Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive781

Backlog at SPI: Will somebody please block this latest User:Mangoeater1000 sockpuppet?

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.

---

Because of the backlog at SPI (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000), and because this is clearly a WP:DUCK situation not requiring a check user, will an admin please block User:Mirafori as one of the many sockpuppets of Mangoeater1000 editing NYU Poly articles (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000/Archive). Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, NuclearWarfare! 72Dino (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

IP vandalism of MMA articles

Resolved

 – blocked for 1 month. Materialscientist (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

188.75.201.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was warned and then blocked for vandalism and abuse of editing privileges on 24 November 2012. Since then, the IP editor has returned to vandalism of MMA articles on several occasions. On 9 December, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Brandon Vera and was reverted. On 11 December, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Gabriel Gonzaga and was reverted. On 17 December, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Pat Barry (fighter) and was reverted. Today, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Alexander Volkov (fighter). I noticed after another IP blanked the section, an action I thought was vandalism and reverted but then noticed that the record was ridiculous (fights in 2028, for example). The IP has not had a talk page message since the block, so an AIV post would be pointless but my just posting a vandalism warning seems an under-reaction. I have not seen any edit that was constructive, though I haven't checked every edit. Would an admin like to take some action, please? I'll post the ANI notice to the IP after saving this edit. EdChem (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have posted notification at the IP editor's talk page. EdChem (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is stale now, but I would like to understand why this request wasn't even worth a response... EdChem (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking action, Materialscientist, and that I wasn't reporting for no reason. EdChem (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Aryan2012 and expiration of protection on Omar Bakri Muhammad

It appears the above user has made a return to Wikipedia. The user in question used a series of accounts to wage a campaign of sanitization of referenced material on Omar Bakri Muhammad. This led to the article being protected for a period which expired on 3 Jan 2013. It appears the person in question has returned now that protection has expired. He/she appears to have also returned to their other hobby-horse of subjects related to Cyprus. I have reverted their edits to National Federation of Cypriots as some of these just render the meaning of the article nonsense (as well as changing the organization's name). I also have my doubts on Nikos Sampson, its the first time a reference has been supplied here (even if it is to a book on Amazon without page numbers), however I have left the edits for now to see if someone with access might be able to verify the reference. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, User:Britishpatriot2014 does quack very loudly, but I'm certainly not going to disagree with this edit of theirs, because whether a BLP subject's daughter has a job as an exotic dancer is utterly irrelevant and undue. I'd suggest raising an SPI in the meantime. Black Kite (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Union Flag move to Union Jack

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 August 2012, there was a request for moving a page from Union Flag to Union Jack without, from what I can see, any compelling arguement to do so. This is a controversial move that should not have happened, and there have been a few other users to comment that there wasn't a concensus reached to move this page. I'm not sure how the Admin came to this controversial decision. I'm appealing for this decision to be reversed as it was made without any consensus to move the page. – Marco79 04:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you try discussing this with Jenks first? Or did you come straight here? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Jenks24 seems to be inactive since November, but I did put a notice on user's talk page, which I think should be enough. – Marco79 05:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I watched that move discussion. It was not a good one. The move was proposed on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. Most of the opponents argued that while it might be common, it's wrong. Since such posts completely missed the point of WP:COMMONNAME, I can understand why the move occurred. Since opponents missed the point of WP:COMMONNAME, they feel ripped off. Attempts at explanation at the time got nowhere. I doubt if they will now. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I participated in the RM (and supported moving it) and HiLo's description is 100 percent correct. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think HiLo48 has missed the point too. Some of the opponents were making the point that they are both common names, but one is a more correct terminology (ie, Union Flag) then the other (ie, Union Jack). Some of the supporters were only supporting common name and not making any other claims as to why. – Marco79 05:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of the supporters were also dismissing the term Union Flag as a common name, even though many media outlets now use it (ie, BBC in Britain, ABC in Australia, various worldwide newspapers, etc.) and it is also used in pop culture (ie, Doctor Who, etc), so to say that it is uncommon is not right. – Marco79 05:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In the UK the expression is not "waving a union flag" (most Brits wouldn't have a clue what that meant): it is "waving a union jack". That would apply to commentary during the BBC's coverage of the Queen's Jubilee (despite the rain). Mathsci (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no expression for "waving a union jack either"! Do you have any evidence to support your statement that "Brits wouldn't have a clue what that meant"? I doubt it. And the BBC commentary used the term union flag most of the time, apart from ocassional lapses to union jack. - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is it a "lapse" to say Union Jack? Are you sure you're really being objective here, or pushing a particular POV? HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are some examples from the BBC.[1][2] (jack/flag "pedantry" is discussed by an expert) [3], [4], etc. Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we can all find references on the BBC [5] [6] [7]. Your last penultimate one is a comment from a member of the public, rather than from the BBC per se. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Schrodinger's cat is alive, why not just go and order that BBC "Union Jack Party Set" while stocks last? There's certainly plenty of Union Jack saucers for milk or even cream, if you feel like celebrating. Mathsci (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Either way, there is certainly no consensus to move, as can be seen from the page, so why was the decision taken? - SchroCat (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Two editors aggressively opposed does not prevent a consensus in support of a move. It's worth noting that the closing Admin's comments included the words "The comments in support are significantly stronger, in terms of Wikipedia policy, than those in oppose." I'm pleased to see quality of argument being credited here. Too many want such discussions to be treated as a vote. We don't vote here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Jenks24 said "The comments in support are significantly stronger, in terms of Wikipedia policy, than those in oppose." Now I haven't read through the discussion but that does not negate the fact that they thought there was one. I noticed the discussion was closed 29 August 2012 and the page moved the same day. It's now just over four months later. I would have thought that if it was really important you would have contested it earlier. Go back to the talk page and try again. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghits: "Union flag" – 6,110,000; "Union jack" – 14,800,000. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not altogether scientific. No explanation of the use of "union jack", which is a correct term for the union flag on the jack-staff of a boat: a significant proportion of those uses would also be accounted for here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In the USA, at least, "Union Jack" would be the common name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If a new user types "Union Jack" into Wikipedia and finds out information about it, is there an issue? Nope - I don't see an issue over Myocardial infarction being an obscure term - most people will probably get to it via the common name Heart attack. Everything else is nitpicking. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a Brit (though getting old and possible out-of-touch with the Common Man, lol!) the term Union Jack, no matter how technically incorrect, is, in my experience, far more widely recognised here in the UK by The Common People. It's what we all call it (and yes, many of us know it's technically wrong, but we do it anyway ...). What's wrong with the idea of just having one title as a redirect to the other ...? Pesky (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There already is a redirect. What you're seeing here is a microcosm of the countless wasted hours in wikipedia over "the names of things", arguments which are of no value to the readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Google hits in Australia: "Union flag" – 8,120,000, "Union Jack" – 18,200,000. The Australian government refers to it as The Union Jack (also known as the Union Flag). Many of the Google results for "union flag" are for something other than the British flag, such as European Union flag (site is blacklisted), CBNGN-003 Union Flag, Transformers Union flag, Grand union flag from the first 20 results; whereas all of the first 20 results for "Union Jack" address the British flag or something named after the British flag. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sooooo ... disambiguation page for "Union Flag", with links to the relevant articles, with "Union Jack" being the one which many of us know as the Union Jack? ;P Pesky (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Folks, we're not re-running a page move request on ANI. Does anyone other than the original poster think that the admin responsible for the move acted improperly in such a way as to constitute abuse of his tools? No? Then this conversation can be had on the article talk page, and if there is consensus for a move back then someone else can go and action that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threats and incivility from User:Old Lanky

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.

---

Old Lanky has threatened to notify the police about two IP contributors (or, perhaps more likely, one contributor with two IP addresses). His reason is that they're trolls, which, apparently, is illlegal in the UK. Reading User talk:Old Lanky#Back Again, I'll agree that they're being a bit rude, but he more than makes up for it with his own incivility [8], even giving me shit after I did him the courtesy of not being a dolt and checking to see if there was anything of actual substance to his claims. (I mean, sure, the comments are a bit mean, but if I tried to have everyone who accused me of sockpuppetry arrested, the prisons would be overflowing.) Regardless of merits of his complaint, this seems like a pretty clear-cut NLT violation, and since he's stated repeatedly [9] [10] that he's willing to be blocked, I suggest we give him his wish. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Given this response you made to him, I'm inclined to block you both. However that would be ultimately self-defeating, so I instead choose to bash your two heads together and tell you to play nice. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone is clearly being a WP:DICK and accusing him of being a sock, without the cojones to actually file an SPI report. Continually accusing someone of socking without filing is WP:UNCIVIL. However, the response by Lanky is almost "methinks thou do'est protest too much". His talkpage isn't going to be protected as he asked for because it's not harassment, not at least how he's linked it. If Lanky wants to make legal threat, then yes, block'em. If he wants to revert and ignore (because he cannot block by himself), then it's the most intelligent way forward. If the person starts edit-warring with him, etc, it will become more of an offence (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Add: Deskana, don't forget to block the IPs :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to semi the talk page, especially if it continues. Those IP edits don't looked like an unbanned user without a problem to me. Not excusing that response in any way. BTW, I seem to have come across Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. That's the IP, right? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair point Bwilkins. IPs blocked for one month due to clearly not being here to contribute constructively. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In re my response, perhaps I was a bit crabby, but he'd already engaged in all sorts of nasty language, and I don't see much of a problem with not taking nicely to being talked down to by someone who I was trying to save from an NLT indefblock (which is what I was doing - I could've easily taken him here after his first refusal to retract the threat). Either way, as I said, the incivility isn't nearly as much of a problem as the threat. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

He's been warned for it and as far as I can see hasn't done it since, so I consider the matter resolved. You definitely need to be more civil though, because honestly you don't help your case when you report someone for violating policy and you're also guilty of doing so yourself. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really think I had a case to be helped - I was under the impression that users have to retract any outstanding legal threats if they wish to avoid being blocked; was I mistaken? To me, the incivility was just gravy, and if you really think my comment was equal to some of his, then I don't see how I can convince you otherwise. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Been looking at some of the stuff in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive per zzuuzz above who has definitely hit the nail on the head. It is a long saga of abuse and disruption aimed at the WP:Cricket project in general and at two of its members in particular, both of whom were named in the allegations levelled at me. I note especially that the troll has formerly used this tactic of accusing new users of being an alias of one of his two enemies to try and get all parties discredited. He has failed each time, mainly because his targets have always been genuine editors, and I daresay he will not go through the proper procedure you mentioned above because he knows he will fail. He has picked on me because I found an attack on Associate Affiliate and challenged it. I see he is subject to WP:BAN which looks very final, but evidently is not. May one suggest that the site should allow members only to edit? "Anyone can edit" does tend to mean "anyone will edit". --Old Lanky (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

One may suggest it but it's unlikely to happen as explained here. NE Ent 15:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, NE Ent. Very enlightening. Having read that, and given recent experience, I've decided to rejoin the ranks of the IP community and stay there among the 76% to 82% whose edits benefit the encyclopaedia. I'll miss the watchlist, HotCat, page moves and Twinkle but I managed without them before. All the best to the genuine editors and admins. So long. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

While we're on the topic

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.

---

Could somebody a bit more familiar with the case history here please tell me if BDOPAF (talk · contribs) looks like another Richard Daft sock? I just got this wholly unconstructive comment as I was trying to put this whole thing to bed - clearly an AGF violation, and I see no way that someone with 12 edits would have a reason to allege sockpuppetry without being a sock themselves. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If an editor suspects a master spi is preferred, especially since A & F isn't following two ANI practices (i.e. discuss w/ editor first, and notify user if discussing on ANI). Spi does not require notifying a user. NE Ent 16:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I had a little unfinished business before I go. I looked at this SPI process and rounded up all the recent IDs of this Daft individual and listed them there. The IPs are either gone or have been banned per the discussion above, but F&A is absolutely right that a ban must be placed on BDOPAF. Bye now. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do all that, OL. JSYK, you should read WP:BLOCKBANDIFF before you get yourself TROUTed by any of the grumpier ANI-watchers (grumpier than most, that is ). — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When a user with 12 edits tracks me down to accuse a previously harassed editor of being a sockpuppet, and there's strong reason to believe they are in fact banned, I think that that constitutes a fairly solid exception to AN/I S.O.P.. As for your other point, please remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I'm well aware of the differences between SPI and ANI, and thought it would be more effective to bring it up here. If you think an SPI would be more useful, then you're welcome to start one, but you know as well as I do that "You filed your paperwork in the wrong place" is not a valid response, especially to a very simple question. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Indirect personal attack of making "racist comments"

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

---

The following entry onto the user’s talk page was made the day before the IBAN issued the following day, so perhaps it is not a violation of that, but it would certainly appear to be an indirect personal attack insinuating that I am a racist for making comments about dissimulation and the Mossad, and Evildoer187's irrational attacks against anything he deems to be "Anit-Zionist" in the context of discussion where RS mention “Zionist colonialism” and the like.

Perhaps he is trying to equate Zionism with Judaism, but that is inconsistent with the definition(s) of Zionism, nor with discussion such as that in this official UN publication THE INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE.

There is nothing racist in my comments, and I would like such insinuations removed from this website.

“racist comments” diff

you are again engaged in an act of duplicitous dissimulation; the Mossad would be proud, maybe you should apply, seeing as you need a job. Hey, if you are going to act as a proxy for the Israeli government, you might as well get paid for it, just like those NGO directors, right?!

re: “ABOUT US”

NGO data on UN site

The following diffs are instances in which he accused me of "spreading crass anitsemitic conspiracy theories", mentions “Stormfront”, etc.: [11], [12], [13], [14]

Another user has described him as follows “personal crusade”

In response to this comment by deskana [15], I referred to him as a “Zionist zealot” reply to deskana, to which he took offence.

“insulting”

reply

Anti-Zionist zealot”

Here previously had this remark on his user page I am extremely outspoken on antisemitism, and largely unsympathetic to anti-Zionist viewpoints.

So I repeat, there is nothing remotely racist in my statements, and would like any suggestion that there was removed. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked this user violating his interaction ban with Evildoer187. Ubikwit has actually already violated this ban once by indirectly referring to Evildoer, however he later reverted his comments so I let the matter slide. A second violation will not be tolerated. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Regarding the actual substance of this report, these matters all took place before the interaction ban was put in place. The interaction ban is a sufficient sanction to prevent further violations. Regrettably, this has demonstrated that Ubikwit is clearly not able to stick to his interaction ban despite the terms of it being made very clear to him. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Any admins with OTRS access (permissions)

Daffodil International Professional Training Institute is a CV of [16]. There is a message on the article talk page suggesting that permission has been emailed; in light of which, I've not CSD tagged it, but the talkpage post is dated 22 November 2012, yet the article was only created today. All looks very sus. If it is deleted there are several redirects from incorrect page moves in the page history. Pol430 talk to me 23:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've put a copyvio tag on it as an interim measure. Beyond My Ken (talk)
  • I'm nominating it for deletion as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daffodil International Professional Training Institute. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• An attempt at locating the ticket proved unsuccessful. However, that does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist. KTC (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• It was also created, with almost exactly the same wording, in May 2012 by Alam5131 (talk · contribs). This is a single-purpose account that has edited almost exactly the same range of articles as Wikiwebsbd (talk · contribs), including Daffodil International University and Md Sabur Khan. Non-administrators may like to know that several paragraphs from that latter, Md Sabur Khan, can also be seen in Sabur Khan (AfD discussion), including "aimed to position his footstep" and "22 years of glorified career". Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Md Sabur Khan now G4'd. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• As Uncle G mentions, Alam5131 (talk · contribs) and Wikiwebsbd (talk · contribs) certainly appear to be the same person. They appear to be trying to create a walled garden of VSCA around Sabur Khan and the Daffodil Group. I'm looking through the contribs now. I expect to be nominating Daffodil Institute of Information Technology at AfD shortly. Pol430 talk to me 20:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits by User:Cantaloupe2

This editor has become tiring and tenditious constantly pushing his "America-centric" genocide obsession into articles destroying numeric charts and any technical example that uses numeric "America-centric" information. He was advised not to do this by several editors and yet he persists[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22].

When his edits are challenged or removed he progresses to tagging the article to excess despite being requested not to do that by other editors. Look here where his edits have been challenged repeatedly and what resulted to the article. What would readers think? An angry person was allowed to make a mess of WP?

When talk page discussions are initiated he attempts to confuse the issue with side-tracking issues(first and second sentence are not related or topic) and then avoids continuing to consensus or resolution.[23],[24],[25] This is not a newbie and these tenditious edits appear to be very WP:Pointy with his "America-centric" genocide article disruption. His attitude are pushing editors into just giving up.

Being followed around with many edits challenged with some new pointy policy angle seems like simple harrassment is just not worth the stress.

Here are my communications on his talk page. I named him in an IPsockpuppet CU, by accident (sloppy cut n paste) My apology and further request for him not to group large quantities of edits.[26] but it seems he may hold a grudge[[27]and it seemed another distraction from the talkpage discussion at hand. I attempted to stay on topic with.[28] [29].

I attempted to explain how I felt about his disruption of articles.[30][31] after his injection of facetious edit history comments and data. here - note history. He responded with rejection and this. I don't believe I made any ad hominem remarks and tried to only refer to his edits. He did comment on my mention of his "America-centric obsession" as a personal attack. "America-centric" is Cantaloupe2's favoured phrase and he admits it frequently in many edits and histories.

I feel I have attempted to resolve this matter amicably a few time to no avail. After seeing other editors frustrated by the same POV pushing I came here in a frustrated attempt to fix this waste of editing time. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 notified. [32] 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see a dubious pattern of edits on electrical engineering topics, but haven't yet seen anything about genoicide. Can you clarify? bobrayner (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I switched comment order for clarity (above) Perhaps "genocide" is not the correct term for this. Cantaloupe removes any North American references, especially numeric data from articles. Some conflicts I have observed of this was Compact fluorescent lamp [33] where he removed all dollar data from a financial comparison chart, calling it spam. Then he proceeded to remove referenced edits that used the American EPA[34]. A US Coast Guard reference was deleted claiming it was "political propaganda"[35]. US magazine Times online reference[36]. Notice the edit history[37] and how section motion hides edits. I mentioned this to him (see link above). Changes any numeric examples to "American" label referring to talk page comments that didn't exist. More pointy edits.[38] Then when the campaign doesn't get consensus from editors he begins flagging articles with pointy tags.

It should be noted that I am Canadian and have no interest in any particular AmEng bias. I want numeric examples as readers can relate to them better than abstract formulae (50%Va-b). I believe this area-generic POV is negative to tech article clarity. Invitations to add other area examples were welcomed several times, that I witnessed. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Per the admin SpinningSparks, I was advised it should be globally focused, and not just English language. In the article, complainant wants America specific hard numbers which were arbitrarily chosen historically. Of those, the user arbitrarily chose some applied examples such as 120:208, 347:600. The number pair maintains a relationship which is 1:√3. Since it was disputed by the complainant, I compromised with including both that and a region neutral numeric values based on % scale, so 100:173. Same issue in this article Delta-wye_transformer where the user inserted a list of region/Canada proprietary numbers. I find that such proprietary values are not encyclopedic and replacing them with universal formula ensures global neutrality. It would be a limited audience interest, such as for electrical wiring technicians in a relevant. There's no reason that people versed with enough prior knowledge to read this article needs a looong list of number tables to understand it. The article isn't a list of world's various voltages.To expand on actual technical implementation which an editor commented have no place in articles, the article would be filled with country by country list of every voltage set imaginable which is not informative in expanding in the contents discussed. But Wiki is not a directory.

Preference to build articles to revolve around one region is biased and is a neutrality issue. This editor also accuse me of incompetence while continuing to add free write contents based on anecdotes and personal experience which ignores the expectations of verifiability with in inference that the user itself is competent.

Addressing the CFL article issue, this is discussed in article Talk:Compact_fluorescent_lamp#NPOV talk. The complainant singularly objected based on unfounded reasoning "The average reader wants to know about the bottom line... money". I also removed references to price, because they are inappropriate web store links where items are sold, which is not permitted here as references as it is a magnet for spam. Expressing it in terms of $ and unit cost is like expressing a car's mileage in terms of miles per American dollar of gas at the day the article is written whereas my approach to simply list the watt is like approaching it in 100km/L which is not time sensitive. I removed a good chunk of article that was advancing political concerns which was straying off topic. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding this contention provided, go back one more edit. You corrected a spelling error, but along with it, you removed a "" tag from unattributed statement, but did not replace it with a reference. I restored the tag, because the statement was not referenced. Going back some more edits, you inserted a statement which appears to come from your thoughts without attribution.unreferenced addition. I asked you not to insert anecdotal evidence. When something is challenged, the burden is on the person restoring or inserting to WP:PROVEIT. Removal of reference requested tags without providing reference is nonconstructive. I tagged them, because I'm challenging the claim you're making. You claimed that this design may make it more susceptible to metering error, and that the resulting product 1/2*V(Ph to Ph)*√3 is inherently more uncommon than 1/2*ph to ph or ph to ph voltage. I'm not convinced and when I challenge it, the policy says you have to prove it. My guess is that you made common/uncommon based on comparison of voltages provided by such systems in applied actual technical practice in your municipality incorporation. Centering whats common and not common around your locale and applying to article that is supposed to be globally neutral is where my contention of Geo-centrism comes from. This is the kind of thing I believe VQuakr said does not have place in article here Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit where English is not mentioned at all? Was there another statement by Spinningspark other than his clarification of the guideline? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

correct. You also inquired who to cater to if it isn't for Europe or America. In the question you posted on SpinningSpark's talk page, he told you that it should cover globally here. When you constrain the coverage, it causes the language to be an envelope that distorts worldwide coverage. Some of the longest transmission lines are Russia, China, Brazil and such. Also, Japan has very well established electrical distribution system as well. All four countries I just mentioned ideally should receive equal weight. Some region centric examples you disseminate as common, popular, often used, etc are likely to be misnomer in world wide usage. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe this was where contentions begun. An admin SpinningSparks mentioned article should represent global point of view. Before my edit, it was filled with examples, advantages, disadvantages that revolve around installations specific to US systems. I replaced examples with formulas. When the complaining IP editor expressed that reader may have trouble with formulas, I added a geographically neutral examples using percent scaled example. In my good faith edit, this was a better approach than addressing each technical variation for every country. An editor commented to me that actual technical application shouldn't stay in the article as well. The IP editor continue to insert first hand accounts and anecdotal interpretive statements and nagged me with WP:COMPETENT even though many of his additions are not verifiable. I am all about writing it so that it is region free and examples are not geo-centric to particular place and the IP editor contends I'm "obsessed with America centric".

While this is on the table, I would like to present my concerns with harassment from the complainant pejorative remarks such as "temper tantrum" "obsession" and misrepresenting me as "admitting to less than positive intentions". The diff in question. According to WP:TPNO his insulting, ad hominem attack left on my page violates WP:CIVIL policies. The comment was left on my talk page, perhaps by coincidence, shortly after I sought SpinningSparks comments over contentious comments on complainant's own talk page labeled interesting edits which includes contentious tags of other users, such as "agenda" "coverup" "competent" and even libelous misrepresenting another editor DieSwartzPunkt as: "admission of sock puppetry"(when the investigation found that editor not malicious). Since WP:TALK says general rules for talk page applies, I would think that his behavior of misrepresenting other editors fall under WP:TPNO behavior.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2, Please do not canvass hostile editors as you did with this edit. See WP:Canvassing. I realise you are quite upset right now but a few hostile editors to attack me may complicate this process. This needs to be a learning experience for both of us so we may work in harmony later. I fear the editor in question has gone or morphed again and he was a good tech guy. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of canvassing. In my response, I addressed some behavioral concerns about you which includes your accusation of sockpuppueting towards the aforementioned editor and failing to assume good faith. Since that dispute discussed involved him/her, it was a courtesy notice. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IP, if Cantaloupe2 mentions another user in discussing your report (with its highly inappropriate previous title), it is perfectly in order for him to inform that user. Your comment about realising that Cantaloupe2 is "quite upset" is unhelpful and borders on harassment. The underlying issue of using country-independent examples concerns content rather than conduct, so can't really be addressed here. There is no need to add a signature (four tildes) to your edit summaries. Mathsci (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I understood these notices should remain in a neutral tone. I felt "One of the discussions I've added there is the sock puppetry accusation made towards you by the same editor." could be interpreted as an attempt invoke a certain response from an editor. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:POT: you're the user who wrote "genoicide" in the original title here; you're the one that seems to be collecting a laundry list on his user talk page. Please watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Facts:Several issues are getting discussed here. Of those issues, your accusation of him sock puppeting is the only issues that concerns him, therefore what I left him is consistent with notifying him that there is a discussion where he is mentioned, and how it pertains him. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

IP, please do not insert comments in the middle of Cantaloupe2's postings. It makes everything unreadable. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. I thought I saw a signature. Thanks for fixing! 174.118.142.187 (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that I have been referenced in this discussion. My comments seem to have been somewhat misrepresented. It is true that I have advised that articles should take a worldwide perspective.[39] However, this was in the context of replying to whether an article written in American English should use exclusively American numeric examples. I have not advised Cantaloupe2 (or anybody else) that algebraic examples are preferable to numeric examples. For what it's worth, I have given exactly the opposite advice.[40] SpinningSpark 14:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• I hadn't seen Cantaloupe2 until a couple of weeks ago. Since then I've seen him trying to make a thorough mess of articles on cycling (Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic), bicycle wheel) and electrical engineering (synchronous motor & others) and even arcane Mac crypto, editing from a basis of blinkered, dogmatic policy recitation and a slavish avoidance of subject knowledge, whilst energetically attacking every editor who does know something about a topic. His editing locus bounces between a range of complex topics whose only common factor seems to be that he knows equally little about each. I'm reminded mostly of Oscar Wilde on cynics (look it up Cantaloupe, I don't expect you to know it, but we used to have an encyclopedia here).

The only question remaining would seem to be, When's he running as an Admin?

Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What does the synchronous motor article have ANYTHING to do with me? You know that addition of contents revolve around verifiability. You have some edits like this one where you make changes with assertion that "simply wrong", but don't leave proper reference to support your stance and rely on self confidence and accuse me of lacking knowledge. Wikipedia is not a repository of original research and if something is challenged, policy says that burden of proof is on the inserting editor. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Having read the delta-wye and high-leg delta articles, they appear to me worse off than they were before the recent round of editing (not that either was a gem to begin with, but one-line sections with maintenance tags on the titles are just silly). Examples are meant to be just that – a small selection from practical usage. Just because an article doesn't list every voltage in use around the world doesn't mean that it's wrong, nor that one should remove such examples just because they're American (or Canadian, Ethiopian, Liechtensteinian, etc.). This being English WP, I don't see anything wrong with examples from only the U.S., U.K., or Canada. Anyone is free to add examples if warranted. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Before it was an article written from first hand experience, so the whole thing bordered on original research. Do you suggest that we let a whole bunch of unreferenced anecdotal claims remain?

This is the before and afterwhere the dispute begun. The contents were so focused around North America that much of it didn't apply elsewhere. Before reversion by an IP editor, it looked there was no major POV. What is your input on discussion of "advantages" "disadvantages" that only pertains to American/Canadian technical applications but do not hold true worldwide? I know China, Russia have significant electrical infrastructure as well as india, but there is not equal representation. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, they weren't great to begin with. A lot of the conclusions need either explanation or citation (preferably both) because they're not obvious. However, that's not the issue. I contend, as do the others arguing here I think, that "equal representation" is not required. If someone wants to add distinct examples for China, Russia, India, and Zimbabwe, they're welcome to it, though I expect some commonality might exist between at least some of them. The fact that those examples haven't been inserted is not a reason to remove others, though. Most articles do not, and should not, claim to contain exhaustive, or even equally representative examples. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so if the examples are not equally representative of every country thats that. If the prose paints the whole topic with the same brush based on local practices how would I best address it? Let's say article about steel bases its advantages and disadvantages about the whole article based on a specific usage without attributing to that specific usage Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with the "tiring and tenditious" assessment. In six years and 12,000 edits, I have never encountered an editor nearly as difficult to work with as User:Cantaloupe2. After four weeks and nearly 100 edits, we've managed to get Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic) to just about where it was before he started on it. Sure, there are now dozens of new in-line citations for details that were trivial and not likely to be challenged by anyone familiar with the topic and easily verifiable by anyone who bothered to verify them by checking the perfectly reliable references already provided, but what a waste of time and energy.

Instead of assuming good faith by previous editors, raising questions on the talk page, or even adding references he finds so necessary, he just starts tagging and deleting: [41], [42], [43]. The question of notability and the assertion that the article "relies on references to primary sources" were both laughable, given that the article already contained references to Brown's obituary in The Times of London, The Boston Globe, and BikeRadar. Given that The Times called Brown's knowledge of bicycles "encyclopedic", The Globe called him a "sage in cyberspace", and BikeRadar called him a "human encyclopedia of bicycling knowledge", I cannot see how the paraphrasing summary of "technical authority" could be deleted for NPOV without assuming bad faith from previous contributors.

At first, I thought it was just some annoying but relatively harmless drive-by tagging, but User:Cantaloupe2 has stuck around, fought nearly every actual attempt at improvement ([44] [45] [46]), and now has explicitly accused me twice of deleting a self-published-source tag he inserted. After the first time, I showed him that I did no such thing, and he replied with a non sequitur. After the second time, I asked him to either show where I did it, or retract his accusation. In the five days since, he's made several edits to the article and the talk page, but hasn't found the time to respond to my request. In the meantime, extensive attempts to resolve differences on the talk page just go in circles.

Everyone has a bad day or makes a mistake or two, but this has dragged on for weeks. After this experience, I find it completely not surprising to find this discussion ranging over several unrelated articles and involving several editors. That User:Cantaloupe2 also appears to be challenging every point also fits with my experience. Nor do I find it surprising that a search of the Administrator's Notice Board archives finds 4 previous incidents in which he has been embroiled. So far he has managed to skate just short of whatever line he needs to cross to invoke some kind of action, but I think the pattern is pretty well established, and I hope we can bring all this foolishness to an end somehow. -AndrewDressel (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Now there is this. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Tagremover tag removals

User:Tagremover is back removing tags (at Superzoom) without comment[47], then claiming "No details specified"[48] (ignoring details in talk[49]). Tried a change to "refimprove" tag based on the basic lack of reliable sources since the editor ceased input at talk page[50] and editor refuses to get the point of the need for reliable sources (even feigning ignorance of WP:RS?)[51][52].

The user's views on tags are expressed here, here, and at the end of this ANI. Tag removal has been an ongoing activity, usually without comment or attempt to improve the noted problem. I can't see the reason for the removal of many "Unreferenced" tags unless it is a further view that Wikipedia should be a work of original research. Other examples:

Examples of tag removals from Feb-March 2012

Lens (optics) removes tag without comment[53] Optical aberration- removes tag[54], removes again[55] Angle of view - removal of tag without comment[56] Summer Science Program - removal of tag without comment[57] Intel 8061 - removal of tag without comment[58] Image editing - removal of tag without comment[59] Color image pipeline - removal of tag without comment[60] Fisheye lens - removal of tag without comment[61] SteadyShot - removal of tag without comment[62] Aircraft industry - removal of tag without comment[63] Fuselage - removal of tag without comment[64] Narrow-body aircraft - removal of tag without comment[65] China Aviation Industry Corporation I - removal of tag without comment[66] Jet airliner - removal of tag without comment[67] Airliner - removal of tag without comment[68] Camera lens - removal of tag without comment[69][70], again[71] claiming its "unexplained" ignoring existing talk[72], again[73], again[74] Focus (geometry) - removal of tag without comment[75] Anastigmat - removal of tag without comment[76] Zeiss Sonnar - removal of tag without comment[77] Full frame - removal of tag without comment[78] Nikon 1 series - removal of inline tags without comment[79] Carl Zeiss AG - removal of tag without comment[80] Softune - removal of tag without comment[81] SPARClite - removal of tag without comment[82] NEC SX-9 - removal of tag without comment[83] Bayonet mount - removal of tag without comment[84] Streaming media - removal of tag without comment[85]

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the examples listed above are from nearly a year ago. However, Tagremover has been edit warring for the past week or so on Superzoom, repeatedly removing cleanup tags despite complaints from other users [86][87][88][89][90][91]. This is disruptive, and he clearly has a history of doing this as evidenced by the year-old diffs posted in the original complaint above. The username doesn't help. I have blocked Tagremover for 72 hours for edit warring. Future disruption of this sort might warrant a topic ban on removing cleanup tags. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 22:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Darkstar1st: violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to get the point, tendentious editing

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 reporting Darkstar1st for violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT on the grounds of failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing for editing behaviour here Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR. He is pushing the idea that the Soviet Union was the first socialist society, and is cherry-picking sources to support his view. Darkstar1st's proposals have been unanimously rejected by all other users, and his usage of sources has been strongly criticized, but he refuses to accept consensus, and continues to push the issue.

I strongly believe that Darkstar1st has anti-socialist political views that are influencing his edits, he repeatedly edits articles in a manner that would appear to present Marxism-Leninism and fascism including Nazism as the major manifestations of what socialism is. The most important evidence I can provide of this is a cynical sarcastic-appearing remark recently made by Darkstar1st where he said "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action.", here's the diff [92]. He also has said in the past on the Talk:Libertarian socialism that the fusion of liberty and socialism's social ownership of the means of production is impossible to merge, saying "i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together", here's the diff [93]. I believe that his intentions on Wikipedia with regards to material related to socialism, are to present socialism as a whole as totalitarian and linked with Marxism-Leninism and fascism.

He has been warned in the past to desist from similar behaviour on articles pertaining to socialism, and considerations of topic bans for Darkstar1st on socialism-related articles have been considered, as shown here: [94], where he was given advice by me on how to improve his understanding of socialism to avoid such assumptions of socialism being totalitarian. He has not heeded the advice or warnings of anyone there.

He has completely expired community patience at Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR. Many users there are aggravated with his pushing of the issue. Multiple users at the talk page are openly angry with his behaviour, some have called it "trolling". Darkstar1st neither listens nor cares about their criticisms, he just keeps pushing the issue.

Since he was warned to desist from such behaviour here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, and has completely refused to accept consensus, I believe that indefinate topic bans for Darkstar1st on all articles relating to: socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism, is the minimal of what is needed. I advise that users here talk with other users who have been involved with the discussions here: Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR.--R-41 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I fully agree with this summary and this complaint. Darkstar is an exceptionally disruptive and tendentious editor. He constantly plays fast and loose with sources, he initiates long and repetitive discussion threads, and then, weeks later, when the issue has seemed long closed, he returns and repeats his intention to carry out disputed edits, he refuses to accept consensus, and he attempts to wear out other editors by repeatedly making the same contested assertions. He appears to be here mainly to push his personal political beliefs, to attack socialism and justify nazism. Although the RfC has been open for six weeks, he has failed to respond, except for one edit in the wrong section repeating his content argument. Several editors (myself included) have reached, and gone beyond, the limits of their tolerance in dealing with his behaviour, which now verges on trolling. I am convinced that an indefinite topic ban is required in all articles and talk pages relating, however tangentially, to political issues. Then perhaps the rest of us can get on with building an encyclopaedia. RolandR (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

i have no idea what you mean about my page identifying me as an opponent of communism, or any comments i made confusing totalitarianism and socialism, please provide difs or withdraw your accusation. the edit i propose, "the USSR was the first socialist state and the USSR was the first socialist society. here are quotes from the 6 RS i presented, none of which have been challenged as a RS

• The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within
• For the first time in the history of mankind a socialist society(USSR) was created.
• The Soviet Union was the first state to be based on Marxist socialism
• Russia was not just another country, it was the world's first workers state and history's first socialist society
• the establishment of the first socialist state in russia in 1917
• Soviet...the first socialist society.
• With their victory over the White Russians in 1920, Soviet leaders now could turn for the first time to the challenging task of building the first socialist society in a world dominated by their capitalist enemies. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So you are asking me for a diff for a quote of what you said. Are you contending that you never said this: "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action."?--R-41 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

i said it. how does that make me an opponent of communism or think all socialist are totalitarian? much of the modernization of Russia can be attributed to socialism, which is what i meant with the words "shinning" and "action". perhaps you have simply read too much into my edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure you can say such convenient stuff now when your editing is under observation now, but I am familiar with your editing history as are many other users, you are determined to present socialism as associated with Marxism-Leninism and fascism. It's all here as recorded by the user TFD and others: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st. I read exactly what you intended to say, in context of what else you have said and how you have edited, you view the Soviet Union as the epitome of what socialism is. On your user page you are photographed in front of a building in Hungary where fascist and communist regimes tortured people and say: i lost a bet to sn*wed that i could correct bl*urob*'s behavior, so i had to eat my only hat and decided the best place to do it would be in front of House of Terror, where facist and later the "liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people. So by your own words, if the Soviet Union is the "shining example of socialism" and you went to a place where ""liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people", I can see no other meaning other than that you view socialism as totalitarian and tyrannical. Since you wanted a diff, here is your edit where you said that: [95].--R-41 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

so a photo in front of the house of terror makes me an opponent of communism? I read exactly what you intended to say, you should stick to reading what i write, not what you think i think. if you have a dif of me confusing totalitarians and socialist, plz provide here or withdraw your accusation. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people are not my words, rather from the article about the terror house. since the USA has also tortured/killed people do you think i am also anti-capitalist? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Stalin "liberated" around 6 million of his own citizens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You are here because you have grossly violated WP:DISRUPT involving failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing. You are here for that. I have adjusted my statement in accordance with your concerns, but it is my firm belief, regardless of your attempts to deny it here to avoid topic bans, that you are anti-socialist. You appear to have indicated at Talk:Libertarian socialism that the fusion of liberty and socialism's social ownership of the means of production is impossible to merge in your view, you said: "i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together", here's your diff [96]. Regardless of whether you are anti-socialist or are not, I may be mistaken but I doubt it, your edits on articles related to socialism have been highly disruptive, you have ignored consensus and have pushed issues after consensus has rejected them. This is a long-term problem, identified by the user TFD here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, you did not heed the warnings nor advice by TFD, me and others there and have continued your disruptive editing behaviour. Again, that is why you are here.--R-41 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar1st has continued to argue a case despite no other editor agreeing with him. This is disruptive and I would agree to a topic ban as suggested by R-41. TFD (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar is persistently tendentious; he falsifies discussions (see his mendacious nonsense above about the six purportedly reliable sources he uses to push his spurious agenda, which have long since been rejected by all other editors in the discussion); and he has a severe case of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. A topic ban would be a wonderful idea. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's clear from both the talk page and RFC discussions linked above that Darkstar1st's edits have been completely rejected by other editors, and I think it's equally clear that he doesn't know how to actually understand, interpret, and weigh sources on this subject. Offering rhetoric from the Soviet Constitution claiming that it was the first socialist state in history as a RS for the factual claim that it was the first socialist state in history shows incredibly poor editorial judgment and a misunderstanding of core WP policies. The Soviet Constitution is a reliable source for its own content, and that's it; it's not a reliable source for verifying claims it makes about facts external to the Constitution itself and it should be obvious why this is so.

Maybe a topic ban is appropriate now (maybe he isn't WP:COMPETENT to edit Wikipedia at all), but I'd like to see a clear statement of what he understands consensus on the matter to be and what he intends to do next. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

i understand consensus is against the proposed edit. the edit is a bit redundant anyway since the article already has an entire section dedicated to the 1917 revolution in Russia. the same claim (and thereby established the construction of the first socialist state) is made on the October Revolution article in the Soviet historiography section, so i really did not expect this kind of resistance. many people think there were socialist societies and states that pre-date the USSR, why are they absent from this article? wouldnt it be an improvement to note where socialism began? i plan to work on the tamarindo, costa rica article next. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To Darkstar1st, you have said that you understand that consensus is against your proposal but you are still pushing for it to be included in spite of that. You have effectively admitted then that you have knowingly violated WP:ICAN'THEARYOU and you are still rejecting consensus.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To Postdlf, from what Darkstar1st has just said, I think it is time for topic bans to be organized and implemented.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

what i meant by redundant is the edit i proposed in talk, is unnecessary and not worth perusing further, sorry for the confusion. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the article taklk page when Darkstar first offered this justification,[97], Darkstar here is completely misreading the article on the October Revolution, where the view he offers as neutral fact is explicitly presented as the position of Soviet historians concerned to demonstrate "the accuracy of Marxist ideology". To offer a misreading once could be ascribed to a lack of understanding and an inability to read text critically; to offer this justification a second time, at AN/I, after the error has been pointed oiut, can only be seen as deliberate misrepresentation and an attempt to mislead readers. RolandR (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just looking now at the October Revolution article for the first time, but it seems obvious to me your explanation is correct, that it is not claiming neutral fact for the "first socialist state" statement, but instead attributing that to Soviet historians. Particularly given that the section is titled "Soviet historiography", and the sentence about the "first socialist state" claim opens with "In this view..." as a rather obvious qualifier. To miss all that takes some rather serious carelessness or fundamental problems with reading comprehension. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

perhaps you could see the section of the October revolution title Legacy which has same claim without the qualifiers. The October revolution of 1917 also marks the inception of the first communist government in Russia, and thus the first large-scale socialist state in world history. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thus you have proven to us that you have wasted everyone's time with pushing this within your proposal when it actually was referring to "the first large-scale socialist state in world history" that you misleadingly used to say that the Soviet Union was the "first socialist society" in history. Now I am certain that topic bans are absolutely needed as a minimal, and considering that Darkstar1st has inadvertently shown that he either is incompetent or unwilling to use material in the correct manner that it is worded, I would propose that it would be beneficial if Darkstar1st be indefinately blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether because of this level of complete incompetence or misleading behaviour (whichever it is).--R-41 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

but i never cited the article as a source in my proposal, only here as an example of how similar articles have similar claims. i have also said i am no longer pursuing the edit which was two-fold and had sources for both state and society, so i only meant this as an example relating to state. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am really getting frustrated. Darkstar1st, do you realize the level of trouble you have put yourself in because of pushing the issue in violation of consensus? Do you realize that by the fact that you have admitted that you know that your proposal was against consensus, but you still kept pushing, puts you in deliberate violation of WP:ICAN'THEARYOU? Do you realize that you have made multiple users so frustrated with you because of your editing behaviour involving pushing proposals against consensus, that they are all agreeing in calls for you to receive topic bans? I am asking you this, because it seems that you do not care at all about these issues of serious breaches of policy at WP:DISRUPT, and are just attempting to side-step them.--R-41 (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

i am sorry you are frustrated. i am also confused that you think i am still pushing the proposal when i have said twice now i am no longer pursuing the proposal. i do not intend to edit the socialism article or talk now, or in the near future. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that going to resolve your long-term disruptive editing behaviour? All that does is let's you off the ticket on this one instance of such editing behaviour by us taking your word that you won't edit it now or in the "near future" (whatever that means), and I can tell this is going to happen again by the behaviour you have demonstrated today, and in TFD's report that shows you doing the same behaviour in multiple other articles. You have failed to adhere to the advice in TFD's report, you have expired the patience of multiple users with your consensus-violating behaviour. Why should we believe that such behaviour by you on Wikipedia is going to stop now when it hasn't despite people repeatedly telling you to cease such behaviour in the past?--R-41 (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i hav e resolved my long term behavior by not wanting to edit articles in which the sources i present are not accepted contrary to my opinion. each article i have edited, as well as the articles i have authored have all included sources. some, like the mexican constitution in the article i created, Immigration to Mexico, are allowed as sources, some arent like here. i see the other editors point that maybe the soviets were lying to trick people into thinking they were the 1st socialist state. perhaps someone here knows the real answer to who was the 1st socialist state, what a great way to end this debate, with a simple answer to a simple question. happy new year all, if we are still here, we must be the only/intelligent friends we have left, egészségére! Darkstar1st (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable

per wp:disrupt, i have presented 7 verifiable sources on the socialism talk page, yet made no edit to the article unlike R-41's recent massive rewrite of the lead. [98] the editor who reverted wrote this, Reverted R-41's mess of the lead. You've been warned about this already. You need to get some form of consensus on the talk page before altering the lead.

• source one, The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within, source rejected, no where in the book does it state the Soviet Union was the first Socialist society.
• source two, The Constitution of the USSR source rejected, Constitutions are not rs for how the countries are actually governed.
• source three, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2011 source rejected, "the first state to be based on Marxist socialism" If you can't see the difference between that and "the USSR was the first socialist society", then your reading comprehension skills are even lower than I thought.
• source four, Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia source rejected, Again you misrepresent your citation. What Melia actually writes is Russia was not just another country, it was the world's "first workers state" and history's "first socialist society"
• source five, Routledge encyclopedia of international political economy source rejected, Given your record, I suspect that you are quoting a snippet, out of context, and distorting the meaning.
• source six, Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914-1921 source rejected, THE SOURCE DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE SOVIET UNION WAS THE FIRST SOCIALIST SOCIETY. IT STATES THAT SOVIET HISTORIANS HELD THIS VIEW.
• source seven, Contemporary World History, 2009 source rejected, Knock it off right now Darkstar. Your new source doesn't prove anything, it once again fails to note pre-Soviet socialist societies that you are refusing to acknowledge, you have just cherry-picked a source to support your view, everyone knows that you have an anti-socialist agenda here Darkstar1st (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not put the material back in and even though I disagreed with the user, I listened to the user and opened a discussion with that user on the topic. You on the other hand have not listened to any users on the talk page. You have refused to accept consensus that unanimously rejected your stance, not one single user agreed with you, but you keep pushing the issue, even here - that is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy regarding failure or refusal to get the point, that I, TFD, Orange Mike, and RolandR all agree here about what you have done. You have cherry-picked sources to promote your view while having little to no understanding about the source - what it was about, what the context is, and who is saying what you have noted, etc. and multiple users have criticized you for that. But you neither listen nor care about the unanimous rejection of your proposal, nor multiple users' requests for you to cease pushing the issue; instead you keep pushing it. This kind of behaviour has gone on too long to be tolerated any further, and that is why I as well as TFD, RolandR, and Orange Mike are supporting topic bans on you.--R-41 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

the point i was trying to make is i made a proposal on the talk page for a few words to be included in a subsection, you made a massive rewrite of the article lede without discussion, even tho you have been warned before not to do so. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The difference here is that, both here and elsewhere (Talk:Socialism/Archive 13#Original research, Talk:Socialism#would Bernd Hüppauf be considered a RS here?, Talk:Nazism#Rationing and shortages and many more) you have engaged other editors in exactly the same tedious time-wasting debates about misreading of sources, the origins of socialism and fascism, and other issues; that you consistently fail to hear what others are saying; that you repeatedly refuse to accept a consensus (even wheen you are the only editor in disagreement); that you will not drop an issue, but belabour it long after others have grown weary of explaining the same things to you time after time. You have exhausted other editors' patience and goodwill; R-41 has not. Your behaviour causes so many other editors to waste so much time, energy and emotion preventing you turning articles into a poorly-sourced POV nightmare thsat it is way past time that you were sent packing, enabling the rest of us to edit, and even when necessary to disagree, in a collaborative fashion. You are a drain on this project, and a net liability. RolandR (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

actually the main difference is one of us attempts to win consensus in talk before making an edit, which once it became clear no amount of sources would satisfy, i never made edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I already told you that I began a discussion with the user to resolve his disagreements, the issue of my edit is moot because it has been resolved, your long-term disruptive editing behaviour involving violation of policy at WP:ICAN'THEARYOU on Talk:Socialism and multiple articles is what is at hand here, and it has been recognized by multiple users here as a problem.--R-41 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i heard you several times, however since you have not read many/all of the sources to which you object, i did not feel it quite time to close the thread. you are also a socialist according to your home page, which perhaps explains your sensitivity to this topic, i truly am sorry for any discomfort my proposal caused you. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Given Darkstar1st's obvious refusal to accept consensus and stubborn WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I'd support a topic ban on Socialism articles (broadly construed). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

actually i have accepted consensus and agreed not to pursue the proposal further, see above. please note no edit was ever made, rather a collection of RS presented on the talk page when editors objected to the previous sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing about any edits, so bringing it up is odd. I only speak of your tendentious and persistent inability to accept consensus. And I see nothing in this discussion to believe you will stop doing so in related matters. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

the incident here is concerning wp:disrupt, according to the complainant. wp:disrupt does specify the term edit. each source should be given examination according to wp:weight. it was my sincere belief with the right source the edit could be made. perhaps an easier path would simply add what the sources did say, since so many think i have taken the words out of context. or maybe the topic simply isnt relevant as one editor suggests. i still feel it would serve the article by identifying the 1st socialist state however i understand it is the consensus to not include such and see no reason to continue. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You are attempting Wikilawyering, particularly examples 2, 3, and 4 shown in the intro of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. It says that technicalities cannot be used to justify actions that violate the spirit and underlying principles of Wikipedia. Regardless, your claim of making a distinction between "editing" of articles as being distinct from that on talk pages is inaccurate, Help:Editing includes a section on "Talk (discussion) pages". The intentions of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT are clear, that failing or refusing to accept consensus is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. You have repeatedly ignored consensus when it has rejected your assertions.--R-41 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i wish i could be more clear, i am sorry for the distress i caused you, i will not pursue the proposal further, i have no intention of editing the article or talk page in the future. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You shouting in bold and offering promises that you will not do it again are not convincing to me and appears to not be convincing to HandThatFeeds, you have ignored all complaints by multiple other users about your failure to accept consensus on multiple articles in the past. It is not a matter of distress by me, that is trivial and I am not distressed; nor is it a matter of the proposal alone; it is a matter of long-term disruptive behaviour by you on Wikipedia. I and other users are seeking a resolution to this long-term problem of you refusing to accept consensus on multiple articles. Hours ago you attempted to say that "editing" doesn't include talk pages in order to avoid responsibility of violation of WP:DISRUPT on a technicality, I showed that the technicality was false. Now you are attempting to bargain by offering promises in order to avoid topic bans that I and several other users here all agree are necessary. If you had listened to the advice by TFD, me and others in TFD's report that explicitly warned you about your behaviour and gave you one last chance to desist in such behaviour, then circumstances would have been different now, but you did not listen and continued your disruptive behaviour. The fact is that the patience of multiple users with your conduct has expired, I, TFD, OrangeMike, RolandR, and HandThatFeeds all agree that topic bans should be applied, along with the administrator Postdlf saying he may endorse a topic ban. HandThatFeeds said to you "I see nothing in this discussion to believe you will stop doing so in related matters", I agree with HandThatFeeds' conclusion.--R-41 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm feeling like this should perhaps just be closed now, and I'm not 100% convinced a topic ban is necessary at this point (though I can't say I'm actively opposed to one either). He says he'll drop it, and that promise in the context of this ANI (in which everyone commenting has agreed there is a problem) should be considered a serious one, with serious consequences if he breaks it. If he does break it, or continues the same kind of tendentious and poor editing at other articles on the same subjects, just come back to ANI and I think a topic ban then might be imposed in short order.

I'd also recommend to Darkstar that he look into a WP:MENTOR, because as I've said above, his demonstrated ability to interpret and use sources (and relevant WP policy) seems lacking. postdlf (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to look at TFD's report and look at the multiple incidents TFD has noted where Darkstar1st has violated WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. It shows that multiple users been over this with Darkstar1st over and over again. I was the most liberal of them in that report, I gave him advice on how to improve his understanding of socialism amongst other advice, but he didn't listen to anyone and he hasn't changed his behaviour. Neither I nor HandThatFeeds trust his promises. There are limits to patience and trust given behaviour. Also, look at how he is approaching this: hours ago he attempted to use a technicality to avoid responsibility for violation of WP:DISRUPT, saying that talk pages don't count for "editing". It is my belief that he is tactically bargaining while having no real intention to change his behaviour. Accepting his promises will cause this whole thing to have to be restarted all over again, plus multiple users here believe that topic bans are necessary - me, TFD, OrangeMike, RolandR, and HandThatFeeds.--R-41 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I just had a look at Darkstar1st's edits. It's pretty clear that he has wasted much time and effort being tendentious, and will likely be so in the future. I support a broad topic ban to prevent further disruption. FurrySings (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

no i will likely not be so in the future. one of the Wikipedia articles i created is considered high-importance, i plan to spend my time creating new articles of equal importance and leave the well established topics to the editors above. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, why are you so opposed to a topic ban? You say you have no intention of again editing articles relating to socialism or nazism. Some of us, who have requested a topic ban, doubt your ability to self-police this undertaking, and are requesting a topic ban in order to formalise a situation which you say that you respect. Opposing a topic ban suggests to me that you still intend to edit relevant articles or talk pages.RolandR (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages, my sincerest apologies for the harm my actions have caused you and others. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you say you won't edit them and you say that you recognize the harm of your actions, then why not take both responsibility for your actions that have exhausted patience and trust by other users, by accepting the topic bans as a form of insurance that will guarantee that you will not be able to edit them? Promises with no enforcement risk violation. So if you accept the harm of your action, you should accept the responsibility of having exhausted the patience of multiple users, and accept the topic bans on political topics, as RolandR has proposed, as insurance to guarantee your compliance.--R-41 (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

you have been reverted twice this week for editing the lede of the very article we are discussing as your edit violated wp:weight [99] [100]. normally editors discuss major changes to established articles before. i sincerely thought the edit i proposed for a minor section would not be opposed. each time there was an objection to the source i presented, i found a different source thinking it would clarify the previous. now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor. i accept the article will never include my proposed edit, ussr was the 1st socialist state. who was the first socialist state, and why is it absent from the article on socialism? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) This is ANI, not the socialism-hair-splitting page. Whether any state has ever really been socialist, and if so, which one was first, is not something anyone reasonably expected to see discussed in earnest here, much less resolved. No-one is obliged to answer your riddles. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

To: Darkstar1st: Now you have jumped back from offering apologies to denouncing me and all the users at that talk page, who you just apologized to, indicating that we are "conspiring" against you because you "now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor". Wow, what a reversal in your attitude towards the other users on that talk page that earlier offered your "sincerest apologies", in only a matter of hours. And all because of a comment I said that simply asked you to accept a topic ban to provide insurance to your statement that said: "i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages".--R-41 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

ok, i take back my apology and everything i have ever written you have read and every thought you think i thought: "I am familiar with your editing history, you are determined to present socialism as associated with Marxism-Leninism and fascism. I read exactly what you intended to say" [101],. we will never cross paths again on ANY article of any subject, live long and prosper. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a gross overreaction, but interesting to note that you are saying that you have taken back your "sincerest apologies" a day or so after you gave them. Yes, I do not trust your behaviour given your long-term editing history on those topics, I have strongly disagreed with other users but have trusted their behaviour. But don't make this personal, plus you are not in a position to complain about aggravated about this situation you are in, multiple users are extremely aggravated about this situation, their patience has expired with your tendentious editing behaviour, and they do not trust your behaviour given your repeated violations of policy on WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT.--R-41 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

perhaps, but it would be better for us to simply not interact. you have made several claims about my beliefs, none of which i agree. you are a socialist according to your own page and think i am anti-socialist which i disagree with as well. it is impossible for us to interact with this gulf, therefore i choose to not edit articles you edit. so long, no hard feelings. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop trivializing this as being personal. Multiple users here have called for topic bans on you for your disruptive behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

nothing personal, we just shouldn't interact. you believe something about me which i do not, therefore we are at an impasse. since you are a socialist, and care about this topic perhaps more than others, i now choose to avoid it so i may avoid you. i assume you have no interest in the other topics i edit and will be fine working on those, or i may quit entirely. after almost a decade here i am beginning to lose my zeal for the project. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are willing to work on other topics than political topics, and claim that you will avoid such topics given the situation that your violation of WP:IDIDN'THEATTHAT has created, then why not accept the topic bans on political topics as a form of insurance to guarantee your compliance?--R-41 (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I worry for the future of articles like Nazism. Perhaps you missed this edit, or maybe not? the nazistic overtaking...the first real nazist... [102] the source listed refers to articles in the German language wikipedia. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposal

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

---

This is going round in circles, like every other discussion involving Darkstar. In the discussion above, six editors (myself, R-41, TFD, Orange Mike, The Hand That Feeds You and FurrySings) have all expressed support for some sort of topic ban. I therefore formally propose an indefinite topic ban for Darkstar1st on all articles and talk pages on political subjects, to include ideologies and individuals as well as parties RolandR (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as explained above. RolandR (talk)
• Support as explained above.--R-41 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as explained above. TFD (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm familiar with Darkstar, and they are a unique editor and have some uncompleted edges, but I've seen their edits to be sound and well sourced. I have given the situation only quick read-through and it appears that the edit that they were trying to make is very well sourced (that the assertion the USSR was the first socialist state exists, not necessarily that it is determined) and actually required by the weight aspects of wp:npov. I saw some pretty wild looking arguments contrary to their proposed edits. One was that, contrary to what the sources said, that the USSR Union of Soviet and Socialist Republics was not socialist, another that prior situations were Socialist even if the sources did not call them such, but that the sources "meant' to say that they were. Those are wrong on two levels....editor debating the source, and then editing against sourcing/wp:npov. If Darkstar has any "offense" it appears that it was that they caved to the tyranny of the majority in that particular venue, not that they didn't cave quickly enough. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you believe that accepting a consensus decision means accepting a "tyranny of the majority", maybe you should discuss your theory with those who founded Wikipedia. Wikipedia is founded upon seeking consensus. Darkstar1st violated policy at WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. You are defending his motives while ignoring the manner in which he acted.--R-41 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many flaws in what you just said, but I'll go to the main point. In this case by "tyranny of the majority" I meant folks in a particular venue "voting" to override policy. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Straw polls here on ANI are regularly used. They are not binding to enforce any action here, but they do show administrators what users want to be done. The administrator can look at these, evaluate their validity, and then take discretion on what to do.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Also, on process grounds, ANI is not the proper venue for discussing such an immense wide-ranging whack against someone. Due to it's orientation for individual incidents, it has neither the structure and timetable for proper review and as a result not the participation (in any one thread....usually just the original combatants plus or or two people that run across it at ANI and chime in) for proper review of such a weighty wide-ranging proposal. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. His content may even be accurate (in that it is a theory widespread enough that it deserves mention). --Nouniquenames 16:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (Removed comment as per request by user, I questioned if the user had two accounts based on similarity of three colours used for each word in their user name that both had no spaces, I have no reason to assume any closely similar editing behaviour, so I am removing it.)--R-41 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Surely you know where SPI is. If you don't want to make an accusation, I'd request you strike the question. --Nouniquenames 05:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I will assume that you are telling the truth and remove it, but given the close similarity of the user name templates, the question was reasonable.--R-41 (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support at least until we get a clear undertaking that the behaviour will cease. S/he goes on, and on, and on, and on .... ----Snowded ^TALK 05:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support: There are two types of editors taken to task at ANI: (1) "I'm very sorry; I was wrong, and I won't do it again." (2) "Here's why I'm right ..." (several hundred words later, and repeated over a dozen or two posts), followed by "Okay, okay, I'll stop, you meanies." How very many times have we seen that #2's contrition is forced, unwilling, temporary and abandoned the moment the coast is clear? No. This matter is not moot. The easiest way to ensure that this editor stays away from such topics is to declare that he is to stay away from such topics. Ravenswing 06:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. As an editor who gave up editing articles Darkstar was involved with on account of his editing behaviour as exemplified above, I would support a topic ban to prevent other editors from going through that experience. Kudos to TDF and others for putting up with it for so long, and for keeping a calm head and staying rational in their interaction with this editor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Tendentious left-right fisticuffs at such venues as Talk:Socialism and Talk:Nazism abound. All parties need to knock it the hell off, and that includes editors from both the left and the right. Wikipedia is not a political blog. It is not a venue to declare black white and up down and to enforce that with 5 to 1 votes or whatever. It is not a place for trolling. Get busy writing articles and stop "debating" on big topics, all of you — that's my opinion. Carrite (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is to do with a user repeatedly violating WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Violations of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT by Darkstar1st have been identified on several articles for many months, in a RfC/U initiated by the user TFD.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support because of his long term behavior during his long running disputes, and the responses that he gave here. FurrySings (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. He's apologised and said that he isn't going to do it again. That's enough for me.  Tigerboy1966  22:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Other users don't trust his apologies given his behaviour, such as the users Ravenswing and FurrySings here. Plus Darkstar1st keeps changing what he is saying, yes he claimed to apologize, but then later he accused all the users of refusing to hear him out, which is not true. His stances were criticized. I strongly suggest you look at the links to the discussion and the user TFD's RfC/U that are linked in the intro of this. TFD has been following Darkstar1st's editing behaviour longer than I have and has identified repeated examples of Darkstar1st violating WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT.--R-41 (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic bans are not the proper means to remove an editor who is acting properly in a content dispute. The principle is to work towards consensus, not "declare a consensus first and remove those who disagree". Collect (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not a content dispute, nor is this about removing an editor. This is a dispute about editing behaviour, he has repeatedly violated WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT on several articles, even after being informed in the RfC/U that he was violating it. The proposal is the application of topic bans on political topics, removal is not the proposal here, the user can continue to edit non-political topics. Other users agree that this is a dispute over disruptive behaviour, such as User:SMcCandlish who has commented below in another section.--R-41 (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. In this particular example, this user simply took part in a very long discussion at article talk page. I saw much longer discussions on other similar pages, and no one was reported. Are we going to report all such participants? I do not mind, but this is hardly consistent with policies. Now, speaking about the essence of the content dispute, every Soviet textbook claimed USSR to be the first socialist ("first stage of communism") state after Paris Commune which was first socialist government, not counting "primitive communism" societies. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No, this is not a content dispute here. This is about editing behaviour. Darkstar1st violated policy at WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, he kept pushing the topic after it had been unanimously rejected.--R-41 (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the above - the area is populated by extremely opinionated users all round. Youreallycan 02:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Cynicism about users being opinionated does not justify ignoring clear and repeated examples of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT by Darkstar1st that have been noted by multiple users, and the multiple violations have been noted in the RfC/U filed by the user TFD, who is known to me to not be a highly opinionated user, but a user who seeks to follow Wikipedia principles to the letter. You should speak with TFD about Darkstar1st's behaviour, as TFD has been monitoring it longer.--R-41 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I consider that a topic ban is not the way out yet. I understand that, from what I've read, it seems to be the easiest solution; I find it a bit egoist. Maybe a formal case at ArbCom if DRN hasn't been proven yet would be a better path. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Moot

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 commented at the RFC/U and didn't know it was duplicated here. It appears that their insertion was a well sourced minority viewpoint and a valid insertion per wp:npov even if more folks there preferred or felt that it not be in. There is a provision in the quoted-in-the-complaint guideline (which at the opening above was mis-identified as policy) which identifies and protects this. Either way since Darkstar has doubly given in on this wp;anI appears to be a moot point. RFC/U would be the only proper (and properly thorough) venue to pursue things outside of this now moot/resolved incident. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This proposal is not a response to one content dispute; it is a response to persistent tendentious editing, over several months and several articles. RolandR (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an open RFC/U for that. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with RolandR. I said in the proposal that this is part of a long-term problem and I proposed topic bans for several topics to avoid future problems altogether. Darkstar1st ignored the basic request of the RFC/U report started by TFD, that called for Darkstar1st to accept consensus even when it disagrees with his stance, a call for him to adhere to the policy on WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, but Darkstar1st failed to adhere to WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT after being informed by TFD and others of his need to do so. Darkstar1st attempted here to avoid responsibility for WP:DISRUPT on a technicality on what constitutes "editing", that was false premise. Then Darkstar1st has begun bargaining by offering promises. Multiple users here, including myself, believe that there is little reason to trust Darkstar1st's promises given the repeated nature of the disruptive behaviour of ignoring consensus in spite of being warned by multiple users not to do this.--R-41 (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

it is not moot because the RfC/U is on going and this is not a content dispute. TFD (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This ANI, within its proper scope, IS about assertions of behavior in a content dispute. The RFC/U is the proper & suitable place for the wide-ranging things people are bringing up here. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's about tendentious editing, it's about refusal to accept consensus, it's about failure to hear the argument and repeating the same point ad nauseam, it's about one editor who, for more than a year, over several articles and talk pages, has wasted the time and exhausted the patience and good faith of very many other editors, who want to put a stop to this. RolandR (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My point / opinion is that ANI is unsuitable for such a wide-ranging agenda with such wide-ranging actions being sought. And that RFC/U IS suitable for such North8000 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This does not have a "wide-ranging agenda" or "wide-ranging actions". Topic bans have been proposed for political topics in response to this user's repeated violations of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Darkstar1st ignored all the material in the RFC/U by the user TFD who filed the report, that informed him that his ignoring consensus was a violation of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, after he responded to the RFC/U he proceeded doing exactly the same behaviour on Talk:Socialism.--R-41 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, RolandR, you seem to be completely mistaken about what this AN/I is about. It isn't about whether Darkstar1st has sources that might squeak though WP:RS, or is bringing up a minority but non-fringe viewpoint that needs to be addressed. This is about disruptive user behavior. Darkstar1st could have 5x that many sources but that wouldn't make the behavior acceptable. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you meant to refer to the user North8000, RolandR agrees that this AN/I is about Darkstar1st's disruptive behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC user not closed

• - Please note the RFC user has now been closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st - Youreallycan 08:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And I have reverted YRC's closure, since it did not meet any of the criteria for closure specified in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing RolandR (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note , I closed the RFC user after a requestfrom one of the certifiers at WP:AN - see here .. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RfC - Youreallycan 15:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

From "sincerest apologies" to serious accusations

Earlier Darkstar1st recognized that his edits caused harm and offered his "sincerest apologies" and promised not to edit the articles socialism and Nazism, specifically saying:

"i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages, my sincerest apologies for the harm my actions have caused you and others"

Then when asked by RolandR and then me that if he accepted responsibility for what he did and the loss of patience amongst users caused by his actions, why would he not then accept topic bans as a form of insurance to guarantee that he would not do so. Then his response completely reversed from offering apologies to insinuating serious accusations. He has just said:

"now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor. i accept the article will never include my proposed edit, ussr was the 1st socialist state. who was the first socialist state, and why is it absent from the article on socialism? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)"

He is in other words accusing all users involved there of deliberately rejecting his proposal out of a refusal to hear him out, rather than out of criticism of what he proposed. He is also inaccurate when he says here that his proposal was to say that the USSR was the first socialist state, his proposal specifically said the first "socialist society". His proposal was unanimously rejected and his use of the sources he chose was criticized by multiple users.

He has gone from offering apologies to launching accusations against all the users in that discussion who had unanimously rejected his proposal. Should the users involved in the discussion be informed of this serious accusation by Darkstar1st and asked to respond?--R-41 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I read it as "even though it should be in there, I am giving up the effort". But the most folks here can just read it for themselves rather than you are or me telling them what "it says". North8000 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If what you said is true that he believes "even though it should be in there, I am giving up the effort", that does not demonstrate any respect for policy at WP:CONSENSUS or WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT at all, only an angry and reluctant tactical abandonment to attempt to avoid the imposition of topic bans that many users here believe are necessary. This is what User:Ravenswing above has stated, that this kind of response by Darkstar1st is common of users who have been caught violating policy who are only reluctantly claiming to abandon their ways, but then when they believe the coast is clear, the disruptive behaviour returns. Other users above have similarly said they do not trust his promises, given his long-term behaviour and his behaviour even on this noticeboard. He is clearly saying that people refused to hear him out, while neglecting to note that his usage of sources was criticized and he expired the patience of users by keeping pushing for inclusion of the material in spite of their criticisms, and opening up section after section to push it, in spite of unanimous rejection of his proposal by other users, a blatant violation of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. That policy specifically says: "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."--R-41 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

R-41, look from my view, who would want to edit articles with this amount of resistance to ones proposals in talk? i really do plan to stay as far away from this type of situation/topic/article/etc as possible. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am particularly concerned by Saddhiyama's comment above, that s/he gave up editing articles Darkstar was involved with as a result of his behaviour. That alone is sufficient to keep him away from sensitive articles. RolandR (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

To Darkstar1st: As RolandR has said, your behaviour has aggravated users like User:Saddhiyama to not even want to edit political articles where you have activity on them. You have repeatedly expired many users' patience on multiple occasions, and that is bad for the Wikipedia Project. Now if you really are planning to stay away from such political topics, then accept the proposed topic bans on political topics to provide insurance to concerned users here, that will guarantee compliance and the situation will be resolved. You could still edit non-political topic articles.--R-41 (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If I have any quests in Wikipedia, one of the is against mis-using the system to conduct gang warfare against an editor who the gang disagrees with. And that is what I see here, including much spin in the comments. I'm familiar with Darkstar from both when we agreed and disagreed. Their style is brief (possibly overly brief) discussions and edit summaries that often need a translator (vs. engaging deeply in more detailed conversations). Their edits are very intelligent and Wikipedian/source-based. For better or worse, they usually don't "cave" to the tyranny of the majority (e.g especially in any small kangaroo court venue) especially when they have policy on their side. I think that they caved too quickly on an insertion that many sources consider the USSR was the first socialist state. If the anti-Darkstar folks persist further, I think that it is time to reopen that question to a new debate on the underlying question with broader participation. North8000 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said earlier, On the RfC/U I was firm, but I offered Darkstar1st helpful advice on how to improve his understanding of the topics, and to behave more constructively. He ignored the advice and continued his disruptive behaviour. The most spin that I have heard here is coming from Darkstar1st who keeps changing the nature of his response from apologetic and concessionary to accusative. Also he has refused to give any answer to I and RolandR's question that if he does not intend to edit those topics, then why doesn't he accept the topic bans for insurance that he will not edit those topics? He refuses to answer the question, dodges it every time it has been asked and changes the subject. Calling people like me "anti-Darkstar" and that we "anti-Darkstar" people have conspired using "gang warfare" to create a "kangaroo court" governed by a "tyranny of the majority" are extreme examples of bias and spin, attempting to de-legitimize and belittle the long-term problems being addressed hereby portraying all the people supporting the topic bans as corrupt gangster-like thugs. As for "anti-Darkstar" "gang warfare" - I hardly know many of the users who have supported topic bans on Darkstar1st beyond first meeting most of them right here in the past few days, I have strong disagreements with TFD on topics, but both me and TFD agree topic bans are needed here.--R-41 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying the intent of one dramatic term that I used, by "Kangaroo court" I really meant that the discussion there (and the group that moved here) it is a small isolated venue. The other terms I meant exactly as they sounded., North8000 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is nothing to action here - and no community support for any topic ban - the report should be closed - keeping lengthy reports open at high profile noticeboards is undue and attacking in itself - this thread is over ripe to be closed.Youreallycan 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "no community support for any topic ban" ??? There are many users calling for a topic ban as can be seen above. Just a day ago, most users in the proposal for topic bans were in favour, now a few more people have arrived who are opposed, this is far from moot. I do agree that this has gone on long enough and that an administrator needs to arrive to make a decision.--R-41 (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Either way this venue/format is not suitable for a discussion on such massive actions. North8000 (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• • • (edit conflict) - As you can see - there is little to no independent community support for a topic ban, and there are oppose comment, nowhere near any kind of consensus - even the RFC user has failed to attract interest and there is no current ongoing editing disruption back off from the dead donkey and allow this report to archive, its been open for over a week now. Youreallycan 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Seriously, what are you talking about? Look at the number of users who believe that a topic ban is needed. You say you want "this report to archive" - why are you so adamant for no action at all - not even minimal action - to be taken? Because it ticks you off that it has gone on for a while? The policy that I have referred to of violation of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT is valid, and multiple users here agree. An administrator needs to arrive to make a decision.--R-41 (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) -There is no current ongoing editing disruption to the project apart perhaps for this report which Dreadstar is not responsible for. R-41 if you were at an RFA and were questioning anyone that opposed you would already have been warned about badgering. When there are issues and the community clearly speaks an admins shows up rapid to deal with it and close, when there is not a big issue they allow a bit of discussion and close when able, personally imo this has been allowed to develop long enough. - After over a week you have seven supports and seven opposes, its clearly no consensus please close. Youreallycan 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
          • • You are talking to me as if this is just some vain project of mine with no support. Have you spoken to TFD who has recorded Darkstar1st's repeated examples of disruptive behaviour on several articles and has written a report on it that I mentioned in the intro? P.S. I want an administrator to review this before it is closed, that is my position.--R-41 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
              • If it wasn't for your posts to this thread it would have automatically archived, like yesterday - try it, back away. Youreallycan 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                • First: Why are you threatening me by telling me to "back away"? Second: Why are you ignoring posts by others like RolandR and multiple others that occurred in the last two days?--R-41 (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                  • Threating you? Yawn - Threads here archive after twenty four hours of inactivity, you are the only supporter of the topic ban that has commented in that period .. as for the previous comment .... You can't 'demand' admins comment about anything, in general they comment when needed. - Youreallycan 00:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                    • I am going to ask the user TFD, who is very familiar with Wikipedia policy, to see if your contentions are correct.--R-41 (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                    • Just upon checking TFD's board, he already answered that to a previous query I had. Users can request an administrator to close a thread, which is what I will do.--R-41 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                      • Cool - Yes, please do. Youreallycan 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                        • Remember that what you consider "no support", is 7 people agreeing to topic bans and 7 people not agreeing to topic bans. A dead tie, that an administrator can decide on and close this thread. Given the amount of time it has taken here, I wouldn't be surprised if an administrator would reject it because all the discussion has stretched out what a straightforward request this was.--R-41 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                          • I have actually counted eleven editors who have explicitly supported a topic ban, either on this page or in the RfC: RolandR, R-41, TFD, Orange Mike, The Hand That Feeds You, FurrySings, Snowded, Ravenswing, Saddhiyama, Dave Dial, SMcCandish. And I agree with R-41's request that an admin looks at this, and the related RfC, and decides how to close it. RolandR (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                          • I think youreallycan's attempts to shut this down are more without support than the topic bans, which I, for one, support.Assistant N (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                            • Assistant N, I know it may seem like canvassing but since you have already said that you support a topic ban or topic bans, I am informing you of the proposal above by RolandR which you may not have seen because of how long this is. You may disagree with the scope of the topic bans, etc.. I am saying this here because there may be confusion over who is supporting RolandR's specific topic bans proposal, or the general proposal for topic bans in the intro, so that if you should support RolandR's topic bans proposal or not, that administrators will be clear on exactly who is in favour and who is not in favour of the topic bans proposal. If you or others deem this an inappropriate notice of attention, I advise that you tell me so, and I will remove it at once if it is deemed an inappropriate notice.--R-41 (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting administrator to review and close the AN/I thread

As per above in text, the request has been made here: [103].--R-41 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I did so as a no consensus at this time. I don't want to shut down discussion however; some serious questions were raised and only partly answered.

What would seem best would be uninvolved admins with some spare time (hah) going back to all the original discussions and sources and trying to separate out the actual issues from the factionalism.

While it is hard to avoid getting groups of people lined up against each other in some content or behavioral disputes, it does make it very hard for outsiders to separate underlying issues from the back and forth between groups. Particularly when both sides are wiki-savvy.

I know there is factionalism; I have seen some exaggerated claims; I have seen some substantiated claims; there are other claims that are unresolved. There is something clearly wrong here. The question is what, and what should be done about it. For that, I respectfully suggest that the fighting parties are not helping anyone else discern it at this point, and that uninvolved admins making a call is required.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As on your talk page you suggested that I address any concerns. Firstly, the serious issues needed to be defined in the form of questions with answers by users who are familiar with this. Secondly, the means of resolving these issues need to be addressed.

Question 1: At what point in time in context to activity in discussion does continuing to push an proposal despite a strong majority or unanimity of users rejecting the proposal, cross the line of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT?

Question 2: How should sources be used? For example, if the topic is on socialism, is a book on the Soviet Union or other very specific example involving socialism appropriate for determining material on socialism as a whole? Or should the source on such a claim be from a book about socialism as a whole? Can a universal clear-cut statement on the "first society of a particular ideology" really be claimed from a source given that the very definition of the ideology by different factions claiming to adhere to it, can cancel out defining it as such?

Question 3: What should Darkstar1st do, and what should Wikipedia do in regards to Darkstar1st, so that similar loss of patience amongst users from prolonged discussion involving Darkstar1st, does not happen again? A significant number of users have identified this as a problem.

These are the top three major questions and minor questions within them that I believe need to be addressed, particularly by administrators if possible.--R-41 (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Since a lot of space has been taken up here, I suggest that this could be moved to a dispute resolution noticeboard or other venue. If you Georgewilliamherbert would support that?--R-41 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking mediation, or something informally like that, but DRN might work.

Regarding the questions - you're assuming a couple of the answers to the questions I would personally want to ask, in the way you phrased those questions.

My questions would come down to...

• Did Darkstar1st misrepresent sources, forge quotes or references, etc?
• Were sources that were real and accurately cited taken out of context in a significant way?
• What is the mainstream in these areas (in the US, in Europe, in academia vs independent thinkers, historians vs political scientists, how did this change over time, etc)?
• Does Darkstar1st's evident personal political position lead him to interpret works in a way that is in a minority fringe of say historians or political scientists, to the point that his usage of works is FRINGE?
• If this was not a FRINGE viewpoint, did Darkstar1st's personality cause excessive interpersonal conflict in trying to resolve a reasonable content dispute?
• If this was not a FRINGE viewpoint, do the "other side" bear responsibility for having personalized this against Darkstar1st and/or attempting to convert a legitimate content dispute into an alleged behavioral issue?

There is a huge body of ... aggressive discussion behind all of this, and digging down into it to root causes has been challenging.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, this particular case has long been moot, and there are only general claims (by the same combatants) about anything outside of this incident, with them requesting an immense action against Darkstar. This venue does not have the proper scope, processes, depth, substance in the allegations outside of the moot claimed incident, or level of participation to start gather the required specifics for a review of the claimed items (outside of the now-moot incident) to properly handle that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I was putting my thoughts here publicly for the record, rather than drive the conversation somewhere else and put them there. I agree that this is the wrong venue for the conversation to continue on, whether that's DRN or mediation or an issue RFC or what.

ANI wrong place, yes.

Regarding the "moot" - the root of the displeasure seems to be behavioral, but it's not clear if the behavior was wrong or if it was a normal legitimate content dispute resolution gone bad. Looking at the facts is probably reasonable to try and establish a baseline for both sides' behavior. I don't presume either side was right or was wrong, to start with, on the underlying content issue. Laying it out there seems reasonable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Um -- seems that posting thousands of repeated words about any editor impresses few people on this noticeboard. I suggest this be archived - have a cup of tea or so, and wait until you find a good reason to post another complaint about someone. If it is truly a behaviour issue, you will undoubtedly have another chabce. Meanwhile, it takes up way too much time for everyone wading through repetitious argumentation. Especially if they have just joined in on this mountain. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Current word count now on the order of 11,000 words. Collect (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

tl;dr. I think ANI is simply not equipped to handle complex cases like this. The alleged problem can not be convincingly demonstrated using just a few diffs. This involves complex behavior patterns and a complicated subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line as Georgewilliamherbert says, is that serious questions about this remain and need to be resolved. I agree with all the questions that Georgewilliamherbert asked as being pertinent, and definately needing to be addressed in such mediation or dispute resolution. I can say I have seen such behaviour between Darkstar1st and other editors long before I had anything but the most minimal interaction with him, it was not personal to me beyond the fact that I had become aggravated with Darkstar1st appearing to ignore many criticisms of his proposal and how he kept changing what he was saying here to me and others at the talk page - that I must admit I as well as others like User:Ravenswing saw as manipulative and bargain-seeking. I leave it up to Georgewilliamherbert to determine whether mediation or dispute resolution is the better option.--R-41 (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Competence

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 think we have a major WP:COMPETENCE issue with Klbog1987 (talk · contribs). This user has received notices since February for either overlinking, or linking to disambiguation page. Whenever the user receives such a notice for bad linking, he or she immediately blanks it off their talk page.

I checked their edit history, and literally every edit they've made in the past few months has been over-linking or incorrect linking (e.g. adding 16 Biggest Hits to Template:Collin Raye). On top of that, the user has a huge list of deleted articles, most of which don't have proper naming formats (e.g. BLP articles with lowercase last names).

In short, it's only blatantly obvious that this user has few to no valuable edits, and is outright refusing any suggestions to stop what they're doing. Not one of their edits has been useful, and the fact that they refuse to listen shows that they're not here to contribute in any viable fashion. Surely a block is in order. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• ETA: As further proof, they've blanked the ANI notice twice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • People are allowed to remove notices on their own talk page. Reyk _YO! 23:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)But the speed at which he does it, combined with the fact that he's not listening to what the literally hundreds of warnings are telling him, show that he's clearly throwing a fit. Also, as I pointed out, literally 100% of his edits are crap. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I haven't looked at his edits, so I don't have an opinion there. If you remove a warning from your talk page, you are deemed to have read it, so if he's removing them without actually reading them he's only shooting himself in the foot. Reyk _YO! 00:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is concerning; all of the talk space edits they've made are to either blank communications with other editors, or to work up a brief resume. (However, it's unnecessary to keep dropping AN/I notices on their page: once is enough.) I'm hesitant to block for competence before making another attempt to communicate with them. I'll drop them a note to see if they will consider responding here. 28bytes (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This seems to be a new editor with less than 1000 edits, virtually all to mainspace. Glancing at recent contributions shows a couple useful edits and a couple weird ones. No opinion. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with 28bytes that we need to reach out on their talkpage before any blocking, so now I've done it too (getting an edit conflict with 28.) One of the articles, which admins can view, was apparently about the user themselves. Its brief content is also on their userpage, and has made a couple of widely-spaced visits on their talkpage.[104][105] In fact, it's the only thing they've ever written on their talk. All the talkpage blanking isn't necessarily meant in a bad way; perhaps they think read + blank is what one is supposed to do on a talkpage. But, well, so far their lack of competence and communication has wasted quite a bit of the time of editors and admins, and, as TPH points out, there are no helpful edits to balance that. The user has never been welcomed, or spoken to other than by template. Just sayin' — I don't mean to imply that sweet talk would necessarily have made any difference. But he has now got a nice message from 28 about ANI, and one from me (even nicer, to the extent that it doesn't mention scary ANI) If those messages should get blanked without response too, I guess I agree with the OP. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

• • And… that took him exactly three seconds to blank; so clearly the principle isn't "read + blank", as I optimistically suggested above, but blank without reading. I have blocked for 24 hours in the hope of getting their attention. Bishonen | talk 00:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

It was actually 8 min from 28bytes message to yours to their blanking, but agree in general.

I am almost wondering if it's an unannounced bot?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Good block, unfortunately. George, to me the resume-type talk page additions tend to point away from a bot and towards someone simply unfamiliar with what Wikipedia's about, but of course I could be mistaken. 28bytes (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DE points 4 and 5 of "Sign of disruptive editing" seem to apply. One cannot ignore every other editor and exist in their own little bubble here. Doc talk 01:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Do they get one of the those block templates? NE Ent 01:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I quilted my own. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

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

The return of Bambifan101

Heads up: Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back again, this time as Redcoyote18 and 98.196.49.127 and yet another WP:SPI has been filed on this case as well here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha, I thought my sock investigation request would go unnoticed. No official acknowledgement has been made so far. Thanks for reporting it to ANI for me. I've just noticed that a (suspected) Bambifan101 incident should be report here. I thought I should wait for the confirmation first, but maybe it's better this way. The behavior quack indeed. Anthonydraco (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing

User:Doncsecz is sending messages to Hungarian users [106][107][108] to influence the vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/László Kovács (writer), where the deletion of the article about László Kovács. a Hungarian writer, is requested. This comment "Yes, as the arguments for the deletions is nonsense, only the humiliation of the Hungarians or Europeans. " of User:Doncsecz has also to be noted Transerd (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The "nonsense" or "humiliation" words is not unethical words. See also other talk pages about other articles. Doncsecz^talk 13:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a battleground mentality, you see Wikipedia as a war betwen nations (Hungarians vs enemies) Transerd (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Also in other talk page (see Syrian Civil War) was hard talk: in my talk page, which is shouting. Nonetheless i was not Judas, and not discloses the user. Ergo this is your personal action. Doncsecz^talk 14:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Enemies? No comment. I am a Hungarian. So what? I don't care your nationality and I have no enemies. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I only ask the users, as the wiki is great and is difficult to monitor everything. Transerd is new user, probably sockpuppet. Doncsecz^talk 13:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of that? If so, then take it to WP:SPI. If not, I would stop with the accusations of socking. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Transerd is sockpuppet?

Transerd is a new user and suddenly joined a deletion. This is presumably a sockpuppet. How is the investigation? Doncsecz^talk 13:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you truly think that, then open a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI. Be aware though, that you will have to provide proof that he is sock puppeting. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Transerd indeed a sockpuppet. The owner is User:Iaaasi. See the User:Transerd page. Doncsecz^talk 08:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Try for an SPI -- than another editor who is not an admin sought to label a person as a sock does not make them one. See WP:SPI please. Collect (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I did suggest that twice, but it seems to have been ignored. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You need specific evidence to say somebody is a sockpuppet other than showing that another editor has claimed they are. Claims do not equal evidence. Against the current (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Veterans Today

It's JarlaxleArtemis. WP:DENY works. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am wondering if we could get another set of eyes in Talk:Veterans Today. It appears I have inadvertently put myself between two editors who have a pro-/anti-Israel dispute, and the newer of the two has reverted the others talk page comments and is instructing others to take action to discover her real identity: diff. Thanks! Location (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Looks like the editor may have already been blocked. Thanks anyway. Location (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Continued Block Evasion by User:Postnoonnews, Personal Attacks and Issuing Legal Threats

A recently concluded sockpuppet investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Postnoonnews) verified various sockpuppet accounts were being used by User:Postnoonnews including many IP addresses. Even after all the socks were blocked this person has been continuing to make edits to the article talk page Talk:Vishal Kandukuri and violating their block and evading it. The following are the IP addresses, namely :-

• Special:Contributions/183.82.38.207
• Special:Contributions/124.123.2.235
• Special:Contributions/202.153.41.219
• Special:Contributions/124.123.53.142
• Special:Contributions/124.123.3.89
• Special:Contributions/49.207.108.242
• Special:Contributions/183.82.36.221
• Special:Contributions/49.207.127.104
• Special:Contributions/183.82.36.241

All of them trace back/geolocate to one single location (Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India). As more and more IP's sock and come into knowledge they will be reported here. I request administrator's to take the necessary and appropriate action. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

how can you say everything is a sock? i am an individual user over 80 % of citizens in hyderabad, AP, use beam telecom service, and this place has a population of 80 million & it is obvious that your behavior lead viewers to contribute their opinions, ^ the subject has hyderabad notability. how on earth, can you link all these to one user - whoever postnoon ?124.123.3.89 (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC) . why weren't any of these present before January 3rd 2013 ? god save you guys. u cant just block every contributor, its against policy's.124.123.3.89 (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The article itself seems to lack justification for inclusion based on notability, after perusing the sources. Lots of puffery. Doc talk 05:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Can an admin go and take a look at talk:Vishal Kandukuri - accociated with the sockpuppeter, and there are several ip socks which have showed up, one of whichis claiming that they have submitted a "special complaint", whatever that is... Mdann52 (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Various personal attacks have been made and legal threats been issued on Talk:Vishal Kandukuri against me and User:Bonadea by the IP socks. I request urgent administrator attention on this case. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

IP vandalism

66.87.69.15 has been vandalizing multiple articles, including repeated vandalism of the BLP on Stephenie Meyer. Less serious vandalism has occurred on some video game character articles and the article on SOPA.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. In the future, WP:AIV is the better place to report vandalism. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

MMA Project needs somebody to step in

There is a huge split in the project. A lot of articles are being put up for deletion which actually meet the notability requirements. Where one of the major problems is coming in is WP:NMMA says in order for an MMA fighter to be noteable he must have 3 professional fights for a top tier organization. The fights that happen on the Ultimate Fighter are professionally, sanctioned fights. If they weren't, they would be illegal. They are put on by the UFC, which is a top tier organization. We have people absolutely refusing to accept that they meet the requirements. We have tried to explain it, and it hasn't helped. I have tried to come up with another system for notability. They oppose it, so I keep asking them to come up with a compromise. They keep drawing a line in the sand and aren't wanting to compromise or work out something that the entire group can live with. I even have a couple of them threatening to try to get me blocked or get an admin review on me because I don't want to just drop it and do it the way that those couple people are trying to dictate. I keep asking for other ideas, asking for a compromise, but it appears as if there are a couple people who don't want to work out a diplomatic solution. I am just not sure where to go with this. What do you do when there are a couple people trying to dictate the project and don't want to compromise with the rest of us. If we try to change anything, they just create editing wars, which I don't want to get into. I think the MMA project needs somebody from outside the project to come in and help create a compromise that might not make anybody happy, but is something that the entire project can accept. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#Consensus for WP:NMMA Vote Help up us out please. Willdawg111 (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why is this one ANI? Anyway please remember the basic notability requirement is sufficient coverage in reliable secondary source. If the criteria you're proposing doesn't tehd to only include people who meet the basic notability requirement, it's most likely flawed. In particular, any complicated 'point' based system is almost definitely not something we want. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Essentially what Nil Einne said. If these items are notable, go to their AfD discussions, and show they've been covered in depth by multiple reliable uninvolved sources. If they haven't, they're not notable and should be removed, whatever the MMA project's internal pages say to any other effect. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't have a dog in this fight (bad pun, not intended), but this MMA stuff keeps popping up over and over, and cursory references to GNG is not going to cut it. I agree this isn't an ANI issue, and am fine if someone moves it, but it seems clear that something needs to get concretely done about an MMA criteria. RFCs that matter are always horrific processes that have walls of text... I'm not sure we have a better method here. Regardless, MMA articles right now are being handled piecemeal at AfD with all the problems that go with that. It would be nice to have a consensus criteria that put some brightlines down, so at least the AfD discussions could have some anchors to work from, instead of the current mess they are. Shadowjams (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That's been proposed before, but (if I remember correctly) no proposal got consensus from the broader community; Example. There's been so much discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability that it has 7 archive pages. Personally, I think that project-specific notability rules tend to cause needless strife and wikilawyering, but I think it could be a good "tactical" solution in this case... bobrayner (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah I'm aware there is/was an RfC about it. The extent of my involvement is that I think I've !voted in a few MMA article's AfDs, but that was when I was naive about the broader discussion. I agree with you that this issue, the RfC in particular, seems hopelessly deadlocked, but we've had these issues before. It's somewhat strange (maybe ironic) we're at this point, but Wikipedia has dealt with much more contentious issues too. I don't have a concrete idea of the way to fix this, but I think this issue can be resolved to all party's satisfaction better than some of our other more intractable issues. The RfC needs some really dedicated administrator (maybe a panel of administrators) that can corral that mess into a meaningful discussion. It's difficult, but not unique.
      I'm not sure what the way out of this is ultimately. It's not going to go away. This sport is essentially an equivalent to boxing, and there are tons of minor events that aren't notable, and lots of large events that clearly are. We need some logical way to deal with them. And doing it halfhazard at AfD is a really bad way to deal with them. It'd be nice if we had a better method than RfC, but short of arbcom, we don't have one for an issue like this. Shadowjams (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
      • An MMA notability guideline may be okay, if it's done with the right aim and designed at least partially by someone with a general understanding and experience of our notability criteria and how to write them. Proposal like the point system link above, well to be blunt while the editor may be acting in good faith, it doesn't help anything. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, an impending incident that probably does need wider administrator attention is the current spate of immediate AFD re-nominations that are being made in this area as soon as AFD discussions are closed:

• Jamie Yager (AfD discussion) — renominated just over 24 hours after prior AFD discussion closure
• Antonio McKee (AfD discussion) — renominated just over two hours after prior AFD discussion closure

Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've watched passively for a long time about the constant war over the MMA articles, yes the project has had some issues with its own contributors, yes there have been some off-wiki canvassing by others, but there is also a concentrated effort by a few users to purge the content off Wiki. The simple fact is, that MMA project is decimated right now and many of the contributors have already left wiki leaving few people capable of actually making decent arguments about the material. Something needs to be done, but no one seems willing to take a stand and fill that void and at this point, who can blame them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion Close this WP:CANVASSING request with prejudice. OP doesn't like that the same proposal that's been raised 2 times previously (Both times since December 29th 2012) is getting shot down again for the exact same policy reasons as before. Consensus can change, but there should be a reasonable limit to how many times the exact same proposal can be floated without the proposer transcending to the "I didn't hear that" level of disruption. I suggest a reading of the {{Uw-mmawarning}} over the editor so as to make it clear that their efforts are disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur keeps repeating that same mis-information. The idea was brought up, there were mixed comments about it. I actually drew up a proposal and presented it and Hasteur threatened to turn me in for an admin review. There is no basis for this nor is it disruptive. I keep repeating that I don't have an issue with people not liking what I suggested but it is just a suggestion to try to move things forward with a compromise (I've even asked the people who didn't like my suggestion to propose a compromise). The only way this works is if EVERYBODY in the project compromises and comes to a solution that everybody can live with. The issue we are having is that one side refuses to compromise, which is why I requested that we get a mediator from outside the group to come in and try to work out a compromise with all the active editors. Willdawg111 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And here the first stone gets thrown. I cite Wikipedia_talk:MMA#MMA_notability where you were told no because it was too gamey (December 29th 2012). I also cite Wikipedia_talk:MMANOT#Doing_away_with_the_tiered_system as the second case where the exact list was used again and again I had to explain why the list and points are not appropriate. It is not mis-information if it's not incorrect. Willdawg111 wants to use a system of their devising using arbitrary points to brightline the Notability threshold. As has been explained 3 times before, this type of regime is inherently gameable as an individual fighter could collect the points they needed by fighing in 2000 of "Bob's Backyard Brawl MMA" events and would then be able to have the "He has the points" pushers to never let the fighter out of wikipedia. I call for an admin to review Willdawg111's behavior entirely to observe the personal attacks, snide remarks (even in his original posting here), disruptive pushing of ideas that were not appropriate, and intentional misstatemens of fact. Hasteur (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems to me that Willdawg suffers from a bad case of "I didn't hear that". His latest example[109] is his persistence to claim that UFC TUF reality show exhibition fights can be included to justify a fighter's notability as per WP:NMMA. He makes this claim, yet again, even have it has been explained, multiple times, that these exhibition bouts are not "professional competition at the highest level".[110][111][112][113][114](There are also multiple AfDs Willdawg111 participated in where the same explanations were offered.) This is just a single instance of this behavior. There has been similar instances in regards to changing result table formats, rankings of MMA promotions/organizations and AfDs. (I can go find all the diffs if requested, but it's going to be a long list.) I'm unsure what the solution to this situation is, other than perhaps an uninvolved editor offering WP:MENTORSHIP to Willdawg111. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because a couple people keep telling me the sky is pink, doesn't mean that the sky is pink. It you look at it from the other side, it is you and a couple other people who suffer from "I didn't hear that". I have been trying to explain to a couple users that if the fights that occur on the TUF show weren't Professionally sanctioned fights, that the fighters and executives of ZUFFA would be criminally charged. I am a licensed judge/ref and have connections with state athletic commission officials. I understand how the sanctioning process works, and it is unreasonable to expect me to ignore the FACTS just because a couple annonymous people on the internet don't understand. I believe the refusal to accept the guidelines established by the group would actually warrant the need to assign TreyGeek a WP:MENTORSHIP. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur is exactly correct here. As I watch the AfDs, I find myself taken aback at some of the arguments. It seems to me that the entire MMA Project needs to take a close look at what they feel is notable, and what actually is notable. I don't know all of the personalities or their motivations. What I do know is under some of the logic I have seen in the AfDs, that my son and I would qualify for articles ourselves. Obviously it isn't that way with every MMA Project AfD, but I do think that perhaps they should have a conversation among themselves, with neutral third parties, and listen to what those third parties have to say. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment for sue You are one to talk about arguements. your arguement for deletion of Antonio Mckee was "not notable".

Could someone help Willdawg111 with their SPI report here. It appears to be improperly filled out as the accused sock puppets is not explicitly stated (though I think he is accusing me of being a sock of someone else). --TreyGeek (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the fact that some guideline needs to be made for MMA; the issue's gone on for simply too long. But nothing's going to happen here at ANI to help that, and this thread is not going to go anywhere. There should be a more visible RfC with specific proposals. And I would highly encourage the regulars in MMA notability to seek out some neutral admins to agree to help dig through an RfC that has specific proposals. I don't think that will happen at ANI though; maybe requests for closure. Shadowjams (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think the MMA WikiProject is going to be able to settle on notability guidelines on its own. It's failed to come to an agreement in the last year even with the help of neutral mediators (notably Dennis Brown, as well as others). In my opinion, new notability guidelines for MMA will have to come from outside the project and dictated to us. I'm not sure if that's ever been done before or if it could be done at all. (I haven't done the research to see, ignoring the potential lack of knowledge of MMA outside of the WikiProject.) The various factions with the project are too at odds and/or too jaded that an agreement can be made on our own. Kind of sad. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the thrust (but not the idea that they can be set externally) of TreyGeek's comment it did seem like the project was moving towards a good proposal courtesy of the work of User:Kevlar at WT:MMA#Event Notability, however it all fell over; it seems to me the big sticking point is the pro-mma editors want a guideline that will guarantee a single page articles on (almost) all UFC events those in the opposing camp oppose any guideline that has a free pass on an article that does not demonstrate the lasting significance outlined in WP:NOT. ✍ Mtking ✉ 01:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I had started working on an RfC, but stopped when someone jumped in with another. Part of the problem, honestly, is a lot of impulsive false starts by a great many participants. Too many insist on a quick fix, easy answer, and they always fail, and nothing changes. There is a drastic shortage of patience with MMA editors, making it a very, very challenging place to mediate. There are also a few obstructionists, one is particular that drove me off (and has since been indef blocked). I'm not sure what can be done because of the rabid impatience and digging in over there, and I've genuinely given it a lot of thought. My goal was to craft an RfC and do whatever it took to get a huge community wide turn out, which would establish a clear and overwhelming consensus on the issue. I really don't care what that consensus is, I'm just tired of the fights. Again, others keep short circuiting efforts with impatience and wikilawyering. If anything is accomplished eventually, it will require leadership from outside of the MMA community itself. BTW, I won't be around much for a few days, as our entire database system blew up this afternoon, so I will be doing double shifts for a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"They keep drawing a line in the sand and aren't wanting to compromise or work out something that the entire group can live with. I even have a couple of them threatening to try to get me blocked or get an admin review on me because I don't want to just drop it and do it the way that those couple people are trying to dictate." Thats what so interesting about the situation. Anyone who dares to stand up for UFC articles is accused of being an MMA fanboy, sockpuppet or troublemaker. In any other realm of experience on Wikipedia, this would never be allowed to occur. Portillo (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You are quoting me and then you make a statement that has nothing to do with what I said or what I have tried to support. If you look at the discussion here and on the project talk page, you will see that I am one of the group of editors fighting to protect the notability of the UFC Ultimate Fighter show. I certainly have never, ever accused anybody if being an MMA fanboy, sockpuppet or troublemaker for standing up to UFC articles, because if I did then I would be calling myself out since I am one of those people standing up for UFC articles. I have opened 1 sockpuppet investigation, and it only took them about a day to confirm that the person was really a sockpuppet of a banned user. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Portillo. You must be new here. (In other words, yes, it has happened before.) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Or many fringe subjects or global warming or just about every ethnic dispute or ... Ravensfire (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much there is no one except maybe myself and Wilddawg who are willing to debate, and compromise at the Wikiproject. Treygreek, Hastuer, and most of the others I see are absolutely not willing to compromise, and cling to their inherited notability arguements presented at WP:NMMA, which leads to people treating WP:MMATIER as the gospel. Even on matters such as formatting (which i don't have too much stake in). But I have offered my input in the past to formattting issues and the discussion seems to go nowhere. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

PortlandOregon has hit the point exactly which is why it was brought up here in the first place. If you read through recent posts on the project talk page you can see request after request for people to come together and compromise and work something out but it is always the same story. There are a couple of editors that refuse to work together with everybody and compromise. They resort to referencing links that don't apply to threatening to get us blocked or banned if we don't do what they want us to do. They are so quick to try to pull out links to guidelines if they think that it backs up their point of view but when somebody points one out to them, they will tell us that we should ignore it because it isn't really what somebody meant to write. One of the biggest that I have an issue with is the WP:NMMA in regards to the TUF fights. They have tried to argue the UFC is only top tier sometimes (top tier when it supports their side but not top tier when it supports somebody they want to delete). They have tried to say TUF fights aren't professional although I has explained to them that they have to be or it would be illegal. The list of failed arguments goes on and on. Eventhough with my credentials and knowledge I should easily be considered the project expert on MMA rules and sanctioning, they tell me that I am disruptive or refuse to listen because I won't accept statements and opinions of a couple guys that just aren't true. They are trying to tell me that I should accept these false statements because I am told to. Really? I don't believe this is how the project is supposed to work, and their refusal to compromise and work together has brought us to this point. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have a good argument, perseverance on talk without making the same kind of grade-school claims of persecution that led to most uninvolved editors dismissing the arguments of the "pro-MMA" side is the right approach. Whining about it on ANI is actively counterproductive. Stop blaming other editors and state your case plainly through the usual dispute resolution channels. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Willdawg has repeated virtually the same points that he made in the very first post, so I think we can officially call this thread full circle, and close it up. We all know there's deadlock (imho because nobody's actually arguing on merits anymore, just restating their positions over and over and over) and only a wide community RfC will fix that. ANI will not. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If this isn't the right place, then please point us in the right direction please. Willdawg111 (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone has. WP:Requests for comment. Requests for closure is the best of the AN boards, although at this point in the conversation that's premature. Shadowjams (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NLT by book publisher

Regarding the publisher's attempt to add a promotional announcement of a new edition to the The Stars My Destination article, a threat of legal action was posted to my talk page. I pointed them to WP:NLT and asked them to retract the threat, but the response was more of an attempt at a quid pro quo (retraction in return for allowing the promo), and not unequivocal. At this point, I'd like to move the discussion (which is here) off of my talk page and onto AN/I, and I will inform the publisher of the change of venue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Account and two IPs notified.[115],[116],[117] Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't an ISBN and publisher info be included? Maybe not in the prose, but it seems like valid infobox type stuff.--v/r - TP 02:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really: infoboxes should contain first edition info only, otherwise they become bloated. There is an argument for having something in the text, but only if it is somehow a notable edition, which I don't see as being the case here. - SchroCat (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not even in the adaptation section? Has anyone explained this to the user? I don't even understand their threat, what is the 255 number for? The only content I can see coming out of the book is 200 characters. I don't even understand the complaint. Are they arguing that Wikipedia does not have a right to have an article at all about the book? That would seem to go against the purpose of fair use.--v/r - TP 02:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) My reading of the "legal threat" is that this John Colby is threatening to remove the entire page if we do not do everything he wishes. He seems to think that he has an actual chance of winning that type of case, but as he doesn't own the copyright to anything we have on the page (as far as I can see), he can't have the page taken down. However, it is still a legal threat, and I think the 255 number is in relation to some sort of precedent (can't remember where I heard it) in relation to a % of a work that can be used under fair use at the original quality (of text for example). Just my two cents, but he should be indef blocked for legal threats. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's a re-release or release in a different format then it's not an adaptation. See MOS:NOVELS#Publication history, which would cover this: "you should briefly outline the publication history of the novel ONLY if there is interesting information to relate" (original emphasis). If there is something interesting to relate about this particular edition, it's not immediately obvious. - SchroCat (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate provides a "Publication history" section to include a list of editions with ISBNs, with the comment "major publication history to be included here, not everything if too extensive". A featured article on a comparable topic, Starship Troopers, contains such a section, as do other high-quality novel articles that I've seen.GabrielF (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That aside, as I've intimated on Beyond My Ken's talk page, I think the most significant current edition is not the one Mr. Colby wants to plug but the novel's appearance in the Library of America American Science Fiction: Nine Classic Novels of the 1950s. That perhaps merits a mention in the article, but I'm not sure that the iPicturebooks version does unless it is (if it indeed is) as the first e-book edition (as BMK suggested in his response to my talk-page post).Deor (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For a book long out of print I can see a current edition being listed somewhere, but the print history is not established here. This is unquestionably one of "the books" of speculative fiction history, but even for highly notable books one does not include every published edition.

I don't know that the ultimate answer is necessarily "no", but not the way they tried to source it, which was in the wrong place and overly promotional. The legal threat did not help. They seem to (I hope) be backing away from that, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the precedent that would be set. If we allow publishers to insert a squib about every new edition that comes out, it's going to clutter up our book articles without providing any real encyclopedic information. That's why the standard is that the edition needs to be notable or have "interesting information" attached to it. The publisher's response appeared to me to be an attempt to strongarm us; I can't imagine their appeal to the WMF [118] is going to get anywhere. (Their apparent refusal to engage here is also something of a slap in the face as well.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you, but I do want to point out that similar to "We don't want to be forced to do something because a Publisher wants us to", we also don't want to avoid doing something because a publisher wants us to. The publisher's wishes shouldn't matter either way.--v/r - TP 03:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, I took a look on Amazon at the edition being referred to, and it still carries copyrights by Alfred Bester and his Estate. [119] I would guess that the publisher involved here is the "rights holder" in that they have negotiated permission to publish a new edition, but don't own the copyright to the work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That is the usual situation for written fiction. Author holds copyright, they sell rights to publish it to publishers for a given period of time... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the case. In most instances the copyright is owned by the publisher, who receives ownership of from the author it in return for publishing the work. It's only well-established authors who have the pull to be able to retain copyright, or people who are so significantly well known that it's worth the publisher's allowing them to keep the copyright. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, that era is long gone, at least with books. Most authors I know retain their rights. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Really, that's good to know. Being an old fart, my information must have come from an earlier era. Sorry to have posted misinformation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Go and read Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works#Avoiding violating copyright, TParis. Uncle G (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

According to King of Hearts, the OTRS ticket number is Ticket:2013010810000717. Not being an admin, I can't see it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please note how hot the publisher's representative was to insert an ISBN number into the piece. I repeat that these publisher bar code numbers are effectively commercial spam and should be stricken from Wikipedia. Serious people interested in finding a book at a library can easily do that by author or title. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• While they certainly should be used carefully, ISBNs can be useful. Considering that different editions/printings of a book may differ in layout and page numeration, being able to use an ISBN to locate a specific version may help readers in verifying information in an article. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Colby is a serial spammer, inserting gratuitous ISBNs of his e-book versions into articles willy-nilly (in one case, into the lede of a biography). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I assume they all have been reverted? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and an IP purporting to be Colby left a snarky note on my talk page (q.v.). ----Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the two IPs that I notified about this report, since they were clearly being used by Colby or his employees. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an OTRS ticket on this, and it looks like there are eyes on the articles the publisher is targeting, so unless something else pops up, it's probably best to close this for the time being. Not "resolved" exactly, but also not needing immediate admin action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Inherited Notability in MMA

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.

---

• Question I was also curious at what point can someeone step in and say that WP:MMANOT/tier is a failed proposal? Cuz people go to WP:NMMA and see the link to the different tiers and then take that as the gospel that says exactly which organizations pass notability to their employees and which don't. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It's not just people clinging to WP:NMMA such as this prime example, but with the ininformed and others who just can't be bothered to do a basic google test as is the case of Sue Rangall saying simply "Not notable" in regards to Antonio Mckee. I'm not sure what can be done about that tho.

but I would really like to see the line removed from WP:NMMA that speaks about the top tier fights, so people cant just say "no top tier fights, Next!"

Also: if you have time, Take a look at all the MMA afd's and see all of the lazy comments regarding fighters being deleted

• Question Why do boxers only have to have one fight on a primetime network to be notable? Yet when it can be found verified through multiple,reliable,quality independent sources thta a fighter has fought on primetime multiple times it isn't good enough ,and people will still say "fails WPNMMA". Thank you for reading. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Question I was also wondering if WP:Kickboxing is an actual guideline or not? I ask because it speaks of K-1, and anyone fighting for it being conveyed notability. That is significant if it were true because it would qualify guys like the Antonio Mckee because he fought for K-1 under in their Heros event. The same is true for alot of other mma fighters. Thank you

• Comment I would like someone to explain to me the concept of inherited notability and why the fighters being AFD'd are being subject to the standards of an essay WP:MMATIER, by way of WP:NMMA's 3 top tier fight requirement. This seems to go against wikipedias concept of notability not rubbing off onto things, and I would like to see it removed if possible. I do apologize for the mess this appears to be. I keep having the same arguements over, and over, and over. I have grown weary of typing them. anyways. here is the original conversation I had about this

• • ME  ::Good evening. In regards to your response on inherited notability over at the wikimma project. If this goes against wikipedia then how to you account for WP:NMMA. That guideline supports the idea that fighters inherit notability when fighting in certain organizations. Then you have a link to that trash essay. Where the only important thing is " Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. ". Trust me. I disagree with the entire premise of a tier system. It just seems impossible to present enough refs at afds to keep notable fighters from being deleted. I can find 5-10 quality refs and its not good enough. Yet a nightmare before christmas gameboy game has a wikipedia page. I am just trying to play on their level. If it goes against wikipedia why do you allow it to continue to fester?

Tre are also editors citing WP:NMMA as a reason to delete an article. Yet they admit that it passes WP:GNG. It is very frustrating. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC) he

• • ADMIN :On the first point, what NMMA does is provide criteria (not classification) where by meeting that criteria, sources are likely to exist or will exist to make an encyclopedic article and thus we presume notability. Given the two points there revolve around championships and winning them, this is a completely reasonable assumption - winning a major MMA tourney is certainly something that will be reported on and give depth to the fighter. But just participating is not sufficient, as what the proposed tier system does. You can't guaranty sources about the fighter himself just because you can report the results of matches they've been in.

As for the second point, it should be the case that meeting NMMA should be an alternate way of showing notability than the GNG, and it is not required to show that the GNG is met (this is iterated early on at WP:N). It would be helpful to see what AFDs where this argument was made. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, for now this is the only one I can find. The person did change their delete vote to a keep after the fact. But the fact that I actually had to reason with them is troubling. Nearly every mma afd is a result of the conimator claiming they fail WP:NMMA when they clearly pass. Please see Antonio Mckeees second afd for an example. I will try to find the other AFD where i saw the person claim NMMA over GNG, but I have been to ALOT of mma afds over the weekend. I've been hustling to save these guys against people indescriminantly trying to delete them. I can bring out a wheelbarrow full of quality refs and people will still say Fails WP:NMMA. For example. look at the plethora of WP:SOURCES at MIke Ricci's afd. His afd being closed as a no consensus is a slap in the face of common sense and especially WP:SOURCES.

• • ME ::I do get the thing about being presumed notable if you are the champ. But then you have people saying? "oh well, he(papy Abedi) fought in Shooto Finland so he passes WP:NMMA because Shooto is considered "top tier". Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for Papi, and I do think it was a miracle he was kept based on the currrent situation, and this example is a prime example of what is wrong with MMA on wikipedia. Thanks for listening to my rant. Oh, If you would like a tad more insight into what these mma guys are having to deal with at AFD's please read my gripe on MBisanz' wikitalk

Not buying into this discussion except to say PortlandOregon97217 can you please learn to use indentation correctly, your posts here are a mess and it is very difficult to work out which parts are you writing. If you write more than one paragraph in a post you need to indent each paragraph the same, otherwise it looks like different people posting and it becomes very confusiong. Oh, and please always sign your posts. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Indentation fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Someone undid it, and made the entire beginning of this thread completely incomprehensible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Request to close - Can somebody explain why this conversation is on this notice board? This does not seem to be the venue for this topic. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Question - I would be happy to post it to the appropriate place. Thank you for being helpful. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Opinion It seems like he posted this here because of an issue with a couple editors in the project. They are pushing their agenda, and absolutely refuse to compromise, work together as a team, or accept facts presented to them. We have another conversation on this page because of the same editors. There just doesn't seem to be anything that we can do. If we present facts that don't support their argument, they start linking guidelines that don't apply or threaten to get us banned or blocked. They appear to be watching/monitoring our contribution pages and go behind and delete work that they don't agree with. If we try to undelete it, they create an editing war. At this point, it really is going to take an admin to come in and put a stop to these couple accounts (I am using the term accounts on purpose because there are a couple accounts that are doing the same exact thing, acting the same way, and support the other accounts even when something is clearly wrong. And the rest of the project has no idea what to think about these coincidences/colaborations).Willdawg111 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

John Morrison (Montana politician): Revision history - User_talk:Correctfacts

I did a revision on the page but am meeting with pretty quick white-washing revisions from a single-purpose user whose entire edit history is getting rid of anything critical of the subject matter, done by User_talk:Correctfacts. I will warn them now; is there any way to stop this? Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Six years, and the only edits are to John Morrison (Montana politician)!? That's... dedication. My first assumption is that it's either an account passed around one of his staff or maybe himself personally. Has the possibility of conflict of interest ever been discussed? Salvidrim! ✉ 06:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Might also look into User:MTdem and User:Montanadem as well.--v/r - TP 19:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

From a purely chronological standpoint, no overlap in editing between the three subsequent accounts -- every single edit to that specific article or its talk page (except for one in a related article), most of it possible white-washing... I smell paid PR, but while the editor hasn't declared a WP:COI that I'm aware of, assumptions can be dangerous and damaging. They have engaged in discussion and it doesn't seem to be excessively disruptive, so I believe letting it evolve may be the less bad option in this case. I recommend engaging the user in discussion about his motivations, however. I am going to leave him a second message, in hopes he will be able to reply here. Salvidrim! ✉ 08:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I went over and took a peek. I did a little copyediting to tone down the PR tone of the article and make it a bit more encyclopedic, but overall, the content as it sits today is accurate and in line with WP:BLP, so while partisans on both sides may have things to squawk about, the article itself is within wikipedia guidelines. FYI, I generally avoid editing the Montana politics articles because I actually have met many of these people IRL, but I do touch them up a bit when there appears to be NPOV problems or some sort of staff editing going on. Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Sebrider

Sebrider has been banned indefinitely from the French wikipedia (see this discussion, and especially this vote) for multiple personal attacks (most notably against me, but also against whoever does not happen to share his (often highly idiosyncratic, and anyway highly personal) ideas about history, politics, "marxist science", communism, et.al.), POV-pushing, and so on. Take note that he has been banned not only for his behavior but for his tendency to promote his political ideas. Now he has imported here, on his talk page, most of the contents from his blocked user page, and also from various French article's talk pages. This includes several personal attacks against me, and another French user (Celette). All that he has written is in French, but it still constitutes personal attacks (including this one for which, if I am not mistaken, he got one of his first blocks in august 2011). Here he calls me "one of the most vulgar members of the French-language wikipedia". You could ask the French administrators what they think of his behavior : that might be instructive.

Even though his personal attacks are not written in English, they still constitute attacks and it is annoying to see this person reproduce here the behavior that led to his banishing on fr.wikipedia. It would be nice if you could ask him to remove the content of his talk page, which consists almost entirely of ramblings against his perceived enemies (most notably me). thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Je n'ai pas à subir les insultes permanentes (troll, style qui ne lui convient pas, fautes d'orthographes, charabia...etc), les délations, les calomnies et les suppressions intempestifs (bien que compléments moult fois sourcés) parce que les sources ne conviennent pas à monsieur Jean-Jacques Georges et à ses fidèles. Sources que j'apportes qui vont, naturellement et sans intention, à l'encontre de leur idéologie profasciste ou anticommuniste (Werth, Service, Nolt, Courtois......etc), antimatérialiste/antiscientifique et de leurs pensées petites-bourgeoises (cf Alexandre Zinoviev pour l'expression). Jean-Jacques Georges est un "professionnel" de wikipédia francophone qui a pignon sur rue et qui est sous la protection des administrateurs francophones. Toutes validations des sources et toutes modifications doivent être validées par cette mafia sous peine d'être condamnée et calonmiée.

Wikipédia est arrivée à sa maturation : "Vous savez sans doute que, dans mes livres, beaucoup de personnages — pour faire advenir le possible — luttent contre l’impossible. Mais si l’on rassemble 100.000 personnes, si on les enferme dans un enclos, si on les y laisse vivre pendant un an tout en les nourrissant normalement, je puis vous garantir que je sais à l’avance ce qui se passera d’ici là. Je puis vous l’inscrire quelque part, dans une petite enveloppe qu’on ouvrirait dans un an, afin de vérifier si je me suis trompé. Car de telles expériences sont innombrables : chaque fois que vous tentez d’organiser une très grande masse de gens, les modes d’organisation sont toujours et partout les mêmes. Et d’ici à un an, lorsque vous retrouverez ces gens enfermés, vous trouverez des subordonnés, des supérieurs, vous trouverez l’inégalité, vous trouverez une mafia et un petit « KGB » local." (Alexandre Zinoviev entretien par Jacques Freymon, L’exigence d'égalité, L’exigence d'inégalité dans les sociétés communistes, Rencontres internationales de Genève, 1981, 147, p8), (signé Sebrider renegat de wikipédia francophone et Le Sot de la Maison Jaune d'Alexandre Zinoviev) Sebrider (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"You probably know that in my books, a lot of characters - to bring about the possible - fighting against impossible. But if we gather 100,000 people, if they are locked in a pen, if they are allowed to live for a year while nourishing normally, I can assure you that I know in advance what will happen by then. I can write it somewhere in a small envelope that open within a year, to check if I'm wrong. because such experiences are innumerable: every time you try to organize a large mass of people, methods of organization are always and everywhere the same. and within a year when you find these people locked up, you will find subordinates, superiors, you will find inequality, there is a mafia and a small "KGB" local." (L’exigence d'égalité, L’exigence d'inégalité dans les sociétés communistes, Rencontres internationales de Genève, 1981, 147, p8)

D'abord, ici on se trouve au wikipédia de la langue anglaise; alors une continuation d'une discussion de vos "mésentendus" sur la wikipédia francophone devrait être mené en anglais. First of all, we are in the english language wikipedia here, so a continuation of the discussion of your "misunderstandings" in the french language wikipedia should be held in English. Lectonar (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI : I have absolutely no interest in continuing here any misunderstanding of any sort with Sebrider. As a matter of fact, I want no exchange at all with him. I just want him to stop insulting me, whether it be in French or in English. If you read French, you may notice above that he is accusing me of being a member of some "mafia". Moreover, he states that I promote an ideology that is, according to him, "anticommunist" (whatever that means) and "profascist" (that is a blatant insult, on the adminstrators' noticeboard at that !). If someone could ask him to stop once and for all, that would be nice. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that Sebrider is using the pages User:Sebrider and User talk:Sebrider solely for the purpose of hosting content related to a dispute at the French Wikipedia that he is no longer permitted to host there. Its presence here is disruptive and does nothing to help improve the English Wikipedia. Therefore it should be deleted (independently of whether the content is judged to contain personal attacks or not). -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what he has been doing. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Je comprends bien ce que Sebrider a écrit. Je crois qu'il n'est pas venu ici pour écrire une encyclopedie. / I understand quite well what Sebrider has written. I believe he has not come here to write an encyclopedia. WP:POINT applies, too. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have left a warning concerning the personal attacks above on Sebriders talk-page, in English and French. Lectonar (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now removed the inappropriate content from User:Sebrider and User talk:Sebrider. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And what of Sebrider's articlespace contributions here (most of which are to new BLPs he's created)? Can someone more familiar with the subject matter check those out and ensure they're okay? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

La confiance règne. Thank !

We can be slander, be mock, be insulted under cover of the administration : Members are equal, but some are more equal than others.

It's again an excellent universal example which not denied "Communism as a Reality" (Alexandre ZInoviev).

How to participate if every time a member (under the protection of the administration) removes and invalids all sources (Alexandre Zinovev, Karl Marx, Simon Gouz, Mark Edele, Dominico Losurdo...etc) because they do not fit into his prejudices ? He struggled with the Pascal Charbonnat's book that I had proposed for dialectical materialism article ("Histoire des philosophie matérialiste" Sylepse, 2007). He still delete of the article the bibliography of the authors of dialectical materialism that I set up (wrote in ppd by me but hidden and archived by JJG [120]).

You can éliminate Sebrider but you can not deny his sociological reality personified by Jean-Jacques Georges. He is not an "adolescent taré" contrary to what Ms. JJG said in the emission of television ("Envoyé special" in France2). But, he is the best personification of these sociologicals phenomenas in wikipedia. Pauvre Encyclopédie ! Sebrider (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Vous n'êtes pas Jules César, monsieur, de si parler de vous-même au troisième personne. Je crois que vous ne respectez pas les règles de l'encyclopédie, selon lesquels on doit utiliser un point de vue neutre et éviter les attaques personnelles. Votre haine pour M. Georges ne m'interesse point, mais si vous voulez continuer ici, il sera mieux que vous l'abandonnera.

(You are not Julius Caesar, sir, to thus speak of yourself in the third person. I believe that you do not respect the rules of the encyclopedia, according to which one must use a neutral point of view and avoid personal attacks. Your hatred for Mr Georges does not interest me in the slightest, but if you wish to continue here, it will be better that you abandon it.) AlexTiefling (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather, this is Jean-Jacques Georges who doesn't like anybody. Especially, when he is contradicted. Thus, with faithfuls, they makes accusations falses to eliminite those who don't think like them. It isn't for nothing that JJG hate the "CAr", the Arbitration Committee (Comité d'arbitrage)

In our case it is the subjects of communism. I never remove or delete these input sources. But if someone or me brings others sources which goes unintentionally against sources of Jean-Jacques Georges this sources are immedialy eliminated. Sebrider (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The dispute over the sources doesn't matter, you lost when you resorted to attacks. They didn't 'eliminate' you, you eliminated yourself. You are no longer equal when you violate rules such as: no personal attacks. That was a decision and an action that you took and you are responsible for it.--v/r - TP 19:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, more personal attacks. I wish to stress that I do not have the slightest interest in pursuing a conflict with Sebrider, nor do I really care about him : I am just tired by this guy who has been insulting me for about two years on the French wikipedia and I just want him to stop these incoherent attacks against me. (for example, here he accuses me of "trolling" because I warned him about this section like I'm supposed to, and he calls Lectoran's warning "menaces") Could someone ask him again, firmly, to put an end once and for all to this loud, disruptive behavior ? Thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Yes, but..." is considered by Them as a personal attack. A modification in the article is considered by Them as new work or insufficient source. An explination is considered by Them as a personal attack althougt they've ordered me to explain on the page of talk this little modification . A little modification of article is immediatly erased by Them. Also, in the page of talk, they do everything to discredit my modicafications and my sources, and also myself. ...etc. If I don't flattens in front of them, Them accuse us to make personal attack and trolling [121]. If it doesn't work, they make a calomnious report for the politburo in order to eliminate that who dares to contradict. If we show them theirs attitudes towards others, they are unhappy and pretend to be a holy victime. I'm not the only member with whom they have this behavior. A behavior that is never punished, although some members (not me) have already reported to administrators ((often indulgents complicits of this communitarians attitudes (cf Alexandre Zinoviev)). C'est triste pour wikipédia, n'est-ce pas ? More ! I'm not a big contributor. Sebrider (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Judging by the above statement, Sebrider is looking for a block to justify his preconceived notions. And since he shows no sign of relenting in his personal attacks, I think we should oblige him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't look for anything. "That is opposed to the truth, this isn't another truth, but the error" (The master in the "The Yellow House" of AZ). I accept the sources and historicals facts given by Jean-Jacques Georges. But, I reject theirs immédiats conclusions coming from a filtering of sources. It's his great error. I condamn, when he eliminates and rejects others reals facts and universities sources which expand the framework of the object of study. Also, my sources intentionaly break the preconceived ideas and conclusions generated from the alone JJG's sources.

"New knowledge [of] the objects of investigation comes not through observation and experiment (as happens on the empirical level) but through logical judgments in the framework of a given or newly developed theory (i.e., special groups of concepts and statements united by rules of logic)" (Alexandre Zinoviev, in Foundations of the logical theory of scientific knowledge (Complex Logic), éd. Reidel Publishing Company, 1973, partie editorial introduction, p. VIII (part Logical and Physical implication, p.91 in Problems of the Logic of Scientific Knowledge (1964))

Sebrider (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you removed my warning about your personal attacks on your talk-page as being a "menace" (threat). So I'll leave another warning here: if there is another personal attack, someone will block you. Lectonar (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming, once again, the communitarian theory of Alexander Zinoviev. [122]. "You probably know that in my books, a lot of characters - to bring about the possible - fighting against impossible. But if we gather 100,000 peoples, if they are locked in a pen, if they are allowed to live for a year while nourishing normally, I can assure you that I know in advance what will happen by then. I can write it somewhere in a small envelope that open within a year, to check if I'm wrong. because such experiences are innumerable: every time you try to organize a large mass of people, methods of organization are always and everywhere the same. and within a year when you find these people locked up, you will find subordinates, superiors, you will find inequality, there is a mafia and a small "KGB" local." (L’exigence d'égalité, L’exigence d'inégalité dans les sociétés communistes, Rencontres internationales de Genève, 1981, 147, p8). The Fool of The Yellow House : Sebrider (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Mohdasad2006 redux

I posted here about this guy a week ago, but (perhaps because of a lack of drama potential) the thread didn't attract much attention. Well, although the named account has been blocked, he continues to edit from dynamic IPs—106.78.61.219 (talk · contribs), 106.211.75.36 (talk · contribs), 106.204.189.217 (talk · contribs), 223.225.110.68 (talk · contribs), and almost certainly others that I haven't noticed. Is there nothing to be done except trying to find his edits and revert them? My watchlist is getting rather overburdened with places in Uttar Pradesh, and I certainly can't watch every such place. Our articles on Indian towns and villages are in sufficiently terrible shape, since they're mostly edited by people with a poor command both of English and of encyclopedic conventions, and the addition of deliberately incorrect information certainly isn't helping. Frankly, my interest in (and knowledge about) these places is of the slightest, and I'm tempted to just unwatch the articles and let the fellow go to it. It would be comforting, at least, to know that others are trying to monitor the situation, but I see little evidence of that. (I'm not notifying Mohdasad2006 [because he's blocked for a month] or the IPs [because he's doubtless moved on from them] of this thread.) Deor (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Although I am not an admin, I would be happy to help watch articles in this general area; I suppose if the "process" continues, further reversions and short blocks are appropriate. I've worked with editors on similar topics in the past; factual information can be minimal in many occasions, and being watchful and willing to assist in revisions is really the best thing to do. dci | TALK 02:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of incompetence; it's deliberate vandalism by highly dynamic IPs (the 106... IPs are apparenlty from a mobile-phone provider), so "short blocks" are not likely to be effective. I recommended indeffing Mohdasad2006 last time I brought this up, but apparently his being a vandalism-only account willing to sock with IPs around his block isn't enough to impel admins to do even that. Deor (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

He's indefed, but there's no way to tackle the IPs. It's just too massive a range. If someone can build me a list of candidate articles, I can protect them for a month or so.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you for indeffing him and to Drmies for semiprotecting a few articles. That hasn't stopped him, but I guess no more can be done at this time. Deor (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a couple; I'll be glad to do more but I looked, just quickly, at some of those IPs. It's mopping with the water running, as the Dutch might say if they spoke English. Deor--your name reminds me that I need to run off and teach some OE literature. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat my offer. I've got no problem protecting a whole pile of articles, but someone needs to build me the list.—Kww(talk) 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, many of the articles he's been messing with are in Category:Cities and towns in Bijnor district‎, Category:Cities and towns in Meerut district, Category:Cities and towns in Moradabad district, and Category:Cities and towns in Rampur district, though he occasionally wanders afield to neighboring areas, such as southern Uttarakhand. I don't know that it would be worthwhile to semi all the articles in those categories, but it might slow him down some (or just inspire him to create another account). Deor (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

User/user talk page misuse

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.

---

Could someone please take a look at User:Alfiyafahad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? Contribs don't seem to bear any relation to building an encyclopedia.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've CSD'ed user and talk page. NE Ent 20:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've SNOW-deleted 'em. Not really a CSD criterion, I know, but Wikipedia doesn't need to be a free webhost for some company's technical manual for more than nine months. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless you're going to indef the editor, I would have deleted the garbage from the talk page but left the other stuff, including the notice of this topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. I had already left him a note explaining what happened, with a link to this thread; should I do more than that? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's good enough. Restoring the talk page and then deleting everything but legitimate messages is the other alternative, but it's probably not worth the hassle. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

TeeTylerToe Block Appeal

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.

---

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

TeeTylerToe has posted a block appeal. Since his previous block and appeal were a result of discussion here I'm posting this here for discussion. I talked extensively with TTT on the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel. My personal conclusion was that while TTT has the potential to be a good editor, he is still unwilling to get past his disagreement with the consensus opinion on the S-76 article. Further I expect he will not be able to accept any consensus (on any article)-edit which does not agree with his opinion, and therefore I recommend against an unblock at this point. However this needs more input than my own so I am posting here. Please take the time to review. Prodego ^talk 06:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI TeeTylerToe has voluntarily suggested a topic ban on the S-76 article for himself as a condition of unblocking. I would be willing to do so under those circumstances, but I want to give some time to see if there is additional support before doing so. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I came here to point out exactly what Swatjester has; TTT suggests that he will be completely away from the S-76 article, consensus (which i take to mean the talk page) or dispute resolution regarding the S-76. This being the case, i would suggest unblocking ~ after all, he'll be watched, and he knows it, so surely wouldn't be foolish enough to venture back to that topic. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Any potential unblock would need to come with a thorough understanding of WP:ROPE - and an understanding that it would be a very short rope provided. Topic-banning from the S-76 article would be a good start, although a very, very sharp eye would need to be kept out for that sort of attitude that led to the problem in the first place spreading elsewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe's record on Wikipedia is full of raging disputes. (He has only 13 edits prior to June 2012, so it is fair to limit your attention to the period since June 10). All his past unblock appeals are still on his talk page, and you can get an impression of his attitude by reading them. His tendency to make personal attacks has been noted. In my opinion it would be excessively hopeful that steering him away from a single article, S-76, will allow him to have a productive career. I recommend declining. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Tentatively support unblock, with topic ban Oppose unblock for now Support unblock (see below). I say this with some reservations, because TeeTylerToe has shown long-standing problems, really based on not listening, and has a pretty bad record of personal attacks. However, it was all related to the S-76 argument, and with a topic ban on editing that subject (I'd say indefinite), and on the understanding that any repetition of the same problems will lead to a speedy reblock, I think we should allow a new chance. I do have fears that the extreme battlefield mentality shown by TeeTylerToe in the S-76 dispute might emerge in any fresh dispute, but I think we should assume good faith and let's see - plenty of people will be watching, and it's easy to reblock. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  I've switched to oppose after reading the comments below (in the section "Unarchived") regarding TTT's discussions on IRC and apparently uncooperative attitude to mentoring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  Switched back to support, on Hasteur's conditions now that TTT has accepted mentorship (see below). Recommend Hasteur to set appropriate conditions once mentorship is concluded, without need to consult the community again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock, with topic ban and mentoring. Having come across TTT before on Higgs boson, he seems to have good intentions, but does not seem to understand WP's policies. Therefore, I think mentoring would be ideal in this situation; it would help him learn WP's policies on various things as to avoid future instances of this. Of course, the topic ban from S-76 would be necessary as well given his behavior there, but I feel that he has the potential to be a productive editor if he takes the effort to learn WP's policies. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Unblock seems fine and indefinite is not infinite. We should be inclusive and welcoming. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock' iff a mentor is found and TTT's topic ban covers helicopters broadly construed. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Any volunteers to mentor?

There appears to be broad consensus both here and on TTT's user talk page that supports an unblock conditioned on a topic ban broadly related to S-76. However, there also seems to be a subset of that consensus (without opposition so far as I can tell) that suggests strongly that TTT would benefit from having a mentor, especially as regards to policy, dispute resolution, and how to edit on articles one feels strongly about without edit warring. It would be best to try and sort that out now before he is unblocked. I unfortunately cannot dedicate the time; but would anyone else be willing to do so on? He'd stand to benefit even from just a small gaggle of admins willing to drop an eye on his talk page from time to time, if that's all we can drum up. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 12:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unarchived

I was asked over IRC to take a look at this. I unarchived it for further discussion since there seems to be a hint of something productive happening if it had more time --Guerillero | My Talk 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock I was the blocking admin here, and have commented on the latest unblock request (though I wasn't notified of this thread either on my talk page or on TTT's page...). While it's positive that TTT has agreed to a voluntary topic ban on anything to do with the S-76 article, I'm concerned about the lack of specifics in his response to the question I asked about what it was he plans to edit if the block was lifted (the response is here). This is especially the case in light of Prodego's statement that TTT was unable to let the S-76 issue rest in the IRC discussion; the extent to which TTT took this issue before being blocked was well beyond acceptable bounds. As such, it seems pretty much certain that TTT will end up being blocked again for further disruption if he was unblocked, and I see no benefit in exposing editors to this. Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for now. I spoke to TeeTylerToe on IRC and told him clearly and in no uncertain terms what to do to get unblocked (see this message). I told him he needed a mentor but he kept skirting around that issue and eventually left the channel abruptly when I made it clear to him. I then see that he appears to have approached someone else on IRC afterwards. I'm a bit concerned he was forum shopping for an opinion he liked so he can avoid getting a mentor. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I would support an unblock if TeeTylerToe agrees unconditionally to the terms laid out to him by Hasteur. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for now. If he's apparently trying to dodge mentoring at the moment, that's not exactly a promising sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I know nothing about this user or their history, but am I the only one who thinks their username is an obvious poke at User:Tiptoety? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Request Hold I'm trotting out the white horse and have put a proposal for mentorship on the user's page. Pending their acceptance, I request that the discussion be tabled for 48 hours. Hasteur (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship proposed and accepted

TTT has accepted my mentorship proposal. Those who have previously objected (and the community at large) please give your thoughts about the proposal and unblocking. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Switched to support - and thanks for taking on the job -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• I also support this proposal; so long as TTT is willing to respond to Hasteur's mentoring, and, as he says he will, stays away from dispute resolution religiously. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 18:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• As noted above I am happy to agree to an unblock as long as TeeTylerToe agrees unconditionally to the terms set out by Hasteur. Should TeeTylerToe violate any of those terms, I support an immediate and indefinite block. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I echo what Deskana says above --Guerillero | My Talk 03:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• I have no objections to unblocking now - thanks a lot for volunteering Hasteur, and good luck to TTT and yourself. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

POINTy and disruptive editing, and harrassment by Cptnono

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

Cptnono is a regular editor at Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) related articles. He has made it clear that he opposes SSCS but claims to remain neutral,[123] however, this is not always evident in his edits.[124] (Unfortunately that page was deleted some time ago, but I assume admins should still be able to get to it) Lately, this has become more and more the case and he is now resorting to WP:POINTy and disruptive editing, as well as outright harrassment. He opposes the use of primary sources if they are sourced from SSCS,[125][126] and will use the flimsiest of excuses to remove them, and associated content. (Despte his claims, there is no consensus that SSCS is not reliable, and he doesn't present proof that "they have told reporters and written in books that they do not necessarily intent to be honest".) Most recently, this has affected editing at Paul Watson where he removed an entire section inappropriately.[127] His excuse was that "editors are reverting over material", but that was misleading. An IP made an inappropriate change that was not picked up for a month and when it was, the editor who reverted the change went a bit overboard in what he reverted so another editor reverted him. That was Cptnono's cue to remove the entire section. However, much of what he removed was cited by secondary sources and removal was unjustifiable. Eventually, he grudgingly conceded that the content could return but insisted on content being sourced from SSCS being attributed to it.[128] This was a redundant demand, as the content sourced from SSCS include citations attributed to SSCS, and therefore the content was already attributed. Still, he insisted on this edit. A fuller description of the previous information (with even more diffs) is available here.

Fast forward to this discussion which was about use of the word "Captain", referring to a statement in the article that "Watson uses the title "captain" although, as of November 2007, he had never been licensed as a ship's captain." Cptono is well aware that there is no reference to "Captain Watson" in the article (he would never have allowed it!), and this edit is transparent as an excuse to issue a warning not to use evil primary sources. (In fact the claim is cited to a secondary source so primary sources are completely irrelevant) Immediately after that he added {{BLP sources}} to the article.[129] Paul Watson only has 3kB of readable prose, and yet it has 100 references, an average of 1 reference for every 31 words, which seems more than sufficient referencing. Of those, I counted 11 primary sources, all used in accordance with WP:PSTS so I removed the tag with an appropriate edit summary,[130] before explaining to Cptnono exactly why I didn't feel it was appropriate.[131] Today, he replied, acknowledging that he "was a little lazy and should have tagged the section or individual refs", but he followed that up with "stop being a jerkoff and fuck off my talk page".[132] The remainder of the post included a veiled threat, "I will show you pointy if you want but I prefer to give you a lesson in policy and guidelines instead". He then restored the tag to the article, instead of addressing the claims with which he had issues,[133] and then slapped an inappropriate warning on my talk page,[134] including with that a smart-arse "templating the regulars sucks" comment. After I reverted that, because it was clearly bad-faith, he added another.[135] He then blanked his talk page with the ominous message "coming for you" as an edit summary.[136] Then he added four more warnings to my talk page, each time I reverted the last,[137][138][139][140] The last two were bogus warnings about me using twinkle to revert his inappropriate warnings on my talk page and were added after I had posted to his talk page asking him to please stop his harrassment.[141] Given the events of today, I don't have any confidence in his claim that he's "OK with us finding resolution to the article content" especially since in the same breath he again accused me of misusing twinkle and called me a dick.[142] This is not a nice person. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice persons hardly ever edit Wikipedia anymore. 5.12.84.224 (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(((H))) Drmies (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Aussie has disregarded BLP and misused Twinkle. I can lay out a proper defense if needed but it will amount to more time than I am willing to spend unless it is demanded by admins to prevent a block. I have simply asked Aussie to let certain edits (after he edit warred on a BLP) and a tag (after he again edit warred on a BLP) stand while we look into finding alternative sources. Like most people, I have little regard for hypocrisy and I do not have any problem putting a warning on a guy's talk page after he did it to me. I also do not understand why he feels justified in making repeated personal attacks while raising a stink over pretty minor infractions. Aussie knows my concern and can attempt to find consensus (as I have asked through edits and talk pages) but he should be spending time trying to improve the article instead of coming here. Maybe it is time for me to take this to the BLP noticeboard. Or instead of being jerks to each other, we can allow the tag to stand while we research alternative sources. Related discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#tumblr.com Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Cptnono has a strange idea of what constitutes edit-warring:

• 06:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC) - Cptnono adds {{BLP sources}} for the first time.
• 07:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC) - AL removes tag, explaining "article has 100 references. If you have issues, use citation needed tags, not a confusing generic tag"
• 07:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC) - My explanation on Cptnono's talk page as to why the tag was removed, with a recommendation to tag specific claims with {{citation needed}} instead
• 05:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC) - Cptnono acknowledges he "was a little lazy and should have tagged the section or individual refs".
• 05:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC) - Despite the acknowledgement of laziness, Cptnono restores the tag to the article instead of tagging specific claims.
• 05:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC) - Cptnono posts first warning to my talk page. Given that we had already discussed this on his talk page, and he had acknowledged his laziness, this warning was clearly inappropriate.
• 15:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC) - Another editor removes {{BLP sources}} from Paul Watson.

Cptnono's claim that I misused Twinkle is hypocritical at best, given that the first four inappropriate warnings that he added to my talk page were added using Twinkle. The addition of inappropriate warnings using Twinkle is a misuse of the tool, not the removal of obvious harassment from ones own talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Banned/blocked user has made a fourth account

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 XGabriel86X, a sockpuppet of users Necroshine95, Phantomlord95 and XGabriel1986X, is still block evading, albeit now seemingly adding (unformatted) sources which are more accurate than on previous attempts. This kiddie is hard to keep up with.. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they are banned, but I've blocked the new account anyway for evasion. I've also created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Necroshine95. GiantSnowman 11:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

IP Vandal 74.201.26.151

Ip vandal seems intent on continuing to vandalise 4 pages related to Singapore politics, as seen from his edit history[[143]]. Even after being reverted and warned, he had responded to warnings by purposely vandalizing the page further[[144]], and proclaiming his intent here to vandalise further [[145]] Zhanzhao (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the place to report vandalism. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked 72 hours for disruption.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving ' to

A new user is changing one type of apostrophe to another in multiple article titles here. Can someone check to see if they are using the proper ones?

I've asked him to come here to discuss this. I sincerely hope that I don't have to create WP:Tiny vertical fleck to go with WP:Short horizontal line. I can only see the difference by looking at the HTML page source.—Kww(talk) 04:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to insist that ` (the grave accent) be included in any essay discussing tiny vertical flecks. Salvidrim! ✉ 09:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I used the search box using the apostrophe on a normal English-language (American) keyboard, and I was properly redirected to the new article names, so there's no particular problem with the moves in that respect, but the editor really shouldn't be changing to a non-standard apostrophe from the "normal" one. If nothing else, it's a waste of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I initially notified the editor in question about the Manual of Style and naming convention, but they continued to move pages to the same respective locations. They do seem to be contributing in good faith, though, but this concern will need to be addressed. A number of articles were moved at the time. It will probably be best to collaborate and explain the Manual of Style to them. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 04:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

At least some of the moves and edits have involved replacing straight quotes (looks like ') or curly quotes (looks like ‘’ ) with primes (looks like ′ - you will not find it on your keyboard). A lot of his edits and moves should be undone. The MOS advises straight quotes (" and '). Mr Stephen (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC) PostScript the editor in question is TheGovernor3 (talk · contribs) Mr Stephen (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume the MOS advises " or ' (double or straight quote) because it's generally what users have on their standard keyboards; however, it might be important to consider if there are any technical specifications that would make another character to be preferred? Salvidrim! ✉ 09:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Straight quotes are accessible from any keyboard. There is no excuse for using anything other than straight or curly quotes; neither primes nor backticks are part of the English language. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As one of the editors who has spoken with this user, I do think he is acting in good faith and possibly has realised that he's not quite up to speed enough to be dealing with this type of move. But in an effort to rectify the situation he's moved articles 'back' or at least he thinks he has, creating any number of double redirects in the process. If nothing else those need sorting out. NtheP (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Similarly he's just moved ...Baby One More Time (song) to …Baby One More Time (song) changing all ... to a single character …, one that most users won't be able to type or easily access on their keyboards. All references to ... in the article were also changed without any explanation or evidence that the single character version is correct. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The single … is incorrect see the MOS. 130.88.111.61 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Move reverted. GiantSnowman 14:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This editor is disruptive. 130.88.111.61 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• TheGovernor3 seems to have stopped moving and changing. Before this is closed and hatted, could someone make the following moves to repair the changes he has made? A bot has edited the target after a previous move so non-admins are stuck. In each case a straight quote (') has been replaced by a prime (′) which as noted above is not on a standard keyboard and has no place in English prose.

Gray′s Anatomy (disambiguation) should be Gray's Anatomy (disambiguation)

Jason O′Mara should be Jason O'Mara

Queen′s Commendation for Bravery should be Queen's Commendation for Bravery

Queen′s Commendation for Valuable Service should be Queen's Commendation for Valuable Service

Queen′s Gallantry Medal should be Queen's Gallantry Medal

Queen′s Police Medal should be Queen's Police Medal

Mr Stephen (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• These too, please:

Baba O′Riley to Baba O'Riley

Easy Livin′ (song) to Easy Livin' typos and a bot got there first anyway

Gilbert O′Sullivan to Gilbert O'Sullivan

Gray′s Anatomy to Gray's Anatomy

Mr Stephen (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• • All done. For what it's worth, use of curly apostrophes/quotes also affects screen reader users like me, because screen readers deal with curly apostrophes/quotes slightly differently from their straight counterparts. Graham87 09:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Can you explain how? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I thought this was true in the latest version of JAWS, but it isn't: earlier versions of JAWS treated an ' as a word delimitor, but did not treat an ’ the same way. So if you were navigating by word through the text "John's", you'd hear "john apostrophe s"; the ’ (curly apostrophe) didn't behave that wway, so navigating through the word "John’s" would just read "John’s". Straight/curly quotes behaved similarly. On a scale of 1 to 10, the importance of this issue was a 0.5 IMO. A bit more importantly, the character "′" doesn't read properly with screen readers, but I had never encountered it before reading this thread. Graham87 13:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks for that explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is anybody else constantly amazed by how bloody good technology is? GiantSnowman 14:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm more constantly amazed by how much of a badass Graham87 is, but maybe that's just me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you say about a helpful person who needs a screenreader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Where I'm from, "badass" is a pretty high (but relatively nonspecific) compliment. I've always been really impressed by Graham87, and not just because he's a blind man working more ably than I can in an entirely visual medium. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks, helped ;) - perhaps the expression "losing horses" for people (above) will also be explained, so far it says "idiom" but I think it's not a good idiom, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Picasso Animation College

We appear to have a serious problem with our article on Picasso Animation College. Until recently, the article referred to a college headquartered in New Delhi, India (see here [146]). There have however recently been multiple edits attempting to make the article instead refer to a college in Jaipur India (see here [147]), involving an almost complete substitution of text, together with links to primary sourced documents referring to 'copyright' and a 'trademark'. I note that a previous contributor who earlier made this type of edit (which I reverted), User:Jaipurpicasso went on to attempt to create a (rejected) article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Picasso Animation College, Jaipur, and was subsequently blocked per username policy (there have also been IP editors involved). A new user, User:Umesh.naga (whom I shall inform of this discussion) has now stepped in, making the same changes. As to whether both 'Picasso Animation Colleges' are still extant, and whether either one of them would meet our notability guidelines I don't know, but it is clearly unacceptable for a 'new' college to hijack the article about an 'old' one in this way. At this point, I am unsure of the best way to proceed, and would welcome outside input. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the New Delhi school has a franchise option. Perhaps the Jaipur school is a franchise? Of course I agree with your assessment about the hijacking and will work more on it momentarily. Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate actions, including talk page censorship, uncivil and unfounded accusations and edit warring

Could I please bring attention to the actions of Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), which has included to date:

• odd bits of edit warring
• further edit warring and no attempt to take the matter to the article talk page.
• false accusations of edit warring; and
• further accusations of "disruptive editing", which led to:
• an implied threat of "acting like an admin", closely followed with
• a direct threat, despite there being no indication of any further edits about to take place (as the article was correctly formatted at the time). This was followed by:
• a false accusation of my "willingness to edit war", despite there being no need for further edits, as noted above.
• censoring the comments of others; not once but twice, despite being told not to (his reversions also constitute minor edit warring on this point also).
• uncivil and unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry

I think that the editor has lost his sense of perspective over this and is throwing increasingly wild and ridiculous accusations around without any basis whatsoever. I asked the editor to withdraw his baseless accusation, but no retraction was forthcoming. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This editor has edited in violation of DATERET, despite being informed, and has been repeatedly uncivil to me, and has directly told me that I do not understand the guidelines of which I am partly the author. Given the behavior, I suspect the user is someone I have had a conflict with in the past under some other name. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the sequence of events:

• 23:02 3 Jan - Fanthriller removes a space in a category
• 23:05 - I notice the edit and revert it
• 23:08 - I notice the date formats are inconsistent, and reconcile the access dates to the majority format, fix one access date that it not in an approved format, and fix the ref marks. At this point the article has consistent access dates.
• 23:16 - Fanthriller does a blanket undo of my edits
• 23:30 - I restore it with more descriptive edit summary
• 23:47 - Fanthriller posts on Schrodinger's talk page
• 23:50 - I provide explanation of MOSDATE there. There is no problem at this point.
• 02:54 4 Jan - despite the explanation, User:Schrodinger does a blanket revert of my edit, including the other fixes I made. This is a problem.
• 05:57 - I notice the blanked undo of my edit, and restore the date formats to the consistent form I had left
• 06:00 - I also restore the other fixes that were removed in the blanket edit, but without touching the other edits User:Schrodinger had done
• 06:04 - After noticing the edit, I consider that the user may not have understood the STRONGNAT guideline they mention, so I draw their attention to it specifically, and the blanket undo
• 06:05 - User:Schrodinger undoes again, after being informed, and while discussion was ongoing on User:Schrodinger's talk page. This is a problem, in my view.

I see I have made the mistake of trying to engage, discuss, and explain longer than I should have. I tend to mistakenly assume that this a professional environment. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

herein lie accusations and discussions that OP is a sock, eventually resolved as most likely not true NE Ent 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These allegations resemble some past ANI threads about Gimme, that came from a now community banned editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, that was my suspicion. In particular, User:Schrodinger works with tables and sorbability, and even the format of this complaint, are similar to Merridew. I know that's not proof, but it's a similarity. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Gimme, could you please provide a sample of a Merridew complaint resembling the format used here by Cat? There are too many Merridew socks to sort through and find an example of the formatting in archives. What I noted is that the Cat frequents the talk pages of the same editors as Merridew's Wikiassociates, although curiously some of them don't show on the Editor interaction tool, and has similar editing interests as you point out. If a serious look is to be taken here, an example of the formatting issue may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive632#Gimmetoo.2C_again, for instance. I guess that doesn't look quite as similar as I thought. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Your lack of good faith in this is dispicable and you are clutching at straws after some extremely shoddy behaviour. 2 minutes checking would have shown that Brer and I are entirely separate individuals. He resides in the US and I in the UK. You did not even bother to check something as basic as that. You can look at the archived talk pages of Ian Fleming and Peter Sellers to see he and I arguing with one another about infoboxes, if you can be bothered. Perhaps if others have also complained about this admin then maybe, just maybe, his style of interaction with others and his inflexibility of approach is questionable? Alarm bells ring if he has been here more than once because of his style in dealing with people. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC) You seem to know a lot about "Brer"; I didn't know he resided in the US, in fact, I thought he was British. Regardless, I suppose a calm look here by impartial and uninvolved editors would be most useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Merridew always sounded American to me. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Cat, could you please provide a diff to the past discussions you reference above, where you argue with a Merridew sock? If a serious look is to be taken here, diffs will be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Rather than chucking around innuendo, why don't you provide diffs that back up these allegations. As yet all we've really established is that SC has filed a complaint about an admin that a banned sock supposedly complained about. Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you could read more carefully before responding, so that this issue can be addressed calmly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC) First of all SchroCat is a respected member of the James Bond project who has successfully led many articles through GA and FA promotions, so he's not a troublemaking editor. Second of all, he did not initiate this dispute. The dispute started between Gimmetoo and User:Fanthrillers (another prominent member of the James Bond project) and it was only in this capacity that SchroCat became involved after Fanthriller's requested a third opinion (see [148]). He has become involved in this dispute through a completely natural process, the same process that led to me commenting at the talk page of Talk:Bond_girl#Dates. The dispute clearly revolves around the interpretation of WP:STRONGNAT, in which three editors interpret the guideline differently to Gimmeetoo. If this dispute resembles another dispute that Gimmeetoo has had with another editor, is it not possible that Gimmeetoo's interpretation of the guideline has led to a similar type of conflict? My suggestion is this: if Gimmeetoo honestly believes SchroCat is a sock (which I sincerely doubt) then he should file a case at the appropriate forum for dealing with such accusations. If Gimmeetoo believes that WP:STRONGNAT is being misinterpreted by three separate editors, then the best course of action for addressing the main dispute would be to initiate an RFC to see which interpretation consensus supports. But informing other editors that they are misinterpreting a guideline (because you helped author it) is not a trump card and entitle you to keep reverting, and threatening admin action in a case where you are involved in an editorial dispute is not really acceptable either. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Nice, but. It would be interesting to hear from uninvolved parties; in past similar ANI threads, certain editors could be counted on to weigh in, but if Gimme is again being hounded, a serious look by uninvolved editors is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I'd just like to point that considering Schrodinger's cat is alive a sockpuppet of anyone is a serious lack of perspective. Also, we shall be discussing the issues brought by the user and evaluate if they require any action (against anyone who needs to be admonished or whatever needs to be done) instead of being throwing sockpuppetry accusations. I know that all the recent events led to an overall high level of suspiciousness, but that's no excuse, in my opinion. — ΛΧΣ21 17:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Unhelpful. Considering the history, we owe it to both editors (Cat and Gimme) to get this right, without peanut galleryism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Exactly, we should focus on the issue brought here, and nothing else. Per the diffs provided by both Cat and Gimme, I have the feeling that both users did some mistakes. Cat shouldn't have reverted Gimme more than once, and the same goes to Gimme. I am aware of Gimme's actions (I mean, all the stuff about the dates on references and keeping the article consisten with its history) and i like it, although I prefer to talk instead of talk and revert at the same time, which is unproductive (and this goes to both users). — ΛΧΣ21 18:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I'm confident everything will be looked at in due time; there is no rush. And I suspect you've never been on the receiving end of serious Wikihounding (I'm envious of editors who haven't had that particular joy). I have, Gimme has, and anyone else who has knows that pursuing these discussions calmly is warranted and helpful, and that all involved parties deserve that. If either has been unfairly accused, a calm discussion will benefit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Indeed. I have been hounded just a couple of times, and not at the size Gimme has, thankfully. As I said, we can calmly evaluate this, although I think that this should have been solved on the talk page. Just a couple of I'm sorry for reverting, what about a coffee and a calm chat? would have been enough... — ΛΧΣ21 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I probably shouldn't have made the on-wiki mention of socking, though I won't deny is was going through my mind. The problems with Merridew strongly involved two actresses who played Bond girls. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Diffs pls Outstanding diff requests are: Gimme, do you have a diff of similar formatting in ANI archives? Now discussed above by Gimme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Cat, do you have a diff where you argued with Merridew et al? Provided below by Mathsci. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Cat, how is it that you are familiar with where Merridew lives? In retrospect, this question was impertinent, but answered satisfactorily nonetheless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Does anyone know why the interaction tools aren't working in this case; [149] for example, they don't show the overlap of editors here. Gimme, the tools aren't working correctly for me, but it looks like Cat has been active at Bond girl for a while; what brought you to the article? Provided above in edit conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC) They both edited Talk:Georg_Solti#Infobox, giving diametrically opposing views on info-boxes. Mathsci (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Helpful, thx. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I'll take it as less likely this is Merridew. The Merridew dispute strongly involved two "bond girl" actresses, which is probably why that came to mind in this dispute at "bond girl". Gimmetoo (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Similarly they argue on Talk:Ian_Fleming/Archive_1#Civility, another discussion about infoboxes at the same time. Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Helpful again. I'm still bothered that the interaction tools aren't working ... partly because Merridew had so many socks that they are practically invalidated, but there is a clear error in the diff I give above, where interaction on user talk isn't showing up in tools. Perhaps some techy type can explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Based on editing style I'm quite certain they are not the same. Further, not sure where the hounding bit came from, but SchroCat seems to specialize on Bond topics, he did not follow Gimmetoo there. Amalthea 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Already indicated above that Cat did not follow Gimme to the article. Thanks, Amalthea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC) As to his nationality, it was my impression based on email, or at least that was the strong impression I had from somewhere (possibly his spelling, if he didn't tell me directly). I'll point out that his ANI style is nothing to do with the unfounded accusation of being a sockpuppet: Gimme was rude enough to throw the insult out before the ANI thread started, so it's a bit of a non sequiter to say that my ANI style was evidence of being a sock. As well as Solti and Fleming, that people have outlined above, there is also Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 2#wives in infobox; should have dates, too. Notwithstanding all the above, the baseless accusation was only one aspect of the thread, albeit the worst infringement. There is also edit warring against the informed consensus, false accusations of edit warring , threats and the censoring of comments on a talk page. The further poor interaction skills with unnecessary snide and underhand comments ("I tend to mistakenly assume that this a professional environment" further highlight the unhelpful and confrontational approach taken. - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC) @ Sandy: it looks like the specific tool you were using only shows edits that are within the same 7-day period. It's a specialised tool that identifies edits that are close together in time. For a complete picture of editor overlap, you should use http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/ or http://toolserver.org/~pietrodn/intersectContribs.php. The latter is in the quick links boxes at the top of my userpage if you need to find it in a hurry. -- Dianna (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Original dispute

There seems to a preliminary consensus that Cat is not a Merridew sock based on evidence presented. I apologize to Cat for my suspicions, but the similarities were there and had to be analyzed, and having been the subject of serious wikihounding for many many years, I don't blame anyone who begins to see shadows. Perhaps now folks can look at the underlying dispute with that in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also sorry for suggesting it. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I accept your apologies. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to the original complaint. It looks to me like Gimmetoo may have gone to the Bond girl article under the mistaken impression that he had located a sock of Br'er Rabbit (Gimme's first edit to the article was on 3 January 2013). The material on the article talk page is reminiscent of my experience at Sean Combs, where there were extensive discussions about adding citation templates and changing the styling of the dates on the citations. The initial discussion is at Talk:Sean Combs/Archive 1#Date format change proposal and there's further stuff at Talk:Sean Combs#GA. In a nutshell, in a discussion closed by an uninvolved admin, a group of editors decided that the consensus for that particular article would be to add citation templates and change the layout of the access dates. Later, in July, Gimmetoo tried to revoke the article's promotion to GA, an effort which I undertook, with a GA review completed by a totally uninvolved editor. I had a heck of a time getting him to tell me what he thought was wrong with the article but finally he was satisfied or decided to walk away. My point of telling this story is that I think there's a pattern of behaviour here on Gimme's part, behaviour that's not conducive to collegial editing and cooperation among editors. He has also been involved in other recent imbroglios at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 106#user:GimmeBot and template:article history and User talk:NuclearWarfare#BN Comment. -- Dianna (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:AGF; Gimme laid out the history of what brought him to the article, and bringing in a list of disputes that have nothing to do with this one demonstrates a further issue of good faith. Others are trying; perhaps you can, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. NE Ent 02:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

While Dianna's first statement (that Gimmetoo came to the page because of a Br'er sock) isn't correct, the rest of her comments are entirely correct and valid in this instance. There is an issue of his approach and behaviour, which is not conducive to collegiate editing and his comments above "I see I have made the mistake of trying to engage, discuss, and explain longer than I should have. I tend to mistakenly assume that this a professional environment" are indicative of highlight the unhelpful and confrontational approach. Statements like that are inflammatory and are always going to rile other editors. I'm glad—and also disappointed—to hear from Dianna that other editors have suffered this type of behaviour too. It's this approach that has led us here.

Perhaps, SandyGeorgia, when Gimmetoo came to your talk page you should have discussed good faith with him then and tried some for yourself too; and perhaps you could also let me know where we have negatively interacted before too. I am trying to keep a sense of good faith and perspective, but when I see interactions like this, I find that a struggle. - SchroCat (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Diannaa's statement is incomplete, in several ways, and also leaves the impression that it was Gimme that was seeking to change established citation style, etc. As but one example, here is the history of contributors to Sean Combs, and here is the history of contributors to the talk page of Sean Combs; Gimmetoo/grow had maintained that page for years (since 2006, as shown in the contribs history) when a group of editors appeared there wanting to change the citation format, per personal preferences, to a different one than that long established in the article. The contribs history show a number of editors appeared on Sean Combs in 2012, including Diannaa, a Mattisse sock, a Merridew sock, and others who are also present in some of the other discussions linked above.

Gimme has been followed in the past to articles he had long maintained, which is why the chronology of this dispute was important to establish (which we did above before proceeding to look at this dispute, and it was revealed that you had not followed him). But there is a years-long pattern that has happened elsewhere, as referenced in the now capped sections above, involving at least three socks or returning users, which is why there was a concern earlier in this thread.

As another example, the discussion of GimmeBot and articlehistory was one where many of the same editors sought a change in the bot processing of articlehistory templates that was established back in 2006 or 2007 when Gimme and others wrote the bot and the articlehistory template simultaneously. That name change request was closed on weak consensus, based largely on personal preference which would cause extra work for the bot with no gain, and which the closing admin noted, and included support from said editors mentioned above. The closing admin said he would reverse the name change if it caused problems and it has -- the closing admin has not edited since mid-November, so the name has not been changed back. At any rate, there has been a pattern-- not of Gimme causing changes-- but of a group of editors appearing in discussions involving Gimme and imposing personal preferences on citation style or personal preferences that make bot processing harder.

SchroCat, we discussed the sock concerns already here and on your talk. I did not say we had negatively interacted, but your editing had come to my attention unrelated to Gimmetoo; your user name is a bit unusual, you have similar editing interests and editing overlap, but evidence here indicates that you are not Merridew, and I have long since sincerely apologized (both here and on your talk) for the suspicion. I acknowledge that being suspected of sockpuppetry is unpleasant (it has happened to me, too-- it happens to many editors) and that it may continue to trouble you, and I'm sorry for that, again. I hope that you can set that aside and focus on how to resolve the current dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sticking to the point, and have not raised the sock issue above (although I'm still slightly confused as to why editing six or seven list articles with sortable tables makes me a Br'er sock suspect—it is still beyond me). However, the point still stands: can you please provide a diff as to where we have previously interacted? (I take your point about not having said there was "negative interaction", but it's not a massive leap when your response is "I also encountered problems with that editor"). My other original points from the opening of this thread and from Gimme's response still stand—can you also explain to me, for example, how "I see I have made the mistake of trying to engage, discuss, and explain longer than I should have. I tend to mistakenly assume that this a professional environment" is conducive to a collegiate editing environment? Could you explain how threatening editors about a one element of page that no-one has edited for around 40 minutes (and discussed on my talk page) is ensuring a smooth and enjoyable editing procedure? Could you explain how censoring the talk pages of others is somehow acceptable (twice?) To put the whole situation in context, I wake up one moring to find a discussion being held on my talk page in which one editor has left an inconclusive response to a third party. I reverted that editors edit on the article page in entirely good faith and find myself accused by him of edit warring. That is very poor practice. The editor then reverted—edit warring, no other way to describe it—without bothering to go to the article talk page. Talk me through how all this is acceptable behaviour in any editor, let alone in an admin. Explain to me how this falls into the expectation of being able "to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

02:54 This was a blanket undo of my edits, leaving the article with an inconsistent date format. When I fixed that again, your response was 06:05 to tell me "do not edit war with two editors" - for making the accessdate format consistent in an article where it was inconsistent, and where those two editors, including you, were restoring that inconstancy, and where you had not made the formats consistent. How is that civil and appropriate editing behavior from you? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you try and keep to more precise language, please? It wasn't a "blanket undo" of your edits, as I left the category pipe in place. As to the second edit: it was, rather obviously, an oversight. I would hardly have re-introduced a different format into the article under those circumstances. As to telling you not to edit war with two other editors, that is precisely what you were doing, without going to the article talk page to discuss it. While I was in the article making the changes, you posted a second response on my page, which was not seen until the orange bar appeared upon me saving the page. Prior to that, you had only left one comment on my talk page, which was subsequently rebuffed and refuted by myself and two other editors. So when I undertook my 6.05 edit, it was on the basis of one spurious comment from you some hours earlier, which the consensus (albeit very limited and local) had thrown out of court. Hardly any need to accuse me of edit warring, uncivil behaviour etc on that basis then, was there? - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(several edit conflicts) SchroCat, I have intentionally avoided commenting on the substance of the current dispute. I have a long association (since 2006) of working closely with Gimmetrow/too on developing and updating articlehistories and bot closings of content review processes, and maintenance issues related to both; he is someone I have worked closely with on Wikipedia, and I have had nothing but good experiences with his typically thorough and correct work. As a general principle, the actual dispute should be reviewed and addressed by uninvolved neutral editors (which, for example, Diannaa is not as she has been part of several disputes with Gimme, nor am I, because of our close working association, but if she is going to present a misleading or incomplete history, I will address that portion). My silence as to the current dispute is neither endorsement nor condemnation in either direction ... it is that I am simply staying out of that part of the discussion because disputes are best reviewed by uninvolved editors. When this thread appeared here, I was concerned about the history of hounding by socks, because there was a similarity and those were issues I have experienced that affected the work I did with Gimmetrow/too (where I depended on his bot for closings of content review processes and updating of article talk pages), and having also experienced hounding by socking, I acknowledge that one doesn't behave at one's finest under the circumstances. Again, your editing came to my attention in a completely unrelated manner (we can discuss it on your talk if you wish), we have not previously interacted, but I had watchlisted your talk because of the similarities I noted after looking into the articles above. I'm very sorry the original issue was sidelined for sock concerns, and I hope you are both able to resolve this dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

On that same note Sandy you should keep in mind that many others have had positive interactions with editors which displease you. Be it Jack, Mattisse, or whoever your current "rant of the day" happens to be. It's hurtful to read disparaging things about people we've had good interactions with. Just something you may want to keep in mind for future reference. — Ched :  ?  09:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't mean to compare Gimmetrow-- a productive admin in good standing-- to two of Wikipedia's most prolific sockmasters, banned and indeff'd, or to take the original issue even further off-topic. But you did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(watching) I don't think that the word "compare" in the above is used as I understand it. I don't see any comparison, just a reminder of what I quote on top of my user (nod to Geometry guy): "Every editor is a human being." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimmetoo visited an article he had never edited before, edit warred to impose his preferred formatting style over the local consensus that was being created for a suite of articles, and threatened with blocks anyone who should get in his way. I find this behaviour to be extremely unbecoming of an administrator on this wiki. The fact that he may have thought he was dealing with a sock of a banned user might actually mitigate his actions or partially explain them, but since he was not, his behaviour strikes me as being super inappropriate. -- Dianna (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the sheer number of people whom Gimme's in conflict with, including two arbs, one of whom he threatened to block, it seems to me something needs to be done about Gimme, who is throwing his weight around no end. Sorry about changing the subject, but when the same people are going off all over the wiki, it's a waste of time to ponder each incident in isolation, which is perhaps the idea. I urge admins to consider gratuitous mentions or allegations regarding the editors mentioned above to be inherently disruptive because of their proven tendency to cause conflict. This includes somewhat clever means of mentioning them without really mentioning them, such as claiming "disruption brought on FAC by socks and enablers" and "attacks on FAC and me", especially when repeated and in the face of attempts by others to get them to stop.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a request for comment would be a good thing here? The bit on my talk page didn't bother me all that much, but if other users see it as emblematic of a larger problem, a concentrated effort to relay the community's concerns to Gimmetoo/Gimmetrow might be helpful. NW (Talk) 17:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone's an arb, and a little bit of intimidation can go a long way at a lower level.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing; I'm just explaining why I didn't take it further. NW (Talk) 17:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the intimidation effect of actual use of admin tools should not be underestimated; removing talk page access from an editor you blocked simply for asking what policy supported the block can be very intimidating, as can the user of RevDel against a user who is in a dispute with one of your wikifriends (see User_talk:Wehwalt/Archive_13#RevDel_on_user_talk_page). Gimmetoo (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

None of that reflects badly on me, but perhaps Sandy should caution you about changing the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should let genuinely uninvolved people comment, then, Wehwalt. In the RevDel case, you actually used admin tools, outside policy (as far as i can tell), in a way that could intimidate the person your wiki friend was in a dispute with. You just recently claimed I was "involved" as a TFA delegate and unable to schedule a clearly consensus TFA request from you, yet you closed a thread about me with a rather questionable "summary" [150]. Do you think either of these is, in your words, being "considerate of the feelings of others..."? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Perhaps Sandy should" again request that involved editors let uninvolved editors look at the underlying original dispute here; I'm seeing almost no discussion of the actual diffs, with plenty of discussion from involved editors (who btw don't include the kinds of disclaimers about their involvement that I did).

Wehwalt, did you seriously close this ANI thread with no regard to resolving the original issue, while including your involved summary of the off-topic socking portions? [151] That sort of thing is indicative of what has dominated many of these past discussion and has contributed to a festering situation. Indeed, if three of the frequent users dominating the discussions weren't blocked, banned, or absent, a calm look at the underlying situation would not likely be possible.

For example, the issue occurring with NuclearWarfare over a past CU (for disclaimer sake, NW is another editor I consider a close wikiassociate and with whom I have worked for a long time in the medical realm and whom I have supported as I have Gimme, and I am saddened to see a dispute between them that was fueled by another Merridew issue) was all instigated by another Merridew ANI dramafest years ago, resulting in a block and CU of Gimme simply because he couldn't get to his admin account to verify it was him, with a rebuke from a sitting arb about the block and the CU after it was over. Now, that kind of experience is likely to leave one with a very bad taste, and I notice NW isn't taking the hard stance on that issue that some others are, and has acknowledged he learned from that and it isn't something he would do today.

Again, would it be possible to allow uninvolved editors to look at the original issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

NW, did that answer your question about why no one is eager to start an RfC on Gimme?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Sandy: You keep repeating that only uninvolved editors are supposed to be commenting here. In actuality there is no policy or guideline stating this; it's something you are unilaterally trying to institute on this discussion. None of us are topic-banned or interaction-banned from commenting on this or any other topic. Anyone and everyone can post to this thread, imho, and I will continue to do so as long as I feel my posts continue to aid the flow of information and ideas. -- Dianna (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Which means I will continue to point out that this is a long-festering situation because involved editors dominate every conversation anywhere, every ANI thread, close ANI threads inappropriately, and do not disclose their involvement. None of that, of course, helps resolve the underlying issue, which I'm sure is your concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose my name will forever be linked with that of Jack Merridew. But I am not sorry that I tried to help him; my only regret is that I failed. -- Dianna (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Bravo Diannaa.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• @Sandy .. yea .. this "this is a long-festering situation" which you continue to feed". So .. I will continue to point out how toxic and detrimental you have become to our project. You denigrate and degrade people who have spent hours upon hours trying to improve our project. You continually insult people from without and from within. You constantly make degrading comments about DYK, students that the WMF is trying to recruit, and anyone who is not one of the "zOMG FA cabal". It's getting old Sandy. Up above you claimed that "I" tried to go off topic .. bullshit. YOU are the one that started the "I worked with him" topic. Well I worked with Rlevse. I worked with and LEARNED from Jack. BOTH did damned good work here. You do yourself no justice by insulting and hurting others Sandy. Yes, other people have made mistake .. so? Yes I know that you are one of the wikipedia:Unblockable people - but you really need to step back and re-evaluate. Tell me how we get to a point of understanding. — Ched :  ?  07:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop betting too much money on the losing horses. Pumpkinsky gave up editing from that account after adminship was denied (great reason to just walk away, right?). Jack was banned after years of irritating the entire community, in spite of all the good he did here. Seek real compromise with those who don't agree with you. Like the ones that will still be around tomorrow. Doc talk 07:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"money", "losing horses"? I don't get the language. PumpkinSky gave up editing because he was accused of "myriad layers of deception and rampant socking" and more. I don't know if I had been strong enough to stay if that had been said about me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's an idiom referring to gambling on horse racing. Someone who repeatedly bets on a horse that loses every race is unlikely to profit. The inference being that supporting someone who is unlikely to succeed, you're probably wasting your time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am setting my mind on people and their ideas, and I profit from doing so, for a happy new year. The horse idiom is mentioned on my talk, I will not notify individually, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Doc, there's a lot to what you say .. but but there's a lot more to it all than that. RfA is a real "In your face" thing, no doubt about that. And if it's a few folks voicing their opinion .. that's just the way the wiki works. The thing is that when one or two people deliberately and actively try to hurt people ... then that's just wrong. — Ched :  ?  08:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you compromise with the unforgiving?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"when one or two people deliberately and actively try to hurt people ... then that's just wrong." Yes. When a couple people target and actively try to hurt other editors, and show up in multiple forums to attack those people, that's wrong, and it should stop. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope that you and your associates take your own advice on that, Gimme. Montanabw^(talk) 20:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Original dispute 2

The biggest concern I have here is that it appears that an admin is threatening to block someone they are in a content dispute with. If Gimmetoo could clarify that that was not their intent, and/or acknowledge that threatening to block someone with whom they are having a content disagreement is not something that WP:INVOLVED allows, I think that would go a long way towards calming things down. 28bytes (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please state your position more explicitly. I find it curious that you have characterized this as a "content dispute". It is attempting to get a user to follow guidelines, though discussion. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines were followed. It may have been through a different interpretation than the rather narrow one you tried to impose against the local consensus, but it was still an entirely valid interpretation nonetheless. - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You accuse me of "simply repeating what has already been said" [152] yet that's what you are doing here. You had not made the date formats consistent at that article. After I edited to make them consistent, you claimed to remove yyyy-mm-dd formats from references with STRONGNAT as the basis. That is simply wrong. The STRONGNAT guideline clearly says that yyyy-mm-dd formats may be used in the references even if there are national ties; you cannot use STRONGNAT asa basis for removing yyyy-mm-dd formats from references. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, you cannot block an editor for disagreeing with your interpretation of the date format guidelines, and you should not threaten to do so. This is at least the second time this week that you've threatened to block someone outside of policy. You need to stop that. 28bytes (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation, 28. it's what the guideline says, and I participated in the discussion that led to that part of the guideline. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Gimme: it's your interpretation. I've provided you with another entirely acceptable interpretation. If it was the intention for there to be no flexibility, then the guideline has been poorly framed, but as it currently stands, there is more than one interpretation of it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"May", dear boy, "may". Not shall or will or must or have to, but the soft, flexible and lovely "may", which the OED kindly tells us is "a possibility", rather than anything set in stone; an inherent flexibility of approach enshrined in the guidelines which do not have to be slavishly adhered to regardless of all other circumstances. That aside, it was not the only basis as I have outlined to you previously on more than one ocassion. - SchroCat (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes may; it is explicitly permitted even in articles with national ties. You cannot use national ties as a reason to remove them. And the access dates were not in a consistent format when I saw the article, despite your prior edits to the article. So why did you epeatedly undo the work of someone else? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The exact same question can be posed to you: why did you go against the very quick and local consensus and edit war to undo the edits of two other editors, after three people had rejected your reasoning? I have a strong defence in that I was toeing the line of the consensus that arose. You didn't. You chose to threaten, flag up your admin status in a content dispute, edit war and throw false accusations of edit warring and "disruptive editing" at others. And this is all before you decided to censor valid talk page entries. - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

From my perspective, the consensus is reflected in the guideline, which says clearly that the formats may be used "even in articles with national ties..." You were agreeing with Betty Logan that you were removing the formats based on STRONGNAT [153]. Whatever "agreement" you had, the guideline rules this out as a basis. And the access dates were not consistent before I got there. But our exchanges here are clearly repetitive, so I'm done. You can have the last word. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's slightly disingenuous to keep banging on about one guideline when this situation is covered by a number of them. As I pointed out to you at the time on the Bond girl talk page the guidelines do allow flexibility: your much repeated assertion that you wrote them doesn't mean a jot if others can interpret them differently, it just means that whatever your intentions may have been, they are not enshrined in the guidelines. The interpretation of guidelines by those who wrote them in other spheres welcomes thoughts of separation of powers to ensure that things are neutrally interpreted, rather than you putting your spin on something you thought you meant to say. I'll also point out that there was no consistency in the article before your arrival and the local consensus was to eschew the shorter format and go with the British variant; that consensus—undertaken by local editors who have acted as stewards for some time—was agreed because the vast majority of high-grade (GA and FA) Bond articles are in the British (DMY) long-date format, rather than a generic international one (the ones that are not in the British format are those where STRONGNAT does apply, such as "You Only Move Twice". All this could have been properly discussed on the article talk page if you have opened a thread to talk about it, as you should have done. You didn't and instead resorted to inappropriate behaviour which in no way reflected acting "in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others", or interacted to show "appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors". I will not have the last word, that's not the purpose of opening an ANI thread and a number of others also appear to have raised concerns about your approach in other matters too, which shows that maybe, just maybe, you should consider that perhaps on occasion you do not act in a fitting manner? - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not good. Gimmetoo appears to be claiming correctness based on owning a MOS guideline I am struggling to figure out how you can so directly tell me, the author of a parts of guideline, that I don't understand the guideline. and that they can single handed declare consensus over three other editors because An agreement of misinformed editors is not a consensus. Interpreting how a guideline applies to a given context is an editorial function so, having taken a position on the matter, Gimmetoo is clearly involved; they implicitly acknowlege such with the phrase I may have to start acting like an admin. (emphasis mine) NE Ent 00:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

These are good observations, NE Ent. I would also like to point out that failure to follow the Manual of Style is not a blockable offence. -- Dianna (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I right to think that this have gone to far to grant an RFC (and maybe an ArbCom case?) about Gimme? I'm not questioning his actions on a personal basis (actually, although I have read all the recent discussions and I feel myself alarmed by the constant block threats, I am not able to make up a personal comment about the matter) but I see that it seems that, if perhaps a more commited approach to discuss is not available, we'd need then to start an RFC about it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is quite a performance, Hahc21! "Am I right to think..."! Is there a school for learning how to sound like a sock? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat has asked for, and received community support. (Well, there was that ooh he must be a sock stuff, but that passed eventually.) Gimme has received feedback from multiple editors now. What's important is that as we go forward the behavior doesn't repeat, so I don't think any further action is required unless it does. NE Ent 03:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the "multiple editors" are involved. Indeed, user:Dianna insinuated about my motives above ("It looks to me like Gimmetoo may have gone to the Bond girl article under the mistaken impression that he had located a sock of Br'er Rabbit (Gimme's first edit to the article was on 3 January 2013)". One could view that as a personal attack. One could also ask why user:Dianna appears here, and in so many other unrelated issues user:Dianna was never involved in before; it smacks of battleground. As far as I know, user:Dianna showed no significant interest in templates until appearing at an AH discussion supporting the view on AH that inconvenienced me the most. Likewise, user:Dianna never edited at Sean Combs until getting involved in an unrelated dispute; there, user:Dianna was repeatedly non-responsive to issues raised about user:Diannaa's editing. Nor is there any good reason user:Dianna should have shown up here. The "dispute" between Schro and I is one thing, but there is another dispute piggy-backed onto this, and that other dispute should be addressed somewhere. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A check using the Toolserver edit counter shows I have 3005 edits to templates; Gimmetrow has 1040 and Gimmetoo 27. A more careful reading of Talk:Sean Combs will reveal that I repeatedly inquired (six, seven times) what Gimme thought was wrong with the article; I even had three people say they would have awarded me a Barnstar of Seemingly Inexaustible Courteous And Civil Patience, if such a thing existed, for my behaviour at the Sean Combs talk page. There's really no evidence that I have a battleground mentality; in fact I try to live my life in keeping with the precepts of the four role models at the top of my talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, neither 28bytes (as far I know) nor I am involved. Are you asserting that it is a legitimate use of the sysop bit to assert your interpretation of an editing policy? NE Ent 17:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Dianna implicitly used sysop authority to run off an editor challenging a sock puppet; user:Wehwalt actually used RevDel outside policy, and user:NuclearWarfare actually made a number of admin actions outside policy, and recently, another admin blocked a user the admin was in an edit war with. Even in the best case, these involved "interpretation". Are you saying there is something wrong with their actions? Or that it's an illegitimate use of the sysop bit to prevent disruptive editing? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimme, Just so I can go back to editing articles without having to check up on the bile-and-spite fest that this has become (from all sides), perhaps you could just answer the damned question without pointing fingers at others while you do so? (And yes, I know others have been pointing fingers in the rest of the thread, but please try and ignore them just for the moment: I'd also be grateful if the other "involved" parties could just hold off commenting for the moment too - NE Ent has asked a straight question without an apparent agenda and I'd like to hear a straight answer from Gimme without evasion or another round of "he-said-no-she-said" from anyone else). - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a straight question. Indeed, it begs many questions. What I can say is I've opposed a number of admins who I thought were using their admin authority to push an editorial or policy POV. But admins can and should stop disruptive editing, even though many admin or editorial actions involve some interpretation. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase, it is not disruptive editing if there is a legitimate alternative interpretation of the guideline. It would only be disruptive editing if WP:STRONGNAT prohibited the British date format on this article. If a guideline has two valid interpretations then it is a content dispute, and if you do not explicitly give your word that you will not use your admin privileges in relation to this dispute, then we must assume the possibility that you will. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This just keeps going around in circles. Let's return to the sequence of edits:

• I make the access date formats consistent, when they were not previously, and other improvements [154]
• Fanthriller's undoes that edit, leaving the access date formats inconsistent and removing other edits [155]
• I make the access date formats consistent again, and other stuff again [156]
• Schrodinger undoes part of that, leaving the access date formats inconsistent [157]

Would we have a consensus that a consistent format is an improvement over an inconsistent format? If so, then the editors at the article were refusing to allow such an edit to the article. Is obstruction of format improvements in this way not a form of disruptive editing? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It absolutely does not matter. As a editor with sysop bit, you have two distinct roles. Once you engage in a particular area as an editor, you just can't act as an admin in the same area; so as annoying and bureaucratic as it may seem, if admin intervention is needed you have to request another admin take action. Admins show up here on ANI regularly with reports which include they explanation they're involved, and they'll usually get a fairly prompt response from another admin. NE Ent 22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, and I rather like it, but it should be discussed and explored at the relevant policy page. If that idea applied to all admins I would, naturally, follow it. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We are not going around in circles, you are evading a perfectly straightforward question. The date formats were inconsistent, and you converted them all to ISO format despite the {{Use dmy dates}} template at the top of the article. There was some reverting back and forth, with SC putting all the dates into the format that were consistent with the editing tag and the consensus on his talk page: [158]. You warned him that you may block him after he had done this: [159]. The question is very simple: if a guideline permits more than one date format, and a local consensus agrees on one format, and enacts on that consensus, will you consider using your admin privileges to enforce another interpretation? If you agree not to then this can be wrapped up. If you reserve the right to overrule the consensus using your admin privileges, then it's up to the other admins to resolve this issue. Betty Logan (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I just found this, another content dispute by Gimmetoo, this time with Status, where he told the user: "This constitutes notice that if you continue to change the established style of articles, you may be WP:BLOCKed without further warning." As it was obvious no other admin would have performed the block, I consider that this should be brought to attention, as it is a similar case to what has been presented here by ShroCat. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimme, As you are fond of DATERET, could you have a look at the 28 March 2012 version version of the article and tell me how many—and which—date formats are in use? The efforts of fanthrillers and I to 'retain the existing format' may have been flawed in missing some of the more recent additions, but it was entirely correct. When you made this edit, not only were you in breach of DATERET, you also managed to overlook one of the dates (see fn 32, which remained throughout all the recent edits by Fanthrillers you and me as "32. ^ a b Macintyre, Ben (5 April 2008). "Was Ian Fleming the real 007?"". Gimme, you acted incorrectly here from the very beginning, and went against DATERET when you enacted changes against the earlier form. You compounded your error by edit warring against good faith editors who had demonstrated the local consensus which was entirely within the interpretation of all the relevant guidelines. You then went outside the comfort zone of many in using your administrator privileges and threatening a block in a content dispute, when you should have stepped aside and asked for outside assistance: another pair of eyes and another view from a neutral administrator would not have done any harm in this or in any other matter. - SchroCat (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is something new. Which part of DATERET do you wish to invoke? If you would like to invoke "first major contributor" and use the publication and access date format of the first edit that added such to a reference, whatever that was, that would be in accord with DATERET. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat, just so it's clear—and please answer the question—"could you have a look at the 28 March 2012 version version of the article and tell me how many—and which—date formats are in use?" Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can find that, and it doesn't contribute to discussion. That may or may not be the version of the first person to add a publication and access date, for instance. If you would answer my questions, we might be able to determine what information would be relevant based on what part of DATERET you wish to invoke. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I give up on this: the question does not refer to DATERET, but asks about the number of date formats used. You know the answer to be one and you that it’s the long date format. You also know it puts you into an awkward position.

I cannot take any more of your deliberate underhand obfuscation any more. In trying to weasel out of answering what is a rather straightforward question you are acting in a manner unbecoming to an admin. People will draw their own conclusions from your rather shabby and shoddy approach to this. Your approach and behaviour from the beginning of this unsavoury episode has been inappropriate, and I for one am disgusted with what you think is acceptable; your inability to even consider that there may be a different opinion to yours speaks volumes.

I'm off to concentrate on editing and developing articles: you can carry on here with your pointless and dysfunctional finger-pointing if you really want to, in the knowledge that you've managed to piss off yet another editor. Gimme, a little humility goes a long way and it something that you may want to try having in your dealings with others. - SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You brought up DATERET. The answer to your specific question is obvious and rhetorical, and it's not awkward. So what if in that version the "long form" existed. The significant question is - is that relevant? How does it relate to DATERET? Is that, for instance, the form used by the first person to add a reference with formatted dates? But if you won't engage on that point, then what is there to do? I give up, too. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

POV-pushing/Edit warring, Sockpuppetry, Incivility, and more at Theresa Spence and Hunger strike

There has been a content dispute ongoing recently at the Theresa Spence and Hunger strike articles regarding the nature of Spence's hunger strike and her other political positions. Several IPs (most notably 108.170.148.125 and 108.172.114.141) have attempted to insert claims that Spence's hunger strike is not a hunger strike because she continues to intake liquids (diffs: series of edits by 108.170, [160], [161], edit by registered (but unconfirmed) user Devy69, blanking of section at Hunger strike article, [162], [163], series of edits by 108.170, false claim of validity by 108.170, series of edits by registered user Skol fir, [164]), although this is common of hunger strikes and, as a result, most reliable sources are referring to her fasting as a hunger strike, which I and others have attempted to explain is the reasoning behind its inclusion in the article as such (diffs: [165], [166], [167]). There also have been other atempts to invalidate Spence's record with unsourced or primary-sourced claims of financial benefit, mostly claims added by User:Syncmaster941bw (diffs: first series of edits by Syncmaster, [168], gave source that did not include the information, by this point Syncmaster has violated 3RR, usage of primary source, another primary source, claiming right to use primary source, unsourced BLP vio by IP).

Moving on from the content dispute, we also have reasonable suspicion that the POV-pushers are using sockpuppetry to do so; this may be as a good hand/bad hand usage by one of those among us making the reversions of these edits or simple POV-pushing. The best evidence is that a question posed to 108.170 was subsequently answered by 108.172. Soon after, 108.172 admitted to having a registered account through which he/she would soon log in. I incorrectly implicated Jemmaca as a sockmaster with Ririgidi among his socks as well as the two 108 IP's, and after an SPI case I am convinced that they are both innocent. For that fuss, I am sorry to both of them. However, as more IP's and users have emerged, I wonder how many more socks may be operating at these pages, while the identity of the sockmaster remains a mystery to me. For more details on the sockpuppetry aspect of this case, please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jemmaca/Archive.

Additionally, these are not the so-called "civil POV-pushers." They have in fact been quite uncivil towards myself and other editors, especially 108.172. This began with a little canvassing at my user talk page, hoping I would provide "assistance" in getting Theresa Spence deleted. However, this quickly escalated to the accusation that myself and User:Kathryn NicDhàna are "batshit crazy", with a suggestion that I am Kathryn's sock. He/she then claimed that Kathryn is my sock at the aforementioned SPI case against Jemmaca (closed, correctly, in Jemmaca's favor).

Overall, the issues at hand are the content dispute about Spence's hunger strike/"liquid diet" (as some have called it, contrary to sources) and her supposed financial connections, as well as obvious sockpuppetry by one or more unknown sockmasters, and obvious incivility and canvassing by at least one of the likely socks. The users who should have been warned have been warned: please see User talk:108.170.148.125, User talk:108.172.114.141, User talk:Syncmaster941bw, etc. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

All involved parties have now been notified (that took a little while, since there are so many!) RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

your issue is that you are highly supportive of spence and thus have your own pov agenda. You're edits have been one sided as have your content reverts and removals. There is no sock. Both I and the other ip have seperately explained this. I appears you just have a hard time believing that more than one other person dont share your admiration of spence and may be attempting to balance the article and ensure it is accurately representitive of only facts contained in reliable sources. You, and kathryn, also immediately ignored any obligation to find resolution through discussion on the talk page (all my edits were followed or preceded with talk entries) and instead rushed to my personal talk page threatning bans and making sock and vandalism acusations. I suggest that you may be too close or feel too passionately about the topics to be editing either of them. I have not made any edits since the initial confrontation you and kathryn initiated days ago and yet you try and drag me back n to this. I suggest you are the one canvasing for other editors who share your political views in hopes of just banning all those that might want to balance the article. Very frustrating. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been aware of a number of attempts to say that Spence isn't on a hunger strike because she is taking liquids, both on Spence's article and at Hunger strike which makes it clear that an ordinary hunger strike includes liquids. The sources used have all called it a hunger strike but this has also be ignored by these editors. Dougweller (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a rather childish discussion. Hunger strikes always involved removing solids from the diet. Then there are several levels of severity from water only, to adding salt, vitamins, minerals, sources of extra fat and protein (in a broth for example). I don't see the argument here. Chief Spence is on a hunger strike by definition. My only substantial edit was an attempt to help those who may not know what constitutes a broth (this single edit was summarily shot down by a registered editor because of "undue weight"). I never engaged in an edit war. Why am I listed above as having made a series of edits on this topic, when I made only one relevant to this discussion? Who's railroading whom? BTW, I never said it was not a hunger strike! My CBC source used the word hunger strike. I just added what was in her diet to qualify the term "hunger strike", and that was also tossed out by the same editor, thankfully to be restored later by a person who realized that something had to be said about what Spence was ingesting. Otherwise, one could assume her hunger strike was water and salt only, which is obviously not the case.

Finally, I did mention in my single edit that moose broth had been added to Spence's hunger strike, supported by a reliable CBC source- also shot down by the same editor. I guess that he/she (User:Ronz#NPOV+BLP) didn't want to admit the truth, and preferred to keep this under wraps. It sounds like this whole article has been created to promote Spence, and those in charge here want to avoid anything embarrassing to her. That's not balanced, if you ask me.

I have a reference for anyone interested in the various levels of hunger strikes at Anarchism in Action: Hunger Strikes. I have no further interest in adding to this discussion, as I really don't care what you do with this article. My only attempt to create some balance has already been squashed by a biased editor and I am not getting into any war of words. --Skol fir (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edits regarding broth were not particularly relevant to Spence, which is why they were removed as giving "undue weight" (perhaps not the best description IMO) to the topic of her hunger strike. They would have been better suited for the Hunger strike page. Additionally, this has nothing to do with promotion of Spence; it's about neutrality and following reliable sources, which refer to this as a "hunger strike". You cited a source that referred to this as a hunger strike yet referred to it in the article text as a "liquid diet." That is a misrepresentation of sources. If you can find a reliable source referring to this as a "liquid diet" then feel free to add it. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

i would sugest that what the Hunger Strike page says is irrelevent. You cannot use wikipedia as a source nor can you use it to synth. Hungerstike, as it pertains to spence, can only be defined by the RS that report n it. In current form the article seems balanced on that single question (definition of hunger strike) as most coverage now provides the fluids explaination when stating "hunger strike". The broader isses come down to highly POV admins censoring the article and harrassing editors who add sources and nfo they'd rather omit from the page, specifically info critical of spence of which there has been tonnes of in the media. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

While I did not check every edit by the IPs 108.172.* and 108.170.*, one reason some editors reverted some of the edits concerned removal and re-writing of text by the IP but leaving the original sourcing in place. This created a disparity between information within the sources cited and the new text which was unsupported by the sources. The IPs (almost certainly the same editor for both IPs) were inserting POV information without proper citation. I don't think anyone would argue against inserting information "critical" of Chief Spence into the article but it still needs to be properly cited to WP:RS and WP:V sources. The IPs show a clear understanding of WP policies but chose to act as if they didn't apply to him/her. I don't have diffs to hand but I also seem to recall that some of the sources added by the IPs didn't meet WP:RS or WP:V criteria. If the criticism of Chief Spence can't be sourced well or is of distinctly minor presence in WP:RS to be found, I don't think it needs to be included just to provide a false balance. Personally, I think that criticism of Chief Spence can be well sourced; I think the info and sources are available (Although I admit I haven't seen much of it but perhaps I'm not looking carefully or thoroughly enough.) It puzzles me that the IPs prefer to argue rather than provide solid citations. IMO, that's what the editwarring boils down to. At this point, the IPs have shown a distinctly antagonistic rather than a cooperative attitude toward working here. They have already been warned multiple times about their actions. I'd block them at this point but I'm an involved party. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have checked every edit by both 108 IP's and as many as I can for other involved users and this appears to be the case with edits attempting to claim Spence's hunger strike is not a hunger strike. This misrepresentation of sources is an obvious violation of WP:BLP policies. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

108, you just admitted in that comment that most sources use the term "hunger strike." Therefore, there is no reason for the term to be removed from the article. Additionally, the idea of neutrality is not to add information critical of or promoting its subject in equal proportions (especially in BLPs, like the Spence article). I have added no promotional material to the article. However, you and others have added critical information, often without proper sourcing. Even if properly sourced, the critical information should then be presented neutrally, as opinions of its writers rather than as facts. Regarding your earlier comment, how can you claim "there is no sock" when you first answered a question posed to 108.170 at his/her talk page (showing you and him/her are the same person) and then said you have a registered account. These are both forms of sockpuppetry. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Check the sources again - not a single media outlet is calling it a hunger strike anymore - its being referred to as what it is, a liquid diet. Please have some unbiased editors previously unengaged look at this article, as it appears that a few deeply committed ideologues are making reverts constantly if anything that paints Spence in a bad light is posted - such as the recent revelation of financial mismanagement via audit. Earlier in this page I read "I appears you just have a hard time believing that more than one other person dont share your admiration of spence and may be attempting to balance the article " - this appears exactly correct? Am I a sock puppet too? My IP range comes from NS, and perserving anonymity by no means implicates my account as being a sockpuppet. Perhaps your POV is not as popular as you think it is. Perhaps you should revert to neutrality, which is what wikipedia should be about.

It does wikipedia no favours as it certainly paints it in a bad light - essentially being the plaything of a few cranks who can thumb their noses at wikipedia content standards. Thanks for the consideration, a concerned person. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Finding unbiased editors is the reason this was posted here. Additionally, the problem wasn't whether or not the claims were correct; it was that they did not meet the sources. Finding sources to back up claims and saying those claims neutrally gets them in the article. WP:BLP says that unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious material is to be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I have done so. Does this make me a POV-pusher? In fact, I see that correctly-sourced, neutral "liquid diet" claims have now been added by Skol fir. I am fine with Skol fir's edit, and I'm not trying to push my own POV into the article, just ensure claims are sourced. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note I see many mentions of the invalidity of primary sources over secondary sources. Remember that primary sources are more reliable for raw facts and figures than opinionated secondary sources, but only secondary sources should be used for opinions or commentary. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  If I'm reading WP:SOURCES correctly, they must be "third-party" sources, which are obviously not primary sources. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  there are certain contradictions between the wording of policies, but in practice, it is accepted that for straight presentation of facts, primary sources are usable, and in at least one case, the facts of a plot, they are preferred; even for opinion, there are at least one place where they are better: The view of an organization about what its purpose is in its own terms is better than any attempt to reword it. Naturally, other sources may say such is not its true purpose, but that's a different question, and there secondary sources are of course needed. I think the current wording in the article represents the situation as given by the sources--her own included--, though it might be possible to find a more neutral wording for the section heading. But this does not belong here--it's really from the NPOV noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  I think I understand what you mean, DGG. It's almost like it's a usage of WP:IAR. As for the choice of noticeboard, I came here because I best felt that the various elements of this case (edit warring, POV issues, incivility, apparent sockpuppetry) would best suit ANI. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing and forum-shopping by Insomesia

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 the opinion of multiple editors that Insomesia has inappropriately forum-shopped RSN here with respect to the Lynette Nusbacher article. They have also canvassed the LGBT project opining that At issue is outing this person's change of gender. She is a LGBT hero in the UK. Considering the target audience, the language is anything but netural. Fortunately no one there has yet to appear to be swayed by raw meat.

I've asked Insomesia to refactor or remove their request on the LGBT project but apparently they see nothing wrong with their request.

This is not an isolated incident. On a different article Insomesia also forum-shopped RSN about a week ago

I'm requesting that someone (preferably) an admin review the edits in question and please explain to Insomesia the do's and don'ts of forum-shopping and canvassing.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think my alerting an appropriate Wikiproject about a discussion that impacts them is fine and I see my explanation as neutral enough to not run afoul of canvassing. LGR has also lodged a sockpuppet investigation after me and LGR and Belchfire have routinely tagged-teamed to warn me or take the more - shall we say conservative - side in content disputes. I have found that when dealing with this tag-team effect it is more productive in the long run to solicit other eyes on the situation. The Lynette Nusbacher article is a good example. I'll quote another editor who put it quite well - On motivations: I don't see any attempt by LGBT activists to use this article for promotion of their agenda (though perhaps I'm missing it). What I'm seeing is some people who make no secret of their conservative leanings arguing for inclusion (there are others arguing for inclusion who don't fit that description). At least one of those persons quite clearly has something like the following in mind: the subject did something really weird (something that violates the natural order of things) -- and having done that we have to rub her nose in it by making sure that it appears on her biography even though (or: especially because) she has made it clear she wants to keep it private. It's really quite disgusting. As usual I would love more eyes on the article and it's AfD, and for that I thank LGR for this opportunity to invite scrutiny on a BLP. Insomesia (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, without taking a position in the content or source dispute (nor will I), I don't see either forumshopping nor canvasing. Insomesia had a concern about the reliability of a source and laid out a logical argument for his position. On the project page, his notification was neutrally worded, and was appropriate. GregJackP Boomer! 22:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Posting claims of outing to a board where people would have considerable sympathies to outing is textbook canvassing. Posting claims of anti-semtism to a Jewish interest group would be similar. If you think that phrasing is neutral, then good day to you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. The subject of the article, from what I understand, objects to the information. Outing, in that context, is an appropriately neutral term. GregJackP Boomer! 01:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, they are attacking one of our heros. We are under siege!!!  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have as much problem with the LGBT project as I do with the conservatism project: both tend tend to try to own articles, though at the moment we seem to having a lot more issues with the latter project than the former. Be that as it may, the Nusbacher article presents a very complex set of issues involving sourcing, undue emphasis, and BLP concerns. I happen to follow most of the relevant noticeboards, and I see the issue popping up in the various places. On the one hand, I agree that, in principle, discussion should have been centralized. In practice this has been something of a problem in that the usual suspects in these controversies crank out so much talk that discussion tends to be unfollowable. But that this should have been limited to a single noticeboard, or not brought there at all: that's a tactic of trying to manage the discussion so as to reduce the level of pushback. I've run up against the conservatism cabal on several subjects now, and while I suppose I should have a certain perverse admiration for their attempts to dominate a huge list of subjects, in practice it's extremely obvious that they're trying to bias the content here by suppressing content that's adverse to conservative figures and playing up negative content about conservative opponents. I don't know why, but for whatever reason there seems to be campaign now to embarrass the subject of the contested article, which is reason enough for the current deletion discussion to succeed in eliminating the article. And the conservatism project regulars are the banner bearers for the campaign. In any case this issue has had to be looked at from many angles, and I don't see any problem with presenting it to multiple noticeboards. Mangoe (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This smells of something... I would say it but I don't know if it would be uncivil. Anyway, the article needs to be deleted and everything you accuse that user is untrue in my opinion --Hinata talk 23:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

For delicate situations, you could send an e-mail to your most trusted admin rather than saying it "out loud". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I see lots of misdirection and off-topic discussion, but very little addressing the actual complaint. I will reformulate: This request for "more eyes" [169] was intentionally phrased in a flagrantly non-neutral manner, which is a direct violation of WP:CANVAS. That is what needs to be discussed. ► Belchfire-TALK 13:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Belchfire, "At issue is outing this person's change of gender. She is a LGBT hero in the UK." is clearly not neutral and it was inappropriate canvassing. I would be satisfied with a promise from Insomesia not to do it again now that they know.--v/r - TP 19:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Insomesia was certainly out of line in posting a non-neutral request at the LGBT project. Definitely canvassing. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I too would be satisfied with TP's solution, adding forum shopping as well. No need for blocks, and Im sorry I didn't make that clear in my initial request.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Concur with TParis. It would be good to see Insomesia acknowledge the error so we can close this. ► Belchfire-TALK 22:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I just realized everything I said was wrong. Correction: it is canvasing, and I laughed at the lgbt hero.... --Hinata talk 22:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Continued tendentious editing at Village Pump (Policy) by User:Sreejiraj

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.

---

After a long an fruitless discussion regarding the appropriateness of characterising living individuals by caste at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Caste identification, where it was apparent that some contributors were entirely unwilling to consider the core Wikipedia policies regarding the rights of individuals to privacy, as set out in WP:BLP policies, I decided that the best course of action was to seek wider community input, and therefore raised the matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is labelling individuals by caste a violation of privacy, per WP:BLP, and if so should we make this explicit?. Sadly, the behaviour at the India noticeboard has been repeated by User:Sreejiraj, who has filled the thread with repetitious and off-topic original research (already posted at the India noticeboard), gross misrepresentation of sources, and other forms of tendentious editing, with the clear intent of diverting discussion from the purpose of the thread - which was to discuss the extent to which privacy concerns should limit the labelling of individuals by caste without encyclopaedic justification, without self-identification, and frequently on the basis of questionable sources, in the light of knowledge that caste is a contentious subject touching on issues of religion and social class (with all the economic and political baggage that entails) as much as of 'ethnicity' (if not more so - I'm unaware of any academic sources that consider 'caste' and 'ethnicity' to be synonyms). Despite my repeated requests, at no time has Sreejiraj answered my request for him to address the subject of the thread directly, and he has instead taken every opportunity to drag the thread off-topic. Given this behaviour, which to my eyes clearly falls within the bounds of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing policy, in that it is intended to prevent discussion of the intended subject, I ask that the community consider topic-banning Sreejiraj from all caste-related articles and talk pages unless and until he can make it clear that he will cease such behaviour. Caste is a complex and controversial subject, and the way that Wikipedia represents it needs to be properly discussed, rather than contributors having to deal with stonewalling behaviour evidently intended to prevent the issues being resolved. It should be noted that the 'caste' topic is already covered by Wikipedia:General sanctions, and that Sreejiraj has already been informed (in several places) that General sanctions apply (see for example User talk:Sreejiraj#Caste discussions, where it was made clear by another contributor that Sreejiraj's behaviour was unacceptable - and note the complacent response). Given that the key issue here is the sheer volume of Sreejiraj's repetitive and off topic postings, a diff seems rather pointless, and I ask that those wishing to become involved take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
In addition, somebody needs to tell Sreejiraj to at least not bold and color his text walls. It's disruptive. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@Seb_az86556, if it really is a grave problem, did you try telling Sreejiraj to use a certain font and colour that is your favourite and sooting for your eye? AndyTheGrump has also been bolding many texts a many number of times. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to the evidence that Sreejiraj is editing tendentiously, I've left him a warning using the {{uw-castewarning}} template at his talk page. Editors who want to determine the best way to mention caste in WP:BLP articles are *not* free to ignore regular Wikipedia policies, or to violate the norms of civil discussion by swamping the thread with excessive text. That falls under the traditional warning language, embraced by both Arbcom and the community in their templates, about "repeatedly or seriously fail[ing] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@AndyTheGrump, you are partly at fault here for making Sreejiraj repeat his comments twice. The discussion that was going on at WT:INB was forked by you to Village Pump. (You have your own policy based or biased reasons for that.) You restarted the thing all over again at another venue and that is why Sreejiraj had to put forth his points again. Although they might be repetitive to you, they were well received and replied by User:Masem and User:Bus stop who were not part of the initial discussion that happened at WT:INB. So it is your fault here.

Of course Sreejiraj could have simply directed all to his previous posts. But he being new with around 200 edits should be excused for not being superlatively brilliant like you with around 18000 edit. Also, Sreejiraj posted his huge post at Village Pump on 7th January. The personal clear notice to him on his talk page given by Sitush that asked him to not repeat his say is dated 8th January.

For a complex issue like caste system, the discussions are bound to take long time to conclude. If you are so impatient and grumpy about it, i would suggest you take up other discussions too that would keep you busy elsewhere. Sreejiraj is not vandalising any of the actual articles. If you do not want us to edit the articles nor discus on talk pages why don't you simply rewrite that dogs and Indians are not allowed? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. Can I ask that an uninvolved admin take a look at Dharmadhyaksha's comments, both here and in the discussions linked, and consider what actions might be appropriate in this user's case too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(Yeah, he's calling you a racist, but I wouldn't even dignify that kinda junk with a response Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

I am simply pointing out what you did. If you have a label for that and want to use it, its your choice. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate to move a discussion from a walled garden of India editors to the general discussion area, in fact, it would have been a better idea to have done that early on in the history of the discussion. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not seeing the problem here, other than the fact that Sreejiraj used a lot of words to make his case at the RFC. There is no word limit on such things. I suspect there are some frustrated advocates of a majority position that are aggravated by a verbose and committed advocate of a minority position, but that doesn't excuse a race here in an effort to have a bureaucratic hammer wielded... Carrite (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sreejiraj has at no point made a case at either the India noticeboard nor at Village Pump (policy) - he has utterly refused to acknowledge that WP:BLP policy respects the right of individual privacy, and on that basis, any discussion of an individual's caste needs to take this into consideration - he has attempted to ignore the issue entirely, and posted reams of irrelevances. In any case, it wasn't just 'a lot of words', it was the same words, repeatedly. This clearly falls under the scope of Wikipedia disruptive editing policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Note - for clarification, Bus stop had posted here, hence Sitush's response below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you have said this here. It is surely better placed in the discussion at VPP? - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, you are right. I am now removing the post above. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I just saw the message on my talk page (since my days and nights are different.) That says something about me being warned for Tendentious editing. I looked up Tendentious editing. "Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view." I would like to know which are the edits that you find biased. In fact, it's been a few weeks (or months?) since I edited any Wikipedia article, except for trying to put in three items into List of Ezhavas, which was promptly removed by Sitush, quoting reasons such as people need to self-identify to be identified by Jati etc. I am assuming adding those three items did not amount to "sustained bias", did it? Thank you. Yes, I frequently change the color of my font in discussion pages when I am doing an "overnight editing", long after everyone else's gone to sleep and I have to comment on individual comments. Otherwise, there is not way to highlight that a particular comment has been inserted in between a dialogue (or multilogue, if there be such a word.) Yes, so will someone tell me how inserting three items into a list, and having them rejected, amounts to "sustained bias"? Sreejiraj (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody else is doing that. Just don't. It's disruptive, just like yelling and screaming or throwing stuff at people. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hijacking a discussion when it was nearing consensus and raising it anew at a new forum (creating duplication) by User:AndyTheGrump

Hi, this is with regard to essentially User:AndyTheGrump causing much trouble to all involved by creating a duplicate discussion on a subject that was being discussed at Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Caste_identification at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is labelling individuals by caste a violation of privacy, per WP:BLP, and if so should we make this explicit? and not telling anyone there that the discussion has been transplanted to the Village Pump, leading the others to be unaware that the topic has been escalated, and the others consequently wasting their timing arguing their points on the India page. This required some participants, (including me certainly) to have to repeat much of my arguments before one forum at the new one as well, creating much inconvenience, and in the end, leaving me feeling like an idiot for having wasted my time. Are there are any policies to warn users not to shift goal-posts (rather, the whole football ground) when they find consensus forming against their own "sustained biases" ?? Can such disruptive (not to say ungentlemanly) users be banned? Sreejiraj (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an outright lie - Sreejiraj refused to address the BLP concerns at the India noticeboard, and instead filled it with off-topic stonewalling - hence my attempt to get wider input at the Village Pump. And note that Sreejiraj is still engaging in the same behaviour he has already been warned against - posting ridiculous walls of text full of WP:OR, guesswork and speculation (and incidentally engaging in personal attacks in the process) [170]. He has already been warned. Is action going to be taken? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Dharmadhyaksha and violations of WP:NPA

I would at this point in time like to formally ask an uninvolved admin to comment on User:Dharmadhyaksha's violations of WP:NPA above, [171][172] and to take what action is deemed necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha! I like this strategy of are-you-against-me-lets-get-you-blocked. Has worked on ANI at numerous times. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I presume that any admin looking into this will take the above comment into consideration too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind even if every comment and action of mine from day one is under consideration. If you want i can help you by giving names of few more editors who can help you get me blocked. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha, this is not like you at all. Hope you are ok - how about a cup of tea, eh? - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think i am ok. Thanks for the cup. But me backing off means encouraging AndyTheGrump and others of such strategies; of getting opponent editors blocked by filing trivial complaints. Hey, you are writing essays, block you! You wrote in green bold, block you! Its not Arial 10, block you! That's no way to deal with new comers. There is some essay on that somewhere here. (If you remember, there was another such ANI case, probably filled by you, where a newcomer was blocked for what you all call as "tendentious editing". It was on some Rajput or Jat articles. The blocking admin did not even think of the fact that the new user would now not be able to reply to any ANI posts and defend himself. How is that just? I had opposed that too.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are referring to WP:BITE. The problem here is that the "newcomer" (assuming that you are writing of Sreejiraj) has had quite a lot of advice prior to things getting reported above. Even now, they've not been blocked. It might be best to concentrate on advising them because, honestly,some sort of change is needed. - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Then do that; advise him. Andy did not come to ANI for getting him advised. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have already tried but was (very politely) brushed off. Maybe it needs someone else to have a go. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have tried again here. Can we all now back away from the precipice? I feel sure that Andy will not object to any request made for "thinking time" as mentioned in my post, and I'm hoping that Dharmadhyaksha and others might be able to engage in a brainstorming session at the user's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have warned User:Dharmadhyaksha for the personal attack on Andy. Ed has posted a warning on Sreejira's talk page. As far as I can tell, we're done here. Therefore, I'm closing after I post this comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

IP vandalism of my talk page/IP posting personal attacks against editors I've been in dispute with possibly trying to frame me

This edit made on my talk page by an IP insults an editor that I've previously disputed with. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TeeTylerToe&diff=532234149&oldid=532137058

My talk page was previously edited by another IP with suspicious content as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TeeTylerToe&diff=530586398&oldid=530581764

The IP made a juvenile edit on sept 3 '12 fwiw. TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Response. Please report any reoccurrences. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

ThanksTeeTylerToe (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Mentor: I've already spoken with the user that the vandalism was targeted to incite to action against TeeTylerToe (TTT). They agree that it does not seem like someone's planning a joejob and they're willing to let it slide. I think that Nyttend's final warning is enough for now. Hasteur (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, striking one word that changes the entire posting Hasteur (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Minor clarification for the record: I am not only "willing to let it slide", I don't believe for a minute that TeeTylerToe did anything wrong here. As for the person who impersonated TeeTylerToe, my policy is WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Threat following reversion of IP edits at Jill Kelley

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.

---

After I reverted apparent conspiracy theory edits by User:24.43.201.210 and User:68.54.80.89 at Jill Kelley, User:24.43.201.210 posted on my talk page "you do not want to get yourself killed tampering with information on this topic, child." diff Recommend page protection at Jill Kelley, IP blocks, and possible Checkuser if others think it's warranted. Jokestress (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Multiple Civility Issues relating to RFC on Article Talk page- Unsure How to Approach

Further information: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 116 § Removing Long-Term Unsourced Material is Edit Warring?

I'm not notifying anyone at this time because I'm not sure whether this is an issue where Admins should get involved and I have no idea who I could talk to in order to determine whether or not they should short of coming here. I was hoping this problem would remain an "irritation" to me rather than something that I felt necessitated intervention, but...well, here we are.

I recently opened an RFC at an article's Talk page and I feel that multiple users have engaged in personal attacks rather than focusing on the merits (or perceived lack thereof) of arguments being made. If I wasn't an involved editor and frequent target (i.e. if other editors were being targeted) it's the kind of thing where I hope I'd likely warn the editors to knock it off, but under the circumstances I suspect that would only aggravate the problem.

I'm well-aware of the requirement to notify users if they're the topic of a discussion, but I don't know how that would be handled in this case; i.e. whether it's sufficient to leave some sort of notice at the Talk page of the RFC or whether it's necessary to notify each user individually (and at this point there are a significant number). Ideally I'd like to just have admins look over the discussion and take whatever actions they deem necessary...even if that's telling me that I'm out of bounds and should drop the matter.

In other words, I guess I'm basically asking whether it's prudent to provide more information, notify users in whatever manner you would recommend doing so and get this hopefully taken care of, or whether this is a case where I should just try to keep the high ground and hope it blows over.

Thank you very much for your time, advice, and assistance. Doniago (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:Synchronous motor#Proposal B, if anyone is wondering what this is about William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Quite the cesspool attacking an editor who actually believes that "verifiability" stuff. I've removed some of the more egregious personal attacks. NE Ent 03:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've restored them. It's time to take the encyclopedia back from clueless editors who hide behind tags and simplistic dogma, and "civil" editors who stifle any debate of this. This is an encylopedia and it is built of content. If you're not contributing to that content, you're not building it. If you're destroying that content, you're destroying the encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And yes, clueless. The root of this specific instance here is that Doniago is self-confessedly ignorant of anything to do with the article subject, sees no reason to do a modicum of basic research before commencing, yet sees neither of these as any brake on his blanking of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
      • There is no problem at Synchronous motor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (apart from the fact that some minor work by editors who understand the topic would be desirable). There was some confusion on the talk page where some editors gave the standard commentary that would be applied to a WP:FRINGE or WP:BLP issue (namely, contentious material must be removed until it satisfies WP:DUE and WP:RS)—however those comments are not applicable to the article in question where everyone agrees the text in the article is fine (although a little essay-like in some parts). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Your error is threefold:
  1. Assuming that you have the high ground in the first place. You do not.
  2. Not following verifiability procedure. The correct procedure, that was in our verifiability and deletion policies in the same step-by-step fashion for some years can be found at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. What you did, on the other hand, was laziness.
  3. Making the usual "People are telling me that I'm doing things wrong, so they must be personally attacking me." leap. The only thing that has come close to personal attacks has been someone foolishly throwing around the "dirty -istas" epithets, which have never improved a discussion, which I have been explaining for some years as having no basis in either history or analysis, but which you'll find almost no-one here will treat as personal attacks (because that would involve uprooting quite a lot of entrenched nonsense that people want to hang on to, because they don't realize that they were jokes, such as m:deletionism and m:inclusionism).
• You removed content that said that a motor comprised a rotor, stator, stator housing, and slip ring for being "without sources". Content is removed for being unverifiable. That's not the same as not having little superscripted numbers. As User:Uncle G/On sources and content#The requirement is only that the sources be cited somehow explains, verifiability is the ability for readers to check Wikipedia content for accuracy. It's in the name. The correct approach to verifiability, and improving verifiability, is to attempt that check, and make the check possible for others if one's own attempt fails. If it turns out that one cannot make that possible, then is the point that one deduces unverifiability.

  Moreover, inability to make it possible here does not include mere inability to understand the subject on your own part. In any case: Knowing that motors have rotors, stators, housings, rings, and other parts is something that a ten-year-old with a build-your-own kit knows. Even I know it. It's outright stupid and destructive to remove such information from an article for supposedly being unverifiable. As was pointed out, there's scant difference in action and in effect between such an edit and the edits of section-blanking vandals.

  And it's lazy to then say that it's Somebody Else's Problem to deal with fixing the damage and not lift a finger yourself. Remember: When you say that "nobody cares to do the work" you are including yourself. If everyone around you is lazy and not working on improving the article, as is so often asserted by people in your position, then so are you. It's also seen as arrogant, because others perceive it as your setting the agenda for them, demanding that they work to it, without doing any share of the work yourself, and threatening that you will kick over the sandcastles if your demands that other people do work that you should be doing yourself are not met by your arbitrary deadlines. You are not apart from the other people whom you decry and demand should be working for you.

  This is why a lot of people are telling you that you are not putting verifiability and editing policy into practice, that your approach to editing is destructive, entirely uncollaborative, to the detriment of articles, and borderline indistinguishable from the section-blanking vandals in its practice. But since one person leapt to the "dirty -istas" epithets, you're ignoring the several editors on article talk pages and on noticeboards who have all told you how to put verifiability into practice properly, and concentrating on that one. It's the old they-told-me-I'm-wrong-so-I'm-calling-it-uncivil rubbish with an assist from one over-the-top fool. That one person used the "dirty -istas" is no excuse for ignoring the many people who have told you to pull your finger out, do what editing policy, verifiability policy, and deletion policy have always required from their very first versions — even though we mistakenly removed from policy the concrete step-by-step instructions showing how to properly go about it, leaving just the goal: an error that has caused a lot of grief since from the actions of people who couldn't figure out for themselves what steps to take — and not just sit on the sidelines doing nothing except demanding that other volunteers like you jump when you shout "frog!".

  Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • *applause* Nice. Puts me in mind of this edit claiming that a source was needed to claim positrons were involved in positron emission tomography... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's verifiability policy is fairly clear: "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." NE Ent 13:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• They key word in that quotation is "verifiability". The content was removed for being unsourced, not unverifiable, and those are two very different things - it blatantly is verifiable. There are also riders on the second sentence, in that there is some content that does not need a source. It is plainly destructive to insist that unsourced material should be removed, even if it is blatantly accurate and can be easily sourced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think "fairly" clear is about as far as it goes. The policy is not absolute, it's not mandatory. It's permissive. As such, the policy necessarily assumes the exercise of sound discretion and judgment on the part of editors applying it -- both of which have been lacking in the reflexive challenges and excisions at issue here. The policy cannot mean literally for example that any fact nominally challenged by any editor, without any articulable reason, is properly removed if thereafter no citation is provided. That's a recipe for mischief. It's also important that the policy says that the challenged material "may" be removed, rather than "must" be. Automatic, unthinking removal of content purely because it lacks a citation entails no judgment and is not consistent with the premises underlying the policy even if the removal is permitted by the policy's literal terms. JohnInDC (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• No, NE Ent, you clearly don't understand how to put policy into practice, either. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that means helping to improve articles, not sitting around claiming that the burden is on everyone else and that one's own responsibility is only to kick over the sandcastles and set arbitrary deadlines for volunteers. This is basic collaborative-writing stuff that's been in content and editing policy for a decade. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia can be destroyed by being full of crap just as easily as it can be by "destroying content." Here's more from our alleged verifiability policy:

Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. Emphasis original NE Ent 16:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as the removed material -- rather than going on and on about how bad Donaigo is, why couldn't one of the editors actually spend 30 seconds googling a source (e.g. [173]) and just add it to the article? That would meet the requirements we are supposed to have and benefit the reader by providing a link to a more detailed explanation. Win-win. NE Ent 16:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• That question cuts both ways, and is more of the deflecting nonsense that so usual in these cases. Once again: Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem, and you are failing to ask "Why couldn't Donaigo actually spend 30 seconds googling a source and just add it to the article?". This is a collaborative project. And we're volunteers. Doniago had the itch. Xe should have scratched it, not tried to force the work onto other people. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am slightly troubled by the interpretation of the verifiability guidelines here. It does seem to be giving editors with general scientific/engineering knowledge carte blanche control over content on technical articles. It means they can create unsourced content that may be easily verifiable via a standard textbook, but not directly verifiable by the vast majority of potential readers. It seems to betray the central principle of Wikipedia: that articles should be constructed from published content, that can then be corroborated by the reader. It feels like the meaning of "verifiable" is being reduced to a game of semantics. It's reasonable for a reader to ask "Where did this information come from?" If editors cannot adequately respond to that question, either by providing a chapter or page number from a book or whatever, then a reasonable challenge has been raised to the verifiability of the content. In the case of the Synchronous motor, there should really be nothing in that article that cannot be found in a standard chapter of a standard textbook about standard synchronous motors: after all, this is an encyclopedia article giving a basic overview of the topic. Doniago is entitled to ask for a source, and someone should be able to give him a chapter or page number. That's all it takes; if there are then any claims that are not backed up by the main source, an editor should be entitled to remove those or request further citations. We are building an encylopedia, not a tutorial! Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You don't understand how to put verifiability into practice as an editor, either, and your argument is self-contradictory on its face. Think! Content that is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook" is verifiable content. You just said it yourself. And reasonable challenge does not include "I haven't bothered to check anything at all or make any effort myself.". Accuracy is our goal, with verifiability as the only way to get there given that we're pseudonymous people using a fully open installation of MediaWiki as our writing tool. Verifiability is our best proxy for accuracy, and it is ludicrous to be so thoughtless in one's practice of verifiability that one makes no attempt onesself to determine whether content is accurate. Stop conflating "unsourced" with "unverifiable". If sources aren't cited but the content is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook", then the correct course of action, that was stated in policy directly in the form of how-to instructions for years before we made the mistake of taking out the steps to leave only the goal, is quite clearly not to remove the verifiable content, but to act like a collaborative editor and attempt to help make the article better still by looking for those sources and adding the missing citations. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And you are missing the point that verifiability is a process, and not a standard! Something that may be easily verifiable for someone with an engineering background may not be be verifiable for someone without one, and sourcing is the means by which such content is verifiable. They are not distinct concepts! You are confusing sourcing with citing, and while something may not be cited it may well be verifiable if a source can be provided for the article. No-one is expected to go through the article providing citations for each line, but it is reasonable to request a source for the content in the article, and it is unreasonable to prevent the removal of that content if the source is not forthcoming. We have a bunch of electrical engineers arguing for the retention of the content in the dispute, so if it is easily verifiable through a textbook why don't they just give us the name and chapter of such a textbook? If you cannot provide a source for the content how can you argue that it is verifiable? Just because you know something through your own knowledge or background does not mean it is verifiable through published reliable sources, so arguing for its retention on the basis of what you know is not a valid argument for the verifiability of the content. Betty Logan (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • You aren't even reading what you yourself wrote, let alone what I did. Think, for pity's sake! You are the one who stated that the content is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook". It's right there, above. We don't have to argue something that you yourself stipulate. And it's downright daft to say to someone who is explaining how to put verifiability into practice that it's a process. Of course the putting of something into practice is a process. And it's a process that you don't have the first clue how to apply if you think that content that you've already stipulated to be verifiable should be removed from an article for being "unsourced". Once again, go and read the original instructions from the verifiability policy, preserved at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, and learn what you patently have not learned: that the correct action, in a collaboratively-written project, when sources are not cited but content is verifiable is not to kick over the sandcastles and remove the content entirely.

        This is basic content and editing policy, and always has been. It's also good sense. Indeed, it's even in the {{unreferenced}} notice. It quite clearly says "Please improve the article by adding citations of sources." not "Please just wipe out verifiable content wholesale and then sit around demanding that other people clean up the mess and damage without lifting a finger onesself.". One of the biggest of the many discussions where your error here has been pointed out time and again is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 83#Challenged or likely to be challenged. "[B]y definition Wikipedia is done by volunteers who work irregularly, who might not even be aware of challenges. Some of the worst work on Wikipedia is done by people who do rules-based work on articles where they do not know, or make effort to know, the pros and cons of what they are deleting." is one of the many statements there of how the robotic, unthinking, approach that dumbly section-blanks verifiable content, is wrong.

        Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

        • Amen. I could not agree more with everything you have written here. I just recently had to deal with this very issue in this discussion, facing the same attitude and same misinterpretations of WP:V and WP:BURDEN. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
        • It would really help if you actually bothered to read what I wrote. Nowhere have I stated that this content is verifiable in a standard textbook. If I had a textbook that corroborated this content then I would cite it, and we would not be having this conversation. How do you know it is easily verifiable? Have you checked to see if it is? Are you assuming it is verifiable simply because a few engineers say it is? Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
          • "easily verifiable via a standard textbook" — your own words and description, right there. I told you that you aren't even reading what you yourself wrote. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No...you are taking my comments out of context. What I said was "may be easily verifiable via a standard textbook", which is an important caveat: the only way you can know if it is easily verifiable by a standard textbook is if you know of such a standard textbook. Those were my words, not the selective portion you took to make it look like I was making a statement of fact about the verifiability of the content. My point was—and remains—that if you do not know of such a textbook then you have not satisified the criteria by demonstrating the claims are verifiable, and the policy demands the information is verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This whole conversation is really absurd. Look at the disruptive editing test which is codified in Wikispeak as TE - specifically This section:

Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited controversial material must be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page, and by extension any related Project pages.

If your argument is called out specifically in TE, recognize the absurdity of your argument and your mistake. This discussion should be closed as WP:V prevailing with Postdlf and Uncle G being just plain wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

I suppose, given how my original request for an opinion on how best to proceed has already been derailed...and frankly, I thought I tried to bring it up as mildly as possible...that it would be pointless to note that my reasons for coming here were, as stated, related to civility, not content. If one wants to discuss the content concerns, there is the active RFC.

I also suppose there are some editors who will refuse to believe me if I say at this point that the direction in which this has gone was never the direction in which I wanted any of this to go.

Thank you to the individuals who have shown an understanding, or at least an effort to try to understand, if not agree, with where I have been coming from with regards to all of this. Doniago (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• As you're discovering, that "civility" stuff doesn't apply to editors who swim upstream. Wish there was something I can do to fix that but realistically I can't. Sorry. NE Ent 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Only one person, the person who used the "dirty -istas" was even close to uncivil. Telling Doniago that xe is unequivocally and entirely wrong to make these sorts of edits is not uncivil. Our civility policy is not a suicide pact that prevents us from telling people when they are doing things wrongly and not working in a collaborative fashion to the betterment of the project. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nor do I see where the discussion was "derailed", given that this thread was built on a false premise. Moreover, if, as is suggested, there is such a cesspool of incivility on Talk:Synchronous_motor, I'd like to see individual diffs/examples of it. I tried to read the whole thing but found nothing objectionable, excepting the RfC in the first place, a huge time and electron sink. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • As multiple editors have noted, the "huge time and electron sink" likely could have been averted had any editor cared to simply provide inline cites and consequently satisfied WP:BURDEN. It appears we all prefer to discuss the principles of the matter instead, so here we are. Doniago (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No, here you are, still arguing that you were right when you were wrong, both in principle and in practice. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • This diff shows some specific content that was directed at Doniago and not towards improving the article -- "Neener neener" (in my chunk of the world, at least) is taunting and referring to another human as "it" is objectable to me at least. NE Ent 21:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• A significant factor here is that Doniago is lecturing subject-matter experts upon a topic about which he admits to knowing nothing. His user page says that he is a member of WikiProject Film and so he presumably knows more about that topic area. That project states that "As of 8 January 2013, there are 96,508 articles within the scope of WikiProject Film, of which 169 are featured and 484 are good articles." This indicates that there's still lots of work to be done in this topic area where Doniago would be more competent. Perhaps he can tell us why he's gone into unfamiliar territory instead? If we better understand how this friction occurred, we may avoid such occurrences in future. Warden (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As I'm sure you're aware, there's no requirement that users publicly post anything regarding what subjects they are or are not familiar with; consequently, it would seem ill-advised to use a user's page to draw conclusions in such a direction, even if on occasion such consclusions are accurate. There's also, of course, no requirement that users limit themselves to contributing to articles that discuss matters about which they consider themselves knowledgable. I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that editors' ability to contribute should be constrained in such a manner.

I'm not exactly sure when I "lectured" anyone on the subject of synchronous motors, but if you'd be willing to provide diffs I may be able to offer further comment.

Given that multiple editors have supported my changes in theory if not explicitly in practice here, at the RFC and even (in the abstract) in current discussion at WT:V, I would appreciate it if you did not paint this as a scenario in which I am the sole advocate for the changes that were made.

Personally, I think that, as Wikipedia is not intended to be a project in which articles are written to be understood solely by subject-matter experts, there is something to be said for hearing what non-experts on a matter think of an article that discusses it. It seems to me entirely likely that an article edited solely by experts on the article's subject might develop in a direction that makes it more difficult for a non-expert to comprehend. I also think it's entirely reasonable that if someone asks for sources then they should be provided, and I fail to see what the level of someone's familiarity with the material has to do with it.

I frankly have no idea how this article originally came to my attention. Possibly I was reading an article that linked to it. Another possibility is that I may have been pointed to the article by a friend or associate. I don't see how this question is pertinent to the matter at hand. Doniago (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Setup for suckers

Note the template which greets new editors on top of articles such as Synchronous motor

Notice how it says " Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."? It's just newbie baiting. NE Ent 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I do not understand why asking for citations is baiting new members. Please could you explain.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe the point NE Ent is aiming for is that while the template explicitly states that unsourced material may be removed, when unsourced material is removed editors protest the removal, even if the tag was in place for well over six months and the material was moved to the Talk page rather than simply being deleted, and we end up with an RFC on the matter if the editors protesting the removal revert any attempt to uphold it. Doniago (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• "May" means "it is permitted", not "it must happen". I'm generally sympathetic towards the argument that editors should be permitted to follow accepted interpretations of the guidelines on unreferenced material without being abused by editors pulling rank and shouting "it's obvious so do the work yourself", but this particular case almost seems contrived to contradict that (a fairly banal description of a common device, sans inline citations that could almost certainly be trivially pulled from online sources, being gutted based solely on process). No, having five guys on the talk page saying "this is obviously correct so stop whining" is not a substitute in general for actual direct citation, but it at least indicates that the article is not another Seigenthaler incident waiting to happen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Five engineers knowing it is correct is a testament to its accuracy, not its verifiability. Many people who work in specialized fields acquire a sort of general working knowledge that may not be readily accessible in sources, since ground level principles can be sometimes pretty disparate. If something is easily verifiable it is generally not difficult to provide a source for it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Which is why the advice to Doniago, from people who are experienced writers, is that that, rather than wholesale section blanking, was and is the right course of action, and xyr action was the wrong course of action. Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• As Thumperward said, you are mis-reading "may". It's a warning, not a direction to be slavishly followed. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A warning? To whom, about what? A warning to the reader they shouldn't believe what they're reading? NE Ent 03:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It's a warning, to editors, that if they add unsourced material it may be removed without further notice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Provided that the material is first "challenged", a requirement that can apparently be satisfied by nothing more that the observation that the material is, in fact, unsourced. JohnInDC (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • To be perfectly honest, right now it seems like you consider it an invitation to delete 3/4 of the content on the project. Is that what you are truly advocating? This is one of what? Two or three users on here that are actively working to prove this WP:POINT? Don't get me wrong, I disagree with this tactic and I think that once it crosses the line into disruption they should be blocked for as long as it takes to understand that it is disruptive. If the policy needs to be modified, let's do that. Until then, would someone please protect the content of the encyclopedia? - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC) (edited formatting) - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That's not helping. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Easily solved. Change the wording in the box to "...may be challenged, and after discussion, removed." Greglocock (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In all seriousness

How's about we change that final sentence to "Unsourced content may be challenged, and unverifiable content removed"? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• In this case I would argue that that's exactly what occurred. The unsourced information was challenged when the CN template was applied back in March of 2012. WP:MINREF clearly states that tagging material is a legitimate method of challenging it. Material that was not established to be verifiable between then and December was then moved to the article's Talk page. I emphasize that because I feel some editors are trying to make a case that the information was deleted from the article as though it would be a significant difficulty to locate it afterwards, and simply put, that's not the case. Any invested editor with the resources to cite the material could easily determine what had been removed from the article, apply citations as needed and reinsert the information. Sadly, it seems that in some cases even editors who possess the resources to provide citations would rather argue about whether the removal was justified than take action to improve the article itself. Doniago (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:MINREF indeed says that tagging suffices as a challenge. But as Template:Citation needed makes clear, a fact should not be tagged simply because it lacks a citation. "{{Citation needed}} (also known by the redirects {{Cn}} and {{Fact}}) is a template used to identify questionable claims in articles that lack a citation to a reliable source." (My emphasis.) I am still at a loss to understand how an editor can appropriately or meaningfully tag an article when the editor disclaims any knowledge of the subject matter at all, and, when pressed, cannot or will not identify what of the tagged material is in fact "questionable". JohnInDC (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe it was made reasonably apparent that at least some of the material that was ultimately considered questionable was the material moved to the Talk page. Clearly if the material wasn't being questioned, it would not have been moved. Otherwise, material could have been deleted for lacking sources, which also would have indicated that an editor found it questionable. Of course, if any editors had issues with the article being tagged, they could always have, y'know, asked for clarification. They had quite awhile to do so. Doniago (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) First, the mere act of tagging something does not make it "questionable". That has the cart before the horse. Questioned ≠ questionable. Unverified ≠ unverifiable. Second. Editors did ask for clarification. Repeatedly. Your response was, you were challenging everything that wasn't accompanied by a cite. It's not - helpful, you know? You'd find editors a lot more willing to dive into the material and round out the sources if you would describe what seems wrong about it to you rather than just complaining generally. All that being said, this discussion has become as circular as the original tagging and I think I've had my say about it. JohnInDC (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • To answer the original question, one should not notify editors when setting up an RfC (which is posted on the article's talk page), but should note on the article's talk page if one posts a discussion to a noticeboard. Interested editors have articles on their talk pages and notifying interested editors is canvassing. While you may remove unsourced material, continuing to remove material that other editors have restored is disruptive. Follow dispute resolution instead. TFD (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• There has already been a discussion of the warning text, Thumperward. Remember Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 3#Seeking consensus on warning text? Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why I would remember a discussion from six years ago in which I wasn't involved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support suggested change (with wikilinks added). NE Ent 16:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I swear I feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone. What the heck is going on in this thread? So, let's say I take a relatively obscure topic, and I add a whole bunch of info to it. A year later, someone comes by and tags it for being unsourced, then later removes it for still being unsourced. Am I allowed to bluster and revert war and reinsert the information merely upon the assertion that it is, in fact verifiable, that I know I've got the sources around here somewhere, just leave it alone for now? The above arguments basically boil down to, "If people say it's accurate, well, then, trust them." What the hell is that? I thought that was Citzendium's model--experts "decide" what's correct. And I thought we flatly rejected that model. Yes, the policy is "verifiable" not "verified", but that doesn't mean that unsourced content gets to sit there forever. The whole point is that a reader should be able to feel confident that the information isn't just something made up. How do they do that if the only justification for the info is someone(s) on the talk page asserting something is true? I really am shocked that people would defend the idea that unsourced information can remain in an article indefinitely merely on the say-so of some alleged expert editors on the talk page. I guess I should stop ever removing anything from Wikipedia, and just assume that whatever anyone adds is correct. Like, if someone adds, "The largest, most popular, best selling bakery in the world is BlahBlah bakery Barstow California", well, someone claims it's verifiable, so, well, I guess that's just the way things go... Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, to take another example on the same principle, when it's apparently perfectly ok to vote "Keep" at an AfD by saying "there are bound to be sources out there, so this is notable, but I can't be bothered to look for them or put them in the article" we are clearly not operating in the real world. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - unsourced material should be removed. I would much rather see shorter, well-referenced articles than large, poorly-referenced ones. GiantSnowman 09:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, too. The idea that unsourced material should sit there for ever is just weird and self-defeating. It would need a major community discussion to change this wording etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian, Black Kite, SNowman and Sitush. Shorter well-referenced articles are much better than some of the dreadful long unsourced ones we have. Black Kite, there is one AfD right now that might end up with an article kept on the grounds that although we can't find the sources right now, the subject's recent death will probably produce some soon. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Don't we have a policy on that one?. Black Kite (talk)

Well this is all over the place and should be closed. However, beware of categorical rules in things that actually call for judgment. Removing verifiable but uncited things from articles may lead to blatantly misleading, incomprehensible, or grossly false articles, also. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a chicken-egg situation, though: how do we know that something is verifiable until it has been verified? Sure, we can do a web search and work off experience and these two things will suffice for some points but, for example, much of the stuff in Indic articles probably suffers from the systemic bias of WP:V and WP:RS, in particular because of that country's oral traditions. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"[T]hese two things will suffice for some points." Agree. That is the issue of judgment. (Also, often, if one comes across a statement that appears to need a cite, rummaging around in the other cites in the article or related articles and what they cite (or ones own library), will lead to one). But the main point is that removing information is not itself without perils for truth/untruth, especially if an editor does not know what they are doing. (Simplified example: "A leads to B leads to C" can be a very different statement or article from "A leads to C." If an editor has just excised B, and only left the later, they may be authoring error, hoax, babble, or falsehood). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So remove "A leads to C". NE Ent 00:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And in the meantime there is error, hoax, falsehood, or babble. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am new to the conversation on this ANI noticeboard. Full disclosure: I am an Electrical Engineer, I've made a (very) few comments on the subject Talk page, and I have added several citations to that article Synchronous motor in recent weeks, as well as a few inline {{citation needed}} tags where I thought parts of the claims were not necessarily correct. I have also fixed some of those by reference to an old Electrical Machinery textbook. I looked over that article in its largely unsourced state several weeks ago, and I largely agree with the user who thought that, as it stood then, there were a number of parts of that article that should be sourced. While some parts of it are "sky is blue" true, there are many subpart claims of many sentences of that technical article that are not necessarily correct, or verifiable, and that is why WP:V allows this stuff to be challenged and, after some time, and no editor who cares enough to provide citations showing up to remedy the situation, for the material to be removed. Moreover, while there are areas of editor behavior that could be addressed in good faith while assuming positive motive on the part of the editor being addressed, a not-insubstantial part of the commentary on that Talk page was more of an attack on that editor, rather than constructive improvement of the article.

Wikipedia is improved gradually, by a process. The personal attacks on the editor should not be condoned, or ignored. And anyone seriously looking at the subject article today, compared to before all the brouhaha, would have to conclude that, at the margin, it is much improved now, precisely because of the challenge of an editor who would seem to have a positive regard for the improvement of Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuous removal of links, categories

The below listed users continuously remove links and categories from specific articles, which looks like to be their own POV and might fall under WP:ARBEE. At first, I've created a category titled Category:Hungarian communities in Vojvodina and added to the related articles. Many of them, however, were soon removed, and replaced by a number of badly named, new categories created by Account2013 (talk · contribs).

As immediately pointed out on the category's talk page, it was a bit rushed and eventually it ended up in a mass category deletion as these were found improper (pretty much went to overcategorization).

I've also requested comments from experienced users, who suggested a new, probably more proper name for the category, however, this was rejected by Account2013 (being the lone one to do so), which led to a hiatus, as now some of the articles are in the category while other ones (from where the badly named categories were removed) are not.

Being stucked at this point, I was bold and listified these settlements and added to the articles, however, just after a short while these were also removed. I would like to ask your attention to stop the removal of the info and to find a solution finally. Thank you, Thehoboclown (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nado158 (talk · contribs)
• Account2013 (talk · contribs)
• 79.175.95.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

There's no reason to place this at these places. Why should they? Neither they are there a community or a majority. I would like to ask your attention to stop the insert of the Hungarian communities there, where they are not significant. Thank you.--Nado158 (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thehoboclown is a nationalist Hungarian user who, for some reason, trying to describe settlements with Serb majority in Vojvodina as "Hungarian communities". One can see that he included category "Hungarian communities in Vojvodina" into article Ruma where only 2.17% of population are ethnic Hungarians. How exactly is that town a "Hungarian community"? This is obvious nationalistic disruption of user who want to make impression that everything that was under administration of former Kingdom of Hungary is somehow "Hungarian". There is no logical reason to describe Serb communities as "Hungarian communities" or to include link to article List of Hungarian communities in Vojvodina from articles such is Novi Sad. "See also" section should have links to related subjects, not to unrelated ones. Novi Sad article already have "Demographics" section where one can see how many Serbs, Hungarians and others live there, so one does not need link to article List of Hungarian communities in Vojvodina to read this same thing. 79.175.71.180 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The lone thing I try to do is grouping those places where Hungarians are forming a significant community. Although, dear Account2013, it took a while to set the standard at first due to behavioral difficulties like the one above, Ruma is out of the scope, of course, and you know it. However, there are a number of others, which are in. The demographics section tells information about that city, while this list collects all of those with a Hungarian community, gives broader information and helps to navigate between those related artciles. Thehoboclown (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Ruma is out of the scope"? Then please explain this edit. I personally included link to your new article into Hungarians in Vojvodina article, but I removed it from article Novi Sad because it is simply not related to that subject. One who read article Hungarians in Vojvodina or Senta would indeed want also to read article List_of_Hungarian_communities_in_Vojvodina, but one who read article Novi Sad would be rather interested to read Serbs in Vojvodina. Or to say it like this: you created article List_of_Hungarian_communities_in_Vojvodina, Wikipedia readers can acces this article from Hungarians in Vojvodina article or from articles about some places with Hungarian majority such are Senta and Kanjiža, and finally, article can be found in two categories: [174], [175]. So, everybody can easily find your article. But there is no reason to include link to your article just everywhere. Inclusion of this link into Novi Sad article would be same if article Budapest have link to Serbs in Hungary. This is exactly example of abusive promotion of your new article all over Wikipedia, which is opposite to Wiki practice. 79.175.71.180 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As it has been discussed earlier, Ruma, with its rather small Hungarian community is out of scope and is not included neither to any category nor to any list. The category was added way earlier, have been removed since, talked over, and everyone got well with it - so what's the point?

It's kind of a POV if you want to declare what one would be interested, and you know Wikipedia is not going that way. Novi Sad is home of a large Hungarian community, which is present since centuries, and the city is also an important cultural and educational center, as given in the article above, thus adding it to the list is completely obvious. Adding the list to other cities that are on that list are also self-evident, since it meant to connect all of those cities with a Hungarian community.

While I think adding Serbs of Hungary to the Budapest article would be a bad call, creating and linking an article like Serb communities in Hungary would be welcomed and definitely would add valuable details to the subject! Be bold and go ahead!

No, Novi Sad is not home of a large Hungarian community - 4% of population or 12,000 people is certainly not large. And, besides the fact that this city have Serb majority, there are numerous members of other ethnicities in this city, so I do not see that this city have much more connection to Hungarians than to Croats or Slovaks or others who live there (other ethnic groups also have their ethnic cultural institutions in this city). Members of your own ethnic group are maybe most important to you but they are not most important to the World or to readers of Wikipedia. Your approach is obviously ethnocentric and therefore also nationalistic and POV. And if "adding Serbs of Hungary to the Budapest article would be a bad call" then it is same with "adding List_of_Hungarian_communities_in_Vojvodina to the Novi Sad article". It is not only that your approach is ethnocentric but seems that you have obvious double standards as well. Serbs are also present in Budapest "for centuries" even to the point that they formed majority of population in the city some 300 years ago. But, Budapest of today is ethnic Hungarian city and I do not intent to describe it as "Serb community in Hungary". Also, what you want to achieve by your actions? If you aimed to collect data about presence of Hungarians in places of Vojvodina then you already done it in your new article. I will repeat, this article is already well linked and categorized and there is no need for it to be linked just everywhere. 79.175.71.180 (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact Novi Sad has the seventh largest Hungarian population among these, and is been a cultural center for the Hungarian community living around since a good while. Definitely, it is an important city for a number of other ethnic communities as well, nobody denies it, however, the solution is not to clean all the stuffs that are not connected to the Serb majority of the city, but rather create articles about these to show what other groups live there. What you try to achieve here appears to be a whitewashing. I have no other goal than give a reasonable coverage of those of Hungarian communities in Vojvodina by linking those of listed articles.

The second part is way off-topic, and will only answer short and only for a last time. I suggested to use the form "Fooian communities of Wonderland" over "Fooians of Wonderland" as I find it a more descriptive title. Same as using the Hungarian communities in Vojvodina instead of Hungarians of Vojvodina, as the latter one covers a much broader topic. That's it. No need to twist my words. There are no double standards and no, there is no one who want to take away the chance from you to cover the area you wish. It was just a suggestion. Once again, be bold and go ahead, expand the Wikipedia! Thehoboclown (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "Novi Sad might host relatively large Hungarian population" compared to some other settlements in Vojvodina, but it is because this is large city with some 300,000 inhabitants and it hosts relatively large populations of other ethnic groups too. My point is that Novi Sad should be seen in the context of its 300,000 inhabitants, not in the context of some members of some of its ethnic groups who live in some other places. And speaking about "cultural center", yes Novi Sad hosts few ethnic Hungarian cultural institutions of local importance, but it is one of the most important cultural centers of Serbs in the World and it is also important local cultural center of Slovaks, Rusyns, Croats, Roma, Ashkalis, Muslims, etc. Local Hungarians simply should not be emphasized and pulled out of this context. Following your logic we can also add to "See also" section there links to articles about Roma communities, Slovak communities, etc. But, we should not add those links because of the simple fact that Novi Sad is a large city and that percentage of all these ethnic communities (including Hungarian one) in the city is not large. Important question is why you insist on it? Do you suggest that Wikipedia readers will not be able to find your article about Hungarian communities if it is linked only from articles about places with Hungarian ethnic majority but not from the articles with Serb ethnic majority? I certainly do not agree with that. As for your accusation that I "want to clean all the stuffs that are not connected to the Serb majority of the city", I reject it. What I want to clean is "all the stuffs that are not connected to the city". Or to say it like this: if you created an article with name "Hungarians in Novi Sad" then such article should be linked from the city article. But, your new article is not related to the city and therefore it should not be linked in the article about the city. In fact, I can propose a fairly reasonable solution to this: perhaps you can go to "ethnic groups" section of Novi Sad article where you can change that link to article Hungarian people points to Hungarians in Vojvodina instead and article Hungarians in Vojvodina hosts link to your new article in very visible place. That would make more easy to people to find your new article and this solution will not undermine general quality of the article. Contrary to this, if we fill the article with unrelated links that will certainly undermine article quality. 79.175.71.180 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So, it looks like you just deny that the minorities are connected to the city and you are desperate to hinder to show there are places (not focusing only on Novi Sad) that host other minority communities. Actually, if a place is an important cultural center for whatever community, or hosts a significant minority group, the article definitely should be there. This gives a broader coverage and helps the reader to better understand the whole topic, add further details about the subject, which much rather improve than undermine the article and the whole group of articles about the theme. Though, since it looks like a never ending discussion, and the administrators did not pay any attention, I've forwarded the issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Thehoboclown (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieving account

Hi, I had an active account under my passport name "Marijhaa" and one day my password was not working, and I can no longer sign in. However I hadn't changed the password, and apparently I hadn't registered an email for the account. How can I get the account back please? I don't mind verifying anything should this be a requirement or a way to retrieve an account. Any help would be most welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMarijhaa (talk • contribs) 13:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you're out of luck, see forgot password. NE Ent 02:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that there is nothing confidential that anyone here knows which you could use to verify your account. The only things we could confirm about you and your account are already public knowledge, which means that anyone else could verify them too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Reporting user Hari Krishna Valiveti

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

 – User blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have seen that a user, Hari Krishna Valiveti is trying to push and promote a particular website (apherald.com) that he is affiliated with on Wiki. I tried explaining him not to do so on the edit summary as well as on his talk page. I have seen that another user also warned him concerning his edits at Seethamma Vakitlo Sirimalle Chettu article. I asked him if he was anyway connected to that website and i haven't got any response. But, one of the apherald.com links (here) he posted has his name as the author. I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but i request to please look into this. Thanks, krZna (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. Comparing the user's contributions with the timestamps of those warnings that actually mention spamming and promotion, I see that the user won't have gotten the orange banner telling them they have spam warnings until they posted this edit, their last so far. In other words, they haven't actively ignored the spam warnings. Now they will have seen them (assuming they know what to do about the orange banner), and hopefully won't spam any more. I'll keep an eye on the user for a day or two. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

It is clear that the account's only purpose is to advertise that website.[176] As krZna pointed out, the names of the spamming editor and apherald's reporter are the same. The account should be permanently blocked as this has been going on for three months in dozens of articles. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he made his last edit after the warnings were posted. The warnings were posted at 16:31, 10 January 2013‎ and his last edit that i reverted was on 20:59, 10 January 2013. My issue is that if he an editor at that website and he is using wiki to promote the website, isn't that considered a violation? Thanks, krZna (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he is using his account solely to advertise his website is a huge violation. His obvious conflict of interest is a separate issue. If he did it once or twice, got warned, and then stopped, it would be fine. But it's been happening for months. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(Wow, edit conflict, apparently: look at those timestamps!)I guess I didn't make myself clear. Yes, it's a violation, but new editors don't necessarily know that unless they're told, and unless they see that they've been told. You're right that he made the edit you mention after the warnings were posted, but it was only after he'd made that edit that he got the orange banner coming up, telling him that he had talkpage messages. Do you see my point? We won't block somebody until they've knowingly ignored the spam warnings. It takes another edit, after the orange banner, to knowingly ignore the warnings. That's why I said I'd be keeping an eye out for his next edit.

And indeed, I see he has made another edit now, continuing to spam, so I've blocked him for 24 hours. I do understand your point that the user seems to be here only for spam, but we still start with a short block. If he comes back to spam again after this block, the next block will come quickly and be longer. Thanks again for your help. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

I understand and appreciate your patience Bishonen, but this a clear-cut case of a single-purpose account being used by the editor to advertise their website. In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether he saw the warnings or not since there is a months-long history of doing nothing but spamming. And now, as you just mentioned, he has spammed yet again! You must be Wikipedia's all-time most lenient administrator. :p Block that account forever. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In thinking about this matter further, perhaps it is better not to block him forever because he'll just create a new, anonymous account and continue his spamming. I suppose it's more beneficial to let him keep the account so his edits can be monitored. But I still feel his actions definitely warrant a block longer than 24 hours. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha. Well, there are one or two other admins as namby-pamby as me, I think. Please don't worry, if this doesn't stop, he soon will be blocked for ever. I've watchlisted his page, but in case I forget to check his contribs after the block, I'd appreciate it if either of you two would tip me off about any recurring spam on my talkpage. Just a quick note, and then you may find that I'm an admin made of iron. :-) And if spam for apherald.com should turn up from another account, as you suggest, then the website itself will simply be added to the spam blacklist. Bishonen | talk 01:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

OK, you somehow managed to turn me around. I've decided that you're a great admin and I fully agree with your handling of this matter. However, I do not concur with your self-description of being "namby-pamby". I just think you're a very nice guy person who has no interest in wielding his her power unnecessarily. That's very admirable and appreciated. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 02:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Blush, tee hee. (I'm a nice gal, actually.) Bishonen | talk 02:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

Oops, sorry about that. Haha. Well, you're a very nice gal! ;) --76.189.103.146 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's kinda your fault, Bish, for choosing a username that's almost exactly "beautiful boy".  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 05:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not even kinda — it's totally my fault. I don't usually correct people about it either. But I had to giggle and blush at the compliments, and, well, it just didn't feel right to come across as a giggly pretty boy. (All good luck to 'em that do feel like it, some of my best friends etc, but it's not how I see myself.) Bishonen | talk 15:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

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

Syria flag replaced with a map? Can an admin undo this?

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.

---

An admin removed the current Syrian flag (Template:Country data Syria) and changed it to a map of Syria. However, this a BIG mistake, per discussion here and here. Can an admin undo this?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've notified User:Gryffindor about this discussion. Whichever flag should go there, I don't think putting the map there is an optimal solution. Surely we've had to identify a country without a flag at some point? Is there a placeholder used in such cases? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware the template is interlinked to such an extend. I have reverted my edit. I still believe however that the current Baathist flag will soon be gone. It would be best for the portal and the Wikiproject to be politically neutral and just use a map of the country or something like that. We had similar issues in the past when things were changing in Libya. Just my two cents on this topic, I won't pursue it any further... Gryffindor (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Was this discussed anywhere before you made the change? There's nothing on the template's talk page. It looks like you edited through protection without consensus. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest a self-revert and opening a discussion with Gryffindor as a participant. We shouldn't predict the future either. There will be time to change the flag, when and if (and I agree, it seems likely).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Quote from above: "I have reverted my edit". Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Retrieving account

Hi, I had an active account under my passport name "Marijhaa" and one day my password was not working, and I can no longer sign in. However I hadn't changed the password, and apparently I hadn't registered an email for the account. How can I get the account back please? I don't mind verifying anything should this be a requirement or a way to retrieve an account. Any help would be most welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMarijhaa (talk • contribs) 13:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you're out of luck, see forgot password. NE Ent 02:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that there is nothing confidential that anyone here knows which you could use to verify your account. The only things we could confirm about you and your account are already public knowledge, which means that anyone else could verify them too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Reporting user Hari Krishna Valiveti

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

 – User blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have seen that a user, Hari Krishna Valiveti is trying to push and promote a particular website (apherald.com) that he is affiliated with on Wiki. I tried explaining him not to do so on the edit summary as well as on his talk page. I have seen that another user also warned him concerning his edits at Seethamma Vakitlo Sirimalle Chettu article. I asked him if he was anyway connected to that website and i haven't got any response. But, one of the apherald.com links (here) he posted has his name as the author. I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but i request to please look into this. Thanks, krZna (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. Comparing the user's contributions with the timestamps of those warnings that actually mention spamming and promotion, I see that the user won't have gotten the orange banner telling them they have spam warnings until they posted this edit, their last so far. In other words, they haven't actively ignored the spam warnings. Now they will have seen them (assuming they know what to do about the orange banner), and hopefully won't spam any more. I'll keep an eye on the user for a day or two. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

It is clear that the account's only purpose is to advertise that website.[177] As krZna pointed out, the names of the spamming editor and apherald's reporter are the same. The account should be permanently blocked as this has been going on for three months in dozens of articles. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he made his last edit after the warnings were posted. The warnings were posted at 16:31, 10 January 2013‎ and his last edit that i reverted was on 20:59, 10 January 2013. My issue is that if he an editor at that website and he is using wiki to promote the website, isn't that considered a violation? Thanks, krZna (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he is using his account solely to advertise his website is a huge violation. His obvious conflict of interest is a separate issue. If he did it once or twice, got warned, and then stopped, it would be fine. But it's been happening for months. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(Wow, edit conflict, apparently: look at those timestamps!)I guess I didn't make myself clear. Yes, it's a violation, but new editors don't necessarily know that unless they're told, and unless they see that they've been told. You're right that he made the edit you mention after the warnings were posted, but it was only after he'd made that edit that he got the orange banner coming up, telling him that he had talkpage messages. Do you see my point? We won't block somebody until they've knowingly ignored the spam warnings. It takes another edit, after the orange banner, to knowingly ignore the warnings. That's why I said I'd be keeping an eye out for his next edit.

And indeed, I see he has made another edit now, continuing to spam, so I've blocked him for 24 hours. I do understand your point that the user seems to be here only for spam, but we still start with a short block. If he comes back to spam again after this block, the next block will come quickly and be longer. Thanks again for your help. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

I understand and appreciate your patience Bishonen, but this a clear-cut case of a single-purpose account being used by the editor to advertise their website. In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether he saw the warnings or not since there is a months-long history of doing nothing but spamming. And now, as you just mentioned, he has spammed yet again! You must be Wikipedia's all-time most lenient administrator. :p Block that account forever. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In thinking about this matter further, perhaps it is better not to block him forever because he'll just create a new, anonymous account and continue his spamming. I suppose it's more beneficial to let him keep the account so his edits can be monitored. But I still feel his actions definitely warrant a block longer than 24 hours. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha. Well, there are one or two other admins as namby-pamby as me, I think. Please don't worry, if this doesn't stop, he soon will be blocked for ever. I've watchlisted his page, but in case I forget to check his contribs after the block, I'd appreciate it if either of you two would tip me off about any recurring spam on my talkpage. Just a quick note, and then you may find that I'm an admin made of iron. :-) And if spam for apherald.com should turn up from another account, as you suggest, then the website itself will simply be added to the spam blacklist. Bishonen | talk 01:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

OK, you somehow managed to turn me around. I've decided that you're a great admin and I fully agree with your handling of this matter. However, I do not concur with your self-description of being "namby-pamby". I just think you're a very nice guy person who has no interest in wielding his her power unnecessarily. That's very admirable and appreciated. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 02:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Blush, tee hee. (I'm a nice gal, actually.) Bishonen | talk 02:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

Oops, sorry about that. Haha. Well, you're a very nice gal! ;) --76.189.103.146 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's kinda your fault, Bish, for choosing a username that's almost exactly "beautiful boy".  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 05:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not even kinda — it's totally my fault. I don't usually correct people about it either. But I had to giggle and blush at the compliments, and, well, it just didn't feel right to come across as a giggly pretty boy. (All good luck to 'em that do feel like it, some of my best friends etc, but it's not how I see myself.) Bishonen | talk 15:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

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

Syria flag replaced with a map? Can an admin undo this?

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.

---

An admin removed the current Syrian flag (Template:Country data Syria) and changed it to a map of Syria. However, this a BIG mistake, per discussion here and here. Can an admin undo this?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've notified User:Gryffindor about this discussion. Whichever flag should go there, I don't think putting the map there is an optimal solution. Surely we've had to identify a country without a flag at some point? Is there a placeholder used in such cases? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware the template is interlinked to such an extend. I have reverted my edit. I still believe however that the current Baathist flag will soon be gone. It would be best for the portal and the Wikiproject to be politically neutral and just use a map of the country or something like that. We had similar issues in the past when things were changing in Libya. Just my two cents on this topic, I won't pursue it any further... Gryffindor (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Was this discussed anywhere before you made the change? There's nothing on the template's talk page. It looks like you edited through protection without consensus. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest a self-revert and opening a discussion with Gryffindor as a participant. We shouldn't predict the future either. There will be time to change the flag, when and if (and I agree, it seems likely).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Quote from above: "I have reverted my edit". Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Extreme POV pushing and disruptive editing by User:Borsoka

I am forced to report here the very disruptive editing done by User:Borsoka on the topic of History of Romania, especially covering the ancient times and the Middle Ages. One of the recent unacceptable behaviors is the redirect of the Daco-Roman article ([178]) as well as the repeated removal in mass of sourced content from it ([179], [180], [181]). The same has been done with the Thraco-Roman article: repeated redirect attempts to terrible choices ([182], [183]); repeated removal in mass of sourced content ([184], [185], [186], [187]). This was done without discussions, without proposing the mergers/redirects and without attempting to reach consensus. This is all driven by a desire to push radical Hungarian POVs and revisionism on the Romanian history. The general idea of this POV/revisionism is to break or erase the obvious links (considered mainstream by most historians today), between modern Romanians and their ancestors, the Dacians, the Romans and the Roman Dacia time/space. One example of pushing these extreme views is the complete rewrite of the Origin of the Romanians by User:Borsoka from the Hungarian extremists point of view, an article which he attempts to also WP:OWN as you can see from the many edit wars. To support the ideas in this important article, other articles/concepts like Daco-Roman and Thraco-Roman cultures have to disappear or be pushed into obscurity at any price since otherwise they completely invalidate the claims of Hungarian extremists. A simple review of Borsoka's contributions shows that 90-100% of his "work" involves rewriting articles on Romanian history with an extreme Hungarian POV. If he loves Hungary and its history that much, I don't understand why he doesn't spend 90% of his time, in a positive and constructive fashion, writing great articles about this country's achievements and history. It is not at all justified and acceptable to spend one's entire time attacking and attempting to rewriting another country's history, causing conflicts and promoting disruptive editing in the process. Another aspect of User:Borsoka's "contribution" involves a widespread trend of copyvio and plagiarisms, as can be seen in this investigation (see also Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Borsoka). To me, all this activity is far from Wikipedia's goals, even though some parts of his contributions have merit and the editor has been around for a while. Me and many other contributors have tried to discuss the matters on the talk pages of some of the involved articles, have tried to solicit 3rd party opinions, but to no avail so far. The situation as it stands now it is far from being just content dispute on one article or another. Way too many articles have been attacked, rewritten with POVs, with copyvios, or hidden behind non-sense redirects for one purpose or another. As such I am forced to report the behavior here and suggest a thorough investigation and if considered fit, a topic ban. Thank you for your time. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, I think your above claims are driven by emotions which is not an issue, because we are human beings. Therefore, I would only like to reflect to one of your above points: plagiarism. Yes, there was a time when I was "green" and accepted other editors' push to cite verbatim in order to avoid any accusation of OR. I think my naivety is demonstrated by the fact that all sentences taken from the cited sources were properly referenced (I even added the relevant pages). If you think that any edit I made following the above investigation contains plagiarism, please report it because it should be fixed. However, I think no such a case can be demonstrated. Borsoka (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In-mass sourced content removal continues even after this report: [188], [189]. This is hopeless...--Codrin.B (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I think there is a misunderstanding. User:Borsoka is an enthusiastic, extremely hard-working and valuable wiki member. I have been following his editing for a while. He creates entirely new, neutral and well referenced articles (e.g. History of Christianity in Hungary) or gives us exceptionally useful contributions (e.g. Romania in the Middle Ages, Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages etc). User:Borsoka aims to be neutral with respect to other editors. Wikipedia members should appreciate and recognize his work instead of senseless accusations. That is not his fault that nationalist editors can not accept other options. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Fakirbakir. Borsoka is the last editor, who may be accused of nationalism. His articles about Medieval Hungary are well-sourced, accurate and useful works. For example his article of Voivode of Transylvania is the most elaborate source about this function in the Internet. His ban would be a great loss to the English Wikipedia. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:Codrinb. See unconstructive discussion with User:Borsoka. User:Borsoka has strong Hungarian POV (he/she wrote on NOPV English wp about highly sensitive article "this is a Hungarian context"![190]). Consensus-building in talk pages is impossible with this user.--Omen1229 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrin, Omen1229, thank you for referring to the above cases. I think they properly reflect my habit when editing. Borsoka (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No one can argue with a nationalist editor, just like you, Omen1229. You have strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration. The modern Sibiu was never called under its present name until 1918. The Wikipedia is not should be the scene of the falsification of history... --Norden1990 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Norden, looking on Boroska's contributions I strongly believe he continuously tries to discredit the proofs supporting the ancient origins of Romanians. His useful contributions do not excuse him for his persistent destructive behavior. --- Saturnian (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Saturnian, would you please provide ONE example when I "tried to disredit any proof supporting the ancient origins of Romanians"? Would you please provide ONE case when I was destructive? Borsoka (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Codrin already mentioned several. That habit is destructive. Saturnian (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me? "Sibiu" (or "Sibiiu") was well-established by 1918, and wasn't just invented out of thin air. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Sibiu was the Romanian name of Nagyszeben/Hermannstadt until 1918. the Town belonged to Hungary until the Treaty of Trianon. After that Sibiu became official name of the town. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sibiu (popularly Sighii) name was used long before 1918 by the Romanians from Mărginimea Sibiului. --- Saturnian (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and Hungarians call Vienna as Bécs. So what? I say again, Szeben belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary until 1918/20. Using of the Sibiu name is very anachronistic in the cases of preceding 20th century. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Borsoka repeatedly tries to discredit the proofs supporting the ancient origins of Romanians. The last example is [191] where he deleted a reference mentioning the ancient name of the settlement. Then, because there is no other proof, he renamed the article diminishing the old age of the monument. Event he has useful contributions, this do not excuse him for his persistent destructive behavior. --- Saturnian (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Saturnian, sorry, but I can only now answer to your above remarks. You may remember what was the reason of those edits, because I summarized it on the article's Talk page. If you cannot, I try to summarize it again. Three modern sources (including two official lists prepared by the competent Romanian authorities) ignore the name "Abruttus" when referring to the one time Roman fort (which is the subject of the article). This is not surprising since this is not a Latin name from Antiqutiy, but a Medieval Latin name of a medieval settlement (for sources I refer to the talk page of the article). Do you think that Romanian authorities are working on diminishing the history of Romanians by ignoring the "Abruttus" name? You are right: there was ONE book from the 1 9 8 0 s making a p a s s i n g reference to the s e t t l e m e n t (not to the fort!) as Abruttus, but even this source failed to state that it is a name from the Roman period. Furthermore, the dating of the fort was not changed. Why do you state that I wanted "diminishing the old age of the monument"? Finally, would you please provide ONE example when I tried to "discredit the proofs supporting the ancient origins of Romanians"? I never did it. Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

2. Instead of searching for useful references supporting the articles related to the origins of Romanians, Borsoka immediately marked the articles for deletion (see [192]) or he challenged the articles introducing WP:OR. -- Saturnian (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Saturnian, please checque my edits relating to the first 65-70 articles in "Category:Roman forts in Romania". You will surely be surprised, because I only proposed the deletion of no more than 3-4 articles, otherwise I improved the articles by adding proper citations. In the specific case, as you may remember, I suggested the deletion because none of the sources cited referred to a Roman fort called Morisena. Would you please provide ONE example of my OR? Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For 1. and 2, Yes see ONE proof

• "ABRUD. Orășel din Transilvania, în munții Apuseni (Jud, Alba). Veche așezare dacă și romană cu mine de aur (Abrut, Abruttus)." translated as
• "ABRUD. Town in Transylvania, in the Apuseni Mountains (Alba County). Ancient Dacian and Roman settlement with gold mines (Abrut, Abruttus)."

Historians know very well that around Roman forts the settlements developed and these settlements included the forts. So the settlement name is the same as the fort name!

I can give more proofs about your abuses despite the fact Codrin mentioned several. I am so disgruntled about this behavior. Very annoying. Saturnian (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Saturnian, I see you have just found a new source (from the 1930s) after a couple of days of searching. It is interesting that you have not succeeded in citing a source referring to the castra at Abruttus. Why do you think RAN and LMI (the two official lists of archaeological sites in Romania) ignore to refer both to the fort and to the fort as Abruttus? Do you suggest that anti-Romanian POV-pushing extremist, chauvinist, nationalist, ...ist, ...ist Hungarians force those who prepare them to falsify Romanian history? In this case, you should make steps against them instead of debating with me on these pages. Otherwise, I suggest that our debate on the article's title should be continued on the article's Talk page. I hope that other editors would also comment our debate on the proper place. Please read my discussion with Codrinb below. You will find lots of declarations of my "extremist, POV-pushing, nationalistic, uncivil, vandalistic, ..." behavior, but no example. Are you sure that sticking new and new insulting labels on me is the best method of improving WP? Similarly to Codrinb, I suggest that you should also use your library and edit or create articles on WP. Sweet dreams! Borsoka (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

AE?

The above discussion is covered by the arbitration case WP:ARBEE, which applies discretionary sanctions to articles which relate to Eastern Europe. All editors commenting above have already been warned about this case, except for Fakirbakir. The diffs provided by Codrinb do not appear obviously problematic from a conduct point of view, and because we do not decide content disputes, we cannot evaluate their merits in that regard. As regards the allegations of copyright violations or plagiarism by Borsoka, he has plausibly replied that he now understands copyright and has not violated it since the now years-old investigation cited by Codrinb.

However, the above discussion itself is possibly actionable. In my opinion, it shows at least two editors behaving uncollegially, misusing Wikipedia as a battleground, casting aspersions of grave editorial misconduct without adequate evidence, and/or making personal attacks on others:

• Codrinb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("a desire to push radical Hungarian POVs and revisionism", "pushing these extreme views", [rewrite] "from the Hungarian extremists point of view", " causing conflicts and promoting disruptive editing")
• Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (" strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration", "falsification of history")

I invite comment by administrators whether WP:AE threads should be opened to examine the possibility of a topic ban or other sanction for these two editors, or whether a warning might suffice.  Sandstein  00:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See my edits, I have no enemies and I don't consider the encyclopedia as a battleground. Yes, I reacted to Omen's writing, but he did not deny in his user page that he is a nationalist. I tried the neutral point of view of all my articles, I gave the names of the cities in different languages etc. I think, my punishment would be unfair. --Norden1990 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I am not an admin, I would like to comment the above case. I think a topic ban would be an exaggerated sanction. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you have the right to speak in your own defense, admin or not. Reyk _YO! 04:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me there is an underlying dispute about ancient Dacia, where User:Codrinb holds a particular point of view. Some of the disagreement can be seen at User talk:Codrinb/Archive 2#Wiki-project Dacia. Codrinb is one of the supporters of WP:WikiProject Dacia, while some other editors who know about Eastern Europe disagree with his approach. I have heard that Protochronism is connected to the same debate. Our article on Protochronism says that "The term refers to perceived aggrandizing of Dacian and earlier roots of today's Romanians." With regards to the dispute beween Codrinb and Borsoka at Daco-Roman, a content WP:RFC should be considered as an option. Codrinb was originally notified under ARBEE by Jehochman as the result of a request for arbitration that Codrinb filed against User:Andrei nacu in January, 2011. You might notice some common elements between Codrinb's 2011 complaint to Arbcom and his ANI that he filed against Borsoka just above. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been simply trying to report abusive behavior on part of another user. I am not interested in any battles and as you can see, I've been staying away from editing for quite a while, not trying to engage in any conflict. I pretty much topic-banned myself out of disgust, but it is hard to stay aside and watch how some users like Borsoka rewrite articles with a strong POV and no one does a thing. I think that the practice of shooting the messenger and ignoring the real abusers is unfair and will not solve anything... --Codrin.B (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG. Discussing your behavior is relevant, and not "shooting the messenger." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think when Codrinb returns after a lengthy absence and finds articles he left in good shape apparently distorted, he is right to be alarmed. It may be the situation isn't as bad as it seems, but the reaction is understandable and Borsoka should give a fuller explanation of what is going on. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above request. What should I explain? Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be helpful if you went to the talk pages of articles where your changes have alarmed Codrinb (for example, Thraco-Roman) and explained more fully what you are trying to do. You don't need anyone's permission to edit, but because other users are interested in those topics, and because they may be in rather sensitive topic areas, it helps increase good faith if you give some kind of background to what you're accomplishing. (That is, if it doesn't take up too much time from your editing.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Biruitorul, thanks for your above remarks. Please read the articles' talk pages. As to Thraco-Roman, there was a discussion on the topic (because I had once suggested the merger of the article based on the same argumentation) ending on October 10, 2012. During the discussion and in my last remark I reminded our co-editor, Codrinb to WP:NOR. Do you suggest that I should have waited another week, month, year or decade before removing unsourced statements? Please also read the discussion ending on October 10 on the Talk page of Daco-Roman. Codrinb stated that he was working on the improvement of the article which in fact was a partial copy of an other article, Roman-Dacia. Do you suggest that I should have waited another week, ...., .... before merging the two articles? I maintain that there is no point in maintaining articles copied from other articles instead of merging them. Would you like to pay twice for the same book under different titles? I would like to emphasize that the subject of the present debate on the articles and the debates ending on October 10 was the same: WP:NOR and a merging proposal. The first debate ended with a compromise: Codrinb would work on improving the articles. However, the articles have not been improved. Should I have started a new debate on the same topic? Why? For what purpose? In order to maintain pseudo-articles? Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Codrinb knows more about this dispute than I do; let's see if he agrees with this presentation of events. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Auditur et altera pars. :) Borsoka (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't report this abusive behaviour and the breaking of many WP rules (in purpose!) just to help with some personal content dispute. I don't have the time or motivation to edit the affected articles at this time, but I can't stand by, looking at how extreme POVs are pushed and how the WP rules are not respected at all. I haven't seen any messages on talk pages about suggested merges, I haven't seen the WP:MERGE rules followed, I haven't seen civil discussions or attempts to learn how to edit. Instead I witnessed sourced content removal in mass (regardless or not it comes from other articles - this is allowed!), I've seen plenty of WP:EDITWAR and WP:OWN behaviours, I've seen a lot of copyvios and plagiarisms and a lot of generally unacceptable actions on User:Borsoka's side (as pointed out by other users as well), all driven by the desire to rewrite the history of Romania the way that some extremists want. Every time it suits him, User:Borsoka plays the rookie and the innocent (he didn't know this rule or that), but he's been around for a while now and he knows quite a few rules. Everyone is required to know the basics of WP:EDIT, WP:POV, WP:COPYVIO before contributing. You can judge me for the harsh statements I made on the user's extremism and agenda, but I've witnessed it for years now and I know it is all true. I don't know why some bring WP:DACIA into discussion here. A lot of people put efforts in this project to create positive content on less known topics which have virtually no English coverage. WP:DACIA has a constructive philosophy. No one is involved there to rewrite the history of some other nations who need to be minimized or obscured in order to push nationalistic ideas. The user in question here, is.--Codrin.B (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, please read again the edit-history of the above cited articles (Daco-Roman, Thraco-Roman) and their Talk pages more carefully - you will find merger proposals. Would you specifically refer to the "plenty" cases of editwarring I was involved? Would you please specifically refer to copyvios I commited in the last two years? Would you please provide ONE example when I wanted to minimize or obscure other nations' history? (It is interesting that when I started to edit Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, a Hungarian editor started to call me an anti-Hungarian Communist traitor. Maybe, extremists do not like me.) Would you please provide ONE example when my edit was not based on reliables source? Would you please provide examples when I did not try to address your concerns? (Unfortunatelly, I can cite cases when my questions remaind unanswered for months.) Sorry, but I still do not accept loud declarations without argumentation ("you are an extremsit Hungarian POV-pusher, you are unable to civil discussion,..."). I do not want to offend you, but my impression is that you tend to accuse other editors (or at least me) of misconduct commited by yourself. For instance, here Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 11#The "Historic background" section you suggested me not to copy-past from other articles (what I actually did not do), but later you "created" the article Daco-Roman by copying text from Roman Dacia. Likewise, you state that I only pretend to be innocent, but interestingly it is you who tend to ignore templates or other proposals, therefore you are surprised when the action proposed is made. Would you please refer to ONE case when I rewrote articles without putting proper templates in advance (at least 7 days before the action was started)? Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:MERGEPROP? Have you ever posted {{merge}}, {{mergeto}}, {{mergefrom}} for Daco-Roman, Thraco-Roman, Roman Dacia or for any other other you try to merge and redirect at your own desire? Have you ever followed these procedures? Can you show a single diff of that?--Codrin.B (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, please read my comment here: at 20:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC) I stated that "I think merging this article with Roman Dacia is the best solution for the time being in order to avoid the creation of an article with text copied from other articles". On the next day, following a long discussion, I added that "I love the Dark Ages when whole monastic communities were braindeadly copying books written by others. Therefore I can really appreciate the above method of contribution for a transitory period. Even so, if we use this early medieval method, we should also properly copy the references." And I received your replay: "Thanks. Agreed. It is work in progress." Sorry, but I always assume that if an agreement is reached, both parties will remember it, therefore there is no need to remind the other party to that agreement. Dear Codrinb, you seemingly tend to ignore merger proposals as it is demonstrated here (see your remark at 09:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC) and my answer). My dear Romanian friend, time is important for me, because I am getting older and older on each day. I hate vasting my time with debates instead of editing, writing or re-writing articles. Dear Codrinb, may I ask you to stop these accusations? Believe me, if you spent your time with searching for reliable sources instead of copying text from one article to the other or of accusing me, we would have much lesser conflicts. All the same, have a nice day! My day was awful. Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Side remark: the history of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is a very sensitive one with a wide range of different perspectives. Unfortunately, many editors in this area are emotionally motivated and strongly biased. Borsoka, on the other hand, strives to maintain the neutral point of view and supports his edits by reliable, academic sources. His work should put forward as a positive example, instead of accusing him of POV pushing. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

RevDel requested

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

---

Could we please have a RevDel for this? As the editor is already blocked and I am requesting no further action against him, so I assume notification isn't necessary. (If I'm wrong about that, thanks for doing it for me; I'm cooking and need to get off the damn computer. Sorry if this isn't the most precise venue. The pot is boiling, then I'll be busy for hours.) Rivertorch (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean really, is there a reason to? The edit has been removed, so what's the point? Especially given the tone of that particular comment. Prodego ^talk 01:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is support for a portion of our community. Endorse revdel. NE Ent 02:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, everybody, Hinata's gender is set as female. I have no opinion as to whether this is or isn't true. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Rev delete seems unwise. Why would we not keep that comment for evidence of bias, if such bias shows itself in the future from this editor? (Assuming that indef does not mean forever). Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That did occur to me, but I'll tell you what: there should be no future for this editor at Wikipedia. The continued presence of anyone who is so hateful as to "support the death penalty for gays" is incompatible with a project purporting to be collaborative in nature. It is not ununsual for racist, sexist, and antisemitic viciousness to be RevDeled, and once again I'm taken aback that a different standard is evident for homophobic viciousness. Worse, I see from the user's talk page that an unblock is apparently under serious consideration by at least one administrator. Reality check, people: we have a diverse body of editors, and the ones who manage to get through each editing session without advocating death for minority groups are the ones who deserve our continued support and respect. If the community won't act decisively on something this far beyond the pale, maybe the Foundation needs to step in. I hope to God I'm wrong. (My apologies to the editor in question for getting the pronoun wrong; I had never heard of her before today, and I didn't scrutinize her user page or contributions before posting here.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Whether Hinata was simply saying one of the worst things she (or he) could think of to say to get a rise out of us, or whether they actually believe what they're saying is totally irrelevant. Either way, this is not someone we need or want on this project, and in this case, "indef" should mean "forever". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I commented on my talk page about the topic. My thought when seeing the comments is similar to what Alanscottwalker stated above. But Rivertorch has made an excellent point on this issue, and so has Beyond My Ken. Flyer22 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

On Hinata's user page there is a link to a personal youtube blog. In the blog Hinata says she is from Germany, she hints that she is a school student, and she says that she approves of Rebecca Kadaga's call for Uganda to pass the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill which offers the death sentence or life imprisonment for homosexual sex acts. Hinata posted this opinion roughly "1 month ago", so it is not a newly invented position with which to annoy Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Good block, good riddance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and forever. However, have we made it permanent (someone above suggests she is young)? Won't we lose the history of this if we just rev delete? And there is, of course, the issue of "improper" ways to return with the issues of linking that history in the future. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Support revdel. It falls clearly under the banner of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". Revdel'd content is available to admins, so it can still be used as evidence in any potential future SPI. (And I strongly endorse the indef block.) Yunshui 雲‍水 12:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block - Well, it was hardly likely I'd clamour for the return of someone who wants me and everyone like me murdered. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Revdeled. This is clearly RD2 material; not really sure why we needed to make a federal issue of it, but whatever, no big deal. Maybe if it was on their userpage (ahuge maybe), but putting that on the LGBT wikiproject talk page is just not cool. No reason to oversight, so it can still be seen by admins; if we need it as a reference, we know where to find it. If people could please make sure i got it all, that'd be nice. For reference, Hinata's post right before (the one using the word "condemn") was unsavory to me, but not bad enough for revdel imo. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't think Prodego's comments could be called "seriously considering an unblock". I'll concede that a user saying the same sort of thing about some other groups would find themselves with an immediate indefblock for trolling, and probably talk page access revocation after the first unblock request, but, hey, it is what it is, and I think we're sometimes way too quick to jump to a conclusion of trolling, regardless. @Binksternet: One can troll more than one site - though I hope you'll agree with me that if this isn't trolling, that's actually probably worse. @WK: Would you mind making some sort of dummy revdel so the page's deletion logs can link to this conversation? Just so we can balance the need for removal of hate speech with the feeling that this should be kept on the record as evidence for the future. Oh, and, @all: I think it's very important to remember that not only did Hinata say all this, she also insists there's nothing controversial about it; this is why I said, above, that she must either be trolling or seriously disturbed, and that is still my feeling now. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I realize this is closed, but I feel I should still respond to this. I would not have considered myself 'handling' the unblock request, so if someone else were to respond to it (which happened in this case) I wouldn't feel slighted. But I'm never going to comment on a unblock request without seriously considering making an unblock if the user has a good justification. Doing so would be quite biased and unfair. Prodego ^talk 21:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Men's rights movement... 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.

---

The talk page of Men's rights movement has erupted in nastiness again. Due to the recurrent problems, the article was placed on community probation some time ago, the terms of which can be read here. The most problematic current section on the talk page is found here, although some other recent talk page sections are also problematic. Most if not all of the people posting in recent sections are aware of the terms of the probation, and at least one of them has already previously been sanctioned. (You can see a list of who has been formally notified about the probation on the probation page that I linked.)

I would ask for any set of uninvolved admins that feel up for it to wade through recent conversations on the page with an eye towards enforcing the terms of the probation (and general Wikipedia policies as well.) Given the tone of recent conversation on the page, I doubt I need to point out too many specific problems, but to excerpt one example - User:Enjois asks "why are there so many misandrist feminist users on Wikipedia that like to censor the truth regarding men's rights issues? These people are sexist ***** and it is a shame there is such censorship and dishonest propaganda present on Wikipedia" and proceeds to call Carptrash a 'sexist feminist'. I know that as Wikipedia nastiness goes, this definitely doesn't top it.. but the fact that this stuff erupts on the talk page every couple months is really unproductive, and makes it hard for any good faith editor to want to work on this and related articles.

I'll drop notifications of this thread to everyone who has posted on the page recently about this thread as soon as I hit submit. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have completed all necessary notifications now. If I missed any it was just an error on my part given the number of people I notified. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: My input at the talk page was only supportive of the preceding comment by Kyohyi. That being the case, I've no personal association with him/her more than any other user here and it does not mean I fully or partially endorse or support his views, comments or edits. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

I will admit that my editing on this talk page has not been my most mature. The fact that I have been outed as being a woman and a "sexist feminist'." are badges that I can wear with pride, considering the source. Which is someone who is looking for an excuse for the failures in his life and finds it by stapling the label VICTIM on his white, male chest. Whooops. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Good for you, but let's not shift the "not most mature" language to this board as well. ;) Drmies (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Sven Manguard

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.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adam_Cuerden&diff=prev&oldid=532589135

I really don't know how to deal with this. He has no tact, but I don't think he actually means any harm whatsoever. Nonetheless, when the entire first paragraph of a message asking to work with you is a string of insults, it's rather hard to respond to. I had hoped to just avoid the issue, but he won't let it drop. Obviously, no administrator action is needed - his intentions are good, but ye gods, his actions are absolutely clueless. Anyone able to mediate a bit? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be best if everyone just stopped editing the discussions (1, 2). I've made it very clear that my intention wasn't to create insult, and both of us seem to be making the situation worse by trying to deescalate. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right, Sven: it in fact does not look like y'all can work peaceably together. For the record, I don't see any insults at all in what Sven wrote, but then I'm not familiar with the history between you two. Time to go your separate wiki-ways, perhaps? It's a pretty big encyclopedia, they tell me; it can't be too small for the two of you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Update: All three conversations involved in this thread (Adam's talk page, my talk page, and Signpost talk page) have been deleted. This is now the only visible or active thread between or relating to the two of us. Adam and I are just not able to communicate. It's not anyone's fault, it just isn't working well for either of us right now. If there is ever any future need for the two of us to communicate, I will ask John Vandenberg, who has moderated between the two of us in the past, if he is willing to assist. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

What is the appropriate level of protection for an article with the following characteristics ?

What is the appropriate level of protection for an article in the WP:ARBPIA topic area with the following characteristics ?

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War

Data covers 2012-04-08 - 2013-01-10 (the last 508 edits).

• 33.3% edits by sockpuppets of indefinitely topic banned editors
• 7.7% edits reverting sockpuppets
• 1.4% article protection related edits
• 39.4% edits by non-sock accounts with >500 edits (38%=currently active editors + 1.4%=editors who went on to be topic banned)
• 13.2% edits by presumed non-sock accounts/IPs with <500 edits (some of these edits were vandalism but like most articles the level of vandalism is relatively low)
• 5.1% bot edits

Summary

• 42% of edits are sockpuppetry related. Indefinite semi-protection would not have prevented them.
• The probability of a new account/IP (<500 edits) being a sock is 71.5%. Perhaps this calls into question the wisdom of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions statement "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute."

Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What administrative action that you want?I think if you want to do something about sockpuppetry you should make a request atWP:AE or maybe even an ARBCOM request.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like administrators to answer the question asked so that the appropriate level of protection can be requested and applied to the article based on the information I have supplied. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't understand where 71.5% came from or the significance of the 500 number. NE Ent 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• 71.5% = number of sock edits / (number of sock edits + number of edits by non-sock users with edit count < 500)
• 500 is an arbitrary edit count to try to distinguish between new may-or-may-not-be-sock accounts and not-new non-sock accounts. I picked that number because it is the number has been used in discussions in the ARBPIA topic area as a potential edit count requirement to be able to edit in the topic area (together with account age requirement). Sockpuppetry is extensive in ARBPIA so there have been several discussions about ways to reduce it. Setting entry requirements for the topic area is one of them but that is a different discussion. My question here is just about protection for one article e.g. does it need full protection ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Applied pending changes level 2 protection. All edits by non-reviewers will require approval before going live. Therefore, even sockpuppets who have taken the time to become autoconfirmed cannot vandalize the article. In the future, WP:RFPP would probably be a better venue for this discussion than here. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 19:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, that sounds like the most sensible option, however it has been requested that PCPP level 2 not be used at this time, per community consensus, or lack thereof. It's not my intent to throw a wrench into things, and I leave things to your administrative discretion, but I wanted to make sure you were aware. Rutebega (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, you're right. I wasn't aware of that RfC until now. While PC2 protection is clearly the best solution for this case, I suppose that the RfC voters didn't consider cases of persistent sockpuppetry. If we're not allowed to use PC2, then I guess the next best tool we have is full protection. I've fully protected the article for a month, hopefully that will be long enough for the sockpuppets to lose interest and move on. After the full protection expires, the article should probably be semi-protected again. And someone should re-run an RfC on PC2 protection. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 19:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, you're right. I'll start drafting an RfC that anyone is free to help with in my sandbox. Vacation^nine 20:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think about it actually, PC level 2 might not be that useful here. Pending changes is supposed to be used to prevent vandalism or BLP violations, as reviewing editors would most likely not have any idea about the sockpuppetry case. Striking my previous edit. Vacation^nine 20:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that is one of the problems, how do you check to make sure an editor isn't a sock? At best you made be able to look at some socks active in the past there and try to detect similarities. I think that was why PC1 was rejected for fighting socks as well. Monty₈₄₅ 20:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The most important thing in using PC against socks (which I've seen done several times, with significant success) is referencing it in the protection log summary, which is available to anyone who clicks on the "show pending changes log" link on the reviewing screen. Of the times I've rejected changes as sockpuppetry, it's been because I was familiar with the case already, though, so I'd encourage admins to explicitly describe the editing behavior when PC-protecting for socking, if it's anything distinctive (for instance, the sockmaster who kept on adding content to lesbianism-related articles about how men can be just as good in bed as lesbians - an unfamiliar reviewer could easily accept an edit by him, as they often don't themselves meet any of the basic rejection criteria). — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there more than one sockmaster? Has blocking account creation been attempted? If there's only a few sockmasters, just giving them a hard block seems like a better option than full page protection. Just a thought. Rutebega (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of any RFC, we can apply PC2 for now until we decide what else to do, to prevent further damage while we all talk about this. I can personally guarantee that any edit from an autoconfirmed user on that page will be accepted within 10 minutes (we monitor a legobot in IRC). I'd say IAR and just go PC2 for now until we determine the best course of action. gwickwire^talk_edits 21:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Hell, Bwilkins half-accidentally had two pages level-2 protected for like a week before anyone noticed (and even then, the only complaints were that it wasn't necessary, not that it was some vast administrative overreach). I think the fact that no one's seen fit to raise a ruckus here about the great injustice of PC2 is evidence enough that there's a sufficiently unequivocal need. Furthermore, the great thing about level-2 is that it can be combined with semi-protection. The thing I really like about pending-changes protection (and I think anyone else who's worked on 2012 Delhi gang rape case can agree with this) is that, as a bare minimum, it calls attention to edits on sensitive topics. If there's this much systemic abuse on this article, then what could be better than a system where uninvolved, trusted contributors will be called upon to keep an eye on what's going on? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you forced me to move them back to PC1, even after the discussion...and the discussion I read was that people did consider it the right thing to have done, but ya forced me to remove it anyway (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If it was me, sorry. All I remember doing was requesting removal of some PC2 that was in place since back in September or so (before consensus existed on how to implement PC) on certain pages. Regardless, I think PC2 is a much better option here than is PC1, semi, or full protection. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(He's talking to me, I believe, Gwickwire.) As I recall, we left off with me saying that I really couldn't find any point where the discussion had been resolved; you downgraded the protection without responding. If I really have been so stupid as to overlook an endorsement of the merits of your PC2 application, would you be so kind as to link to it? Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on WP:IAR and the comments above, I have PC2-protected the article. I think from now on, in cases where PC2 would be useful, we should hold a discussion about it, and allow it if consensus agrees. After all, there is no consensus that PC2 should be prohibited; it's merely that it failed to gain consensus for implementation. Thus, the community can call for its implementation in certain cases where applicable, or in other words, local consensus cannot override global consensus (in most cases) but it can override a global lack thereof. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, if I may add some bureaucracy to a wonderful application of WP:NOTBURO, would it perhaps be better to hold any future ad hoc discussions at AN proper? It seems to me that there are many well-respected, clueful users who steer clear of ANI but like to chip in on useful threads at AN. Thought I doubt anyone could argue against as well-reasoned an explanation as KoH has given. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, no. I support PC2 being implemented, but this is a ridiculous way to go about it. Here I thought KoH made a mistake in applying PC2 protection and acted accordingly, but now I see that this wasn't a mistake at all. You guys aren't making it easy for people like me who come upon this situation completely unaware of this nonsense going on at some other location without any notice given at the relevant article. Please KoH, remove the PC2 protection.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Hinata

Not here to build the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This user probably needs to be warned (at least) for this and this.--В и к и T 23:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC) And warned he should be, but I'm not sure what we could use. I think a custom "don't inject your opinion on a topic into every post you make" warning may do. Note however the user claims to be inactive now. gwickwiretalkedits 00:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC) He probably has a grudge against me for my being anti-gay thing. This will likely go nowhere though. And I'm not a he. --Hinata talk 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC) The claim of inactivity was placed on 10 September. Since that time the user has made over 100 edits, including 30 in the last five days. Clearly the user is not inactive. - htonl (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) Warning seems too mild. Hateful comments are actionable in and of themselves, but the editor also explicitly states that zie is making the edits that zie's making out of personal bias rather than out of a desire, however misguided, to improve the encyclopedia. Such editing is disruptive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC) If nothing else, it has to be considered grossly uncivil to post on a wikiproject which (presumably) has a majority of LGBT people that they should all be killed. - htonl (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC) I do support the death penalty for gays though. I don't know how that would be offensive though. --Hinata talk 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Yikes... Not exactly the way to respond to a thread on your hateful comments about LGBT individuals. Hinata is either trolling or seriously disturbed. Could somebody please block her, or at least give her an only warning? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC) To elaborate: You either do know why that would be offensive, in which case you're an obvious troll, or you legitimately don't know, in which case your paradigms are so out of whack that you'll be incapable of ever constructively collaborating with others. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC) I honestly don't think that death penalty for gays would be controversial. --Hinata talk 00:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) You appear to have a history of trivializing/justifying discrimination, as well [193]. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Hinata is apparently not here to improve Wikipedia but to push a point of view. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Okay, I think this is clearly more than enough. I've blocked him, indef until he can demonstrate that he is willing to work constructively. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting user Subman758 for Personal Attack

I am reporting that User:Subman758 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), on my own talk page this evening, made a Nazi-reference to myself regarding my reading of another user's talk page about a previous edit I had made. As my talk history on Subman758's talk page, regarding this, shows that I was polite and civil. The Nazi-reference in particular was him citing myself as a "Gestapo wannabe." Usage of that terminology appears to follow under the guides of a personal attack— as described on the Wikipedia:No personal attacks page, (Under "What is considered to be a personal attack?," fourth bullet item "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons"). With the exception of the required ANI-notice, I have since ceased any further contact, response or communications with this user. Anaheimer (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems Anaheimer left a cordial warning about general civility on Subman758's talk page after a message the latter posted on Vercillo's talk page vaguely referring to "idiots" editing Brea Police Department; Subman758 apparently reacted strongly to what he perceived as an intrusion in a private conversation. Perhaps, first of all, it should be explained to the user that all pages (including User Talk pages) are public and viewable by anyone... Salvidrim! ✉ 05:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes the term VAGUELY is correct! No specific person was called an Idiot! However Anaheimer feels he should be responding to a message that was not sent to him, intended for him, or related to him. He tries to say I called him an idiot, in that I referred to Idiots because "HE" made an Edit! Which is not the case. I don't know him, I have never dealt with prior to this so why would I want to call "him" an idiot! When I go to someone's talk page, I don't go there to read their mail. I leave a message, and leave. Anaheimer feels it is HIS DUTY to read someones mail and respond to it, whether the recipient wants him to or not. It is not up to him to correct someone for a message sent to someone else. If the person receiving the message is offended then he should tell me. Anaheimer seems to like to nitpick on people, I guess that is how he blows off steam, me on the other hand I am a Cynical Bastard. At least I can admit it though. If talk pages are Public, (which I did not know!) then I might suggest there be a way to contact a user in private. I feel there needs to some measure privacy here to prevent users like Anaheimer, who trolls users pages looking for a way to cause a problem. I would there is some way for Wikipedia to do this. It is not like they don't have the money, because I know they do, after all they have 10,000 of my hard earned dollars over the last four years.--Subman758 (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Subman, if you want to contact another editor privately, you can use the "Email this user" function. Not all users have this enabled, and not all editors are receptive to being contacted by email in all cases. On-wiki discussions, however, are open to any editor's participation. I often find that conversations on my talk page benefit from the participation of other editors who can offer insight or information that I may have overlooked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can e-mail any user that has a confirmed e-mail address. However this is a collaborative environment, thus private communications generally aren't common. Please make sure you understand that Anaheimer's concerns are valid and it helps create a better atmosphere to follow basic civility guidelines. There is also no justification whatsoever for referring to another editor as a "Gestapo wannabe"; I believe we can all agree that whatever happened before, that particular edit falls well into the realm of personal attacks. Salvidrim! ✉ 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Anaheimer also wrote "typing in all caps and excessive use of the exclamation marks is not very friendly, and in fact, offensive" Prehaps Anaheimer finds it offensive. However; there was no intent to be offensive. If I use CAPS, IT IS BECAUSE, I AM TRYING TO MAKE SURE IT CAN BE SEEN!!! Those History pages can often be filled with a lot of stuff, cause important information to be easily missed. In this case I wanted the editor to go back and read his source. Wikipedia could be, and should a source of information. Have you ever tried telling someone this line "But that is what it says on Wikipedia" Room erupts in laughter right? Wikipedia is mocked because to many inappropriate edits are being made. In this case an edit was made, and the user assumed that it was more than it truly was. Vercillo wrote an AWESOME article, that because of these inappropriate edits is now a shadow of its former self. I find that sad.--Subman758 (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and I hope you all are well. I wanted to start out by saying that I had every right to file this discussion, and I have kept things civil and polite. For what I was called on my own talk page, by Subman758, it was clearly an offending remark as stipulated in the personal attacks guidelines. That's really my only issue as being labeled with a Nazi connotation was very disheartening. Now, within regards to the Brea Police Department page— I have no concerns within regards to the present state the page is in or any subsequent edits that may be made by anyone else. Sometimes we may make little mistakes when updating content, and I today I did catch my own oversight on the Brea Police page where I was only thinking about the Yorba Linda factor, and not the continuance of Brea itself. It was a simple oversight. But to get back to this issue... I had gone through my own contrib history earlier today, and for kicks I clicked the Brea Police page, saw it had changed (which did not bother me at all), but when I saw the edit comments, and the other verbiage seen on Vercillo's talk page, that's when I had reached out to Subman758 and left the comments that I did— just like how Salvidrim stated above that I had "...left a cordial warning about general civility." As we have seen now, and with his responses above, it really had upset this user, and that was not anyone's intent, let alone mine. I do in no way, shape or form "nitpick" on anyone or anything here on Wikipedia, nor am I one who "...trolls users pages looking for a way to cause a problem." I am not new to Wikipedia; I have been a reader since the site was launched, and am coming up six years this month as having been a registered editor. I am not full time on my contributions, and the like, on Wikipedia, but occasionally I will dedicate time to go through various pages of interest and go from there. One of the things I like to do, which is what I did this afternoon, was view pages in my contrib history. Its interesting to see what subsequent changes and, most often, improvements that have been made. In closing, within regards to the Brea Police page, if it is strongly felt that Vercillo's original content is better preferred— a revert would be easiest solution to be made in no time flat, if desired. I'm not one who takes control of pages. This is Wikipedia— a great community of folks. We can agree to disagree. This is a positive place on the internet. And thanks again. — ANAHEIMER (TALK) 09:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Anaheimer; You went to another users page. You read a message I left for them. You ASSUMED I was calling YOU an Idiot. So you came to page to say something about it, and while your tone was generally polite it still grates at me, because your responding to a message neither to you, or about you, and your making seem like I'm attacking you. If I wanted to call YOU an Idiot, I would have come to your page and done so there! I have seen a lot of great articles destroyed by inappropriate edits, including one very near and dear to me, one that I basically wrote start to finish. I have seen a lot editors become admins, and then let that power go to there heads. The word Gestapo is still used today, to convey similarities in tactics. They had a habit of intercepting messages. I DID NOT CALL YOU A NAZI, OR INSINUATE THAT YOU WERE ONE! Trust me if I wanted to call you a NAZI I would gone to your page, and called you one! Make no mistake polite or not. It was wrong of you to ASSUME I was calling you an idiot. And it was wrong of you to respond to a message that was neither to you, or about you in any way. The message DID NOT include this (That guy Anaheimer is a real Idiot.) If it had, I could see your point. If you felt I was attacking you by referring your actions to that of Gestapo Wannabe, I sincerely do apologize. However I feel your putting words into my mouth, in that you made it seem I was calling you Idiot is also a Personal Attack. A Personal Attack to my integrity. As I said I am a Cynical Bastard, you try driving OCTA buses around Orange County all day, and avoid becoming one.--Subman758 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see where Anaheimer claimed you called him an idiot. He noticed you were calling some people idiots and advised against it... that's all. And it is probably sound advice. Salvidrim! ✉ 20:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As a note: if you want emphasis, please use italics; the formatting is ''like this''. All caps is considered "shouting" on the Internet, including here, not emphasis. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bushranger & Salvidrim! for your recent replies. Everything I have said is already written here, and I do appreciate the understanding and objectivity as displayed by the both of you in your replies. I don't think I have anything further to add as my actions and steps in this matter have already been reviewed and verified (contrib history, etc) by others who have commented in this thread. Thank you all, and it is much appreciated! — ANAHEIMER (TALK) 01:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had a read through of the talk pages and would like to throw in some small denominations of currency. To Subman758, it looks like you've misread Anaheimer's intentions. As others have noted, Anaheimer posted a polite reminder about maintaining civility. In no way was their post to your talk page implying that you were speaking about them. In fact, after re-reading it multiple times I still can't see how you could read it that way but that's by the by. As a secondary note, using bold letters '''like this''' is also considered an acceptable way of adding emphasis and depending on a person's screen may be more noticeable than italics. Serious emphasis can be done with bold italics '''''like so'''''. That's 5 apostrophes in case all those marks are confusing.Blackmane (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism/Personal Attack/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.

---

User:Smokeablunt420 has been vandalizing along with making a personal attack/legal threat here. Could an admin RevDel that edit and block this user? All four of this user's edits are vandalism. That particular one deserves a RevDel as well. Vacation9 03:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Already blocked by User:Elockid indef for vandalism, RevDel may be good here (that was hard to read..) gwickwire^talk_edits 03:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Reoccurring Vandalism

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

---

Redsky85 has twice revised and removed an important fact about Frank Pastore, that he was a famed radio personality. This fact is verified and reflects Franks life after baseball. I have warned Redsky85 the first time he edited my contribution.

This is my contribution on December 17, 2012: * 2012 – Frank Pastore, American baseball player and radio personality (b. 1957)

This is Redsky85 edit both times: * 2012 – Frank Pastore, American baseball player (b. 1957)

Please intervene and resolve this malicious vandalism.

Thank you,

User98432 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)user98432 (Robert Ashbaugh) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User98432 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not clearly malicious. I suggest discussing the matter either at user talk pages or Talk:December 17. This is not the venue for discussing this issue. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:AN unblock and topic ban discussion not being discussed

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 not entirely sure if this is appropriate, someone can remove it if it isn't, but Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Modification of Alan Liefting's topic ban and it's various subsections aren't being discussed at a high enough level to develop a consensus. I thought I'd leave a section here to give it a little more visibility. Ryan Vesey 00:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Bold added for more visibility. Close? Drmies (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• WP:AN is at a high-enough level; it's where we normally discuss this kind of thing. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, let's not draw any more attention to it then, for instance by adding comments to the thread and thereby making it stay on the board longer. Oops, I'm sorry. FWIW, I was the one to unblock Alan so he could participate, so I certainly won't be closing anything there: I unblocked him precisely because I don't know him or the dispute. Drmies (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Hafaz Refrisa Maulana

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 concerned that User: Hafaz Refrisa Maulana is not here to improve Wikipedia, but is rather attempting to use his userspace as a free website in contravention to WP:WEBHOST. The user has made nearly 300 edits so far, but of those, only 3 have been to articles, while all of the rest have been to her/his userspace. These edits involve a large number of different sub-pages, all revolving around Captain Tsubasa, a long running Japanese comic book. These user pages are not article drafts; they're all WP:FANCRUFT—and attempt to document every little detail about the series. While this may be appropriate for some sort of dedicated Wikia site, it's not information that would ever be important enough to include in Wikipedia articles. I've asked the user several times to explain what she/he is doing, but I've not gotten any response other than one WP:BLANKING to my first request (see the user's current talk page and its history).

I'm inclined to block the user as WP:NOTHERE and trying to use us as a webhost, but this is certainly a subjective judgment, and I'd rather others give their opinion as well. Similarly, it's probably appropriate to take all of the subpages to MfD, though, again, opinions are welcome. Also, is there anyone more technically capable who knows how to get a list of all subpages the user has? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex, and search on "Hafaz Refrisa Maulana/" in User namespace. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not just post a direct link for us lazy folk? NE Ent 15:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, because that would not provide the same educational service ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh. Wow. There are 30 pages in his user space. All of the one's I've looked have no encyclopedic value. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It's just a kid using it as personal web space for stuff about their favourite comic book. I see nothing remotely of value in any of it, and would support a block and a deletion of all those pages. I think one MfD for the lot would do - but I'd be tempted to block first and then wait a short while to allow chance for a response. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mfd = bureuacracy. (WP is not). The issue is the pages, not the account, so nuke the pages except the user talk page but don't block the account. NE Ent 15:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a valid speedy category, but I guess G6 housekeeping might stretch to it? (I'm all for avoiding bureaucracy if we can). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Send it to MfD, (as one large bundled nomination) its unreasonably harsh to just delete the pages without giving the editor a chance to defend them, or transfer the content off wiki, both of which a week at MfD would allow. Monty₈₄₅ 15:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with NE Ent - delete the pages, and if he re-starts then we block. GiantSnowman 15:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just a note that there is already a Captain Tsubasa wiki: [194].--Auric talk 15:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm with Monty, just package an MfD discussion, there isn't a reason they have to be speedy deleted. I don't see a reason to block at this point either. Lots of people don't understand what Wikipedia really is. I was just talking to a small record producer via email the other day and explained it instead of speedy deleting and blocking. Same thing, we should try to educate first and assume good faith, then only block if there is real disruption. Nothing has been broken or disrupted by his actions as of now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Before you all bring the hammer down on this editor, it's worth noting he's only 14. This may be a crime of misunderstanding. Perhaps one of you with good adolescent communication skills might want to try explaining the rules around here and allow him a chance to comply first? This is all sounding a touch heavy-handed given he's so young. You could salvage a good editor, after all; 30 pages takes a lot of devotion and energy that could be productively channeled. --Drmargi (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I'm not advocating a block; however Q already reached out politely and didn't get an answer, so it's time to take action. NE Ent 19:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's also why I actually suggested a short block first, to try to get his attention as he's not responding to attempts to communicate with him. But an MfD notification should hopefully have the same effect, though I fear his English isn't very good and he may well just not understand. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done the "obnoxious stop sign thing" on his talk page. If that doesn't get his attention, nothing will. (I have pretty good luck with that, actually, try it some time.) Hopefully, he will start a conversation and someone can help him. I would rather at least try this method first. If he ignores and keeps editing, well, then we know we really tried. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's big! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Go big or go home ;-) Seriously, more times than not, this really does get them to talk since it obviously isn't an automated message. Obnoxious but polite and firm. I've noticed that people don't mind the second block as bad as the first, so preventing the first block is actually helpful for us as admin, as they have a "clean block log" to protect. We humans are funny that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a species I've never understood ;-) But seriously, I'll have to try using that - thanks for the tip. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, it didn't work--they're still editing the subpages, since the STOP SIGN. So, what's the consensus--MfD first? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, any MfD notification is almost certain to be ignored too - I really do suspect he doesn't understand the words on his talk page (and maybe not even what the orange banner says). So I'd say the only way left to try to communicate with him is to block. He should get the chance to save all his stuff (possibly for use in that other wiki) before it's deleted, and he's not going to do that if he just sees it all suddenly disappear in 7 days time. And a block now would save him wasting another 7 days updating his pages too, while they're being discussed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This is how one gets the attention of such a person, without MFD, without deletion, without blocking, indeed without exercising any administrator tools whatsoever. There's no resulting entry in the block log, and the action can be reverted easily enough by anyone if it turns out that this is a worthwhile use of userspace. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you blanked his user pages - worth a try. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Watch out: right now he's undoing Uncle G's blankings. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I just don't see another solution than to block. I've made the first (hopefully, only) block for 48 hours; I've also indicated that those pages are likely to be deleted sooner or later, so copying them off WP is a good idea. Additionally, I want to add that I don't this editor isn't "seeing" his/hr talkpage, because in the process of reverting the subpage blankings, she/he also blanked most, but not all, of her/his talk page, specifically retaining the message from Rich Farmbrough talking about he Captain Tsubasa Wikia site. I'd appreciate if other admins could keep watching his page as well, because I'll be just about to start a wikibreak when the current block wears off. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And he's blanked the block notice (having previously blanked the earlier warnings). I've restored it just this once and asked him again to talk to us. But if he carries on like this, I don't see it ending well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(Pretty sure it's "he", btw - Hafaz appears to be a male name. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC) )

It was indeed worth a try. My experience of what usually happens when one blanks things is that very quickly a plaintive "Why are you blanking all of my hard work?" appears somewhere, whether that be on the talk page pointed to or the user talk page of the blanker. Either would have been the desired result in this case. Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to the repeated blanking, I've revoked talk page access. Does anyone feel like putting the 30 page MfD together? I can possibly get to it tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

An MfD for one page should do, and add "This MfD also covers all the other subpages at [link]". I'm a bit busy now, but I can do it later. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done mfd %%^*$*&(@#! bureaucracy, should just nuke the whole kit and kaboodle and be done with it; there's good faith and there's pointless wasting of time...NE Ent 14:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have listed the pages, and unblanked (I think) all the remaining blank ones. The reason we MfD instead of nuking is that it gives the editor time to explain why we shouldn't delete the pages, and to mitigate the damage which we are (undeniably) causing by the deletions (albeit not damage to the encyclopaedia). Also when this editor is tired of this particular franchise, and a little older, they will likley be able to contribute on their new interest, which might be another video game, but might also be monoclonal antibodies. Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

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

User:R-41 AND User:DIREKTOR's content dispute

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:DIREKTOR has repeatedly become uncivil in discussions involving a template layout of the Nazism sidebar and Fascism sidebar, and repeatedy assumes bad faith on my part in spite of me attempting to cooperate with him. DIREKTOR has become uncivil because I and another user User:Frietjes have disagreed with his template proposal. I am requesting some form of acknowledgement and a warning by administrator(s) for DIREKTOR to immediately cease this behaviour, and that ignoring the warning will have consequences of either potential blocking for periods of time or a similar penalty.

DIREKTOR became frustrated that a proposal that he opened up for a vote some time ago at the Nazism sidebar's talk page was not receiving much attention after a few comments by me on it in which I disagreed to his proposal. He then massively altered the template to the design he supported, he said in his first statement on that section in months, the following highly uncivil statement in violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith: "I've had enough of your brand of stonewalling, R-41. Logos and symbols are far more appropriate in these templates than full, SVG flag representations. And to me it seems you simply want images that you yourself uploaded to be used in templates." [195]. After I rejected this accusation and stated to DIREKTOR that it was in violation of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, DIREKTOR said "I do apologize, but that was my honest impression." [196].

When User:Frietjes entered the issue who also disagreed with DIREKTOR's changes. However User:Frietjes revert was considered combative and edit warring by DIREKTOR that provoked DIREKTOR to respond to Frietjes' statement that said "I disapprove" in an uncivil manner, saying: "Of course you do. Even though you didn't revert the addition earlier [197]. Please forgive me, but as we're currently engaged in a dispute, I myself cannot regard your position as impartial and objective." [198].

I repeatedly stated in the conversation that I wanted all users involved to cooperate in creating an RfC with my proposal, DIREKTOR's proposal, and open to other proposals by other users, and I followed through Wikipedia:Negotiation. DIREKTOR then accused me of the following: "As in previous cases, after the success of the edit war the talkpage is now being ignored by R-41. The WP:OWN here is pretty obvious, as is the user's preference for his own published .SVG images." [199] I responded by demonstrating that I do not intent to own the sidebar contrary to DIREKROR's claims; when support for DIREKTOR's proposal became tied (as it still is) with 2 users in agreement and 2 users opposed, I compromised by allowing DIREKTOR's proposal to be used for the time being, while saying that discussion needed to continue to reach a consensus on the template. After I did that, DIREKTOR commended by decision, saying: "R-41, I am humbled by your own willingness to get somewhere on this matter, and I feel I must once again apologize, this time for my inappropriate comment above." [200] However a short time afterwards, DIREKTOR turned back to effectively accusing me of stonewalling.

On the Nazism accordance with Wikipedia:Negotiation I attempted to make a compromise. I said that I disagreed with the Nazi eagle being used in the template because I thought that a simple picture of an angled swastika like that of the Nazis would suffice. I showed a proposal that retained DIREKTOR's template but used an angled swastika instead of the Nazi eagle.

DIREKTOR's most recent edit to the talk page is here: [201] If you look at the discussion on that edit, DIREKTOR is accusing me of stonewalling again by saying the following: "I trust you will let the matter stay frozen, rather than taking the opportunity to push something or other." In that edit, DIREKTOR said in a very aggressive and uncivilmanner: "I will say again that I am categorically opposed to a bare swastika, and that I do not accept it as any sort of a supposed "compromise"." Again, I offered suggestions that included almost all of DIREKTOR's template layout, but he is accusing this of being delay tactics and aggressively rejecting the compromise I offered.

I cannot continue this unhealthy discussion on the Nazism sidebar's talkpage that is filled with assumptions of bad faith, aggression, and incivility towards me by DIREKTOR. I am leaving that discussion. However in spite of it being an aesthetic issue, considering the amount of of hostility there and lack of consensus in favour of DIREKTOR's proposal, I believe that some sort of arbitration or mediation by an administrator is needed.--R-41 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

More of the same from User:R-41 - we just had days and days and reams and reams of walls of his text attempting to get another user who holds opposing views to him edit restricted and here he is starting another exact same thread - Youreallycan 18:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You haven't even had time to look over what I have added in a matter of a few minutes, and you are already casting assumptions. I repeatedly sought to compromise and negotiate with the user, you can look at Template talk:Nazism sidebar if you do not believe me. The administrator who closed the previous report on Darkstar1st said there were serious issues that needed to be resolved, multiple users were in favour of my proposal there. Your association of that report with this is not similar. That is biased and irresponsible.--R-41 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I have opposed User:Director on multiple occasions, he uses the project to push his opinionated POV , but here we have one opinionated POV pusher moaning and attempting to get another opinionated POV pusher edit restricted - so, move along, close me down thread and please stop opening up such reports, they are disruptive. Youreallycan 19:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh so you have evidence of me being an "opinionated POV pusher" then, care to explain that extremely provocative, extremely biased and extremely uncivil statement? I think you should leave this discussion, you have zero intention to listen to my report, and you have based your conclusions here, minutes after I posted this here, entirely on a previous report without even looking at what I have addressed here.--R-41 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't participate here in depth as I am currently travelling and very busy (on vacation) - in fact, this thread was posted immediately after I today informed R-41 that I am currently going on vacation. And I also wasn't notified either, I had to see this thread on my watchlist. All I can say is those are definitely not accidents. Suffices to say this is a content dispute over R-41's images that he introduced into various ideology templates. -- Director (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't notify you yet DIREKTOR, because I posted this minutes ago, and because this user above interjected immediately to shut this down. Quite frankly, although I disagree with your editing behaviour, I believe User:Youreallycan owes you an apology here for accusing you of being a "POV-pusher" while presenting zero evidence.--R-41 (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I skimmed the talk page, and I see nothing requiring administrative action. Seems like a protracted content dispute with occasional heat but nothing unduly offensive, except as perceived by R-41. Indeed, R-41's constant harping on Director's alleged incivility, etc., is more disruptive than anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Please look at what I did there. I offered compromises, I offered cooperation to create an RfC acceptable to all users involved. I have cooperated with DIREKTOR in the past and I thought my last proposal would have been acceptable, it is not a grudge of why I am posting this here. It is that DIREKTOR accused me from the get-go of "stonewalling", assuming bad faith, and keeps going back to that accusation and that I intend to WP:OWN the template, which is false.--R-41 (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You're making way too much of this, there and here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I have brought this up here because I specifically have asked for how the issue could be delegated for someone familiar with policy like an administrator to either arbitrate or mediate, as well as requesting an administrator to warn DIREKTOR not to keep assuming bad faith of users. I am leaving that discussion because I tried to negotiate and compromise, but it didn't work, there is too much assumption of bad faith from DIREKTOR about my intentions. I could have done the wrong thing of responding by being combative, but I didn't I brought it here to ask for assistance to resolve it.--R-41 (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I couldn't find anything offensive here either, 'close. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Forget it, I am closing it myself. I see users who disagreed with the Darkstar1st report where anywhere from 7 to 11 users requested topic bans of some sort on Darkstar1st while 7 to 8 opposed, the opponents are milling over to this report, including Darkstar1st himself here, whom himself said because of the the report that he sought to cease interacting with me, but has decided to interject here. There are several people who have axes to grind over that report here, it is not being taken seriously, I'm shutting it down.--R-41 (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Just to note what I've done

I did a restoration of a French opera poster from 1910 - obviously out of copyright in the US.

However, this is the Commons page on French copyright law: commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France.

The author died in 1936. I ran this by the Copyright squad in commons, and they thought it should be fine there, but I wanted to throw up a {{Keep local}}-tagged copy on here, just to be safe.

Unfortunately, I did the uploads in the wrong order, so getting everything to the correct location was... interesting. (As one might expect, the software doesn't want someone uploading a completely different file under the same name as a commons file, so I had to do a few page moves to get everything into its proper place.

The files are File:Georges_Rochegrosse's_poster_for_Jules_Massenet's_Don_Quichotte.jpg and File:Georges_Rochegrosse's_poster_for_Jules_Massenet's_Don_Quichotte.png.

If I messed this up, please yell at me, and I'll be more careful in future. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, I am totally unable to view File:Georges Rochegrosse's poster for Jules Massenet's Don Quichotte - original.tif... Salvidrim! ✉ 18:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

TIFF support is highly limited, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and this exceeds the image size Wikipedia can support. I suppose I could upload the original as a PNG as well, if this is useful. Honestly, I don't know why Wikipedia even tries to offer TIFF support - the filesizes for TIFFs tend to be huge relative to other formats, even other lossless formats, so the 100-meg-upload-limit tends to be exceeded pretty easily for the sort of files (roughly speaking, FP-worthy ones) we'd want the original, unedited versions of.

But it's great when you feel lazy, but still want to make a token effort at documenting your work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not appearing for me either. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Too-large-to-process TIFFs apparently don't give an appropriate error message from the thumbnailer. I cheated and put up a JPEG of the original. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Starship9000

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

---

The user is always attempting to delete and damage articles. He does not add anything productive to Wikipedia, but rather he just mass deletes anything he feels does not meet his knowledge. User [personal information redacted] comes out with comments like "I don't want this on here" or "This is not notable because I don't know it or know about it." The user also dubs himself an "architect" architectural expert [personal information redacted]. He has been warned by administrators but he keeps vandalizing the pages. Please block or ban this user because he is hurting the collegial atmosphere and the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=starship9000&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 He is trying to delete everything. All he does is delete but does nothing to add any sort of knowledge to anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starship9000 he has several warnings on his page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.29.226 (talk • contribs)

• I think this AN/I is a little too soon - he's just had a last warning before a sanction (of sorts, basically, he's been told to have a break or face being blocked), and that only came this morning. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• He has been warned repeatedly, yet he still continues to damage articles. He has damaged probably hundreds of articles. He is a virus to the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.29.226 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• But since their last comment they made another very unproductive edit--I was going to close this thread and say "it's being discussed" when I saw this edit. I'm blocking them for 24 hours and left an explanation on the talk page. Let's not pile this on; I won't close the thread myself, but I think it can be closed. And no, he's not a virus: this isn't contagious. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, maybe I should pay a little more attention *retreats back into hole* Lukeno94 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

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

IP linking dates against MOS

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.

---

These IPs: 190.111.10.49 (talk · contribs), 190.111.10.43 (talk · contribs), 190.111.10.44 (talk · contribs), 190.111.10.46 (talk · contribs), 190.111.10.39 (talk · contribs), 190.111.10.47 (talk · contribs), 190.111.10.46 (talk · contribs), have been persistently link dates on album which violates MOS as well as overlinking. Attempted discussions to have these have failed as they still continue to link dates on albums relating to Spanish-language albums. Note that all these IPs are traced to Guatemala. Erick (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Having checked their contributions, I would block them, but I doubt it would be useful because another IP would soon pop up from the same range. I'd implement a rangeblock, but I don't know how to do it — if you're not an admin and know how, tell me what to do and I'll do it. Magiciandude, did you mean to link .46 twice, or was it an error for another IP address? Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Consider using the 'rangelinks' template. 190.111.10.32/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) presents a 'block user' button that will do the appropriate rangeblock. The recent contributions from this range are here. Since this is only a /27 and the rangecontribs don't reveal any collateral damage it seems to me that a one-month block might be considered. The high-volume editor is trying to do general fixes (which are good, at least potentially) at the same time he is insisting on linking the dates, but his refusal to negotiate doesn't leave us much in the way of options. EdJohnston (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I rangeblocked the /27 subnet. Hopefully this will prompt them to start talking on their talk pages. If they do, and they seem to understand why they were blocked, then they should be unblocked. This block is mainly because the user(s) at these IP's are making moderately disruptive edits against MOS, and not responding to complaints on their talk pages. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 01:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That range is actually part of a larger /19 network (Navega.com S.A.), although all those edits are confined to the *.32/27 portion. Scotty beat me to the punch. I hate to block since he is trying to help, but it is the only way to prevent disruption so I support it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Removal of Content at Saudi Arabia on Execution of Rizana Nafeek

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 have added the following on the article since the nature of the incident is very inhumane and the following content is vital to explain the whole scenario.

---

The European Union expressed dismay that Saudi Arabia had beheaded a young Sri Lankan domestic helper convicted of murdering her employer's baby, despite repeated appeals for a stay of execution. Human rights groups said Rizana Nafeek was 17 at the time of the offense and that Saudi Arabia was one of just three countries in the world to impose the death penalty for crimes committed as a minor.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, United Nations independent experts and the world body’s human rights office voiced their dismay over the execution of Rizana Nafeek. Rupert Colville, a spokesperson for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) told in Geneva, "We are deeply troubled by reports of irregularities in her detention and trial, including that no lawyer was present to assist her in key stages of her interrogation and trial, that language interpretation was poor, and Ms. Nafeek’s contention that she was physically assaulted and forced to sign a confession under duress,". The Special Rapporteur on torture, Juan Méndez, noted that during the appeal of the case, the defence submitted that Ms. Nafeek was beaten and made to sign a confession under duress. "Her execution is clearly contrary to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture," he said.

---

DeCausa contesting the addition second paragraph above on the article. DeCausa says I am trying to use Saudi Arabia as WP:SOAPBOX. Though I said on the Talk:Saudi Arabia that "Since Saudi Arabia is not heeded to listen to the world, the content should be included", I am not advocating anything but try to explain widely practising inhumane treatment on Foreign Workers though they are Minors and Women in General in Saudi Arabia and their archaic and biased judicial process and the execution methods. I don't think the content should be placed elsewhere; it doesn't represent one case but the untold incidents of many in Saudi Arabia.Sudar123 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• This appears like it is a content issue, not something that should be at ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 02:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Seconded. That this is a blatant violation of the article's scope and UNDUE goes elsewhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The possible behavioral issue is the edit warring. Sudar123, it was good that you were WP:BOLD and added the information. However, another editor reverted you, which is also fine. At this point, both of you (and others) need to keep discussing the matter on the article's talk page. While the discussion goes on, you should not attempt to add the information; the standard practice is to keep out the information until there is a consensus to include it. If you find that you're not able to reach an agreement on the article talk page, you can pursue dispute resolution to get other editor's involved. However, if you keep trying to add the info in, you're going to be blocked for edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• As you've already been warned, Sudar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco, I am not such fool to get my valuable account blocked, while either Rizana Nafeek is Not my own sister or niece. As Qwyrxian said I will take this issue to DRN shortly. I couldn't understand when Saudi Arabia breached fundamental rights of a Minor and most needed fair judicial process against her capital punishment whether we are over emphasising here on article's scope and UNDUE.Sudar123 (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• As I've mentioned elsewhere, several times, the country (sadly) has done it numerous times. A single case should not be given two paragraphs in this article.

On a more pertinent note, if she was related to you, adding the information would be a conflict of interest and should really be avoided. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, she is not related to me; I missed to add "Not" there and added now.Sudar123 (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alright. Using the article's talk page, everyone should discuss whether this needs a mention in the main article or if we can created a migrant workers in Saudi Arabia article which can document why workers go to the country and cases like this — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Crisco, my view is the content should be included on the page. And also a beheading image should be included on the right hand. Wikipedia should not mislead the Saudi Arabia's oil rich to the poor third world countries; they send their youngsters out of poverty. Since Wikipedia is ranked in the Google Search on First; with a simple search those poor masses could be misled; the sin will follow us.

I don't belong to the Islamic religious sector though I have Islamic friends all over the world. What I found on the Talk Page of Saudi Arabia is disturbing me a lot. It goes as below(sic);

Wahhabi/Salafi. NOT Islamic

Every mention of Islam in this article should be change to 'Wahhabi' or 'Salafi' which is what Saudi Barbaria practices. Wahhabism/Salafism (both interchangeable terms for the same primitive ideology) is a savage cult created by a fanatic called AbdulWahab about 200 years and its 'beliefs' are offensive to millions of Muslims around the world. The Saudi regime just beheaded a poor Sri Lankan Muslim CHILD on the most flimsiest accusations. Stop calling Saudi Barbaria 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' because they are not! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.83.93 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I will discuss further on this on the article talk page.Sudar123 (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Undelete fair use file, please

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.

---

File:Dissident Prophet's We're Not Grasshoppers, 1995.jpg was orphaned, apparently due to a typo fixed here. Please undelete the file. Rich Farmbrough, 06:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

Done. Viridae^{DON'T PANIC} 06:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:DUCK Sock?

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 having a hard time understanding this. I think the editor may be referring to this edit and me reverting it, but I can't fully understand it. Sands32981 made some (possibly bad faith) edits, then a non-sysop placed a blocked template on their talk page. I think the user might have thought they were blocked (they weren't) and then made another account (Carson) which they then contacted me with. This might be a case of DUCK with Carson30 and Sands32981. Maybe an admin could make better since of this? Vacation9 03:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The ubiquitous Bbb23 seems to have dealt with this, but it looks like your analysis is correct. Rich Farmbrough, 05:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

What do you mean by dealt with it? Neither of them are blocked or anything. I think you mean Bbb has dealt with the false block notices. Vacation9 05:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you expecting us to block them for acting like a weenie? I'm not yet 100% convinced about a sock, and the behaviour of either account is not yet significant enough to raise the hackles to lead to a block, from first impressions. The false block notices were removed, and I think they've been told how to behave in the future (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm with Bwilkins, it isn't really quacking yet and it looks like Bbb23 has it under control, talking to the "blocking" editor. For what it is worth, in most circumstances, it is difficult to call a "duck" with less than 6 contribs to establish behavior. They might just know each other, or the second account might just be an IP that finally registered, or something else entirely. There are too many possibilities to draw a conclusion yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The best way to deal with something like this is simply post a polite query on the talk page of the suspected second account whether they're related to the first one. The distinction between alternate accounts and sockpuppetry is intent ; as newbie editor(s) Carson / Sands is/are likely just not to know the rules. NE Ent 14:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Carson30 is a other IP Address who registered. 108.251.129.54 (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that 108.251.129.54. However, I believe they are the same person because Carson was created after Sands was "blocked" then Carson blanked Sands' talk page. I do see your points however about intent, as the newbie editors probably don't know the policy. Vacation9 16:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't know I was "ubiquitous"; I struggle to keep up with even a small percentage of the stuff that goes on around here. In any event, doesn't this all relate to this topic at WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is related to that topic. Carson30 (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Longevitydude

I'll start by noting that this user has been brought up here twice before: [202][203] Recently, I ran into this user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Byrne (centenarian). We started by arguing a point, something that happens in AfDs, until he started talking in circles. At that point, I semi-gave-up and suggested that he provide the references he feel "would have" existed our exist but have since been deleted. After that, an SPA showed up 86.40.107.199 to !vote keep. This wouldn't be particularly concerning to me if I hadn't read his previous two ANI reports and this SPI where, at the very least, some fishy business was occurring. I also noted this edit where Longevitydude asks another editor to stop doing what they're doing and suggesting that the other user was from a forum called The 110 Club. After very little digging, I found that Longevitydude was essentially The Name That Will Not Be Mentioned on that forum, having been banned for something that wouldn't even be shared publicly. You can see that conversation at z3(dot)invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=6127 (apparently the whole site is blacklisted). You can see at other Wikis that this is something he takes personally. Here is where he was accused of canvassing at ArbCom. Here is where an enforcement request was made due to more accusations of canvassing.

Bases on this users editing habits, it appears that their goal is to sympathize with other members whose articles got afds which apparently means voting !keep on any AfD for an article about a person who is notable for being old (sometimes just over 100, sometimes the oldest in a country). He takes it as far as to comment on the talk page of closed AfDs (see here).

I bring this here because I really have no idea what to do at this point. I get the feeling I've hit the tip of an iceberg and I'm way over my head. Any suggestions would be welcomed.

I notified the mentioned users here and here. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I also found some, what I could call emotional editing regarding people over 100, at other Wikis but I don't know if that's appropriate to share here. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick note from someone who's familiar with this situation; Longevitydude's intentions are nothing but good, but he does have a way of taking these AfDs a bit too personally. I can provide specifics if necessary, but only if necessary. For the full background, this is something that dates back to 2010, and involves an arbitration case which was quickly followed by a warning to several editors after an AE thread. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would hardly call editing other people's comments "nothing but good". I also find it hard to believe that someone whose intentions are "nothing but good" would be involved in so many accusations of wrongdoing. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I admittedly haven't edited there much in the last year, but that was my impression of things; it's entirely possible things have changed. I do find some of his behavior here somewhat concerning. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a very odd conversation to have with a stranger. Now he's going around saying that I'm lying that they're the same person. As any can see, I simply pointed out that it was odd that an SPA would pop up to vote in an AfD for their second edit.

Are my feelings unfounded? I'm not sure what to do here or if something should be done. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

IP user flagrantly ignores WP:V and WP:NPOV

IP user 122.62.226.243 has been blocked twice for edit warring and disruptive editing, both times for his/her persistence in adding unsourced opinion in articles relating to New Zealand Maori. On January 6 I removed two chunks of the Invasion of Waikato article on the grounds that it was unsourced opinion or was based on false and inadequate citations.[204][205]. The IP user has returned from their latest block to restore the statements, claiming it was "essential to the understanding of the nuances of topic".[206][207]. (I reverted, then so did the IP user).

I listed six significant issues on the talk page at Talk:Invasion of Waikato#Unsupported claims; the editor replied at Talk:Invasion of Waikato#44 Tainui " federation" chiefs signed the treaty claiming that the issue is not his/her refusal to provide citations, but my skewed, conservative view of history. The editor has previously claimed that most historians are wrong or that their views are outdated. A more comprehensive discussion of this editor's behavior is in the ANI archive. BlackCab (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like original research if it's completely unsourced, also if this is an ongoing pattern they may be in violation of edit warring. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This IP editor ("Claudia") is well known to editors watching articles to do with the New Zealand Wars (and probably to those watching articles of other subjects she has an interest in). I recommend any administrator looking into this consult with administrator Gadfium before taking any action as Gadfium has had the most constructive interactions with her. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For some history, see User talk:Gadfium/archive71#Agenda pushing by IP user. For the last discussion at AN/I, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#Racially charged editing by IP 122.62.226.243 at articles to do with the New Zealand Wars.-gadfium 05:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of what is written here is merely the opinion of 2 persistently negative editors. I have never EVER written false information in wiki.The "44 chiefs" issue was at one time referred to in the article-it was a correction of the figure "4" to the correct figure "44". The information comes from CLAUDIA Orange New Zealand's foremost authority on Treaty of Waitangi issues. She is considered to be a conservative on treaty issues. At one time-about 10 years ago- she was the New Zealand Government's official historian on Treaty issues. Generally her word is law when it comes to issues around treaty documents.To Helen Bucket:The claims of these editors are over blown and misleading and in my view are are form of attempted censorship.They seek to protect their version of history labelling new edits"problematic" or "poorly sourced"or false without actually proving their point.The "44" case mentioned above is a good point-they would rather have the incorrect number "4" stay in the article even though it is demonstrably wrong. You may ask why.For many years it was written in many text books(and generally believed by the population at large) that Waikato Maori never signed the Treaty of Waitangi so it followed that they weren't bound by its provisions. Researches then discovered that this was completely wrong. The error did not receive much attention until the government sponsored road show toured NZ.Initially the figure was shown incorrectly as "4" but this was hastily corrected by CLAUDIA Orange. In her own widely acclaimed book "the Treaty of Waitangi" she shows the facsimile signatures of all who signed the treaty and their hapu or iwi and the date,place and the officials present. You cant get more cast iron evidence of accurate history than that. The only statement I can agree with is that the editor Gadfium has been positive and constructive in these issues previously. Call Charlie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edits are frequently POV and rarely sourced. Your citations are almost always inadequate. The material I deleted from Invasion of Waikato is either unsourced or your opinion, or both. One citation is completely wrong: there is no such material on that page. Yet you have engaged in edit warring to reinstate that material. The Claudia Orange issue is a strawman. Wikipedia depends on verifiable sources. The fact that you "know" something is true is never justification for its inclusion. BlackCab (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion

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:Oaktreebay was blocked for sockpuppetry and now decided to evade their block, has returned to using the IP address they were using prior to making another account [[208]] and redirecting to the User:Oaktreebay page. They are admitting it if you look at the contribs. Suggest blocking the Ip and also extending the Oak Tree Bay block. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the diff in which the IP redirected its own talk page to that of the Oaktreebay, who's blocked for block evasion following this SPI, two days ago. Salvidrim! ✉ 08:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Also Identical edits [[209]] saying that they are the creator of 99.99 percent of all edits. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that you must notify an editor when posting at AN/I. I've notified the IP this time. Salvidrim! ✉ 08:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't being that it was the same person I notified here [[210]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Restarted the orignal block. If it happens again I have no problems with it being extended. Viridae^{DON'T PANIC} 08:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violator needs a block

At User talk:Seraphimblade#Violation, and further clarification needed, the closer of the topic ban against User:Apteva agrees that the ban has been violated. Can someone please give him a temporary block to remind him that we're serious? Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Him or her", please, see below. Apteva (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever his gender identification, he has made it clear at least that he has balls, so I'll stick with the masculine, as the feminist has also been objected to. Or sometimes I'll use the neuter. I prefer to choose from among normal English ways of referring to editors or their (neuter) accounts. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Should I start taking bets on how many minutes will expire after said block is enacted before he's unblocked? I think I'll open with an over/under of 20 minutes. --Jayron32 06:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"He or she", they, xe, or even "it", is preferred, please. Anything gender neutral is fine, though I have never seen "it" used before. Apteva (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It stops violating topic ban or it gets the block.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it will, Precious, won't it? It will get the block! 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't see it nearly clear-cut enough to block. Considering the heat that's still on, I say 10 minutes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd tend to see it as a violation, since that discussion on applicability of MOS to titles was essentially precipitated by the War of the Dashes. However, Apteva didn't specifically mention them, so I'd tend to see it as more a warning than blocking issue this time around. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Warning heard and heeded. I had no intention of violating the topic ban in any way. A block would serve no purpose whatsoever. The connection between the MOS and wp:title mostly affects other issues, and it was those only that I was addressing. But I had no intention of stirring anything up. Apteva (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want people to look into this issue, a link to the wording of the topic ban and a diff of the proposed violation would be a whole lot more convenient than making us hunt around for it. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 15:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I've hunted around and found both, and I don't see a violation. The wording of the topic ban is specific, and prevents Apteva from modifying or discussing issues relating to punctuation. The discussion in question is about whether WP:TITLE should have a link to WP:MOS in some way, and is not specifically about punctuation. Apteva's comments are also not specifically about punctuation. If you want this type of comment to be included in the topic ban, my opinion is that you need to reword the topic ban. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had asked Seraphimblade to do such a rewording, but he expressed the opinion that the ban was already clear enough and that this was a violation. That's why I linked to that discussion, instead of to the diff and the ban wording, which as you note did not quite connect. So now that this is taken as a "warning", will we have any better luck enforcing the ban next time he violates it? Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• As this was already being discussed at WP:AN#Post-close notice (Topic ban, what topic ban?), and in fact Dicklyon participated in the discussion there prior to starting this one; starting a second discussion here is inappropriate forum shopping. Monty₈₄₅ 15:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It had been made clear to me elsewhere that AN/I is where one asks for a block to stop an incidenet. The post-close note at AN was to keep a record of how well the badly-worded ban in working out. I didn't expect a big conversation to develop there, but maybe should have. Are you saying I should not have done both of these things at these two places? Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

AN/I is a subset of AN, so anything that can be done at AN/I can also be done in the discussion at AN. When there is already a discussion started in one place, and editors have registered opposition to a request, taking the request elsewhere, particularly without highlighting the previous opposition, is very problematic. This discussion actually started in a new subsection at AN, specifically about the alleged violation, then someone merged it into that section much higher on the page. Generally a mess, still I think we should move this back to AN to keep it in the one place. Monty₈₄₅ 16:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

One technical point I'm wondering about: The user in question is a wiki-legal alternate account. If an alternate account gets blocked, does the main account get blocked also? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes. Apteva, any reason why you are operating under your alternative account rather than your main? GiantSnowman 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's explained, so to speak, at User:Delphi234. Given the verbiage on that page, it's to be hoped that the user's desire for admin status will remain only a pipe dream. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No need to block one of two usernames, since they're being used legitimately; block both if you need to block one. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Bugs - yes, I've read that, I just don't understand what it means to have an alternative account "to become an admin." GiantSnowman 17:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Beats me. But it doesn't sound good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Good faith there would assume that that's a misunderstanding of the fact that most admins have alternate accounts, for things like logging in on public computers to avoid potential compromising of the password of the account that has the mop. Whether or not good faith can be assumed is, of course, for others to assume, or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That line of reasoning for having an alternate account makes sense, although I'd like to see a citation for "most admins..." In the case of the user in question, that premise does not apply. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, here are the links. The opinion of the admin who wrote the ban:

I would say that this edit is clearly related to Apteva's activity in the area of dashes/hyphens, and that this is both a violation of the ban and that no extension of the ban is necessary for it to be covered as such. I would see this as a clear attempt at gaming the ban by not technically mentioning the previous dispute subject. However, I would encourage opening a discussion at WP:ANI for wider input.[211]

The language of the ban is:

Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion. [212]

The closing statement for the RFC/U states:

Apteva's persistent pushing of the theory that en dashes are never appropriate in proper names, such as the names of wars, comets, bridges, and airports, has been disruptive. Respecting the wishes of the community as represented by an overwhelming majority of responders at this RFC/U, Apteva will refrain from any further advocating of this position, or any position against en dashes or against the MOS being applicable to article titles, and will not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories. Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for a block and/or a request for arbitration.

Twenty-eight editors signed this statement. Pushing this theory over and over is exactly what Apteva has been doing, again, this time at WT:TITLE. [213] and especially [214] —Neotarf (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well 28 editors need to follow policies instead: I understand how a statement signed by 28 people should be considered a clear decision, but Wikipedia has not worked that way for years. An RfC/U document cannot claim to impose a topic-ban, because wp:AN is the proper venue to request a topic-ban, and the decision is made by an admin, not counting votes until 28 agree as a wp:Majority. Per wp:CONSENSUS, a local consensus (even 28) cannot override the broader consensus set for years in policies among the community of 110,000 active editors each month. Similarly, even 500 editors cannot decide that the WMF must give them each a new automobile, but instead, decisions are made within policy limits. In this case, the ban-closing admin limited the topic-ban terms to dash/hyphen and related punctuation but did not prohibit discussion about policy wp:TITLE nor use of capital letters in titles, nor using short name "Clinton" in article titled "Bill Clinton". Perhaps 28 editors actually wanted an even broader topic-ban restriction when opposed by 4 editors, but they did not provide clear evidence to convince the closing admin to render that decision, and so the limited topic-ban was the ruling. Other editors should respect that process for topic-bans, but continuing to argue for more topic-bans, after weeks of discussion were decided by a closing admin, clearly seems disruptive of Wikipedia's process by dragging debates into a 3rd full month, with a few specific editors prolonging the debates after closed by an admin decision. Perhaps wait 3 months, gather more evidence, and then re-open discussion at another wp:AN thread, but meanwhile, wp:STICK to the rules for 3 months. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Tellyuer1 and BLP violations

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

---

Just off a one week block for edit warring and BLP vios on Moshe Friedman and is straight back to the same.[215][216][217] Can someone just block him. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

all of my edits are sourced accurately and right. Cant just ban me bcause you dont like edits.Tellyuer1 (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not other users like your edits is not the issue. The issue is whether they comply with policies, such as WP:BLP. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

of course agree. CBS news and many others said he had a parternship with Hamas. Sourced and BLP accurate. Pls review. they are wrong. Review. Tellyuer1 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at the three diffs above. None of the sources you provided said what you stated. They said things somewhat relating, but you took it to a higher level. We can't allow that. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You are also on about 5 reverts within a half an hour. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Tellyuer1 is yet another sockpuppet of community banned User:Babasalichai. This should have been sorted out a week ago. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've blocked Tellyuer1 for one month. The only question in my mind was whether it should have been indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I had reported him for socking[218] and he was, [[User:Babasalichai] was mentioned in the case but it seems to have been forgotten about. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts on the case were sent to Amalthea via email about a week ago; I agree that Tellyuer1 is another Babasalichai sock and should be indef-blocked. I have now listed this account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai so hopefully this will now get straightened out. -- Dianna (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

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.

---

has been vandalized beyond my ability to repair. Anyone interested? Carptrash (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Berzerker1982

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.

---

• Berzerker1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please consider revoking Berzerker1982's talk page access. See this edit for example. He's currently blocked for 12 hours. Mathonius (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by user Emmette Hernandez Coleman

I once again find user Emmette using disruptive techniques for article editing per his POV. This includes the previous attempts to issue rename/merge proposals "on behalf" of other editors (mimicking my comments - here and here), where he was requested to seize such practice [219]. Recently, he tried to delete template:SADR topics (see [220]), and when opposed, he abused User:Jan CZ's name to edit template:Western Sahara topics in order to show "as if" merger of the first template with the latter (see [221]). He made the same disruptive practice, when trying to delete Coat of arms of the State of Palestine but opposed - he abused my comment, putting it into a different perspective (see [222]), in order to edit Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority and presenting "as if" merger of both articles, while the afd on Coat of arms of the State of Palestine was so far without consensus [223]. I find those actions severely problematic to the articles' development.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• These are mostly gross exaggerations. Regarding the first "mimicking your comment" you brought that up at AN and it was rejected as a serous issue. The second one, I made a minor mistake. I wasn't aware of the distention between formal move discussions and informal ones at the time, so from my point of view all I did was apply the move discussion template to a move discussion, I already explained that to you. Rather then simply explaining that distinction or pointing me to the third bullet point of the WP:RM page, which describes that, you blew up at me and got extremely uncivil. Your incivility was far more serious then my minor mistake.

As for the second two, When copping content within Wikipidia per WP:CWW I must give the contributers credit. Claiming the content as my own is not an option. Regarding the template I wasn't merging anything, Jan CZ's list was not in the SADR template at the time and I thought that it would fit beautifully in the WS template. At for the CoA articles as I recall it Greayshark split the article without any discussion and when I reverted his split and asked him to propose a split on the talk page, instead of discussing he just restored his split article. I only "merged" the article with itself to make it less wordy (I think that was before Greyshark restored his new article). I then imported content from Greyshark's new article to the old one because it was information that also belonged in the old article, copying is not the same thing as merging. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I had an unsettling experience with this editor a few weeks ago while working on some airport pages. When I came to create a list of airports in Palestine, I met with a certain amount of what i thought to be unreasonable resistance from the editor. The editor is very knowlegable about Wikipedia, and has a tendency to game the system and wikilawyer, bogging down what should be very simple proceedures. I found that the editor calls himself into action with any subject that concerns Palestine. While this is a subject that I have no particular feeling about, needless to say I was happy to move on after my work was done. I do not think that the editor is a bad person or anything like that. I get more of an impression that he is simply working with the tools he has, and within the system, to meet his passions. Unfortunately this behavior is almost indistiguishable from gaming the system and POV pushing. I would like to see the editor voluntarily back-off...at least a tad bit...from these issues, particularly those involving Palestine, as I do not think that the editor realizes exactly how much time and energy is wasted due to his actions. I don't think a topic ban is necessary or anything like that, just a voluntary "loosening up". I can see how others might view this problematic editor as a "bully", "acting in bad faith", etc., but I do not think that is the case. It is my belief, as I said before, that this editor is simply very passionate about these subjects, and does not intend to be disruptive. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  You mean Talk:List of airports in the Palestinian territories. As recall we allredy had a list of airports in Palestine, and you wanted to move that article to use "Palestine" or "State of Palestine" in it's title, not because of a difference between it and the other "Palestinian territories" articles that would warrant a different title, but only because you felt that the UN vote rendered the phrase "Palestinian territories" obsolete. I pointed out that there was no reason to treat that page's title differently then most of the other West Bank/Gaza Strip topic articles, and that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS there could not override the president of the titles of other WB/GS topic articles, that the appropriate place for discussing weather "Palestinian territories" is still appropriate for article titles would be a mass RM. You then invited Greyshark and came in and once again made his fringe assertions about the term "Palestinian territories" that he kept making all throughout Wikipedia, which had already been rejected by 4 editors (now 6) editors, and contradicted the longstanding lead of the Palestinian territories article, clearly which defines the Palestinian territories as consisting of the West Bank and Gaza. I was regather annoyed that he didn't seem to heat that (also because he has a habit of removing the phrase "Palestinian Territories" from articles without any consensus based on his rejected assertions), maybe that's what you interpreted as passion. I started a centralized discussion about weather "Palestinian territories" were still appropriate titles for West Bank/Gaza Strip topic articles considering the UN vote (you weren't the only person who had asserted that, someone else did an another page) and there was no conciseness that that the UN vote rendered "Palestinian territories" titles inappropriate. If there had been consensus that WB/GS topic articles should use a title other then "Palestinian territories", I would have supported moving that article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  Regarding the airports article conduct I agree with Emmette's assessment and also I don't see disruptive editing or something like that there - there is a talk page discussion, heated as expected by the topic, but more or less the participants are civil. Japinderum (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - following the above complaint, user Emmette executed another disruptive action, aiming at de facto deleting article Coat of arms of the State of Palestine, even though the latter is still in afd discussion, with no seeming consensus for deletion so far. Currently, he undid my revert oto what seemed as his disruptive edits (see [224]) and asked to rename Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority into Palestinian Coat of arms (see [225]), which seems to "cancel" the need in article Coat of arms of the State of Palestine. This is a clear attempt to game the system and highly disruptive, not mentioning that he is justifying his rationale as "More importing User:Greyshark09's words", which is outrageous.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  That article covers both the Palestinian Authority and the State of Palestine and has done so sense 2011, I think that "Palestinian Coat of arms" better reflects that scope. I don't know what you meen by "justifying his rationale", but I already explained to you, WP:CWW requires me to give the contributers of content content when copping content within Wikipedia. Giving you credit for content that was partly your work has nothing to do with "my rationale" for the RM. For the reason for my revert see Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#revert Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think Emmette editing is disruptive or warrants a formal sanction. Actually, my experience so far is that the SoP and PNA titling arguing makes many of the editors (including Greyshark09) to appear "pushy". I haven't followed the CoA editing and discussions between them, but I don't think new move/delete/merge procedures should be opened before the previous are completed. Maybe it will be helpful if the result of this ANI is that both of them agree to a single venue where all CoA issues are to be discussed together (at one of the current procedures and the rest of them to be put "on hold"). Also, proposals/what-ifs can be presented in sandboxes (instead of the live articles as that may be interpreted as disruptive "push" or result in edit-war), editable by both sides of the dispute. Japinderum (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You were not involved in the issues of CoA and SADR, so your requested opinion on Emmette is largely not directly related to the topic of this complaint. The issue is his incorporation of quotes "according to <editor>" when signing edits and disruptive parallel move/delete proposals while completely changing the contents of an article, when he sees that his opinion is not a majority.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've tried multiple times to discuss Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority on the talkpage, but Greyshark has refused to participate, instead he just comes to ANI and complains that I follow WP:CWW. The scope of Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority has been both the PNA and SOP CoA (and PLO emblem) sense 2011, and I never attempted to change that, I reduced the wordiness and then updated and expanded the article, but I never changed the scope. I don't see the need for a single venue, he created his article which I think is a duplicate of the old one, so I sent the new one to AFD. That new article and it's AFD doesn't change the scope of the old one (unless there is consensus to do so, and there isn't), we can discuss the old article at it's talk page as we would have before the new article was created. There's nothing wrong with copping relevant content from one article to the other, as long at the content would be within the scope of the target article. Like I said, they have very similar scopes so their going to have very similar content. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring personal attacks

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 wondering if I might get some further input on this. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namah Shivaya Shantaya, User:Abhidevananda posted the rhetorical question within one of his posts, "Is it Bigots Week at Wikipedia?" (diff) Understanding that this comment may have been tossed out due to frustration, I asked him on his talk page to remove the comment as it appeared to be a personal attack. (diff) He effectively refused by responding that the comment/question was "quite reasonable". (diff). I am not sure if I should refactor the comment myself or have an admin do it. Thanks! Location (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I would ignore it. It isn't directed at a specific editor and it is best to let it go and keep the drama level down.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How much are we supposed to "let go"? This is part of a broader problem of sniping at other editors: "this is a smear campaign, primarily by one bigoted party", uninformed and prejudiced, and so on. [226] Oh, and the canvassing [227] [228], and the enigma of DezDeMonaaa (talk · contribs) who popped up to make a couple of keep !votes just like Abhidevananda (and sniped at other editors in a similar way). Meanwhile, in article-space, edits that Abhidevananda disagrees with gets reverted as "vandalism", no matter how often people try to explain WP:NOTVAND. I can't speak for other editors but Abhidevananda has reported me to AIV three times - for trying to clean up crappy unsourced content like this. I can't see a way to avoid drama except for other editors to stand back silently and let the walled garden flourish. Taking any more non-notable, spammy articles to AfD would certainly lead to more drama if Abhidevananda is still editing. bobrayner (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You let everything go, because insults and personal attacks reflect badly on one person, and one person only: The one who makes it. We should not be hiding the bad behavior of people by deleting it; instead people who make personal attacks should own them, and we should allow them to own them by leaving them visible for the world to see. That way, we know exactly the kind of person they are, so there will be no ambiguity. --Jayron32 14:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This sounds good to me, too. I'm OK with closing this. Thanks for the replies! Location (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

A new complaint

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.

---

Although I declined my full identity, with web page, phone, etc,some person "The Red Pen of Doom" posted on my personal talk page a comment involving that I am using a fake identity. " In case you are not aware creating a new account in an attempt to present yourself as multiple individuals is a blockable offence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC) " This is unacceptable in any community and I require immediate punitive action from the administrators of the web domain. How could one expect some decent contributions under the rule of such miserable offences, comming from unknowns or anonymous zombies? --Dciurchea (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I doubt that TheRedPenOfDoom is a zombie, the real existence of which most people don't accept. They could be a dog, of course. I notice that you did not make said zombie aware of this thread, which I will do imminently. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• TRPoD is quite correct; multiple accounts without disclosure may lead to blocking. (That my nick is that of a dog is not lost on me. Please try to ignore the irony.) KillerChihuahua 18:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• TRPoD is a lot of things, a zombie isn't one of them. Also, we don't punish users here, and there is no justice, we are not judges. If we need to take action to prevent future disruption, that is one thing. But we don't aren't supposed to punish people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I hereby do swear that I am both a zombie and a dog (and a movie star). Do I need to submit any verification to OTRS or something? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not a zombie or a movie star, but I am a dog and OTRS. Please send your completely unsupported claim to OTRS; be sure to include any random criticism of Wikipedia in general as well as demands for someone to make every article you care about on Wikipedia support your POV the TRUTH(tm). Don't bother sending sources, virtually no one else does. Please also omit any requests for paid assistance to get money from a Nigerian bank, I think the spam filter is actually catching about 25% of those now and your unreasonable demands legitimate and reasonable requests may not get through to us. KillerChihuahua 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• OK, we've had our fun. We can do one of two things: delve into Dciurchea's edits per WP:BOOMERANG, or we can say that KillerChihuahua's comment on Dciurchea's talk page is enough clarification and close this thread. Either way, this thread will not lead to anything actionable, unless of course someone else wishes to support Dciurchea's claim, stating that for instance TheRedPenOfDoom made an unacceptable personal attack by suggesting Dciurchea is a sock. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Thou shalt not utter the word "sock" unless ye are willing to file at WP:SPI". (Got biblical, just for Drmies sake.) TRPoD, I think we have covered this before. This is why, it makes us stop doing what we are doing to deal with this. I'm not questioning your judgement, just your methods here. Don't say it unless you are in the middle of backing it up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am NOT an ADMIN (nor do I have aspirations) but anyone who wrote, "and I require immediate punitive action from the administrators of the web domain" to me would go to the end of the line or the bottom of the heap, depending on how I am prioritizing things that day. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

RESPONSE POST ARCHIVE: Under AGF I should not have implied that the new editor coming to the obscure article for their first edit had any connection to other accounts without initiating an action in the appropriate SPI venue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

GarnetAndBlack: Incivility, gaming the system, ownership, bad faith bias in edits, retaliatory editing

I am reporting GarnetAndBlack for continuous hostility and incivility, biased editing of pages regarding Clemson Tigers football and related pages due to his hatred for Clemson University, bad faith edits such as ["throwing the baby out with the bathwater"], and retaliatory editing when positive information about Clemson Tigers football is added to the page and related articles. I will provide evidence links upon request, but please be aware that much of this evidence has been deleted by GarnetAndBlack and will probably need an administrator to access it.

The pages in question: Carolina-Clemson rivalry, Clemson Tigers football, Dabo Swinney, Clemson-South Carolina football brawl, Memorial Stadium

Incivility GarnetAndBlack, a South Carolina Gamecocks fan, has a repeated history of hostility and incivility towards anyone who is a fan of the rival school, the Clemson Tigers. Attempts to make good-faith edits that are factual and well-sourced are met with immediate deletion. GarnetAndBlack demands that a consensus be made on a Talk page before a change can be made, yet often times he and I are the only ones editing the pages. He then refuses to engage me in open discussion by either ignoring my polite requests for dialogue or by exhibiting hostility and/or threats. He will often delete discussion topics to hide this fact.

GarnetAndBlack often baits users into arguments and responds with personal attacks. Most recently, he called me a "tough guy" when I pointed out Wikipedia policies to him. He also questioned my reading comprehension when I made a change that was from a direct quote to the source. When editing Clemson Tigers pages to update information about Clemson losses, he often adds snide comments or trash talk in the comments section to goad Clemson fans into arguments (of which I ignore).

Attempts to reach out to GarnetAndBlack are futile. His editing practices show that he harbors an extreme hatred for all things Clemson, and looks down on any input or attempt to discuss articles from Clemson fans.

Gaming the System Per Wikipedia's policy on [the System], GarnetAndBlack often uses Wikipedia policies and guidelines as threats. He will commence in edit warring and excessive reverting over well-sourced and factual items, yet threaten users who try to revert the material back. In other words, he believes it acceptable for him to violate the policies yet threatens others he believes have done the same. He then demands a consensus be reached even though few (and most of the time, just us) people edit the articles. He even claims that factual information is POV even though he has made POV edits that contradict the very sources he links.

Please note that I have backed off these pages as recently as today to avoid edit-warring with him. This is even after my edits were well-sourced and did not reflect POV. It leaves me frustrated as an editor as I feel I cannot contribute to Wikipedia topics I am passionate about. Because GarnetAndBlack knows I will back down to prevent an edit war, he persists with his bullying tactics.

Only when a third party request has been brought in has GarnetAndBlack finally conceded, leading me to conclude that he simply opposes the edits because they are made by a Clemson fan. For example, on the Carolina-Clemson rivalry page, GarnetAndBlack refused to allow the editing of irrelevant information about minority enrollment that he thought painted Clemson in a bad light. In a similar incident, he refused to allow the removal a highly-questionable and racist 1930s book that he cited as a credible source. Only after a fellow South Carolina Gamecocks fan agreed with me did he concede.

Ownership GarnetAndBlack has also staked ownership[[229]] of the articles in question, particularly the Carolina-Clemson rivalry article, per Wikipedia description. In fact, many of his demands are almost verbatim from the Wikipedia description of page "ownership" (all are direct GarnetAndBlack quotes):

"... no attempts at revisionist history or deletion of well-sourced and verifiable material will be tolerated at this article..."

" A previous editor clearly spent a good deal of time adding this material, and providing proper references, and this work will be preserved. Attempts to remove this material without consensus will be reverted as vandalism."

"The statistic is relevant, verifiable and sourced, and it will be restored." (After third party intervention, he admitted this wasn't true)

"Continued POV sanitization of this article by fans will not be tolerated..." (following a revert)

"...take it to Talk if you want to try to seek new consensus." (following a revert)

"Now take it to talk and seek PROPER consensus." (following a revert)

"Again, you seem to be operating under the belief that your opinions carry weight at Wikipedia. They do not."

"If you're going to edit an article, make sure you have the first clue about the subject material."

Of course, he knows no consensus will be reached because no one joins in the discussion and he avoids it.

Bad faith biased edits As a Clemson Tigers fan, I do not feel I am the best person to edit South Carolina Gamecocks pages due to my own bias. Therefore, I try to refrain. However, GarnetAndBlack watches Clemson pages like a hawk and works hard to maintain or add negative information about Clemson even when the facts are questionable or irrelevant (such as the minority enrollment). Aside for his disparaging and insulting comments about Clemson, he often over-states Clemson's negative information, such as continuous harping on Clemson's 70-33 loss in the Orange Bowl in 2012. However, if similar information were to be added about South Carolina, he would remove it and demand a consensus.

His hateful opinions alone make me question whether or not he should be editing pages regarding Clemson Tigers football.

GarnetAndBlack often "throws the baby out with the bathwater" per Wikipedia's guidelines on this matter. Rather than make easy corrections or changes, GarnetAndBlack will delete entire text based on technicalities if the text paints Clemson in a positive light. For example, a few days ago, he deleted accolades about Clemson coach Dabo Swinney's college career because one source was missing. He then deleted an entire paragraph about Swinney winning the Bobby Dodd Coach of the Year Award in 2011 because he claimed the brief description of the award was "practically" lifted word-for-word from the award's website (it was not and falls under fair use anyway).

Retaliatory editing GarnetAndBlack follows me around Wikipedia religiously. When I attempt to make changes to Clemson articles to post factual, sourced positive information, one of two things will happen: He will either remove it and make demands/threats as previously stated, or he will make a new change to the article that either removes other positive info on technicalities or adds negative information. This will come after months of inactivity from GarnetAndBlack only to emerge after I make a change. If he can't find cause to remove my well-sourced facts, he'll try to one-up me with a negative counter edit.

Past history When I came to Wikipedia a year ago, GarnetAndBlack and I immediately butted heads. I admit that my actions were not wise and I paid the price for it per Wikipedia's rules. You can see this on my Talk page. Being new to Wikipedia, I jumped in without realizing what I was doing. However, instead of trying to guide me and help me along as a new user, GarnetAndBlack immediately went on the attack when he realized I was a Clemson fan and put his bad faith practices to use. Since realizing the error of my ways a year ago, I've tried to be proactive and work with him through compromise and discussion. These efforts are futile, and I cannot reach a consensus for edits because GarnetAndBlack has chased other editors away.

Conclusion I want to contribute to Wikipedia to articles I'm passionate about and knowledgeable about. I try to make sure my additions are well-sourced. I'm open to compromise as my history shows, which is as recent as yesterday on Carolina-Clemson rivalry talk. However, I feel I am being met head-on by someone who hates my alma mater and despises me for being a part of it, therefore he refuses to work with me in the spirit of Wikipedia. I don't despise GarnetAndBlack's school. In fact, I do work for them that helps bring students to the University of South Carolina.

I don't believe GarnetAndBlack can see the error of his ways, and I conclude that he should no longer be permitted to contribute to the aforementioned pages or other pages relating to Clemson University. However, I am hoping he would be willing to agree to some serious reconciliation and change in attitude towards how he works with others. His pattern of behavior leads me to believe this isn't possible as his hatred for Clemson is too deep-seated.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A small sampling evidence of hatred and bias against Clemson. Notice twice he calls us a "redneck" fanbase:

1. " Also, it's absolutely precious how you Clemson people have come out of your shells (and hiding) after one little bowl victory. Almost as funny as when I see Tiger fans around town these days and give them a friendly wave...with four fingers, of course. :)" GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC) User_talk:LesPhilky#WP:DRRC

2. "Oh, and thanks for showing the world how low your redneck fanbase is by making light of a teenage kid's injury. You stay classy, Clemson." GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[230]

3. "Fear the thumb." (This references to the possibility of SC beating Clemson five years in a row) GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[231]

4. 09:20, 25 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+45)‎ . . 2012 South Carolina Gamecocks football team ‎ (→‎Clemson: FOUR IN A ROW)

09:19, 25 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-61)‎ . . 2012 Clemson Tigers football team ‎ (The streak is over...FOUR IN A ROW) Two cases of trash talk towards Clemson fans while updating an article.

5. "Never thought I'd see the day where a Clemson fan pretends to be a Bama fan, but after 3 straight ass-whippings by your rival and the worst loss in a century of bowl game history, can't say I blame you rednecks for trying to hide behind schools that actually have the football tradition that you pretenders only wish you had. Wait a sec...is that you Dabo? LOL" GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[232]

6. 03:54, 11 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+270)‎ . . User talk:LesPhilky ‎ (Sammy Potkins LOL) Derogatory reference to Sammy Watkins, a Clemson player arrested for simple marijuana possession.--LesPhilky (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally, after posting a notice to GarnetAndBlack's talk page about this notification, this was his reaction:

(diff | hist) . . User talk:GarnetAndBlack‎; 03:26 . . (-535)‎ . . ‎GarnetAndBlack (talk | contribs)‎ (Undid revision 532099323 by LesPhilky (talk) Sorry, not participating in an absolute joke perpetrated by a hypocrite guilty of exactly the same conduct he is reporting me for)--LesPhilky (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, this is not a very well-formed report. It would be helpful if you included properly formatted diffs; it is very difficult for me to assess what's going on. Second, given the length of this report (which is a bit excessive) and the length of time during which the incidents took place, I'm wondering if this is the best place for it: this is not, I think, a single incident or set of incidents, and that's what this board is for. But I tell you what: I'll have a look at the editor's comments, and I'll have to look at your own as well. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I was referred to this page by another admin. I was not aware there was a length requirement. I was trying to give as much information as possible to assist you in this matter. There are similar complaints filed and addressed on this board in this manner.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no: they are filed more concisely and with correctly formatted diffs, so we don't have to dig through stuff to find what your complaint is based on. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• LesPhilky, this is not OK. First of all, that particular heading takes two "==" signs. Second, your counterpart had removed it--you have no valid excuse for reinserting it; a user can do that on their own user page. Third, I am a bit surprised by the tone you adopted in that message: it is really not acceptable. You are speaking in a very patronizing manner, and I'm not surprised that your opponents gets a little pissy with you. Now, I forgot which one of you was the Clemson fan and which one was the South Carolina fan, and I guess it doesn't matter; let it just be known that I roll with the Tide and I'm feeling pretty good about it. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tried every method I could to interact with GarnetAndBlack, and I was reaching out here in an attempt to point out certain policies with hopes he would adhere to them. I made no threats, and I'm not sure how you can assume the inflection of my tone from my writing. I also did not know not to reinsert the text; once he informed me of this, I ceased the practice. I'm also sorry about the heading, but is that really an important matter in the grand scheme of this issue?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, all you need to know about the user who filed this absurd report can be found on his own Talk page in the following comment[233] made after he was blocked 24 hours for a 3RR violation, "You and the admins may have the opinion that you taught me a lesson, but I learn my own lessons. This block didn't teach me anything." Speaks volumes, I think. Congrats to Bama for a great game last night and yet another championship for the SEC. Hope to see y'all in Atlanta next December. Go Cocks and Roll Tide. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I take responsibility for my errors a year ago and have taken steps to be proactive and edit in good faith. GarnetAndBlack has not changed any of his behavior. And since he's dredging up history from over a year ago, I'd like to cite for the record that he called my wife a "sheep". Is there a policy on this, Drmies?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that was fun. What I should do is warn you both for edit-warring and block the next one who starts fighting over little bitty things like who hit a piece of rock with a hammer, or whether a coach expressed disappointment or not. It's almost too stupid for words--almost, but not quite, because in those two cases it seems to me that Garnet is correct. (And I'm trying not to be an editor here as well, but Garnet is, i think, correct in this one as well. It is clear that you two can't get along, but unless one of you backs off or gets blocked you'll just have to. On the talk page. If needs be with RfCs on these individual questions. You know what's so silly about this? You two are fighting like two Auburn fans over a dirty sock possibly left by Cam Newton in a dorm room, and you're missing totally obvious stuff like a stupid Facebook link in the first sentence and a bunch of bare URLs in the article. Figure it out on the talk page--if you can't, perhaps both of you will have to be made to stop working on this article. Oh, one more thing: if people talk football smack, they will be smacked back. It's a law of nature. I see nothing too objectionable in the various remarks, and will hope that someone else can bear to look over this thread and close it. Beware, Les, of the WP:BOOMERANG.

  Garnet, thanks for your kind words and invitation; it's not likely to get that far, though we'd love to show Spurrier one more time who the real SEC powerhouse is, hehe. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not sure you understood the point of my complaint. I'm not debating content of articles. I'm documenting a repeated pattern of hostility, incivility, biased editing fueled by hatred, and violation of Wikipedia policies. You've summarily dismissed all of these and focused on matters I'm not addressing. And as I mentioned above, I agreed with GarnetAndBlack on the coaches dispute.

Again, I've stated that I've tried to discuss these matters on the various talk pages and I'm either ignored or threatened (or he just deletes it). The only time he has conceded (and finally admitted that he was pushing irrelevant and damaging information) was when a third party came in to point it out to him. Do you believe GarnetAndBlack is editing Clemson-related pages in WG:AGF? Or maybe a better question would be how would you react if an Auburn fan were acting the same way in regards to Alabama pages?

Finally, is there a chance an admin who is unaffiliated with an SEC team or college football at all can also consider this issue? No offense meant, Drmies, but I have found the SEC fans tend to stick together a bit in conflicts. You'll have to excuse my doubt that you "forgot which one of us was a Clemson fan and which was a South Carolina fan" when the complaint not only clearly lays this out, but his name is "GarnetAndBlack".--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

a. This may come as a surprise to you, but I don't have the foggiest what "Garnet and Black" means. I suppose these are the South Carolina colors? The world is much bigger than your state, Les. I don't accept some nonsense about SEC fans sticking together: that's bullshit, and you should take that back. FYI, the very chair I'm sitting on was owned by a dear colleague, a Clemson grad who now works at --GASP!-- the U of Alabama. You may think that all the world's a football fan too drunk and too ignorant to lay aside their zeal, but you're wrong. Here, I am a Wikipedia editor, but I see no reason to defend myself from a ridiculous charge--yes, I have stopped beating my wife. I couldn't care less if an Auburn fan edited some Alabama page, as long as they're not being disruptive--and as I pointed out above, in the two specific edits I looked at your opponent seemed to have the sources on their side. Now, in regard to the repeated pattern you want to point at, I did not find much evidence for something actionable (but I'm about to read what another editor added below), and that's in part because the pot is calling the kettle black, and in part because of the less than suitable presentation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for LesPhilky and GarnetAndBlack from all articles related to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry

This is absolutely ridiculous. This sort of childish bickering from the both of you is way out of the realm of productive editing. There is plenty more. This isn't new though, here is more of the same from months ago: [234] [235]. Blocks would accomplish nothing here. This is not to mention the several edit wars that you have both been involved in. It is obvious that you cannot conduct yourself within what is expected of Wikipedia editors when editing about this topic. Therefore, I propose that both editors be topic banned from all articles related to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. At that point we can reevaluate this measure. If there is not support for this, then (barring consensus to the contrary) I intend to block both users for a period of 1 week, to be followed by an indefinite block if that proves ineffective. Prodego ^talk 07:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If that is what you deem the best course of action after reviewing my post, then I will accept it like an adult and not dispute it.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, months long content disputes. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think just indefing them would be most productive but, sure, maybe a topic ban could solve this --Guerillero | My Talk 07:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Throw in a full-bore interaction ban, clarify if "broadly construed" also means articles about Clemson and Carolina sports teams, and I'll be quite happy to stop this puerile pissing contest like this. Shame on both editors for this display - so much for higher education (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of both editors from articles about Clemson and Carolina sports teams, and an interaction ban per Bwilkins. Though GarnetAndBlack has the more impressive record at the admin boards, LesPhilky has been several times at the 3RR board, though each person was sometimes there as the filer of the report and not the person reported. Though GarnetAndBlack has caused more trouble overall, it will be simpler to have the topic ban apply to both parties. In terms of block log, each party has been blocked 24 hours on this issue in the past. Per Prodego, if the topic ban is not approved then escalating blocks should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention in the matter, and I will refrain from butting heads with GarnetAndBlack in the future. I honestly don't enjoy these battles.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support an interaction ban and a topic ban. Prodego et al, thank you for digging deeper than I had energy for last night. I can't judge right now which of the two is worse (though of course I'll ALWAYS side with the guy from the SEC!), but it's clear that the combination of the two makes for an unhappy cocktail, kind of like a Boilermaker, which is an abomination (every Bama fan knows you do shot of bourbon at the beginning of every quarter, and adulterating whiskey with beer is just blasphemy). Let's see if these editors can find other interests on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Or you down your whole flask after the first quarter, like I did when we played you in 2008. Congrats on your title.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Oooooh, that first remark is an unwarranted personal attack and I'll block the hell out of you for it. Thanks for the second one--in all honesty, my contribution was limited to yelling, but it sure felt good. Les, nothing against you or your opponent, or y'all's schools, but clearly this isn't productive. I hope at some point you two will meet and eat some gigantic baconcheeseburgers and drink a few beers and talk about the good old days. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm sorry it went this far. And I hope Clemson keeps y'all off our schedule for a while. My wife still nags me about my debauchery after the butt-stomping y'all put on us.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion GarnetAndBlack is "worse", but both editors are quite too far. We can throw in an interaction ban if we want, I'm do not want to do that without seeing if the topic ban resolves the interaction issue. Most of the interaction has been fighting over these articles or personal attacks which can be dealt with in the usual way. That isn't the usual case for an interaction ban. I'd rather prefer a ban on discussing football, but again that's something I'd rather leave to the future.

"Articles related to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry, broadly construed" includes but is not limited to articles relating to the rivalry, both schools and their sports teams, games, coaches, and players.

Drmies, I'd rather you not block anyone. Also if you could stop the SEC comments, I suspect they are a joke but it doesn't translate too well to text. Prodego ^talk 18:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he was joking, and I took it as such. No harm. And I will avoid disputes with GarnetAndBlack in the future even if you decide against the interaction ban.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Pretty obvious call. Leave each other alone. I'm tempted to suggest that as an alternative the pair be required to collaborate writing an article about something completely different so that they'd learn to interact a little in a collaborative rather than a combative manner, but that's probably asking a bit much... You two might think about trying that though... Carrite (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've got a list of public high schools from the Mississippi Delta on my user page that don't have a single word written about them. Picking one at random, just in case you need a starter idea, here's a red link for O'Bannon High School from Washington County, Mississippi, located in the county seat of Greenville, Mississippi. I'm sure there's a football aspect to that somewhere... You might want to simultaneously work on the other high school in that town, which would be Greenville-Weston High School, also a red link... Carrite (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It could work! Those high schools live and die for football. Add in the private former seg academies and the arguments and lawsuits over which teams will play one another because of who does or doesn't allow black kids on their teams and which schools get to use the public football fields and there's an endless amount of editing to be done. No one editing regularly in the area has done enough with football, and it's clearly important.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hehe I like that. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• If I could make a request: I understand the admins' position and thoughts on imposing a 6-month ban on GarnetAndBlack and me for the Carolina-Clemson rivalry page, and I accept it. I would like to say that GarnetAndBlack is passionate about Gamecock sports and does a good job of maintaining the everyday edits that the pages relating to his team require. I am passionate about Clemson athletics and would like to also ensure that those pages (such as Clemson Tigers football, Memorial Stadium, Clemson, Dabo Swinney, etc.) stay up to date. Could it be possible that, along with your proposed ban from the rivalry page, we are relegated to our respected teams' pages for the same duration along with an interaction ban so as to avoid any possibility of us butting heads again? Thank you for your consideration.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• LesPhilky, you're getting more reasonable by the moment. The proposed topic ban would allow that, as long as you both keep in mind the spirit of the topic ban, which lies in the "related to" part. Honestly, the best thing that could happen (outside of baconcheeseburgers and beer) is that you butt heads and talk it out, but that would fall within both parts of the ban, of course, the topic part and the interaction part. An example is to be found in who chipped that piece of rock: if you two could ever agree on what it is that the sources say and how that is to be worded in an article, then we've won the war. For now (that is, until we hear from Garnet) I think that the proposed ban is a good idea, but if Garnet responds here, and you do too, and both of you agree to a. not bicker b. not edit-war (or even revert--a "don't revert each others' edits" rule is a possibility as well) and c. use the talk page to discuss topics and edits, then we've settled matters. So Garnet--what do you say? And Les, what do you say to what he says (when he says something)? Drmies (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Really, any of the above suits me just fine. What I find almost comically absurd about this entire affair is that someone who just a little over a year ago attempted to belittle and insult me[236] by remarking, "This isn't my life like it clearly is yours...Honestly, I would shoot myself in the face if I found myself spending two hours on Wikipedia over the weekend", has spent so many hours of his own life since Wikilawyering, forum-shopping and posting mind-numbingly long-winded reports on various noticeboards complaining about the editing of one "angry little man". I will say that any topic ban that forbids me from contributing to articles dealing with the University of South Carolina or its athletic programs will basically result in my quitting this project altogether (especially with college baseball season starting next month), and I guess Les wins in that scenario, since that seems to have been his goal from Day One. The project will be the worse for losing a dedicated editor, but my life will not be, I can assure you of that. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "And Les, what do you say to what he says (when he says something)." Well, to answer your question, Drmies, his response isn't exactly encouraging. I'm not trying to win anything, and frankly anyone who takes a "victory" out of this situation clearly has some issues. As my original complaint stated, I admit my actions a year ago as a new user were less than adequate. But my original complaint was over recent activity. Again, I'm not sure I have faith in cooperative collaboration at this point as GarnetAndBlack's response still seems filled with animosity towards me, and a "if I don't get my way I'll just quit!" type of response. I don't want to quit maintaining Clemson sites, but can see how a fresh 6 months away from the idea would probably be good for the mind and soul.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with his rock edit. Honestly, another user had written the text before and I just added a source (I think I may have also copied and pasted from one article to another... can't remember). That wasn't one of the ones where we disagreed. Bacon cheeseburgers and beer sound great, only as long as I get to cook, because my burgers could likely solve most world crises today. But seriously, my main concern is that we agree to do this and things deteriorate back to square one as soon as admins aren't watching. I'm concerned GarnetAndBlack sees absolutely no fault in his actions and will continue the hostility whenever I try to make good faith edits. I dunno, maybe banning both of us for a duration is the best way to calm it down. That's why they pay y'all the big bucks to make these decisions, right?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for another addendum: I also like the "don't revert each others' edits" rule until we discuss. In fact, another Gamecock fan, SCrooster, and I have an agreement that we will not revert or change each other's edits, or, if necessary, even make any additions, until we can talk things over. Thus far, this has worked well.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm willing to consider alternate proposals both parties agree to. One that is not an option, however, is allowing party A to only edit about team A, and party B to only edit about team B. This has too many COI issues to be a reasonable solution. Prodego ^talk 00:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks anyway.--LesPhilky (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new wording

1. User:LesPhilky and User:GarnetAndBlack are hereby subject to a formal interaction ban, and all restrictions noted in that policy for a period of 6 months;
2. Both are topic-banned from the article or talkpage of Carolina-Clemson rivalry for a period of 6 months;
3. Both are prohibited from editing any articles related to the sports teams of Carolina or Clemson universities (broadly construed) for a period of 6 months, although changes may be proposed on the associated talkpage in order to obtain consensus;
4. Both are subject to civility restrictions during all discussions, including being prohibited from making derogatory comments directly or indirectly about universities, their sports teams, and the athletes involved indefinitely

Violations of any of these restrictions will be met with a block for 1 week for a first violation, with escalation for additional violations of any of the restrictions.

• Support as proposer (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as overly broad I can support points #1, 2 and 4, but I don't believe either Les or myself has ever had a dispute arise due to updating Carolina or Clemson articles with game results, current events and the like. Prohibiting us from maintaining these articles with this type of uncontroversial material (can't argue about the score of a game, ranking in a poll, etc.) seems highly punitive, so I do not support point #3. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ditto.--LesPhilky (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am in full agreement with points 1, 2, and 4, but have to agree with GarnetAndBlack above that barring them from any edits on the topics that each of them most frequently edit seems especially harsh. Both of these editors have proven able to provide value to their topics, and GarnetAndBlack in particular has done great work creating and updating the last few South Carolina baseball season pages as they progress. The issue seems to be when they a) interact and b) add things that might be controversial or viewed in a different light from the other side of the rivalry. I'd propose that they both be permitted to make routine edits to articles - adding game results and other sorts of events of an ongoing and routine nature, so that they will both continue to be engaged with Wikipedia. If either or both were to stretch the limits of this either in their edits or in edit summaries, I'd be in favor of reopening this to give the offending editor a full topic ban. I just think the block as constructed above will simply result in both of them never coming back, which would be a net loss to Wikipedia. Billcasey905 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Provisional Support - 1, 2, and 4 are clear preventative measures. And while 3 is very broad, it is also preventative. GarnetAndBlack and LesPhilky this may be hard to take, but how you have been handling yourselves makes some version of #3 needed. The last thing that is needed is for this to come back here in a few weeks time because the disruption has moved to the articles on the schools, athletes, teams, etc. Normally a topic ban would cover everything related to the topic. The latitude BWilkins took with #1 limits that but leave everything else open.
  That all said, I'd rather see #3 softened a little to give both a chance to show they can work in the area. A proscription from editing the games and sections of articles that reference/deal with the rivalry makes sense. But starting off with them having to come hat in hand to make good faith, constructive edits to the remainder doesn't. With that, the interaction ban should prevent most of the problems and possibly a 1RR limit to encourage discusion on thing other editors take exception to.
  - J Greb (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - It's nice to see the parties agreeing on 1, 2, and 4. That strikes me as a reasonable remedy. Carrite (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Given the apparent support for (and parties agreement to) 1, 2, and 4. I suggest turning 3 into an expanded WP:0RR for the described articles. Revised #3 would read: "Both are prohibited from performing reverts on any articles related to the sports teams of Carolina or Clemson universities (broadly construed) for a period of 6 months. Undoing other editors, whether in whole or in part, counts as a revert." --Tgeairn (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support proposed remedies #1, #2, and #4, very strong oppose proposed remedy #3, following the reasoning of Billcasey905, J Greb and Carrite. Both parties to the dispute have apparently already either explicitly or implicitly agreed to that solution.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, and 4 for reasons given by other editors. I wish this could have been forestalled, but it seems Garnet is not interested in the hand extended by LesPhilky, and unfortunately an agreement is a two-way street. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, but what the hell does this mean? I've seen no sign of a proposal by an admin that suggested a way this could be handled without measures like those listed above, and Les hasn't exactly shown signs of assuming good faith in his responses here, so I certainly haven't seen a "hand extended" my way. If you have an idea (other than cheeseburgers and beers), where is it? Topic and interaction bans have been the only things mentioned from the outset of this tedious exercise. If you have an alternative, by all means, share it with the class. I'd be open to hearing it, and I'm sure Les would as well. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You are gladly pardoned. There is a suggestion above, in the paragraph starting "LesPhilky, you're getting more reasonable by the moment." Drmies (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Which I replied to with, "Really, any of the above suits me just fine." GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And then followed with a long litany repeating the same grievances. What I (and I assume others) was looking for was some kind of statement that said "let bygones be bygones" and "I'll try to get along with Les". Since you said the total opposite, rehashing old bygones and lashing out at Les again, there is little point in discussion an alternative to the various proposed bans. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Then why even mention it in your comment here? Doesn't make much sense. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Although 3 is broad, it is a preventative measure for obvious reasons if you think about it. I'm a little confused by the wording though. If either propose changes to the talk page of an article bounded by 3, does that preclude the other from discussing these changes because of 1? Blackmane (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support #1, #2, and #4, and 1rr instead of #3. LK (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support #1, #2, and #4, and either a 1RR or 0RR on all articles relating to sports teams of Clemson University and University of South Carolina. Billcasey905 (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

JohnC76

I have been using sTiki to find and delete vandalism and deleted some from the Armalite AR-50 article. While on that page I noticed what seemed to be obvious Copyvio paragraphs. I duly deleted the paragraphs only to receive a message from JohnC76 saying "Please do not delete the AR50 .416 specs again on the AR50 page. They make 3 versions of this rifle and you can confirm that here: http://www.armalite.com/Categories.aspx?Category=0406c9ff-539d-4b4c-ae1f-d045b91324c3". He then reverted my edit.

I messaged him advising why I deleted the offending paragraphs and advised he should read Wikipedia:Copyright violations before doing any further edits. JohnC76 then did some minor changes and once again messaged me (This time in bold text and capitol letters) saying "PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE ARMALITE 416 BARRETT DESCRIPTION AGAIN. I REWORDED EVERYTHING SO THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT PROBLEMS." I AM IN CONTACT WITH ARMALITE TO GET FULL PERMISSION TO COPY ANY AND ALL SPECS. I WILL REPORT BACK AND POST WHEN I GET APPROVAL."

By the time he had finished his changes it looked like a giant promo for Armalite and still had major copyvio problems so I requested a speedy deletion. Upon seeing this he went to the talk page explaining why it should not be deleted claiming he was in the process of asking Armalite's permission to use copyright material on wikipedia, that he had put alot of time into the article and would not be back to redo the page should it be deleted. He also claimed I was "really pissing me off trolling the page deleting my work".

He then went to my talk page saying "This guy might be an anti-gun troll" and "I'm serious, screw with this page again and I'll report you for vandalism". I messaged him telling him to NOT make threats and replied saying "There was never a threat, it was simply a warning that I will report you for vandalism should you continue to delete and screw with the work I have done to the the AR50 page"

The guy just doesn't seem to get it. Everything I have done was in good faith and he carries on like this. Can somebody have a quiet word or two to him AND have a look at the article in question and advise him why I have made the edits please?

I have left the editor a note on his talk page. We will have to see what hapeens next. Oh, I also replaced the speedy template he removed on the article. It is my feeling that the best plan is just to start over. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And I also re-removed all the specs as copyvio. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, much appreciated. Starting again from scratch was my feeling too. Unfortunately though, I doubt I will be called on to help. :) Rocketrod1960 (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, he apparently saw my message, as he deleted it. Wondering if he will bother responding at all or just return to his prior behavior. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

moved comment to proper section Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Congrats, guys! You have just deleted all the relevant info on all 3 makes of the Ar50!!! You do realize the specs with asterrisks are like the specs on a car engine? There is no way to reword specs like bore twist, barrel length, design and materials of the rifle, etc. As for the ridiculus comment about it looking like an advertisement or promotion, I am an owner of an Ar50 rifle, I only put concise facts about the rifle and all the pictures I took of my rifle. If you want to call it an ad, promo, or whatever, go for it. I won't be back to fix the page. Don't have anymore time to waste with you or wikipedia. If folks google the rifle, the Armalite page will come up right with wiki at the top of google so no loss. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC76 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There's your answer. Same message is on my talk page. Rocketrod1960 (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Specs aren't copyrightable (they're just facts), but the prose paragraphs you removed and JohnC76 restored are definitely more than specs and are clearly copyrightable. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah... Could everyone please take it down a notch? Two notches, perhaps?

Specs are not copyrightable. Removing the basic specifications was inappropriate. Tagging them for copyvio was inappropriate.

The marketing fluff included with them needs to be trimmed, doubly so if it's cut and paste of marketing fluff in the specs on their site. But in any case, that's not appropriate.

This was the wrong hammer, and inexpertly wielded. Please be more careful swatting new contributors. He was making mistakes, but they were educate-him-out-of-them type mistakes, not remove-it-all-and-drive-him-away. The info and warnings left for him were substandard.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It does seem to me like an over-reaction from all parties. I've stuck this in my watch list, if no one else works on it after a while, I'll give it a shot. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

While 'specifications' of a product are not copywriteable, (fire rate X etc) the method of their presentation is. If someone has just cut and pasted the specs from the Armalite website (as the edit summaries seem to suggest) that would be a copyright violation. Granted there is a limited amount of ways technical info can be shown, but likewise wikipedia does not need to know every last detail of the weapon. The specs could have been worked into prose quite easily. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Filling out the infobox with that info by hand wouldn't in the least bit implicate copyright issues. Shadowjams (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I looked at his very first edit to that article, and it was clearly written with a promotional fluff (not sure if it was copyvio or not). I suggest we revert to this edit: [237] which was the last one before all that garbage appeared, and then update it ourselves. A topic block might be valid for JohnC76, if he does come back (4-5 months of vandalism of this article.) Also note he's marked deleting 1,031 bytes of content as a minor edit at one stage, as well as reverting Rocketrod's edits and marking the reverts as minor. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That version contains the same probable copyright violation for which the page is currently tagged. (It was originally added by an anonymous IP account, not User:JohnC76.) —Psychonaut (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Ворот93

Despite requests from two editors to desist, the user is edit warring to insert changes that violate WP:NPOV and WP:V into Heterosexism. A report was filed 12 hours ago, but no action has been taken. While the user is past 3RR and has not acknowledged that this is a problem (indeed, he or she has reverted twice after being warned), I am also concerned that he or she has accused editors—what he or she terms the "loud homosexual minority on Wikipedia"—of "pro-gay-norm PoV pushing", "GLBT theme editing", harboring a "gay prides [sic] PoV", and reminded us "this is an encyclopedia, not a homosexual recruitment centre" (all of the above at Talk:Heterosexism), as well as comparing homosexuality to a disease or medical condition. In addition to needing a cluebat for edit warring, the user could do with a stern warning to follow WP:NPOV and WP:V/WP:RS and not to voice unfounded assumptions about other editors. I will notify the user of this thread presently. Rivertorch (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I blocked him a couple of hours ago ... not encouraged by his current unblock request, and have commented there. I'll leave that for someone else to worry about (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Although the unblock has been declined, I'm not convinced that he's here to build the encyclopedia. Anyone else want to peek and see if he can be either brought in from the dark side, or if the 2 day block needs to be upped further (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If this block goes any further, you may want to keep an eye on the other accounts he lists on his userpage, and that those don't suddenly get used to carry out these actions. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I haven't combed through the contributions exhaustively (and won't), but it's clear that amid a jumble of constructive contributions are a number of POV-pushing edits and some gratuitously inflammatory rhetoric. The user is a self-described heterosexist who appears to share Fred Phelps's contempt for gay people. Rivertorch (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Heyguysimjakob - disruptive editing

Heyguysimjakob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been mostly editing Australian soccer pages for the last couple of weeks. The user has collected a number of warnings for unsourced additions yet has not stopped the behaviour. Hack (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wrong user? I see no contributions and no talk page. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. Hack (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• 24-hour block, and additional instructions left as well as a block template. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruption

Two Wikipedians having a go at each other, started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Am_I_being_a_dick.3F

Users involved are Christopher Vose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Later moved on to articles including Dane Richards diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5 and other articles including Sullivan Silva, Jacob Lensky Atiba Harris and more (check [238] for full details)

Also seems to have spread to commons [239] (not sure if it's under the same jurisdication)

Further, one editor has warned the other for edit warring.[240]

I don't know what action I am asking be taken, just that it is reviewed and something be done. It seems to be very bad publicity for Wikipedia that it continue. C679 22:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"...illegal, immoral, and unethical"? He left out "fattening". (Apologies to W.C. Fields) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

To turn a long issue into a short one, I am the creator and uploader of six images. I would like them removed. —Christopher Vose (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with these words?

By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.

They appear on every editing page on Wikipedia. You have irrevocably agreed to put your images here, and there's no way that can be undone unless they have to be deleted because they are in conflict with our policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And right underneath those words are these words:

You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

That means that you cannot insist on the photographs being attributed to you in their captions, because you have agreed that the hyperlink in the image itself, which links to the page in which you name is listed as the author, is sufficient attribution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Those images are on Commons, and you've requested deletion of them there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I initially removed the attribution on several articles when I felt it was self-serving. Mr. Vose complained and gave reasons as to why he felt that the images should both be used and carry his name. At that point, several football project editors decided to not use the images at all. He then restored them and complained about it. I was trying to assist Mr. Vose in giving correct attribution to his high-quality photographs and to explain why we did not think it necessary to use them if they had to carry his name.

I later learned what was stated above: attribution is given in the commons for all projects and that the name does not need to be associated with the image. Another editor restored the images and removed Mr. Vose's name. He then started to revert those and I restored them, twice, with explanation. I'm not sure how I can help here. Please contact me if I need to respond. Best of luck Mr. Vose. I'm just an editor but the majority of those editing here are admins. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Gorlitz is error. One particular example is his suggestion that I restored my work with attribution AFTER it had been agreed not to use my work at all. I had restored my work with attribution PRIOR to it being agreed not to use my work at all. I am content that my work not be used at all. I am content with my work being used with attribution. I am not content with my work being used without attribution. —Christopher Vose (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the purpose of permissions if not to stipulate the terms by which something can be used? I specified that attribution was required for the use of my work. This situation can be rectified by simply removing those images from Wikimedia Commons. Everyone would be satisfied by that. Nothing is lost that was not present a few days ago. Continuing to use my work against my wishes and the permissions I granted their use under will only lead to further aggravation for all concerned. —Christopher Vose (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a matter for Commons. There is little or no point pursuing it here, on the English Wikipedia. Rich Farmbrough, 23:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC).

(edit conflict) I believe that the edit warring may be an issue here. No incivility (well except possibly this comment) was encountered here. The original reporter stated "very bad publicity for Wikipedia". Editors are commenting on the commons now so there is no need for me to continue there. Mr. Vose seems to have stopped responding at the project talk page so nothing happening there. I suspect that another project editor will restore the images if the outcome at the commons is keep. So I'll leave it up to an admin to decide how to best deal with this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Strange that Beyond My Ken said to keep it there because of what was said here. —Christopher Vose (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I said no such thing, my comment there was based on Commons policies. Aside from both being projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, there is no formal connection between English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. The decision to delete or not delete images on Commons is made there, through discussion by editors there, based on the policies there. True, the basic policies of the two entities are very similiar, because they serve a similar purpose, are organized under the same umbrella, and have many editors in Common, but discussion here can never decide on a deletion or keep on Commons, although it could influence it. In any case, you need to focus your attention there, and stop trying to force editors here to follow you wishes when they are only editing in accordance to English Wikipedia's policies. I don't think you're going to be successful at getting the images deleted, but that is where the discussion must take place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Like said before, deletion on commons is not an en.wikipedia issue. Try asking there. Also, you aren't going to get them deleted because 'you say so'. You've given the images to anyone under a CC-BY-SA license, so Commons can continue to host them as long as they wish to do so. You granted use as long as attibrution is given, which a link to the image information page is sufficient for. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The model for this could be the way the user David Shankbone labels his pictures, for example File:5.3.10GlennBeckByDavid-Shankbone.jpg. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Replying to Mr. Vose's question: What is the purpose of permissions if not to stipulate the terms by which something can be used?

The issue is, you do not get to set the stipulations. When you uploaded the images to Wikimedia Commons, you implicitly agreed to abide by their permissions, not yours. The photos are now available for any use by others, so long as they provide attribution. And on Wikipedia, the link to the photos (where the attribution is listed) is all that's necessary. We do not provide the attribution on every page where the image is used; anyone can click the link and see who took the photo. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

General note: This issue is currently being discussed in a Wikimedia Commons deletion discussion. I don't expect Mr. Vose to respond to further comments on this page. Rutebega (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)