List of anti-capitalist and communist parties with national parliamentary representation

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

---

Trust Is All You Need started to revert mine page rename at a wrong way without discussing--RedParty (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Bringing this back as it appears to be an urgent call for a pair (User:RedParty and User:Trust Is All You Need) of edit-warring (move-warring) blocks ASAP. This is unbelievable!!dangerouspanda 09:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is this, this is a list of anti-capitalist and communist parties elected to national parliaments... This me and RedParty agree upon, but RedParty wants to use the word socialist in the title, which I mean is wrong because one reason; social democracy is a form of socialism which supports capitalism. RedParty has responded with the remark that all socialist forces needs to be anti-capitalist or communist to be considered socialist, but this is plain wrong. Ed Miliband is a self-declared socialist, Bernie Sanders is a self-declared socialist and hey, even China, one of the most market-based economies in the world, is a self-declared socialist state espousing communism...The point being is this, he hasn't been able to once to give a source, or state why social democracy is not socialist; he has answered "I dont agree", but thats out of question, because I don't care if he don't agrees, I care about him giving me a freaking source stating such a controversial claim.. of course, I havn't been behaving the best either, something i'm never able to do in these kind of situations. --TIAYN (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have move-protected the article for the time being. I am still looking at whether blocking is necessary, but if TIAYN thinks that the British Labour Party is a socialist party he probably shouldn't be editing political articles at all per WP:COMPETENCE. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Socialism is anti-capitalist, for example Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Why don't include socialist parties in to the list? And the communist party of china is already included. And TIAYN started to revert mine page rename without discussing and at a wrong way (copy pasting)--RedParty (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I don't consider the British Labour Party socialist... I'm a Marxist, but to state that all socialist forces needs to be anti-capitalist is wrong, pure wrong.. Karl Marx himself wasn't anti-capitalist, he believed that capitalism had reached its technological and economic zenith, and needed to be replaced by the next stage, socialism. But he supported capitalism; for instance, he supported capitalism in Russian Empire, because the Russians were not ready for socialism..... But the point being is this, they themselves believe themselves to be socialist..... Ed Miliband is a self-declared socialist, hey even Tony Blair was a self-declared socialist... And you say this is wrong, well it makes as much sense as North Korea being socialist - its a nepotistic, monarchistic and at the top of that, racist, but people still view North Korea as socialist... THe point being is this; the British Labour Party is officially socialist, and its officially a member of the Socialist International, a socialist international espousing social democracy.... Its pure and simple.. --TIAYN (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this argument. Use the talk page of the article. And I really should block both of you for that ridiculous move-war, but since you've disrupted nothing else and are apparently prepared to talk now, go there and do it. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK, but we are only going to be able to discuss in a proper, decent manner if the article continues to be protected, that is moved and edit protected. --TIAYN (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Fully protected for 3 weeks, move protected for 4. Come back to me if you believe you have solved your differences and the article can be unprotected sooner. Black Kite (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Tarc, Again.

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

---

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

This users continued incivility toward anyone who apparently disagree with him, has to stop. Despite my very limited presence at Talk:Barack Obama, perhaps less than ten threads in the past four years, if that at all, he feels that my opinion means nothing and continues to close any thread on that page in which he feels threatens his version of the article. I broached the problem with him on his talk late and was told to [Zip It]. Now I ask, is this the attitude of an editor who feels that we should discuss and work out disputes and try and reach a common ground, or is this the attitude of an editor who feels that Wikipedia should reflect his version of events and anyone who disagrees should just zip it because their opinion means nothing?--JOJ ^Hutton 02:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in discussing anything with this user on my talk page, so I removed it. I will not be trolled my my own talk page. No one has much interest in discussing much if anything with this user on Talk:Barack Obama either, because along with John (talk · contribs), they continue to browbeat, bully, insult and denigrate everyone who disagrees with them. Couple this non-incident with the "User:Tarc at Talk:Barack Obama" bullshit from the other day (can't seem to locate the link in the archives at the moment) and it is seriously time to discuss at the very least an Obama-related topic ban for Jojhutton.

This is just another editor who is getting madder and madder that article son politicians he doesn't like doesn't contain all the fringe critical junk that he wants it to be. The closer the election day comes, the more hysterical these sorts of editors are going to get. It was the same in 2008. Tarc (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the same attitude that is exerted by this user by anyone who disagrees with him. Its a very hostile attitude, which isn't indicative to the open nature of Wikipedia articles. And now you want me topic banned. That is one of the obvious tactics that has kept the so[called consnsus on that article for over four years. Anyone who asks questions is either a troll, a sock, or must be topic banned. All of which solidifies my point.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Link to the archived ANI thread that Tarc mentions above: [170] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can't we settle this with a cage fight to the death or something like that? It would be more entertaining than our current methods of dispute resolution. --Jayron32 03:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  After going nuclear in one of the threads above, I'm starting to wonder if maybe that approach would help here too... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Jojhutton: it's readily apparent from reading the talk page that your entire behavior there is trolling. I suggest you close out this discussion before it boomerangs. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  03:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

My question was, where is the guideline supporting FAQ 2? How is that trolling? I didn't begin the thread, only asked for clarification on the results.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You were asking for a guideline that supports "Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say"? If asking that question wasn't trolling, it was a clear example of a failure of WP:COMPETENCE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Randy in Boise?--Shirt58 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh please. Does any of this [171] [172] [173] [174] sound familiar? I'm back to May, and I haven't seen you make a single constructive suggestion on the talk page; aside from one edit speaking against a silly idea (which, to be fair, I give you credit for), it's all bickering. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  04:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No please look at the thread. A user initiated the thread with sources that conflict with the findings of FAQ 2. Someone expressed an opinion and I asked if there was a guideline that supported that opinion, and the other user tried to use FAQ2 as the source. I pointed out that FAQ2 isn't policy. Perhaps I misspoke/typed when I said I was trying to ask for a source that supported FAQ2. Its not what happened. --JOJ ^Hutton 04:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right. And all the waffle about the FAQ being "a made up list of things that a small minority of editors decided to come up with 4 years ago as an attempt to stop relevant discussion before it happens" was 'misspoke/typed' too? You were trolling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Could Avanu, who has so far added very little content to wikipedia, please stop closing threads with his own highly personal commentary? If he cannot comment neutrally, could he please stop closing threads? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Jasonasosa and WP:HARASS

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

---

This is an unfortunate situation to bring forward, because I still believe that User:Jasonasosa has been a victim of a) others prodding, and b) his own misreading, or at least partial reading - taking only certain bits of statements out of context to support a position. Indeed, the editor was advised that there was nothing wrong my use of an alternate account in this ANI thread. I (and others) have tried since to help, but to no avail, and I have long ago disengaged.

However, Jasonasosa has now begun a campaign against me that, as per his own words, he "will voice this until User:EatsShootsAndLeaves account is shut down". He has begun to spread a similar message elsewhere, including here.

This is an outright threat, as per WP:HARASS: "Threatening another person is considered harassment. This includes threats to harm another person, to disrupt their work on Wikipedia"

The threat to hound me until I leave Wikipedia, this new pattern/campaign PLUS the continued wikihounding on my talkpage for more than a week after I formally apologized and completely disengaged myself from this editor are appalling.

I would ask that the editor's stated campaign to hound me until I leave Wikipedia be nipped in the bud. I am on my way to advise them of this ANI filing now  Done dangerouspanda 09:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the close: User:Avanu is involved, and indeed his mistaken interpretation of WP:SOCK#NOTIFY is one of the things egging on the poor behaviour from the other party dangerouspanda 10:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no interpretation of WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. My comment to you had nothing to do with a policy. I asked you to present the situation to your fellow admins, that was the end of it as far as I was concerned. I believe you are partly to blame for this continuing and I feel that bringing it to AN/I helps neither of you. I agree with general sentiments expressed by IRWolfie below. -- Avanu (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of it is all over my talkpage: you've even gone so far as to ask to Jasonasosa that if I changed it, would he stop harassing me. You're asking me to change what does not need changing, and setting the expectation with him that it does need changing. You're merely enabling the harassment. dangerouspanda 10:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I told you that that tiny change would end that stupid argument you two are having. I was done with this a while ago, and I'm done with this discussion now at AN/I. I'm not setting any expectations for anyone. I did have some faith that you and he could act more like adults here and learn to move on from arguments with a gentleman's bond, but that seems to have passed. The fact that you are blaming me for his behavior and not looking at the previous actions you took, and also not looking at ways to de-escalate the problem shows me that you're not ready for more responsibility yet. He clearly needs to settle down, but it takes two people to keep the argument going. Good luck. -- Avanu (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these comments by Jasonasosa are inappropriate, and do border on an intention to harass. I think a word to Jasonasosa by an uninvolved admin would probably do the trick. It's one thing to voice concerns that something is unclear, or that the use of NAC templates were inappropriate, quite another to suggest this somehow makes your behaviour "appalling" and "deceitful". Jason voiced his original concerns, they received no traction, he should be moving on, not hanging around to harass. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed the statement from Jasonasosa's user talk and explained there are other options. Tiderolls 11:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• And I've left an AGF warning. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Legal threat here: [175] by User:Dave of Maryland: "The situation is grave. I will present this to the community on Monday. In two days. The presentation is nearly done. I will most strongly urge immediate legal action. The community has 30 years case law experience. I do not think Wikipedia will present much problem." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Indef, and ask which zodiac sign he was born under. My money's on Zippy, the Pinhead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• I indeffed the editor based on the legal threat. He can retract it and request an unblock if he wishes. The editor is clearly not at Wikipedia to do anything but promote a pro-astrology agenda, anyway, having made precisely one article edit (out of 109 edits total) since creating an account in 2009.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I note he's created a page (not an actual nomination) at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Project Hindsight, although Project Hindsight doesn't exist. -- AussieLegend (✉) 17:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I think he's complaining about an article that was already deleted. Obviously doesn't know and/or care how requests for deletion and un-deletion work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

He had made an edit to the closed discussion (which I reverted some time ago). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

• Among other non-constructive comments post-blocking, this screed has led to me revoking talk page access. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for eyes

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

---

HOAScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has produced a series edits with unusually captioned images of people. I'd like a few sets of eyes to make sure that there are no BLP violations and that appropriate oversight is provided if needed.Novangelis (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a vandalism-only account to me. Blocked and uploads nuked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response.Novangelis (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Admin Arthur Rubin

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

---

I am raising an issue here, because the user in question is an Admin and the pattern of disruptive, tendentious editing extends beyond a single incident. His status as an admin procedurally prevents this issue from being addressed through the conventional edit warring notice board.

This admin editor's objectivity may be clouded by some unknown bias that is evident in his edit history. He consistently tries to raise the bar for inclusion on certain articles. When multiple supporting sources are documented and consensus trends against his arguments, his arguments then morph into WP:POV, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, followed by overtagging articles with dubious maintenance tags. Admins are supposed to lead by example, and adhere to a high standard of conduct. According to WP:ADMIN sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator.

I do not propose a block for this editor however, given his tenure and role as an admin, he should know better than to engage in disruptive, tendentious editing. A temporary topic ban may be warranted. – MrX 19:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Page: Illinois Family Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [176]

• 1st revert: [177] "It's synthesis to have this much, but "namecalling" is not specifically sourced for this organization."
• 2nd revert: [178]
• 3rd revert: [179] (admitted edit warring; self-reverted when warned)
• 4th revert: [180] (self-reverted, but tag bombed the lead)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [181]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Illinois Family Institute#Closing this RfC

Comments:

While this user has not strictly broken the 3RR, I believe the examples above highlight the latest in a larger pattern of disruptive editing which I first warned the user about here User talk:Arthur Rubin#Disruptive removal of sourced content - September 2012

Notably, the user has made few if any actual contributions to these articles, instead seeming to prefer to police them for perceived bias and then argue both against consensus and against reliable, verified sources.

Other examples where this user has removed sourced content from articles about designated hate groups, (falsely) claiming that the content is unsourced. In each case, the sources can be verified and usually are direct quotes:

AFTAH

• September 14, 2012:[182]"It's synthesis to have this much, but "namecalling" is not specifically sourced for this organization."
• September 18, 2012:[183]""reason" is still unsourced. As you added back the default reason, within any justification, I'm removing the entire thing until it can be specifically sourced"

MassResistance

• September 17, 2012:[184] " additional information not in any of the sources yet provided"
• September 17, 2012:[185] "Hate group designation: still not in citation. Please stop synthesizing" (except it is in the source)
• September 17, 2012:[186] "It's not in the source. Please learn to read."

Southern Poverty Law Center

• September 9, 2012:[187] tag bombing

Public Advocate of the United States

• August 23, 2012:[188] "unless the "hate group" designation is more important than what the organization stands for, it shouldn't be in the lede"

Parents Action League

• September 17, 2012:[189] tagging and (unwarranted) attribution
• September 19, 2012:[190] overtagging (even re-introducing a biased statement with a misspelling in the tag)
• September 17, 2012:Talk:Parents Action League#Revised content - discussion related to above edits

– MrX 19:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please made edit warring reports at WP: AN/EW. Electric Catfish² 19:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(Uninvolved ANI Watcher) Found a similar report here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Arthur_Rubin_reported_by_User:MrX_.28Result:_Declined.29 --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is a pattern of disruptive editing, and as mentioned at the top of this report, "His status as an admin procedurally prevents this issue from being addressed through the conventional edit warring notice board." I posted an AN/EW notice a few hours ago and it was declined as not being in the correct forum. – MrX 19:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• As can be seen by the link to ANEW, I declined the report for the reasons stated there. MrX then came to my talk page and politely asked where he should report the problem, and I mentioned ANI as one possibility. As I said on my talk page, I have no comment on the merits of the issues raised by MrX - my decline was procedural. Finally, if anyone follows the link to ANEW, you will also see some of Arthur's comments, which MrX did not include above.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not helpful
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since when are editors exempt from the 3RR board if they are admins? 140.211.82.5 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia rules apply most stringently to IPs, and to named accounts decreasingly by tenure. Admins are presumed to be in the right in the case of all but the most serious malfeasance. It's effectively unwritten policy by now. </sarcasm> Hadn't you noticed? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I am confused about the decline, which doesn't seem to fit. If the question is about the use of admin tools, then WP:AN is the proper venue. If it isn't about using admin tools, then the same venue is used for admins as non-admins. Outside of tool use, admins are the same as non-admins when it comes to article edits. Is there more to this that I'm seeing? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This looks like Bbb23 declined based on a misunderstanding about the technical aspects of blocking. (Speaking generally, WP:ANEW is the appropriate venue for determining whether or not edit warring has taken place involving any member of the Wikipedia community—logged-in or logged-out, admin bit or not. I have no comment on, nor have I investigated, the merits of this request.) For some reason, Bbb23 appears to believe that there is some sort of (technical?) barrier to blocking admin accounts; this is not the case. Admin accounts can be blocked just like any other accounts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved: I reverted Bbb23 at WP:AN/EW per this consensus. I believe that resolves the issue as it relates to this forum. I suggest that interested editors head that way to review the merits of the edit warring/3RR complaint. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

GOLDI123456789

• GOLDI123456789 (talk · contribs)

User is persistently adding unsourced and badly written content to numerous articles, sometimes attempting to overturn others' cleaning up after them [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196]. I'd prefer to report this as vandalism, but I'm not certain it qualifies. Nonetheless, there appears to be some political bias involved, and I suspect even the newly coined hyperlinks at Indira Gandhi have an agenda. Help appreciated. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if the user responds to this discussion - IMO if the user continues to edit in the same fashion and ignore warnings, a disruptive editing block can be issued if all else fails. – Connormah (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps inevitable [197]. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Something odd here – Possible COI and single topic focus

Can somebody cast their eyes over these [198] and [199] and see what you think? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 01:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs to read WP:ELNO and WP:REDLINK, but otherwise it doesn't look especially bad. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  01:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also triggered Wikipedias spam filter. Did some cleanup.

Light-Productions, Inc

Google Analytics ID: UA-21818126 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

Google Analytics ID: UA-28748624 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

• thewinawards.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.thewinawards.com

• thewinawards.byethost24.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.thewinawards.byethost24.com
• winfemme.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.winfemme.com

Articles

• Women's Image Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Sedaray/Women's Image Network Award
• User:GingerMomma12/Women's Image Network Awards
• User:Qwyrxian/Women's Image Network Awards

Accounts

GingerMomma12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Sedaray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
76.91.31.239 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
76.168.194.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Lilacqueen60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Winfemme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

What strange the domain is the thewinawards.com is an iframe placeholder for this site thewinawards.byethost24.com--Hu12 (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad I noticed this. The Women's Image Network Awards are an annual set of awards given to people in the entertainment industry who promote positive/balanced gender representations. I've had a draft version of an article about the awards in my Sandbox for a few years, because I really think they should have a WP article, but, unfortunately, I can't find quite enough sources to be certain to pass WP:GNG. As for adding the links to the awards, it does constitute a reliable source for the award itself, however, the question is whether or not any mention of the awards is of due weight on the pages it was added, given that the awards are only borderline notable. This isn't some sort of industry insider award (the type where you pay money to join an organization, which in turn gives you an award)...but I don't know if it's important enough for inclusion. Having said that, I don't think GingerMomma12 is "spamming", as much as she is not understanding our rules on weight and sources. I've already left a note on her user talk page, since seeing the unexpected edits to my sandbox, asking for help in creating a fully functional article. I would say that should we create such an article that meets WP:GNG, then we should definitely include the awards in relevant other articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Hyderepressionjekyll

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

---

Obvious troll is troll. —Kerfuffler  scratch
sniff  23:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Something odd here – Possible COI and single topic focus

Can somebody cast their eyes over these [200] and [201] and see what you think? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 01:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs to read WP:ELNO and WP:REDLINK, but otherwise it doesn't look especially bad. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  01:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also triggered Wikipedias spam filter. Did some cleanup.

Light-Productions, Inc

Google Analytics ID: UA-21818126 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

Google Analytics ID: UA-28748624 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

• thewinawards.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.thewinawards.com

• thewinawards.byethost24.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.thewinawards.byethost24.com
• winfemme.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.winfemme.com

Articles

• Women's Image Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Sedaray/Women's Image Network Award
• User:GingerMomma12/Women's Image Network Awards
• User:Qwyrxian/Women's Image Network Awards

Accounts

GingerMomma12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Sedaray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
76.91.31.239 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
76.168.194.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Lilacqueen60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Winfemme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

What strange the domain is the thewinawards.com is an iframe placeholder for this site thewinawards.byethost24.com--Hu12 (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad I noticed this. The Women's Image Network Awards are an annual set of awards given to people in the entertainment industry who promote positive/balanced gender representations. I've had a draft version of an article about the awards in my Sandbox for a few years, because I really think they should have a WP article, but, unfortunately, I can't find quite enough sources to be certain to pass WP:GNG. As for adding the links to the awards, it does constitute a reliable source for the award itself, however, the question is whether or not any mention of the awards is of due weight on the pages it was added, given that the awards are only borderline notable. This isn't some sort of industry insider award (the type where you pay money to join an organization, which in turn gives you an award)...but I don't know if it's important enough for inclusion. Having said that, I don't think GingerMomma12 is "spamming", as much as she is not understanding our rules on weight and sources. I've already left a note on her user talk page, since seeing the unexpected edits to my sandbox, asking for help in creating a fully functional article. I would say that should we create such an article that meets WP:GNG, then we should definitely include the awards in relevant other articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Hyderepressionjekyll

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

---

Obvious troll is troll. —Kerfuffler  scratch
sniff  23:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

67.238.152.151

IP Special:Contributions/67.238.152.151 is ranting everywhere about fascism on wikipedia. Can an admin look at any of his edits and they will see what I mean. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(Uninvolved non-admin ANI Watcher) The editors should be notified. I have done it for you. Regards! --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

He stopped 9 hours ago, so he either gave up or found something better to do. I left him one more polite note asking for context, but if he continues posting his rant to more random pages, he'll be blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A cheers, forgot to do that. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

I'm a bit involved (I just deleted his article; explanation offered here, with links to the copyright violation), but User:Ajovitsky is now issuing threats of litigation on his talkpage (diff). Can somebody do the necessary, please? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, there is a clear legal threat in the talk page edit linked. Hut 8.5 09:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Persistent incivility, personal attacks, violations of talk page guidelines by Fowler&fowler

Re: Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Fowler&fowler has been persistently violating talk page guidelines, with uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Repeated request to Fowler&fowler to stop uncivil behavior have so far failed.

[A]. On September 20th, I made specific suggestions to improve the article Caste on its talk page: Ex1 - per talk page and RfC guidelines. My suggestions were:

1. Summarize all sides of significant and mainstream scholarly literature. [...delete rest for brevity...]

2. Casual use of word caste by any published source, once or twice, is an unacceptable basis to include that source in this article. [...delete rest for brevity...]

3. We will consider the following as adequate basis to consider including a mention or summary in this article: multiple secondary sources discuss caste in a country / region / culture, and one or more reliable tertiary source include this mention.

4. Substantive discussion of caste in a society by multiple secondary sources, in sociology/anthropology/cultural and similar scholarly fields, suggest such sources will be considered for inclusion in this article. [...delete rest for brevity...]

5. Scholarly published secondary and tertiary literature from around the world, on caste, are acceptable and welcome.

Fowler&fowler’s replied with a personal attack, which took the following form: ‘As Fifelfoo has said, you don’t have competence to write this article.’ See Ex2. A review of the discussion proves, Fifelfoo criticized the article, but did not attack any wikipedia user with those words. See this comments section. Fowler&fowler misquoted and misrepresented another wiki user, to launch a personal attack.

Mitigating factors: In fairness to Fowler&fowler, I note that this September 21 morning, after I noted that I will seek wikipedia admin help to address the personal attack on September 20, Fowler&fowler voluntarily acknowledged and struck out the personal attack he made a day ago Ex7. Similarly, in fairness, along with personal attacks, Fowler&fowler has also welcomed my contributions and made constructive proposals recently with suggestions such as

‘user:ApostleVonColorado should rewrite 3. and 4.’ - Fowler&fowler, 20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

See Ex8. I assume from this that Fowler&fowler is capable of respecting and welcoming constructive contributions from other wiki users such as me. These mitigating corrective actions and constructive suggestions are offset by the unrelenting, counter-productive attacks and uncivil behavior from Fowler&fowler. See below.

[B]. The uncivil behavior by Fowler&fowler is not limited to one instance. It is repetitive and persistent. See for example Ex3 with this cleaner version where he impersonated me, and see Ex4, as two examples. Fowler&fowler persistent attacks and violation of talk page guidelines are of concern because this triggers counter-productive responses from other users. I am concerned because both talk page guidelines and RfC guidelines remind us that our goal should be to improve the article, discuss suggestions for the article, build consensus, assume good faith and welcome input from all users to help improve the article. Systematic abuse of talk page guidelines discourages me and other potential users from participating with constructive contributions.

[C]. The attacks by Fowler&fowler are not limited to one user. On September 17th, Fowler&fowler attacked a new wiki User:Hoshigaki, someone who has been contributing well researched, constructive, through and a detailed response to an RfC, currently in progress on Talk:Caste. Fowler&fowler wrote,

‘Hoshigaki, You are doing this again. I have serious concerns about your level of competence in the English language. I feel your comprehension skills are poor at best.’

See Ex5. Once again, such personal attacks are an unacceptable behavior.

[D] The incivility and violations of talk page guidelines are not limited to talk page of one article, Talk:Caste. It extends to Talk:India. For example, Fowler&fowler had used the talk page of India as a forum with comments, irrelevant to improving the article, such as,

‘[...]....casts its one vote, half to Mrt3366 and other half to RegentsPark as the next President of Wikipedia. Let's throw that Jimbo guy out. I will now be going down to the bar to order a Vodka Martini.’ - Fowler&fowler, 14:30, 6 September 2012

See Ex6. That is an irrelevant, frivolous and disruptive forum-like comment on an article's talk page.

[E]. In summary, Fowler&fowler has persistently violated the following talk page guidelines:

1. Personal attacks
2. Misrepresenting another user
3. Impersonating me and creating a section ‘Comment by ApostleVonColorado’ without my permission or knowledge
4. Using the talk page as forum

I request an appropriate review of the facts, followed by appropriate action to address unacceptable behavior by user Fowler&fowler.

Please note that this request is about a user conduct. It is not a commentary, nor is it a content dispute about the article Caste or any other. Others and I have already acknowledged and agreed that the article needs rework, has serious flaws, some sections need to be removed, some rewritten and that the article can be significantly improved. Polite and article-focussed discussion, not personal attacks, is a way to rapidly improving the article. Above all, any wikipedia article regardless of how good or poorly written it is, gives no one the right to be uncivil and to repeatedly personally attack other wikipedia users. No one has the right to harass and attack others regardless of whether they are a new user or have many years of experience on wikipedia. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't finished looking over all of this, but as a note to the humor-impaired; Example 6 is what's known as a joke. It plays upon the tropes of hyperbole and facetiousness. I'll finish looking over this, but it seems obvious to me that was meant as a deliberately hyperbolic comment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler has been doing his level best to handle a group of tendentious filibusterers, of which you are one. In particular, dealing with your insistent TLDR essays is an absolute frustration, and not just for him. I've very nearly blown up on a couple of occasions when discussing things with you and the others on article talk pages, so it is no surprise to me if someone else actually has done so. As long as you continue in your ways, I think that you'll have to roll with the consequences - it is not a one-way street. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I'm finished with this. ApostleVonColorado, a couple of your examples above aren't the best from Fowler&fowler, but I'm not so much inclined to sanction him for saying them as much as express amazement at how long it took to get to that point. I'm thinking now about instituting a topic ban for you under the discretionary sanctions in place, I'll come back to this in a couple hours so I don't make a knee-jerk decision. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not the first time that Fowler has breached civility on Wikipedia, there were more than two editors who were discussing on the talk page but I am sure there are more than two editors who felt that Fowler had crossed the limits. It is not at all surprising to see Sitush making such a comment but what is more surprising is The Blade of the Northern Lights saying a couple of your examples above aren't the best from Fowler&fowler, but I'm not so much inclined to sanction him for saying them --sarvajna (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is my comment "not at all surprising"? - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, like The Blade said, the examples don't show me in a good light. Example 6 was indeed a joke. I was mimicking the states' roll call at the Democratic National Convention. Example 2 is not entirely accurate. I myself realized that my response was too hot-headed and before anyone replied to my post, changed it in this post. I still seem to remember that Fifelfoo had used the word "competence," but when I went back to look at his statement, I couldn't find it. In any case, he had made a pretty damning evaluation of AVC's contributions to the Caste article. As for Hoshigaki, here is the deal. Two new users appeared in the RfC. They had joined WP a few days earlier. Predictably they both opposed me. They are Hoshigaki (talk · contribs) and OrangesRYellow (talk · contribs). Hoshigaki in particular, kept misinterpreting my words, "India is central to the topic of Caste" to mean "Caste is central to the topic of India," he also kept misinterpreting the adjective "central" to mean "unique." So, he repeatedly replied "Cast is not unique to India or Hinduism" or "Caste is not the central social topic in India today." When this happened the third or the fourth time, I became frustrated and replied in the post AVC has cited above. The problem as I see it is simple. The major tertiary sources are unanimous in stating that India is central to any discussion of caste. The major tertiary sources spend 75 to 100% of their content discussing India. Yet we have a Wikipedia article which (especially after AVC's edits in Feb and March this year) spends 80% of its content discussing caste in Europe, Latin America, Africa, East Asia, .... It has sections, "Caste in Finland, " "Caste in Sweden," "Caste in England," "Caste in Ireland," ... Although AVC is always polite, and never fails to cite WP policy on polite behavior, he nonetheless subtly subverts the RfC process by writing vague, general, essay-length responses, which are difficult to respond to. He produced some tertiary sources of his own to support the extra-India emphasis in the article. The first one had a general sounding abstract. The abstract was all that was available on the web (unless of course you had access or subscription). I managed to get the pdf of the article. It was written by the Indian sociologist Veena Das. Despite its general abstract, it turned out to be entirely about India. I suspected then (and still do) that AVC looked at the abstract and thought it would support his POV, but didn't read the rest of the article. When I said so to him, he became upset. But the question still remains: if your first tertiary source is entirely about India, how are you writing an article 80% of which is not about India? The more long-term background to the Caste or caste-related articles is that it has been the stomping ground of nationalists. In fact it no coincidence that the second most prolific contributor to Caste system in India and Caste articles (after AVC) is none other than Hkelkar (talk · contribs) the notorious Hindu nationalist sock master. One of the favorite tacks of the nationalists when editing articles about India's perceived social ills (not just Caste, but also Bride burning, Dowry etc. is to universalize them; in other words, to have little sections on Pakistan, Nepal, .... and to mention India casually as just one among the crowd. Whether this is AVC's motivation or not, his edits have certainly served that purpose. He had made similar edits to Culture of India, where "caste" etc have been swept under "Perceptions of India." Anyway, I have to take our cat to the vet. So this all I have to say. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

PS. I've got to get this in too: most of the abstract discussion of caste has taken place historically around the paradigmatic example of Hindu India. All the great theorists of Caste, Max Weber, Emile Senart (Les Castes dans L'Inde, 1894), Célestin Bouglé (1927), Georges Dumézil, G. S. Ghurye, Edmund Leach, M. N. Srinivas, F. G. Bailey, Louis Dumont, J. C. Heesterman, Ronald Inden, Stanley Tambiah, McKim Marriott, R. S. Khare, Veena Das, Jonathan Parry, Andre Beteille, T. N. Madan, Richard Burghart, and others have theorized in the context of Hinduism and India. Even the one anthropologist, Gerald Berreman, who during the 50s, 60s, and early 70s advocated the comparative approach to caste, for which he has been cited a dozen times in the Caste article, has spent most of his lifetime working on India. It is that sort of history this article is flying in the face of. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And it is interesting that sarvajna has been contributing both to the discussion there and here, given their past support for such notorious characters as MangoWong (talk · contribs), Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) and Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs), all of whom have favoured a revisionist, nationalist Hindutva depiction of Indian society and history. Sarvajna does more good than those people, but the presence actually reinforces Fowler's analysis. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(multi ec) As Sitush says, Fowler has been dealing more or less single handedly with long tendentious posts on the article in question and, in my opinion, has been doing this patently and above and beyond the call of duty. If he's blown up a couple of times, it is worth looking at the many other times that he hasn't blown up and to look at his willingness to compromise, even when he doesn't necessarily agree with the outcome. AVC would be better served if he/she took a good, long hard at his own editing style, one that is exemplified by the long and tedious complaint above. Topic banning AVC would be an ideal way to implement the discretionary sanctions recently placed on India related articles. --regentspark (comment) 19:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I think a 6 month ban on AVC from Caste and the associated discussions would be perfect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That would probably require extension to related articles, eg: Caste in India. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That, in my view, would be a good resolution, but then I'm not exactly a disinterested party. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's too much stuff for me to look at in detail, but AVC's support of User:Hoshigaki clearly put him in the (in)famous guy's enablers camp. Although AVC himself is quite polite, the good cop/bad cop routine can wear down many good people. So AVC & friends need to give the area a break. Or be given one. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, anything we apply to AVC should also be applied to Hoshigaki; barring objections, I'll implement them tomorrow. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Hoshigaki at all, but as far as the rest of the discussion goes, while the major problem is at Caste, it is not restricted to the article, but rather to the topic, so any discretionary sanctions will need to cover the topic area and not just the one article in question. This is covered by both the community imposed sanctions (WP:GS/Caste) and the India related arbcom sanctions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Blade of Northern Lights - What is my crime? Look at my contribution history (or talk to Fiflefoo) and you will find I have only brought scholarly sources to the discussion which weaken Fowler's centrality argument. Fowler was deliberately attacking my English skills because reliable sources brought by me clearly indicated that centrality of caste to India can be intrepeted either way. Exact quote provided by me:

From another source cited by Fowler (Berreman, Gerald D. (2008), Caste, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences):

Among social scientists, and especially among those who have worked in India, there are basically two views: (1) that the caste system is to be defined in terms of its Hindu attributes and rationale and, therefore, is unique to India or at least to south Asia; (2) that the caste system is to be defined in terms of structural features which are found not only in Hindu India but in a number of other societies as well. Those who hold the latter view find caste groups in such widely scattered areas as the Arabian Peninsula, Polynesia, north Africa, east Africa, Guatemala, Japan, aboriginal North America, and the contemporary United States. Either of these positions is tenable; which is preferable depends upon one’s interests and purposes.

Anyway if you decide to ban me for 6 months, go ahead, I have no interest in editing Wikipedia if this is how it works. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hoshigaki, Please don't cite incorrectly. The Berreman article is from the 1968 edition of that encyclopedia. I have said both in my list (see reference 16) and at least once in conversation with you that that reference has been superseded by the 2008 edition of the encyclopedia in which the article on "Caste" is written by someone else and devotes 80% of its content to India. Berreman represented a trend current in the 1950s and 60s; even then it was a minority opinion. It has long been discarded by anthropologists. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I give up. My crime is to have gone through all accessible sources presented by Fowler in support of his argument (such as the above source) and pointed out internal contradictions in them. When I succeeded with that, Fowler now wants to discard the source. He or she originally used this source as one from 2008 (and thus acceptable since it was from within the last 25 years - a time limit set by Fowler himself unilaterally). This is deceitful behavior. I have never seen such treachery. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well please read the article "caste" in the 2008 edition (my reference 7) How much space does it devote to India? And how much to other countries? And the first of those is just caste practices of the Indian indentured laborer immigrants in the West Indies. Here is what it says about Berreman (the author of the 1968 article): "... purely on the grounds of universal practices of discrimination based on ascription, scholars such as Gerald Berreman (1960; 1972) have attempted to compare American blacks to untouchable castes in India. However, the black-white dichotomous system in the United States differs from the fourfold caste system in India in that it is ordained not by religious considerations, but by economic and social ones (Cox 1948)." Anyway, I have to go to bed now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have never seen such treachery, perhaps a perusal of Idi Amin, Ne Win, or Than Shwe will give you some perspective. I'm only saying what the most beneficial solution is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, never met them. I guess I am lucky to be surrounded by very civilized people. And I don't want to change that. Go ahead block or ban me if you think that is in the greater good per your common sense. And don't expect a reply from me. Hoshigaki (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

He or she originally used this source as one from 2008 (and thus acceptable since it was from within the last 25 years - a time limit set by Fowler himself unilaterally). I just noticed this. It is patently false. I have never said that the Berreman article was written in 2008. I say explicitly in reference 16 in the list that it is "dated" and from 1968 and has been superseded by the 2008 edition (which is reference 7 in my list). The 2008 edition is not only not written by Berreman, but also disagrees with him as the quote above showed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler is doing an excellent job here by deviating the whole topic, this is not a page to discuss the contents. Unfortunately Hoshigaki has fallen into the trap. What are the others like Sitush and RP doing? They are just blindly backing Fowler and infact proposing a topic ban on AVC. What was the crime? Did he break any policy? Was he warned before imposing sanctions on him? It would be blatant misuse of the administrative tools to impose a ban without a proper reason. The only reason I see is that he pointed out the uncivil behavior of an experienced editor. Sitush, stop being dishonest I don’t even know who MangoWong or Zuggernaut are, I only know Yogesh Khandke and have you tried to inform Yogesh and others that you are unnecessarily dragging them into this? --sarvajna (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mr Fowler&fowler has left no stone unturned to get me blocked. Fowler has put forward two arbitrary and — I must say — incongruous "protocols" on Talk:India, Talk:caste. I told others we should not make it any more complicated and time-consuming than it already is.

  Now as it seems (I may be wrong though), it's one of fowler's many fortes (e.g. stonewalling, creating confusion, obfuscating, needlessly complicating things). That is what he has done in WP:DRN (which failed as you may know), Talk:India (see archive no 37 if you missed some), at least one RfC and whatever article or page he has edited lately. If he is not a quintessential example of an inveterate filibusterer, then I don't know what filibustering is. Yet, he has the nerve to claim I am having hard time growing up that as though he knows my age. He randomly calls people's dissenting opinions "Hindu nationalist garbage", "upper caste POV", "nonsense", etc. He acts like he owns wikipedia articles e.g. India. Just see my talk page. He first and then Sitush, threatened me on my talk page, "you will soon be gone, whether forcibly or voluntarily." (because I am supposedly continuing combative high jinks) isn't that a gross violation of WP:TALKNO?? He obliquely discouraged me from editing India, Caste where he supposedly has his rule. When I tried to bring our wiki-interaction to normalcy, he called me "an obsessively tendentious editor". There is more, I don't have time and the patience to explain every facet of his problematic character. This editor is utterly disruptive. He has this innate knack of turning any discussion in a stale quagmire. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved ordinary editor who only came across the Talk:Caste discussion (or the users under discussion) today, I agree with Regentspark that Fowler&Fowler has taken an exemplary approach of keeping focused on article improvement, only blowing up with a somewhat ill-advised tone after a long period of remarkably patronising treatment from AVC among others. AVC's behaviour should be of greater concern. AVC seems to respond to content disagreement by telling the other user to be civil, follow talkpage guidelines, etc. I stumbled across AVC via this discussion from February in which AVC reacts to respectfully-expressed content disagreement by warning the new user not to make personal comments, to stay on topic etc., citing policies in an unconstructive, patronising and intimidating way. The recent & ongoing Talk:Caste discussion shows a lot of the same pattern. It, and the encyclopedia as a whole, would be best served if a strong message is sent to AVC to alter this behaviour. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, even I am ready to share some of the blame for the mess that was created (mostly by Fowler's obduracy), in stark contrast to the behavior of Fowler, AVC's conduct has been exemplary. He is a fair and reasonable guy. Don't pin it onto him. His comments here were very, very reasonable. Fowler has experience and it gives him a leverage over other less-experienced editors but that leverage is getting abused can't you see?

  Fowler being an experienced editor, doesn't bother to assume good faith, he demeans opponents while berating their views at the time of a discord. He abused his rollback rights in a content dispute and then instead of admitting his faults, he snubs the privilege itself by saying, "Please remove it. I'm unlikely to go about cleaning spam etc anyway". That's no concern to you? I am flabbergasted. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• AVC made major changes to the Caste article between mid February and early March this year, doubling the size of article. In the six months since, he has walled out other contributions by politely reverting them and answering on the talk page in essay-length vague generalities. If you disagree find one significant contribution made by someone else in the last six months. The end result, regardless, is that we have an article Caste, the WP flagship article on all caste-related content that devotes 80% of its content to Caste outside South Asia. I believe a topic ban for AVC is the only solution to this impasse. Not only has he made the Wikipedia article on Caste singular in such overwhelming bias among all major tertiary sources, but he has also kept others out for six months, effectively topic banning them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Let me dispel few of the myths being propagated here. AVC's edits have improved the Caste article greatly. This is how the article looked before AVC started editing. The article is much better written and referenced now. AVC's edits did not cause the article to exceed article size limits particularly for a complex concept like caste. The article is double in size now, so? AVC did not stop anyone from editing the article. In fact, he partially accepted Fowler's changes and completely accepted others.[202] AVC's essay length responses are quite easy to read and he has shortened them after repeated personal attacks. To say that he has effectively topic banned other editors would be a hyperbole, if not a blatant lie. Let anyone asserting that AVC has stopped them from editing on Caste come out with diffs to their edits, which were otherwise uncontroversial, but were not allowed into the article with "walls of text". Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• This, the new version is better than this, the old? Which major tertiary source is closer both in content and emphasis of content to the new version than the old? And what is this edit? Has any scholarly source called Andre Beteille's widely-used definition of caste, quoted verbatim in the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, a "Tanjore village-focused study?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• The balance of the article is currently being discussed at the talk page and there is, IMO, a consensus that India needs to be better represented in the article. Other than this, the newer version is much better than the old. Just look at the referencing. The edit you refer to is controversial and started the discussion on talk page. So, it cannot be included as an attempted obfuscation by AVC. Again, there is little evidence to support a ludicrous topic ban for the editor who contributed so much to the article. That is all my I am trying to say, AVC is free to defend his comment on Andre Beteille. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid AVC and I have agreed on nothing. Piotrus (a professional sociologist) made a proposal regarding distribution of article space. It said: 45% to definitions, paradigms, review of literature; 30% to Hinduism within India (the spawning ground of caste), 10% to Caste-like stratification found among Hindu converts to Islam and Christianity in South Asia; to Sikhs and Buddhists, and 15% to Caste-like stratification outside South Asia. AVC has never agreed to it. Instead he has himself made new vague and general proposals, mainly to deflect the argument, as in attempting to rope in Piotrus by citing the latter's FAs, all the while remaining resistant to expanding the India section, by again appealing vaguely to Piotrus's articles. There are other major disagreements. The 45% related to definitions, paradigms, and review of literature is founded on and rests on the model of India. All the great theorists of caste I have listed above, have theorized around that paradigmatic model. That section cannot be littered with irrelevant examples of caste in Finland and Sweden. No theorist of caste has made Sweden or Finland their lifework. AVC has not even remotely agreed to that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you compare the older version of article before AVC started improving and after AVC made substantial changes? All that said I still feel that there is nothing much to discuss about AVC's behavior but there are serious concerns about Fowler's behavior. Being uncivil is a kind of his trademark. --sarvajna (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are exactly what I have compared. Find me one major tertiary source, I repeat, that is closer in emphasis of content to the new present version than the old version. AVC's edits have made Wikipedia stands out like a cuckoo-bird among the wise owls. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler I think I was not clear, let me try to make it more clear. I am not saying that the newer version is bad, you keep saying that the article was previously edited by a Hindu Nationalist POV pusher This is one of your style of labeling anyone who oppose your edits as Hindu Nationalist, POV pusher Now did AVC make the article more worse when compared to the other editor's version? --sarvajna (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not going anywhere, Fowler has made his position quite clear; the only counter argument being presented here is that Fowler is incivil etc, and RP has addressed that above. This is getting increasingly tendentious as you appear to either not listen to or comprehend the arguments being presented, both of which are problematic; this isn't the first time either (and Sitush was right in calling you out earlier), you keep parroting this theory of "explain it to me" to a level that's beyond belief. —SpacemanSpiff 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel any need to reply to your comment, I have already replied to Sitush Only if you have cared to read it --sarvajna (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention I don't think Fowler has given any clarification about his uncivil behavior --sarvajna (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the diff to the comment where all the four of us (F&F, AVC, Mrt and me) agreed to reduce the section on Europe. In fact, my impression of the discussion was that all of us had a consensus on giving India more prominence in the article and reducing other sections to "caste in continent" rather than "caste in country", even if there was a disagreement on the means of doing so.[203] I do not agree with exact percentages to the sections either. I'll give a detailed reply with objections and suggestions on the talk page later (apologies for delaying this, I am hard pressed for time). Speculating on AVC's intentions ("attempting to rope in Piotrus by citing the latter's FAs" etc.) is pointless. Asking for a topic ban for the same is equally so. As for the tertiary sources, everyone agrees that India is the paradigmatic example of caste. Although the centrality might still be disputed (see this summary). I will try to provide diffs to my claims of consensus though it might be easier for others involved to substantiate my claims in their comments here. Finally, discussing content here diverts from the main issues: 1) Incivility by Fowler&fowler 2) Obfuscation(?) by AVC. I have not commented on 1 and 2 is simply absurd. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@CK. You have exaggerated, I'm afraid. You quoted only part of a now-closed discussion, the early part. You forgot to add, that after Ninthbout's post, I wrote:

 :::I more or less agree with you. However, if the content here belongs to Social stratification in East Asia and Social stratification in Europe, then why has it been added to Caste (and not to Social Stratification)? One of my motivations for recommending the creation of the Caste in Europe and Caste in East Asia articles is that in the inevitable AfD discussions that will follow, we are more likely to get a wider community resolution of this conundrum than in an RfC (or DR) here. This article, though important, has been languishing by itself for some time now, and that explains why individual editors have been able to slant it in this fashion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

@Sarvagna: There are similarities between the transformations wrought in the article by banned Hindu-nationalist editor User:Hkelkar and his socks user:Shiva's Trident, and user:Rumpelstiltskin223 in 2006–2007 and that wrought by AVC in February-March 2012. (And I'm by no means suggesting that one is the other.) At the end of July 2006, just before Hkelkar and his socks edited the article, here is what it looked like. Notice the relative weight; notice India's mention in the first sentence. Here is the wild article it became in late January 2007 as a result of the work of user:Hkelkar and his socks. Notice the de-emphasis on India and Hinduism. Similarly, the article before AVC edited it looked like this. Notice the emphasis on India and limited emphasis on the rest of the world. Notice also the the wild version it became after AVC was done with it. In each transformation, the relative article space devoted to other countries has increased wildly. Yes, the old version of January 2012 is much better in terms of balance and emphasis than the new version. It needs a few citations, but that can be easily fixed in a few hours at most. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

PS I'm now done with this. AVC's defenders, the same people who have sided with him in the tortuous RfC, are presenting the same tired incorrect arguments. I see nothing new from them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It is sad that this discussion became focussed on content, not conduct. I find it offensive that I am being casually compared to socks from past, who admins can trace and check IP addresses of, and confirm I have nothing to do with old edits (and which will also show I am not from India).

The version Fowler&fowler cites from 2007 has 30 citations (poor quality), while the current article has over 160 (peer reviewed journals, books etc.). There is simply no comparison between the old 2007 version and version I updated to earlier this year. Caste and Caste system in India are two articles of many on caste topic on wikipedia. Other encyclopedia have just one article. My attempt to distinguish these two articles, according to wiki's summary style guidelines, done in good faith, incomplete and flawed as they may, do not justify accusations above. I include this for record.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not 2007. It is the version of early Feb 2012 (before you made any edits) that I compared your August 2012 version with. Like I said, the Feb version needed citations, but it is much closer in emphasis and balance to the consensus version in the modern tertiary sources than yours. By drastically biasing the article, you have done Wikipedia a great disservice, even though, I grant you, you have been overtly polite in your interactions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@AVC, OK, I apologize for not making amply clear that I do not think that you are Hkelkar and his socks. For one, you write much better English; for another, you don't edit war with a hair trigger reflex. I was merely answering Sarvagna's query, about similarities with past changes. I think you are a more moral person than Hkelkar (and I hope this doesn't get me into more trouble.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia caste articles are linked and must be considered together, because that is what community agreed spin-off summary style suggest. Not one person so far, including you, has addressed this in the RfC. If you consider all linked articles (i.e. for main article see [...] at top of each section), wiki's encyclopedic coverage on caste dedicated to India is over 80%, and over 75% is avoid double counting. Why does wiki need two articles, if caste article is 95% on India like some tertiary sources you like, and caste system in India is 100% on India copy of the other? As we discussed in the RfC, tertiary sources have differing coverage of world versus India - some of these published between 1970 and 2010, include very significant coverage of caste outside India, and include Africa, Middle East, Europe, Latin America, Japan, Korea, etc. etc. Some regional encyclopedia / tertiary sources have majority of their caste topic coverage dedicated to their region, that is outside India.

See Tijfo098 comments. He or she, another admin I assume, was suggesting strong action above and on the Caste talk page. Tijfo098 has after a polite discussion today conceded on Talk:Caste that reliable sources exist on Jewish caste in Poland, and went on to constructively edit Caste article's section on Poland today. This was not there in January 2012 or any prior years. It is pity that an assumption of bad faith has overwhelmed the discussion above. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Any way, I do not believe it is productive to continue the RfC here, regardless of the injustice there or here. I urge wiki community to not return caste article to January 2012 version, rather consider additions/suggestions made by Tijfo098 today and others before today. Consider each section one by one, evaluate the cited secondary sources (the article includes some of the most respected scholars), delete/revise/seek more citations for sections that are inadequately cited, expand India section, trim others, split out new articles per Piotrus suggestions. Let the goal be to improve that article and thus wikipedia. Your, Fowler&fowler, complaint from first day has been the caste article hides "ills of Hindu India" - but hiding or highlighting ills of any country/people/person is not the goal of wikipedia. As I said I am neither from India nor Hindu, but I hope editors on wiki who are from India and of whatever religion do not feel that they are not welcome to contribute to wikipedia. Forgiveness and politeness, in life or on line, is a difficult but beautiful thing. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I'm afraid in your penultimate post, you were repeating the arguments that have already been considered. You are attempting to redefine Wikipedia policy. Caste is a flagship article on caste-related topics. The tertiary sources overwhelming devote some 75 to 100 per cent of article space to India. According to WP:TERTIARY, the scholarly tertiary sources are important in determining due weight. It is not merely a question of space, although that is important too (see Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#WP:DUE_and_length_of_sections), it is the emphasis. In your very first edit to the article, you changed the old sentence in the lead, "It should not be confused with race or social class, e.g. members of different castes in one society may belong to the same race or class, as in India." to "Some literature suggests that the term caste should not be confused with race or social class, e.g. members of different castes in one society may belong to the same race or class, as in India, Japan, Korea, Nigeria, Yemen" to which you later added," or Europe." In a few hours after the first edit, you had added the sentence, "The use of a caste system is not unique to any religion. Castes have been observed in societies that are, for example, predominantly Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist." I remind you also that a full two weeks after the RfC began, you have not made a statement in the RfC. You are attempting a last-minute statement here. More importantly, it is wrong. You need to take time off from caste-related topics and think long and hard about bias. It is not enough to get reliable secondary sources. How you stack those sources to define emphasis is equally important. It is not your choice. You have to be beholden to the scholarly tertiary sources for that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler - as you already know, I have not edited caste articles for many months (exception: revert some minor vandalism/add back removed citations, another exception: accept some of the edits you made in August). I do not understand what edits or tendentious edits are being referred to. Any edits I did make to the lead in early 2012, the one's you mention above, are amply supported by multiple reliable verifiable secondary sources that meet every required community agreed guidelines. Those edits were made with numerous watchers active on caste articles. No one then, nor since has so far challenged reliability of those verifiable peer reviewed scholarly sources. Yes, DUE is an issue with the article. Others, Piotrus and I agreed on this sometime ago. The DUE issue must be fixed. There is no need to repeat yourself or the RfC here.

There is no evidence that any sock from past or present is related to me on this matter. There is no evidence that I have any relation to any wiki user or anyone 'indicative of a Hindutva POV warrior' - yet this bad faith has been assumed here. It is sad and unjust. It is unjust because, if anything, it is you who has from the start repeatedly assumed bad faith and expressed your concerns with 'Hindutva' and 'ills of Hindu India' (see here). I quote one example of your concern about caste article (August 3 2012 version):

Wikipedia article on Caste: In the past, this sort of distancing of India from its evils, was engaged in by Indian editors. - Fowler&fowler, 13:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Caste is a difficult, complex and frequently disputed topic among scholars. Polite collaboration could have helped us pool our minds, resources and talents to improve the article. As it turns out, we failed.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler - I just checked my first 20 edits starting with the first one on 9th February 2012. I did not add Europe on my first edit. I added Korea and Yemen into the lead, and per wiki lead guidelines appropriately, because the lead back then did not mention Korea or Yemen even though the version before my first edit had a significantly section on Korea and on Yemen. Article lead should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight - my February 2012 edits tried exactly to do that. Significant parts of the lead and 60%+ of the article, before my first edit, lacked any citations - and my initial series of edits were primarily adding citations (see this), asking for citations (see this), and checking/revising whether citations supported the language in the article (see this). Adding or requesting reliable verifiable sources is, I submit opposite of being tendentious. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Your continued efforts at bludgeoning everyone else to death in these discussions is indicative of the very tendentiousness you're attempting to refute, in addition to the problems already raised by others. That's why I've banned you from the topic area for 6 months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's use of rollback

Apparently he used it in the recent content dispute [204]. He should be warned not to use it that way. I haven't investigated Fowler&fowler use of the right further back. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I used it because Hoshigaki had been told that the references were the correct ones and there had been a week long discussion on it just before Hoshigaki appeared on WP ten days ago. He chose nonetheless to make the edits in an FA which has a long tradition of discussing changes on the talk page first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the archives by searching for Fowler and rollback. The first link I found shows Fowler has misused rollback in the past. I did not explore further links. This ist he link I found: [205] Hoshigaki (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If anyone bothers to look at the history (and search the cites source), they will find that the source Fowler was referring to indeed did not support the content it was cited against. That's why I added a new, more accurate source in its place. It turned out that the source was cited at the wrong place. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed a blatant misuse of rollback, and I would support removal of the rights, especially in view of the previous incident. Rollback is for vandalism/spam only, and for curbing "widespread disruption", none of which apply here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Please remove it. I'm unlikely to go about cleaning spam etc anyway. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: I oppose the decision of removal of rollback rights here. A friendly note/alert (about how and when rollback should be used etc) should be fine here for now (though this is my first post in this thread, yes, I have read the whole thread before commenting (as an ANI stalker))--Tito Dutta ✉ 15:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree with Tito, a friendly note will do. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Although I do not agree with Fowlers behavior this proposal looks silly --sarvajna (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Question How many misuse-of-rollback warnings is a guy allowed before it's taken away from him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of rights - this was done by an exceptionally hard working editor under great duress from those wishing to refocus caste articles away from the real world tertiary-source balance of weight. We should be thanking people like Fowler&fowler who do such great work here trying to keep our articles neutral and well sourced, rather than sanctioning them when they might occasionally crack under such pressure. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted abuse

Sitush's calling me notorious is another example of the standards of civility maintained by him and Fowler. I assure you all that this is not the most extreme example. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Notorious" is not an insult, in and of itself. dangerouspanda 08:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Yogesh Khandke that is not the most extreme example. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrt3366, you're skating on remarkably thin ice; either back that up or don't push your luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolution

OK, this has gone on for quite long enough. This is what's going to happen here;

1. ApostleVonColorado (talk · contribs), Hoshigaki (talk · contribs), and CorrectKnowledge (talk · contribs) are all banned for 6 months from all articles and discussions under WP:GS/Caste, broadly construed.
2. Mrt3366 (talk · contribs) and Sarvajna are warned that continuing the same editing patterns will quickly lead to either the same or, quite possibly, a block; Sarvajna in particular is on very, very thin ice.
3. Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) should read over WP:ROLLBACK, there's no need to revoke rollback at this time.
4. All editors are reminded that the area is covered under discretionary sanctions.

I will notify individual editors; should editors have a problem with their sanctions, start a new thread below following the appeals process laid out at WP:AE. Any other admin can feel free to either object or close this up now as they see fit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights: you are warning me for my editing pattern!! This makes me laugh, I have not edited anything on those articles at all. I am sure you have not checked my contributions at all. This cannot be a resolution at all what so ever. The only thing I can conclude from your resolution is Fowler does nothing wrong I am ready to provide evidence of his uncivil behavior few admins are here to back him.--sarvajna (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Special:ReadMind doesn't exist, as evidenced by your comment. I reviewed everyone's behavior, and yours is indicative of a Hindutva POV warrior. I have no particular affiliation with Fowler&fowler, only a desire to improve Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you have reviewed, which of my behavior was a indicative of a Hindutva POV warrior? Your comment can be helpful in improving my own behavior. I really don't believe when you say I have no particular affiliation with Fowler&fowler You have hardly cared about the comments provided by other editors above. Also do you still want me to provide the evidence of Fowler's uncivil behavior? As you have not said anything about that.--sarvajna (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you'll reread everything above, I have indeed said that the comments above didn't portray Fowler&fowler in the best light; however, I'm also considering mitigating circumstances here, which are that he was under constant duress from a bunch of tendentious editing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I agree that you have mentioned that the comments above didn't portray Fowler&fowler in the best light. But in no way it has been concluded that Fowler had any reason to be uncivil.Please read all the comments above before you arrive at any kind of conclusion .--sarvajna (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to assume you don't know what mitigating circumstances means, so I'll rephrase the second half of my previous comment; I'm taking into consideration the frustration that comes along with what Fowler&fowler was doing, which was dealing with a lot of tendentious editors at Talk:Caste. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I will rephrase what I said, it is still not concluded that the other editors were tendentious. Please refer the latest comments by AVC. Also I still request you to provide me with proper diffs which indicates my Hindutva POV warrior attitude. It would be of great help.--sarvajna (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please also read my response to AVC's penultimate post. He had begun to add biased content to the article with his very first edit to it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

PS What does tendentious mean? It means: having or showing a definite tendency, bias, or purpose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:TENDENTIOUS. DMacks (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

CorrectKnowledge and AVC are now banned from caste?? I am bewildered. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights:I have been carefully observing the discussion on both the talk page of this article as well as the discussion here . Now that you have banned AVC for six months , apart from others . For the sake of enlightening other wikipedia editors – I would appreciate if you would also specifically elucidate here the reason/observations through edit histories you choose to take cognizance of ,or chose not take cognizance of for (1) placing bans on ApostleVonColorado Hoshigaki , and CorrectKnowledge and warnings on some editors Mrt3366 Sarvajna . And (2) absolutely no action on others Fowlerand Fowler and Sitush .

Evidence for constant duress from a bunch of tendentious editing is available not only for participating editors you have banned or warned as is the [the mitigating circumstance] for tendentious editing . I have seen only two comments from you here but many from all other . In neither of the two of your comments I could decipher your reasons for arriving at your decisions . What are the principal grounds that make it justifiable rational, to apply rules to one set of editors and not the other in the light of edit historys .Thanks in advance for your clear enunciation .Intothefire (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty obvious, but to summarize; 1. The 3 editors I banned were causing the most problems at Talk:Caste and other pages, 2 Mrt3366 and Sarvajna, haven't been as obviously disruptive at this moment, but a review of their contributions shows a similar pattern of editing in both, and 3 I haven't sanctioned Fowler&fowler or Sitush because they're working towards neutral, verifiable articles; this I know from past experience and from what I observed in those discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What is obvious is that you had pre-decided to ban AVC from caste articles even before the discussion started, your second reply in the discussion shows that, which means you just assumed bad faith even before AVC tried to explain his stand. Correct Knowledge is involved in various article and has worked on improving the class of the various articles. Somehow it is only Fowler who has complained and no one else. You just added his name to the List in which AVC was present. You need to provide a better reason than were causing the most problems . I was surprised to see when you mentioned that CK was banned. I challenge or I request you to provide evidence of problematic behavior of CK.Lastly as requested above for several times above can you provide me with proper diffs which indicates my Hindutva POV warrior attitude. You just picked up Sitush's line and pasted it. This whole exercise seems to an effort to help Fowler. Thanks to you Fowler goes scot-free without a eve single note of admonishment for his uncivil behavior.--sarvajna (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Blade, for this sensible and judicious set of outcomes. As an uninvolved editor whose only concern was civility, I'm satisfied. Let's hope the warned editors take note. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What is Hindutva POV warrior? Do you really mean Hindutva (term coined by Savarkar) or Hinduism (or Vedanta)? --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@Sarvajna, you have not addressed my query of 18:25 21 Sept above and now you are suggesting that I have used the term "Hindutva POV warrior" here or on the Caste] article - show me that diff please. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Better use the word "Hinduism" and not "Hindutva" unless you actually mean it. Reading from the article– Many Indian sociologues have described the Hindutva movement as fascist in classical sense.. Let's not make the discussion more complex! --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I know what I said; Sarvajna's undying support of people like Yogesh Khandke and Zuggernaut (and before he stopped editing, MangoWong), who all favored the nationalist Hindutva POV, across multiple articles led me to my view. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, "Hindutva," might have been the name of Savarkar's book, but in common language it stands for "Hindu nationalism". In fact the Wikipedia article, itself refers to that in the first sentence. The Collins English Dictionary defines it as "(in India) a political movement advocating Hindu nationalism and the establishment of a Hindu state." There are doubtless many other sources. I'm sure someone like Chris Jaffelot defines it somewhere. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

PS I think of "Hindutva POV warrior" to be synonymous with "Hindu nationalist POV Warrior" in common usage. Here is Britannica (about Savarkar): "While imprisoned he wrote Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu? (1923), coining the term Hindutva (“Hinduness”), which sought to define Indian culture as a manifestation of Hindu values; this concept grew to become a major tenet of Hindu nationalist ideology." I don't see any semantic issues with its use by The Blade or Sitush. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, we started from "caste" related articles and now we are heading towards Hindutva (consequently Savarkar, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and which may also be linked to Assassination of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or 2002 Gujarat violence). See Supreme Court of India's judgement and comments over this issue! --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I'd like people to stop referring to people dying as "perished", as that term has a very specific definition in history (it was a process the Turks used to kill and completely eliminate all traces of Armenians they killed); however, I've had to accept that people sometimes do that. Same thing here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Tito Dutta: was your question What is Hindutva POV warrior? Do you really mean Hindutva (term coined by Savarkar) or Hinduism (or Vedanta)? for me if yes then I am afraid you have not really read the comments above it was The Blade of the Northern Lights who said that my behavior was indicative of Hindutva POV warrrior, so you can ask him what he really meant by Hindutva POV warrior.

@ The Blade of the Northern Lights : you have hardly read any of the comments made by most of the editors above. I do not know anything about Zuggernaut or MangoWong (This is the second time I am clarifying this also now I know a bit about these editors, thanks to Sitush who made a same argument above and I had replied to it). Yes I did support Yogesh Kandke several times but that hardly proves anything about my editing patter that you referred above.I genuinely believe that Yogesh Khandke did add value to wikipedia.(if you want to drag Yogesh then why don't a put a note before taking names? ). You deciding the topic ban for AVC withing 13 minutes of the start of this ANI discussion shows that you had decided to topic ban AVC no matter what. @ Sitush I never meant that you used Hindutva POV warrior in any of your comment on caste or other article, above you mentioned that I have supported editors who favoured a revisionist, nationalist Hindutva depiction of Indian society and history which might have been referred by The Blade. Well coming to your question Why is my comment "not at all surprising"? You had warned Mrt for his uncivil behavior on Caste talk page but you have hardly done the same to Fowler. So it was not at all a surprise.--sarvajna (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The comment was not for you! --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I Support Blade's resolution here. I have considerable experience of trying to protect editors like Fowler&flower and Sitush, who have done great work in turning many caste articles from being blatantly unsourced glorification written by POV-warriors into the well-sourced, neutrally-written, versions we see today. They, and others, have faced tendentious editing, coordinated pressure, and deliberate provocation from a number of people (and I see some of the same old names popping up again here) trying to impose a revisionist, Hindu-nationalist, version of history on us. There is clearly a strategy here to pressure our good editors as far as possible, and then come whining for admin action when they're pushed far enough to bite back - if you're going to keep poking a bear with a stick, don't come crying "Mommy, the nasty bear bit me" when the inevitable happens, because all of the behaviour, from all sides, will be taken into account. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What are the restrictions?

I am unable to understand what I am blocked from. Can I now not edit Talk:Caste or all caste system articles or all of Wikipedia? The WP:GS/Caste link does not seem relevant since it does not tell me what the scope is. Hoshigaki (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe it means you cannot edit any pages (articles or talk pages) related to caste, broadly defined. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hoshigaki: Not that it matters, but you have recently stated, "While I have an interest in the topic, I came here by chance following links from RfC for a country template (where I was invited by another editor). I have no interest and am unlikely to edit any India caste articles for now." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Appeal against block

I would like to appeal against the block because I simply went through 33 out of 33 sources provided by Fowler&fowler and showed that:

• 5 supported Fowler's claim
• 3 of the 33 sources were unreliable (see Talk:Caste for details)
• 5 showed that there was no consensus regarding Fowler's RfC
• 7 actually contradicted Fowler's argument
• 22 were irrelevant

I also pointed out to Fifelfoo that 1 out of the 5 sources of Fowler that he endorsed did not meet the wp:Reliable Sources criterion. It is unfair to block me for my activity on Talk:Caste. Hoshigaki (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This description itself is highly tendentious. The 22 that you regard as irrelevant spend 80 to 100% of their article space on India. Whether or not they explicitly say, "India is central to the topic of caste," they demonstrate by their choice of content that India is. You regard the OED's definition of caste, "One of the several hereditary classes into which society in India has from time immemorial been divided; ... now the leading sense, which influences all others." as showing no consensus about India's centrality to caste. You describe the signed article on "Caste" in the Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, by Andre Beteille, which begins, "Caste has been described as the fundamental social institution of India. Sometimes the term is used metaphorically to refer to rigid social distinctions or extreme social exclusiveness wherever found, and some authorities have used the term 'colour-caste system' to describe the stratification based on race in the United States and elsewhere. But it is among the Hindus in India that we find the system in its most fully developed form ...," which spends the rest of the article talking about caste in India, and all four of whose references are about caste in India, as "weakening the centrality argument." Whom are you trying to kid? And those two examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Fifelfoo, whom you quote, says in his RfC statement: "In the scholarly tertiaries, India is mentioned as a critical example repeatedly." Yet, in your analysis, you characterize only 5 of the 33 tertiary sources as supporting the centrality of India to caste. You are a new editor who starts actively editing Wikipedia a few days after the RfC begins, you make some perfunctory edits to Japan-related topics such as "Meiji Restoration," then you spend the rest of your time making tendentious edits on Talk:Caste, this after stating first (quoted above) that you have no interest in the topic, just accidentally stumbled into it. Ask yourself, does that add up? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. The admins cannot prevent you from actually editing the article with the array of tools at their disposal. Rather, under the discretionary sanctions that Arbcom has imposed on a number of topics including his one, an admin has enacted an official limitation on you that forbids you from editing that area. Although they do not have the tools to stop you from editing it by blocking your access to that one set of articles, they do have the tools to block you from editing all articles should you violate the topic ban. To boil it down, edit anything else apart from these articles and you'll be fine, but edit these articles while the topic ban is in effect and you'll be tempoarily or possibly indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Blackmane (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sabah

I tried edit-protecting Sabah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for three days to get people to discuss, but it didn't work. Could someone take a look at see if it requires further protection or blocks? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

While I'm unfamiliar with the history of the dispute, I'd advocate blocking Omdo and Egard89 for their apparent violations of the WP:3RR between 16:54, 22 September and 10:03, 23 September.

Differences for Omdo:

1. 08:43

2. 09:12

3. 09:30

4. 09:49

Differences for Egard89:

1. 08:05

2. 08:45

3. 09:16

4. 09:37

5. 09:53

These reversions appear to occur without any prior attempt at resolution elsewhere, and I'm unaware of any mitigating circumstances, namely vandalism. Mephistophelian (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC).

Looks like edit warring to me. Both have prior notifications of 3RR (several for Omdo; at least one for Edgard89). I've given both temporary blocks - a longer one for Edgard89, as he has been previously blocked for EW. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:69.255.225.227

This user keeps inserting[206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] content to a footnoted sentence at Slavery in ancient Rome, attributing information to the source that isn't in the source. Another editor and I have repeatedly explained on the user's talk page that the content may not be inserted in this way, and if the user wishes to add it, (s)he must cite a different source. Although initially there were concerns that the user didn't understand ethnic labels as they pertain to classical antiquity, the editing has become disruptive because the user refuses to find a different source and keeps wanting to make the existing source say something it doesn't. I can't tell whether User:69.255.225.227 is trying to make a point or is simply refusing to follow basic verification and attribution procedure. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have explained to the IP that consensus is required and that he or she will need to convince others that the edit meets the core policies. If the edit warring continues, a block would be appropriate. Hopefully, that won't be what happens and conversation will begin.

I am not interacting with the content, as I am remaining uninvolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Brownlow Medal winners

Currently undergoing vandalism by multiple users. Suggest temporary protection. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I semi-protected for 3 days. I also reverted to the Sept 23 version which may have caused loss of a constructive edit or two among the dozens of vandalous ones, so if anyone knowledgeable in this area could take a look, that would be helpful. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing incivility by User:7mike5000

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

---

• Mike was indefinitely blocked Aug 2010 for "threatening off wiki action" by User:SarekOfVulcan. He was subsequently unblocked in Feb of 2011 after agreeing that he would be civil and that a block would be reapplied if he was unable to achieve this.[213]

• On Sept 6th [214] and Sept 17th of 2012 [215] he received further complaints of incivility.

• His replies are here [216] and here [217] and are not hopeful.

• As I was uninvolved in both these resent re-occurrences I have reapplied the block. Wondering if others have comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There are many other example of less than pleasant comments including: [218] and [219] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Does he do anything useful? If not, indef. Otherwise ANI/warn, ANI/warn, block/unblock, block/unblock, RtFU, ArmCom, ANI/warn, block/unblock, ANI/warn, ArbCom, ANI/warn, ANI/warn, maybe he retires. It looks like he has fans. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after looking and reading some of his talk page, I have no desire to see if he does anything "useful" and don't much care. Fully support the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Mike can be a bit rough around the edges if approached the wrong way or to the uninformed (who may just have distaste for his crude but often hilarious wit). However, this user has shown great improvements since the initial block and has worked closely with his mentor to become a very productive contributor. Over a year and a half after the initial block was lifted, it is time to relax these trigger-finger sanctions. That being said, Mike, you really gotta pick and choose who you use that awesome charm of yours with, because some people are unable to cope with the artistic choice of words. Keep it to your user/talk page and out of the drama-prone discussions - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You must be joking, surely. By what stretch of the imagination can the words 'hilarious wit', 'awesome charm' or 'artistic choice of words' be applied to sentences like 'please be a fat scumbag somewhere else' or 'oh yeah, and your a dick'? Support this block, Mike should know better, considering this comment. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 06:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I am not joking and I stand by what I said. The occasional lapses in temper are far outweighed by the contributions this user makes. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Really? How have you measured the effects of his "lapses in temper" on the innocent users who are the targets of it, or would-be editors who are scared off by it? If an otherwise productive editor stops contributing for a week because they're hurt or angered by the insults, how much does that offset User:7mike5000's contributions? If three editors with useful information to contribute refrain from posting it in an AfD for fear of being the next target of his attacks, what weight do you assign that? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Can you provide any evidence of even one user being scared off by Mike? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
          • No, and neither can you, so without any evidence one way or another you can't say that his contributions "outweigh" the effects of the "lapses in temper". —Psychonaut (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The people driven away wouldn't necessarily stop to leave a note. Considering that many report that editing on wikipedia can be harsh, it would not be unexpected if some new editors were driven away or oversaw what occurred. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm torn, but reserving judgement. He is obviously being confrontational and unnecessarily rude, but I'm not a fan of civility blocks. The fat scumbag comment is a bit out of context, and refers to Psychonaut's user page reference, which points to [220]. Still incivil, but context does matter. That said, we will see if Mike takes a more conciliatory tone in an unblock request. Indef doesn't mean forever, although I think a fixed term block would be a better solution. This doesn't mean I have great hope long term, but I can't help but to prefer the liberal use of rope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Have emailed his mentor to see if he is willing to weight in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's me. Bugger. I got an email from James yesterday but have just now had a chance to look at this. Mike has been uncivil and a block is certainly justified. He does a lot of very good work but does have trouble curbing his sometimes quite acerbic tongue. I'll have a think and say more when I've had some sleep. James, I'd have preferred you to have left the blocking to another admin, given your shared history, but do understand your frustration. I'll get back. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In Doc's defense, he did bring it here for review and contacted the mentor, which is the proper response (or WP:AN) if there is any potential concern regarding involvement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support block I can see why the block was made; Mike reacts to any sort of challenge aggressively and is quick to shoot people down with uncivil language. Mike states that he doesn't want to have to walk on egg shells but yet expects other people to walk on egg shells around him to avoid his hostility. I think underneath all of this, Mike has a good side in that what drives his editing by his own words is to 'help' other people by providing useful content for our readers. It would be a shame to lose a valuable contributer such as Mike but if we do it will be his own fault. I think that before the block is removed that Mike has to agree to treat others as he would like to be treated himself and try harder with how he reacts to other users with regard to civility.--MrADHD | T@1k? 08:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• When someone points out that an image that one uploads infringes on copyright as was done here Sept 6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:7mike5000#File:West_nile_virus_rash.jpg_listed_for_deletion and you reply that they are a "dexter" we have a problem. Copyright infringement is a huge issue.
• Less than civil responses go back a long time. Here on July 4th he replies to concerns with "Acting like you run the show, and leaving annoying messages for people who actually make useful positive contributions as opposed to writing about kiddie's video games is also extremely bad form, as is dictating in the manner you have. Alleging somebody engaged in "vandalism" is also (drum roll goes here) extremely bad form. Ta Da" [221]
• Another July 2nd "Hello, maybe you should make a wee bit of effort in finding information on a subject instead of coming off like a know-it-all." [222] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Totally uncontroverial block. Shame on anyone who would consider ignoring such flagrant long-term hositility on grounds of productivity: we have masses of editors who edit productively who can behave civilly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Block Reading the user's talk page, I don't quite understand...one second he's a terrific contributor, the next second he's confrontational because someone reverted something he did or even, it seems, attempted to build upon something he did. He is extremely incivil as noted by all of the links posted above on this thread, and thus, I would support a short-term block (maybe a week). DB is right, I think, that it should be fixed, rather than indefinite. Go Phightins! (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I have blocked Mike's talk page access because of personal attacks. Putting aside that he's creating a mini-ANI on his own talk page, in the midst of his long diatribe is this sentence: "Heilmann is a liar, a plagiarist and grossly incompetent in writing medical content which he refers to as medicine content." Bear in mind that this was a cumulative civility block in the first instance. If another admin disagrees with my action, they can undo it without consulting with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  That should be effective in making this discussion a little more one sided. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  When you're already blocked for incivility, calling another editor an incompetent lying plagiarist loses you your talk page access. Every time. I'm hoping Mike will email me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support block: Sorry, I'm sick and tired of the premise that as long as some fans can claim that you're a productive editor, you get a free ride for incivility you'd likely never dare to use were you not safely ensconced behind a computer screen. Either we have civility and NPA rules or we do not. One would think that already being under fire and having been sanctioned for incivility, Mike would have figured he had best keep a civil tongue in his head. From the fellow who has openly admitted, however, that people who contribute a certain amount of edits should thereby win the right to be uncivil [223], I'm not exactly surprised. Ravenswing 18:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. Civility is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This was way over the WP:NPA line. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It's also flat out wrong. E.g., I looked up the tuberculosis thing, and the article he says it was “copied” from actually sourced it from Wikipedia (it even says so at the bottom); it was just moved into a separate Wikipedia article on 2011-12-29. In fact, this is when it was first added. He's obviously just fishing. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  03:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the Parkinson's quote, there's no question it couldn't have been copied from braincav.edu, because that domain was registered on 2008-09-16, and the quote in substantially the same form appeared on the Wikipedia page on 2008-08-22; the first version of that line appearing all the way back on 2002-04-28! In fact, that whole page on braincav.edu seems to have been a very light retouch of the Wikipedia page. —Kerfuffler  scratch
sniff  12:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have officially wasted enough time following up on someone's daydream. —Kerfuffler  scratch
sniff  12:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into this. Always open to analysis of the content I work on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I only looked into it because there was an allegation of copyright violation. I think it's clear someone was making **it up. —Kerfuffler  scratch
sniff  13:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose indefinite block, a week seems fine. And strongly oppose revoking user talk page access. Blocked editors are allowed to vent. If you've ever been blocked, you know it can be extremely frustrating. If you haven't, you're probably an administrator (or shooting to be one). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If there was any indication that this sort of behavior would not continue I would consider this. Mike is in contact with Anthony and Anthony can let us know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support block Indefinite isn't permanent, unblock when there is some confidence that he can be civil. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Perfectly sound admin judgment. Anyone who claims 'good work' is a get-out-of-jail-free card is erring on the wrong side of AGF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Persistent COI and self-promotion

I have gotten into a bit of a fracas on India International Friendship Society. This society hands out awards to various Indian people, both domestically and abroad, to recognize various achievements. There is some debate over the notability of these awards, as they appear to be handed out rather liberally, and perhaps (although non-verifiably) in return for donations to the IIFS. Because of this, the article becomes a magnet for anyone who has been given one of these awards to want to list themselves in the list of awardees. I have been trying to enforce Wikipedia's notability standard to this list: only awardees who meet the criteria for inclusion should be listed, in the same manner as we try to limit the list of notable residents of any place.

Recently I have been going back and forth with a particular IP editor who insists on adding what I assume must be his own name (although, as an IP editor, I cannot verify that with certainty). Not wanting to run afoul of 3RR, I have stopped undoing this editor's work. I don't know that this type of editing can exactly be called vandalism (the information is verified with a press released published in The Hindu), so I don't know how to stop it, but my attempts ([224], [225], [226]) to open a dialog about the issue, both with the IP editor (at one of the various IP addresses in use; there are several) and through edit summaries and talk page comments, have gone unanswered.

Any suggestions or assistance would be appreciated. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think at this point, taking it to the IPs page is useless, and expanding on your reasons (which seem valid to me) on the article talk page is the best course of action. I wouldn't protect the page at this point since it isn't vandalism, just content that might not pass criteria for inclusion, and protecting would be using the tools to pick a side in a content dispute. If there was more discussion about it on the talk page, full explanation, there would be a better argument. Looking at the page, I have questions about the article as a whole, for that matter. But at this stage, it is still clearly an editorial issue, not an admin issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll take this advice and move on, but at what point will the IP editor's refusal to enter into the consensus process become problematic, and what will be the proper course of action then?
    • We call it WP:ROPE, and then if we have to protect or block, we know that we took a couple extra steps to insure it was the last resort, not the first. I know...but since it isn't obvious vandalism or negative BLP material, we give a chance for not just the IP, but any other user to pipe in and offer their 2c worth on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Urklistre

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

---

User:Urklistre was blocked a few weeks ago, due to edit warring, sockpuppetry and overall disruptive behaviour (see archived ANI discussion). The block recently expired, and Urklistre seems to have returned to his previous disruptive behaviour, again deleting content from 16:10 with no reasonable explanation given, only vague allegations of a non-existent dispute ("Disputed see talk" [227] and "dont edit article during dispute." [228]). There's currently no active discussion on the article's talk page; while I did archive most of the talk page following Urklistre's block, the only active thread before the block was Urklistre agreeing with his own sockpuppet. Since an attempt on his talk page to engage him in discussion had no effect whatsoever, it seems he has learned nothing from the block, and I'm therefore escalating this to ANI. Indrek (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a completely uninvolved editor. I just checked the article's editing history and read through all discussions at Talk:16:10/Archive 1 which User:Urklistre participated in (yes, all of them) and, without commenting on actual content in dispute, I fully agree with User:Indrek's characterization of the former's behaviour as disruptive. User:Indrek and others have very patiently engaged with him on the talk page over a period of several months, offering to discuss the matter and pointing him towards the relevant policies and guidelines. User:Urklistre responds only with unilateral edits, cargo cult–like invocations of policies, and disingenuous platitudes about collaborative authorship. Whatever merit his opinions on the article's content may have, he's certainly not contributing or discussing them in a proper way. It's hard to tell whether he's being incredibly stubborn or just incompetent, but in any case he musn't be allowed to persist in this behaviour. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Y Indef blocked via WP:DE based on the socking history and tenacious manner in which they conduct themselves. Any admin is free to unblock after a sufficient application of the cluebat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Offline dispute brought to WP

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

---

I regret having to revive this at all, given the ridiculousness involved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andhow.FM.

Essentially we have two editors, User:Andhownz and User:Vander Wallace, who have maintained a battleground over the creation of an article for 107.5 AndhowNZ - a New Zealand radio station.

Basics are as follows:

1. User:Andhownz (openly a COI SPA - the owner of the station in question) created an article for his own radio station (the N page was his first edit, ever).

2. It was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andhow.FM by another SPA, User:Vander Wallace (the AfD was his first edit, ever)

3. The AfD was initially supported by me (Australian) and another (uninvolved) NZ editor, User:Stuartyeates.

4. The AfD devolved into a ridiculous slanging match between the two SPAs who eventually resorted to making off-line threats against each other (and, bizarrely, other editors). There were also veiled threats made on WP with references to calling in authorities and taking legal action. These were removed and both editors were reprimanded on their respective talk pages.

5. At some point during AfD proceedings, User:Vander Wallace contacted (in person) those news outlets responsible for the "sources" User:Andhownz was using as justification for his article and asked them to either remove them or alter the content so that the sources no longer supported the WP article. Please see this subsequent article in one of the papers in question.

6. The AfD was finalised and the original article was deleted.

7. User:Andhownz has since been working in his sandbox on recreating the original article. In the meantime, another SPA appeared yesterday (User:Reverendaquaman; described as a "friend of a the station") recreated Andhow.FM and created AndHow.FM 107.5. I can say with almost certainty that User:Reverendaquaman is a sock-puppet of User:Andhownz - this edit randomly removing content from Andhownz's talk page speaks volumes.

8.User:Vander Wallace drew this to the attention of an admin and both were deleted as recreations of a page deleted at AfD. That prompted a back-and-forth on the talk page of the original AfD with more legal threats and discussion of off-line activity. The "new" part of that conversation was subsequently deleted by User:Vander Wallace and then restored by User:Andhownz.

9. The original AfD was courtesy-blanked (given the hostilities and threats) but User:Andhownz has copy-pasted the entire content of the AfD onto his own talk page with some added post-discussion comments of his own.

I would like to suggest an extended topic-ban for both of them (and perhaps an additional socking-related reprimand for Andhownz, though I'm sure that only came about because of everything else). If either of them is serious about making a worthwhile contribution to WP, they will use a time-out to go and edit productively in other areas.

Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC).

I saw yesterday that the Afd had been blanked (Streisand effect) and read through it--I revdeleted a few posts, mostly about allegations of harassment. Someone might want to double check my work there. As for the two combatants, I'd support a interaction or topic ban, if not a WP:NOTHERE block (sorry for the double negative). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• User:Stalwart111's summary covers all the main points well. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned out both the socks sandboxes and created a report over at WikiProject Spam.--Hu12 (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This was not actually my "first edit ever" as you so eloquently have put it.

(Sorry, my mistake, I apologise. That comment should have been made in relation to User:Reverendaquaman whose first edit was to recreate the deleted article. You did have a number of edits in 2009 and 2011 which were not related to AndhowNZ. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC))

This is neither an "off-line dispute", as this is something that began on WP and then the antagonist User:Vander Wallace took this AfD argument to an ludicrous degree by slandering our article and station's reputation as a result of the original WP article on other websites and media organisations and then under further investigation had been stalking our website and Facebook pages. We have absolutely no idea who this User:Vander Wallace is or what his motives are behind the campaign that he has created. There a large number of supporters & friends of the station that have taken offense to the whole debacle and it appears that some of them have come to our defense and not all of it is acceptable support. The sandbox is where the article was saved to when it was removed as we were looking to find more reputable references for the article and resubmit it to WP when we were ready. It is apparent that someone else has taken the incentive to post this article prematurely. "not a sockpuppet" We respect the sanctity of WP, but we are completely put off by the support of the community over this whole saga. At the end of the day, we are pretty sick and fed up with WP from an authoring aspect and were not really achieving anything with our article, except for the fact to give history of something we felt was noteworthy as did our fans and supporters. Please feel free to delete whatever you deem necessary as it is not really important. The sad fact of the matter is that due to this site and the community, we became the "bad guys" in all of this when were initially maliciously targeted and never once given the opportunity to refine and update our article properly. There are volumes of articles on WP that are completely and utterly incorrect and have no supporting references but still continue to exist. Yet stalkers, antagonists and internet trolls are allowed to reek their havoc with no retribution. At the end of the day you can have your WP and it community really. We have no interests what-so-ever of being a part of it any longer. mrbluesky 05:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhownz (talk • contribs)

• Without any comment as to the merit of either side in this case, has no one here noticed the rather obvious Wikipedia:Username policy violation? I won't block right now, in the interest trying not to stifle open conversation here, but at least one contributor here needs to scurry over to Wikipedia:Changing username post haste and request a change, if not they would be blocked, and that would be a shame, as it would be best to keep everyone talking. --Jayron32 06:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The same was done on his userpage and in the AfD. He was warned by both User:Stalwart111 and User:Stuartyeates already in the AfD, yet has continued more than once. It may have the effect of people thinking he is a non-biased User:Mrbluesky, an editor that has been inactive. I won't speak to his motivation, I only know I am tired of dealing with his continual personal attacks that apparently others believe when I feel he himself, with no help from me, has proven it is unreliable. I never asked anyone to consider my merit, from the start I only wanted User:Andhownz to post better resources that met Wikipedia standards, and explained why what he did post failed that criteria as an internet radio expert. Vander Wallace (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• When I say I am being misrepresented, here is the perfect example. Look at the difference between how User:Stalwart111 describes what happened on the talk page and my actual words. Her words are accurate about User:Andhownz, but not both of us and I am tired of getting lumped into the same boat. I am going to assume it is unintentional, but I would like it to stop.

User:Stalwart111- "That prompted a back-and-forth on the talk page of the original AfD with more legal threats and discussion of off-line activity. The "new" part of that conversation was subsequently deleted by User:Vander Wallace and then restored by User:Andhownz."

What I actually said- "Is this allowed? He hasn't cited anymore new references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AndHow.FM_107.5 And I know you guys are going to say I shouldn't have looked, but he edited my user page so that I would look. I had put it behind me. Is there a way I can block this guy by IP? Thanks. Vander Wallace (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)"

And please note, this was also the only thing I deleted there, it was before User:Andhownz posted anything there, and I added the commentary "removed question due to issue was resolved, but thanks" because another admin took care of it. There was no "back and forth" involved. I feel I acted in accordance with Wikipedia standards on the talk page and in no way deserve to be dragged into this again by User:Stalwart111 because of the poor actions of User:Andhownz, but I realize it may have been unavoidable.

User:Stalwart111 makes it sound like we both did things on Wikipedia that I certainly did not, she also seems to be doing a lot of "ridiculous slanging" of her own concerning this guy's false accusations concerning me. This guy has done nothing but, it seems to me, misrepresent himself on everything, he has made unfounded personal attacks toward me, User:Stalwart111, and User:Stuartyeates. Plus has about what, 3 or 4 sockpuppets now? I notice that when another article of his got nominated for deletion that he started accusing that editor of being a bully as well, and on yet another, he accused them of harassment and retaliated by nominating one of their articles to the AfD, the nomination failed of course. This is a pattern for this guy and I would love it if someone could block User:Andhownz and all of his other names from me entirely by IP. He can say whatever he wants, he has all along, it doesn't make it true, facts do. From the start all he had to do was post better references, instead his best effort to save his article was to attack me and others personally.

The acts described as "ridiculous slanging" in the AfD, on my part was mostly simply posting facts involving the radio station's claims. He would post what I felt was a false claim and I would state the facts trying my best not to disparage him as he did me throughout. But when the facts go directly against his claims, it did have that effect. I was researching trying to confirm what was claimed in the article, what I thought I was supposed to do, check the facts, but all I found were things that not only failed to confirm the article, but seemed to me to be misrepresented. Being new, I was not sure what to do, so I kept researching and simply posting facts. Being new and gung ho, I went overboard doing that. And note, I was looking for good things to use as reference to support the article, it is not my fault I found what I found instead. Plus, as I have already stated, the last thing I should have tried first was an AfD, but I did not know that. I thought it better than starting editing articles because I might mess up something important. Read through it yourselves, I do not sling anything but facts at this guy until the very last and then, only taking up for myself in one post and that post was concerning the personal attacks about User:Stalwart111 and User:Stuartyeates.

Towards the end when I felt I was the one being harassed the whole time by the article creator, dealing with, what I consider, his unfounded personal attacks and threats towards me in the Afd, more in the rescue save area, and offline, in addition to having to field what I took as insinuations concerning what I felt were his unfounded personal attacks from both User:Stalwart111 and User:Stuartyeates, I did wonder if what this guy was saying about them were true in that one post. I also profusely apologized. I should not have even begun to believe his personal attacks on them, especially after I had seen what he posted about me, it was stupid on my part. However, I do not think one post to his multitude compares. I have never made any threats to anyone on or offline and I do not appreciate User:Stalwart111 suggesting that I have, nor her second guessing my motives based on the word of this User:Andhownz guy. She is basically doing the exact thing she lectured me about. I had left this behind, this guy edits my userpage to make me look again, I see he made a new page and posted a lot more personal accusations about me, which I ignored. I had no interest in getting re-involved, so I sought the help of people with more experience. Instead, I get this. I am not even going to read what User:Andhownz has posted here, because I know it will be more unfounded personal attacks. If I had any interest in getting involved in this again, I would have simply put up the quick delete thing myself. If a topic ban means that I do not have to deal with this guy anymore, I more than support it. As I already said, I feel I acted in accordance with Wikipedia standards on the talk page and ever since the AfD was closed. I in no way deserve to be dragged into this again because of the poor actions of User:Andhownz, but I realize it may have been unavoidable.Vander Wallace (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, we haven't blocked both of them? I had a read through the AfD the other day and there's more than enough justification for some indef blocks. Andhownz is editing with a promotional username, for a start. Neither are here to productively contribute to the 'pedia. Let's call time on this idiocy now. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITH This is my first time being an editor and this situation hasn't exactly led me to want to do more. I was fielding unfounded personal attacks from the get go. I do not think that alone should be considered as my not wanting to contribute productively to the Wikipedia as that was my only intention from the start. I do not deny I made mistakes by going overboard as a new editor, but after the AfD, I self imposed a needed time out, was taking it and was only brought back to this topic by User:Andhownz editing my userpage. Even then I tried not to get involved again by seeking out users with more experience, I felt they would know how to deal with it better and should, rather than myself. Time would prove differently if I decided to stay, but you guys do what you need to, I will understand, especially after this debacle.Vander Wallace (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Block I've just blocked Andhownz for violating the username policy. As for Vander Wallace, I reckon we need a topic ban discussion. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Commendations

While there are many ways to admonish users, there is no high-traffic way to commend users. So I unilaterally commend User:Stalwart111 and User:Stuartyeates for their fine and brave work in this discussion.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A bit of WP:WIKILOVE is the usual way. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Already done and done. Just mentioning it here at WP:AN/I so that such positive work that so often goes unappreciated may be this one time appreciated.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, they deserve medals or something.Vander Wallace (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban or interaction ban for Vander Wallace?

Points 3, 4 and 5 of Stalwart111's opening post are pretty compelling reasons in my view for a community-imposed topic ban for User:Vander Wallace. I therefore propose we institute either an interaction ban with Andhownz (and future incarnations of Andhownz), a topic ban on, oh, let's just say "low power New Zealand radio stations", or both. This ridiculous farce has been going on for weeks: let's stop it now. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The only problem is, I never made offline or online threats to User:Andhownz and certainly not to other editors. My part in slanging was one post after enduring a week of it online and offline, on WP and off, aimed in my direction from User:Andhownz and was concerning the attacks he had made on the other editors. That was wrong and I apologized and meant it. I never made veiled threats on WP or off with references to calling in authorities and taking legal action, that was User:Andhownz. Also, my motivations are being incorrectly assumed, WP:GOODFAITH. The subsequent article referred to is full of more unsubstantiated personal attacks by User:Andhownz.

I do not deny I made mistakes by going overboard as a new editor, but after the AfD, I self imposed a needed time out and topic ban, was taking it and was only brought back to this topic by User:Andhownz editing my userpage. Even then I tried not to get involved again by seeking out users with more experience, I felt they would know how to deal with it better and should, rather than myself.

As for the interaction ban, I already asked more than once for his IP to be blocked from me so I wouldn't have to deal with his harassment anymore.

I fully support this topic and interaction ban on myself, and was self imposing it on myself anyway until I was called here for further discussion. I also appreciate your patience and apologize for everyone's time wasted for the things I really did do that were ill actions. But most of what is listed in 4 and 5 were User:Andhownz, so please do not label me with his.Vander Wallace (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was going to suggest an equivalent topic or interaction ban for Andhowz as well, but I've just username blocked him. If it becomes necessary for them to have a topic or interaction ban too, we can have a discussion about it once they have sorted out their username block. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for explaining. And again, sorry for my part in the trouble. If I had not been so newbie gung ho, I would have had to endure a few personal insults and then it would have been over. Live and learn, the escalation was my fault too. Like others pointed out, I should have stopped fact checking and posting at the first AfD post, I had already made the point. It may be best for me to just do a WP:FRESHSTART. Though that feels like it would just confirm incorrect assumptions, still, I'm thinking about it and will honor the topic/interaction ban on that account too if I do. Thanks for everyone's help.Vander Wallace (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Agree Is a user allowed to agree with his own topic/interaction ban? Regardless, I do. Vander Wallace (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You can as a self imposed Topic Ban. It saves AN/I volunteers time and demonstrates good will on your behalf. Don't challange the topic ban for 6~8 months, and show constructive editing elsewhere to make it reasonable to have the restriction lifted. Hasteur (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I have no intention of challenging the ban, it can be permanent as far as I am concerned, but I appreciate your advice.Vander Wallace (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• The very first edit of Vander Wallace with this account shows that he is an experienced editor. Although not linking any policies, he can name quite a few [229] and undestands issues like secondary sources and so forth. I have a feeling this might not be his first or only Wikipedia account. Given that he has been a disruptive SPA, an indef block isn't out of the picture. However given his promise to stay away from the topic, I think this can be closed as a voluntary topic ban without further ado. However, any violation of this pledge should result in a swift indef block. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand that is a compliment you would think such after I flubbed it so royally, however, if I was not brand new, I would have known better than to have gone so overboard. The unfortunate difference between book learning, and learning from experience. I invite anyone to check my IP, you will find no other names under it and I feel it is unfair to assert such without foundation. Though, I do appreciate the acknowledgement of proposed good will. If you see 3.2 How to nominate a single page for deletion, it's all right there in easy steps via the magic of WP and that's what I followed. Also, am I supposed to respond individually here, or do I just shut up and let people say whatever they want? I really don't know, so I would appreciate some insight. If I am doing it wrong, it isn't intentional.Vander Wallace (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:64.18.36.69

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

---

This user has been warned repeatedly on their talk page yet continued their vandalism activity on the article Bled as is visible on the history page here. This IP should be blocked to prevent further damage to wikipedia content. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 15:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In the future, you should report vandalism to WP:AIV. This however is not a blocking situation as the user has not touched the article since receiving the 2nd or 3rd warning (could go either way). You may also want to sign your ANI notice that you left on their talk page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Moving a page to a salted name

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

---

I tried to perform a non-admin closure on a requested move at Talk:Martin John Callanan (artist). The nominator there indicates that she proposed G4 speedy deletion, but it was declined, with the administrator ruling that the new article was substantially different from the deleted version. I'm unable to move the article myself or use {{db-move}}, so I'm hoping someone can make the move for me. The move itself proved uncontroversial. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Y Done I also added two oldafd tags to the talk page. — Scientizzle 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --BDD (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Long running edit war without discussion at Bigg Boss 6

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

---

• Imtitanium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sunilvit09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These users are in a long running content dispute on various Big Boss articles, they are just adding and reverting content and refusing to discuss problems in the talk page. Imtitanium is showing signs of WP:OWN and has falsely raised AIV reports for what is essentially a content dispute. Both users have been warned about WP:3RR here and here. Imtitanium responded with accusations of vandalism and threats to leave the project as can be seen at the revision here.

Neither parties seem willing to discuss the article, both should perhaps be warned by an uninvolved admin. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see this here, but saw it at WP:AIV. Sunilvit09 is adding fake information to the article; I doubt Jessica Alba and some random engineering student are going to be in the Indian version of Big Brother. I've blocked Sunilvit09 as a vandalism-only account. I can see how it looked like a content dispute, but Imtitanium was reverting vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

These are often hard to figure out unless you know the subject matter. This stealth vandalism is really a form of trolling and indef is the only answer, as it causes a lot of frustration for the reverting good faith editor who may not be as determined as the troll. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks

User:Bali ultimate reverted an edit of mine, claiming - without a shred of evidence or proof (for which there exists none) - that I am an "activist" on behalf of a certain group of people. The edit I inserted was simply an allegation that a bunch of sheep were eating dozens of trees in a night, to an article on conspiracy theories in a conflict.

The edit summary states: "there is nothing conspiratorial about settlers disruipting the olive harvets. that happens. removes deceptive claim made by settler activist."

While the first part of the edit summary deals with a content dispute over whether sheep can really eat dozens of trees in one night, the second part (the part that I bolded) is a direct personal attack on myself, without any proof, and I find it to be highly offensive. The editor, Bali Ultimate, has been around for a while and should know better, and he was even blocked as early as June for 10 days (although for a separate reason, he disrupted an ArbCom case).

While searching the archives, I found another example of Bali launching a personal attack for which he can't back up evidence, where at this AE case he accuses (as a fact) certain editors of coordinating Wikipedia activity offline. Specifically, Bali wrote "Strategic reverting, coordinated by email, to put the other "side" in the soup for naughty, naughty "reverts" has been taken to an art form in this topic area (by one "side" far more persistently than the other)."

I find these personal attacks, which Bali writes as definitive facts without zero proof (and I know, for one, that I'm not a "settler activist"), highly offensive and troubling to encounter.

--Activism1234 21:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You might want to explain why being called a "settler activist" might be considered a personal attack - I see it as a mistaken (based on your explanation) assumption that you're part of a group based on the type of edits being made. Perhaps you could point me to where you tried to discuss the meaning of the phrase with Bali directly so I can have a look? dangerouspanda 21:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a defamation of my name. Now, I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, I'm actually an activist (who knows, maybe I'm paid too!) who should be constantly monitored, and the fact that I'm an activist may even suffice to revert some of my edits, and can be used in edit summaries. It's insulting to me - I'm being labelled as someone that I'm not. I'm an editor, I'm not an activist for anyone, and that claim has no proof whatsoever. --Activism1234 22:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The phrase is a phrase that labels me as an activist for settlers. I'm not an activist for anyone - period. If I was called an activist for movie directors, I'd reject that too as a false labelling of my name and defamation without any actual evidence that I am said activist. Even if my edits appear to support a particular POV, say movie directors, would that make me an activist?? Of course not. Bali can't prove that, and will never be able to, because I'm not. --Activism1234 22:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

But why is it "defamation of your name"? Your userid says "Activism" and does not identify you directly as a person. Being misidentified as being part of a group? Really? dangerouspanda 22:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

My name as an editor, not my userid. Yes, my userid says "Activism" - does that make me an activist?? I'm expressing my goal of being an active editor, not of being an "activist," for which no evidence exists. Again, we also have that claim by Bali that there's a group of editors who engage in off-Wikipedia activities to coordinate their edits, a claim he stated as a fact, without any evidence. Then there are further attacks on me below. --Activism1234 22:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes that was me. I believe your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to make Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general look bad, and to support a particular faction within Israel's political discourse (in shorthand, I'll call it the settler movement). My evidence is your editing behavior here, which I've looked off and on for a few months. (You popped up on my watchlist when I checked in today on a really awful hit piece I helped fix a while ago). Your antics at Maureen Dowd recently may also be of interest. Do I care about your beliefs, what's in your heart? No. But the way you act on them here, to skew content on one of the most highly trafficked websites there is, does concern me. It should concern more people. I understand it won't.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Another attack on me... I'm trying to fathom how some articles I created and made substantial contributions to, like 2012 Nigeria floods, Mostafa Hussein Kamel, Nagwa Khalil, Momtaz al-Saeed, Shaanxi bus-tanker crash, August 2012 Caracas prison riot, Marikana miners' strike, Menachem Cohen (scholar), Hisham Zazou, or Deeper Life Church shooting, none of which have anything to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict, can possibly be evidence that my "sole purpose on Wikipedia is to make Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general look bad." So yes, here's another personal attack for me that labels me as someone that I am not.

I edit based on RS outlets, if there's a specific problem with an edit of mine, feel free to discuss it with me on the article. For example, I'd be happy to discuss the content-specific aspect of this edit on that article, but the personal attack was just incendiary. Simply put - it's false. You made a gross assumption and believed it as a fact, and then defamed me as such. --Activism1234 22:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you find the label "activist" to be offensive maybe you should have chosen another username?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my userid says "Activism" - does that make me an activist?? I'm expressing my goal of being an active editor, not of being an "activist," for which no evidence exists. Why am I labelled as a particular type of activist? As I showed above, Bali has attacked me further, claiming that I have only one sole purpose on Wikipedia, which I punctured by demonstrating a variety of articles I've created or significantly expanded and worked on which aren't even related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yet Bali singles me out as a "settler activist." --Activism1234 22:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that if a user with the name "activism" makes edits that can be seen as tendentious or motivated by a political stance it is unreasonable to expect that others don't call you out on it. If you don't want to be called "settler activist" then 1. change your username and 2. be sure to edit in ways that do not seem biased in favor of settlers.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Settler activist" is not an insult. If you make edits that appear to have some specific POV, don't be surprised if someone mistakes you for having a POV. The title itself is not an insult, so it cannot violate NPA dangerouspanda 22:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

He's publicly labelling me as an activist. Not even just "reverting a POV," but going the step to say I'm an activist in real life for them. That's something he can't corroborate. --Activism1234 22:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, so what. Being an activist of any type is not an insulting term dangerouspanda 22:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"going the step to say I'm an activist in real life...". Your Wikipedia editing is part of your 'real life'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's just note that your edit, Activism1234, with the edit summary " add, sheep don't eat dozens of trees overnight (edited with ProveIt))" was blatant original research. There was absolutely nothing in the source you cited that characterised the event as a conspiracy theory. If you intend to make inventive edits like that, you really don't belong in this project, understood? --JN466 22:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite. And by the way, the implication is not that the sheep ate trees whole, bark, trunk and all overnight. It's a pissed off farmer complaining that the sheep ate the... wait for it... the fruit, presumably all the fruit they could get to (olive and other orchard trees are pruned to stay low). Did that really happen? Don't know. Does "Activism" who abhors being called an "activist" know the reality of what happened? No. All we have is a probably badly translated article from Maan (which doesn't say what he claimed it said). Did Maan news agency write what he claimed they wrote? No. Straight down the rabbit hole, we all go. Blech.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Activism1234 needs to be warned for WP:OR insertions. And putting "activism" in his user name skirts what's acceptable WP:BAIT, given his POV pushing unsupported by sources which may caused by WP:COMPETENCE or WP:ACTIVISM issues. In any case, Activism1234 is a disruptive user name, and should receive a WP:UAA block in light of his editing. To put it more bluntly if someone registers User:POVPushing1234, does some WP:POVPUSHing and then runs screaming to ANI that he is being "discriminated" because of his user name when people object to his editing, we should oblige with WP:BOOMERANG. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm curious why someone with a user name like Activism1234 is so badly disconcerted by being called an "activist?" (For one thing, there are a couple areas in which I'm an activist, and proud to be so.) Even given the dubious premise that the word "activist" has been smeared as pejorative in the same way "liberal" has been in this country, one would think that someone who felt that the word was pejorative wouldn't use a similar construction as a user name. I strongly disagree that his user name is "disruptive" - perhaps Tijfo098 could explain that startling assertion to us? - but I do agree that he protesteth too much. Ravenswing 08:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, if it's a personal attack to be called something that's semantically extremely related to (and possibly implied by) his user name, then his user name must also be unacceptable. I doubt that User:CockSucking would be allowed to edit, for instance. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Something of a strawman, don't you think? That being said, I don't think it's one bit more acceptable for us to be pointy at ANI than anywhere else on Wikipedia. The proper response to the OP is "Don't be absurd," not to compel him to change his user name because it allegedly incites people to insult ... which - you would have to concede - would presuppose we bought into the OP's silly premise that he was insulted, and would likewise follow that we would be taking action against the putative culprits. Ravenswing 08:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Pointy boomerang? Naah... Tijfo098 (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The tag-teaming by committed partisans whose sole interest here is to make Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims in general look bad (and in childish fashion no less) is very sad. What's sadder is that nothing will be done about it. [230].Bali ultimate (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I mean really. Nonsense to "get" the "other side" is inerted by User:Activism1234. I remove it. Then User:Dixy flyer, a rather obvious throwaway sock account for the IP battleground (all of six edits total), reverts me. Then User:AnkhMorpork, another of the anti-Arab, pro-Israel editors reverts me. Then User:Shrike, another of their "team" revets me -- all to force the inclusion of material that fails Wikipedia's own sourcing standards and is manifestly inappropriate. This happens every day. Ah, crowd-sourcing.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup. The Zionist/Pro-Israel activist tag team (which is quite clearly what they are) are engaging in WP:OR (mingled with sheer ignorance) to insert more propaganda into what must be one of Wikipedia's most ludicrous articles - and then AnkhMorpork has the chutzpah to invoke WP:ARBPIA restrictions, as if adding the material in the first place wasn't overt POV-pushing of the most ridiculous kind. Par for the course though - this lot have been around long enough to know how to subvert every rule in order to pursue their agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy, you are refering to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKHKp7h71kQ I"srael pays propagandists to "edit" (corrupt) Wikipedia " or what other tag team do you know about? I thought wikipedia stopped such Wikipedia:GAME tactics long ago. you are saying activism1234 is part of this tag team group?Smithsonianshouse (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What I am referring to is the consistent behaviour of a group of editors (of which Activism1234 is one) that systematically act in unison to spin articles relating to Israel, Zionism, Islam and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an overtly partisan fashion, and game the system (i.e. 1RR restrictions, which clearly assists tag-teaming) to do so. Whether they are coordinated outside Wikipedia is actually irrelevant - they aren't here to 'improve Wikipedia', they are here to spin articles to promote their cause. Some of them are clever enough to also work on unrelated articles to provide 'legitimacy' - or indeed they may actually do it because they enjoy it - but their objectives remain clear, and any benefit that Wikipedia gains as a result of work on unrelated material is by far outweighed by their actions in relation to the POV they promote. They are a net liability, and should be topic-banned from any material even remotely related to the subjects they put so much effort into spinning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Talking about "spinning" I would like to invite additional editors to the discussion at Talk:Maureen Dowd#Anti-Semitic_controversy regarding a discussion concerning spin-related labels for Dowd which this user has been trying to add to the article. Thanks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The false information, which rests on lying about the claims of a published source, has now been restored again by User:Activism1234. This is how Wikipedia "content" gets made. There is no editorial-control to deal with propaganda and, frankly, viciousness, from a group of ethno-nationalists here to share their hatred for others.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia has functioned since its inception (on such topics). Okay, they've added the ArbCom 1RR at some point, which actually increased the importance of disciplined, coordinated revert teaming. Lamentation at ANI is not going to change that. Stick to the game's rules and keep a stiff upper lip. Or go someplace else. I hear they've opened a WP:TEAHOUSE with professional web design and a relaxing atmosphere! Tijfo098 (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I just occasionally try to fix particularly egregious and vicious things here. I mostly spend time on worthier pursuits, i.e. [231].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Content-based conflict at Tanka prose

I am currently involved in a rather heated dispute at Talk:Tanka prose, and I am not sure what to do about it.

The dispute involves one user (User:Tristan noir) who created an article four years ago on the modern English genre of tanka prose. The article, however, made bizarre, unsourced claims about originating in ancient Japanese literature, despite the term being anachronistic in reference to pre-modern Japanese works.

He/she (from here on, for convenience, I will assume the user is male) basically claimed the article as his own, and almost any edit by other editors was immediately reverted.

When I first came across the article, I was very confused; I thought "tanka prose" was a translation of the Japanese term uta monogatari, which literally means "poem (exclusively, tanka) prose-fiction", so I moved the article to that location, citing a lack of usage of the term tanka prose in reputable secondary sources on Japanese literature. He responded by blankly reverting my move and other edits, as well as User:Bagworm's removal of a few unsourced statements he had made.

He still refused to cite reputable sources that backed up his claims.

I responded by re-reverting his unsourced reversion, and posting a comment on the Talk page where I cited several sources and challenged what little literature he quoted (which was written by people with very little awareness of Japanese language/literature). He responded by finally admitting that he was writing based on modern English literature, and claimed (unjustifiably) that his article had never claimed to be about Japanese literature.

At around this time, he apparently called in an ally, User:Kujakupoet, to back him up. This latter user made personal attacks against me, and completely ignored the substance of our dispute. Kujakupoet suddenly appeared and made single comment, claiming to have "just happened to be" looking for a tanka prose article and been shocked by what he somehow knew was the work of one editor and knew to post on the talk page in response -- this seems highly unlikely. He more recently made a similarly irrelevant, ad hominem remark]. This seems very likely, under the circumstances, to be a tag team, since both users have made barely 100 edits in four years, on very closely-related topics.

At this point, I suggested a compromise, which Tristan noir immediately agreed to, that the article I produced at uta monogatari remain as is, and tanka prose (then a redirect) be rewritten by him to focus exclusively on the modern English genre, and not to make bizarre claims about ancient Japanese literature.

However, I realized that his sources all made the same bizarre claims as his article had, and it would be difficult to construct an encyclopedia article without using these sources and making the same claims, so I posted a hidden remark on the then-redirecting talk page expressing this fear. I hoped that he would take this opinion into account in his rewrite, or reconsider producing a rewrite at all.

But when he finally produced his rewrite, I was disappointed with the results.

His new article made the same claims of ancient Japanese origin as before, in clear violation of our agreement. Except that this time, he had worded the article in such a way that it never directly stated that "tanka prose" existed in ancient Japan, but rather included a lengthy remark about so-called "prosimetra" (prose-plus-poetry) in ancient Japan.

I never disputed that ancient Japanese literature combined poetry and prose, but merely stated that the term "tanka prose" would be anachronistic, and is therefore not used in academic literature. His new rewrite, however, basically implies that the ancient Japanese literature discussed is in some way related to modern English "tanka prose".

He included references to two apparently reliable sources on ancient Japanese literature, but one of them is very old and out-of-print in both Japan and the United States (a complete copy on Amazon.jp would cost well over 10,000 yen [232][233][234][235][236], and one in English would cost $500 dollars [237][238][239]) and is very difficult to access. The other, an article by Helen McCullough, has clearly been taken out of context (he cited earlier in the dispute its inclusion in a book about prosimetra as being in itself evidence in his support).

He continually refuses to provide quotations from these sources that justify the use of the phrase "tanka prose".

I initially tried to remove one very bizarre statement from the new article (which wasn't even in the previous version) that nikki bungaku (diary literature) includes fictional tales (monogatari) and poetry anthologies (shū). It is reasonable to discuss a certain small sub-genre of waka-shū (private collections that are written in a diary-style) as falling under the category of nikki-bungaku, but not all waka-shū, which most notably includes Imperially-sponsored anthologies (chokusen-shū). (The statement included one reference to the aforementioned obscure/expensive source, but clearly was out-of-context, because no respected source on Japanese literature would make such a claim.) He immediately reverted my edit, apparently thinking that simply having a source that claims something remotely similar to what the statement claims makes this behaviour justifiable.

As of now, I have grown weary of being cautious in my edits, and I am tired of being attacked personally and professionally without being able to fight back (I have tried throughout to be civil). I posted on the talk page that, since a significant portion of the middle of the new article signified a clear violation of the previous agreement, I intended to delete it, before going ahead with it.

I am not sure about what Tristan noir's response to this will be, but I was wondering if anyone has any advice about this issue? The users in question clearly do not understand Wikipedia policies on civility and other concepts, and I have become very weary of dealing with their personal attacks. I know the dispute still isn't at the point of seeking arbitration, but I'm not sure about bringing in opinions from the Wikipedia community. Since he has cited "sources" (he appears to have read them with the prejudiced attitude of looking for sources to justify statements he had already formulated), and it may appear to the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians who don't have access to those rare, expensive sources that his statements as they are now are justified.

For those who check all the lengthy background of this dispute, you will notice that I had harsh words for Jeffrey Woodward (the principle source for Tristan noir's claims) -- that he is non-academic, unreliable, offensive, etc. This might seem extreme out of context, but everything I have read by him contains major problems due to his ignorance of classical Japanese literature. It would be very difficult to summarize these problems here, but I actually wrote him an e-mail detailing them and politely requesting that he not repeat them in future publications (they are all recurring errors). I would be happy to post an appropriate portion of the text of this e-mail here or elsewhere on Wikipedia if anyone requires further details. (However, several of my principle complaints are already on the relevant talk pages.)

elvenscout742 (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a largely content based dispute, you're more likely to get the right sort of help at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Blackmane (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The misrepresentations of fact, with respect to the compromise on content that was made and, indeed, as regards various other matters raised by Elvenscout in his remarks above, are so numerous that it would be tiresome to list them all here and offer a counter-argument for each. Suffice it to say that I did agree, as did he, to a compromise, but I did not agree, in the terms of that compromise, to avoid any mention of Japanese literature; I specifically stated that I would refrain, where possible, from discussing the subject. There is indeed a serious dispute about content as regards the article in question. I welcome the interest of any neutral third party, administrator or otherwise, in reviewing the discussions that Elvenscout alludes to here at the original Talk Page and here at the Talk Page where the revised article is posted; I would welcome a review as well of his comments in his Edit Summaries here and again here. I mention the later because the tone of his remarks in the Edit Summaries consistently echoes the tone displayed in his Talk Page comments. That tone is dismissive and disparaging, and is offered with a relentless parade of pejorative adjectives and adverbs. His comments, from the first, have not been offered in a spirit of cooperation or of joint work with a fellow editor but often revert to the personal level. There is also the associated problem that Elvenscout appears to have claimed ownership of all matters pertaining to the vast field of Japanese literature; no comment on the subject can be offered without a laundry list of objections from him and no sentence that touches even marginally upon the topic can appear without his say-so. In his latest action, he has removed half of the posted article in question, a major edit by anyone’s definition, and he has done so unilaterally. He did not attempt to challenge the citations or to refute them nor, in fact, to consult them. Instead, he imputes, in his usual personal manner, bad faith on the part of another editor (see the Talk Page again), and offers that as his justification for the unilateral move. Again, I welcome the interest of any neutral third party in this matter.Tristan noir (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Mpdt and Metal Wani

Mpdt (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account exclusively used to add reviews and references from the website MetalWani.com (diffs: [240] [241]). This is also possibly a spamming effort to promote his/her website. The website doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and at least two editors (MrMoustacheMM (talk · contribs) and Backtable (talk · contribs)) have warned Mpdt about his edits [242] [243]. Mpdt doesn't respond, and instead blanks his talk page [244] [245] [246]. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked until they begin to respond to other editors' good faith concerns. They've been blanking their talk page and continuing on as before for many months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that person is somewhat irritating. (S)he has not even tried to discuss with us why the website should be on Wikipedia, and instead posts the review all over the place on his or her own volition. Mpdt has disregarded the multiple warnings against this behavior, and continues to embark in it nonetheless. The block is justified. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: I did not know that Mpdt was blocked indefinitely. I'm totally cool with that. It's no surprise that (s)he did not bother to comment here. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat from school IP

204.78.76.4 showed up at Talk:Conditionalism rice contesting the speedy deletion tag put on the article multiple times, in one instance claiming that he "can sue yall asses for discrimination". CtP (t • c) 20:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a school kid who has already gone home for the day and no longer at that IP so no action is necessary. If he decides to bring it up tomorrow then we'll revisit this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had already blocked. A network person at the school needs to request unblock. While I can be lenient as to the unblock, the fact is that responsibility isn't reduced simply because it is inconvenient. I've provided a time stamp for their network admin, as well as the quote. If an admin thinks I've been too harsh and that my actions are counter to WP:DOLT, I will defer to their judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the a block was justified. I made my initial post just seven minutes after the incident occurred, so it is possible that the kid was still in school. (Maybe time zones are playing tricks on us…) CtP (t • c) 20:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC) You know what? You guys are right, 1 year is excessive and and block is more deserved for vandalism than NLT. My apologies. CtP (t • c) 18:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A block here was justified, but really more for the vandalism and nonsense than on the basis that this was a serious legal threat. Unless there is more background here than initially meets my eye, a one-year block requiring intervention by the school authorities to lift strikes me as serious overkill. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'n with NYB on this. This reads like a dynamic IP or, at best, a publicly availible one (library computer, something like that). The chance that the same person is going to sit at the same computer tomorrow is next to nil, and if they do there's always WP:ROPE. That is, there's nothing to be gained from a block that long here. A short block, like 24 or 31 hours, gets the job done. And this was not a serious legal threat, it's some teenager fucking with us. I've seen serious legal threats, and this ain't it. --Jayron32 20:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I was talking NLT quite literal, one of the very few places I'm not very flexible. But again, if any admin wants to modify the term or terms, I don't claim ownership of anything, and no hard feelings will be had. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• If WP:NLT really says that we should block an IP for a year because some kid said "this goes against my race and religion and i can sue yall asses for discrimination" then we really need to rewrite WP:NLT. I'm going to revise the block to just be a plain vanilla vandalism block, and we can escalate if they return. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC) p.s. actually, there's nothing but vandalism coming from this IP, so I've replaced it with a 3 month school block. If it resumes in 2013, then the one year block will have seemed prescient. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  If is fine to disagree with the term, but what I was doing was the exact same thing we would have done with a registered user, without discriminating, without assuming their age, or if they were a student, janitor or teacher. And yes, there is a history of problems with that IP, which is why I felt it was necessary to ask someone of authority request the unblock, if only to insure they knew what was going on. My response might have been strong, but I think some may be missing the finer points. And as always, any admin is welcome to change any action I make. It clearly says that on my user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to run in 5 minutes, so don't have time to organize my thoughts properly, but when we interpret vandalism as a legal threat, or (in other cases I see on ANI all the time) block someone immediately for a legal threat when really it's just someone frustrated and unclear on how we work here, we devalue WP:NLT, and make it less meaningful on those handful of cases when it should be used. If I had my way, blocks for legal threats would only occur after a warning and a pointer to WP:NLT, and a repeat of the threat; zero tolerance on this kind of thing is counter-productive. Also, blocking a named account for legal threats if they had posted that would have been equally wrong, IMHO, because it wasn't anything close to an actual legal threat, it was vandalism; the named account would have been blocked long ago as a vandalism-only account. We treat shared IP's differently than named accounts all the time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep the IP hardblocked for the remainder of the school year, and consider an indefinite block of the IP. If the school district's administration cannot control their unruly students about what they do online, then should at least help them in ensuring that they're doing what they are supposed to be doing. --MuZemike 07:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur with schoolblock - I've hardblocked school IPs for the entire school year before now on the grounds that the grownups ought to be supervising the little darlings better, not letting them on a penis vandalism spree every lunchbreak. Also concur with the sentiment that the statement did not fall into NLT territory (who was it going to have a chilling effect on after all ?). Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, my very first edits (pre-registering, I must add) were as a bored school vandal - and now I'm an admin. Who'd've thunk it? GiantSnowman 16:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

keeps removing "pornographic" images after last warning

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

---

Dujomc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing images because they are "pornographic"[247], and edit-warring to keep the images out. He has removed another image after being given a last warning. --83.53.133.179 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the editor of this discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Kept doing it, now blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Increasingly disruptive edits & hounding.

User:Insomesia has taken to following me around, providing that editor's view on a subject of interest to her (Ray Blanchard, mostly), but unrelated to any of the actual discussions in question. [248] [249] [250]

Insomesia appears to have developed some deep (but mistaken) beliefs about my beliefs, and at least one other editor has cautioned Insomesia on the repeatedly inappropriate editing wrt me,[251]. I have repeatedly suggested Insomesia bring her concern to the appropriate noticeboard (probably COIN),[252][253][254] to no avail. That is, rather than actually bring the concern to an appropriate forum[255], where they might receive input on the correct application of COI, Insomesia has instead decided to police me according to her own interpretation. Some eyes and guidance would, I hope, forestall escalation.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've not been following you at all, if anything I noticed this from the RfC opened up on the issue of COI editing which I had found problematic on other articles. If memory serves me correct I encountered James Cantor at Benjamin scale where they tried to erase the article by merging it to Classification of transsexuals, a biased-at-the-time and chiefly written by this user article that supports their fringe views which are put on equal or higher scale than that of non-controversial views. After that they tried to delete this well known subject and an AfD saved it. Blanchard et al hold what many consider to be controversial views and this editor has a history of promoting Blanchard et al and their views (See this search from their former account). They have installed a "pledge" (see User:James Cantor) which may need to be expanded. It seems they might have broader COI issues as is asserted presently at Michael C. Seto#RfC puffery from COI editor in Michael C. Seto?. There is a history of pro-POV Blanchard activism and COI editing and this user has the hallmarks of being at the heart of it and continuing to do. Looking through some of the past discussions they were often labored and circular with the community throwing out original and fringe research and merging articles. As I follow to see where some "unique" redirects come from I notice the recurring Blanchard and Blanchard-adjacent discussions.

Blanchard's transsexualism typology is one of the end results and the article was heavily edited and the lead now reads, in part, Scientific criticism of the research and theory has come from John Bancroft, Jaimie Veale, Larry Nuttbrock, Charles Allen Moser, and others who argue that the theory is poorly representative of MtF transsexuals, reduces gender identity to a matter of attraction, is non-instructive, and that the research cited in support of the theory has inadequate control groups or is contradicted by other data. Supporters of the theory include J. Michael Bailey, Anne Lawrence, James Cantor, and others who argue that there are significant differences between the two groups, including sexuality, age of transition, ethnicity, IQ, fetishism, and quality of adjustment. (emphasis added)

This would seem to summarize the COI concerns which have a pattern in the past and evidently continue. I'm not doing any policing but I do monitor article alerts on the lgbt page as in the past I've opened a few discussions myself. For my part I will try to keep the discussion focussed, when that focus includes a likely COI issue that has arisen many times over the years I think addressing that clearly can have benefits to those who are better served knowing a possible COI exists. If you feel I've crossed the line I do apologize. I'm not eager to invest my energy here to take you to the COI noticeboard which you seem to be familiar. But that remains an option and if someone needs a statement from me I can spend time to compile something. Insomesia (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem, you see. What if, just for the sake of argument, I am correct in that I am editing perfectly within COI and all other applicable guidelines? You certainly aren't going to accept that from me. But by refusing to bring your concern to COIN, you are also unable to hear it from any uninvolved editors familiar with WP:COI. (Or, of course, a consensus that I am editing inappropriately.) So, you are instead going from page to page warning people about me for violating a policy that I am entirely within.— James Cantor (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assertion that your editing is not violating at least the spirit of COI editing. History suggests that you will continue to do so. Perhaps your voluntary pledge needs to be greatly expanded or others' involvement to draft a ban of some sort is called for. Insomesia (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I did forget about Susan Stryker ([256]) and a string of prods of transwomen that the user also tried to delete, I think all of the subjects of those articles are on record as being opposed to Blanchard et al as well, or have publicly added to the protests against their research. Insomesia (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I had a string of prods on a variety of topics. Why you have only noticed the transwomen among them I cannot know.

Insomesia's only appropriate courses of action are to bring her concern to the appropriate place or to cease repeating her accusations. To repeat them but refuse to take any step to resolve them is not appropriate.— James Cantor (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the transwomen ones as they popped up on the LGBT alerts page. When I saw a whole string in a row I looked at the prodder, you, I brought up my concerns when and where I thought it was appropriate, that is my step to resolve, the ball is your court. Insomesia (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, I noticed your PRODs of a number of trans topics via the WikiProject Article alerts page, and would have dePRODed several of them myself had it not already been done for me. I don't know if Insomesia has been following your edits or not, but that isn't the only possibility; your pattern of nominations (PRODing obviously notable individuals or organizations that all have a certain something in common) has, frankly, also been disruptive to the point where outside monitoring is not out of the question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Cantor's involvement in trying to delete transsexual biographies is an abominable conflict of interest. This looks like a case of boomerang, the complaint returning to hit the complainant. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't want to say "I told you so", but I was involved in a similar brouhaha with User:James Cantor some years back. (There are probably some ANI archives, but I can't be bothered.) I have mixed feelings about his edits to Wikipedia. On one hand we clearly want experts to improve articles. I'm less convinced we want experts (or non-experts) who are involved in real-life controversies using Wikipedia to further their side of some social/scientific debate. I'm not sure it's even possible to separate the two concerns in this case so I've stepped back. The user names involved in the prior disputes were all different except for that of James Cantor. I'll let you judge if that means anything or not. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Should the community decide that the voluntary pledge has not been working well enough, a solution would be to topic ban User:James Cantor from BLP material, while still allowing him to edit scientific material in his area of expertise. There is precedent for that in the ARBCC case. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)