Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841

Religion-baiting by User:Barney the barney barney

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.

---

Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs) has made multiple derogatory comments about religion, Christianity in particular, the most recent of which is to oppose a DYK nomination on sole basis that the subject is a theologian. I would like an administrator to take a look at this user's edit history, because there are several very suspect interactions where he/she is really pushing the limits of WP:CIVIL.Ἀλήθεια 11:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to provide diff's where he violates WP:NPA. But the commentary of an athiest (if that's indeed what he is) is acceptable - he's not attacking a faith, he doesn't believe in the existence of a God (which based on your reasoning is an attack on a whole number of faiths). I read his DYK comment that he's opposing DYK on someone who got a PhD in a subject he disagrees with - which is his prerogative and his opinion. Why on Earth you're modifying his comments there is beyond me ... the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The comment in question is this. I'd say he's within his rights to observe that the hook is "dull"— I tend to agree— but the gratuitous potshot against believers is hardly civil. Personal attacks are the beginning of what's demanded, not the end. Mangoe (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing at all wrong with that comment, certainly nothing near a personal attack. This complaint is astonishingly petty. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm more concerned, however, that Ἀλήθεια's revisions of Barney's comments are in direct violation of WP:TPO (I realise that technically speaking DYK discussions are in the Template namespace, but WP:TALK specifies that it applies to other pages where discussions take place as well as the Talk namespace). Continued attempts to derail discussion by amending or deleting other people's comments is a pretty good way to get the blockhammer pointed in your direction... Yunshui ^雲_水 12:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm sorry that I broke that rule. However, you'll notice this is not a complaint about a personal attack but that the user in question seems to be engaging in religion-baiting, and doing so is a breach of WP:CIVIL. My very specific objection is that he/she has put a link to the article for "God" as a piped destination for the comment "something that patently doesn't exist". I don't object to him/her holding that opinion, but it has no place in a discussion about the merits of a DYK fact. I accept the judgment of the community that the hook I've selected may not be the most interesting thing about the subject. I do not accept that in passing this judgment it's OK to take pot-shots at a belief in God. Ἀλήθεια 13:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Barney the barney barney: please try to avoid causing offence to other editors by suggesting that belief in a higher power is somehow foolish: whilst you are entitled to disbelieve the existence of a god, other editors are equally entitled to believe the opposite. @Ἀλήθεια: please do not change other people's comments in discussions, for any reason. Since there is no reason for adminstrative action here - no-one's getting blocked, topic-banned or otherwise sanctioned for this - I suggest we consider the matter closed. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. @Barney the barney barney:, please accept my apology for initializing this resolution incorrectly by changing your comment. Ἀλήθεια 14:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I had closed this, but I may have done so prematurely, and perhaps Barney's edit deserves more discussion by others. I personally find it not blockable though in very poor taste (a kind of soapboxing with some intent to harm), but YMMV. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• @Yunshui: I disagree. Religion seems to be a new topic to be censored at DYK.--v/r - TP 18:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Yunshui's remarks were a fair summary. I do not want religion censored at DYK, and think that Barney's remark was an unfair attempt to do so; however (as my recent DYK error report attests) I am keen that religion should be treated neutrally - which Barney's remark also fails to do. I wouldn't expect to see admin action for any of this this time, but if this proves to be a common pattern, then perhaps. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Opposing on the grounds that something is about a figure associated with a particular religion is questionable, but I don't think it's actionable in the ANI sense. The people at DYK should be free to decide whether such an oppose is invalid. Ἀλήθεια has admitted that the refactoring was improper, and apologized for it, so no action needed there. I am still concerned with Barney's comments... I don't think he should be calling Ἀλήθεια's refactoring "vandalism" or calling the DYK nom itself "religion pushing" (though I acknowledge it was something of a tit-for-tat in response to his oppose being called "religion baiting"). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Since blocks are not supposed to be punitive, I think there is not much else, really, to do here, other than to leave Barney with a slap on the wrist for making such comments as this or this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course. There really isn't anything we can or should do about those edit summaries beyond a warning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it’s not an editor’s privilegium to oppose an article about a theologian because he dislikes theology/religion. That would be equivalent to a creationist opposing an article about a biologist because he dislikes the evolution theory. Taken seriously this would be a major violation of NPOV, but in this case it’s probably pure disruption/trolling. Iselilja (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments. One, I regret to say, comments by purported academics can at times be among the most insane one will ever read. This can be particularly true in cases where, for instance, an academic might be saying whatever he can think of to defend a trendy belief of some years ago, like the alleged direct ties between the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jesus, who are now considered by academia to have been around 150 years or so apart. Not knowing the particulars of this particular instance, they might not be the case here, but I know of several examples in recent years that are of that type which can sometimes create problems here. And, unfortunately, particularly in religious fields, sensationalist crap, even sensationalist crap which has already been basically already rejected by the local academia, can sell big time - hello, DaVinci Code. If we had a theologian saying Jesus was a Vulcan, and some have said similar things, I as a religion editor would call that, um, things, too.

Two, I don't see the clear diffs here. What would be useful to see here, which I don't yet see, is the specific discussions involved, and the specific nature of the comments called into question, because, yeah, unfortunately, sometimes the opinions of Christians, even Christian theologians and academics, can deserve to be insulted. If someone thinks that there is sufficient basis to file comments of this kind, I think a user conduct RfC would probably be more useful and productive. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a Vulcan, but perhaps a mushroom? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Allegro's opinions on that matter have received very little support of any kind recently. Too bad. Holy communion might be a lot more interesting otherwise. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm astonished that a block is even being considered (at least by one admin) A block for what? For saying "(theology) [..] by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist"? Where is the blockable offense here? Anybody is entitled to have their opinions and believe in the tooth fairy if they so choose, does that mean the rest can't dissent and express openly that such thing does not exist? Seriously what is this, Conservapedia? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I see TParis redacted Barney the barney barney's comment claiming WP:NPA. I see a clear personal attack in the comment by Mangoe which was also redacted in the same edit, but I'd like to ask: where's the personal attack in Barney the barney barney's comment? Because all I see is his honest opinion not directed at any editor in particular. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no idea why TParis redacted that. It's not a personal attack, it's a personal opinion. OK, it's perhaps not the most collaborative thing ever, but it's certainly not a PA. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The context it is in makes it a personal attack. Context matters. Had it been on the user's subpage or to a fellow editor who shared the same belief, then it wouldn't be a personal attack. In this case, it was intended to demean another editor's beliefs.--v/r - TP 21:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Which context TParis? I'm sorry but your answer is insufficient to explain your censoring of an editor's comment. This is setting a dangerous precedent where an editor can't openly state his opinion that there is no such entity as a "God" without risking being WP:CENSORED and/or threatened to be blocked by an offended admin. I believe you should undo your redacting of Barney the barney barney's comment ASAP. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Let me think on that. Umm, no. WP:NOTFORUM. Barney is free to share his opinion on his talk page and user page. DYK is not a 'free speech zone'. It's for discussing DYKs. This is a project, not a place to push beliefs. If someone creates a religion article, they do not deserve to be harassed for wanting it to be able to be on DYK just like every other article. The Wikimedia non-discrimination policy says we cannot discriminate based on religion. That's not up for debate, that's a WMF mandate. No precedent is being set, this has always been the case.--v/r - TP 21:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
            • So the rigour of all academic degrees and disciplines is beyond discussion now? Or is it only religion that receives this privilege? How about a DYK on someone getting a Doctor of Bollocksology from an obscure college in my back garden? That beyond criticism? DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
              • It just does not matter what either of you think here. We are mandated to treat religious beliefs the same as sexual orientation, gender, racism, ect. Would any of you support an editor opposing a DYK that said homosexuality is a choice and not natural? I wouldn't either. What this is, is demeaning another editor's beliefs intentionally to cause emotional distress. That's what is happening and you are defending it.--v/r - TP 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                • You are causing me emotional distress by denying my strongly held religious belief that theology is balls. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                • This isn't about the DYK though. We wouldn't redact a user simply claiming, on a talk page, that homosexuality is a choice (it's their opinion, regardless of how plausible it is) as long as they weren't directly attacking another editor ... would we? Black Kite kite (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • (If you don't believe me, go and look at Talk:Homosexuality. We argue the point with such people there - we don't redact their posts. Black Kite kite (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                • How is saying "(theology) [..] by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist" harassment and/or discrimination? You saying "This is a project, not a place to push beliefs" sounds rather ironic given that you just pushed your belief by censoring his comment and threatening to block him. I have no idea why you think WP:NOTFORUM applies here, the editor commented on a DYK giving his honest reason for opposing it and commented how he does not believe a "God" exists. This most definitely should not be an open invitation for editors/admins who do believe to censor his comments (you were not the first to do so, by the way [1]).
                  "Would any of you support an editor opposing a DYK that said homosexuality is a choice and not natural?" Probably not, but 1- what does this have to do with this issue? and 2- I wouldn't censor the editor either. Incidentally, I wouldn't support an editor opposing a DYK on the basis that climate change doesn't exist either. Does that give me the right to redact his comments and threaten to get him blocked? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • Who have I threatened to block? Please provide a diff of the supposed claim that I would block anyone. I mentioned several times that someone deserved a block, but if you think I threatened at any point to do it, I'd love to see a diff. Climate change isn't a protected belief, sorry to say. Piss poor analogy. What does my analogy have to do with it? Religion is a protected characteristic in law and WMF policy, the same as sexual orientation.--v/r - TP 22:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                    • And absence of religious belief is just as worthy of protection as the presence of such a belief. Priviliging religious believers over non-believers is no different to privileging one religion over another. No personal attack was made in the assertion about the academic legitimacy (or otherwise) of theology which you redacted. DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                    • When an admin states "What barney said deserved a block", I take that as a clear threat of blocking. Saying that either "god" or homosexuality don't exist is neither harassment nor is it discrimination which is what you imply and your apparent rationale for censoring his comment.
                      And yes, you are setting a dangerous precedent where an editor can have his comment blatantly censored for stating simply "(theology) [..] by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist". Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                      • Admins are allowed to discuss whether editors deserve blocks without it being a threat to do so themselves. What you think is a clear threat of blocking isn't seen that way by the rest of the project. So no, you're wrong. Determining which articles go on DYK based on religion is discrimination. That's what Barney did. But play whatever silly pretend game you want, you're not convincing.--v/r - TP 00:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Theology is not, in fact, "by definition an attempt to study God". Theology can mean all sorts of things these days, sometimes it is used interchangeably with "religious studies". Quite often in Britain it is called "divinity" but some of the professors of it believe in God no more than Barney the barney. Just sayin'.Smeat75 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec)It is by no means a personal attack to assert that theology is an attempt to study something that does not exist, I find it hard to understand how anyone could think it is. Or are we now in a situation that as soon as someone asserts a religious belief all discussion or criticism of it is to be silenced? ridiculous. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Religious epithets directed against a person or group of people can be considered a personal attack (specifically attacking an editor for having a religious belief, or attacking people in general who have that religious belief). Criticizing a religious belief in a general sense is usually not considered a personal attack, since a belief isn't a person, unless it's strongly implied to be directed at a person (someone says "I'm a Buddhist" and you reply "Buddhism is stupid" would probably qualify). But taking a stance like that could be considered soapboxing, or at least off-topic discussion, which can be removed depending on the circumstances. A person who is engaging in that kind of talk and knowingly derailing a discussion can be considered to be editing disruptively and can certainly be sanctioned for it. Not that I think this situation rises to that, though, I think it demonstrates poor behavior from BtBB and Ἀλήθεια alike. -- Atama頭 22:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, if we redacted every post imputing something about a defined group of people (Christians, gay people, Tea Party members, Scientologists, climate change denialists, members of WP:ROADS, whatever), we'd be here all year. That's not to say such posts are particularly useful in a collaborative environment, but I don't think you can count them as personal attacks unless you stoop to the levels of "All X are f***ing idiots" (or similar). Black Kite kite (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, if we don't make an effort then we're just going to let the garbage build up.--v/r - TP 22:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but context - and meaning - is everything here (see my post about Talk:Homosexuality above). Black Kite kite (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and in the context of a DYK, religion bashing and baiting is inappropriate as the dozens in this thread have aptly explained.--v/r - TP 22:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The fallacy here being that there is either "religion bashing" or "baiting" with an editor commenting:

"Man gets degree is I'm afraid WP:ROUTINE and completely WP:UNINTERESTING. The subject seems to be minorly notable biography, but is an area (theology) which by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist, and therefore lacks academic rigour."[2]

which is definitely not true. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No way it should have been REVDEL'd ... it was not bashing a faith, it was expressing personal faith opinion, and atheism has been formally recognized as a faith choice. the panda ₯’ 23:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be REVEL'd - it's absurd - but Barney wasn't just' expressing a personal faith opinion; he was also arguing that that opinion was a good motivation for not posting the proposed item. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's not revdel'able either. I can say "I disagree with the Ford GT being nominated for Good Article because it comes in blue and I don't like blue" ... not much different from his argument at DYK ... in other words, not an argument the panda ₯’ 23:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The color of someone's truck isn't a federally protected character trait or one recognized by WMF policy. Someone's faith, or lack of faith, is. Reword your argument using one of the other protected character traits and then decide if it's a valid argument.--v/r - TP 00:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The revdel was probably a bad idea, maybe more than that, but if someone really wants to take action about that, it might be better to start a separate subsection to deal with that matter. And while I agree with the panda that it might not be an argument, it is fairly obviously a rather serious violation of TPG and kind of completely indefensible in the context in which the comment was made, which is reviewing articles. Yeah, I make lots of sometimes really bad jokes myself on these noticeboards, and they might be sanctionable in a sense, but I think most of the time they are kind of obviously at least intended as humor, and don't attack anyone other than myself and the poor souls who have the misfortune of having to deal with me and my smartass mouth. I don't think that there are necessarily grounds for sanctions against Barney either, but it might help if this thread were broken up into separate sections if the revdel is going to be considered for action. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been revdel'd and no threats of blocking have been made. Those have been either misunderstandings by Panda and Gaba or they were misrepresentations. But neither reflects the truth that edit histories and revdel logs clearly reflect.--v/r - TP 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack but rather comments that display an ignorance about what theology is. It is the first academic field there was in European universities. There is no shame in that, no one knows every field that is covered in Wikipedia. But I would hope that other editors could consider his comments as not knowing much about the field he was commenting on and weighing his comments appropriately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The question about whether it is or isn't a personal attack aside (I agree it probably isn't), there is still a reasonable question whether they were at all appropriate to the discussion, and I honestly cannot see any good reason to think anyone would consider that sort of comment appropriate in a DYK setting. The fact that he has made substantially the same comment there repeatedly could be seen as being simply vapid repetition, but could also be seen as being rather clear ignorance of TPG, which is itself not acceptable, particularly given that this seems to be the recurrent nature of this particular sort of commentary. I honestly can see some sort of sanctions regarding specifically being allowed to participate in DYK review, based on the pretty much inflammatory and rather clearly counterproductive nature of such comments. I would think a six-month ban from participating in the DYK process would be the one most in line with previous actions, leaving it up to the people at DYK to determine whether he would be allowed to nominate articles while being personally banned from the QPQ rules regarding reviewing other articles with a topic ban in place, and I would I guess support the imposition of such a limited sanction. John Carter (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Barney's comment here doesn't seem sanctionable. To break down his objection: Anyone can start a theological seminary. You don't have to be an expert in any known doctrine because you could start your own. Therefore there is no limit on how many theological seminaries could award their first Ph.D. to someone; if we wanted to we could hold a demonstration and all do it next Thursday. I should emphasize that mixing casual religious opinion with votes on what to feature is bound to run into trouble eventually, but to prove discrimination you need to prove a meaningful pattern. I have not tried to evaluate whether you can do that or not, but you haven't in this thread so far. I should emphasize that how we treat "pseudoscience" and "religion" should be harmonious - we should not encourage people to lambast and discard information on discredited ideas in one while taking a sacred-cow approach to the other, but look for a fair and even policy for both. Wnt (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the seminary in question, Westminster Theological Seminary, is listed as being, according to our article on it, a seminary now 85 years old in Pennsylvaia, with now an additional satelite in London, in the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition. Admittedly, being the first graduate from such a school is probably not something that would interest many, any more than being the first graduate of Boise State University or some other little known school would be. But I think at least some of the comments above from Wnt, while they might be applicable to, perhaps, a possible seminary of some smallish Christian sects like the Alamo Christian Foundation, probably don't apply really well to an established seminary in one of the three major Reformation traditions, in this case Calvinism. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As Smeat75 says above: "theology" as a field has multiple meanings. The one that Woudstra received his degree in is exactly as Smeat75 says: It is equivalent to religious studies—an interdisciplinary field focusing largely on historical and other literary criticism of religious texts. The one that Barney dismissed was theology as part of metaphysics, which is the study of the divine. But he even got that wrong. Theology in this sense does not presuppose that a divine entity exist, because even arguments against the existence of divinities are part of theology in this sense. Theology in this sense studies also the concept of the divine, and any hypothetical divinities. See Graham Oppy's 2007 book for example of modern day metaphysical theology. Oppy of course concludes that all the ontological arguments for the existence of God are failures, and so concludes in favour of agnosticism. Oppy and those like him have no belief in the existence of God, but their work is standard, mainstream metaphysical theology taught in almost every university in the Western world that teaches any metaphysics at all. I think most theologians in this sense are agnostics or atheists, not theists, and the Chalmers/Bourget survey bears this out to some extent. This has probably been the case since the time of Bertrand Russell.

I'm not sure how Barney's comment could be determined to be a personal attack or discrimination on the basis of religion. Saying that no theology is academically rigorous is incorrect, but is no more a personal attack than saying that no acupuncture, chiropractic, or phrenology is academically acceptable: It's an opinion about the rigour of the field. Everyone should be encouraged to have and communicate their opinions about fields, and we should all use our best judgement about the acceptance of a field among scholars in order to determine encyclopedia content. And neither is saying so involve any discrimination on the basis of religion. Excluding Ken Ham's creationist religious beliefs from the article on human evolution because they have virtually no acceptance among bona fide scholars is not discrimination against Ken Ham on the basis of religion. It's discrimination on the basis of exactly what we should be discriminating on the basis of: Level of scholarly acceptance. If theology truly had zero scholarly acceptance and only cranks took part in it, then Barney's opinion would have had a high degree of validity. The fact that Barney misestimated academic acceptance does not make his opinion a personal attack or discrimination, it just makes it wrong. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Good points, but a think part of the comment also involved a piped link equating "God" with "something that patently doesn't exist" [3]. While that is not a personal attack in the most literal sense, it is certainly rather inflammatory, fairly clearly irrelevant and counterproductive in the relevant discussion, and probably a violation of TPG, and there does seem to be a bit of a habit of such comments by this editor of that type. I also note that the subject of the DYK is according to at least one version of the DYK hook one of the major translators of a major version of the Bible, which apparently was overlooked. And, as some of the others have pointed out, sometimes referring to a similar case involving homosexuality, ArbCom seems to have issued some fairly clear prior statements regarding derogatory or insulting comments directed against broad groups of people, which might also be applicable in this case. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a small booklet about gnomes by Reginald Bakeley: On Gnoming: A Pocket Guide to the Successful Hunting and Cooking of Gnomes. Say some users were treating gnoming as if it were equivalent in terms of scholarly acceptance to the fields of electrical engineering or biology. Say someone said something like: "Gnomes obviously don't exist, so gnoming is obviously not academically rigorous." That's how I imagine Barney sees things. God is like the gnomes, just another thing which obviously doesn't exist. If it is the case that gnomes obviously don't exist, then this is a strong prima facie reason to suspect that the topic of "gnoming", as it were, is not taken seriously by scholars. That's not an actual policy reason for helping determining how we deal with content about gnoming, but it could be a useful guiding thought. It turns out that Barney is wrong about the scholarly status of views on the existence of God: Some experts on the topic favour the view that God exists, some disfavour it; there's a divided state of scholarship, not a unanimous one. If all you ever read on the topic was Victor Stenger or A.J. Ayer you may have a view like Barney's, though. That's not a behavioural fault, it's just an incomplete view of the topic. And all of our views are incomplete to some extent, because no one has read everything written on the topic of God. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The difference, though, is that gnoming isn't a protected personal characteristic under the law and WMF policy. We need to treat this exactly like we treat racism, sexism, sexuality, and gender, among other things. It's one thing to assert that God doesn't exist. It's another to oppose a DYK on that premise. Barney didn't put half the thought into his oppose that you've put into his oppose. His user talk page makes that clear, he has no respect for the editors. It has nothing to do with the academic respectability of theology. And if he did mean in his two sentences what you explained in two paragraphs, then his way of articulating it needs work and is disruptive.--v/r - TP 03:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

TParis is correct here: it's not a useful hypothetical. The characteristic of "belief" in something is not what makes this particular oppose problematic. It is because religion (of a subject or editor) is considered (along with race, color, national origin, disability, etc.) to be a categorically inappropriate basis for action on Wikipedia. In other words, the like hypothetical is not that the hypothetical subject believes in gnomes, but that he is from Poland, or that he is Latino, or that he is an atheist. And frankly, even if we want to stick to the belief hypothetical, what if the oppose were because the subject believed in climate change (and the opposer asserted climate change was a fraud)? Or as to the academic rigor claim, what if the oppose were because the subject held a degree in chiropractic (and the opposer asserted that field lacked academic rigor)? I think that opposer would be laughed out of DYK: these matters have literally zero bearing on whether the subject is an appropriate topic for a DYK. And as TParis indicates, it does not matter that we can read Barney's oppose in a non-offensive light (regardless of the plausibility of that reading): what matters is intent. TParis argues that Barney's user talk page shows his intent. While I am less confident on those grounds, once you bring in the plausibility of the alternative readings being put forth, in light of all the surrounding circumstances, you're left with someone opposing a DYK on the grounds of religion. That's just not right. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I chose that example because acceptance of gnomes and other such creatures is part of some Germanic heathen religion. That's how I know about the topic, from an issue of Tyr (journal). There is a brief mention at Modern paganism#New Age syncretism and eco-paganism.

The fact the Barney is succinct does not communicate anything to me. Maybe he's succinct because he has thought hard about how to condense his thoughts—succinctness is often the sign of just that. I don't presume that I've thought more about the issue than he has. Maybe I have a lot to learn from him on the issue; I wouldn't know unless I talked to him first.

At the very least his argument is far more than what either of you are saying it is: He's clearly saying that the DYK nomination is problematic because there is a problem with notability. And he is saying this problem with notability exists because, in his view, theology is not rigorous scholarship. Were this actually the case, this would be perfectly relevant point, because WP:ACADEMIC—which is exactly the guideline used to determine notability for a subject like Woudstra—depends on the subject taking part in real scholarly research, not pseudo-scholarship. Finally, he's saying that the obviousness of the non-existence of God is a clear sign that theology is not mainstream scholarship, because theology presupposes this obviously rejected view. His premises are wrong, but reducing his argument to just "God doesn't exist, therefore this person cannot be subject of a DYK" is uncharitable. If editors honestly think that we are creating and promoting articles on subjects on the belief that they are WP:ACADEMICS when they are not, we should encourage these editors to speak up. If they are wrong, then we can tell them why they are wrong. Either way, the community is corrected, or one member of the community is corrected.

The relevant example to what you're saying is that of creationism mentioned first. It's not discrimination to exclude religious beliefs from an article, we do it almost every day with regards to creationism and many other forms of religious belief (inimitability of the Qur’ān, resurrection of Jesus, etc.) The non discrimination policy is simply not about such editorial judgements. If we judge that creationists are not academically rigorous because what they are doing is just a form of religious apologetics pretending to be real scholarship, that's our prerogative, whether we are right or wrong. If the American printing of the Cambridge Companion to Philosophy of Biology derogates creationists (and it does) because the editors have judged that creationists are just taking part in religious apologetics and not rigorous academic work, that's not infringing any US law or any academic standards on non discrimination to which the WMF policy is equivalent. That's just the editors' judgement about their field. If merchants refuse to sell the book to creationists because they are creationists, that would be discrimination. Determining content is a separate issue. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Redaction of a comment by admin TParis

Following the advice given by John Carter I'm opening a new sub-section regarding the redaction of a comment by admin TParis. The thread above this one deals with the supposed misbehavior of an editor when he commented the following on a DYK:

"Man gets degree is I'm afraid WP:ROUTINE and completely WP:UNINTERESTING. The subject seems to be minorly notable biography, but is an area (theology) which by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist, and therefore lacks academic rigour."

TParis redacted this comment removing the "but is an area (theology) which by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist" part claiming a violation of WP:NPA. I maintain that this is a bad edit (or administrative action, whichever category this falls under) and that is sets a dangerous precedent where an editor can have its comment censored basically because an admin feels his/a faith is under attack. It is my understanding that I am within my right to express my opinion that any "god" doesn't exist just like others will claim it does, without expecting this kind of actions.
I personally urged TParis to revert his refactoring of that comment to which he refused. I'd now like to hear the input of others, especially admins, on whether the original comment of that editor should be restored or if in fact TParis is correct and it represents a violation of WP:NPA. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I maintain that the WMF Non-discrimination policy prohibits the discrimination of editors based on their religion - which includes their contributions to DYK. Barney's comments were that a DYK shouldn't be run because of religion. That's discrimination. This isn't optional.--v/r - TP 01:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that you might be incorrect, TParis. I don't think it falls to the community to decide when something is discriminatory against "users or prospective users", and that it may fall to the Foundation to do the enforcement. It might also be questionable whether this particular action is discriminatory towards Christian "users or prospective users", though I think the broad language might be key. It's also not clear whether individual users are barred from expressing discriminatory opinions, rather than the Foundation and projects being barred from making use of them (i.e., whether the DYK oppose is flat-out invalid under Foundation policy). Thus, if the policy is being violated, the Foundation should be the group doing the enforcement. Regardless, I believe that we can view the policy as instructive... we probably shouldn't allow !votes in any Wikipedia process to hinge on any of the enumerated categories (i.e., an oppose because of the article subject's race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, or sexual orientation). It just harms the project's credibility. Now, whether such an oppose is sanctionable... I feel there is (at best) no consensus on that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Your first thought would not be in line with Arbcom ruling in the Manning case. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Conduct_during_discussions: "Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions." That seems in line with the WMF policy. As to your second, yes I completely agree. Which is why comments have been redacted and no one has been blocked. Repeated comments like that should be grounds for a block, though.--v/r - TP 01:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • WP:RPA states comments should only be redacted when "to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I don't see which person is being attacked by Barney's comment; while Mangoe's is more clearly directed, as it's in response to the previous one, I don't see it so egregious as to be suitable for redaction. Ultimately, both comments reflect more poorly on the authors' than anyone else. While I condone neither comment per Voltarie's ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," I've restored the comments. NE Ent 02:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Yeah, that seems pretty straightforward. "Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their . . . religion . . . . Comments that demean . . . an article subject . . . on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions." (Ellipses and emphasis mine). So ArbCom has held (7-3) that comments that demean an article subject on the basis of religion are grounds for blocking or sanctions particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning. So the remaining questions are (1) whether this comment demeans an article subject's religion, (2) if so, whether a block or other sanction is merited, and (3) whether ArbCom findings of fact principles are binding without a remedy implementing it against the community. With respect to (1), I believe it is demeaning towards Christianity. With respect to (2), I believe there is no consensus for sanctions in this particular case. With respect to (3), I will leave that to people more familiar with ArbCom procedure. And to briefly respond to NE Ent, WP:RPA likely doesn't apply if the ArbCom FoF Principle is enforceable, since it's outside the scope of personal attacks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
        • (shrug) That's for the Wikilawyers to decide. But between this and the DYK-Religion snafu last week, I think this issue is going to hit Arbcom quite soon.--v/r - TP 02:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, my gut instinct would be that even if it's not binding, it's pretty likely as close a previous, recent assessment of community standards as we're going to get that's on all fours with respect to this set of facts. We would be remiss not to at least consider it seriously when evaluating what should happen in this case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict)It's my understanding per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Proposed_decisions that FoF are the committee interpreting the policies per of the decision in the particular context of the given case and not enforceable per se. In any event, the committee's mandate does not extend to making policy, so the applicable question is whether the comments are "clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." WP:RPA. It is my opinion they are not, it is TP's they are, so I see it as up to the rest of the community to decide one way or another. NE Ent 02:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Even if you're right and that passage about proposed decisions applies to how final decisions are interpreted and applied (and I'm not sure WP:AP supports that), the fact that ArbCom ruled on a Principle (sorry, I previously misidentified it as a FoF) with such broad wording strongly implies that it'll be interpreted in the same manner should a similar case come forward. Honestly, most ArbCom Principles are stock paragraphs that are attached with almost no debate, and while this one was adopted 7-3, the Manning proposed decision makes it clear that the three dissenters preferred principles that would have the same, if not a stronger effect in this factual situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
            • Oh, and lest I forget again, the whole RPA thing is frankly a red herring; while TParis said the removal was for NPA, it's equally justifiable under this interpretation of community norms and principles. That the edit summary says NPA is at worst harmless error. And even if the principle is not directly applicable and not implemented through any other policy, just IAR to save time: ArbCom will rule the same way, don't waste their time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
              • Falsely accusing someone of a personal attack is itself a personal attack, not a harmless error. DuncanHill (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
                • I apologize, I meant "harmless error" in its more technical sense, which is explained at Harmless error. Harmless error for Wikipedia purposes would be an error in procedure that does not create a situation demanding the action be undone. An example would be blocking someone with the wrong reason in the block log: the block is not rendered invalid because of that simple mistake (though the blocking admin should explain the mistake). But if there was some procedural impropriety, like that the blocker had been involved in the dispute leading to the block, then it may be rendered invalid. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support TParis' actions here. A case might be made that the comments were not an attack, but they were quite obviously pointy, disruptive, and irrelevant. It was the best way to diffuse a conflict in what should have been a boring, routine DYK review. Gamaliel (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Seriously, if you want to to de-disrupt and de-point that discussion, the solution is to remove both the comments completely and allow the DYK nomination a fresh start, not to maim the comments. Barney's claim that [something or someone] lacks academic rigour remains, but the current redacted state makes it impossible to say whether he refers to the person whose biography has been nominated (which may be a BLP issue), his field, his institution or something else. As long as the comments remain in their current reduced form, you can't really look past them, and I'm sure everyone looking at the nomination will check the history just to understand WTF was said in the earlier comments. --Hegvald (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite agree with Hegvald here. The original posting by Barney was stupid and reflects poorly on him, but it is miles away from the point where it would have been so obviously harmful to the situation that removal would be necessary (cf. WP:TPO). The current redacted version, on the other hand, is objectively harmful in two ways: it makes it impossible for people to follow the discussion, and, worse, it distorts the meaning of the posting into an implied attack against the BLP subject. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you're right. It would be more fair to just clear it out and start over. I think TParis's action was right-minded, insofar as to try and redact the minimum necessary to make the comment acceptable (at least in part to prevent any objection to the redaction being overreaching), but Hegvald is correct insofar as the result is something that makes very little sense. Just nix it all and start over. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I support nixing them both.--v/r - TP 08:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • More or less agree with TParis here. Much as I hate using cliche, his heart and head were, apparently, pretty much in the right place regarding a matter which has, unfortunately, fallen in a gray area of policy and guidelines. Seeing himself, basically, put in a situation where he apparently saw himself forced to intrepret these vague rules, he made a decision, which does seem to be a not unreasonable one, although he probably could have asked for input before acting. Maybe a small sardine-slap (not a trout-slap) might be called for, and starting the discussion over, like proposed above, but that would seem to me to be about all that is required. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • TParis made a reasonable decision, given the vagueness of the guideline. The fact that many of us do not agree with that particular decision does not mean he did anything wrong. NE Ent 19:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Hegvald's solution is quite sensible and since there seems to be agreement here, I've gone ahead and done that. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced of the academic standing of the college. Certainly, its London offshoot is not listed in The Education (Listed Bodies) (England) Order 2013 which lists bodies offering courses leading to approved degrees. DuncanHill (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Nor is the University of Notre Dame's London campus. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Does anybody know if the New College of the Humanities is listed? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
      • New College of the Humanities is simply a private tuition company, students there study, and are registered for, London External degrees. DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
      • As for Notre Dame, I think that the difference is that it is a well-recognized, academically rigorous, university. Westminster seminary, which sacks faculty if they dare to suggest that humans may have had a hand in writing the bible, isn't. Oh, and Notre Dame's London site is just somewhere to go in London as part of a degree taken in America (or at least that's what the Notre Dame London website says). DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Redaction was unreasonable. A statement to the effect that "I don't think people that study imaginary things should be afforded the same respect as people that study actual things" isn't an attack within any ordinary definition. Rarely a day goes by that I don't encounter someone saying how much better the world would be if more people found God, which, by this reasoning, would be an attack on atheists.—Kww(talk) 05:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • See, that's not quite right. It would be a like situation if you encountered people opposing DYKs (or !voting delete in AfDs) on the grounds that the subject is an atheist. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "It'd be nice if you believed this wasn't imaginary" = not an attack. "What you believe in is imaginary" = an attack. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    • How is anybody honestly expressing its opinion that "What you believe in is imaginary" an attack? I believe that precisely for all religions alike. Am I attacking all of religious editors in WP right now? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 10:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It was an unsuitable reason for the DYK hook not to be published, but Barney's remarks were not a personal attack, and should not be redacted. (For what it's worth: I am a qualified theologian, and a practising Christian. But if I'm honest, most if not all academic theology is either stuff that someone has made up, or opinions about that, or opinions about those opinions, and so on. That doesn't mean it's not a real field of study, and it has absolutely no impact on whether or not God 'really' exists. It's perfectly fair comment. Philosophy is mostly imaginary too.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "qualified theologian" but I got the impression from your userboxes that you had a degree in mathematics and were interested in programming but were a member of a church. I went to a seminary, had coursework in systematic theology, feminist theology, ethics and liturgy, and I disagree that "most if not all academic theology is either stuff that someone has made up, or opinions about that, or opinions about those opinions". I'm surprised that, as a theologian, you would describe the field in this way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

My main degree is in mathematics; I also have an associate's degree in theology. And my point, such as it is, was that 'stuff that someone made up' is a pretty broad field. Almost any area of study except for physical sciences can be criticised for a lack of rigour. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, as someone with a degree in Economics and Sociology (along with Religion), I'd disagree that these areas lack rigour. But that's a conversation for some other time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, just because TParis put "NPA" in his edit summary when redacting the edit does not mean the sole basis upon which we evaluate the propriety of the redaction is WP:RPA. The fact is, TParis had a rational basis for redacting the comment, and that is ArbCom's principle in the Manning case, which interpreted community rules (applying the Foundation Policy) as finding that comments that demean other editors or article subjects on the basis of religion are offensive, damage the editing environment for everyone, and can be grounds for sanctions. Wikipedia is not a moot court, nor a bureaucracy: it is highly unusual for us to apply the kind of strict scrutiny review of editor conduct that is being proposed here (which is what this was since no admin powers were involved). Removal of comments that are uncivil or otherwise disrupt the editing environment (in the sense of the Manning principle) is not at all unreasonable or illegitimate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

People are confusing tolerance of other people's religions with respect for people's religions. Tolerance is important: everyone should be able to get a job, eat, vote, etc. even if they have religious beliefs and no matter what those beliefs are. Mandating respect for those religious beliefs is unreasonable.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is no way Wikipedia can mandate to anyone how they should feel or think about anything because that is not possible and not desired. Policies and guidelines govern behavior, not thoughts. So, you're right, you can't mandate that an editor respect a religion but you can mandate that they not voice their disrespect for another person's religious beliefs (or lack of them), sexual orientation, ethnicity and so on. Fourth pillar and all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to mandate that we not disrespect belief systems, either. It's quite reasonable for me to state that transubstantiation should not be presented as fact. It's even reasonable for me to reject the findings of someone that purports to scientifically study the metabolic processes involved in the digestion of wine and bread if that person loudly proclaims a literal belief in transubstantiation. I would even be justified in blocking such a person from making strange claims in articles about bread and wine. Making an attack requires a level of specificity and hurtful motivation not found in the original comments.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between saying something shouldn't be presented as fact and saying that an article doesn't belong at DYK because the subject worships a false god. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's still not an attack. Various fields of study deserve different levels of respect: most of us think of someone with a degree in physics as being worthy of a different level of respect from someone with a degree in home economics, for example. Some may find theology to be a degree worthy of consideration, others do not. Those of us that do not tend to find the study insignificant for much the same reason as was stated.—Kww(talk) 17:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh the irony. TParis' defense of his action: "*I maintain that the WMF Non-discrimination policy prohibits the discrimination of editors based on their religion - which includes their contributions to DYK. Barney's comments were that a DYK shouldn't be run because of religion. That's discrimination. This isn't optional.--v/r - TP 01:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)"

In reality, only one editor here has been discriminated based on his religion, and that is Barney, whose expression of his beliefs has been redacted by TParis. Now, one could argue that Barney discriminated against a subject because of religion, but that is something completely different than discriminating against an editor. The only one that has done this, and thus knowingly violated the non-optional WMF non-discriminatory policy, is TParis himself. Fram (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Nah, the action was not because of Barney's religion, but his conduct towards an other editor. This argument is about as sensible as saying it'd be unfairly discriminatory against Scientologists to punish one who harms a Suppressive Person. Barney's belief didn't compel him to discriminate against another's belief, and even if it did, that would not be held to be a protected religious act. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Where did he comment on the other editor though? His comment was about the subject of the article, not about the editor. He beliefs that God doesn't exist, and that therefor theology can not be taken very seriously (simplified his comment somewhat, I know). This was removed by TParis because we aren't allowed to discriminate against other editors on religious grounds. Barney's comment was nothing of the kind. Removing Barney's comment was censoring of a religious point of view of an editor though, not of an article subject, so TParis did the one thing he claimed isn't allowed. Fram (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

See the Manning principle: comments that demean the subject of an article on the basis of a protected personal trait, which includes religion, are per se harmful to the community. See also my comment above re: strict scrutiny, which is being applied without reason here. TParis's redaction had a rational basis in policy. Just because he said "NPA" in his edit summary does not mean we damn his redaction and restore the comment regardless of whether it creates a harmful editing environment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to have to backpedal a little and think about this. I just realized I've been arguing that we should be applying a rather strict standard of reviewing the propriety/meaning of Barney's comment, but that we should apply a lenient standard of reviewing the propriety of TParis's removal. That actually seems pretty inconsistent. So... if we apply a lenient standard, Barney's oppose may have a rational basis and would probably be proper (but does his comment still demean the article subject within the meaning of the Manning principle?)—if so, TParis's redaction would not be proper. But if we apply a strict standard, and Barney's oppose was improper, then TParis's NPA removal would be incorrect as well. Yeah, gotta think about this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The redaction looks like censorship to me, and I would worry quite a bit if we applied such a strict standard in interpreting the Manning principle - this may open up a can of worms. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The take-away I'm trying to get across is that Wikipedia processes need to remain neutral as to beliefs, and should affirmatively disallow !votes based on such criteria in order to maintain that neutrality. They should also be affirmatively disallowed given such !votes are highly likely to cause disruption. (again, see the Manning Equality and respect principle and the ease with which the key portions to this dispute were adopted). Whether Barney's !vote should be interpreted so strictly... I'm no longer as sure as I was before. I'm still thinking. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, compleatly inapproprate redaction, removal of opinion from a place that is intentded for opinion is ludicrous and a violation of WP:NOTCENSOREDCombatWombat42 (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. This ridiculous nonsense is clearly purposeful potstirring and a big WP:POINT violation. The "objection" is based on bigotry, does not stand up to scrutiny, is unsupported by the facts, and should be dismissed out of hand. DYK is supposed to be a means to encourage editors to produce and improve quality articles, it is not a free speech forum for people to air their grievances about the topic of particular articles. Employed properly, DYK is one of the best ways we have to encourage and cultivate new editors. What better way to alienate them than to make it a shooting gallery! I really don't want to encourage the contingent determined to make this a matter of free speech martyrdom, and CombatWombat42 is productively discussing potential hooks, so I'm not going to remove CW's comment there, but really people? Do you think a DYK discussion is the appropriate forum to make a point about censorship or atheism? Go support Banned Books Week or listen to a Dawkins lecture, but keep it out of DYK. Gamaliel (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not bigoted to say that getting a degree from a minor institution which requires absolute and unquestioning acceptance of the Westminster Confession is not worth a DYK, and it is not bigoted to state a belief that god is imaginary. I am seeing some bigotry hereabouts, but not in the redacted comment. DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not what was said, however. What was advocated was the dismissal of an entire field of study from consideration at DYK because of a personal belief. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

What was said was just a succinct way of saying what I just said. DuncanHill (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not bigoted to state you think God is imaginary. Those beliefs are entirely irrelevant to DYK and notability discussions, and an argument that we should make the rules here based on those beliefs is one based on bigotry, however. Or maybe we can strike bigotry, we can call it bias or POV or whatever. Gamaliel (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Soooo.... it's biased to say that theology lacks the rigour (owing to the imaginary nature of the subject) to make it suitable for a DYK hook, but not biased to say that it is suitable for DYK? DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Any field that has been traditionally recognized by academia and accrediting bodies as a valid one is perfectly suitable for DYK. To exclude one of those fields because of personal beliefs is bias. Gamaliel (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a horse in this race? DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am a supporter of DYK, a believer in its value to the project, and an advocate of removing irrelevant POINTy comments and encouraging new editors and protecting them from trollish behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) And a significant contributor to the article in question? DuncanHill (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed it for DYK after this matter was brought here to ANI and made a number of cosmetic edits, but no contributions or text of any significance. Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2014 (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.

Wiki-star/Dragonron back

In the past hour or so, I've had two edits of mine blindly reverted by 166.205.55.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see [4] and [5]). The IP made very few edits prior, and I remembered that this blind reverting was the MO of Wiki-star a.k.a. Dragonron from earlier this year. In January, Mark Arsten blocked 166.205.48.0/20, a range previously abused by Wiki-star in his childish dispute with me (documented here), and because Mark is on WikiBreak, I would like to request that someone put the kibosh on this debacle before it goes on further...again. Also, it might be pertinent to do a checkuser to see if he's going to be transparently "hiding" again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This section was removed from this page by 74.2.195.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The IP also performed two other blind reverts ([6] and [7]), painting him as an obvious sockpuppet of at least the IP blocked yesterday.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

One more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and he registered Ryudonron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

He has also been editing under 166.147.110.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Case has been attempting to help me with this, as I notified him of the range 166.205.48.0/20 previously blocked in January by Mark Arsten (who is on WikiBreak) when he was assisting me with this harassment. These two new IPs belong on the range 166.147.96.0/19 which happens to have been previously checkuserblocked. This guy has been harassing people here for 8 years nonstop. Can we keep him from blindly reverting my edits for a few more months?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

ScottXW and his "deletion heros"

A few days ago, Thomas.W reported ScotXW for maintaing a "wall of shame" on his userpage. I took no action against ScotXW at the time, but taking the view that the list was in violation of WP:POLEMIC (being "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws") I removed the list. Yesterday ScotXW restored it, claiming that it was necessary because he "want[ed] to keep track of the people whom I see as disruptive". I pointed out again that this was a textbook violation of the talkpage guideline, and removed the list a second time. ScotXW again restored it, claiming that because these users "got away with it" his list couldn't be considered a negative record. Needless to say, I find that to be sea-lawyering of the highest order... I have again removed the list, he restored it this morning. Since this is now turning into a slow edit war, and since I feel a little too involved to take administrative action, I would appreciate some input from an admin who isn't quite so involved - perhaps ScotXW can be persuaded to listen to someone else, although given his responses on his talkpage to me, Dennis Brown and Dsimic I don't know how likely that is. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed it, and full-protected the userpage for a month. It should draw him here to discuss the panda ₯’ 08:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Present. My problem is, that the Wikipedia has gathered an extremely convoluted set of rules. The way I see it, you can achieve anything, as long as you frustrate your target just enough. This is a long know problem of the Wikipedia. I do not see myself as a Vandal or as harming the Wikipedia. So, what is actually your point? What is actually the point of the rules I am breaking? Is there really consensus behind all rules? Here I am, doubting that. Cheers. User:ScotXW^t@lk 09:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You are not allowed to maintain an enemy list in your userspace. Keep such lists in an off-wiki blog if you must. Doc talk 09:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Could the history of this list be removed too, please? The diff shows me the whole list. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really. There's no need to revdel the list. It would have been done already if it was warranted. Doc talk 11:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder whether it is time to issue a block to ScotXW. He has already been told not to keep these lists on his userpage. After snapping at the person that told him this last time, and having been generally unprofessional with other editors on his talk page, he appears to have added the list again. Fool us five times, shame on you. Fool us six, shame on us? AGK [•] 11:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It is. User:ScotXW^t@lk 12:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Scot, there's nothing remotely convoluted about one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia which is "comment on content, not contributors". Every single person who created a userid was directed to the 5 Pillars, and are all assumed to have read them. Creating a list of "contibutors I consider to be bad" is therefore contrary to that. When a number of people then advise you of WP:POLEMIC, you were expected to go "ahh, got it". You're welcome to disagree with it, but you're not welcome to ignore it. the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• ScotXW also has a very combative style/attitude towards other editors, as shown by these comments over the past few days on Template talk:Firewall software: "I didn't "request" anything, I reverted your bullshit changes", "I would suggest to grab some good documentation and enlighten yourself instead of spreading your lack of knowledge" and "You win. Stay stupid, ignorant (in the German sense of the meaing)". Accompanied by edit-warring on Template:Firewall software (three reverts within 24 h, #1, #2, #3, resulting in a 3RR-warning). Thomas.W ^talk 12:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Scot, I've tried to do more than warn you, and I instead give you some actual examples of when it is ok and when it isn't to use lists of negative links. If you want to debate the finer points of the policy, that is fine (the talk page of that policy is the right place to do that) but that doesn't exempt you from following policy as long as it is in effect, even if you find the policy "convoluted". It isn't required that you agree with the policy, only that you comply with it. Right now would be a great time for you to acknowledge that you accept this and will not add the list back. You have had more than enough warning and explanation, and the last tool we have left to prevent disruption is the block button. I would prefer it not get to that point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Clearly WP:POLEMIC is open to a wide range of interpretations. What many might consider to be an even worse and blatant violation of it, here, which is a whole page of nothing but "negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc.", has been frozen and preserved by being fully protected. How can Scott's few lines be considered to be worse than that? Anglicia (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC) — Anglicia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Facepalm WP:DUCK, anyone? 107.219.151.20 (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, WP:DUCK. Anyway, the SPA comment has been tagged above as such. Epicgenius (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• I was amused to see my name on that list, considering that the article deleted that got me there was closed by consensus at AfD - but where are the people who !voted for the article to be deleted? Anyway, the above Anglicia (talk · contribs) is very blatantly ScotXW trying to game the system to give the appearance of support. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScotXW. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • While unusual for SPI, I have notified Scot and given one last, final plea for him to NOT turn to the dark side here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    • CU was inconclusive. I don't think that Anglicia is ScottXW. I suspect that Anglicia is related to Still wasted, who twice tagged the Prisonermonkeys sandbox trying to get it deleted, and also blanked it twice (until the page was protected and Still wasted was blocked as a sock). The suspicion was that Still wasted was either DeFacto or Lucy-marie, considering that both were mentioned on that page. Personally, I think that this is DeFacto, who is still active (the most recent sock according to SPI was blocked on May 14, about a week ago); Lucy-marie's last blocked sock was active a year and a half ago. In any case, I don't suggest blaming ScottXW for the comment above. -- Atama頭 19:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I didn't think Anglicia was Scot, but it was obvious a throwaway sock of someone, since they seemed to have found ANI so quickly. I was actually rather disturbed to see the SPI filing - nothing like kicking a guy when he's down, when the sock was rather obviously not him the panda ₯’ 21:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User:HappyLogolover2011

This user seems to have a very long history of continuous low-quality editing, and he's still very active to this date. His talk page has a very long list of issues dating back all the way to 2011, but his behaviour doesn't look like it's improved much since. He's also active on other projects, and I recently reported him to the admins of Wikimedia Commons for repeated unnecessary and low-quality hue/saturation changes to Wikimedia Commons images, however that's hardly relevant here I suppose.

I did some minor reverts to some of the recent pages (mostly about colours) he's edited, but when I noticed how active he is and how the vast majority of his edits should probably be reverted, I decided this matter requires administrator's attention.

For examples of these low-quality edits you could probably just pick anything from his history, but here are a few:

1. Field of view in video games, where he added information pertaining to analogue filmmaking which as far as I know has practically no relevance to the topic of the article. Also has some original research.
2. Fraggle Rock, more original research.
3. Kermit's Swamp Years, some sort of unrelated original research opinion thing, since then this has been reverted.
4. Clitoromegaly, the file's been since deleted but as far as I can tell based on the edit history where someone reverted it, it was original research and not actually related to clitoromegaly at all. ("WP:Dummy edit: For one, that image is of a penis, not a clitoris. Hormones cannot make a clitoris look that much like a penis, that big, and with the addition of a scrotum.")

I could go on, but really you don't have to look very hard to find more examples of this. One thing I'm not too sure about is if the guy is just a low-quality editor or an outright vandal, but in either case I think he has to be dealt with.

Turdas (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF suggests this is a WP:CIR issue. The editor's last block was for a month. I think they just don't get it. I will point out, though, that this edit by you was incorrect. Crayola most certainly does make markers (including a laser lemon-colored marker), as well as a modeling clay in that color. They make many products including glue, colored pencils, chalk, paint, scissors, and so on. I'm just pointing this out, even though HappyLogolover2011 has a serious problem with original research (including inserting commentary and failing to use references) that doesn't mean they are always wrong. -- Atama頭 22:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Said user contacted me on my talk page about this report, and in my reply to him I also linked him to the WP:CIR page, along with the no original research page. Perhaps I was a little crude in not talking to him at all before posting here, but looking at his talk page I figured we're beyond the point of talking reason into him.

About that particular edit I made, I posted it with a poor comment but I believe it is an entirely reasonable edit. Those colour pages rely heavily on Crayola's crayon colours, and use Crayola's "crayon chronology" as their reference (that link has since lapsed, but Crayola's website still has the same information -- perhaps I should update the article in that regard). Thus I believe it's quite reasonable to say that markers aren't relevant to that page but crayons are, at least until a good citation related to markers (with eg. accurate hex triplets) is found and added to it. Anyway, this is somewhat beyond the point I guess. Turdas (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had multiple encounters with this user and, while it seems that he is editing in good faith (to me, at least), I have to agree with what Atama says: The dude just doesn't seem to get it, no matter how many times people him that a certain edit he's trying to make just isn't a good idea. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

HappyLogolover's response at his/her user talk suggests a possible WP:NOTHERE issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Since it's been a little over 24 hours since the last comment here, no resolution seems to have been reached yet, and I'm about to go to bed, I'm posting here to keep this topic from being archived. I also have a question, however: since I was the one to post on this board about the user, I've been trying to be rather tactful when dealing with edits by them until a resolution on this page can be reached. Should I continue waiting for this incident to be resolved, or would it be alright for me to fix some of the potential issues caused by their edits? --Turdas (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Updating thread to keep it from being archived --Turdas (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this has been pretty well resolved: HappyLogoLover has gotten a pretty clear final warning to cut it out. If he/she keeps it up, people are watching... and another report may issue. There's nothing wrong with letting this get archived at this point. As to waiting for this to be resolved, we aren't talking about a highly-contentious issue here... low-quality edits should just be fixed (without edit warring). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Currently, I'm no longer edit warring because I knew those would violate your policies. But those are minor edits to add info about a certain thing that also exists on whatever or something like that.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@HappyLogolover2011: If you can't verify the information you're adding by using reliable sources, that information does not belong on Wikipedia. If you can't understand the need for verification, or you refuse to try to comply, then you should not be allowed to add the information anymore. Also, never insert your personal opinions or preferences into articles. If you're looking for some place on the internet to display your original ideas, consider starting a blog. Wikipedia isn't the place for such things. -- Atama頭 15:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: I will try using blogs for those. However, I may need to correct the spelling or such if they don't spell right.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive removals by anon IP at Timeline of psychology

An anon IP, User talk:86.50.88.16, has removed all mention of women from Timeline of psychology, with the justification 'it clearly degrades the quality and is completely useless information.' The user has reverted two attempts to restore the article (one attempt was mine), and has taken a confrontational position on the talk page. I think that the removed content should be restored at least until other editors weigh in on the talk, but don't want to force a further edit war.Dialectric (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverted and issued 3RR warning since the IP is at 3-in-24, as though this comment and edit summary aren't considered sufficient to merit sanctions ("Woman and feminist stuff needs to go to their respective articles." oh really now?). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The article has been reverted again in spite of the 3RR warning. NQ (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP is removing content sourced to a website called "Feminist Voices" (http://www.feministvoices.com/), which is "a project directed by Alexandra Rutherford at York University in Toronto, Canada. She is joined on the project by a dynamic group of undergraduate and graduate students who use historical, feminist, critical, and constructionist approaches to analyze the past and present experiences of women and minorities in psychology and society." Alexandra Rutherford is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology. It's difficult to know how to treat this site. It may be worth raising it at WP:RSN. Assertions cited to it do seem rather dubious. "1903 – Helen Thompson Woolley published the first dissertation on sex differences, The Mental Traits of Sex" Are we seriously to believe that there were no studies of "sex differences" in psychology before 1903? Paul B (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

According to Barbara Lloyd "At the beginning of the twentieth century, Helen Thompson Woolley commented on nineteenth and early twentieth-century psychologists' and physiologists' efforts to understand sex differences. She wrote: 'There is perhaps no field aspiring to be scientific where flagrant personal bias, logic martyred in the cause of supporting prejudice, unfounded assertions, and even sentimental rot and drivel, have run riot to such an extent as here'" (Sex and Gender, Cambridge University Press, 2002). In other words she was responding to previous theories. I will put this one the article talk page. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours for violating 3RR. No objections to unblock if they undertake to discuss the issue/the source rather than continuing to revert. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Good call. Paul B may raise some salient points regarding the validity of a particular source, but the IPs behavior is at issue. The source should be discussed and dealt with, but these are two independent issues, and the block was certainly merited. --Jayron32 23:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Only to try to irritate me, out of spite

A certain user is now deliberately only un-doing HALF of my entry on the Nascar page, apparently to try to irritate me. In pervious weeks, they had un-done the WHOLE entry, but now they are undoing only HALF the entry, which serves no editorial purpose -- it could only be to try to get under my skin. The entry, when I last finished with it, looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=609739597&oldid=609689843 , and now it looks like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=next&oldid=609739597 , as you can see, the only difference is that they took out the " May 25 ". This is definitely a change in tactic from before when they had taken out the whole entire entry. This makes no real sense, other than just to say "Here I am, I'm still here and I'm going to do anything I can to try to bother you.". I thought this situation was finished as of a few days ago. Coming back here to say this was something I didn't expect to do and didn't want to do. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Users: Please read this thread from a few days ago. The "half" he refers to is somewhat a compromise until the end of the discussion at WP:NASCAR. United States Man (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Which in turn was in reference to this thread. G S Palmer (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Have y'all tried:

• Using edit summaries?
• Discussing the issue on the article talk page?
• Citing a source or the Manual of Style to justify the addition or removal of information, as is your responsibility?
• Assuming good faith, politely asking the user why he did that?

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to be nice, I've tried to initiate discussion, and I've tried to explain the reason that we don't do it that way, all to no avail. United States Man (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm apathetic to whoever is right in this, but providing WP:Diffs of each bit would go far in making the other party look like the bad guy. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make someone look bad; I'm just here because this involves me. Like I said, I will wait until the end of the discussion that I just started at WP:NASCAR and this will be finished. United States Man (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Profane edit - anybody got an eraser?

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.

---

Atmosphere of Jupiter: 50.203.145.70 (talk · contribs · block log) made this edit (diff). It's not horrible, but it's not easy on the eyes, either. Can someone hide that revision (and the accompanying editsummary) from plain view as a matter of courtesy?

FYI: I haven't notified said anon, didn't seem warranted. Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 04:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Connormah (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2014 (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:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Jayaguru-Shishya warned.—Kww(talk) 03:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya has been notified of the sanctions. See User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 80#Please take a look at this for a previous discussion I had with administrator User:HJ Mitchell.

User:Jayaguru-Shishya is continuing to follow me to other articles and is always disagreeing with me. Here is his latest edit to undo my edit. How did you find that article? He followed me to that article. I previously told him to stop following me to the acupuncture and TCM pages but he is continuing. At the chiropractcic talk page I explained we should use secondary sources but he claims the the sources are great and wants to proceed in adding primary sources to the article when we already have secondary sources with similar information. He should not be allowed to continue this behaviour. User:HJ Mitchell previously indef-blocked User:Jayaguru-Shishya for disruptive behaviour. He is continuing to comment on me[8][9] on the talk page rather than solely focusing on article content. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear QuackGuru, I am not following you. How did I find the article? Because I am interested in the subject, that's why. You already asked that on 6 May 2013 at administrator Doc James's Talk page, where you appeared all of a sudden commenting my post that had nothing to do with you. I even asked you there to provide a complete list of the supposed articles where I have been following you to? So far, you have refused to answer me that. You did all that on an administrator's Talk page, but still you bring these claims to WP:ANI even before noticing me about it (on my Talk page 18:52; on WP:ANI 18:48).

As you can see from the Talk page, I have been contributing to the article with respect to new sources that can be used in the article. Those have also received support from other editors. As you can see, I've been also requested for collaboration by other editor in order to develop the article further.[10]

All the edits I have made in the articles have been briefly discussed at the article Talk page. It is actually you whose editing behaviour have been discussed at two articles already: Traditional Chinese medicine[11][12], and Chiropractic[13]. For the latest edit you were referring to, it's been discussed at the Talk page[14]. It seems it is three editors against one in that discussion.

Few words about your former editing behaviour. You have been banned earlier[[15]] for edit warring the alternative medicine articles. Also, quite recently you have been warned by administrator EdJohnston for edit warring the very alternative medicine articles here: [16],

as well as by another administrator, Tiptoety, here: [17]. "...Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring... //// ...I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions..." Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with Quack's interpretation. As his history suggests he in fact is being disruptive and claiming ownership of alt-med articles. This seems to be an attempt to cast jayguru in a negative light when in fact he has been respectful and playing by the rules on the talk pages. Also, quack is often trying to censor and ban people who disagree with his POV to limit the debate so he can continue to own alt-med articles. DVMt (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The dispute at chiropractic was previously resolved but you have not moved on. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I tagged a primary source and simplified the wikilink but User:Jayaguru-Shishya reverted my edits and removed the tags for the primary source and he has falsely accused me of violating 3RR. User:Jayaguru-Shishya is continuing to be disruptive. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see the thread: [18]. There is a complete summary of your behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya is continuing to make false accusations against me. I started a discussion about the primary source and wikilink but he is continuing to refuse to collaborate. He is not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Quack you have a long Hx of disruptive editing at CAM articles, have been warned as recently as of yesterday and consistently try to discredit other editors who have a differing POV than yours. This is a bogus report on Jayguru and it's simply an attempt to smear and get him banned from the articles at which he edits. Looking at the past, I don't see Jayguru being reported in the past, whereas yours has been constant since 2008. You broke the conditions of your wiki bail and do so with increasing boldness. When someone disagrees with your viewpoint, best to discuss it and resolve it as opposed to running to admins to try and do your dirty work. DVMt (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya made a fake 3RR report while your are continuing to misinterpret the situation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say block the user. Wales of Jimbo (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC) — Wales of Jimbo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Both Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt continued to make unsupported claims at 3RR. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive245#User:QuackGuru_reported_by_User:Jayaguru-Shishya_.28Result:_.29. QuackGuru (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If you read through the report, with the diffs, with your 1RR limit at CAM articles, you can see you're treading a thin line. Throwing around allegations without evidence would be slander/label IRL, luckily your anonymity here protects you, but your repeated attempts to smear anybody who disagrees with your POV is both tiresome and not contributing to a good editing atmosphere. DVMt (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at a 1RR limit. You want to misuse primary sources to argue against SECONDARY sources. Do you agree you made a mistake to restore the primary source? QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly.

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.

---

Can another experienced editor or administrator please explain to John Pack Lambert that he shouldn't "attack" anybody, whether they're on Wikipedia or not, and whether they have a personal history with the person or not. This edit was in response to an earlier warning, so maybe if he hears it from someone else he'll take it more seriously. Maybe if he can be shown the value of showing just basic general respect now, he can avoid hurting himself or the project later. Nothing is to be gained by bad-mouthing an off-Wikipedia person here, regardless of how deep-seated his personal feelings are. I also don't think bringing her family into it elevates the discussion in any way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

He might even learn how to spell "privileged" in the process. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not helpful. NE Ent 01:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Filipacci was rude, inconsiderate, and was the main force behind a movement that engaged in personal insults on me, attempts to attack me for my religion, clear and unquestioned attacks on me as sexist, and unjustified attacks on people for attempts to follow a specific policy. She has never apologized for her rudeness, and as a public figure who has shown me disrespect, and whose actions are still used to try and justify attacks on any statement I make, I see no reason to back down. No one has ever apologized for the unjustified, unkind and down right mean-spiritedness of the attacks on me that were lobbed a year ago. I get brought here, when it was Filipacci who instead of discussing her views in a proper forum, engaged in biased attacks on a very public forum. That was the ultimate in not bringing the issue up personally. I am not the only person who has mocked Filipacci for using her privalges and connections, and I see no reason to back down from it, at all. Why do we have to bow down to the will and desire of such pampered, privaleged people? Why am I the one who has Jimbo Wales make an uneducated and uninformed call for me to be excluded from wikipedia? I have spent lots of time and effort trying to improve the project, and I have to show for it is rudeness. All I get out of it is people over and over attacking me. Some on multiple occasions in what clearly shows deep seated animus. I am not backing down here. I was clearly defamed, and many people on wikipedia were fully ready to throw me under the bus to protect themselves. I am sick and tired of privileged people who go around trying to claim there is some sort of discrimination against them. It is rubbish, and I am tired of having their views not be challenged. No one has ever apologized for attacking me, and I am mad about that. I have been among the few who have tried to work on systematic corrections to the issues that Filipacci brought up, and for doing so I get attacked by people who hold a view that not having gender-specific categories is sexist. I am not going to back down from mocking some people. Not while others have not backed down from their attacks on me, and in fact were never properly called on their attacks on me. The fact that people went and hunted down an off-wiki statement I made, and then took it out of context to attack me is very, very objectionable. And none of them were ever called on that. I on the other hand have only ever mocked Filipacci for published statements she made with the intent to disrupt and undermine the normal working of wikipedia. When a person makes a public statement with those intents, and disrupts the normal workings of wikipedia in so doing, I see no reason that we should show them respect. We normally call that canvassing for votes, and condemn it. That is clearly what Filipacci did, she failed to explain the issues properly, wrote in a biased way, and messed up internal results. I see no reason to mock her for her canvassing, especially since because of it people still engage in personal attacks on me. No one has apologized for the attacks on me, and I am tired of double-standards that allow such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Support topic ban. The user condemns himself up above. I can't imagine anything anyone could say here that's worse than his own words. John, this is why attorneys recommend you remain silent. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, how did this entire argument start? I'm not seeing anything in John's contribs from the past month. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it related to this? Since this is John's last edit on the page, about a year ago, I have difficulty believing that the argument has lasted this long. What happened recently that prompted this thread? Epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• It started with this exchange back on April 17th "Upmerge Although, it is proof of how self-centured Filipacci is that she hasn't gotten her dad to let her write a scathing expose in the NYT about this problem that Obi-wan has identified for us. She only cares about Wikipedia categorization when it affects her. Alternately we could try splitting by century, but I'm not feeling up to that project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You should consider striking this direct personal attack against Amanda Filipacchi. And you certainly shouldn't be demanding another NYT article as proof that someone "cares". This is an embarrassment.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)" Evidently I am supposed to show defernce to Amanda Filipacci. What I would like is for someone to apologize for the unfounded attacks on me as sexist. No one ever has. They were mean spirited and just plain wrong, and Filipacci brought them about through her yellow journalism, and it is a sad reflection on wikipedia that so many of its editors joined in the attacks instead of looking for the real truth. Many people on wikipedia have exactly the mindset of lynchmob members. They attack without learning what is really going on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"You can't demand an apology from anyone else". That's the civility policy, John. Now, stop talking and posting about Filipacci. Get over it, and move on with your life. This comment appears to support an indefinite block for threats and personal attacks on a BLP. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If you expressed any apology for the fact I have been unjustifiably accused of being a sexist, I might be willing to give you some listening. However you are just demanding I sit back and take accusations of being a sexist from people who have never really considered what I feel, believe or do. That is very hard. You have not had your one mention on national media be accusations of being a sexist. You have not had Jimbo Wales call for you to be banned from wikipedia just because he cares more about image than the sharing of knowledge. You have not been threatened with being a sacrificial lamb to advance some undefined agenda that conflicts with the stated ones of wikipedia. I do not get any sense that you care one iota about what I have been through.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

John, you are referring to something that happened a year ago. Yes, I understand that you think you were treated unfairly. Well, welcome to the club. I'm sure you aren't alone. Everyone thinks they have been treated unfairly before. Can you move on now, or will you be obsessing about this for another year? John Pack Lambert is not the only person in the world who thinks they have been treated unfairly. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have not made a threat to anyone. No one has explained why I need to show deference to Amanda Filipacci, but she can ignite a whole storm of attack on me. The very fact that "threats" were mentioned in the above talk is another example of uncivil language directed at me, and an attempt to limit me comments on what was a very unthoughtout and illinformed essay. Anyway, as long as other people can use the Filipacci episode to try and attack my right to comment on anything, which was about three months ago, getting on my case for coming back with biting criticism of her mean-spirited articles seems to be reasonable. No one has ever claimed that she was anything other than mean-spirited and uninformed in what she wrote. The fact that I got called sexist and worse by editors of wikipedia is also very disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• I'm probably overreacting, but I have to say that if people believe that wikipedia should be a place of civility, insulting them for misspelling a word, and the general tone of most of the comments above are the antithesis of civility. This is a classic example of using very uncivil and rude approaches to try to force someone else to be civil. This is a double standard at best. People can be rude and cutting towards me, but if I say anything rude or cutting about anyone else I will be threatened. The people who have failed to assume good faith are those who have constantly acted like me attempts to remove the problem of splitting people off into only gender-specific subcategories are being motivated by animus. Actually, though, if people really want to call for an end to uncivil discourse, they need to propose an end to the use of the term "ghetoization" in the discussion of categories. Those of us who have spent time teaching in Detroit Public Schools can not see that as other than an overhyped term with no meaning in this discussion, and those of us who have spent large amounts of time studying the Holocaust question the use of Ghetto in any modern context. As long as "ghetoization" is a term thrown around so lightly, and used to accuse others, I find any claims that anything else is uncivil suspect at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • John - you are welcome to initiate any kind of counter offensive you choose to combat what you believe is an attack on you. You just can't do it on Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 01:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • What if the attacks happen on wikipedia?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • You report it here and let the other person get blocked. If what you believe are attacks are supported by third party sources, you go after the sources off-Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 01:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
        • A small point, TP, but you might want to clarify that you meant "go after the sources off-Wikipedia" in legal or generally moral ways. I don't seriously think you would counsel off-wiki attacks or seriously counsel "any kind of counter offensive". I see what you were getting at but I also hope you see how it could look to someone who isn't familiar with you.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
          • I think it would take a special person to think I mean violent attacks. However, for clarity...^^^ what he said.--v/r - TP 01:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
            • That's cool. I just didn't want you to be the admin accused of telling someone to cause trouble for somebody in real life instead of just saying the much cleaner, "Don't cause trouble here".__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a talk page comment warrants a topic ban, especially when it extends to just a single person. I'm sorry, John, that people jumped the gun last spring and attacked you, personally, about an issue of categorization that should have been a policy discussion. I think if you are waiting for an apology for rash statements made a year ago, you will be waiting a long time. Editors' tempers got the best of them, they probably regret their words now but they've moved on. As hurt as you might be, you have to let this resentment go, as long as you are editing Wikipedia. It's not good for you or the project.

You know I disagree with you on having gender-specific categories (I'm for them) but I also acknowledge that you have a ton of experience (over 200K edits!). As for ghettoization, I've seen that term used as a reason against gender-specific categories, not in support of them so I'm surprised you would bring that up.

As for Amanda Filipacci, that is last year's news and I see no reason for you to continue to bring up her name unless you are editing her article, which I would advise against. But that's just my two cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia is not a personal platform to lash out at one's external critics; go start a blog for that. If this behavior cannot be self-regulated then I fully support a topic ban on all matters related to Ms. Filipacchi. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Two wrongs do not make a right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing diffs of the alleged transgressions by JPL. I certainly don't consider this [19] adequate for significant sanctions (bans / blocks). NE Ent 01:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say that accusing a person of gaining advantage in her career because of nepotism is a rather bright line to cross, BLP-wise. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Accusing a person on the BLP article or on the BLP article's talk page? I can see it the possibility of a block or a topic ban being given. Doing it on a talk page of another user should be a clear case of WP:NOTFORUM in that regard, but I don't think it is breaking any BLP policy as it was not on the person's article talk page nor in the main space. It seems to be just a rant, and I don't see why a user should should get sanctioned for that. (Even if is out of taste or uncivil) Tutelary (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Got it? Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Upon talking a second look, I concur the the second portion of the comment is clearly a violation of the BLP standards and have redacted it. Which begs the question -- if the concern is BLP, why didn't the OP nor any of the folks calling for sanctions redact it? Accordingly, oppose sanctions. NE Ent 02:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"It's a violation, but since nobody redacted it he needs to be allowed to get away with it"? Really? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a violation. The most direct, simplest, path of least drama way of addressing is to redact it and explain why it's unacceptable on Wikipedia. When folks appear to be more interested in wiki-blood than peaceably resolving situations, yea, I'm going to be opposing. NE Ent 03:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban There are numerous reasons why this should have happened a long time ago, with NPA being the most prominent one. If the problem persists, indef block and topic ban from all women-related categories need to be on the table as well. pbp 04:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on all women-related topics. I'm sorry, but all I see in that wall of text above is an attempt by an editor to game the system through an inaccurate and self-victimizing personal attack. --NellieBly (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban with some regret. At first, I thought his edits were useful, but after seeing what happened here, I found some issues there. Violations of the WP:NPA and WP:BLP policies while editing the Filipacci article have, I think, sufficiently demonstrated that this individual is incapable of editing in this topic area, if he can't edit in a more civilized manner. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Change my vote to Oppose per reasonings by Liz and Elaqueate. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This [20] edit, together with those that have followed, is inexcusable – a cheap, unprovoked gibe against an off-wiki personality, in a context that wasn't even related to her in any way, and with no relation or relevance to the discussion during which it was made. Definitely a BLP violation. I'll put it plainly: I will enforce this with blocks, starting right now. John Pack Lambert: one more posting about Filipacchi, here or anywhere else on WP, and you're blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Question where does it say what the topic is that he will be banned from if this goes through? Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Nowhere clearly. Viriditas early on seems to be proposing a ban from Angela Filipacchi-related content, and Tarc supported a ban of that type. Liz then opposes a ban, implicity I think a ban regarding Angela Filipacchi. NellieBly then supports a ban on all woman-related topics. (Personally, I have trouble understanding what that would mean. Any article about a human being is presumably "woman-related," as most humans have moms, which would make all articles relating to humanity "woman-related". Many elements and astronomical objects named after females would presumably qualify as well.) And, unfortunately, although I think I'm right about the nature of the ban Viriditas was thinking of, I don't see any clear statement to that effect, and that calls into at least some degree of question exactly which proposed ban the other support votes are supporting. I think that's right, anyway. If someone wanted to start separate threads/subsections regarding both the AF and woman-related proposed bans, that would probably help a lot. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• oppose topic ban, especially since the topic has not been elaborated clearly enough - is it women? women's categories? Filipacchi? Women novelists? Categorization? I agree with NE Ent above, there seems to be a desire to punish here, rather than the much simpler solution which is to redact any offensive comments, issue a warning to JPL and move on. JPL would be wise to voluntarily recuse himself from edits to Filipacchi's article going forward in any case, given the two had a rather public spat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we're past warnings. It's been established for months that the community disapproves of JPL's actions on this topic. We're also forgetting that JPL has repeatedly engaged in edit wars over women's topics. pbp 15:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a wonderful vague wave of the hand, and further evidence that this has become a witch hunt, with people piling on saying "Burn him", "Topic ban him" (From what?) "Whatever?? We want blood!" Many people have edit warred over many things, but they don't get topic-banned from vast areas like "women". You've just made your argument even more ridiculous than it was previously.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If you provide evidence of this alleged activity, then we can evaluate it. Right now we're just looking at a couple of exasperated comments. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, at least tentatively, until we have a better idea what topic he is supposed to be banned from, as per Obi-wan above. I might well however support a ban if the scope of the ban were more clearly defined. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban per John Carter. It is a stretch to claim since JPL made an inappropriate remark about Filipacchi that he should receive a topic ban against all women-related articles and categories. It has to be shown that there currently exists a problem with JPL's editing on women topics beyond personal comments he made here against an individual. There seems to be some lingering bad feelings about the dispute last spring but if there aren't some diffs showing a current problem in this area (beyond these Filipacchi comments), a sweeping topic ban on women's articles and categories is unwarranted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The suggested topic ban seems unnecessary at this point and should be narrow if instituted. Deli nk (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Liz and because it doesn't meet the 'least neccessary' rule of Wikipedia:DESIRABLEOUTCOME. That said, continuing the dispute on the project is disruptive. This dispute needs to be handled off-wiki. If that requires a block at some point to facilitate moving this off-wiki, then so be it. I'd hate to lose a valued contributor that way but what's inappropriate is inappropriate. The most favorable outcome here is that JPL realizes that we're not requiring that he 'take abuse and keep quiet', we're requiring that he use other-than-Wikipedia means of dealing with it.--v/r - TP 17:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is we told him not to do this on-wiki months ago, and he's doing it on-wiki again. If months ago is to be any indication, this won't stop him from taking it up again sooner or later. There needs to be a block or topic ban or something that shows we really mean "get the dispute of this project" pbp 17:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

PBP, you clearly have a hankering to punish JPL in _some_ way. For example, last year, you called for a topic ban, and were trouted after the result closed very poorly and not in your favor. And here you are, dragging out the same old stories. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive795#Topic_ban_Johnpacklambert_from_CfD.3F. I think the first thing that should happen is you should stop contributing to this thread, lest someone proposes an interaction ban for you on all topics related to JohnPackLambert for your edits, since you are clearly unable to do so in a neutral fashion. Not to mention this RFC which you filed against him a few months earlier: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Johnpacklambert. Another admin put it best, when he said "this has the smell of "opportunistic score-settling" all over it" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You are also a non-neutral party, Obiwan, just in the other direction. JPL exhibits behaviors that trouble me, and those behaviors will not be inhibited by an interaction ban. Since an interaction ban with me will not stop him from attacking Amanda Filipacchi (someone whom I have nothing to do with), it's pointless to propose one as it doesn't solve the issue at hand. Please focus on rectifying JPL's behavior rather than levying complaints at me. pbp 19:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And while you're at it, don't mention year-old decisions on topic bans that are completely different in scope from this one. Even if they were the same proposal, consensus can change. pbp 19:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, while reiterating what others have said and noting that could easily turn into Support if this continues. It sucks to be attacked, and it's even worse when someone has a bigger soapbox than you. But all we can do is control what happens on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be anybody's soapbox, whether it be John Pack Lambert or Amanda Filipacchi. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the Ent's quite sensible comments above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Despite the fact that the user has shown no indication he has retracted any earlier personal attacks in any way (indeed, he has only bizarrely insisted he has some right to not be called out for making personal attacks because his behavior is not uncivil when compared to the Holocaust. Yikes), and despite their stated belief that he would be somehow karmically justified in repeating the same sort of comment in the future, I think it would be all around better if the editor just voluntarily refrained from talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly. Topic bans are to prevent further disruption; I think this user can now see what would generally be considered a troublesome comment, even if he still feels strongly entitled to make it. Just because he's said he's right to make those comments doesn't mean he'll necessarily make them in the future, especially after being warned by so many here. As long as there's now a good chance that he'll refrain on his own accord from direct personal attacks in the future, there's a good chance there's no need to make it formal.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Most simply, a community sponsored topic ban is basically moot when multiple admins have warned the user that he was in violation and that he really shouldn't do it again. There's no disagreement about whether he's been warned and advised at this point.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • You show a total lack of understanding of what I said above. I never made a comparison of what I said to the Holocaust. The people who brought the Holocaust into this potential discussion were those who chose to use "Ghetoization" as the term for splitting articles into categories limited to gender. My point above is that in light of the Holocaust among other places where Ghetoes were horrible places intent on killing people, Ghetoization is a horribly inflamatory term, that is needlessly divisive and causes way too much consternation when applied to the issue of what categories a person is put in. The above is the type of unjustified attacks which totally misrepresent what I actually said that got this whole thing started.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Speculating there's a good chance he'll refrain from attacks seems a wrong approach. Has such a commitment actually been made? As for BLP, isn't that concerned with defamation? Personal attacks and defamation are't the same. I don't see any BLP violations, as I understand the rule. 02:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Howunusual (talk)

• Oppose per Obiwankenobi & Liz - No one knows what he's proposed to be topic banned on , And I'm not seeing any diffs from OP in regards to his behaviour .... Just simply give a warning & move on. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment PbH has engaged in vindictive attacks on me dating back to December 2012. The fact that he has tried to turn this into a broad topic ban is part of a general behavior on his part to intrude into all discussions related to me, and the excalate the material under discussion. I am not the only person who he has pursued in a vindictive manner. I would suggest that we need to turn this around, and do a through and complete consideration of reprimanding him for his persistent violations of civility in his multiple attacks on me. One place where this was definately present was in discussions of Category:American people of African-American descent. At one point we were told to tone down our discussions and avoid talking to each other. I have followed that reccomendation. He in general has not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There has never been an interaction ban, and there will not be as a result of this discussion, as the interaction ban won't solve the problem of you continually attacking Amanda Filipacci. I am not the first nor the only person to call for a topic ban for you in this area, so it is wholly inaccurate to lay it at my feet. Furthermore, the things you call personal attacks...weren't personal attacks. If they were, your responses to other people in this thread would also be personal attacks :-D . pbp 01:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have in no way tried to edit the Amanda Filipacci article at all. My last edits to it were in topic issues, not in categorization. To confuse a statement in a discussion of categorization with actions in editing an article, and to pretend that one can illuminate actions in the other is very narrow minded. On the other hand, until another editor claims to have been attacked in a national publication for their editing on wikipedia and held up to scorn over such, any claim to have any feeling of understanding with what I have gone through will ring false. Unless some others here have been accused of being sexist personally and specifically in a broad array of forums, you do not understand how hurtful what I was put through was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This whole thing seems to have blown up over one comment. The reactions seem to be based on the view I have done this repeatedly. I have said I will not repeat this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I admit I was wrong. I should not have spoken so rudely about other people. I should be less defensive. I'm sorry and I will try to avoid personal attacks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2014 (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 talk spam

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.

---

Special:Contributions/85.76.131.75. --Pitke (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reported at WP:AIV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Drmies. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:47, 22 May 2014 (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.

Concerns over Shuasa

I have concerns about several edits by Shuasa (talk · contribs), which seems to be disruptive in their nature. The editor's first edit was to place a speedy tag on Barrow Burn, which in itself wasn't a problem and could have been a result of a misunderstanding of the CSD. But later, the user then went on to nominate Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon, Portal:Pokémon, and List of Pokémon characters for deletion on the bases that the game series is not notable (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pokémon (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon characters). As of this edit, the WikiProject MfD was already closed. —Farix (t | c) 11:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already speedily closed the nominations and warned Shuasa that any further disruptive deletion nominations are likely to lead to a block. Let's see what reaction that gets. Bencherlite^Talk 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO editors should be permitted to nominate anything they want for deletion. No-one's forced to agree with them. User seems to be acting in good faith. I don't see any disruption here. User is obviously new, biting the newbies ("Further disruptive deletion nominations are likely to lead to you being blocked for the protection of the encyclopedia") is a great way to continue the slide in the number of editors participating at Wikipedia.

Ref "ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can excuse the mistakes of a newcomer. Furthermore, you yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them." (WP:BITE)

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we want to give new editors some leeway. The way to do that is to assume that they're trying their best but just don't understand how things work, and try to guide them. If they reject and/or can't understand that guidance, then they are blocked. Because while driving away new editors is bad, what is even worse is allowing disruptive new editors to drive away experienced, productive editors who have to put up with them. And that happens, unfortunately. And you are 100% wrong when you suggest that "editors should be permitted to nominate anything they want for deletion"; that opens up a whole host of abuse. Bad faith deletion nominations in violation of WP:POINT are not uncommon, and abuse of CSD tags is a waste of admins' time because each of those tags have to be evaluated and acted upon. Again, if an editor is new, try to guide them, but if that doesn't work then they must be blocked to prevent further disruption. -- Atama頭 15:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have assumed bad faith and gone straight to ban-threats here, skipping the 'guidance' stage entirely. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am requesting that the article "Coolie" to be profoundly edited. The current article is not accurate and racist.

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

---

Hi how are you... I have been trying non-stop to get the article Coolie" changed because the article non-accurate and racist. And it's obvious that the people who put this article together has an agenda and that agenda is to degrade people of Asian descent. Can you please help me with editing this article.

First of all the Category must be changed from Slavery to Indentured Worker. If a category was not created for Indentured Worker then in should be. Coolie should not be lumped in the category of slavery because it is false. Second the etymology for coolie is hired laborer or wages. And kuli in Turkish means hireling. I am from these islands and the original article so falsely misrepresents coolies. Many people of Indian and Chinese background took exception to this article because they knew that a lot of the subject matter in this article is false and misleading. Indians have land today because of the work that they did; slavery and coolie cannot be compared.

Coolies were given wages, land, and houses for their labor. Generally speaking people today are not even given this. I know this for a fact because I am from these island and the people there were indeed paid. This resulted in a lot of jealousy and anger from African slaves towards coolies and perhaps rightfully so. Indian coolies were paid about $45 dollars a day plus food and clothing.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136194/coolie http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/indian-indentured-labour.htm http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/11/25/247166284/a-history-of-indentured-labor-gives-coolie-its-stinghttp: http://www.sahistory.org.za/politics-and-society/anti-indian-legislation-1800s-1959

80% of the immigrants who came to the Chesapeake Bay colonies were white, European indentured laborers. Indentured laborers were: White Europeans, Chinese, Indians, and other Asian ethnic groups and these people were not slaves. "Coolie" needs to be listed under a category called Indentured Worker or it should not be in a category at all. Coolie should simply not be listed under the category of Slavery because that is very false and is misleading to the public. How do I remove "coolie" from the category Slavery or get a new category created entitled Indentured Laborer? https://sites.google.com/site/rydenonushistory/home/directory-study-guides/southern-english-colonies Also the etymology of coolie is "hired laborer" or an "unskilled Asian Laborer" There are several other etymology used in the present article that is not relevant and they must be removed. Can you please remove this. Thank you for your help. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=coolie http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coolie

To me it is obvious that this article was written to degrade peoples whose ancestry goes back to Asia. Because both Coolies and Europeans were both indentured laborers and European indentured labor took place before Coolie-ism even existed. Yet Wikipedia is not classing Europeans as slaves but Wikipedia is classing Coolies as slaves. Neither Europeans or Coolies were slaves. Coolies came to the new world AFTER slavery was abolished. Coolies were majority unskilled workers and a minority of skilled workers that were paid and that is a fact. The people who wrote this article has an agenda and it is easy to tell that from the tone of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not the proper place for this. You are looking for WP:DRN MarnetteD | Talk 02:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia doesn't censor crimes committed in the past with revisionist history, but summarizes mainstream academia's stances on subjects. If you have a problem with a well sourced article (as Coolie appears to be), blame academia, not us, and present scholarly books and peer-reviewed journal articles that explicitly make your point (at the article's talk page, not here), not just random websites that aren't so much supporting your point as not bothering to contradict it. While we welcome editors who are simply trying to summarize a variety of academic sources we really don't have much use for people who are only here to whitewash material in articles they personally don't like. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BITE much? MarkBernstein (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No, not at all. I would say that was an informative response properly documenting how things work here. Resolute 03:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:AGF much? I listed acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, with the assumption that he can make the right choice once he knows what we do and do not accept here. A bitey version of that would have been calling his edits useless instead of pointing out a hypothetical but relevant example of how any user's edits could be useless. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a matter of forum shopping as the editor in question is not getting their way on the article. Notice their edit history where he has taken it to User talk:Kuyabribri (who denied the vague edit requests), Wikipedia talk:Discrimination, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, User talk:MrBill3, User talk:Blackguard SF, and now here. May also be editing under the IP 67.80.213.158 (talk), who has also been removing the same material from the article. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP's last edit as of this posting is WP:DUCK, plain and simple. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2014 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women art historians

Could an admin or two please keep an eye on this AfD, since it seems to be generating quite a bit of interest from single purpose accounts, such as Eahonig (talk · contribs), Studiojunk (talk · contribs), Sarah DeLe (talk · contribs), and Unitedcrushers (talk · contribs). Thanks. G S Palmer (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Another one: 217.158.67.208 (talk · contribs). G S Palmer (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it's something we can't handle: admins will weigh arguments, not votes. Thanks for the pointer, though. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

User Hablabar and Church of Kish

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.

---

Hablabar returns the disputed information based on the source, which was considered as unreliable by several users (see talk). Without any consensus on talk page he started edit warring. Please return the articel to the consensus version. Note that user was warned by me about returning of disputed information without consensus. But he continues his actions. Maybe he need some time to clarify with the rules of the project? --Interfase (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the history, he's made one (large and questionable) edit in multiple years. Is this really evidence of a behavioral problem that requires administrative action? Am I reading the history incorrectly? 165.214.12.76 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

User violated rules and started edit war even after warning that disputed information should not be returned without consensus. What else should he do? --Interfase (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just seeing a single edit to the article, followed by the beginnings of a conversation on the talk page. Do you have diffs showing an edit war? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

He violated a consensus from 2009. Did he even know about that consensus from then? I don't see where he has continued his action. He even came to the talk page as directed after his change was reverted.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I consider his edit as violating WP:CONSENSUS. This information was already removed, as based on nonreliable source. Isn't the edit of Hablabar starting an edir war? As a result the article remained on nonconsensus version, but should be stayed on consensus version. --Interfase (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Two points: a) Consensus can change over time. And b) are you expecting editors to be aware of a consensus conversation from five years ago (or longer) for all of the pages they edit?

It sounds like he was Bold, it was Reverted and then he went to Discuss the edit. That's not an edit war. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Starting an editor war? That's a clever way to start one. You make an edit. Some one Reverts and sends you to the talk page and you go to the talk page. Honestly we have to stop this form of disruptive editing. That is sarcasm. Consesus not only can change but it does. There's no evidence here of any nad faith. I question even now if the editor in question is aware of that 2009 consensus. He did after all come to the talk page and respond to the most recent thread instead the ones from 2009 that show the consensus.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2014 (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 Wtshymanski refusing to follow the merge procedure when merging articles

At a recent ANI Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) was critisised for not following the merge procedure. This practice is still extant.

Wtshymanski recently merged Anti-idling and Idle reduction. There were three main problems with the merger.

1. Much material from the source article was excluded from the merge without any justification.
2. There was no consensus of support for a merge (though it was not unreasonable IMHO).
3. No attempt was made to preserve the edit history of the source article using the {{mergedfrom}} and {{mergedto}} maintenance tags on the relevant talk pages (as specified at step 3 at WP:MERGE#How to merge).

The failure to perform the last part means that the edit history of the source article is effectively lost. Wtshymanski seems to believe that a simple comment "merging; contains content from <wherever>; see that page for contributions history" (see [21] for example) is adequate.

Unfortunately it is not. Twenty five edits later that edit summary disappears off the summary page onto a 'previous 25 edits' page with no clue that the material ever came from anywhere. In any case, attempting to go to the source article (if you are aware of the origin) just brings you back to the target article via the redirect.

I have attempted to discuss this at User talk:Wtshymanski. As can be seen, Wtshymanski attempted to claim that an admin had told him that, "You must at minimum provide a hyperlink or URL in edit summary to the article from which you are copying" and then claims, "I have done that consistently since then". Except that he has not. He has not provided either a URL or a hyperlink to anywhere. The rest of the discussion is basically a bloody minded statement of refusal to follow the procedure. I cannot see what the problem is, it cannot take more than 30 seconds to add the two templates to the talk pages.

Inspite of the critisism, Wtshymanski has just recently merged two more articles, Subspace (Star Trek) and Technology in Star Trek. Once again, no attempt has been made to link to either the source article or to the edit history, the only clue is in the edit summary [22]. No URL or hyperlink to anywhere has been provided. 85.255.232.203 (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It always helps if you can provide a link to the previous ANI. I know they can be a pain to find - this is it [23]. It should be noted that this subject was not the central plank of that ANI but it was an issue that was discussed.

Wtshymanski's article merges have been the subject for discussion at one location or another for several years. The subject first came to my attention at an RfC raised on Wtshymanski's editing behaviour when I was a relative newbie ([24]), but especially in this section of it ([25]). I gather that the matter was not new even by then.

The matter of material deletion has also been the subject for much discussion. Wtshymanski, has apparently has a history of deleting articles that he believes should not exist. Having been critisised for that in the past, the current method is to 'merge' the article with another, but deleting the content he disagrees with along the way.

In the light of the above, it would seem that 85.255.232.203 has missed a recent merger. Optical window in biological tissue has been merged with Near-infrared window in biological tissue. The edit summary of the former article (the target) claims that there is nothing unique to merge and indeed nothing has been merged from the latter article (the source). The latter has been entirtely deleted and replaced by a redirect. An examination of both articles clealy shows that that although the textual content of both is nearly the same, the source article contained references to support the content that the target article did not. The effective deletion of the source with the redirect has 'lost' the references. This is made all the worse because no attempt has been made to provide a link to the history of the source article (and not even a clue in the edit summary beyond something being redirected, but the reader is left to guess what).

Some of us know how to find the history of a merged article, always assuming that we twig that it was merged from somewhere in the first place. But not every editor does, and inexperienced editors will just follow the redirect back to where they started. It has been stated that it is important that the history of the source article be available (which, one assumes, is exactly why the 'mergedfrom' and 'mergedto' tags exist. Wtshymanski has history with his attitude towards maintenace tags (which is where the RfC referred to above started). Everyone else who merges articles uses the tags as set out in the merge procedure. I see no reason why Wtshymanski cannot do the same as everyone else. As noted above: the time penalty is negligible.

There is one note of encouragement. Previously: any attempt at discussing Wtshymanski's behaviour on his talk page is met with a straight deletion of the attempt. Wtshymanski does need some commendation for at least responding. It is just a shame that he shows no genuine attempt at discussion. The old, "I'm going to do it my way - like it or lump it" attitude still prevails. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I was told this [26]. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

So if the {{mergedfrom}} and {{mergedto}} tags are 'best practice' why do you not adopt the best practice? Moonriddengirl goes on to state that, "... the requirement is the hyperlink or URL in the edit summary". That means that as a minimum a URL or a hyperlink in the edit summary that actually points to the source article is required. But you have never provided such a URL or hyperlink. Where is the URL or hyperlink back to the source article in this edit summary [27]? The hyperlink provided Subspace (Star Trek) is no good as it just gets auto redirected back to the target article. There is nothing to link to the source article or its edit history. In any case, I have to disagree with Moonriddengirl because, as stated above, the edit summary disappears to a follow on page after 25 edits where it is not immediately obvious. The 'mergedfrom' template on the talk page is at least permanent. 85.255.232.195 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, a hyperlink in the form Wtshymanski provided is indeed the norm. It's true that it can be a bit confusing how to find the article's edit history because of the automatic redirection. This is unfortunate but there's no simple solution. I don't think there's any way to provide a hyperlink to the edit history or a no redirect hyperlink since you can't add external links as hyperlinks, nor can you do any fancy template or whatever formatting. You could provide a bare URL, but probably most people who could work out how to use a bare URL could also work out how to find the edit historydespite the redirection and actually I consider a bare URL less desirable than a proper hyperlink to the original article even if it's going to autoredirect you (although you could do both).

AFAIK, it's largely irrelevant that the older edits aren't visible on the first page of the edit history in terms of CC/GFDL compliance. Please remember that if I create an article (or make substanial edits) and am it's primary contributor, you have the same problem that after 25 copy edits or even vandalism and reverts, my contributions will also not appear on the first page of the edit history. There's no reason why authors of some other article which was merged to another destination should expect more attribution than what ordinary editors of that article get.

More importantly, anyone who wishes to find out who contributed to the article, will generally expect to explore the entire edit history and see how it developed over time. For this reason it is important that edit summaries where content is merged acknowledges the content is being copied from somewhere else (and what that location is) to comply with CC/GFDL attribution requirements so that people viewing the edit history will recognise they need to look at another location to find the contributors of the content that was added with these edits.

That said, I would strongly encourage Wtshymanski to use Mergedfrom/Mergedto tags in addition to providing the hyperlink in the edit summary. Not because these are necessary for GFDL/CC compliance per se, but because without these tags, it's easy for an admin to miss that this happened and therefore delete or otherwise lose the history which we need for compliance. (Of course saying you are merging the content to somewhere else in the edit summary when you remove it should also reduce the risk of this. This is of course more important in the case of partial merges or simply copying, in other words, where the source article is preserved as an article. Since in that case even if it was mentioned in an edit summary, it'll often be easy to miss when an admin comes to delete the article. And of course the article is more likely to be deleted anyway if it's still an extant article.)

Note that it's important that these are in addition. Simply using the tags but not properly mentioning you are merging content in the edit summary when you merge is in fact IMO inferior and more likely non compliant, than properly mentioning in the edit summary that you copied the content from elsewhere but failing to use the tags. As I said earlier, it's expected that contributors will be acknowledged in the edit history and this is where people will expect to find such attribution. They will not normally look in the talk page, unless some edit summary tells them to. Further, depending on the how many changes occur at the time, etc, it may be confusing precisely which edit is the one where the merger happened if it wasn't properly acknowledged in the edit summary at the time of the merger. Note that the templates don't have a paramter for the URL/s or edit IDs of the merge edits. (Edit: Although Template:Copied does.)

Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

See also Help:Merging which seems to confirm that wikilinking the original article is the norm and the minimum requirement. Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have just tried it and the hyperlink seems to go back to the source article no problem. Hmm. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That's because the merge was undone by the OP/IP. Nil Einne (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah no. Just had another look. The reason it worked is because you have undone the merge so the redirect is no longer in operation. Tried it on one of Wtshymanski's older merges, and the link redirects back to the target article, so you point is entirely valid. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is an old issue. We have a policy for how merges are done, Wtshymanski thinks it beneath him and ignores it. Are policies like this still enforced or is it another that has been abandoned? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for underlining my point. If it is now considered acceptable to provide a useless hyperlink back to your starting place, when can we expect the 'How to merge' procedure to reflect this change of policy? To answer a point made by Nil Einne, where he says that 'there is no simple solution'. Well there is: the {{mergedfrom}} and {{mergedto}} Tags on the talk page address the problem perfectly providing a link to the source article and it's edit history without the circular tour and will still be visible as editing takes place.

My principal other concern has not been addressed at all. That is the unexplained deletion of material and/or references from the source article when it is merged. If I, or any editor, simply deleted that same information without giving a reason, it would swiftly be reverted with an edit summary along the lines of 'Revert vandalism' (and rightly so), and potentially end up here if I did a lot of it. So why is it acceptable to delete large parts of the encyclopaedia when you merge an article but not if you are not merging? 85.255.234.21 (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's frequently appropriate to delete large volumes of content when merging. However it is not appropriate to use merging primarily as a way of excusing such deletions. These deletions are especially improper when they shift the POV of an article, or exclude one facet of it. I believe it to be a regular approach of Wtshymanski to do such. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:46.143.214.22

Personel attack in this page and IP editing and deleting my comments. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You insulted and attacked other editors here [28]. --114.179.18.37 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think suck puppet issue in here. Admins should be check that article and these IPs Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. Mods must block your account. Why you attack other editors? --114.179.18.37 (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't attacked onyone. I've been attacked first. And your tong and abivous insulting is clearly seen. Everyone can see. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You did (the above diff). I just reverted your personal attacks and shitty cmts. --114.179.18.37 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Plus, I just removed your personal attacks, not other editors' comments or the whole section. Are you birdbrain? --114.179.18.37 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

He/she is comments -even in here- and edit summarys on that page clearly insulted and vandalist. Admins should take care this problematic IP. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ps: The Ip keep unrevert my comments. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Both Yagmurlukorfez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) and 114.179.18.37 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) have been edit warring - 7 reverts for the IP, 6 for the user. Warned user [29] and IP [30]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Non-English insults by him at User talk:Ali-al-Bakuvi and User talk:Mehmeett21. --114.179.18.37 (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• The IP must blocked. There is not just edit warring. It's about personel attack! Check his edit summary and comments! Talk:Page, Obivous Insulting "Hey idiot! What's this fucking and animal language?! Write in English you subhuman Turk (Turd)" Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Continuous personal/racist attacks and insults, biased edits from the IP 46.143.214.22. Should it be dealt with? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not racist. I'm WN. I wrote the truth. They're animal subhumans. Pile of shits. --114.179.18.35 (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

..35 now also blocked. DMacks (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I left a level 3 harassment warning for 46.143.214.22, the racist insult against Yagmurlukorfez warranted such in my opinion. Any further comments like that should lead to a final warning and/or block. -- Atama頭 16:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Good, but I won't stop. Because you liberals support this racist and anti-white turks. --218.238.169.182 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

IP:114.179.18.37 Insulting and Personel attack

here is the Personel attack. And His/her other comments Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You are both edit warring, and you've both been warned. You both need to stop. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't care if anyone is edit warring, calling an other editor sub-human is not acceptible under any circumstances. Blocked for a week for racist attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 14:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Good block, thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious!? This nothing about edit warring or warning. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The comments left by the IP were inappropriate, Canterbury seems to have the issue sorted. On a side note, i have merged this thread with the one above as it appears to be dealing with the same issue. —Dark 14:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks and massive POVish edits

User:LouisAragon is attacking me and my country [31] [32]. He's also an extreme POV pusher, using Netherland IPs [33]. How can I deal with this racist editor who responds with long nonsense statements that are outside of the topic?Alien from Afghanistan (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Alien of Afghanistan has created his account here merely to push an agenda and WP:VANDAL in order to do so. In this very short time, almost all of his contributions and edits have got reverted, got a ton of WP:GOODFAITH reversions by users (wich unfortunately didn't have any effect), and is already on the brink of getting blocked, being warned by moderators multiple times for this [[34]]. In other words; quite a pain for the established editors here since his ascension on Wikipedia in the few weeks he's here.

Now, as of a few days ago, he wrote a message on my talk page (see link above) saying that I was "PoV" editing, and started provocating me out of the blue. The same user tells me this, an active member for more than a year, while he himself is, a recently signed-up user now already on the brink of getting blocked for PoV editing. (How ironic)

Therefore, I'm convinced that what he's doing right now is trying to portray his issues on established users that have prevented his vandalising edits multiple times, as he doesn't seem to get done that what his unsourced, biased, PoV's want him to.

Other than that User:Alien of Afghanistan should have been suspended, blocked or even banned long before according WP:BANPOL and even WP:WAR (will quote all of them later if needed), I hope this joker gets dealt with now accordingly. In fact, me and other users wanted to drag him here some days ago too, but we saw he was already at the brink of getting blocked. [[35]] If needed, I can ask all other editors who have warned him in any way before to comment here as well. I'm sure they've got a word or two to say as well about him. LouisAragon (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Both of you are biased and non-neutral editors. User:LouisAragon inserts his biased edits and personal analysis in many articles. User:Alien from Afghanistan has nationalistic views and he can't accept the reliable facts. 1 week ban is the best solution for both of you guys. It'll help you to don't use WP as a battleground. --218.147.123.105 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Both users are involved in edit warring (several articles). --218.147.123.105 (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Meh. Might just be a content dispute. LouisAragon is apparently confusing blocking with banning: AfA got a level 4 warning back in April for vandalism (though I think there's no proof of the intent required by WP:VAND, so it might better be characterized as revert warring). Anyway, the dispute at hand seems to do with this revert by AfA, followed by this revert by LouisAragon describing AfA's revert as vandalism. @LouisAragon:, I don't believe AfA's edits constitute vandalism, as I see no evidence of an intent to damage Wikipedia rather than to right great wrongs (see generally WP:NOTVAND). You should be careful with that designation, especially in a dispute involving cultural and ethnic concerns because calling someone who believes strongly they are doing right can often inflame the situation beyond hope. Adding to that appeals to things like the amount of time since the user created an account (or the fact that the user is editing anonymously), and referring needlessly to past indiscretions does not help things.

All that said, @Alien of Afghanistan:, you need to discuss changes like the ones you want to make, and to do so independently of making complaints about other users' behavior; this is not the right forum for such an issue (possibly Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Afghanistan). You may also find The Teahouse a useful place to find helpful people to explain our editing processes in greater detail. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If AfA would have brought his suggestions in the first place to the respective talk pages (whether those of the articles in question, or those of the users), he wouldn't have already had what, like a level 4 warning level for vandalism in a few weeks? As I mentioned, there are many other users who have given him WP:GOODFAITH and other types of warnings in this short amount of time. It's obvious he tries to push an agenda here, otherwise he wouldn't have had so many problems [[36]] in a few mere weeks related to a precise section of topics.

@Mendaliv: It's not just this mere one revert/content dispute, its tons of it. And it's also not one user (me), who has pointed him out on it, but other users, and moderators too. The fact remains AfA has got a level 4 warning in a few weeks he's just active here for vandalism, while I'm active here for much more than a year and I got zero warnings or anything. I think that tells something quite obvious too, you know. LouisAragon (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Tons my foot. The guy has had three (3) warnings ever, all related to the same incident on the same page, which is a different page than this time (though also related to Afghanistan). By the way, this comment on your talk page contains personal attacks and cultural epithets of an unacceptable nature, and these two tweaks to that contemptible commentary do not make it any less offensive. In fact, I've just issued you an only warning for personal attacks: you may find yourself blocked in the future if you engage in such disruptive conduct again. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot to mention this redaction as well. I'd missed your describing Afghanistan as a "shithole", and making disparaging comments about Afghan people that are so opprobrious I will not repeat them here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Every country has own issues... at least Afghanistan is in better condition today than it was in 2001.... the country at least has freedom unlike Iran where you don't have it. I just want to explain something... those warnings on my talk page were completely wrong because obviously my edits were not vandalism! I can't help it if people place false warnings on my talk page. FYI, this discussion is about me reporting LouisAragon (a racist Afghan who lives in Ontario, Canada, or Netherlands and uses multiple accounts to edit) Him choosing LousiAragon demonstrates that he's trying to pass off as a white European native. I'm an alien and I know all this. Anyway, he wrote about me "Annoying dude... You seem to have severe inferiority complexion. But I don't blame you as you're an Afghan.... It seems to me you have severe inferiority complexion like many diasporean Afghans, wich is quite understandable given the shitty history and reputation it has, and the shithole it still is nowadays. Pure barbarianism, tribalism, perpetual refugees, being ruled by foreigners for millennia, and child molesting seems to be interchangeable with people from that region.... You don't need to reply to this. Next time I will report you for your harrassments." [37] That alone is enough to block him and he is now playing games with you. As for me, I don't have time for games and LouisAragon shouldn't judge me based on my name. I may be a white millionaire from America or some poor Afghan guy... what does that have to do with anything here? Shahrukh Khan and many other Bollywood stars are of Afghan origin and yesterday BBC mentioned that he's worth 600 million dollars. Many Afghans live in million dollar homes around the world but what does that have to do with LouisAragon repeatedly mentioning in every sentence of Afghanistan page "what is nowadays Afghanistan"? Why is he racist towards Afghans?Alien from Afghanistan (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note to reviewing admins: This is not an isolated incident. LouisAragon's edit summaries over the course of the last month alone paint a disturbing picture suggesting that sanctions under WP:ARBIND may be warranted. ([38], [39] [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, if you still don't see that AfA merely created his account here to push an agenda, then it's not my problem anymore. I understand you give me a warning for that on my talk page, but the fact remains, he knows perfectly well he could've brought up his suggestions or notifications to the respective talk pages, but he didn't do so (and he still won't I'm pretty sure), if he wanted to avoid any warning, any reversion-conflict or any other problem. He knows how to write on my talk page, so why not on the talk page of these Afghanistan-related topics wich he's concerned about? Do I and other users really need to quote all his edits and say why they're very, very wrong? Even a simple example like this [[46]], while Hotaki Dynasty shows that his edit is incorrect. Or what about this? [[47]] Or these? [[48]], [[49]], [[50]], [[51]], [[52]], [[53]], [[54]], [[55]], [[56]]; He has 40 edits here since he joined, all of them are related to Afghanistan, and most of them got reverted due to being fueled by unsourced, nationalistic bogus. (The same reason why he got those warnings and ends up each time in RV wars)

You mention even yourself that his other issue(s) here is/are also related to Afghanistan-topics. I mean how can that, in combination with his obvious editing history not tell enough about the true him?

As for AfA, now he says that the warnings he got before were false (therefore mocks the moderators' authority), calls me an Afghan (wich I'm not), says I try to pass of as a white European (what?), and says that I use multiple accounts to edit. (Wich I don't and mods can easily check that). I don't know what's wrong with the guy, but I'm sure other users that know him will agree too that he deserves at least some kind of reprimande for all of this.

LouisAragon (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the 3 warnings issued to AfA should not have been issued for those 3 edits to Tajik people.[57][58][59] The edits removed questionable and unsourced information and were accompanied by reasonable edit summaries. The editor used the talk page 10 minutes later. Either way, regardless of AfA's intentions or the quality of their editing, they shouldn't have to be exposed to your personal opinions about Afghans or anything else just because they decided to become a Wikipedia editor. You want them reprimanded. What do you think should happen to you given your role ? Do editors need to be protected from exposure to your personal views, and if so, what is the best way to do that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

In the above comment LouisAragon listed his own bad actions as mines (example: [60], you can investigate each of the other diffs), he's playing this game with intent to get me blocked so he can carry on with his POV pushings. He told you guys he's been around for a while so he knows Wikipedia rules and he's still ignoring them. When he says me and other editors (he actually means me and my other accounts, example 1: Feysalafghan (talk · contribs)). He claims that he's not Afghan but he actually is, he was born in Afghanistan but doesn't like the country. He's pretending to be Iranian but I know Iranians very well, one obvious thing about them is they're not interested in editing Afghan related pages. As for me, my edits are professional (with GOODFAITH) keeping them in line with W:NPOV. For example, on Afghans in Iran I've done research, Iranian officials claim there are 800,000 registered Afghans living in their country (this is backed by UNCHR) and possibly another 2 million living illegally. I re-wrote the article to reflect all of this but LouisAragon reverted to the misleading version which contains dead links. This is vandalism at its best. He's doing the same to nearly all my other edits. To sum it up, the guy should be permanently blocked for playing games in Wikipedia (mainly for extreme POV pushing on multiple articles, attacking other editors and purposely misleading administrators). It's the best solution and this will teach others like him to behave.Alien from Afghanistan (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is not the place to hash out whether the edits themselves were correct, or the sources of any particular editor's personal points of view. What matters for the purposes of this discussion is behavior. As Sean and I have commented, there's nothing particularly wrong with AfA's behavior, except perhaps one run of tit-for-tat reverting (which is understandable for an inexperienced user) and perhaps some incivility towards LouisAragon (which should be absolutely forgiven insofar as it was in response to intolerable, heinously offensive slurs against the Afghan people, which were made simply to demean and drive away another editor rather than engage in an honest, aboveboard discussion of the content dispute at issue). Even if AfA were a SPA editing disruptively, LouisAragon's conduct is so offensive as to merit individual sanctions completely separate from anything that would lie against AfA (again, presuming AfA were editing disruptively, which I do not think is happening). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sean, I already mentioned, whatever I did wrong on my own talk page, I acknowledge that and I understand that I've got a warning for that. I don't have any history of throwing insults or any other type of such violations in the time I'm active here, for that matter. It'll be my only warning I can assure. I already received my reprimand. The user AfA however, has gotten into a ton more problems here in a few weeks than I and many other established users have gotten in multiple times the amount of time. People tell, "regardless" of AfA's intentions or quality of his editing, but that's what the whole other much more major story goes about.(!) Check the links I provided above in my previous reply. That's already a huge part of his small editing history. The user has an obvious agenda and bases his edits purely on nationalistic or wishful thoughts as I clearly showed in the examples above. So now what about his reprimand? It can't be that just because my action is labeled as "worse", that therefore he goes free-out? I'll ask the other editors too to comment here too who have had issues with him and his edits, in the incredibly short time he's active here.

PS: Another direct example; how can we possibly take someone seriously here, who uses this as argument in a matter? Total joke and it reflects once again his posting reputation/capabilities here ; "LouisAragon" (a racist Afghan who lives in Netherlands and uses multiple accounts to edit) Him choosing LousiAragon demonstrates that he's trying to pass off as a white European native. I'm an alien and I know all this. He claims that he's not Afghan but he actually is, he was born in Afghanistan but doesn't like the country." LOL LouisAragon (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you were wrong about the 3 warnings. Perhaps you are wrong about other things. Maybe AfA is just a reasonable human being with their own bias who wants to make Wikipedia better, someone you can collaborate with constructively if you find the right way. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Gave both editors DS notices for WP:ARBIPA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see any necessity for administrative action at this point. Both users are slinging mud at each other. AfA's comments about Louis, his nationality, where he lives, etc. is pretty weird stuff. AfA should put a lid on it. Louis's comments about AfA's nationalistic edits don't seem justified. AfA may not be the most neutral editor, but I don't see anything glaring in the short time he's been here (Louis, your diffs are weirdly formatted - I find them difficult to look at). In any event, AfA should realize that if he picks a controversial user name and edits in only one topic area, other editors may be suspicious.

Mendaliv, thanks for issuing the discretionary sanctions notices; you should really sign them, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Bbb23: these were my first DS notices, so I suppose it's to be expected I'd make a couple mistakes. I've left my sig and back-dated it to when I left the notice (so there's no confusion over when notice attached). Anyway, I concur that there's nothing more to be done here, and have tried to explain to AfA the importance of taking care in this subject area, particularly when dealing with conflicts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor trolling

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.

---

• Unhex(46 75 63 6b 20 79 6f 75 21) (talk · contribs)
• Category:Encrypted usernames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a very minor incident, but it would be better if WP:DENY were applied soon. The above user name is "Fuck you!", and they created the category to highlight equally clever previous incarnations. A block and speedy delete would be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2014 (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.

About the above. (Understand bilingual puns in Classical Chinese and Korean? No problem. Research hip-hop in Nigeria? Sure, I can do that. Understand Math jokes? Ummm... this has got something to do with all your base are belong to 16, right?) Could someone explain to me off-dramaboard what was going on there, in easy to understand words, suitable for people who have problems with simple mental arithmetic? TIA. Pete AU --Shirt58 (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the other two usernames that he tagged to the category he created, but that one is Unicode for "F U" (as noted) - and as he left notes on his user page, user talk page, and I think elsewhere to "Use a unicode converter!" it was pretty blatant he was just here "for the lulz" - the fact he immediately started posting at multiple locations - including CfD! - that his category was appropriate was also a sign that constructiveness was not to be expected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please ask @Binksternet to cease with the gratuitous templating of my Talk page

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

---

In March, after several instances of gratuitous templating of my Talk page, I said to @Binksternet "apparently I must spell it out for you here: these "reminders" of yours are unwelcome and you are hereby instructed to keep them off my Talk page. Any questions? You continue to remain welcome to actually discuss any good faith concerns of yours on my Talk page (ie no drive-by templating)." This was ignored, such that last month I had to confront the editor again in an effort to put a stop to the harassment: "What did I tell you a month ago, on this page? "these "reminders" of yours are unwelcome and you are hereby instructed to keep them off my Talk page. Any questions?" Could that have been any clearer? I think not. You then proceed to ignore that, which is one thing, but you then insist I stay off the Talk pages of others. Do I need to lock my Talk page? Seriously." As of this month the harassment continues. In his latest edit war with myself and another editor, Binksternet yet again refuses to present on the article Talk page any rationale for excluding the material he wants excluded, in this case the germane observations of a legal expert, one James C. Hathaway. I have referred to Hathaway's comment at least twice on the article Talk page in the past and there neither Binksternet nor any other editor has ever voiced any objection to inclusion. If Binksternet wants to come to my Talkpage, he is welcome to discuss the content matter he insists on edit warring over, just like he is free to do so on the article Talk page. Templating my Talk page for the umpteenth time with the exact same Template accomplishes nothing in terms of informing either me or any debate about whether Professor Hathaway's observation should be included or not. The only apparent rationale is antagonizing me. I've made many requests to keep this particular form of antagonism off of my Talk page and Binksternet refuses. I am at a loss as to how to put an end to this so all concerned can get back to what we are here for.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Your wish to have me stay off your talk page is overridden by the requirement at WP:3RRN for a warning to be delivered about edit warring. The only time I will template your page is if it is required of me. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• One way to limit the disruption of the work of other, non-edit warring editors, is to block the two of you for a week. So, that is what I am going to do. I'll also tell Binksternet to stop templating you, and report you to WP:ANEW next time. You don't need a 3RR warning for each edit war. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Bdell555, I only count 10 edits by Binksternet to your talk page, of which only five (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) appear to be templates, one being a notice of an issue at WP:AN/EW. Hardly "gratuitous" yet. G S Palmer (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2014 (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.

Tendentious editing by Volunteer Marek

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 normally have no major problems interacting with other editors. I first encountered User:Volunteer Marek ten days ago when I made the mistake of posting a mildly critical comment about one of his reverts at Talk:Ukraine (diff.) Within minutes he followed me to another article.[61] Over the next few days, VM followed me to a variety of other articles and talk pages, initiating edit wars at two of them.[62][63] He would find a reason to quarrel with me in every instance. I believe that this may be an example of WP:HOUNDING. I left a polite inquiry on VM's talk page, which he first ignored, then deleted.

Volunteer Marek's block log demonstrates that he has been blocked repeatedly for edit warring, incivility, and harassment. He has also been sanctioned by Arbcom. (block log) There have been recent complaints made about him on ANI, by other editors in other contexts. [64][65] He makes an astonishing number of reverts, but it is difficult to count them because of the misleading edit summaries. He frequently reverts without engaging on the talk page, or makes baseless claims that a consensus exists for his reverts.

VM has been less than civil, continually violating WP:ASPERSIONS: diffdiffdiff (and I know he is aware of the policy, because during the same time frame, he was rudely accusing another editor of violating it: diff.) A careful examination of the diffs in the edits he is reverting will reveal that no sourced material is being removed. Three sections which are all drawn from the same 2 or 3 sources are being re-organized into one section. VM continually insisted that somehow sourced material is being deleted, and has used this as a pretext to engage in revert warfare, and to make unfounded accusations. Eventually he disclosed that he objected to the consolidation because it resulted in fewer headings, and he considered the headings to be "sourced material," a novel interpretation.

There is clearly a pattern of tendentious editing here, and it affects many editors other than myself. My impression is that on this noticeboard, you prefer to discuss behavior rather than content issues, so I have tried to confine my remarks to behavior. It would be nice if something could be done about this, particularly the WP:HOUNDING, because it makes the editing experience unnecessarily stressful. Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I will start by pointing out that the edit in the above-related thread was resolved in a basically satisfactory manner to stabilize the Kagan article, but even after that the attempts to dismiss the text continued on the BLP thread and became even more tendentious, with User:Iryna Harpy appearing out of nowhere and making a first edit accusing me of "Some form of gaming the system at work here?" and later with forum shopping, with her most recent edit being even more inflammatory even after appeals to cease followed by an query on her user Talk page after I noticed that she might have a strong emotional connection to the subject matter.[66]

Meanwhile, VM has deliberately been promoting a misinterpretation of the Foreign Affairs piece (i.e., misrepresenting that piece) as an excuse for his continual POV pushing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT conduct on the same material in the Kagan article. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#better_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 10:31, 12:01 23 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Given that an RfC on Schiller Institute is ongoing, I think any admin action will be rather counterproductive. That being said, Marek's comments are combative - insinuating that other people are editing maliciously or in bad faith is not conducive to a productive discussion. I would recommend that he keeps such allegations to a minimum, to avoid any future ANI threads from cropping up. Indeed, all parties involved could do better to stop with the allegations of POV-pushing (it is never helpful). —Dark 10:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even aware of the Schller institute article, let alone the RfC, though I see that the OP is involved in that. On the other hand, as the OP mentions, the scope of the conduct is much broader, spanning numerous other articles and notice board discussions.

I should specifically point out, with regard to the Nuland article, that when I made this edit, basically establishing the present text relating to the incident at issue, I specifically left out the text associated with the source I brought to RS/N Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Voice_of_Russia_article_reliable_for_quotations_attributed_to_PM.3F, which had been deleted with the edit summary VoR is not reliable.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• First, Ubikwit, does this have anything to do with you? No? Then why are you here? WP:BATTLEGROUND? Please give it up. As to the issues you raise, you brought them to like four different forums now, and didn't get the answer you want. Other users, like @Iryna Harpy: and @Collect: have pointed this out to you: [67] (quote: "This board is for answering questions -- when one gets an answer one does not like, it is a waste of time using this board -- it is like saying "I want your opinion if and only if it is exactly the same as my own" which does not work. The wording you seek states as a fact in Wikipedia's voice that she "supported anti-government protests" and we can not do that on the basis of a Voice of Russia article. As for your ad hom that this is a specious claim that VoR is not reliable I would note that ArbCom has noted your specific battleground use of Wikipedia in the past. " - to Ubikwit)). So drop the stick and back away from the horse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Marek, I have indented your comment since you are not addressing the main point, only comments raised subsequently. I urge you to comment on the original point, if you want to make headway. Shooting a (subsequent) messenger is rarely a good idea. Best, Drmies (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, hold on. Easier point addressed first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Additionally, anyone can comment here, as long as their input as relevant to the reported issue. MV can't pick and choose who is allowed to comment. I agree that MV should focus on the reported issue. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's VM, not MV. And yes, anyone can comment. But that doesn't change the fact that some people comment because they are pursuing a WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you focus on commenting on the basis of the report, the (alleged) motives will become irrelevant. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In regard to User:Joe Bodacious.

1. There's an ongoing RfC on the talk page of the article about the Lyndon LaRouche organization Schiller Institute about the section entitled "Allegations of antisemitism" [68]. Hersch has been trying to remove that section from the article for awhile, hence the RfC. Rather than waiting for the RfC to conclude he began trying to get his way by:

1a. Removing the section title ("Allegations of antisemitism")

1b. Removing another section title ("Cult allegations")

1c. Removing the key sentence "The Schiller Institute has been accused of spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories"

1d. Adding in a spurious {{speculation}} tag, which has not been agreed to or discussed on the talk page.

And doing all this with edit summaries which claimed that no material was being removed, that no major changes were being made, and that this was only a "reorganization" of existing material. These are obviously very POV changes, there's an ongoing RfC exactly about this matter, and objections to these changes specifically were brought up on the talk page, by myself and @Serialjoepsycho: and @Binksternet:. Hence, this was very much an attempt to try and sneak in controversial changes "under the radar", under the pretense that "no sourced material was being removed".

2. Note that my initial comments and edit summaries merely pointed out that there WERE in fact major changes being made. It's only when Joe Bodacious insisted on these changes and kept pretending that nothing was going on (AFTER he was asked about it on the talk page) that I said that this was "sneaky". AGF specifically says: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary" and that certainly applies here.

3. It's the height of hypocrisy of Joe Bodacious to accuse me of incivility when he reverts with edit summaries such as "previous edit summary is utter nonsense" [69]

4. Other users, like User:Binksternet and User:Serialjoepsycho have vociferously disagreed with Joe Bodacious on this. Indeed, Serialjoepsycho explicitly suggested taking this to AN/I [70] in order to deal with Joe's disruption on the article. Let me quote their comment in full: "It's probably time to take this to ANI. You have policy shopping, advocacy, and a user making bad faith edits on another page due to a conversation here. And so much more can just be said." (note that this comment explicitly recognizes that it was actually Joe who was engaging in stalking). Hence, this is actually a "preemptive" strike by Joe Bodacious with the aim of diverting attention away from himself.

5. So... if I file a sockpuppet request at this point will it be seen as "retaliatory"? I've been teetering on the edge of doing so for awhile, since the connection to another LaRouche sock master appears pretty obvious but you know, I made the mistake of "assuming good faith". And now I get this AN/I for my AGF. Kids, remember, that's what assuming goof faith will get you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that WP:ASPERSIONS refers to unfounded accusations. My criticisms were valid and founded. This "aspersion" is a perfectly valid criticism. Tag was added. Section heading was removed. Discussion is here. This "aspersion" is perfectly legit, the reasoning for the comment is right there ("...there's absolutely no policy or guideline..."). This "aspersion" is also perfectly accurate. The concern about the removal of section heading had been raised on talk repeatedly AND the discussion on talk OPPOSED this change [71].

Contrary to the incorrect belief of some editors, "criticism" is not "personal attack" (usually the way this is framed is "If I criticize you, that's ok, but if you criticize me, then, gosh darn it, you're attacking me!". That's not how it works.)Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

My first impression of Joe Bodacious was that he was a sockpuppet of Herschelkrustofsky, a pro-LaRouche editor who was banned for disruption. "Krusty" has continued to make comments about the various LaRouche articles from his box seat at Wikipediocracy, for instance a topic in January titled "Is Binksternet the new Will Beback, or just his proxy," which is full of ridiculous conjecture that says more about Krusty than anything else. If Joe is Krusty then he should be blocked. I have not put together a sockpuppet case because the Krusty account was blocked so long ago and the trail of evidence is cold. The SPI would be based on behavior alone, a difficult proposal. Of course, since Joe clearly does not have neutrality as his guiding light (he is instead concerned primarily with promoting LaRouche), he is not really cut out for Wikipedia editing. So there's two more practical ways to solve this problem: topic ban Joe from LaRouche-related edits, or block Joe for disruption. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

My opening statement seems to have inspired a lot of diversionary tactics. Incidentally, WP:ASPERSIONS says: "If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." Littering article talk pages and edit summaries with aspersions creates a toxic environment, which is the hallmark of WP:Tendentious editing. I considered adding Binksternet, another very tendentious editor, to this request for admin action, but I didn't want to make it more complicated than it already is. Joe Bodacious (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

And let us note that you didn't even bother denying the sock puppet accusation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Was there an accusation there? If so, I deny it. I just regarded Binksternet's comments as a frantic attempt to change the subject. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's awesome that paid operatives of Lyndon LaRouche are really working to make our encyclopedia reflect the truth about the British Monarchy that has, for so long, been suppressed. More power to them! Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite, out of curiosity, at whom was that snipe aimed?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

To address my comment related to, "a user making bad faith edits on another page due to a conversation here." I wasn't talking about Joe. Another user who doesn't seem to be involved here in this AN/I. A SPA.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, your statement about disruptive users was in response to my talk page discussion post referring to Joe Bodacious' edit [72] so I assumed you were referring to him. But yes, the other LaRouchite account active on that article, User:Waalkes is also an SPA and also up to some shenanigans in that topic area [73].Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

LaRouche operatives have edited this site on behalf of the organization for years. I wasted months of my time on a long, drawn-out mediation I was trying to facilitate between Will Beback and one of the LaRouche socks, until the sock was uncovered and blocked. It's a real problem and it has been happening for a long time. Whether or not Joe Bodacious is one of them, I have no idea, but I can tell you from personal experience that it's easy to be fooled by them. (Or maybe I'm just gullible.) -- Atama頭 17:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have inadequate evidence to start an SPI, then that comment is probably out of order. Moreover, this thread encompasses a far greater scope than the subject to which you refer, yet you address none of the other material, including the preceding comment that repudiates at least one of VM's charges against Joe as an outright misrepresentation of the actual state of affairs.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that LaRouche operatives fought with Will Beback for a long period of time, and for someone to bring up WB while simultaneously taking a pro-LaRouche stance, I can't help but be at least somewhat suspicious given my experience. Take a look at this mess to see why I am just a bit sensitive about this issue. -- Atama頭 18:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, see here for the conclusion of all that drama. -- Atama頭 18:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll take your word for it because I don't have time to look into that. But tell me, do you think it reasonable that this entire thread has been hijacked by that single issue? Have the other issues been adequately addressed? My interaction with both Joe and VM started with the Robert Kagan article, and there is absolutely no question that VM was in the wrong and acting as a troublemaker, basically. I'm concerned that this thread is sort of appearing to give VM a pass in light of some unsubstantiated suspicion that Joe might be a LaRouche plant. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I honestly didn't intend to contribute to any hijacking, considering that I haven't seen anything concrete that suggests that Joe is from the LaRouche organization (yet). I'll say one more thing on that subject, then hopefully I won't feel the need to bring it up anymore... Almost 5 years ago, we were able to get info from an ISP that showed what IP block was assigned to that organization, and identify an operative/sock via CheckUser information. If necessary it can be done again. So for anyone who feels there is sufficient behavioral evidence to pursue an investigation, don't worry about info being too "stale" for CheckUser to be of help, it still might be useful. Though it would be done in a somewhat non-standard way.

To get back to the subject, Ubikwit you brought up the Robert Kagan article. What I see there is not that VM is in the wrong. My opinion on that conflict is this... VM argued that the information was not worth keeping because the sources were editorials, you argued that there was nothing in BLP that restricted such information. I think both of your basic premises were potentially valid there. You edit-warred, which was a no-no, but it was a somewhat low key edit war (nobody violated or even reached 3RR) and it ended up going to the talk page which is what you hope happens in that situation. I don't think VM made much of an effort to argue their point, and the discussion on the talk page ended up getting derailed by what VM (properly) labeled as off-topic discussion about Kagan. It seemed to have proceeded in better fashion on BLPN. My suggestion is to let it resolve there, I don't see that administrators need to step in here to act at this point. Given VM's history, I won't rule out the possibility of blocks being needed if matters escalate, but I'll also note that the last block was a couple of years ago, so that might not be necessary. -- Atama頭 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: I didn't mean to suggest that you were part of the diversion of the course of this thread into a netherland of LaRouche preocupied comments, not intentionally, at any rate. That is the course of development I see, however.

Regarding the Kagan article, not all of the pieces were opinion pieces, though you are correct that I also argued against exclusion of the opinion pieces. I don't have time to dig out the diffs at the moment, but if you go through that thread carefully, especially the subthread on "better sources", you'll see that other authors maintained that the Foreign Affairs piece (to be fair, VM is included in this group), as well as the Guardian piece were not opinion pieces.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

On a side but related note. Aren't Kagan and Nuland both political targets of the Larouche movement?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, Serialjoepsycho, I'll be damned if I know, and its not a concern of mine at this point, nor is it relevant except insofar as you may be suggesting that Joe B arrived on those pages with a related agenda. I did not, and I can assure that the issues there are fully demonstrated on the related discussion threads to have nothing to do with LaRouche, only WP:RS, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and related polices. If you are interested in the subject matter, I suggest this article from Foreign Affairs, Present at the Re-Creation, A Neoconservative Moves On, for starters.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There are content related noticeboards for your conetnt related issues. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of fairness, I don't think anyone has accused (or has cause to accuse, or even suspect) that Ubikwit has any connection to the LaRouche organization, and in discussing any sort of conflict between Ubikwit and Volunteer Marek whether or not the article(s) involved are related to that organization is academic. It might be relevant when discussing Joe Bodacious given the allegations made. Just thought I'd point that out, for the sake of anyone following this discussion and to assure Ubikwit that nobody seems to be making any such insinuations. -- Atama頭 22:29, 23 May 2014 (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.

Block/Ban?

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 feel that After looking At His Contributions, We can safely Say that Volunteer Marek should Be blocked Or banned, I am not Proposing It (Putting it up to vote). As more of Opening This idea to Debate, Any Comments? Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 17:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

How long have you been on Wikipedia? And already hanging out at AN/I? Nice username btw.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI is always 3 clicks away from any page (Community portal -> Dispute resolution -> link to ANI). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support It seems that User:Serialjoepsycho just repudiated VM's misrepresentation of his edits/statements.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose No grounds given to remotely reach that sort of proposal. Collect (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for insufficient evidence. I also am going to ping @Dougweller: about this, given his interest in the topic in general. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to start voting prematurely, but the repudiation I referred seems to call for supporting a ban/block, because dealing with VM is an extremely time consuming enterprise due to his continually disruptive conduct.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's "time consuming" it's only because you insist on bringing up the same issue over and over and over and over again to every forum you can find, in search of an answer you'd like. For god's sake you even tried to shoehorn this dispute into an ongoing ArbCom case [74], that I have nothing to do with, and AFTER Evidence stage had been closed! And at every one of these forums you've been told over and over and over again by all kinds of people, by numerous editors that you're simply wrong and that you don't understand BLP policy. In couple cases you've seized upon some minor off the cuff comment someone made to declare "victory" only to be told by others that, no, you're still wrong. You've extended this harassment of myself, to other editors, such as User:Collect or User:Iryna Harpy. You're running all across Wikipedia shouting and ranting, posting walls of text, making accusations against anyone who disagrees with you and are just completely unable to step back and drop the stick. Chances are you're gonna get sanctioned in that ArbCom case, at least based on a quick look, the precedent set in the previous ArbCom case where you got topic ban, and the evidence there. This is a genuinely meant good faithed advice: drop it. Stop creating WP:BATTLEGROUNDs. Write an article or something. Create content. Leave good folks alone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@VM, apparently you are displeased that your attempts to displace a 2+-year consensus passage on the Robert Kagan article as well as the controversy surrounding the phone conversation recordings of Kagan's wife, Victoria Nuland article were foiled in large part due to my efforts on those articles and related discussions.

Arbcom will examine your conduct and mine in relation to the specifics of that case on American Politics, but this thread is a separate matter related to the community and your conduct on a broader scope of articles, which precedes my presentation of evidence against you in the Arbcom case, incidentally.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Foiled"? Are you some crime-fighting-masked-crusader? What are you talking about? The junk material was removed, like I insisted (there's some IP trying to restore it but nm).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, VM, who was that masked man?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

...Just more the Reason To take some kind of Punishment against this repeat Offender, I feel that we should not just keep extending His leash. Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 18:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

^^^ If this isn't a disruptive sock account here only to create drama and lulz then I'm really a talking horse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to block or ban there needs to be more discussion and further investigation. He's not alone in that article talk page. And I don't think VM made a bad faith interpretation of my statement. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, thanks for the clarification. There is much more to VM's conduct that needs to be examined here than the talk page to which reference is being made. The WP:HOUNDING has not been addressed, nor anything outside of the LaRouche material, which I've been exposed to for the first time in which thread and which appears to be a long-running issue.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, because I really don't want my name associated with anything to do with LaRouche - when you refer to "LaRouche material" that involves me cleaning up and removing PRO-LaRouche POV pushing from those articles. And it's not a "long-running issue". Stop making false accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to under stand Ubi. I don't mean further investigation of VM. I mean of everyone involved. Your going to start shooting for a ban it's best to know everything going on.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No doubt you are right about that, because I have no connection to the Schiller Institute article, but with Jo Bodacious on the Robert Kagan article, where VM's tendentiousness was a serious drawback. I'm waiting to see this unfold, but it seems to be diverting into one direction only (the LaRouche related article), when VM's conduct on other articles is clearly at issue.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• strong oppose This does not come close to behavior requiring a community ban, nor topic ban. While VM's behavior is not perfect this isn't even warring of the type that would require a short block for cooling off. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Which of the diffs have you taken the time to examine, exactly, which "warring"? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I read all of the diffs above. They are not evidence of warring requiring a block imo. If there are OTHER diffs that do show warring requiring action, those should be presented in an unambiguous manner, in which case you can skip the drama here and go directly to WP:ANEW where the blocks will happen without any debate required. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, now you have single-handedly transformed the thread about "tendentious editing" into a thread about "edit warring", which is a much narrower scope. That is a diversion from the stated subject of the thread.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - completely ridiculous proposal. We need more editors who are willing to insist reliable sourcing at BLPs, not less.--Staberinde (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Stupid idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - To put it bluntly - Possibly the stupidest idea known to man! - VM isn't perfect but who is ... Give him a warning & just move on!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - VM's got strong opinions and isn't afraid to show them when they don't match other people's. Not really the Securitas depot robbery. A some GF and settle it over a cup of tea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While it does seem that VM can be abit coarse, alot of the complaint here really seems like this is tit for tat. It wouldn't make much sense to punish VM because Joe ran to teacher first.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why do I have this unsettling feeling that an undisclosed COI team of possibly paid contributors is on the offensive here? Any ideas? Poeticbent talk 20:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• OpposeHonestly this seems over the top. I can't see the evidence to support it. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - no substantial evidence, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal is premature in the extreme. HAD should read the guidelines for blocks and bans to learn that they are preventative not punitive. MarnetteD | Talk 21:22, 23 May 2014 (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.

Suggestion

• Probably a good idea for more editors to keep a weather eye on User:Happy Attack Dog, an editor who hasn't smelled right to me since they appeared three and a half months ago, and quickly began to comment here and on AN. BMK (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It is common practice to notify the editor involved when discussing them. I also don't think that it is particularly appropriate to accuse him of foul play when, for all intents and purposes, all he appears to be is a relatively new and inexperienced editor who is less familiar with our policies. Judging from his contributions, perhaps he is not familiar with the nuances involved in these user conduct discussions but I doubt he is acting maliciously as you implied. As an aside, his name is rather unfortunate... —Dark 06:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I haven't accused anybody of anything, unless you count that I've accused myself of having a good digital olfactory sense. I've merely suggested that other editors might like to keep their eyes on User:Happy Attack Dog. I'll stand by that. BMK (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Given that you are posting this to ANI rather than expressing concerns on the editor's talk page as you should be doing, your intent may be misconstrued. —Dark 09:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• The same concerns have already been expressed more than once here on ANI about the same editor. Nobody was opening a "case", no need to notify. No biggie the panda ₯’ 10:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• What would make me not Smell Right (What makes you Suspicious of Me)? And I also Have the Notion That You should not base Someone Off of how fast They Get involved in Certain Areas. Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 17:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've discussed my concerns on your talk page before, and you've ignored them, so I'm not going to go into them with you now, what would be the point? I'm merely suggesting -- to other editors -- that many eyes on a potential problem is a good idea. BMK (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with BMK here. I don't know and don't care if HAD is a sock or not, but they certainly don't have the knowledge (or sometimes even competency) to be giving others advice at AN/ANI or nominating others at RfA or anything really that they've been doing. 27.241.12.13 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC) (former User:Ansh666, need to kick the addiction...)

Non-English racist and anti-ethnicity comments

Involved editors

• Hirabutor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Yagmurlukorfez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Diffs: [75], [76], [77]

Per WP:NOT, both users are involved in non-WP actions. --175.120.16.140 (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Translations (Google)

• I Yagmurlukorfez days, as I see you're busy few weeks in the wiki. I'm from the Persian or Turkish chauvinist anti-Western parties, none of which you're also şaşırmadıs. Unfortunately, it is very common here, including especially the Persian chauvinists. I've had the same thing, but thankfully did not achieve success until now. One of the reasons I'm using reliable and trustworthy sources. I want to talk to you a lot of chauvinistic puppet farce account the fact that the main subject is using. Until now, I've deciphered some. But these issues with you no longer want to treat in a confidential manner. If you have any private communication would be glad of the opportunity. yours truly

Work as a team

• Thank you for your attention. Well, here clearly that nationalism, fitting remove sourced content reasons (particularly on major issues), I came across users. Kyrgyz and racist attacks against me from experiencing the latest and most likely you have heard from the vandalism. As you say, a "chauvinist groupings" Do you have, if any, in this direction, I'm not sure exactly what the end looks quite likely that if we look at what happened. Turkish Wikipedia could meet on IRC
• Reply: I'm a little busy right now, but next week we could continue. To discuss the Turkish Wikipedia --175.120.16.140 (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Notified the two users. No comment on the issue since I can't read Turkish (nor know enough about the language to work around Google Translate's... shall we say idiosyncrasies). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This IP is blocked IP for racist attacks to me. Here. Seems, He/she is come back again. I guess he using proxy. Btw, There is no "racist" comment. That's about nationalism in wikipedia. Google translate can't help you. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It is abvious that this person is using a proxy server for anonymous surfing to hide his/her IP address. The same person was reported here. He or she is using a wide range of proxies from various countries such as Georgia, Sweden, Japan, Korea, USA etc. Maybe the main IP acts from the Ferdowsi University in Iran. My guess is that this user is rhetorically related to User:Zyma and User:Ergative_rlt and maybe even to the banned User:Iranzamin-Iranzamin, all of them prominent for their radical Persian point of view. That the ip is certainly related to User:Zyma we can conclude from these edits:

1. User_talk:Florian_Blaschke#Recent_unreliable_changes_on_Afanasevo_culture_and_Andronovo_culture,
2. User_talk:Florian_Blaschke#Are_these_sources_expert_or_valid.3F. --Hirabutor (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Providing better translation as Google Translate's machine translate is far from being perfect: Good days Yagmurlukorfez, As I see you' re very active in wiki for a couple weeks. I hope you are not surprised with the Persian chauvinists or Western people with anti-Turk position. Unfortunately, it is very common here, including especially the Persian chauvinists. I also faced the same thing, but fortunately, they did not achieve the success until now. One of the reasons I'm using reliable and trustworthy sources. The main topic that I'd want to discuss with you is that a lot of Persian chauvinistic use sock-puppet accounts. Until now, I've deciphered some. But I'd want to discuss the topic with you confidentially. I would be glad, if you have any private communication opportunity. My respects

Answer: Thank you for your attention. Well, I here came across [with the Users, who] shows clearly nationalism, and remove sourced content with crap reasons (particularly on major issues). Probably, you are informed about the racist attacks on me and made vandalism which was made in the topic about the Kyrgyz people. I am not sure if there are "chauvinist groupings"or if there are some, I am not sure on which direction they are working, but if we look at the incidents which happened recently it can be seen that is quite possible. We can meet each other in Turkish Wikipedia on IRC

Answer 2: I am quite busy these days. See you in Turkish Wikipedia

Comment: As it can be seen these users are not saying anything really chauvinistic or something else. But rather trying to coordinate to stop anti-Turk POV biased users with reliable sources. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not going to comment on the translations due to language difficulties, but it is recommended that editors use English for their communications on this project in the future, just to avoid any suggestions of impropriety. However assuming that the IP who started this thread is the same as the one from Kyrgyz people (a reasonable assumption given that this is the IP's first edits); there appears to be no merit to the complaint and this is simply persistent harassment. —Dark 17:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with this: [78], [79]? --Hirabutor (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

lol WTF?! Look at this revision history: [80]. --Hirabutor (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Hirabutor's first comment. These users are totally aggressive and they got obvious biased actions about certain articles. I think it is a suspicious stiation and should be check. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@DarkFalls: I think you're a biased and POV admin. You don't decide by logic. This report is clear and these two users are involved in an ethnic war. Those IPs are disruptive, but it doesn't mean that you ignore these two users. All of these users (two registered accounts and those IPs) have battleground actions with strong ethnic/racial/nationalistic views. Now I learned why "The Decline of Wikipedia" just started. Because some admins like you try to give extra credits to registered users despite their behaviors. There is no difference between those racist IPs and these two ethnocentrist users. --24.69.98.233 (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:240F:11:A201:1:1469:C428:EC44:FEB at Ryukyuan languages

240F:11:A201:1:1469:C428:EC44:FEB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing sourced information[81], rewriting sentences with misleading language[82], inserting machine translations[83], and edit warring[84]. I've warned him twice four times and he continues this behavior. Please block this IP immediately. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:The Rambling Man

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.

---

About a week ago I warned The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) that I thought he was skirting his topic ban with respect to User:Medeis, which he highly resented, as can be seen in this dialogue and not least by the way he edited his talkpage note an hour later, to read "Advisory notice: This admin has been declared persona non grata by a couple of other "competent" admins, please refer to them (User:Writ Keeper and User:Bishonen) to help you out if you need something urgent. Or, if you like, email them in a quest to get me blocked, that seems to be how things work around here."[85] (Notice the creepy edit summary.)

The topnote about me and Writ Keeper has history going back to March, when we were originally merely noted as a couple of anonymous "competent" (i.e. incompetent, per the piped link) admins that had declared him persona non grata.[86] It was soon extended to include our names.[87] The March context, if anybody cares, was that WK had closed an ANI discussion of disruption on the Reference desk as having consensus for an interaction ban between TRM on the one hand and Baseball Bugs and Medeis on the other,[88] and had had a discussion with TRM of the application of the topic ban which ended in resentment. I had disobliged with… oh… never mind, I can't find it, perhaps TRM can; it was also to do with the topic ban.

I've looked away, and it's my impression others are looking away too. Surely some people watch the page, but nobody has reacted visibly to the "one-eyed queen" thing or the other quips. A couple of admins, Hahc21 and Dweller did inquire about the pagenote in April,[89] but only to commiserate with TRM and tell him how persona mucho grato he was to lots of other users.[90][91] It doesn't seem to have occurred to either of them at that time to consider the page note uncivil. However, a couple of weeks later, May 9, Dweller removed it in favor of a nice note about TRM's qualifications as admin and 'crat,[92] which TRM reverted after a few days,[93] and since then it's stayed, now improved with pings to me and Writ Keeper. Now I've disobliged again, I think, or perhaps I just seem more despicable the more he thinks about it, for TRM edited his note again a few days ago, to say: "As Daffy Duck said, "DESPICABLE"!! Feel free to email User:Bishonen if you'd like to get me blocked. She appears to be more than happy to help in this respect."[94] (Perhaps Writ Keeper has been forgiven, or at least his villainy pales next to mine, because he's gone from the topnote.)

I don't want to believe that people are looking away because TRM is an admin. Perhaps it's because he used to be a nice guy. But I'm tired of it. Would somebody please remove the ever-fluctuating, but always Bishonen-envenomed note at the top of TRM's page and discourage him from putting it back? Also perhaps somebody would be so kind as to notify him of this thread, as he has warned me off his page. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC).

Editor notified and comment removed. NE Ent 00:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seems the box has been removed by NE Ent. I think that's the right course of action. I recall having highly positive interactions with TRM several years ago, and think that box seems really out of character. I hope TRM understands and accepts its removal, and whatever the cause for the dispute, he try to avoid letting things go this far in the future... because pro wrestling-style callouts like that are without question incompatible with our mission here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Since Bishonen pinged me: I've seen the editnotice/hatnote/whatever; I can't fault Bish for her reaction to it, and her complaint shouldn't be disregarded, but to be honest it doesn't really bother me. I really don't know why TRM thinks that I consider him a persona non grata--I don't, and never have; though I've disagreed with him about various things in the past, he certainly does a lot of good around here, probably much more than I. I'm not sure what I've said or done to make him think that. Nor, for that matter, do I understand why he, in the conversation on his talk page that Bish linked, thinks that I've sided with Medeis against him (I haven't done that, either). My statement there was that I wouldn't accept his help in researching Medeis's possible misbehavior on the Refdesk, as having him help me would hardly be conducive to neutrality, at least in appearance (not to mention that it could've fairly easily been seen as a violation of his interaction ban with Medeis). But I guess to him, that meant that I had sided with Medeis; I guess he thinks that anyone who isn't for him is against him. But, as I had also said, any investigation of mine wouldn't be helpful in actually concluding their feud unless both sides could see that the outcome wasn't influenced by the other; he clearly wasn't willing to accept me as unbiased any more, so I let it drop. I haven't really thought much about it since, nor have I kept tabs on TRM's edits. So, yeah. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That edit box was utterly unacceptable and a blatant personal attack on the named admins. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Given the context from which this arises, I see this as a reference to the ban situation. His interaction ban prohibits him from "mak[ing] reference to or comment on [the other two editors] anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly", and this is an indirect reference. Had I seen the situation before he removed it, I would have blocked and then removed it myself. As things are right now, a block would only be punitive, so I'll not do anything, but let me remind everyone that TRM is on a one-strike-you're-out plane; a warning need not be given before sanctions are requested for ban violations. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• The editor is distressed and the problem rectified, this should be closed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Concur. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal Attack and an issue of some serious article ownership

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

User Modernist used a personal attack against me by calling me a troll in his edit summery Not once, Not twice, Not three times, But four times. And he apparently insists that my minor edits on the article are basically worthless and that his 121 edits on the article gives me no right to even discuss changes. I do not believe that this attitude is paramount to the consensus building process of Wikipedia and it only tends to antagonize people rather than trying to work together in a collaborative way. I tried to discuss and even opened up an RFC, but that has only appeared to infuriate him further.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• All I see here is a content dispute and a bit of incivility, nothing worth admin attention. It also appears that Modernist has a case of editcountitis. G S Palmer (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep Its basically a content dispute. A content dispute that I am trying to get some more opinions on. Thats why I opened an RFC. So I'm not sure why it elevated to such an uncivil level.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Judging by this edit, it appears that Modernist is willing to compromise. G S Palmer (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Willing? Maybe, but the lead still has a major flaw.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Modernist does need to stop with the "troll" rhetoric. NE Ent 01:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree that modernist is being rude. Howunusual (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TonyTheTiger gaming AfD, bludgeoning and personal attacks against multiple editors

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.

---

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

This thread is in response to specific personal attacks made by User:TonyTheTiger at the second AfD for Jabari Parker's high school career. There is a mild content dispute regarding the article however I am not posting here to resolve that; for details please see the AfD(s). The user has taken to personally attacking many of the dissenting editors, ad hominem attacks and accusing editors who identify as Canadian of being a meatpuppet of Resolute or WP:CANVASSed from WP:HOCKEY. Myself and other editors have tried to keep the AfD to a discussion about the article but it is quickly descending to a battleground for Tony.

Unfounded accusations of canvassing: [95] (edit summary), [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]

Ad hominem attack: [101]

Tony's contributions to the encyclopedia are commendable but his conduct here is not. I have no prior interactions with Tony (AFAIK) but I understand based on comments from other editors that this is Tony's pattern, and I find it quite disruptive. I realize that my conduct and that of other editors in the AfD may not have been exemplary and I'm willing to accept the admins' review of the situation. If this is not the appropriate forum I apologize; I am not very familiar with this process as to my recollection I've not had to use it. Ivanvector (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• User notified: [102] Ivanvector (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is a straight-forward G4 speedy, and I have tagged it as such. Delete, salt, and indef the creator until the disruption is acknowledged and will not be repeated in the future. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Re-tagging G4 is a bit superfluous given the AFD is leaning deep into delete territory. An uninvolved admin could just as easily close per WP:SNOW. Resolute 15:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Should add that indeffing Tony might be a tad harsh though. He's obviously venting because things aren't going his way. I view his accusations against me in that lens, and don't find them remotely concerning. Resolute 15:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is this indef threat for recreating or CANVASS claim?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of canvassing is serious. If Tony makes them again without providing proof an outside editor would deem reasonable, he should be banned from participating in that AFD until it is over. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• • I stated in the AFD that an admin would likely find several delete votes by WP:HOCKEY and Canadian editors who did not even read the article, which suggests some form of offline WP:CANVASSing. The article traffic is low enough that IP investigations should point this out pretty easily. It does not seem entirely unfounded to claim canvassing of this sort and when the accused party does not deny such allegations it seems reasonable. I don't even know how else to approach (possibly offline) CANVASSing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • As Resolute noted, you posted on their talk page about this AFD. This is going to draw the attention of other editors Resolute has worked with. And your allegation - "Have you made a statement on why people are voting without reading the article." - asks him to speculate on what other editors are doing based on your assumption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't really buy the argument that people saw she was involved in a discussion and went and voted on the discussion without figuring out what it was about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Seriously? After this you still refer to Resolute as "she"? Why do you do that? And hard evidence for "voted on the discussion without figuring out what it was about" please? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
          • TonyTheTiger is lucky he hasn't been blocked yet for this absurd display of assumptions of bad faith and completely baseless apersions against other editors. And the only way to not get blocked yet will be for him to drop this matter, immediately. Tony: one more posting going on about these accusations, and I'll block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I am pretty sure that if I wanted to canvass another project, Tony, I could have drawn more than one editor in. The truth is, your article has been rejected by editors who write in several sports - including basketball - in addition to the numerous others who don't focus on any sport. Resolute 22:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Resolute, if I may make this recommendation to you, please just don't further argue. Everybody else here can see how baseless Tony's accusations are, and as for him, we really want him to just drop the matter, not engage him in yet more pointless discussion about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• I declined the speedy G4 because I did not see consensus for it. I note two points about the accusations: 1/some of them were based on the supposed nationality of his opponents, which is an aggravating factor, but on the other hand, 2/there was considerable personal comments from other parties also, DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• After reading through the whole AfD discussion, I think everyone would be best served if this thread is closed. As DDG points out, there were personal comments made on both sides that helped heat up the discussion. I am One of Many (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2014 (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.

Some difficulties at Isotretinoin

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.

---

• Isotretinoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've removed some statements from the isotretinoin article that were redundant, supported only by non-MEDRS compliant sources, or that were based on original research. These include:

• May 10 at 20:56:

• Adverse events discussed in the History section that were already covered in great detail under Adverse Effects
• Statements about the percent of users receiving pregnancy tests, supported only by a primary reference
• Discussion of iPLEDGE, already covered under Adverse Events in great detail
• A statement about pregnancy rates and abortion rates supported only by primary research.

• May 10 at 20:53

• "Dosage requirements of isotretinoin have been disputed. After a 1984 study funded by Roche, relatively high dosages of isotretinoin became mainstream in treatment in the United States. Lower dosages were found to be effective in treatment by independent research (see dosage section)." Redundant

* May 10 at 20:09

• 4 case reports used as sources. Accordig to WP:MEDRS "Case reports and other anecdotes fall below the standard of reliable sources"
• Several sentences consisting entirely of WP:OR regarding growth stunting.

• May 19 at 9:41 Removed an unsourced statement that isotretinoin is not associated with depression that is clearly in conflict with the medical literature

* May 18, 6:16 Corrected an unsourced statement] that on investigation turned out to be factually incorrect

This may not be a complete listing, I think I caught most of them though. Some may be controversial, but all are on the basis of poor sourcing and/or redundancy of topics covered in greater detail elsewhere in the text. I am happy to discuss any of these with folks who feel they were inappropriate.

User931 has objected to some of these changes, and has repeatedly reverted several of them, referring to my edits as "vandalism" and insisting that it is inappropriate to remove "material referenced from medical texts". The edits were explained early in the dispute on the Talk page, but he refused to engage there until recently. He has recently joined the Talk page, but simply repeated the argument that one cannot removed material "referenced by medical texts" and has not responded to my detailed defense of the first four edits described above. I believe s/he is currently in violation of the 3R rule. The reversions are shown in the diffs below

May 17 May 18 May 21 May 21b May 21c Nay 21d May 21e

I'm happy to discuss, but not getting very far. If someone could help out here it would be appreciated. There is a discussion on the bottom of the Talk Page.

Many thanksFormerly 98 (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think User:User931 might be confused because multiple references from medical journal articles were deleted, apparently on grounds of WP:OR. I'm confused by this too. Peer reviewed medical journals don't qualify as original research. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

After posting this I noticed that an Admin user:Kelapstick had protected the page. Thanks. Thats a good stopgap while we discuss the issues here. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did, there was a request at RFPP. It seemed like a reasonable compromise, rather than 3RR block(s). Naturally if some agreement is reached, it can be unprotected before the one week. Thanks for the Ping Formerly 98. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for my clarification, since the article is fully protected, is it permissible for an administrator to be currently making changes to the article? Deli nk (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The last edit there removed mention of the SMART program instituted in 2000. As I perceive it, isotretinoin is best known for the political (or "ethical" === "profit") issues surrounding it -- namely, that a company whose patent expires can get the FDA to continue its monopoly under the guise that it is too inconvenient to regulate a generic market. And later, to simply make it too difficult to use in general so that some other patented product will be used in its place. It is a very common thing for pharma companies to present their drugs as safe for nearly the entire duration of their patent, then abruptly admit that they hid evidence, and have new evidence come to light, to present them as unsafe. The parts deleted from the article contain not even the slightest trace of that idea, mind you, but they potentially could allow a reader to figure it out. Though it may be futile, we should try to resist the funded medical lobby and its push to make us think that every small detail of their profit is incontrovertible science, and that it is a law of nature for people to give over every last dollar in exchange for whatever treatment a bureaucracy of people who own the right to treat disease decides to offer them. On Wikipedia, that includes resisting the push to have MEDRS apply to legal and regulatory information. Wnt (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have a limited amount of experience with this article, having copyedited it in the past, so I've just begun trying to mediate between the parties with respect to the unsourced addition of novel adverse effects. However, in my judgement protecting the article was a sensible decision. (As for the separate dispute over the attempted monopolisation of isotretinoin therapy, I have no knowledge or opinion to offer.) AGK [•] 18:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

However much it may please you to think so Wnt, I am not part of the "funded medical lobby". The material on SMART was removed for the same reason that I removed the statement that "No evidence ties accutane to psychiatric side effects". Because it was not properly sourced. It would have been nice to at least read my comment before violating WP:GF

This notice is withdrawn. We have a couple of Admins with eyes on the article now and that seems to suffice. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: Sorry, my intention was not to suggest that you were the paid medical lobby. Rather, it is well known that Wiki Med, Inc., one of the resources linked from WP:MED, has external funding sources, and promotes editing high quality medical articles (translating them and sometimes even replacing those on other language Wikipedias), which does involve imposing WP:MEDRS. The mechanism is not flagrant, and it mixes in with many well-intentioned edits that I couldn't object to to remove misinformation, but I am distrustful of the political effect. Wnt (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Point of order (I've added this after the thread was closed, for fairness): Doc James posted to my talk that "As the president of WPMEDF I have not heard of any of these external funding sources. In fact the organization has never raised or been given any money and does not even have a bank account. An organization we are partnering with, Translators Without Borders did receive $12,000 from the Indigo foundation to develop their translation center in Kenya to work on our project but other than that all work by all involved is as volunteers." I had been going by my impression from discussions that occurred early in the planning of Wiki Med, but admittedly Doc James is in a far better position to know. Wnt (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt:Right back at you, I jumped too hard. Please be aware that I've left a pretty strongly worded comment on the Talk page, please divide by 3 in interpreting my intent. We all get emotional at times. :>) Formerly 98 (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I just want to point out that User931, who was the key edit warrior (reverting, writing nasty edit notes, and not Talking), has true-to-form not joined this discussion nor the discussion on Talk:Isotretinoin, despite being asked nicely to start talking. Not a happy sign.Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have a life to take care of and intense medical studies atm, thank you. Nasty edit notes? User:User931 22:12 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, User931 finally showed up, with the remark above, and what is worse, this. Oy. Not here to build an encylopedia, maybe? User931, Formerly and I asked you to stop with the nastiness, and linked to the edit notes, on your Talk page, first here which you blanked, and then I did again more thoroughly here, which you again blanked. Accusing people of being vandals and of being "sent my (sic) Medical industry" is ... nasty. Please discuss content not contributors, and please deal with actual issues underlying the dispute. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, User931 has finally returned to the talk page, but unfortunately only to inform me that I am "ignorant". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsotretinoin&diff=609862996&oldid=609850631

I apologize for the inconvenience, but I don't think we are going to make much progress here without intervention.Formerly 98 (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Formerly 98, ANI has probably reached the limit of whatever it is going to do with this complaint. It is unlikely that User931 will be blocked unless they persist beyond the warnings already given. The full protection that was applied to isotretinoin creates a pause in the hostilities which might be long enough to open an WP:RFC at Talk:Isotretinoin. This might allow you to resolve the matters in dispute. At a minimum it should focus the disagreement on some well-defined changes. After protection expires, if you think you see a resumption of the edit war you can report it at WP:AN3 and link to this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2014 (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.

Harassing by User:Dmatteng

For the last few weeks User:Dmatteng is constantly fishing for blocks or referring to a recent block (when I lost my cool and got a conditional unblock/topic ban regarding Irish parishes). Unfortunately, Dmatteng seems to be revengeful after my AfD-nomination for UE Boom as advertising. His warnings and requests for blocks are very distressing. See: [103]], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112] and [113]. I might have missed a few.

I am not the perfect guy, I admit. The Banner talk 12:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like DM needs to just leave The Banner alone. I've interacted with both extensively recently, so perhaps the message might have more effect coming from another admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the solution here (should be) pretty straightforward and that it might be better coming from a heretofore uninvolved party. JohnInDC (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at articles like this [114] where Dmatteng comes out of nowhere to revert (he's never edited that article before), and his constant reverting of editors (including The Banner) on UE Boom, while hypocritically quoting WP:BRD (which applies to everyone, not just those you disagree with). Then I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HarvEast Holding which is an AFD The Banner nom'ed but Dmatteng never edited, but voted in. It is almost like he is following The Banner around. He seems to bump into him a fair amount [115] for someone with less than 500 edits in just over two months. This looks like harassing to me. I'm trying to find a good reason to not block, but I'm coming up short, as the tone of the editor is such that I think there is a major clue deficiency going on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree that I bump into The Banner. If there is a problem with how I applied WP:BRD that is a content-related issue. The Banner has frivolously nominated HarvEast Holding and since I'm a native Russian speaker I thought I can help there. Indeed after my comment unrelated editors voted to keep the article. That was 2 months ago? (Fails short of constant following.) [116] Was the second instance I reverted The Banner and actually he has started edit warring there. He has reverted a good-faithed edit so I thought I might correct the situation.

From my perspective things are: (of course I'm an involved editor so I might have a subjective view, but nevertheless): After I have reported The Banner's disruptive editing to an admin he got blocked for one week. Once unblocked he repeated disruptive editing and was blocked indefinitely. (At the same time he nominated article UE Boom that I have written for AfD.) According to several editors the nomination wasn't appropriate, and the result was to keep. At that time I proposed The Banner to help to improve the article but he declined. However after being unblocked he started to follow and harass me on the article and talk page of the article I have written. Those 100 edits [117] were made on the article I have written and it is The Banner who had followed me, not vice versa.

Since then his participation on UE Boom was one-directional and simply consisted of contradiction to any changes that I would propose and creation of hotair that was noted by unrelated editor. He violated one of his unblocking conditions: "You conduct yourself properly on talk pages, in a manner consistent with good-faith discussion intended to improve the encyclopaedia". His participation on the talk page of UE Boom was lacking AGF in my opinion and his PA has been noted.

JohnInDC is a related editor with whom we have a content dispute. It is distressing that he hasn't introduced himself here as an involved editor. I'm sorry if my English is not perfect, I'm not a native English speaker, and I apologize for any grammar mistakes in this post. Dmatteng (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

How about the idea that you just avoid him, then we have no problems? There is obviously some disagreements between you two, and that is the easiest solution. As for BRD, if someone has reverted you, don't revert back until you talk on the talk page. You don't just get to quote it for other editors, it applies to everyone. Most arguments and edit wars are easy to avoid if people didn't keep reverting. Be the one that stops the cycle and takes it to a talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely support this idea and I wonder why The Banner has come after me and the article I have written. I see it as a clear instance of revenge editing. He is purposely trying to decrease the quality of the article by supporting all edits that do so. In about 100 edits on the article he hasn't introduced any one single reference, any one word of a new content.

Regarding WP:BRD, I'm still learning, but I think I might have acted right. We have had a version of the article per consensuses. Mendaliv introduced bold edits without prior discussion and I have reverted him. Then The Banner reverted back to the new version and cited WP:BRD. I think it is wrong? What should have happened at this point is a discussion, not a revert.

From discussion related to his block: "Banner, if we're wrong, why it is every member of WP:Ireland aside from yourself agree on the same thing and you're the only one who says we're introducing errors into articles?"; "You're not instilling me with confidence that you're not just going to jump straight back into the same arguments. In fact the wikilawyering over the definition of "parish" makes me inclined to think you're deliberately missing the point," - admin; "I'm just seeing an angry Wikipedian who's itching to get back into the same old rows and wear their opponents down to the point of submission." - admin about The Banner. Also here the blocking admin explaining his decision.

While he has been blocked, he has posted on his talk page: "Now we are cleaning up, I like to ask the attention for two other potential explosive cases: .." about UE Boom. That is how it all started he was inciting editors.

In my opinion The Banner should be banned editing WikiProject Brands articles. He is edit warring, placing PA on article talk pages, inciting other editors, repeatedly placing frivolous AfD requests and he has deliberately misintroduced information on this post to AN/I. From my side I haven't followed him and has no intention to follow him once his disruptive editing on Brands project will cease. I think he is a good editor and may contribute on other projects. Dmatteng (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

And it is just the behaviour showed in the edit above that is extremely annoying and distressing as he won't stop asking for bans and/or blocks. Can you imagine that "assuming good faith" is getting increasingly difficult? The Banner talk 09:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If I was after you, as you suggest, I should not have given this advice to safe your article. And you keep up throwing that perceived PA when you are fishing for a block again. The Banner talk 16:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That is what I mean. You are a good editor, but some projects simply get you hot-tempered and you are starting deliberately to act without AGF. The PA was noted by an experienced unrelated editor. However, even without the PA your participation on the article profoundly lacked AGF. Dmatteng (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This seems like the kettle calling the pot black. You keep dragging up a claim of a personal attack without linking it, and telling someone they profoundly lacked AGF without substantiating it with diffs is, well, it isn't cricket. I'm not worried what another admin/editor said ABOUT him, I could have judged for myself. Look, I'm fully aware of The Banner, including his strengths and weaknesses. We all have them. Right now the issue is your decision to remain engaged when good sense would tell you to back away, drop the stick and go find something nice to edit. The Banner obviously needs to work in other areas as well. I'm NOT a fan of interaction bans and tend to support blocks rather than ibans in most instances. It is obviously within the power of you both to prevent either. As a sign that you agree, just walk away without commenting to me or anyone here and just avoid each other. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

To be perfectly fair, I do recall a comment by Banner on Talk:UE Boom that questioned Dmatteng's motivations... but to be fair it was something we were all thinking; particularly in light of some of the really petty wording change demands, it felt like we were doing SEO instead of writing a balanced article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with all Banner has said here. Despite my having had negative interactions with him in the past, he's done nothing... nothing... to deserve being hounded by Dmatteng like this. And why is this happening? Just because of a minor disagreement over content in an article about a freaking wireless speaker. While I am not sure if Dmatteng requires sanctions at this point, I believe his behavior at Talk:UE Boom needs to be reviewed, particularly his rather idiosyncratic conception of WP:TPG and his unilateral enforcement thereof. I'd also note that Dmatteng seems to make extensive use of IRC: given the brazen manner in which he has been canvassing for Banner to be blocked on-wiki, I wonder just what's happening off-wiki. I don't mean to impugn the legitimate use of IRC, but merely to make it clear here that there's a lot we are likely not seeing. I think it would be best for all involved if Dmatteng agreed to leave Banner alone. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• He didn't explicitly ask for The Banner to be blocked on IRC, but has tried to steer discussion in that direction. We don't get involved in content disputes when helping on the IRC Help Channel, so all he has been told is to consider compromising on the infobox and perhaps to design a new infobox more in keeping with the article. I'd also add at this point he was not told to use a specific infobox by anybody, he was told the article, which he created with the mobile phone infobox, looked OK (in terms of layout). Nick (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrator may be using undeclared sleepers to manufacture reasons to delete sourced material

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.

---

If you take a look at the Cro Magnon you will see that i have had a long standing dispute with User Dougweller over an issue in the genetics section, he has continually deleted sourced material and cut the genetics section down to one paragraph in what i believe is an attempt to mask his intentions of wanting to remove sourced material related to one ethic group in particular, in trying to attain this goal i believe he is now pretending to be a sockpuppit of a banned user known as Paleolithic Man under the username R1b1b2a1a,I have left this for a few days now and you can see that Dougweller has made no attempt to open a sockpuppit investigation and has allowed the user to take a section which i created which highlights the indigenous Irish as having the highest rate of R1b and replaces Irish with Basque without using his own sources, i am preparing a more detailed analysis of this at the moment which shows how user Dougweller has behaved during the entire period from start to finish of this incident which is going on for months now,this user is a self proclaimed fanatic and spends an almost incalculable amount of time online, i do not want to engage with him anymore as i feel he is unwell--Kovkikz (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sleeper check, eh? @Dougweller: say it ain't so! Doc talk 09:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, that sounds just like the kind of complex Breaking Bad style Machivellian scheme typical of Dougweller. Or rather not. Paul B (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you Administrators, can you be more detailed--Kovkikz (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone close this and look into the filer. Doc talk 09:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

My behavior has been awful. The OP started a section at Talk:Cro-Magnon#Genetics section dispute and after User:TimidGuy also disagreed with him he continued to add the disputed material. I had the nerve to not revert him and started an all too quite RfC at Talk:Cro-Magnon#RFC: Should this article suggest an identity between Cro-Magnon and EEMH or say that CM is a subset of EEMH? instead of reverting him. Kovkikz has said nothing about the edits in question. It's possible the editor is a sock, there has been quite a bit of socking on this page, but it's up to him to do an SPI if he think he's a socki. I'd love to know where I said I was a fanatic, but I just looked at his edits to see if I could find a clue - he's been blocked for 36 hours. So if someone else could close this please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2014 (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.

An editor editing other editor's talk-page posts

There is a discussion at Talk:Desireé Cousteau that has gone into surrealism. I can't even even describe the eccentricities going on, and this one, by an editor who keeps bringing up bestiality, is something I've never seen. An Associated Press wire-service story published here and elsewhere states the contentious fact that a public figure was arrested on a misdemeanor charge while promoting her movie. User:Herostratus is going around to other editors' posts on the page and writing "REDACTED" as if he were some NSA officer. He's redacting words like "arrest" and "police"! See this diff.

This is insane. He's claiming that factual information from 1981 is "contentious." People at this long, long discussion are making horrible claims about the AP islike right-wingers demeaning scientists because they don't like reports of climate change. Please intervene. This editor's spy-movie-fantasy redacting seems like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a desperate attempt to include edits like this in the article. That diff introduces "(also named ...)[ref]" where the reference actually goes to a Google archive of a newspaper with a 1981 story of a porn star being arrested for posing nude on someone's lap. That smells of an attempt to use Wikipedia to tell the world about a VERY IMPORTANT EVENT without concern for whether it is WP:DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there's nothing wrong with sourcing to something offline, so if the source is good, the Google archive link is unnecessary (though sometimes helpful). But of course, that doesn't answer any WP:DUE questions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Evidently related to WP:BLPN#Desireé Cousteau. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

These are all tangential issues. The specific article doesn't matter. The question is: Should an editor take it upon himself to play vigilante-censor and edit other people's posts, or should he report it to an admin if he thinks there's an issue? I think editing other people's posts crosses a serious line. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no encyclopedic value in including a totally non-notable event from 1981 in about an article or discussion about an individual. NE Ent 02:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No one is including any event from 1981! The article has never mentioned an event from 1981. All the article is doing is citing her name to an impeccable RS. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Meh. WP:BLP is policy everywhere on the encyclopedia. It's absolutely appropriate for anybody to remove something that has been decided to be harmful to a living person. That said, I personally think even removing the word "police" and "arrest" from the talk page comments is at least bordering on ridiculous. I presume the concern has to do with a WP:DOLT-like issue with saying someone's been arrested before... which I think is really shaky for the factual circumstances (other than the name). If the RfC discussion is over and it's really that much of a problem, a courtesy blank might be more appropriate than trying to make sense out of a Swiss-cheesed discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That's just it — the RfC isn't over. Nothing's been decided. There was nothing even approaching a consensus: After one day, a couple of editors decided they wanted to have their way, and made the change by Wikilawyering specious claims amounting to, "We say the Associated Press isn't good enough."

But none of that is the point. We're not here to re-debate the RfC — go to that page if you want to do that. The point here is that an editor unilaterally decided he was going to edit other editors' posts, rather than reporting any alleged misbehavior to an admin. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it's debatable whether a consensus has been reached, though the aggressive redaction makes assessing the quality of the arguments difficult (impossible with some comments); I know I could view the edit history and see the old comments... but further redaction, which will surely happen unless the RfC is closed now, will render this discussion an unbelievable chore to assess. That's actually a problem too... if the source keeps getting redacted from the page, participants won't be able to readily evaluate for themselves whether it's a reliable source. They can try to find the prior revision for now, but that'll become too much of a chore before long. They could also depend on the other participants' summaries of the article's contents... except those have mostly been redacted.

So... in short, this redaction in practice serves to foreclose further substantial discussion... which is probably fine if a consensus has been reached. RfCs don't need to run the full 30 days; heck, they probably don't even need to run one day (we aren't a court or bureaucracy)... but if we're going to not allow further discussion of this, then do it. Otherwise... we need to have the link and the comments restored for now (except for what's actually necessary to be redacted). After the discussion is closed, fine, courtesy blank it.

But as to the general question of policy you seem to be asking, Tenebrae, WP:TPO governs (generally) when users may modify other users talk page comments, and there's no "only admins" restriction that I can see. And honestly, I see no problem with removing BLP-violative material that another has posted... providing that material actually violates WP:BLP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I thank you for your comments. Exactly so: Anyone can claim the other side of a discussion is violating BLP and then shredding their comments.

My point about requesting an admin speaks exactly to that: Does this or that material violate BLP? Someone involved in the discussion himself is not the one to make that call. It needs an objective third party, whether admin or mediator. Otherwise it's vigilantism. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Your assessment regarding what is tangential is not correct. The real issue is that people should not use Wikipedia to exercise their right of free speech in order to tell the world that a minor person had an incident in 1981. Yes, it's terribly exiciting because they were naked and they sat on a police officer's lap, and they got arrested. Nevertheless, it not desirable to use Wikipedia to ensure that all gossip is permanently recorded. When was the last time that a secondary source commented on the implications of the arrest? Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq, we can do without the belittling. Tenebrae, it's not quite as bad as you suggest; my issue with it only goes so far as that the redaction renders several comments hard to understand. I think that if we restored everything except the name to the discussion we'd be fine. Talk page redaction is a hard thing to get right in a manner that satisfies all involved, though. Just because I disagree with how Herostratus did the redaction doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Honestly though, even if the material is restored, I feel very confident your position is going to lose out in the RfC. For various (good) reasons, we tend to afford pornographic actors and actresses a bit of extra privacy despite having some pretty wicked research tools at our disposal. The burden you're facing in my mind is not whether the source is good, nor whether it's her real name, but whether her real name is actually relevant to her career in a significant way... and that nobody else seems to have reported on her real identity in over 30 years seems a pretty good sign that nobody cares. While I agree with you that this sort of contextual information is great for giving an article more humanity and flavor, the community has long held that individuals' evident wishes to remain pseudonymous are pretty well respected, and I see no real reason to go in a different direction here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I grant that I went through the discussion with a [REDACTED] buzzsaw. But I outlined my reasons for doing so here: Talk:Desireé Cousteau#Re contentious allegations without a ref. In a nutshell, even on a talk page, you can't say contentious (deprecatory, embarrassing, whatever word you want) stuff without at least a ref. I tried to put in the ref, and I tried to gently remind people to be careful, but it didn't take, and the ref was removed at least twice (which may well have been justified). So fine, but then there's no ref. My reading of the BLP talk page template passage "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page" was that my best remaining option was to deploy a [REDACTED] buzzsaw. There was no intent to make it look like editors had written something they didn't; I think that most people understand that [REDACTED] in a comment is probably something added latter by another editor. Suggestions about alternative actions I could have taken (but with "do nothing" probably not being on the table) would be helpful and educational. Herostratus (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the only things truly contentious in a BLP sense were whether the individual identified in the article was actually the subject, and whether the name attached was actually the subject's name. Whether we should use the subject's name is a whole 'nother BLP issue. That someone was arrested, that a person identified as the subject was arrested, and that such arrest was published in a newspaper aren't BLP-contentious (though they certainly do not belong in articlespace for a variety of reasons); the source is reliable for that purpose. That's why I don't think you were correct in redacting so aggressively: merely removing the name would have been enough. Herostratus, in essence, your redactions have the same effect as ending the discussion in favor of non-inclusion. While I feel based on what little I know that it is the correct result, the way you went about it concerns me. In the future you might be better served by either asking an outside party to handle it or directly requesting oversight of such discussion (though honestly, I'm not sure this discussion would be subject to oversight). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, but there was no source. If you say "Person X was arrested for such-and-such" you're supposed to provide a ref. (Providing a ref was not possible, since at least one editor was objecting to that). On a talk page too I would say although that's more debatable and subject to particular circumstances. You could have found the source by digging into the page history, either for the article or the talk page, though. Whether that's enough, for a talk page, I dunno. It wouldn't be for an article. Yeah I agree that oversight would probably be overkill. OK I take your point about requesting an outside party, that's reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well hold up, no source? What's the Lakeland Ledger ref if not a source? Maybe not good enough for articlespace, but easily enough to start a discussion as to whether other sources could be found, or to evaluate the source? (perhaps there's some confusion? when I say "person identified in the article" above, I meant person identified in the Lakeland Ledger/AP Wire story). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

But Lakeland Ledger is not cited anywhere. I added a Lakeland Ledger cite to the talk page, specifically to ref the allegations, but it was removed twice -- once by the OP here on grounds that it was added as a second-party edit to a post under his name which is never allowed (a reasonable but IMO wrong point), then when I re-added it was removed by User: Paine Ellsworth... grumble grumble, ten minutes to find this... here and replaced by "If the [ref] is returned, this will have to be reported to the BLP noticeboard" so I guess his grounds were that just including the ref is a BLP violation (a reasonable and possibly correct point). So one option was then to initiate a discussion about whether the ref should be allowed or not. But we already had a significant side-issue going and things were confused enough already. Another option would be to hand-wave and add something like <ref>''Lakeland Ledger'', you know the story we mean</ref> but that would not be very useful to future readers, while <ref>''Lakeland Ledger'', look in the history around May 2014 and you'll find it</ref> would be awfully close to an end-around of two editors who had removed the link. Herostratus (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well... honestly I'd beg to differ with those who were removing the reference at that point, but I understand where they'd be coming from. Even so... I don't think the aggressive redaction was the right answer. And on top of that, remember, an offline source is still a valid source. You can absolutely say "the Lakeland Ledger article" provided there's enough information to otherwise identify it somewhere. It doesn't need to be openly linked to work, nor does it need to be placed in an immediate footnote attached to other editors' comments (remember, while footnotes are the preferred way of citing things, it's not the only way to do so). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, all fair points and good advice. Herostratus (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot and Stiki keep undoing my good faith edits

There is a controversial section in the article Emperor Jimmu that I removed while it is being discussed on the talk page per WP:BURDEN. I have been reverted at least three times because I'm an IP editor (even though I'm really not). I don't want help with the content, and I'm not asking for help resolving the content dispute (yet...) or for sanctions on the one user who (accidentally?) reverted me with Stiki, but I wanna know if reverting bots that keep undoing my edits counts as "edit-warring"?

Cheers!

182.249.240.32 (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

...why are you editing as an IP and not from your account, especially given your history of problems with socking? Why are you edit warring? GiantSnowman 10:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

My user page, and every talk page I have edited from an IP, specify who I am. What history of socking? And what edit-warring? I reverted three times over the last 50+ hours, and two of these were "edit-warring" with a broken Bot that determined my edit was "vandalism" based on the arbitrary criteria that I removed an arbitrarily-defined "section" of text (that I specified in my edit summary doesn't belong in the article) and I'm editing logged-out. This is not vandalism, since I gave detailed reasons for my edit; it's not edit-warring, because false-positive vandalism checks are not valid edits to begin with; and it's not sockpuppetry, because of the reasons detailed in the WP:COMMENT portion of this post. 182.249.240.1 (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be intentionally editing the same topic areas both from an account and from an IP. Most would consider that to be an effort to make it more difficult to correlate your edits. What is your explanation for doing so?—Kww(talk) 16:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

To expand on what others have stated and asked: WP:SOCK#LEGIT covers the limited uses for multiple accounts. Accidentally editing while logged out is obviously not a problem (it happens), but to knowingly edit an article as both a logged in user and as an IP is automatically outside of the legitimate uses for "multiple accounts". You are virtually begging to be blocked for evading scrutiny as not all of those IPs are linked back to your main account. Your previous socking history doesn't help. I strongly suggest logging in, and if needed, create "Hijiri88-alt" for times you are on insecure connections. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no policy prohibiting editing while logged out. And editing as an IP is not using multiple accounts. An IP is not an account. "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy." As long as the editor is not intending to deceive (Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles.) or do anything that would otherwise lead people to think he is two (or more) editors there is no prohibition on editing an article using an account and an IP. Its not the preferred method, but it is not prohibited by policy. Suggesting someone is 'begging to be blocked' when no evidence of any deceptive behaviour has been provided could easily be taken as a threat. 'Avoiding scrutiny' applies when creating multiple accounts. And editing the same page even with multiple accounts is not prohibited as long as its disclosed. I strongly suggest you do not attempt to make statements that could be taken as threats of administrator action when policy does not support your position. I'm fairly disgusted that someone came here with a simple question and rather than answer it you all jumped on the 'OMG ITS AN IP! CLEARLY NEEDS TO BE BLOCKED!' bandwagon.

As for the bot Question - bot operators (and users who use heavily automated scripts) are responsible for the operation of their bots. And it takes two to edit war. If you find yourself being reverted by a bot repeatedly, contact the bot operator. If that doesnt work, report the bot at the Edit Warring noticeboard. There is a widely held opinion on wikipedia that IP editors are untrustworthy and only here as vandals. This is reflected by bots and automated scripts that tend to treat large removals of text as blanket vandalism when performed by IP's. Suggest in future pruning smaller sections at a time if you dont want to be instantly reverted. Probably would have been better with that article anyway given some of the points of contention. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I already linked the policy on editing the same article logged in and out, and not every person will agree with you on what is or isn't avoiding scrutiny. And this user has previously been blocked for socking, so they know the ramifications and the risks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I dont care if they 'agree' with me or not. Thats not what the policy says. You linked the policy then deliberately implied it said something it doesnt. If you want it to say something different, go edit the policy to say otherwise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

And I hope you do realize that making major changes to policy pages without consensus equals a revert and a warning, right? Obviously minor changes, like typo fixing or grammar, are permissible, but larger changes require community consensus. And besides, there is no reason to blame ClueBot NG for this revert. You removed a huge chunk of content, as well as add "<!-- WEIGHT? Is Ooms the only scholar who says this? -->". Commentary is a common sight in vandalism edits, so the bot probably used that to weight in on the vandalism-probability score (the ANN gave the edit a score of 0.952481, which is pretty high). You can't blame a bot for reverting an edit that contains many of the things used in genuinely unconstructive edits. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 20:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion by 2602:306:C561:A2A9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186

The owner of Suburban Express has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for harassing an editor. Since then, it appears that he has been evading his block several times by making edits using an unregistered IP, including edits made to the Suburban Express page today. The edits fit the typical pattern by the owner of attacking others and making edits that make Suburban Express look better. A link to the blocked talk page is included below.

(talk) 21:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the IP should be investigated for block evasion. Also, the Suburban Express page should be protected to restrict edits by unregistered accounts after the recent edits by the IP are undone.

Gulugawa (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• IP now notified. G S Palmer (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Just for clarity, the editors in question are:
  • Arri at Suburban Express (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 2602:306:C561:A2A9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

G S Palmer (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I seem to recall that WP:FUNC had asserted a sort of jurisdiction over Arri with his last unblock request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I say whack the IP and refer the matter to ArbCom if it requests unblock (since Arri's unblock decline specifically says to refer all future unblock requests to ArbCom). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. Perhaps block and notify a functionary to ensure they're aware. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Suburban Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could probably do with adding to a few admin watchlists. The company is reviled by a significant student body, and we all know what that means for a Wikipedia article. Most of the criticism seems on the face of it to be just, but the sources may be partisan. The IP and editor named are representative of the way the firm reacts to criticism, and in the end we cannot protect them from the consequences of being a dick, but there is a significant risk of going too far on this one. References to subreddits? Hmmm. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Prom article

User:Hopimonger is insisting on adding a section to the Prom article about high school students purported sexual activities on prom night and using specific terms such as "handjob" and "blowjob". Such terms are not fit for an encyclopedia article. Britannica wouldn't use such terms and neither should this article. Paul Austin (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The guy is clearly hoping to influence real-world events. I notice a strong warning today, if this crap is added even once more I think an immediate block is likely. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Content dispute. Hasn't even been discussed as far as I can see, apart from these two edit summaries by the involved parties. While WP:NOTCENSORED does apply to an extent, blowjob might just as well work as fellatio, which to my understanding is the preferred technical term. Anyway what matters is what the source says. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

My point is this guy is putting something in the article which should not be there, let alone go into such purient detail. Paul Austin (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Prom#Recent_additions_to_Prom.23Post_Prom (Diff: [118]) and [119]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, a discussion has now been started. It should run. If edit warring happens, then we'd have a behavioral problem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack

• Please, give a mark to personal attack here: [120] NickSt (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• RGloucester now notified. G S Palmer (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Redacted, editor warned. NE Ent 13:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If I'm to be warned for such trifles, I'd also like the editor that started this thread to be warned that bypassing ongoing requested move discussions is inherently uncivil, and entirely inappropriate. RGloucester — ☎

Already dealt with. Please see: WP:DEADLINE. There will always be people for whom ridiculous things assume wholly disproportionate importance, do not become one of those people. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Single purpose account COI refspammer

SPI blocked as suggested, with our thanks to admin JzG (Non-admin close for convenience). Stalwart111 07:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Mlitwa1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been refspamming books he's written in different articles. That's all of his edits, except for this one, this one, and maybe this one. Other than that, his posts have been nothing but bald-faced WP:REFSPAM. He's received multiple warnings, including a non-template explanation, but he appears to only be here to spam his books, not build an encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to @JzG: for blocking Mlitwa1. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Possible 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.

---

May 27, 2014 doabitofgood.com sends a "cease and desist" to Wikimedia Foundation regarding the arbitrary and capriciapus removal of its entry by certain named individuals. The company is a registered American corporation and is entitled to the same entry rights as "overstock.com" User:TheLittleDuke created the page DoABitOfGood.com with that text. Going over the deletions, it's clear that the content seemed to qualify for speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#A7, and that it has been deleted multiple times, probably to the aggravation of the user to the point where they took legal action? I'm not sure, so I thought to go ANI. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The user has been given a number of messages welcoming them to Wikipedia and explaining the problems with the article; the user has ignored them or just blanked them from their user page with edit summaries like "Knee Jerk reactionary auto-bot threatens to remove publicly available content". It's probably worth one more attempt to talk to them, but if they don't want to listen, there's only so much we can do. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a legal threat. C.Fred is right that we should try a civil approach, but that's clearly within the scope of what WP:NLT is supposed to apply. Unless the Foundation says otherwise, this isn't even close to the situations WP:DOLT seem to anticipate: it's someone arguing that deleting their article is legally actionable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, he is definitely talking about legal action on his twitter.[121][122] 24.149.117.220 (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That second one pretty clearly indicates this fellow is using legal threats as leverage in the dispute. That's more or less the antithesis of editing in good faith. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Wikimedia doesn't accept donation via Bitcoin. Woodroar (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This user's sole interest in Wikipedia appears to be promoting his company. Whether or not he is threatening to sue in order to enforce his non-existent right to advertise here, I think we can probably do without him. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. Blocked for legal threats, advertising, battleground attitude and basic full on failure to get the point. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:24, 27 May 2014 (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:Seppi333 and article mathematical statistics

Seppi333 (talk · contribs)

JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs)

Some background. There has been a proposal to merge Statistics and Mathematical Statistics for a while, at Talk:Statistics#Proposed merge with Mathematical statistics. This looked like it was going nowhere, no clear consensus to merge or not to merge. To perhaps hurry it along it was nominated for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematical statistics, but the outcome of that was to defer to the discussion.

Seppi333 then took it on themselves to close the discussion themselves. But their close close was incorrect, not reflecting consensus but a supervote, and not one they should be doing anyway as an editor already involved in the discussion. They had already done the merge: [123], [124], [125], the last with an edit summary 'if you need a reason, see the AFD', the same AfD which had been closed due to the merge discussion taking precedence.

On seeing this I undid the close, undid the merge, [126], [127], then posted a note explaining the problems with the closure. I hoped perhaps a third party would close the discussion properly, though it was hardly urgent, the discussion having been open for months.

Seppi333 then redid the merge. Or more precisely undid my change without explanation, replied to my post claiming this time it was "not a merge related to this discussion. ... I don't need consensus to remove that", at the same time warning me of '3RR' (??), and accusing me of being in a 'tantrum'.

Can an admin look at this, both whether the close was appropriate and Seppi333's subsequent behaviour? I fear that if I did anything else myself I'd be dragged to a noticeboard anyway so better to preempt that as I don't think my edits are out of order.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Seppi's response (collapsed by Seppi for neatness)

" 'if you need a reason, see the AFD', the same AfD which had been closed due to the merge discussion taking precedence." You're basically suggesting that my justification for doing the merge was at the closed AfD. Now I'm going to point out that you took my quote COMPLETELY out of context. The full quote from this diff states: add copied template. if you need a reason, see the AFD. then note that none of that was even hinted at in mathematical statistics - it wasn't even accurate at the start. Should remain a rdr until its expanded with actual refs Notice how different it is when I say the content missing from mathematical statistics is located there? My statement was asserting that its inaccuracy is causing a problem (specifically, a WP:POV - both a fork as an article and a coatrack for content, as I'll explain below). You're literally selectively quoting so as to make me look like I never had any reasoning at all. You make it look like I'm POV editing by leaving out half my edit summary. Thanks for that, very shifty. The gist of what I meant by "see the AFD. then note that none of that was even hinted at in mathematical statistics" is that the article is so off base it's almost mocking statisticians. When undoing the merge, you restored content which was obviously a WP:COATRACK (and I indicated this in the edit summary). The remaining material was half decent, but uncited and was a laughable description of the field. Specifically, the article on this massive field was missing so much content that is derived from measure-theoretic probability theory (this is basically anything relating to all statistical distributions and estimation methods - consistent estimators cover both those concepts). What the article did have, however, was a crappy, incorrect description of what we do, followed by a section with seven of the articles eight citations supporting content about four mathematicians and the revitalization or a completely distinct field (more like mode of analysis) - decision theory - instead of statistics (or statistics/mathematics/mathematical statistics, which was the section title). I fear that if I did anything else myself I'd be dragged to a noticeboard anyway so better to preempt that as I don't think my edits are out of order. — JohnBlackburne So you drag yourself to another noticeboard instead? I applaud your keen logic, though something tells me you just intended to circumvent the NPOV problem and raise a "behavioral problem" that I have here. Just for the record, I'm still going to bring the issue to the NPOV noticeboard if mathematical statistics is remade by you without adequate sourcing so as to include correct, unbiased coverage of the field. In response to the following: On seeing this I undid the close, undid the merge, [128], [129], then posted a note explaining the problems with the closure. I hoped perhaps a third party would close the discussion properly, though it was hardly urgent, the discussion having been open for months. Seppi333 then redid the merge. Or more precisely undid my change without explanation, replied to my post claiming this time it was "not a merge related to this discussion. ... I don't need consensus to remove that", at the same time warning me of '3RR' (??), and accusing me of being in a 'tantrum'. — JohnBlackburne So yes, I redid the merge and my response has once again been selectively quoted so as to make me look like a shitbag, thanks! Your quote of me:"not a merge related to this discussion. ... I don't need consensus to remove that" Actual quote by me from this diff: @JohnBlackburne: This was not a merge related to this discussion. That page was a WP:POV FORK. I don't need consensus to remove that. Feel free to remake a CORRECT page with CITATIONS to that content. Not a page about mathematical statistics with 7 citations that said "Mathematical statistics is XYZ." (no citation) "Bob, Greg, Bill, and Rod used XYZ which was the fad in the 1970s." (7 citations) If you restore this again, we're going to the NPOV noticeboard AND I'm STRICTLY holding you to WP:3RR. Just test me. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC) — this diff (Note: the wikitext of this quote, but not the appearance, was adjusted to suit the technical limitations of the talkquote template) Per the lead of WP:POV, "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus." If it's not already readily apparent, I am not objecting to a Mathematical statistics article existing. In fact, I think it's a VERY GOOD IDEA if it follows the WP:SUMMARY STYLE approach and exists as a daughter article of statistics. Unfortunately, the way the two pages were written (particularly how mathematical statistics was written), the page constituted a WP:POV FORK (making statistics and mathematical statistics seem like disjoint fields and also contained a WP:COATRACK bias. What little was left was wrong. So, no, I really don't need consensus to correct that abhorrent travesty of an article per the aforementioned POV issues. I appreciate how you avoided including any of the multiple statements I made about POV so as to make me look like an asshat - thanks. As to the rest of what you said, yes, you did indeed have a tantrum IMO; you didn't bother asking my why I did it first - you just reverted. I could have explained this to you on your talkpage, but instead I'm doing it here. I also warned you about WP:3RR because decent wikipedia editors don't do stupid back and forth reverts in articles. My apologies if that made you sad. Take that (deceptive misquotes included) for what you will. Best, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 14:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Relly Komaruzaman

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

---

A very simple timeline of events here involving Relly Komaruzaman (talk · contribs):

1. Relly Komaruzaman asks Mitchazenia a question here.
2. Mitchazenia removes the question here.
3. Relly Komaruzaman reverts the removal here with the edit summary: "Undid arrogant revision by Mitchazenia (talk) as an administrator of English Wikipedia who has obligations to respond such a question like this one"
4. Mitchazenia replies to Relly Komaruzaman here.
5. Floydian, a TPS, responds to the question here
6. Relly comments on Floydian's talk page here, calling Mitchazenia a "transvestite pantywaist".
7. Relly Komaruzaman also comments on Mitchazenia's talk page directly here, using a photo of the editor from his user page with a derogatory caption and a comment repeating the "pantywaist" insult.
8. After I issued a warning, including the diffs of the offensive comments, Relly Komaruzaman replies on my talk page here, saying he "just reacted the action."

I suggest that an administrator needs to clarify with Relly Komaruzaman that such comments about another editor are personal attacks and are not allowed. Imzadi 1979 → 13:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw those attacks this morning and had my finger hovering over the block button, but since I saw that you had warned him, I held off to see whether he abided by the warning or not. So far, I haven't seen any more personal attacks, but it remains to be seen whether it stays that way. I would suggest that Relly remove his personal attacks and be very conscientious of making any more; the ones Imzadi lists are sufficiently beyond the pale that any repeat of them is likely to earn him an immediate, lengthy block. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was "thanked" three times by Relly, once for the initial warning, once for the followup that supplied the diffs of the specific comments, and last for the ANI notice. Imzadi 1979 → 13:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind if I will be blocked or something. My contributions are not significant at all than the transvestite pantywaist. Actually according to the real justice in the real world, the sissy administrator should be punished for his crime on this comment. Sorry, our habitats are obviously differences each other. You are West people who have no respect for the elders, but I am proud of your modernization.

Relly Komaruzaman | Talk 16:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 30 days. You know, it's pathetic enough to attack someone on the project. However, to repeat right here on ANI in front of the project and its admins takes the cake. Due to the fact that these specific, repeated personal attacks are sexual in nature, and in fact use transgender terminology in the attacks, I have blocked for 30 days. Someone might disagree, so feel free to change it if you desire the panda ₯’ 16:51, 27 May 2014 (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.

Canvassing by User:Trackinfo

After being warned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring that the use a self-published sourced in the biography of a living/recently deceased person was against policy [130], User:Trackinfo attempted to reinsert the deleted text by using novel interpretation of primary sources and adding a reliable source that did not support the claims made [131]. When this was reverted, Trackinfo began a massive canvassing effort [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] to bring users he/she believed would be favorable to his/her side to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where he/she had begun a discussion regarding the source. In addition to the excessive cross-posting, Trackinfo's message was deceptive and biased, as he/she made it seem that the dispute was about the reliability of the source in general, not just on BLPs. The canvassing appears to be an attempt to votestack the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard to create a false consensus allowing him/her to use a favorite website as a reliable source regardless of policy. The canvassing has also affected the deletion discussion of an article Trackinfo created, as it has may have brought biased editors to that discussion. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This user has jumped through incredible hoops just to prove a point, in order to get an article I created, deleted. It seems just in order to get the "win." My deeper concern is in the use of the source, masterstrack.com which provides extensive information I use in my editing constantly. And as I discovered, I am not the only person to use this source, because it is a reliable source (period, not nit-picking whether it is used for a BLP, it is a consistently reliable source) for its subject of specialization. What I clearly did, is I left a message with other users who have also used the same source in the same fashion I have. Uh, those would be people who are familiar with the source (and its status within its area of expertise), unlike Hirolovesswords and others who take a superficial look at the site. Would you prefer the discussion to be made in the dark underbelly of wikipedia amongst a back room few who do not know the subject? When others did look further, particularly SFB (the leader of Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics), they saw the insanity of this whole discussion.

"This is a non-issue and I'm sure all of us could make better use of our time elsewhere.

The extent Hirolovesswords has singlehandedly fought this process, created an edit war, trolled my editing, rebutted every favorable comment made by anybody on any related page, brought incidents on me both here and on the Edit warring notice board is well beyond the argument to delete an article, where it originated. It is ridiculous. Someone needs to tell this user to back off. Trackinfo (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request sanctions on Ihardlythinkso for violation of Interaction ban

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.

---

Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) and I are subject to an indefinite interaction band, as per this AN thread. However he has already violated this ban at least twice before, and this edit is a clear reference to me and the {{discouraged}} template I formerly had on my user page. He has also made some nasty insinuations about my personal character, a clear violation of WP:NPA. I also find the timing of this post rather disturbing; he posted on a random thread on help desk, a part of wikipedia he doesn't normally frequent, shortly after I opened a thread there concerning a minor talk page vandalism incident with an IP editor, knowing that I would likely see his post.

The terms of WP:IBAN clearly state: "...if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to: make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly."

I know I have been asked to let someone else make the complaints when he violates the IBAN, however this is not realistic; if I don't stand up for myself no-one else will. This editor has already been sanctioned once for violating the IBAN; I request that these sanctions be escalated. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You've been "asked" to let someone else handle it. I see nothing in the one diff you linked that could be construed to refer to you vs. one of the many other editors here. He said he knew "a case where a user left a "Wiki-break due to being discouraged" banner up while actively editing, along with derogatory comments concerning certain editors though they were unnamed." BFD - me too, and a lot of others. You are being told, by me, a non-admin: stop digging. Admins: proceed. ;) Doc talk 06:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

For a non-admin, you make a remarkably low percentage of edits to article space, and I've seen you involving yourself in many threads on ANI. This suggests to me that you are more interested in wikidrama than encyclopedia building. You are being asked by me to butt out of this and refrain from involving yourself in future "wikidramas" where I am concerned. Thank you. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. If there's a "wikidrama" here, and you are involved, I will not abide by your request. Another IBAN, perhaps? Doc talk 07:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't like your flippant attitude. I will regard future attempts to involve yourself in my disputes on wikipedia as harassment. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree. The diff from Ihardlythinkso was clearly meant to refer to one specific user, and gave enough hints about that user to make it clear Ihardlythinkso intended it to be understood as such at least by people who knew the circumstances. If MaxBrowne now recognizes himself as the user being referred to, I have no reason to doubt that this is what Ihardlythinkso intended (how many other editors that Ihardlythinkso used to be in conflict with and who had that template on their page are there likely to be?) Come tco this, Ihardlythinkso made this posting on a page on which MaxBrowne just happened to have edited a few hours previously in a different thread [142], a page on which Ihardlythinkso does not otherwise appear to edit frequently, and in a thread that otherwise had no connection to either of the two editors. This means the attack was both unprovoked in its content, and has the appearance of having been triggered by Ihardlythinkso following MaxBrowne's contributions. So, yes, for me, that is about as clear a case of a ban violation as they come, and given the severity of the personal attacks in it, it definitely deserves a sanction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you possibly demonstrate assuming bad faith any more than you just have? (Oh yes, veto the possibility I made a genuine contribution to that thread to help that IP. Make it into something wild and in your imagination: stalking and baiting.) How is it you have a direct connection to God and truth, Future Perfect!? This not the first time that I've bogusly been accused of stalking and baiting by the OP, or by admin Bushranger, in his fanactically ridiculious arguments made to defend his ridiculous block. (How is it that IBAN breach are being used by the OP to make absurd and baseless accusations like stalking, all within policy??) Anything one writes in defense of self here is turned around 100% and used against the person, from experience. This complaint doesn't even belong on this board. (Or else, where's !vote by Happy Attack Dog? I miss him.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Spare us the snark. Clear question, clear answer please: Which editor were you referring to? Name him, now. If you can't make a credible case it was somebody other than MB, you're blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That's lame. Okay, blocked 72 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A disappointing response from IHTS, to be sure. The block length I disagree with: it should have been less. Doc talk 07:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And I'm not surprised that I was attacked by IHTS here again without having been notified by him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. As currently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Accusations_of_fake_retirements, there's no policy "enforcing" {{discouraged}} or {{Retired}}, and editors continuing to edit after posting such a notice are common. The third discouraged transclusion I checked, was posted over a year ago [143], and the user is actively editing Special:Contributions/Vertium (Note: As this is an example of the use of the discouraged template, and not a discussion of that editor, I'm not notifying them of this discussion). There is also not a requirement to memorize every one reads on Wikipedia, so IHTS's inability to remember which discouraged he's referring to should not be sanctionable. Could an admin with a clue ignore IHTS's ranting on their talk page (and here) and unblock them? NE Ent 10:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh give us a break. You can't really be so gullible to take that obvious non-denial-denial above at face value? Just 24 hours ago, Ihardlythinkso remembered that mysterious other editor distinctly enough that he could talk about details of the circumstances of that case (there were "derogatory comments concerning certain editors though they were unnamed" etc., and they "exhibited other low forms of conduct" as well). Incidentally, a sanctionable personal attack even if the individual being referred to had not been MB. He also seemed sufficiently clear about his memory to say "I know of one case", rather than, say "I somehow remember somebody..." And today, 24 hours later, all that memory is suddenly gone, and he can't bring himself even to utter the clarifying disclaimer of "... no, it was some other guy I was thinking of, not M.B."? This, indeed, is ridiculous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that should be sanctionable here is an IBAN violation. The aspect of "a sanctionable personal attack even if the individual being referred to had not been MB" is troubling. I "know" an editor or twenty that are total pieces of garbage: is it a PA to say that about them, without naming them? No. Either he was referring to MaxBrowne in violation of the IBAN or he wasn't. The PA is totally unnecessary charge. Doc talk 11:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be clear that IHTS is referring to MaxBrowne in the diff provided, especially given his inability to name another editor in his denial(?) of an IBAN violation less than 25 hrs after his initial comment. If we are to take IHTS's sudden inability to remember at face value, we might as well take out the "indirectly" provision of IBAN as any slight attempts at obfuscation will render such comments unactionable. I find that to be unacceptable. On another note, given that IHTS was blocked twice before for such violations, the block length seems to be a reasonable escalation based on past behaviour. Whether the comment itself can be considered an attack is dependent on whether you view "...just a reflection on the personal standards of [DocBrowne]. [He] has exhibited other low forms of conduct as well..." as a PA. —Dark 16:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's not pretend that IHTS has been blocked because he could not remember what he was talking about yesterday. He was blocked for violating an interaction ban (again); the fact that FPaS wouldn't fall for his anaemic attempt to dodge responsibility for what he said is a good thing. As for the length of the block, given IHTS's previous blocks, in both the recent and distant past, I can't see how a block any shorter than this is consistent with the practice of meeting continuing disruption with escalating blocks. IHTS has dodged sanctions plenty of times in the past, it can't go on forever. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:18, 27 May 2014 (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.

Another sock of User:CensoredScribe

CensoredScribe, after blocks and a topic ban for repeated addition of unsourced/inexplicable categories and creation of numerous unencyclopedic categories, received an indefinite block and eventually a loss of talk page access. CS was later found to be socking with User talk:184.96.200.160, User:71.218.178.122, User:Cassandra Truth and User:Robopsychologist. User:Tranquility of Soul seems to be another: Adding rafts of categories to fictional characters, (Batman, especially, is a fictional engineer (see previous AN/I threads)), ToS was registered while the topic ban for CS was in the works, ToS's edits pickup during CS's blocks, etc. I'm thinking we're beyong the point of an indef block and up to a community ban here. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CensoredScribe. Also note that Batman is not a fictional engineer, but a fictional scientist. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that Homer is a fictional engineer and Nimoy is a fictional celebrity. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm calling this one as blatantly obvious. Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Tranquility of Soul (talk · contribs) created numerous categories. Some of them look to fit into the "unencyclopedic categories" that SummerPhD mentions above. I am wondering whether they should be deleted per WP:DENY, nominated at WP:CFD or left as is. MarnetteD | Talk 04:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

All of them, if created after February 18 should probably be deleted per WP:G5 - aside from ~two days in mid-March each and every one of them would be 'created in violation of a block'. There may be one or two worth retaining per WP:IAR, but the vast majority are "Uhhhh...what now?" sort (For instance, "Fictional rangers" - because Power Rangers, the Lone Ranger, Aragorn, Drizzt, the Rangers from Babylon 5, and Walker Texas Ranger all have well-defined and defining shared characteristics, of course.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Given the numerous socks and tendency to add every article with any hint of a connection to every possible category, I'd suggest killing them all and letting normal editing sort them out. Incidentally, I think Ranger Smith and The Bushranger needed to be included to tie the whole list together. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have finished tagging all the cats. I provided a link to this discussion in my edit summary so it is possible that we may get new questions. @SummerPhD: I noticed that this editor is now adding all sorts of items to navbox templates. Looks like they have the same problem as their category work as many of the items are only tangentially connect to the main subject of the navbox. This gives us another bit of editing to watch for when a new sock appears. We left Ranger Rick out of our list. We may need a new category for @The Bushranger: "category:WikiP admins with a sense of humor that made us smile" A bit wordy I know but it is accurate. Cheers to you both and thanks again for your help. MarnetteD | Talk 22:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ranger Smith was included. Alas, he missed me! And thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Inergen

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.

---

IP 4.34.95.235, 4.30.231.141 and 198.180.213.201 who I suspect are the same person keep adding trademarks to the Inergen page. I told 4.30.231.141 that this should go to the talk page but the edit was reverted by 4.34.95.235. Am I, MusikAnimal and Excirial correct in reverting these additions? Mtpaley (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• All three IP's now notified. G S Palmer (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• For clarity, the three IP's in question are:
  • 198.180.213.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 4.30.231.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 4.34.95.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

G S Palmer (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for reference my question was more about my conduct that the IPs listed. I am I correct in reverting these edits? -Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk · contribs), 23:20, 27 May 2014‎ (UTC)

• I would definitely say so, but I'm not an admin. It seems like a blatant case of WP:PROMOTION to me. G S Palmer (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have done some clean-up and Panda has semi-protected. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2014 (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.

Malicious page moves

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.

---

Someone please fix these and block the editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Moves fixed by Writ Keeper. G S Palmer (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually gonna decline to block, though. Their other edits seem fairly reasonable; I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they were just trying things out without really knowing what they were doing. They haven't repeated since your warning, after all. Any admin who is not as easily duped as I should feel free to block as usual, though; pagemoves are a little more annoying than most. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If assuming good faith is "being easily duped," Wikipedia would be a far better place if it was full of dupes. NE Ent 01:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Ent, precisely the opposite is true. Wikipedia would have less drama, less unnecessary discussions to get to a final result that was inevitable in the first place, fewer disruptive editors more interested in hearing the sound of their own typing than in building an encyclopedia, etc. etc. etc. if more admins would go with their guts, eschew unneeded process wonkery, and just block when a block is obviously required. Those editors -- not necessarily admins -- with a predilection for "assuming good faith" well past the point of reasonableness are themselves a factor in encouraging discussions to go on much longer than they need to, and, in effect, enabling the misbehavior of some disruptive editors. (A general observation, not a comment on this case, which I have not looked into.) BMK (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the short note. I'm babysitting for a couple friends and it's been... interesting. The first thing I was handed was a bottle of wipes... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 28 May 2014 (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.

Zeitgeist Movement member not here to build an encyclopedia

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.

---

So far, the only activity of Zeitgeist-Movement-Member (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is preaching the values of the Zeitgeist movement, denouncing how Wikipedia determines reliable sources (on the grounds of repeatedly saying the word "science") and generally making it known that he's here to spread the "Truth" about TZM, regardless of what mainstream sources say.

The first edit he made kinda had to do with article improvement (though in a way that was understandably ignorant of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR), but since then it's just "In science 1+1=2, in politics a large amount of people can vote to claim 1+1=5" repeated ad nauseam, pretty much ignoring whatever anyone else has to say.

This obviously not only falls under WP:NOTSOAPBOX, but is a complete case of WP:NOTHERE. It's also a bit interesting that Zeitgeist-Movement-Member appeared just after another TZM editor who made mostly the same argument as ZMM was blocked, but I'm not quite hearing quacking yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support block: This individual is not here to write an encyclopedia. No opinion on whether a SPI might be a good idea. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block. I don't think the best interests of the encyclopedia are the top priority for this editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have also put in a request a WP:UAA for "Violation of the username policy as a misleading and promotional username.". TheMesquito^buzz 05:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

User has been blocked by @Future Perfect at Sunrise: for WP:NOTHERE TheMesquito^buzz 06:20, 28 May 2014 (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:Skookum1 edit-warring over nominations for speedy deletion

AFAIK, speedy deletions may be challenged by removing the tag. At least, that's what the tag itself says. User Skookum1 has nominated a number of dab pages for deletion as he has judged one of links to be the primary topic, per TWODABS, but according to what several admins have told him in recent disputes, TWODABS applies to clear primacy, not to the ethnolinguistic articles he's nominating to move. Regardless, AFAIK if someone challenges a speedy-deletion request, you need to make a regular move or deletion request; you don't start edit-warring over the request.

Warning here: [144] (I meant to warn him when he started edit-warring, but put it on the wrong page: [145])

Because I erred in posting the warning, so he did not see it before continuing the edit war, I asked him to revert himself rather than me reverting him. He did not do so.[146] The articles where he has edit-warred to restore a speedy tag are Makaa, Subiya, Sukuma, Northern Ndebele, and Yeyi. I'm notifying him of this posting now. — kwami (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No, CSDs are challenged by: A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the Contest this speedy deletion button which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the discussion page with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted. (per WP:CSD). (In other words, you don't just remove the CSD tag, you use the article page to discuss the issue.) NE Ent 01:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Check your facts, Ent. BMK (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've removed the tags, so the sea-lawyering is moot at this point. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

More specifically (and perhaps helpfully): that's very true, Ent, but the key word in that sentence is creator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not all DB notices have a "Contest this speedy deletion" button, including Template:Db-move used here. HelenOnline 11:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwami:: here's a simple home truth. If any editor in good standing removes a CSD tag, that is not "edit-warring". The edit warring starts if, and only if, someone re-inserts the tag. A speedy contested by any editor in good standing, should be taken to AFD. Speedy deletion exists for unambiguous and flagrant policy violations, and is there primarily to expedite uncontentious deletions. If someone else disputes the deletion, someone who is not the creator, then it's a good bet the deleiton request is not uncontentious, and should be taken to AfD. I'm sick to death of hearing Skookum1's name here, but in this case I would say he's in the right per policy and precedent - this is not in any way related tot he article, which I have deliberately not reviewed. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@JzG: - I think you have it backwards, Guy - Skookum1 is the editor who was re-adding the tags. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Bah, my bad. In which case: thwack Skookum vigorously with the WP:TROUT. When was the last time you came here and Skookum was not being discussed? Guy (Help!) 08:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Beg pardon? I'm on AN/I daily... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

His response here is wildly inappropriate and childish. CSD is for administrators to review, not regular editors. If an editor (or the creator) disagrees, they can post it where it belongs. Administrators who ignore the contesting should expect to be at deletion review or more. My suggestion: pick one, list it at Redirects for Discussion and use that. Better yet, list all of them in one discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What's "childish" is Kwami warring over nearly everything going on to do with his pet theory that "languages and peoples are equally primary topics" which has stonewalled consensus to reform the badly-flawed NCL that he authored.....his removal of {{only-two-dabs}} and then, when that was re-added, adding {{twodabs}} which claims that there is no primary topic when he has not ever bothered to determine that himself is yet more hypocrisy, as is his coming here whining about "edit wars" he has provoked and furthered, all the while saying stupid/snide things like on Talk:Kavango people where he says something like "if you want to know PRIMARYTOPIC you have to ask Skookum" (he never gets my username right). As for being the creator of a page, that's debatable when he took redirects already extant and turned them into twodab pages without any discussion whatsoever.

The posturing and finger-pointing as if he was Mr Goody Two Shoes and his claims on primarytopic/parallel topics he hasn't once sought to prove, or cite that theory/claim of his (which is OR and dozens of RMs have proven him wrong time and again) are really boring but very persistent and apparently cover thousands of titles created by other people he summarily moved without any discussion (other than the very small one he "led" at WP:NCL in order to get his preference inserted into that guideline; prior to that he was using MOS in edit comments to mandate such moves....even though MOS says nothing at all to support those moves. And yes, I tire of hearing my name here too, the last two ANIs launched by Kwami were specious and groundless, blaming me e.g. for 3RRs he had himself committed when I had only 2RRs.....the one from Maunus contained allegations by him, and Uyvsdi, which were somewhere between complete fabrications and gross distortions about my activities and motives......I tried bulk RMs to deal with the hundreds of simple redirects he'd created in advancing his theory/agenda/preferences, those got shot down on procedural grounds "because nobody likes bulk RMs", then after filing and succeeding in filing individual RMs, despite his attempts to shut them down, have been vilified for a "frenzy of moves" and even had it pretended (in Maunus' ANI) that they were "undiscussed" and "disruptive". What was disruptive was the thousands of undiscussed moves and TWODABS creations that Kwami did, and further disruptive, his combative behaviour in RMs and guideline discussions since....and now with this little "game of templates".

As for the "creator" of TWODAB titles, he didn't create them....he created them as redirects to the primary topic (the people articles) and only after the db-moves were removed did he convert them to TWODABS. And in the case of many he moved in North America, e.g. Dakelh->Carrier people (since reverted to the original titles by RM/consensus) he was not the author of the title or the article; Gitxsan, Tsimshian and scores more have been reverted by RMs where the closer acknowledge TITLE and PRIMARYTOPIC etc, all of which were opposed by Kwami demanding "centralized discussion". He stonewalled both discussions at WP:NCL and WP:NCET where efforts to reform those guidelines so as to be coherent with policy and other guidelines were met by illogic and misrepresentations and edit comments of various useless kinds; very consistently misportraying what someone else had done or said..... consensus underlying TITLE etc and also as shown in the mass of RMs since approved indicate that consensus exists to move simple redirects back to the standalone title; the only person making this controversial is Kwami, who doesn't want to see his empire of "FOO people" titles reverted back to where they belong, and indeed in 98% of cases, what their original titles were for 7-9 years until he came along pushing his "languages are as or more important" agenda. Applying templates for moves consistent with policy should not be controversial; only Kwami's disputatiousess and edit warring makes them so.

The only thing controversial about those db-moves is that Kwami reverted them; otherwise TITLE is controversial, PRIMARYTOPIC is controversial, NCDAB is controversial......either all them need changing, or Kwami needs to back off and acknowledge that he was in error about them and not oppose them any further. Either that or start proving his primary/parallel topic claims and grow up.

As for childish comments, how many diffs of Kwami's do you want me to spend time amassing? What I said on my talkpage is the result of irritation and ongoing provocation and patronizing behaviour going back...two or three years. Here, another 1/2 of my time consumed by kwami's need to run to authority to stop someone from doing waht he doesn't want to happen, but has no rational way of defending.Skookum1 (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

re " Skookum1 has nominated a number of dab pages for deletion as he has judged one of links to be the primary topic" he neglects to mention that those TWODABS were originally redirects to the people titles and were only that until he created TWODABS in the wake of the db-move notice. Such half-information is typical of him; those TWODABS were controversial to create...and are based in his fallacious and unproven claim that "languages and peoples are equally primary topics". Something disproven over and over again, most recently in the view stats I came up with for Talk:Kavango people and his games on the Kavango; which like all the rest he's whining about HE directed to the people articles as apparent PRIMARYTOPIC. I've challenged him a good two dozen times to prove that "languages and peoples are equally primary topics" or come up with a textbook that says that; it's fiction, original research, and his own preference, and nothing more....Skookum1 (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It is regrettable that two otherwise highly respected and productive editors such as Skookum and Kwami are still at each other's throats in this way. Weren't we close to telling them to both leave these issues alone the other day, if necessary through a temporary topic ban? I wonder what happened to that thread. In any case, Skookum, here's my advice:

1. You seem to be arguing from a view that there should be some kind of self-evident default assumption that the ethnic group articles in this set are the primary topic compared to the homonymous language articles. This may seem self-evident to you, but it sure doesn't feel self-evident to me, and presumably not to others either. If you want to apply a naming policy based on the premise that these articles are the primary topic, the burden of evidence will be on you to show that that's what they are.
2. You attempted to enforce your view of policy by requesting "uncontroversial" admin action, by means of the db- templates. If I'm not mistaken, you have done similar things in the past. You should have known that these moves/deletions would not be uncontroversial. You may of course well feel that they should be uncontroversial, that the truth is self-evidently on your side and that the dispute is purely due to the individual stubbornness of a single opponent. You might even be right with that. But even then, this is how the wiki works, you need to deal with your fellow editors as they are, and as long as you know Kwami is going to uphold that opposing view, you just gotta deal with it and find ways of solving the dispute. Pretending the dispute doesn't exist won't help you.
3. When your db-tags didn't work, it appears you chose to uphold your view by adding the {{Only-two-dabs}} tag to the dab pages, a template that asserts as a fact that one of the entries is the primary topic. I don't find this to be a constructive move either. The template is there to tag cases where a dab page is temporarily in a problematic state but there is a chance of turning it into something more useful by finding more than those two entries, and where deletion is hinted at as a solution only for the case that those additional entries are not found. I take it that nobody has been proposing that the pages in this set are ever likely to actually have additional entries beyond the ethnic and language ones. So the tag doesn't really express what you think is the case. If you still believe that the dab pages ought to be deleted in favour of a non-disambiguated primary topic page, then please just take the proper steps to make that happen right away. Not with an "uncontroversial" admin request, but with the proper process – either a WP:MFD deletion nomination for the dab page, or with a WP:RM nomination on the ethnic group page.
4. If you decide to do this, then I have a very strong recommendation to both you and Kwami, which I'd be prepared to enforce administratively if necessary: in any such move/delete debate, please both of you restrict yourselves to one statement each. You get to explain, in one brief statement, why you think the topic is primary; Kwami gets to explain, in one brief statement, why he thinks it's not. After that, for the love of god, please leave these things to others to sort out.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

my POV Actually, I don't much care which is the primary topic, I'd just like some consistency. Last time we had a discussion on this, we decided that, in general, neither the ethnicity nor the language could be considered the primary topic of an ethnolinguistic name, and so they should both be dab'd, with a dab page at FOO per TWODABS. Skookum wants to change that, and that's fine, but he should get consensus for the change before he starts trying to move hundreds to thousands of articles. Until he actually makes the cooperative effort to work out a new consensus, IMO it is appropriate to stick with the last consensus we worked out. What I object to most is this paranoid fantasy that "racist cabals" are out to thwart Skookum as the sole defender of TRUTH. It makes any discussion with him impossible.

my question So, @Fut.Perf.:, what should I do in the face of this? Try to enforce the consensus we have, or at least the last consensus that we had, which will inevitably mean more of the same petty bickering? Bring every edit Skookum makes in violation of that consensus to ANI? (Without notifying him, since any notification is taken as a personal attack?) Ignore it and let Skookum try to establish a new, unilateral consensus through mass page moves? Stick to the language articles, where I mostly edit, and let Skookum have free reign with the ethnicity articles? (Though of course he won't stop there.) Start hundreds to thousands of formal move requests? None of the options are attractive.

Or, to avoid personalizing new disputes, but at the risk of making you part of the "cabal", should I notify you of edits of his I judge to be inappropriate, and leave it to you to revert them if you agree? — kwami (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The first thing that would help would be if you could both agree to just do things by the books. (1) No bold undiscussed moves/renames, no passing off of intended moves as "uncontroversial"; (2) no reverts; (3) any and all intended move/renaming goes through regular processes such as RM; and (4) (and this in my view might be the most important thing): self-restrict the sheer amount of argument each of you may invest into any one discussion. You need to get off each other's throats, not least in order to leave some space for others to get their opinions in in peace and without being drowned in the noise. I don't see this whole affair to be likely to end in some administrative sanction against just one party. Failing this, the only way to gain some peace here is for both of you to impose some kind of (hopefully voluntary) limit on your own activities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No reverts: So, if Skookum starts up again, do I come to you, or to ANI? — kwami (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, what I'm doing right now, as an administrative measure, I am going through that latest batch of edit-warred-over pages and reverting them, per WP:PROTECT, to a pre-edit-war version. I'm too lazy right now to actually press the protect button on so many pages, but I would ask both Kwami and Skookum to please treat them as if I had – i.e., strictly no further non-consensual edits on any of them. I'm rather haphazardly reverting some of them to the initial version where they were redirects to the ethnicity article, and others to the clean dab page created by Kwami (without the "only-two-entries" tag, which is unhelpful). The only criterion I'm using to choose which version is that I'm going for the dab page if both targets are reasonably well developed articles, and for the redirect if the language article is a mere sub-stub. I hope you can both live with this for the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not an isolated issue, and forcing the discussion route with Skookum1 has not helped much. Just in case anyone is not aware, I raised a CFD on May 24 in order to resolve a related issue underlying ethnic category edit warring. Skookum1 is the only editor to object to my proposal (even though from their comments it appears they did not know what I was proposing), they appear to go out of their way to misunderstand me and make stuff up about what I said or proposed (note this gem on their user page) and are now stalling the entire discussion as they have stormed off without withdrawing their objection. They think that they are not edit warring (everyone else is, but as they are right they are not). Their rants against kwami may as well be describing themselves. I am not taking it personally, as their block log shows a recent escalating pattern of disruptive behaviour. I am not sure they would agree with anyone about anything at this point. HelenOnline 09:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive and Attacking user

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.

---

Collapse for readability of page

User Ajnem was previously blocked over a Possible legal threat on Jimbo's talk page, and gained back editing privileges after 4 attempts with administrators.[147] Ajnem has a history of disruptive edits and attacks. We will focus on an example where Ajnem blanked out and restructured an entire article creating a wide range of un-sourced POV changes, as PR WP:PROMOTION for the subject. Ajnem attacked users who challenged his edits and managed to conceal his/her editing behavior and remain unnoticed. Most of the edits remained until a few days ago. We are focusing on these four consecutive edits Please refer here for additional details. Examples, Vandalism, Falsifying sources and other wikipedia violations by Ajnem WP:VANDAL Ajnem blanked out a few sections of sourced controversial material. Some of the material already had discussion consensus on the article talk page to retain the material[148]. Ajnem failed to mention his removal anywhere (neither the edit summery nor the talk page), which is a form of Vandalism. [149] WP:CAUTIOUS, WP:UNRESPONSIVE Ajnem restructured, re-wrote and changed the entire article in this edit [150], without discussing anything on this talk page WP:CAUTIOUS, He barely explained anything in the edit summery WP:UNRESPONSIVE. He even lied in one edit that he was adding info when he was also removing a large amount. Falsifiying sources, POV, WP:PROMOTION, WP:OR. First Example Please look here for precise wording: The NYT describes the subject of the article as a Muckraking Blogger. Instead of "muckraking blogger" Ajnem falsified the source and added – the subject is "journalistic" and covers "un-reported" incidents , is a ” watchdog" and "whistle blower" - and integrated all of that as part of the NYT article with a citation to the NYT. Second Example: Ajnem added a made up PR and POV information and falsely pointed to The Daily Beast as it's source: The article previously stated "Rosenberg also writes a weekly column for Heeb Magazine called "Crimes and Misdemeanors"". Ajnem changed it to: "Rosenberg also writes for the Jewish Daily Forward, Tablet Magazine, Moment, Sh'ma Magazine, Guilt and Pleasure, Jewish World Review, Jewcy, the Minneapolis StarTribune, the Daily Beast, and a weekly column for Heeb called "Crimes and Misdemeanors".[8]" Citation [8] points to this source, which does not state that information at all. (This is also a form of WP:OR) Ajnem Falsely accused, harassed and threatened a legitimate user. WP:PERSONAL, WP:HARASS On Jul 20-26, 2012 Ajnem made consecutive edits that also blanked out an entire section of sourced material on the subject's Grandfather [151], despite the consensus on the article talk page to retain the material[152]. Ajnem failed to mention his removal anywhere (neither the edit summery nor the talk page). Which as noted is a form of Vandalism. [153] On July 26 [154] and again on July 30 [155] User 208.53.73.127 (rightfully) restored the material explaining his edit in the Edit summery and the talk page. On July 31 Ajnem Attacked and harassed the user – with a false accusation of vandalism and a threat to block.[156][157] (Only later did Ajnem finally explain his edit). Cover Up: Ajnem covered up these actions by: 1- Mixing up sourced and un-sourced material followed the citation. 2- In many edits Ajnem combined both legitimate and illegitimate editing, both adding and removing of material. 3- Misleading edit summaries. 4- Diverting the discussion/argument back and forth away from the edit summery into two separate sections in the talk page. 5- Including user 208.53.73.127 in a list with other users that were creating wrongful edits 6- Falsely accusing and threatening the users who challenged the edits. Target's certain groups of people for defamatory edits But this article is just one example. In this case Ajnem was disrupting the article to remove criticism from the subject who is blogger that dedicates his life to defame religious Jews. Ajnem has a tendency of targeting religious Jews by putting defamatory/libelous information on their BLP articles sometimes turning the article into an WP:ATTACK style. This article is another example of how user Ajnem made major changes transformed the article into a whitewashing article on the subject. [158] Again Ajnem did not mention anything on the talk page and almost nothing in the edit summery. I won’t now get into all the problems with this edit. I therefore propose that Ajnem should this time be indefinitely blocked to avoid more libelous edits on BLP articles. Especially BLP articles on religious Jews. If Ajnem will dispute the block – the administrator should seriously consider how Ajnem conceals the disruptive behavior making it very difficult for other users to detect. Caseeart (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2014 (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.

Problematic edits and edit warring by User:Bergman Gotland

Bergman Gotland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article -stan

• First, he replaced referenced text with his pov/unsourced edit: [159]. His edit are against the two cited sources.
• Second, he ignored current sources and added a cheap unreliable link to falsify lead/intro: [160]. Also, his edit is just a copy-paste from an unreliable non-expert random link.

Article Indo-Iranian languages

Edit warring: [161], [162], [163], [164]. --111.96.7.7 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

1. The edit-warring, at first glance, looks like a two-way street.
2. The replacement of "Persian" with "Indo-Iranian" is in fact supported by the second reference: from Persian -stan "country," from Indo-Iranian *stanam "place," literally "where one stands," His edit is not "against" the first source, merely unsupported by it. Also, is "About.com" considered reliable?

This also seems like a (pretty trivial) content dispute. Has there been an effort to communicate before complaining? Howunusual (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a content dispute, but I disagree with your interpretation. The third source does not say that "-stan" means "place" or "country" in *all* Indo-Iranian languages. The reference is merely to "Indo-Iranian", which does not mean that every single language in that family still uses that word. (I note that the first source is a paid blog while the second is a newspaper comment section. Neither are sterling sources.) --NellieBly (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Note: I've edited it, inadvertently messing up the edit summary. --NellieBly (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That suffix is Persian. The Indo-Iranian form is discussed in the second part of lead/intro. Changing "Persian" to "Indo-Iranian" is similar to call "English Wikipedia" as "Germanic Wikipedia"!. That suffix is pure Persian that has cognates in other Indo-European languages.

I removed that random link. It's really unnecessary. It's unreliable and the Indo-Iranian part is already in the lead section. --114.160.71.150 (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, the involved editor ignored everything and inserted his POV/unsourced again: [165]. It's not a content dispute. It's better to ask main contributors of that article for the help. Users: User:Altenmann, User:Florian Blaschke (has M. A. in Indo-European linguistics), and User:Zyma. --114.160.71.150 (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Plus, instead of inserting a bunch of similar sources or unreliable content, one expert etymology source is enough for the first part of lead section. Current cited sourced are not good enough, they are not bad, but better sources are required. When main contributors accepted previous revisions before the current edits, it means there was no content dispute. The current edits by a new user, introduced redundant and unnecessary changes. That link is not a RS stuff. Personal opinions by some non-linguistic guys. --114.160.71.150 (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It also has to be remembered that some Iranian languages such as Avestan or Pashto have true cognates of -(e)stan that are however not identical in sound, and others have simply borrowed the word/suffix from Persian (if the word is present only as a suffix in a language, not as a full word, that's a tell-tale sign for borrowing).

Note how the user never actually mentions any specifics, they just take it for granted that the word is somehow Pan-Iranian. It's annoyingly amateurish to treat a large and diverse language family like Iranian as if it was a single language.

(I've noticed the same with Celtic, where people tend to equate Modern Irish/Gaelic, or sometimes Modern Welsh, with Celtic, as if there were no other Celtic language, and even sometimes cite made-up seeming forms labelled as merely "Celtic" that don't even correspond to any particular language, let alone historical stage of a language, for example in an explanation for some placename or so. That's plain irritating.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-stop edit warring

The involved editor ignored this report and other edits. Still on an edit war and pointless reverts: [166], [167]. --118.111.192.204 (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio

Have to take a real life break, but Wadie Jwaideh has a lot of copyvio, eg from [168]. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it. Needs work but clearly notable academic. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Class using Wikipedia as a host and uploading copyright violations is back

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

---

See this archived AN/I thread for reference.

• Basetsana Magapa (talk · contribs) - sandbox - example image
• Thandymoroks (talk · contribs) - sandbox - example image
• Mojadi (talk · contribs) - sandbox - example image

All three accounts are back, behaving as before. They are using Wikipedia as a web host (see sandbox pages) and uploading a number of copyright violations. Their images have been repeatedly deleted as have the sandbox pages. They have refused to contact us regarding their (apparent) class. I am requesting a block of all three accounts (Mojadi already has been blocked) and deleting of all their uploads and sandbox pages. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2014 (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 socking or did editor forgot to long in?

An IP thinks "This is (Redacted) ridiculous! And they have the balls to keep removing the POV sign! There is no (Redacted) concensus!" The IP is edit warring to his/her version nad has violated the 3RR rule. A logged-in account and an IP added the same text unrelated to the image. It appears that User:TheNorlo is not logging in to avoid public scrutiny. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If they have violated 3RR, then report them to WP:AN/EW, not here. G S Palmer (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not log in because of laziness... not to avoid public scrutiny.184.70.5.58 (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC) There we go! TheNorlo (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC) I apologize to have lost my temper even if I still believe in what I said.TheNorlo (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The image in question was clearly (biased) unrelated to the section in which it was presented. So I've added some kind of related information... Then decided to delete it since the info given in the image description was trivial and did not represent the bulk of the section.TheNorlo (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You were aggressively editing the article and did violate the 3RR rule. I think you should restore the image and also restore the summary of the usage statistics to the lede. The reason you deleted the image was because you deleted like it. The lede should only have four paragraphs per WP:LEADLENGTH. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

anon IP making death threats

From this edit on my talk page I'm pretty sure it is a user I've encountered in AfDs. But making death threats is unacceptable. LibStar (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked for a month for that, for what it's worth. Bencherlite^Talk 09:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Unambiguous legal threat from Rock Attire Mi-Sex

Rock Attire Mi-Sex (t·c) diff stated: Mi-Sex Corporation Limited (Kevin Stanton) how dare you alter and revert the mi-sex Wiki DO NOT AMEND this Corporation will deal these matters in Court REVERT NOW Jim1138 (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Has been indef blocked. Jim1138 (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TenPoundHammer

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.

---

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have noticed twice this user has twice now personally attack IP address editors by telling them to piss off and calling them a dumbass on Rewind (Rascal Flatts song) because people are posting sourced information where Jay DeMarcus is credited outside Rascal Flatts as producer. Now from what I have read here I am surprised this editor has not been blocked for the dumbass remark. Please have a talk with this editor or block him for what he is doing. I have reverted his last edits on the page per WP:Personal attacks. 50.121.36.219 (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional information: I would also like to add that if you note that on the history of Rewind (Rascal Flatts album), User:TenPoundHammer has made no such comments towards editors but has on the song page even though both have had the same issue of editing which goes to show he can have restraint but why on only one page and not both? 50.121.36.219 (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Tell me why he should be credited outside Rascal Flatts since he is one-third of Rascal Flatts. That's like saying "Bohemian Rhapsody" is a song by "Queen featuring Freddie Mercury", or that "Need You Now" is by "Lady Antebellum with Hillary Scott". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: "piss off" is not a personal attack, and as it's in an edit-summary, there's no valid policy-based reason to revert the edit itself, so please undo that. One month ago, 10PH said "don't be a dumbass" ... now, there's some who say that is a personal attack, and many who will say it isn't because "it's a warning to not become one" ... and it was a month ago. As a minimum it's uncivil, but nothing that cannot be resolved with a) discussion on the article talkpage to obtain consensus, and b) any edito politely discussing the phrasing with 10PH on their own talkpage. Admins aren't needed at this point the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: "Piss off" can be considered a personal attack especially seeing why he was doing it because if you note he when he posted it in an edit summary he was posting this: <!--Do not add Jay DeMarcus, as he is part of Rascal Flatts--> on the page so it was towards editors who were posting it on the page and so yes it is a personal attack. So I will not revert anything until something is done about the user. 50.121.36.219 (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: If I may also add if you had a job and you told someone to "piss off" or said "dumbass" you would be fired because it is unprofessional and offensive to some people and should be no different here. 50.121.36.219 (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, based on context. If I told a customer to piss off, then yes, I would be fired. If in a meeting of equal colleagues, someone suggested that we change our corporate logo to a flying hamster with an erection, "oh piss off" or calling them a "dumbass" would be an appropriate and acceptable response, and I most certainly would not be fired or even warned the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes you would, if the person went and complained you sure as heck would get into trouble and get a warning so please do not call me wrong. Thanks. Just cause you do not like that I did the right thing and reported someone please do not come up in here and start contradicting me because someone went and handled things wrongly and got reported. And if you are not an admin please stop contributing to this as an admin needs to look this over not another contributor. Thanks. 50.121.36.219 (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• It's a bit rude, but I see no reason to actually give a damn. No admin action needed. Move to close this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:10, 29 May 2014 (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.

Seeking IBAN for Steeletrap

Steeletrap has been hounding me recently, and has been resorting to childish attacks to irritate me. The effort demonstrates a disruptive battleground attitude, and it takes time away from the work of constructive editors. I would like to have Steeletrap banned from interacting with me per WP:IBAN.

Recent diffs:

March

• 14:37, March 19, 2014: Steeletrap started a BLPN thread about a list article I had started five years ago, saying I should "be sanctioned for unacceptable mass-breach of BLP policy."
• By March 22, Steeletrap's BLPN thread, at Mass BLP violation, potential libel in List of Bohemian Club members, had concluded with most observers taking a boomerang view, that Steeletrap had intended to harm me rather than fix a Wikipedia article.

May

• 06:06, May 1, 2014: Steeletrap jokes about "the B-word" which is a reference to her calling me Binky which I indicated was insulting.
• 01:49, May 2, 2014, Calling me "Binkiesternet" when I have already told her I don't wish to be called anything but Bink, Binkster or Binksternet.
• 02:55, May 2, 2014, Telling other editors that "Bink is a bungler."
• 03:46, May 2, 2014: An offer, of sorts, to leave off calling me a "bungler" if I allow her to call me Binky or Binkie.
• 03:51, May 2, 2014: Stating the intent to put a "binky" in my mouth. (Binky as pacifier.)
• 04:47, May 2, 2014: Clarifying to Srich32977 that she meant I should use a pacifier.
• 06:49, May 2, 2014: referencing Binky as "the B-word" in reply to me.
• 01:26, May 13, 2014: "As usual, Bink bungles..."
• 03:45, May 16, 2014: Another insulting offer, this time trading an easing of insults for me allowing her to call me Binky or Binkie. With clarification.
• 15:46, May 16, 2014: Acknowledges to administrator Adjwilley that she will "refrain from using the B-word" as recommended.
• 20:16, May 21, 2014: Commenting about my vandal reversion at an article she never edited before. This is the start of the WP:HOUNDING sequence.
• 20:48, May 21, 2014: Acknowledges that her following me was hounding, but that hounding "was justified" because I made a vandal reversion error.
• 20:22, May 22, 2014, Steeletrap reverts me at an article where she has never before participated. HOUNDING #2.
• 01:15, May 23, 2014: Follows me to an article she never edited, and comments negatively about me on the talk page—"Binksternet rushed to judgment". HOUNDING #3.
• 01:54, May 23, 2014: Steeletrap removes the bit about "the B-word" from a friend's talk page.
• 02:19, May 23, 2014: Follows me to another article she has never edited, and comments about it on my talk page. HOUNDING #4.

At User_talk:Steeletrap#Edit summary with links a specific user, Srich32977 chided Steeletrap for this edit summary targeting me by name. The thread develops into me telling Steeletrap to stop hounding me, and Steeletrap stating the intent to continue—"I am not guilty of 'hounding' by correcting unambiguous errors... I cannot promise I will not revert any more of these errors..." With this statement I must take action to stop Steeletrap from interacting with me any further, as it interferes with my enjoyment of participation at Wikipedia.

Note that WP:HOUNDING says in part: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.". Thank you for your attention. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The binky puns were inappropriate. But an IBAN would be a disproportionate response. It was meant as a joke and I (per his request) have stopped doing it for weeks when I realized he was very sensitive about his Internet nickname. At this point, punishment for jokes about his nickname would be punitive rather than constructive, since the problem is solved. I also note that Binksternet scarcely complained about these (imo, innocuous) jokes until I reverted his errors on various articles within the last couple of days. Please also note that Bink made his share of "jokes" as well (e.g., calling me incompetent here). It's best that we move on and commit to being more civil to each other (as we have been over the past few weeks), rather than whining for admin intervention on such a petty matter.

As for the hounding charge, please first note that my use of the term "my "hounding"" was sarcastic and not an admission of guilt (hence the scare quote). Please also note that the burden is on Bink to prove an allegation of misconduct.

Second, please note that following someone to a page does not in itself constitute hounding. If that were the case, Bink would be guilty of hounding me (as would Srich, Bink's ally in this ANI). Per WP:Hounding, "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy" is not hounding, and 'following' someone for this purpose is completely legitimate. Therefore, to establish that I was hounding, Binksternet needs to prove that I was not correcting errors in the articles I followed him to. He can't do this because he has, explicitly or implicitly, admitted he was in error in both cases.

Bink alleges four instances of hounding. However, I only edited three articles which he edited. (the other case of "hounding" was a talk page post deleted within two minutes.) All three edits were reversions of unambiguous errors.

His first error (which he has conceded above, so I won't bother linking to unless he withdraws his concession) involved a false vandalism charge and threats of blocks leveled against a user who added accurate information to an article.

His second error was a deletion of a reference (at the end of an article) because it wasn't "used" in the article. Per WP:Cite, "a general reference is a citation that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation."

The third error was an erroneous accusation of "disruptive editing" and threats of blocks against User:GrinSudan, for allegedly violating NPOV by characterizing Stop Islamization of America as "anti-Islam." He said the cited sources don't support this position. The problem is, they do, as he later conceded. So in both instances, Binksternet was wrong and his error led him to demean a new user, in violation of WP:Bite and WP:NPA.

The old Bohemian club stuff also involved a multitude of (again, conceded) BLP and WP:V errors, many quite egregious, by Binksternet. I agree that seeking sanctions was a bad idea there, and I was (rightfully) criticized for detracting from the main point of the post by doing so. But the consensus was that I was in the right on substance/content. And the page underwent massive changes after that (I assume Bink doesn't dispute this). So the post was not frivolous, and did in fact improve the project. Steeletrap (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap complains that the evidence is being disregarded. Let's look at the "second error". Binksternet first edited that article 15 months ago with 2 minor changes. The 3rd edit was to remove the unspecific general reference. Steeletrap came to the article for the first time to revert that particular change. Steeletrap cites WP:CITE as the justification. She contends that if the reference is generally about a topic, it can be listed in the reference section. But, "[General references] are usually found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source." which is not the case in Christianity and homosexuality. In fact, the article is fairly well developed. By asserting that WP:Cite justifies keeping every book, article, or (as in this case) doctrinal essay as a general reference because the reference involves homosexuality and some aspect of Christianity Steeletrap is not exercising good editing judgment. (Remember, WP:BURDEN says Steeletrap must show how the reference is helpful to the topic.) Mr.X wisely came in and removed several of these general references here, so at least two editors (Bink & X) do not think Binksternet's edit was in error. (And without it being "in error", Steeletrap's justification falls short.) You can me as a third editor who thinks the removal of the essay was correct. – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea about that incident, but it appears to be a content dispute, not the stuff of ANI. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Again: Bink's error was his belief that general references should be removed because they aren't "used" in the article. That flatly violates WP:Cite.

My (overwhelming) evidence is being disregarded. Usually Wiki editors "work backwards" and cherry-pick policy to justify predetermined conclusions. But they aren't even trying to put on a show of justice and deliberation. No one is engaging or even addressing my actual arguments. No one has argued that I "hounded" bink; they have simply asserted it. My guilt has been pre-ordained. Steeletrap (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This latest scramble occurred when I posted this message about proper use of edit summaries. You objected, so I pointed out how the ES issue was just part of your interaction with Binkster. I wish you'd taken the hint. Even now, editors are hinting that your best course of action is to agree to a IBAN. Instead of arguing, take the hint from King Canute and the waves. Your evidence is not overwhelming – the tide of editor comments here is against you. – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Steeletrap refuses to acknowledge the disruptive pattern of interaction that she initiates. For example, I said:

Steeletrap, don't dig yourself in deeper. You posted to Binkster's talk page and linked Coldplay. But neither of you have edited that article. Rather, you were referring to edits on the Magic (Coldplay song). Only, when you sought to admonish Binkster about the message to the IP, you mis-stated what the message had on it. There was no "intimidating ... big red warning sign" as you stated here. It was the polite, level one "please don't do that" template message. To use your own word, "sadly" you are getting your facts wrong. And, IMO, you do so because of antipathy towards Binkster. I do wish you would stop. I'd rather have you available to assist in clarifying Gini index than to see you blocked. Thank you. S. Rich

Steeletrap has removed this comment, but the pattern of antipathy and harassment is definite. Another bit of evidence is her new usage of the code word "C-". Steeletrap has made various comments about competence in the past and has legitimized edits by referring to competence. The most recent variation on competence is in a discussion with Adjwilley in which she referred to C-students. – S. Rich (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seems the last use of "Binky" was on May 2, about three weeks ago.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This ANI is silly. Steeletrap may have been too familiar and somewhat disrespectful of Bink on a couple of occasions, but she has apologized and moved on. Bink's false allegations of hounding, which as Steeletrap explained before Bink filed this carefully researched ANI, were not indeed WP:Hounding, should not have been repeated here. Steeletrap has backed off teasing Bink, and now Bink should consider whether he was unduly sensitive about her impertinence. SPECIFICO talk 04:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: The reversions and the puns about Bink's Internet name. The latter have been apologized for repeatedly and have not recurred for some time. The reversions were not accompanied by puns, or personal attacks of any sort. And the reversions were (as even Bink conceded -- once explicitly and once implicitly, see above) justified. So what's the issue here? Steeletrap (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

What's this about me having an "internet name"? I don't think Steeletrap is giving the right impression of my real-life career nickname, which has been "Bink" since about 1995, having origins that predate the popular rise of the internet. Binksternet (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

For anyone not familiar with the background, four of the editors commenting here (Steeletrap, SPECIFICO, Srich32977, and Binksternet) were parties to the recently concluded Austrian Economics arbitration case. Of these four, Steeletrap and SPECIFICO received topic bans and the topic area (which is not part of the present dispute) was placed under discretionary sanctions. There were no interaction bans issued. I can affirm from personal observation of the dispute since before the arbitration case, that there has been long-running animus, originating from their conflicts in the Austrian economics area, between the following pairs of editors:

• Steeletrap and Binksternet
• SPECIFICO and Binksternet
• Steeletrap and Srich32977
• SPECIFICO and Srich32977

Previous attempts at reconciliation, mediation, and voluntary interaction bans have not been successful, and the arbitration case seems to have had no corrective effect on these troubled interactions. I hope this is useful background to admins trying to make sense of the situation. alanyst 05:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This attempt at one-sided sanctions is part of the broader battleground to which alanyst refers. Steeletrap (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap protests too much. She refers to the IPs as "new users". These folks are not part of the 21,416,611 registered WP:USERS community. (There are two views about IPs: See WP:IPHUMAN and WP:NOTAPERSON. Me, I will sometimes post a "don't disrupt" message on IP talk pages when I see a lot of edits or prior similar messages.) Next she seeks to show how right she is with regard to the particular edits. Clearly she is following Binksternet and seeking to find picky-uni things to criticize such as WP:DONTBITE. And, as I pointed out above, she inflates the accusations about biting. But Steeletrap has a legitimate easy Get Out of Jail Free card. She can simply agree to a broadly interpreted IBAN as to Binksternet and then stick to it. This would be much preferable to having one imposed and/or being blocked. And it would free Steeletrap to work on much more useful editing projects. – S. Rich (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support This is as clear a case of hounding as exists on the project. It could be used as a case study. An IBAN is the minimum response indicated. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support IBAN based on the ample evidence provided by Binksternet. I have been watching some of this interaction from the sidelines and my impression is that Steeletrap is doing her best to harass and harangue Binksternet for maximum annoyance.- MrX 12:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support, but we could consider making it two-sided? An IBAN shouldn't be seen as punishment, though it probably feels that way: it is intended as a means to lessen disruption, and it appears that the interaction between these two (regardless of fault) is simply not productive. And I say this with the greatest respect for Bink, which of course means something like "tough guy"--thus perhaps not so different from "steel trap". Drmies (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting Dutch meaning! In Belgium, "bink" is akin to hayseed, rube, country bumpkin. There's a beer by that name.
  If it takes a two-way IBAN to convince people, then I'm willing to accept that fate. I'd rather have the fact acknowledged that it is Steeletrap who initiates interaction. I'd much rather let her go her own way, as is my practice. So a two-way IBAN will not change my behavior; it will change hers. Binksternet (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Case study"? This community is a joke. No argument whatsoever (nor any attempt to address my evidence, which clearly establishes correction of errors -- 2/3 of each were conceded by Bink -- which is an absolute defense from hounding) is made. Just convictions and dramatic conclusory statements about how awful I am. I suppose (to paraphrase Tyrion Lannister) if I wanted justice, I came to the wrong place. Steeletrap (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it would limit ("change" makes no sense in this context) your behavior, Bink. You've reverted the lady's edits and commented to her in the past. You would not be permitted to continue that behavior. I don't support a one-way a two-way or any other action from this complaint, but further nonsensical statements will not help you both to simmer down. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support and expand I've recently come across several people mentioned here, though not Steeltrap directly. In my evaluation, an IBAN is needed between all the involved parties listed in the "Austrian economics" arbcom case mentioned by alanyst above, because they seem to be either hounding one another or egging each other on, causing collateral damage in the broader topic areas, and repeatedly in need of outside resolution like this request. -- Netoholic @ 14:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support I have had interactions with Bink for many years and in my experience he goes out of his way to be friendly and easy to get along with. He is sometimes forceful when expressing his position, but never abusive. He's one of the best editors we have. BTW, I've never heard "Bink" used as a nickname for a tough guy (and I've never seen that to be his attitude). Gandydancer (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This post is remarkably revealing: Gandy (who worked with Bink to remove properly sourced content I added on Elizabeth Warren, showing (per the Washington Post) that she had been considered a racial minority on federal affirmative action filings to the USG) goes into detail about his friendly, longstanding relationship with bink. Yet he never once addresses the merit of the charges; indeed, he appears indifferent to them. This is a remarkably candid example of how wp and interpretation of "policy" work in practice: it's about who you know, not what you know. Steeletrap (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It is unclear what edits Steeletrap is referring to WRT Elizabeth Warren. Perhaps this is one from January that she has in mind. Steeletrap seems to say that re-visiting the Gandydancer & Binksternet edits to the article weakens Gandydancer's !vote. Is another look at the series of edits worthwhile? I don't think so. – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• support Steeltrap could probably end this by just agreeing to unwatch Binks page if applicable and pledge to seek out new places in wp. this doesn't even require an admission of guilt, just walk away. in the absence of such sense, i would expand the sanctions as there seems to be a chance for more of this in the future perhaps with a different editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose I don't travel much in the circles that these posters travel in, but I'm very concerned that we are moving rapidly toward a "consensus" that is being formed among a group that is almost entirely composed of people who are philosophical allies of Bink and opponents of Steeletrap.

We have as noted by a commenter above a disagreement with Bink and SRich on one side and Steeletrap on the other that went to arbitration. SRich is now concerned about the insensitivity of some jokes about Bink's name, but freely admits he considers IP users not human and perfectly fine to abuse (overstated, but I still think bringing WP:NOTAPERSON into the discussion was an inappropriate defense of using threats to address minor differences of opinion). Under the circumstances, I don't think the opinion he voices here should be given much weight.

I know less about the history of Bink and Gandy, but am aware that they are close allies on some controversial environmental articles. There is nothing wrong with this of course, but it needs to be said that this is not by any means a random group of disinterested editors who have come here to discuss Steeletrap's behavior.

If Bink doesn't like jokes about his name, Steeletrap shouldn't do it, and it sounds like s/he has stopped. Bink could be more sensitive in his interactions with newbies as well. Do either of these things rise to the level of sanctions? Doesn't seem that way to me. I hardly get through a week here without someone calling me a shill, ignorant, a liar, or (my personal favorite) a "chickenfucker". I deal with it and try not to get worked up. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose This complaint should have died a quick death for the reasons I stated above. Since that didn't happen, I'm registering my view. It's clear from the discussion that there was no hounding according to the definition of the WP policy. We have several eager votes of support from editors who have tangled with Steeletrap on various articles. None of them makes a policy-based case for supporting Bink's request. None of them relates policy to the facts. In fact, given the tendency of editors to pile on at these ANI threads, it could be read as a rebuke of Bink's posting that so few of his friends and Ms. Steele's foes showed up to flog her. This should be closed without action. There's no current problem. There was no policy violation. Only some snarky behavior all around and a hypersensitive reaction from Bink. SPECIFICO talk 04:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Per WP:Hounding, following another user to correct his errors is not hounding. I have established above that all of the allegations of hounding involved the correction of objective errors (which led to personal attacks on other, apparently less sensitive users); two of the three errors have been admitted by Bink. The people who want to see me sanctioned are generally friends of Bink's who have tangled with me on other occasions -- all of them fail to address my 'correction of errors' defense and all but one (Srich, the guy who basically said IPs are fine for Bink to abuse) made no arguments at all. (One even cited his friendship with Bink as the basis of the sanction, while making no mention of my conduct.) Steeletrap (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Formerly 98. Support a final warning to all parties to leave each other alone and stop with the schoolyard tactics. The next venue they seek should be met with IBANs on all sides. — goethean 15:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Support at least a warning to Steeletrap for following Binksternet around combined with unacceptable mocking ("Binky", "B-word") and a general negative tone towards Binksternet which make the claim that Steeletrap is going after Binksternet for noble intentions not very credible. Oppose warning or topic ban for Binksternet who is simply doing normal and fine editing. Steeletrap should be told to disengage from Binksternet. Iselilja (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I don't oppose a warning that I'll be banned for repeating "Binkie" to Binksternet. I have for weeks now stopped doing it and apologized for it, so any additional action (other than a reiteration of a warning) would be punitive and retroactive rather than constructive. But the four allegations of hounding presented above are distinct from that. If Bink wants to ban me for calling him "binkie," fine. But his attempt to condemn policy-protected reverts (of his admittedly false allegations of vandalism and disruptive editing against other users), in which no personal language was used, solely because I called him "Binkie" weeks before I made them, is disingenuous. Steeletrap (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose original IBAN proposal, in accord with votes of User:Formerly 98, goethean, et al. The hounding charge lacks merit if focus remains on error correction; there are many editors that track other editors that they believe are mistake-prone (as they should, for the sake of article quality). Moreover, Binksternet is not without his/her own social faults in the matters I have reviewed, and exhibits behaviour which, while perhaps more below radar than Steeletrap, is nevertheless persistently either inviting/provocative vis-a-vis conflict. That said, Steele's social behaviour with particular types of Users is not as mature as her clear intellectual skill and content expertise, and indeed, more restraint could be shown with editors easily offended. (While the perceived invective here is of the mildest sort compared to some WP fora, the matter of what one perceives as insulting is very personal.) Note, B, I often shorten User names in discourse, and so would have normally referred to both of you with the first syllables of your names, without a second thought. Bottom line: After this intervention ends, both need commit to highest quality editing in each other's territories (no major edits without Talk, no reverts without reading Talk, etc.); humanly manifest grace and patience should become an aim of both, and slights should be laughed off for the childishness they reflect. (I frequently spar with a curmudgeonly Admin—short for adversarial ministrations in this case—who perpetually refers to my Talk as "moans", mdr.) So, support a final warning to both to remain off of each others Talk pages for a fixed period, thereafter to show respect and not edit one anthers Talk pages, and any other reasonable, immediate "distancing" interventions. Blocks/bans should be a last resort, and for far more egregious behaviour that this. How much time are both of these editors wasting, of their own and ours, just in this dialog alone? This is not about winning this or any argument; it is getting good articles out before the public. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I hold that the hounding charge has merit because the focus of Steeletrap is not really on error correction, it is instead a one-sided initiative by her to needle me, after her belittling name-calling episode was called to a close by admin fiat. This is the next step in her little war on me, and she has stated repeatedly that it will continue. The intent to continue is what brought me here; I thought that was decisive. As provocative as I might be in my dealings with other editors (and I would argue that point), I have not been following Steeletrap, or needling Steeletrap, or referring to her with childish insults. I have not been reverting Steeletrap, nor have been talking to her about her notional errors. I haven't even been editing articles in her area of interest. This stuff is entirely one-sided, which is why I asked for a one-way IBAN. Your suggestion of a "final warning" to be given to me as well as her is not at all founded on my actions. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I like your point about "getting good articles out before the public"; that is why I posted the request for one-way IBAN. I feel that Steeletrap has focused on her battle against me to the detriment of building the encyclopedia. Me, I have not responded in kind, so I have been able to continue building the encyclopedia. Since Steeletrap's accusation about "massive" BLP violations in March, I have brought out the following new articles: Black genocide, Charles R. Blyth, Verville Fellowship, Little David Records, The Devil Made Me Buy This Dress, and Geraldine Jones (character). Letting you know for context. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Additional evidence from S. Rich (diffs are from November 2013):

1. 15:26 5/11 – SPECIFICO first refers to "Binkie"*
2. 04:01 6/11 – Steeletrap refers to Binksternet as "Binkie"*
3. 04:10 6/11 – I ask Steeletrap to consider that the name may not be appreciated
4. 04:12 6/11 – Steeletrap responds saying "if anyone calls me Steelie they'll be banned"
5. 06:25 6/11 – I comment on the not-so-innocent nature of the usage
6. 14:33 6/11 – Specifico speaks up (again) and says my mentioning that he had used the same nickname earlier was PA and a violation of the Austrian economics sanctions

*Note: Steeletrap and Specifico are now topic-banned from this article.

It is clear that the insulting referral to a pacifier through a distortion of the nickname was not a one-time event. The sequence was initiated by Specifico (perhaps not as an insult) and picked up by Steeletrap. It should have stopped with the first gentle admonition (#3). But it was picked up again a few months later and progressed into outright insults. The insults by Steeletrap are just one of the harassing behaviors that Steeletrap has engaged in. Steeletrap should receive a bit of her own medicine and be banned from any further interaction with Binksternet. – S. Rich (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)17:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're overreacting, and failing to note that I apologized and have stopped doing this for weeks. Binksternet called me incompetent and said he wanted to pin a medal on me. Should he be banned? Steeletrap (talk)

Point of order

As I noted above, reverting errors is an absolute defense to charges of hounding. No one has made the case that I was not reverting errors in my 'following' of Bink to pages. My evidence shows that in all three instances, he was clearly in error -- and in two of the three, he (explicitly or implicitly) admits as much. I submit that Bink's original post, and the "votes" (particularly those citing their friendship with bink), should be dismissed because they don't address the issue of whether he was in error. (They are just conclusory statements denouncing me.) Steeletrap (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC) The one error he didn't admit to is also unambiguous: Bink removed a general reference because it wasn't "used" in the article. But general references don't have to be (and typically aren't) used in the body of articles, per WP:Cite. (That his edit could be made on another basis other than his stated rationale is entirely irrelevant. If I revert an edit on the basis that "I don't like Srich," that would be an error on my part even if it could be defended on hypothetical other grounds.) Steeletrap (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap is mistaken about the "absolute defense". WP:HOUND refers to fixing unambiguous errors. As demonstrated above, there was not such error in example two, let alone an unambiguous error. Also, HOUND says:

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Does Steeletrap have an "overriding reason" to follow Binksternet about? Sorry, no. The other diffs (unrelated to "error correction"} show this is not the case. – S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Steeletrap is correct that in at least one of the cases (the IP template) Binksternet had made an error, but the approach by Steeletrap seemed in my opinion to be out of proportion with the magnitude of Bink's error. (A reversion of the template with a note in the edit summary would have been sufficient. Confronting Binksternet, and then canvassing for an explicit apology to an IP that has 5 edits over a period of 5 months is overkill.) I haven't personally investigated the other two examples. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Because correction of errors is a defense to hounding, everyone accusing me of hounding must first determine whether I was correcting errors of Bink. I do not think I was "disproportionate" in asking him to apologize for threatening to block a user and calling them a vandal for adding accurate material to an article. But this (and the use of the B-word) is a separate issue from hounding. Steeletrap (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Correcting errors is not an absolute defense. The style of interaction is confrontational. You have been insulting me, belittling me, and you have blown small errors out of proportion. This combination is textbook hounding. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Are you saying 1) my edits (correcting your errors) were justified, but that I should be banned because I 'insulted and belittled you' in the process? Or do you think 2) my edits were unjustified, and I should have just done nothing when I saw, e.g., your threat to block someone for vandalism who added accurate information to an article. Steeletrap (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you standing up for editorial integrity? Binksternet removed unsourced biographical information from a BLP. "Accuracy of the information" does not justify adding it when it is unsourced. – S. Rich (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." A new user's addition of factually accurate, uncontroversial information is not vandalism, even if s/he (as a new editor) does not comply with WP sourcing policies. Bink himself has admitted his error (as did admin ajdwilley above), and attributed it to a hasty reading of the article. Your need to distort these issues speaks to the weakness of your case. Steeletrap (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"The style of interaction is confrontational. You have been insulting me, belittling me, and you have blown small errors out of proportion." But realistically Bink (and I mean no offense), you are often guilty of similar behaviors.

Here you go after an IP user who simply disagrees with you on the genre of some songs, because s/he "did not discuss the change in advance on the talk page or provide sourcing for the change". Seriously? Sourcing for the genre of a song? There is no discussion on the talk page or sourcing for the original genre assignment, why is this a burden that this other editor must meet? Its fine to revert it if you disagree, but putting a message on the users Talk page threatening them with a block and telling them that "changing the genre to meet their own preferences is unacceptable" seems a little over the top.

Here another editor is threatened with being blocked. Their offence? Adding a date of recording for an album without citing a source. Maybe I've misunderstood something, but the box seems to contain other information that has no sourcing information, and in any case, does something like this have to rise to a confrontation?

Maybe we should all just accept the idea that Wikipedia can be a rough and tumble place and try to be less sensitive. Lets focus on building an encyclopedia.Formerly 98 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

all valid points, still it appears this issue follows the editor to completely separate articles instead of a one-time dust up. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sort of. It looks like it has happened a few times, with some ambiguity on whether it was a protected exception. I think the larger point is that Bink can be pretty aggressive himself, but gets upset when he finds himself on the receiving end of similar treatment. If he was a gentle flower who was consistently polite and deferential to the opinions of others, it would be a different story. But he pretty consistently threatens people who disagree with him on even minor points with blocking, and routinely characterizes their edits as "disruptive". Then comes here and demands protection from another editor who says a few catty things that s/he shouldn't have, because its "disrupting his enjoyment". I just don't see it. Formerly 98 ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk] 17:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

ok, maybe i misunderstood the difs, it appeared the issue migrated to unrelated articles specifically following the editor, not the topic. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

"Steeletrap apologizes and again accept responsibility for calling Binksternet "Binkie" despite him telling her not to do. She also apologizes for calling him a bungler. She recognizes that Binksternet considers variations on his nickname to be offensive and insulting. Steeletrap is warned to continue her good behavior of the past week, and never again make any puns about Binksternet's nickname. Should any of this behavior recur, she will voluntarily cease interacting with Binksternet, or be subject to sanctions."

Comment I think that is a proportionate and reasonable response to the jokes I made about Bink's name earlier this month. And it provides a framework for Binksternet to hold me accountable if I use a variation of his nickname again.

Note that this does not equate to an admission of hounding. Quite the opposite: No uses of Binkie (or any personal remarks whatsoever) were made in any of the alleged counts of HOUNDING above. All of those edits related to reversions of Bink's errors, which led him to falsely accuse other new users of vandalism and disruptive editing, and threaten them with bans. (Incredibly, he has admitted that he was in error, but still apparently believes I shouldn't have reverted his false allegations.) As some editors are seeing, he's obscuring two very different set of allegations: one true and relatively trivial (my use of "Binkie") and one false and serious (The HOUNDING). Steeletrap (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The only interest Steeletrap has in Binksternet's editing style is based on malice. Steeletrap has not moved on from the Austrian Economics dispute which left her with a topic ban and me with no restrictions. All of the supposed corrections (and there was only one, my confusion of Marilyn Manson and Marilyn Monroe) stem from a wish to harm me rather than a wish to help the encyclopedia. Just as in the March appeal to BLPN, Steeletrap is demonstrating her spite for me. There is no good that can from further interaction of her with me. She should be IBANNED. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this "confusion" led Binksternet to threaten a new user with blocks and accuse them of vandalism. Apparently I was wrong to have stepped in. Binksternet also accused another (also new) editor of "disruptive editing" and threatened them with a block for using "anti-Islamic" to describe a group, a description he said didn't appear in the sources. When confronted, Bink noted that "Anti-Islamic" is used repeatedly in the sources, which I reasonably took to be an implicit admission of error. Steeletrap (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap:Can you address the "bungler" remarks and the remarks about competence? And can you address the edit in which you exaggerated the level of warning that Binkster had placed on an IP talk page? And can you address the fact that you used the Binkie nickname a few months ago? My suggestion is to broaden the extent of your apology and acceptance of responsibility to all such interactions and improper personal remarks. And you should recognize that uncivil remarks are (or can be) but one component of hounding. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added bungler to the apology. The competence stuff is months old, and has not been raised here. Since you mention it, though, the reason I followed Bink is I think he's prone to making snap judgments and false allegations (read: personal attacks) against other users, particularly noobs. If he stopped making mistakes so frequently, or stopped being highly critical of others due to his mistaken understanding of their edits, I would stop following him.

What "exaggeration" are you referring to? The talk page post when I said that one of Bink's (many) erroneous "warnings" threatened a block for no reason, when it merely called out another user for no reason? Sure, I apologize. But I think it's stupid to put that in there, since I self-reverted that error literally within 2 minutes, before anyone else responded to or even noticed the post. Steeletrap (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't give us half-truths. Your reverting was not because you made a mistake. Your edit summary said "remove post. Sadly, this isn't likely to make any difference." – S. Rich (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

And the competence issue lurks. Three weeks ago (not "months ago") Binkster referred to it in the List of Bohemian Club members talk page and you mentioned it here in your edit summary when referring to another editor. That other editor had cut & pasted your remarks from the Bohemian Club talk page in which you had said "I'm NOT going to use the B-word or C-word," – S. Rich (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Support with the addition that Bink should take responsibility for bullying newcomers and refrain from WP:BITE. I don't see any evidence that "the only interest Steeltrap has in Blinksternet's editing style is malice", and I think this statement shows that Bink is not yet taking responsibility for his own behavior. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I endorse your proposed addition. Obviously, threatening to block noobs who add unsourced (but accurate) song genres is childish and mean-spirited. And Bink is also error-prone, so many of these snap-judgments and threats actually end up being baseless and therefore personal attacks. But while I encourage other readers to vote on your proposed addition, I won't add it to the proposal, because Bink has more friends than me on Wikipedia and they aren't likely to go along with anything that criticizes him. The ANI process is 10% or so about policy and 90% or so about friendship and grudges. Steeletrap (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

News flash, Binksternet has been blocked for a week for EW. (That was smart of him!) So he won't have much to say in the next few days here. But I think the issues are pretty well laid out. Editors have chimed in with support and opposition to an IBAN. (Our closing administrator can decide if there is consensus in that regard.) But if a sincere apology can be worked out, along with a warning, I think this thread will close. I say "sincere" because I'd expect the apology to cover all of the uncivil remarks we've seen over the months. It should/might say "I apologize any and all uncivil remarks made in the past, including but not limited to improper nicknames and references to competence or bungling. Without admitting 'hounding' or 'harassment', I shall refrain from following Binksternet's edits on articles where I have not edited before. If, by chance, I come across Binksternet edits in any articles which are clearly and egregiously and ambiguously wrong, I will wait 24 hours before reverting or consult with another editor for validation of my evaluation of the error before reverting the error." – S. Rich (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't feel obliged to apologize for anything other than the (extremely mild) b-word and "bungler" stuff. My apology was genuine. But putting it in this over-the-top format was out of self-interest. Bink is a disruptive editor -- as his most recent block and long track record of blocks indicates -- and this justifies following him and reverting his errors and harassment of other users. I see no reason for imposing constraints on myself. Moreover, I view your behavior on this thread to be tendentious and motivated out of malice against me, so I'm not inclined to listen to you. I made this proposal out of self interest: because I wanted to save my hide and new that the pro-bink crowd would want some sort of concession.Steeletrap (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Srich, that's just nonsense. The controlling tone of your language, aside from serving no purpose, gives the appearance that you are trying to humiliate Ms. Steeletrap -- an editor with whom, accoding to Alanyst above, you've had a history of dysfunctional interactions. Taking it one step further, this entire silly thread has the surreal aspect of a Kabuki harassment of Steeletrap. Bink's an experienced editor, so whatever his complaint against Steeletrap's rude behavior, she was not hounding him. That had already been explained to him before he filed this ANI. Hmmm. What's up with that? I'm not suggesting a boomerang against Bink for harassment, but this whole dumb mess should be closed right now before another electron is diverted from the important goal of North American energy independence. All the initial "votes" from involved editors who piled on against Steeletrap occurred before Bink's block. I hope some Admin steps up to the plate and closes this so we can move on. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Update: OP blocked: The complaint for which he was blocked cited harassment and edit warring. I mention this because it is supports my claim that Binksternet is a problematic editor who routinely violates policy and harasses other users. Contrary to what his friends and my enemies have indicated here, his edits can be tracked for good-faith reasons (i.e. improving the encyclopedia). That's all I did in the four allegations of "hounding", all of which involved correction of unambiguous errors (which led him to harass other users) and none of which involved PAs. (The "binkie" jokes occurred weeks earlier.) Steeletrap (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Stale news update: Binksternet has been unblocket. Perhaps it's time to resolve this. How about a block for the same number of hours that Binksternet suffered? – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Its hard for me to see what purpose would be served by "a block for the same number of hours that Binksternet suffered". Certainly not protecting the encyclopedia, or for that matter, offering any potential benefit to Bink. It doesn't serve any purpose other than a smackdown/vindiction. Though I hesitate to say this, it suggests that there are goals here other than correcting a problem. I suggest some emotional distance.

@Steeletrap: - Apologize sincerely and watch your step going forward. There are plenty of bad/aggressive edits on Wikipedia, and you don't have to be the world's policeman. Somebody else will deal with the more egregious examples, and even if they don't, the world will go on. Bink: take a powder and stop threatening and harrassing people over non-earth-shaking issues like whether what genre a 1970's Kinks song belongs to. It really doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things, and all you are doing is making the world a less pleasant place, which is certainly not the goal of anyone who takes pride as a professional in the entertainment industry.Formerly 98 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, Bink's unblock has nothing to do with the merits of the original allegation of wrongdoing (for which he was appropriately blocked). It came in response to his (voluntary) acceptance of editing restrictions in response to his misconduct. I am happy he has accepted such editing restrictions and hope he chooses to extend them to other domains.

I apologize again for the language I used and the disrespect it reflected toward Bink. Steeletrap (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Just read Srich's "proposal." His proposals have shifted throughout the thread. Clearly, his goal is not to determine a reasonable, policy-rooted solution to this issue. Rather, he wants to punish me to the maximum extent possible. (He first supported an IBAN, then after Bink was banned supported only a warning, and now (having falsely perceived that Bink's unblock has allowed this ANI to regain momentum) This animus should be noted in future interactions between us. Steeletrap (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm may be stepping over the line here @Steeletrap:, but I think "I apologize again for the language I used and the disrespect it reflected toward Bink." would have been a good place to stop. Its time to convince us that you are going to do whatever is necessary so that we won't be back here mediating another conflict next week. Other than not using the B-word anymore, what's your plan going forward? Formerly 98 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not willing to commit to not reverting Binksternet. Sorry. You yourself concede that he harasses other users. Should I really do nothing about that?

That said, I'm sincerely open to any suggestions you might have as to my future conduct (apart from obviously refraining from the puns about his name).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

This is getting too goofy. If either of them harasses the other in the future, the community will sanction them. Somebody zip this thing. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap:"Shifting proposals" is not quite accurate. I have suggested various possibilities in an effort to resolve this. They serve as possibilities for administrators to consider and perhaps implement. Some administrators may be willing to impose an IBAN, some may be willing to simply warn you. And others may simply say the whole thing should dropped, but I think that is unlikely. It is not my decision. You can figure out for yourself what proposal (mine or someone else's) is most acceptable to all involved. – S. Rich (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm reasonably optimistic that there won't be an IBAN. Another admin, AdjWilley, was going to end this thread without an IBan. He decided not to because of an argument we had on his wall. But his view on the merits of the issue was anti-Iban. Steeletrap (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a significant range of possibilities between the extremes of a interaction ban / promising to never revert and simply promising not to use the B-word in the future. If you have some suggestions on what would be a reasonable compromise, lets hear them. If not, maybe a two way interaction ban is the next best choice. What we'd all like to see is either a more productive interaction, or failing that, less interaction. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

OK here is another (big) concession: 1) I voluntarily agree not to edit Bink's talk page, except with official ANI announcements. 2) With the exception of postings on noticeboards, I will not make any "meta" statements about Binksternet as an editor.(E.G. I can say: "Binksternet is mistaken [here]" but not "Binksternet is a mistake prone editor." This should not be taken as an admission of wrongdoing (wrt the "Hounding" charges) but gestures of good-will to Binksternet.

I also want to see you (80) push for Binksternet to be warned for harassment of other users, a position you say you support. He should also pledge to stop this behavior. If he improves his behavior, my obligation to interact with him will dissipate. Steeletrap (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me add: My acceptance of the above terms of agreement is contingent upon Bink accepting the same arrangement. (I.E. no posts on my talk page exempting ANI notices (meaning: no templates) and no meta-statements about me as an editor.) Fair is fair. Steeletrap (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan to me. @Binksternet: would that be an acceptable arrangement to you? It would be make a very positive impression on everybody if you guys could solve this, or at least give this a solid try for while. Can we all de-escalate here? Formerly 98 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, at Steeletrap's request on my talk page I have independently analyzed the matter. See User talk:Alanyst/Archive 2#Question re hounding. I concluded that Steeletrap's behavior met all five necessary elements of wikihounding and, depending on whether correcting unambiguous error is exempted unconditionally, either two of the four of the diffs labeled "HOUNDING" in Binksternet's complaint above qualify as wikihounding, or else all four do. I also found that the magnitude of the wikihounding was at most minor, and arguably borderline.

Nevertheless, I feel that the proper remedy is a two-way interaction ban. Not because Steeletrap or Binksternet deserve it in any punitive sense (we don't do that) but because the apparent lack of any goodwill between them indicates disruption will likely arise from any further interactions, even if restricted as per Steeletrap's proposal here. That said, if Binksternet accepts Steeletrap's proposed arrangement above, I regard it as better than nothing and would not oppose it. alanyst 14:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this interpretation. He construes a talk page post gently advising Bink not to harass noobs in the precise manner identified by uninvoled user Formerly 98 (a post I deleted in two minutes), as "hounding." He also claims that my reversion of Bink's deletion of a general reference because it was not mentioned in the article (a direct violation of WP:Cite, which says general references are generally not to be used in articles) is "hounding." I believe alanyst is biased against me -- indeed, we have clashed for months. Steeletrap (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap's proposal is worth considering, though it pulls a punch with regard to whether belittling nicknames are actually offensive and insulting, or whether that's just my opinion. It also ignores the hounding behavior. I would accept the proposal in the following form:

Steeletrap apologizes and accepts responsibility for calling Binksternet "Binkie" despite him telling her not to do. She also apologizes for calling him a bungler. She recognizes that belittling variations on his nickname are offensive and insulting. Steeletrap will never again make any puns about Binksternet's nickname, or refer to the "B-word" when discussing him. Steeletrap also promises to stop following Binksternet's edits. Should any of this behavior recur, she will be subject to sanctions.

I propose this version because it covers both the insults and the hounding, which everyone here should note has been completely one-sided, aimed from Steeletrap to me, and not returned in any fashion by me. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't accept this version because you take no responsibility for your harassment of other users (see the discussion from involved user 89). You were recently blocked in response to a post accusing you of harassment. (You accepted editing restrictions and were reinstated.) This makes it look like my conduct was motivated out of pure malice. What do you think of my second proposal? Steeletrap (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, it is just your opinion that the b-word and even bungler are insulting. (What do you think it is? A law of nature?) It may be a sociological or psychological fact of human beings or Americans or Wikipedia editors that they uniformly find that sort of language insulting, but I doubt it. Certainly, I should have respected your opinion on the matter, and I apologize for that. But let's try to avoid hyperbole Steeletrap (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Your second proposal was the following:

1) I voluntarily agree not to edit Bink's talk page, except with official ANI announcements. 2) With the exception of postings on noticeboards, I will not make any "meta" statements about Binksternet as an editor.(E.G. I can say: "Binksternet is mistaken [here]" but not "Binksternet is a mistake prone editor."

None of that is necessary if you stop insulting me, and stop following my edits. I don't mind if you post reasonable critical-but-constructive comments on my talk page. The part about "meta" statements is redundant if you agree to stop insulting me.

I certainly take responsibility for my edits, so I don't know what you are trying to portray with your assertion that I "take no responsibility for [my] harassment of other users". It's true that I did not follow your prescriptive advice to apologize to the IP user who said Marilyn Manson was a friend of Doug Stanhope (an IP user who will likely never see an apology), but I felt it was part of your hounding activity, and thus was not given in good faith. If somebody does not take responsibility for their edits then they have no business being here. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Baby with Bathwater proposal

Being that we have spent far too much time/bits/intellectual effort on this "dispute", for this nucleus of troublesome editors (Steeletrap,Binksternet,SPECIFICO,Srich32977) the next editor who makes any comment on one of the other editors that is judged to be not helpful to the discussion it is made in context of, shall be summarily blocked using the standard escalating block regime. 'TL:DR: The next one who commits a fault is getting a summary block because en.WP at large is tired of these never ending issues. Hasteur (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Works for me. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest Kumioko 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.

---

[169]. Perhaps we should set up a special page where we can report these for blocking and just move on? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indef by LFaraone. G S Palmer (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• As a note, any further socks should be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kumioko. G S Palmer (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by User:Hsrc1234

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely for username violations

Citing User talk:Hsrc1234,

Next step is to find out whatever means I can in wikipedia to file a complaint against you for misusing whatever wikipedia rights you currently have. After that, its legal intervention.

This considers a series of reverts of the user's edits to Homeland Security Market Research, and probably also the user's block for displaying a promotional user name. One revert, for removing content without a proper edit summary, was mine, the rest were performed by Mean as custard. Whether the user's complaint is valid may be further discussed on the article's talk page; the article is flagged as being under dispute. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I can only assume that the username Hsrc1234 is a claim of affiliation with the Homeland Security Research Corp. If Nsrc1234 withdraws the threat, a block under WP:NOSHARE seems in order. If the user gets their name changed and clarifies that they are not sharing the account, I still think a topic ban (at least from that article's article space) is in order after that.

Although in all honestly, it may just be worthwhile to up the block to "cannot edit talk page" and call it a day. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(EC) I say revoke the talk page if he's going to issue legal threats. He seems to not be here to contribute to an encyclopedia anyways, since one of his complaints is, and I quote, "misleading our company's potential clients". —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinintely for violating the username policy; however, he has contacted me by email, so this saga may not yet have seen its end. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The legal threat was issued 45m after you blocked him, Daniel. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is a case of WP:DOLT. The page in suspect has 4 primary sources and 1 questionable secondary source that didn't mention the subject. No significance at all about the organization. This article should've been deleted from the get-go, or merged to the DHS article, and we could've avoided any legal threats. I've done so. Issue over.--v/r - TP 20:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Should action be taken against Battlesnake1, who created the article with the bogus content in the first place? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What we have is yet another bogus article created by Battlesnake, who has created several hoax articles as well as one that he admitted came from a game.[170]. The article was then spotted by someone from the real company who revised it (corrected it in fact). He hasn't edited since March, but I am blocking him indefinitely for these hoax articles with an explanation of what he can do to get unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User adding own fansite to articles

An editor has been adding his own site to the Close_Combat_(series) article and other related ones. I've removed it on the grounds that there's not enough activity on the site, and that any relevant files are hidden behind a membership-wall because the site is only a forum. I invoke WP:FANSITE, but they refuse to acknowledge this because apparently they were the owner of the company behind this series of games at one point, and hence it isn't a fansite. Throw in some long rants sprinkled with name-calling, primarily me being Hitler and an idiot, and you have Shaun_Wallace_aka_Sulla's side of the argument. This isn't the first time this has happened, and that's why I'm bringing it here. Eik Corell (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Some diffs would be helpful, Eik Corell. G S Palmer (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the user in question, by the way: Shaun Wallace aka Sulla (talk · contribs). G S Palmer (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the flat-out name-calling[171][172]. The whole "you don't know anything blah blah blah" can be found on my talk page and that of the articles. Here's the link diff:[173], and here's some more from February[174]. More crap here [175]. Eik Corell (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• [176]. G S Palmer (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Michigan kid

Would someone look through my last few IP blocks and construct range-blocks. I don't really want to block the entire city, but it would cause less collateral damage than allowing our previously-agreed block of the Michigan kid to be ignored. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Gross misrepresentation of sources by user:Tendergreens

See [177] and [178]. The first is definitely a gross misrepresentation of the source - replacing 'Credit Suisse' with 'Lloyd Bancaire' - and the second is almost certainly the same, given that the article has said ' Mount Kellett Capital' rather than 'Lloyd Bancaire' for some months (I can't access the source, unfortunately). Note also that this contributor has been attempting to recreate an article on 'Lloyd Bancaire' (misplaced at Talk:Lloyd Bancaire, and at Draft:Lloyd Bancaire), despite it being repeatedly deleted (and apparently salted) for advertising and/or creation by a banned user. [179] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The entire history of deleted versions of

• Lloyd Bancaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Lloyd Bancaire (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lloyd Bancaire Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Lloyd Bancaire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Lloyd Bancaire (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

and any similar page needs to be looked into and compared to newly (re-)created versions. Reasons for past deletions include copyvio, socking/banned editors, and possibly more. New editors who come out of nowhere and repost or rewrite this page raise eyebrows, to put it mildly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Arthur Rubin has taken care of the Tendergreens account and the recreated article in draft space. I've blocked another sock account, DawnFaulkner, and deleted and salted the corresponding article Lloyd Bancaire Group.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

American Samoa

There is clearly multiple sock puppet accounts vandalizing the page on American_Samoa. Basically in keeps inserting every trivial fact about American Samoa (normally around 80,000-83,000 bytes) and then gets reverted. The page now reads as basically a list of everyone/everything that has ever happened to/in American Samoa. There's multiple accounts and all follow the same process. Thanks 75.254.123.207 (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There clearly isn't...? I went to the page expecting a bunch of disruption and instead I see that there have been less than a dozen edits in the past 3 weeks to the article. It's not very active. There was one editor who twice changed the population value without a source (once as an IP, once as an account) which was reverted each time, and one other editor who spammed a number of pages with info about their church, including American Samoa (all of their edits were reverted). Those accounts are obviously not related. That's it for disruption, it's pretty minor. If you think there is trivia in the article that needs to be removed, then fix it or bring up a discussion on the article's talk page. None of the minor disruption, by the way, has been clear vandalism. -- Atama頭 16:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit War at Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh

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.

---

Bigidilijak and Freemesm Appear to be caught up in an edit war of Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh.
I added all reliable sources. He is insisting that the Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh is a madrasa, which is an islamic institution WP:DPL. This is User:Freemesm's third edit warring. In fact he was already blocked for 48 hours. Thanks Bigidilijak (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that the edits that Freemesm keeps reverting when added by Bigidilijak ([180], [181],) are clear WP:COPYVIOs from this blog. G S Palmer (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi G S Palmer, now Bigidilijak is in 3r [182] [183] [184] [185] [186]. I already requested page for page protection [187]. See another admin's comment on this issue [188].--FreemesM ^(talk) 13:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Reported for edit warring: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bigidilijak reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: ). G S Palmer (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO was already removed from me, but others re reliable sources Bigidilijak (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• What I find concerning is this user's almost immediate appearance directly after LucrativeOffer (talk · contribs) was blocked for edit warring on the same pages that Bigidilijak now frequents. G S Palmer (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Freemesm was blocked as well Bigidilijak (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC) User:Freemesm still started disprutive editing here: [189] Bigidilijak (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

G S Palmer, if you dig dipper, you will find User:Fugstar LucrativeOffer and Bigidilijak's chronological appearance in stage! This diff [190] indicates that there is a relation between User:LucrativeOffer and user:Fugstar. user:Fugstar was engaged in disruptive editing in William Nicholas Gomes and 2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar article and then suddenly User:LucrativeOffer is created and start editing in 2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar article. In this diff [191] User:LucrativeOffer mistakenly linked William Nicholas Gomes's article. Later he removed that in this diff [192]. how did LucrativeOffer know about William Nicholas Gomes's article? I think all these three are sock or meta puppet.--FreemesM ^(talk) 14:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting - it might be worth putting together an SPI depending on the result of the posting at WP:ANEW. G S Palmer (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Freemesm", an admin has already told you that User:LucrativeOffer and User:Fugstar are not same.Bigidilijak (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, where? G S Palmer (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

In another edit warring between freemesm and lucrativeoff. [193], by User:Bbb23 Bigidilijak (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Freemesm has been removing vast amount of properly sourced parts of the article even after his block, see this edit where he blanked a large part of Later incidents section which was properly sourced. In this edit, he cleverly distorted a source by completely changing the title (original title is "Children in violent politics" and false title "Noted personalities express concern") as well as putting a fictional quote. And he is putting false allegation on me, I don't know how to warn people for edit warring or other things, I saw a warning section on Freemesm's talkpage that suited my purpose so I copied it and posted on the talkpage.

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.

108.80.140.52

User 108.80.140.52 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly hijacking a redirect to create a page about a different non notable person of the same name, even after warnings. I think more than one AFC draft has been declined on this subject in slightly different names, plus there were some pages deleted in article space for lack of notability. --_nonsense ferret 18:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• IP now notified. G S Palmer (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks for doing that, I got called away in the middle of raising this. --_nonsense ferret 19:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Factchecker atyourservice isn't here to build an encyclopedia

Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs) who also signs his edits as "Centrify", continues a years-long pattern of disruptive, battleground interactions with other editors and is in clear violation of his October, 2011 final warning issued by Qwyrxian. Edits made in plain violation of WP:CIVIL since October, 2011 include the following non-exhaustive list:

• "You could barely articulate any rationale ... much less a coherent one..." [195]
• "I celebrate CHRISTMAS, motherf***er!" [196]
• "...you can be sued for slander or libel..." [197] (struck out on advice of admin)
• "[do as I say] or else stop talking" [198]
• "you hostile asshole" [199]

This editor, who in addition to the comments above, has also interjected disruptive comments at this mediation while simultaneously failing to agree to mediation ground rules, started on Wikipedia with the blatantly ad-hominem username "User:Factcheck 4uwingnuts", and prominently displays on his userpage his essay "Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors". It is abundantly clear from his words and deeds that he is not here to build an encyclopedia and will not give up his disruptive behavior. His own talk page is a dismal record of other editors' appeals to join in conversation ranging from appeals to control himself, requests to cease interactions with them, and at least one failed attempt to initiate mediation. Administrator attention is years overdue. — Brianhe (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Editors with aspirational user names are a blast, aren't they? - Richfife (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I will only note that the OP seems to have misquoted or edited the quotes badly to make them look worse than they were. However, the last one seems to be a cut and dry personal attack. Name calling is a personal attack. I don't agree at all with the title of this header. There is nothing from any of the diffs that shows Factchecker is not here to build an encyclopedia. That should be reserved for vandals and editors with an agenda that has absolutely no encyclopedic value.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

2, 3, and 4 are all taken completely out of context. #3 is the most egregious misuse of context and Brianhe should redact that one immediately. Brianhe is inappropriately implying that Factchecker is issuing a legal threat. That couldn't be further from the truth. Factchecker is actually discussing the need for 3rd party sources - a policy requirement. #4 is perfectly supported by WP:NPA. Factchecker is saying, provide diffs or stop making accusations. That's written explicitly in WP:NPA. #2 looks like a joke. Now, on to #5. While I don't know Factchecker's position on that article, Factchecker is correct that if we are sourcing an accusation against another organization by the NAACP to the NAACP itself, then it needs to be attributed. So overall, I'm seeing a lot less flame than the OP is pretending exists.--v/r - TP 21:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And to top it all off, #1 was from 2012. I hate the cliche calls for the boomerang on this board, but seriously, Brianhe? WP:ANI Advice #14--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've read the essay and see no problem with it at all. It restates parts of Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great#NPOVness (non-bias) and expresses justifiable frustration towards POV editing (while not naming or even referring to any specific editors, articles or controversies, so far as I can see). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry we see things so differently ... I struck out the legal "advice" cite but stand by the others as showing a pattern of behavior which extends to today where Factchecker stated that his vitriol, in the face of a reiteration of Qwyrxian's warning, is richly deserved. I'm completely dumbstruck that people are defending this, and saddened that an admin's "final warning" to a disruptive person apparently means so little. — Brianhe (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If I gave someone, let's say Mark Miller because he was kind enough to show up in this thread, a final warning for calling people panzies and then someone shows up to ANI 3 years later with a majority of 2+ year old diffs and out of the remaining 2, one was entirely supported by policy and the other one is probably a personal attack but towards a user displaying WP:TE behavior for not understanding that we must attribute when using primary sources - well hell, I'd expect ANI to roll their eyes at it too.--v/r - TP 22:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add that after I was called an asshole I was called "Mr. Conspiracy" for using a newspaper article that Factchecker has not read in spite of his false claims that he has. He doesn't have access to HighBeam and hasn't requested a copy of the offline article. So a dispute over the actual content of sources -- which could be resolved by getting a copy of the article -- is twisted with personal attacks, bluffing by saying "go read WP:TRUTH", and false accusations of original research and POV pushing. A straightforward content dispute was escalated and the waters poisoned by this behavior. Factchecker has doubled down and insisted that this kind of behavior is OK, and he's going to do more of it. It's not ancient history to point out that this is his permanent mode of operation. He's abused others years ago and continues to abuse others this day. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you were called an asshole for this comment where you insist on removing alleged from this sentence: "Friendly's Ice Cream Corporation and Myrtle Beach Friends Boulevard LLC was sued in 2008 by the NAACP for closing their indoor area and only offering inferior outdoor service during Black Bike Weeks from 2000–2005". That sentence was sourced at the time to this source which is indeed a NAACP press release which still exists in the article right now. I'd say you're still displaying WP:IDHT behavior that might earn you a block and the OP a boomerang. I suggest you find a secondary source. There should be plenty, I remember that dispute and it had a lot of media coverage. This will work, I have highbeam access and it looks legit.--v/r - TP 22:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Here. Multiple sources, same allegations. Want more? I read the dozens of sources cited in the article, and the additional sources listed below the footnotes. It's not a fabrication to state that the facts reported came from a spectrum of different sources. One was a New York City police officer. Mayors. Reporters. At some point it starts to look like a 'conspiracy' when the only reason we want to add "alleged" and "claimed" to a fact is just because the NAACP happened to also have stated the fact in a lawsuit. And now an admin comes and tells me it's OK to call me an asshole because I objected to this drive-by, one-size-fits-all policy of watering down whatever you see without bothering to do due diligence and read all the sources. The existence of racism in America in the 21st century is not an extraordinary claim. Yet it's being treated as if it were some kind of Bigfoot sighting, requiring all kinds of disclaimers and attribution. And I'm an asshole for objecting? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If the source does not use the term ""allegation" than we do not use the term in the article. It is considered a weasal word. "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure the source of the accusation is clear".--Mark Miller (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) That is the case if the source is a secondary one, but when our information comes from a primary source things are different. While the primary source can be used for the view of the matter according to that party, we cannot endorse that viewpoint in Wikipedia's voice by stating the claim as fact. Therefore, the use of "alleged" is proper and necessary. BMK (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow...really BMK, and you think using a primary source is a justification for the use of a weasal word"? Well ok then...--Mark Miller (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark, like many people, you confuse "should be avoided" with "shall not be used". Weasal words are bad when they are weasaly, which means that they are used to make implications and create impressions which are not explicitly stated, or they act to undermine an actual fact by creating doubt about its veracity. But when they accurately reflect reality there's nothing wrong with them. If the word "alleged" bothers you that much, then other constructions can be used: "According to the NAACP..." or "...the NAACP charged" or whatever, as long as it is clear that Wikipedia is not saying "such and such happened" as opposed to "the NAACP said that such and such happened." That's WP:NPOV, which is a policy, not a guideline. 03:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Attribution is the preferred method, but I'd rather see 'alledged' than have something written in Wikipedia's voice.--v/r - TP 03:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

So now I'm a racist-denier? Very nice, good job Dennis. You're being called an asshole not because this has anything to do with the NAACP or racism. You're being called an asshole because you are trying to use a primary source to make a negative claim about another organization and you're defending it against our WP:IRS policy. All you have to do is change the source. You said you have plenty, I've even read one on highbeam. As Captain Picard would say, "make it so." Quit defending a primary source and add in your secondary sources and, like a Christmas day miracle, you wouldn't have been called an asshole. When people defend things that are indefensible, like racism and using a primary source inappropriately, and they just don't stop, they get called assholes. Alright </dickishness> the bottom line here is that I'm pissed off that you're not accepting any responsibility. People don't just randomly get called assholes for no reason. You did something. Now, we determine if that something you did was appropriate or not. In this case, no, defending a primary source is inappropriate. You were wrong, and he was also wrong. Now is the time for you to say, "You know what, I guess I should've just fixed the citation, I'll let it go this time since I screwed up too" and then we all go on our merry way.--02:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Like Dayum! Well...there ya go. And I agree....not just because of the Star trek analogy.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(undent) Responding to the claims that the "old" issues with this editor are now dead. They aren't. I didn't make an exhaustive list of diffs when I opened this thread because I thought the issues would be patently obvious. In case they aren't, here are some recent edits, all made in 2014, that show a continual pattern of belittling and browbeating other editors.

• 7 February: "silly argument", "take this discussion seriously" [200]
• 6 March: "dramatic critical language", referring to other editor's contributions to discussion [201]
• 11 May: "laughable POV-pushing falsehoods" [202]
• 15 May: "your unstructured feelings about stuff", referring to other editor's contributions to discussion[203]

Hopefully we can concentrate on the editor's insulting and disruptive behavior not my section title, or Dennis's research methods. — Brianhe (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Trying to find issues with any of those 4 quotes ... not succeeding the panda ₯’ 00:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Look out...this coming back to hit the OP.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Extremely TL;DR post-proposal response from subject of ANI complaint

I acknowledge and accept this warning. I will, however, say a few words in my defense.

The content dispute

First, regarding calling Dennis an asshole, it was my perception that he was repeatedly and aggressively likening me to some sort of racist apologist or fascist boot-heel, when in my view, all I was doing was defending basic core policy. In particular he accused me of "suppressing evidence of racism". That's a pretty nasty slap in the face, IMO, and I still believe he deserved my response, however inappropriate it was per WP policy.

Meanwhile, Dennis refused to respond at Talk to my central concern about sourcing and POV and instead spoke primarily of my supposedly malicious reasons for wanting to add attributions. In defending his reverts and attacking my character, he overemphasized ancillary guidelines — e.g., arguing that WP:SAID and WP:WEASEL prohibit attribution of a claim to its source, even though we were talking about claims of legal wrongdoing pulled from a press release issued by the organization that filed the lawsuit!

Obviously such material is quite fit for WP, and ought to be in this particular article. But presentation is very important, and the quality and integrity of an article depend heavily on the quality and integrity of the presentation:

• Good WP articles state judiciously chosen facts in as neutral and surgically sterile a way as possible, and readers draw out their own inferences and value judgments based on their views about the world.

• Bad WP articles tell the reader what to think, and improper use of the editorial voice does most of the work.

Obviously,"judiciously chosen facts" is loaded language that implicates other core policies such as WP:WEIGHT but I don't think much of my dispute with Dennis hangs on weight issues.

Regarding the frequency of disputes involving myself

With a few exceptions, I only edit articles that I regard as currently having actual Verifiability/POV concerns. This means that almost all my WP activity involves content and sourcing disputes, leading to a disproportionate frequency of conflicts with other editors.

Though I understand that I am still expected to maintain the same level of decorum as any other editor, I would argue that, of the incidents cited above as examples of ill behavior on my part, the most egregious involved conflicts with known "problem" editors who were given lengthy or permanent blocks arising out of the same disputes or articles.

For example, the "final warning" — cited above as evidence that I was already on somebody's last nerve — grew out of a series of content disputes with an editor who managed to accumulate 26 days' worth of block time in less than a year for various forms of disruptive and tendentious editing. Inspection of the logs would yield a mountain of frustratingly disjointed, axe-grinding disputes involving that editor and numerous others besides myself.

I cut my teeth on articles about Sarah Palin and an activist group that essentially regards all police as pig oppressors. Believe it or not, such articles are a playfield of endless mischief on Wikipedia.

I have been wading through these weeds since 2007, and in all that time, for all the recriminations and accusations of bias, I only ever received one brief block, for edit warring with a now-indef-blocked sock account who might just be the most tendentious editor WP has ever seen. Comments on my talk page reveal that a least a few quality WP editors felt that the block was, perhaps, not well-deserved. And for whatever little it's supposed to matter, my version was not the WP:WRONG one.

In other words: it weren't all my fault! I get into an unusual number of conflicts, with an unusually conflict-prone pool of editors, as a result of my choice of articles to edit. I am saying all this in the interest of disclosure, and with the hope that my focus on controversial articles, by itself, is not thought to be contrary to WP spirit, so long as I take care to play nice.

Regarding Brianhe's conduct here

All that said, I believe that Brianhe's conduct in attempting to bring admin sanctions down on me was quite a bit less than honest. His comments on my talk page would appear to demonstrate he was more interested in shutting me out of WP editing than in being on the right side of a policy dispute. He seems to mischaracterize my statements and take them out of context quite aggressively.

Besides the examples noted by other editors here at ANI, in his nomination he states that I have "interjected disruptive comments at this mediation while simultaneously failing to agree to mediation ground rules".

If you actually read that case, you'll see that (1) I was invited to participate in that mediation; (2) my comments were quite topical and constructive and kept a collaborative tone; (3) having never been to mediation before, I simply didn't understand that I was expected to "sign" the mediation agreement before posting any comments.

Thus it is difficult to see how another editor could sincerely call for sanctions based on this, even in part. Coming to ANI over a content dispute — and trying to present this to admins as disruptive behavior — strikes me as rather dishonest, and an attempt to shut out another editor via Wikilawyering.

I request that a block warning be issued

I believe that Brianhe deserves a block warning that specifically takes note of the lack of honesty displayed here, because this is exactly the sort of abuse of administrative process that chills honest editing, wastes time, drives inexperienced editors away, and promotes territorial sniping and WP:OWNership of articles by tendentious editors.

End lengthy comments. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

• Brianhe is reminded to use recent diffs and to not come to ANI for slight offenses. Dennis is reminded that we cannot use primary sources for statements in Wikipedia voice except for unambiguous facts such as dates of birth, religion, political affiliation ect. As far as Factchecker is concerned, the 2011 warning is reemphasized and he better straighten up. Calling people assholes isn't constructive and helpful to encyclopedia building. The 'last warning' is renewed as of May 2014.--v/r - TP 03:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. — Brianhe (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should also warn Brianhe not to use quotation out of context to misrepresent the statements of other editors. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think he already got that message earlier, no need for us to rub it in.--v/r - TP 17:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And with that...I say this is resolved and call for closure please.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal Threat?

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

---

I don't have time to give the entire rundown but the edit history is fairly short. User:Saltonking44 wants to try to change a couple articles and Orlady and I keep reverting their efforts. They posted this on their talk page. Legal threat or just uncivil? (I've reformatted their talk page for readability since the diff was posted.) Valfontis (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no legal threat, but a battleground mentality is clearly present. —Farix (t | c) 21:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Valfontis has now applied a one-day block for abuse of editing privileges. De728631 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on the WP:LEGAL issue. Yes, I blocked for edit-warring on Kensington University. Feel free to close this. Valfontis (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2014 (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.

Locked Out

Damn it! I locked myself out of my account using a wikibreak enforcer set to unlock in a week and has gone wrong somewhere. I need to do some userspace work but it won't let me create the page.

Could an admin Please remove the wikibreak enforcer? It's in my commons js.

Thanks, User:titusfox (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Donw but please be more careful in the future. —Dark 12:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

One can always bypass it themselves via disabling javascript in their browser. Werieth (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Scott Morrison (politician)

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.

---

Google is displaying this libellous version of the article on a search. The article is also under current vandalism. Please lock the article and WP:OVERSIGHT the relevant diffs. --Surturz (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't help. This is cached on Google's servers. I already emailed Google about it.--v/r - TP 02:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I followed these instructions to see about getting the content removed that way as well. Hopefully one of them will work. Go Phightins! 03:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Google seem to have updated their cache. Thanks all. --Surturz (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2014 (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.

TheLittleDuke's NLT block review

A few days ago, TheLittleDuke (talk · contribs) was blocked for legal threats he made in an edit summary and on Twitter. Since the block, TheLittleDuke has deleted the tweets and rescinded the legal threat.[204] I contacted Yunshui (talk · contribs), the blocking admin, that the situation as far as NLT has been resolved,[205] but he disinclined to unblock TheLittleDuke on the bases that he was not convinced that TheLittleDuke is here for anything other than to promote his company.[206] TheLittleDuke also has an outstanding unblock request that is now two days old with no action taken. —Farix (t | c) 17:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My initial reaction to this was to think there's no way in hell this should be lifted given the disingenuous claim of privilege on the grounds of having made donations to the Foundation (which is questionable given the Foundation doesn't accept donations in Bitcoin form). After all, the legal threat is not merely a NLT issue but a civility issue. But it seems like there's some contrition on the part of TheLittleDuke, and that reblocks are cheap, an unblock would not be unreasonable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at this atm, but in the meantime: please don't take this the wrong way, but I think the situation has suffered due to the some of the involvement of non-admins in this unblock request. Not because non-admins or their opinions, views, and advice are unwelcome--all very much are. But when a non-admin makes conditions for an unblock like: If you explicitly rescind the legal threat, then you will be unblocked, pursuant to the following condition: You agree to have a mentor, who may revert any edit of yours and levy any arbitration sanction, excluding blocking or banning. It is recommended that this mentor put in a "no edit to mainspace without prior approval" type thing. This will be in effect for two weeks, and may be extended by a consensus of admins., they are making a promise that they cannot keep, since they cannot actually perform the unblock. Qualifiers like Note that this is, again, a (Non-administrator observation) and This offer must have an endorsement(preferably multiple endorsements) from (an) admin(s) to have effect are not particularly helpful in dispelling this appearance of an empty promise, since someone who is unfamiliar with the way enwiki works isn't likely to really understand what that means. So when the blocked person meets these requirements and doesn't get unblocked, either because no admin actually agrees with those terms or just that no admin has noticed them yet, they get understandably irate, since they did what "we" told them to do, to no avail. Non-admins, as always, are welcome to provide any help or insight they might have regarding an unblock request, but I would suggest that a non-admin providing unblock conditions that they haven't gotten an admin to agree to beforehand--and thus have no way of holding up their end of the bargain, i.e. an actual unblock--is a bad idea, and should be avoided. I know well that everyone here was acting in the best of faith to try and help out, but I don't think it was actually helping here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, BTW, who is Lixxx235, whose account was created in February 2010, but who didn't edit until July 2013 (1 edit), made 2 edits at the end of April this year, and has now been editing consistently for the last two weeks? And why is a person with that track record counseling a blocked editor on what to do to get unblocked? What is going on? BMK (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if I caused any disturbances. I just thought that, maybe, since no one was on the page and he obviously wanted to get unblocked and seemed reasonable, that it might have been a good idea to engage in a bit of conversation. If it was disruptive, I'm sorry, if you want, I'll never comment on that page again. Thanks. Lixxx235 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The main issue is that it's not really fair to TheLittleDuke to accede to demands believing he would be unblocked when you had no authority to do so. Even if you might have been correct (and frankly, you weren't), it's a problem because you shouldn't be setting the conditions for an unblock. That's all it is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry, won't happen again. Lixxx235 (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Incivility at Voyager 1

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 maybe deal with User:BatteryIncluded? Please see Talk:Voyager 1. Thanks, 141.6.11.18 (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Telling someone to FYS (i.e., "fuck yourself") is not particularly nice. Nor is calling another editor a "misogynistic asshole". The dispute seems to center on whether Voyager 1 should be referred to as "manmade" or "human-made", with BatteryIncluded supporting the latter and evidently arguing that supporting the former amounts to misogyny. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Gave a level two warning for NPA. I don't think admin action is really needed here. If BatteryIncluded continues with the personal attacks, action may be merited. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Could someone take a look at the talk page again? Battery has said "Sorry, but men created the probe, and only PC Nazis care about language being "gender neutral"." when referring to the spirit of the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Tutelary (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:BatteryIncluded#Bon Voyage doesn't bode well either. Choor monster (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, Battery did not say that - an IP did, and he was just quoting them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hvhhvgghvhgvhvh

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 recently made this edit, which gives me the impression that he/she might be a sockpuppet. As I was uninvolved (not to mention unaware) of his/her case, I do not know which account he/she might've originated from. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 12:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

User was blocked while I was typing this. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 12:50, 31 May 2014 (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.

AfD legal threat

User:Europa6 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenie Carys de Silva has told the nominating editor (and presumably everyone else reading) that "if you continue to falsely develop arguments to have a page removed, then please once again be aware that legal action will be sought against you for defamation of character, discrimination, and prejudice" and demanded "evidence" that the other editor has no personal vendetta, threatening that failure to provide such evidence may itself be "raised as evidence in future, possible investigations". --McGeddon (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I deleted this report when the user downgraded their explicit legal threats to general WP:BATTLEGROUND, but have been asked to restore it with an explanation instead, so here we go. --McGeddon (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a bright-line legal threat being used to gain leverage in a dispute and blockable per WP:NLT and WP:CIVIL, even though Europa6 subsequently altered the post to omit "legal", "legal action", "investigation" and the like. While Europa6 has also made a statement that he or she retracts the legal threats, the fact that they were so readily made suggests to me that a block per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIVIL would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Would the implicit retraction in this revision be considered the same as a retraction of legal threats done while blocked? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We usually ask that someone "unambiguously" retract any legal threats. I think redacting information that indicates a legal threat is explicit enough. Just using common sense, why would they bother doing it if they weren't trying to reassure people that no legal action was forthcoming? -- Atama頭 19:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally think an explicit retraction is the only way to unambiguously retract legal threats. Regardless, I don't think the redactions that Europa6 made were sufficient to mitigate the WP:CIVIL violation that follows using a legal threat as leverage. I suppose it's more academic at this point; I don't think a block will be forthcoming. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at the above named AfD? It appears we have some malarkey going on. two new editors have found their way there to make their first edits, one of them admitting they were asked to be there. Thanks. No notifications made as this smells like socks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I just marked the AfD with {{nab}}. Whether a SPI is needed is probably a question to be answered by someone more experienced than me; certainly at least one participant has been solicited into participating, though sometimes such claims are simply poorly-thought-out covers for socking. I seriously doubt those !votes will taint the outcome, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Europa6 (talk · contribs) and Factcheck1111 (talk · contribs) are  Technically indistinguishable. Frizvanov (talk · contribs) is  Unlikely to be a sock, however given that their first and only edit was to support Europa6 and the sock Factcheck1111 at the AfD, WP:MEAT/vote canvassing is pretty likely.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

false claim as reviewer

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 claims as reviewer by placing tag on his user page and starts to argue. The discussion page is this User_talk:Visakha_veera#Use_talk_page. The evidence of his profile is http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Visakha+veera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vin09 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 31 May 2014

So from the look of things, Visakha veera is not a reviewer... but does this require administrator intervention? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I just removed {{User wikipedia/reviewer}} from Visakha veera's user page and left a note on his/her user talk explaining. I don't think admin action is needed with respect to this. It's an honest enough mistake, I think... not nearly as serious as displaying the administrator tag improperly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I respect your statement but this user has been warned for edit on disruptive edit and rolled back thrice on Andhra Pradesh page, did the third rollback after seeing this discussion--Vin09 (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this complaint about Visakha veera improperly using the reviewer badge? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Vin09, I notice that you have made seven consecutive reverts to Andhra Pradesh in the last 24 hours. You are in violation of WP:3RR. I have warned both you and Visakha veera. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:04, 31 May 2014 (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 a quick note for Mendaliv. 3RR states: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."--Mark Miller (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)}
  • Sorry, I misused the word "consecutive" there to mean that each edit in a series of edits by Vin09 had been a revert, rather than each consecutive edit to the article had been a revert. Those seven reverts all had intervening edits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for explaining. I hadn't time to check that to see what your were talking about.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• I would like to add that the user was not actually claiming anything intentionally, but was merely copying the format of Vin09's userpage[207] to their userpage[208] and forgot to remove that template from it. So it was not a case of dishonesty, but an accidental mistake···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 02:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Shugden SPA replacing academic material with self-published Shugden blogs and websites

• Western Shugden Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Peaceful5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kjangdom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Peaceful5 is the most hyperspecific Shugden SPA so far. Over the years he kept inserting self-published Shugden blogs and websites at the Western Shugden Society page. Now, he just did a massive replacement of academic material with the same self-published Shugden blogs and websites that both Kt66 and myself previously cleaned up. Peaceful5's goal is to make the page an advertisement for the Western Shugden Society. And Peaceful5 is well aware of Wikipedia's policy of using self-published material. So he cannot plead ignorance. This is a willful and deliberate act. By the nature of his edits, he has a clear affiliation with the Western Shugden Society / International Shugden Community. Heicth (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I do notice that in your revert here, as well as removing what appear to be sources related to the Subject, you also removed a lot of text that is sourced to reliable sources (i.e. books published by reputable publishers, the BBC, etc, as well as an Infobox. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, you need to be careful to not blindly revert changes but to review them properly.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing Nigel did while I was skimming through one of the editor's big contributions to the article. May I add (and I want to say this is something I learned from DGG, maybe), that the best way to stave off some types of disruption is to improve an article, and right now the article is not in a very good state. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"Not in a very good state" is a pronounced understatement, actually. I am frankly stunned that anyone would consider this "B" class. To make the article reasonable, I would at least expect a significant section on the history of the movement, a section of appropriate length on what level of organization, if any, it has, its specific positions, some information on the number of people involved, the theological/philosophical reasons for their positions, and reception of the group by other, independent, organizations. I don't see much if any content about most of those obvious topics in the article as it stands. John Carter (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to echo the concerns raised by Nigel Ish. While these editors may be attempting to introduce POV material, it also appears they have added some material that could be incorporated into the article instead of being blindly reverted. Gamaliel (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

a) There is no "blind revert". These are the same "sources" that has been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard and other Shugden pages for years. For example, the book Man, Monk, Mystic says the exact opposite of what is claimed. Even worse in this case, these sources are not specifically about the Western Shugden Society. b)The Western Shugden Society article should be merged with either the New Kadampa Tradition or Dorje Shugden Controversy article. Heicth (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Please understand, we're new to this discussion and when we see an edit like that, it looks very bad if there is no edit summary or talk page discussion to explain it. I see no discussion of Man, Monk, Mystic, for example, and if it's elsewhere such as a noticeboard, you should like to it if you'd like us to consider it. I'm also concerned about the removal of the infobox and all the pictures. Gamaliel (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Fake photoshopped pictures such as this and this, uploaded and inserted by Peaceful5, are not proper Wikipedia material. Neither is a propaganda box (info box).Heicth (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The deletion of academic experts, and Peaceful5's insertion of the following Shugden blogs and websites is not acceptable:

• dorjeshugdenblog.wordpress.com
• wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com
• internationalshugdencommunity.com
• wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org
• westernshugdensociety.org
• shugdensociety.info
• dorjeshugden.com
• Also see **here please**Heicth (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

SPAs Kjangdom (Kelsang Jangdom, a member of the NKT/WSS) and Peaceful5 both admit their affiliations with the NKT / WSS on their respective user pages. Kjangdom openly states "I am pro the WSS". Peaceful5 might be a person in charge of the entire WSS based on all his contributions, picture uploads and his statements on his user page. According to Kjangdom and Peaceful5's own language, the WSS is a "campaigning group". Organizers or members of campaigning groups cannot objectively edit related articles. These two engage in WP:MEAT, ridiculously disingenuous editing, openly delete academic experts who create "too much negative input", defend using a multitude of self-published Shugden blogs despite a previous admin warning etc. I propose that Kjangdom and Peaceful5 be topic banned from all NKT/WSS/Shugden related articles.Heicth (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. These two SPAs could very well be the same person. Compare the "Be peaceful.:-)" on Peaceful5's old user page to the "May everyone be happy:)" on Kjangdom's user page. It would explain Kjangdom's knowledge of Wikipedia terms such as "edit war". Heicth (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom edited his user page without responding to this ANI, probably to hide evidence of socking.Heicth (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedia editors!

I am not peaceful5, I am Kelsang Jangdom, as I mentioned on my talk page. After receiving the comment above I tried to upload a photo of myself for greater transparency. And now I'm responding to this message. I don't know what 'socking' is so I can't really respond to that. I am pro WSS but this is absolutely reason for banning me from editing the article on the Western Shugden Society. Shall we ban fans of Manchester United Football club from editing that page?!!

I am very concerned that some editors are presenting a completely one-sided and negative (and false) view of the WSS. My intention is to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines and work towards a more neutral and accurate article.

Anyway I look forward to working with you all at improving these articles on Dorje Shugden. If any neutral editors / moderators have any constructive feedback about my edits I'd very much like to hear from you. I only started editing on Wikipedia a week or so ago, so I am very new to this and there's lots to learn!

All the best, Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You are not merely a "fan." You are a high ranking member of the NKT/WSS. So if a member of Manchester United Football club continually states that secondary academic material is "negative", as you do even here, that is more than enough for a topic ban. And I just noticed you once again deleted academic material from the article. Heicth (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Heicth, if you can provide clear evidence of that allegation, then the proper place to make such statements might be the WP:COIN. If you cannot provide clear evidence of this individual being a high ranking member of the group, then I believe that you would be very well advised to read our various guidelines regarding civility at WP:CIVILITY. WP:OUT may well also apply, and I very strongly urge you to read that as well. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

He openly says he is Kelsang Jangdom on his user page and even on this ANI page. Kelsang Jangdom is a member of the NKT/WSS. Heicth (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You, however, said he is "a high ranking member" of NKT, which is a different matter entirely. We always have and always will have editors who have personal beliefs about topics editing articles related to them. It is hard for most editors in the English-speaking western world to not have some form of personal beliefs regarding Christianity That does not necessarily disqualify them from editing material related to that topic. Also, saying "I am pro the WSS", the quote you linked to above, does not necessarily mean that the individual is also a "member" of that group. I acknowledge that there can be a real reason to suspect bias in many such cases, and at times there can be very real evidence of bias, but there are and I think have been for some time individuals who have posted blogs as sources through some ignorance. Also, unfortunately, some blogs, admittedly not many, are acceptable as reliable sources. So far, I don't see a lot of evidence to justify what seems to me to be rather strongly condemnatory allegations. The allegations regarding Peaceful5 regarding his being a possible leader of the group are also poorly supported by the evidence presented. In all honesty, based on what I have seen so far in this thread and the allegations made about others, your own objectivity regarding this topic is itself open to some question, and that does not help you. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Kelsang Jangom is a DIRECTOR of the International Shugden Community, the latest version of the Western Shugden Society. How much more high ranking can you get? Heicth (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The assertions made about me (kjangdom) above are false. Please my reply below under the header "Possible WP:OUTING by Heicth, seeking consideration of sanctions"Kjangdom (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible WP:OUTING by Heicth, seeking consideration of sanctions

It is worth noting that the post by Heicth at 18:40, currently immediately above this comment, clearly at least borders on outing as per WP:OUTING. While it is worthwhile having that information, I question whether this is either the best way or place to do so, and believe that, at least potentially, there are reasonable grounds for consideration of some sanctions against him. I would welcome the input of others regarding this matter. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Heicth can't have re-outed someone who has already outed themselves. When editors comply with wp:COI, they know there's a potential to overstep. We should AGF that they won't, and try to guide them away when they wander close to the edge. That's kinda why we warn them. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree.Heicth (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You have some points, which I acknowledge, which is why I said "possible" sanctions. But I think a reading of WP:OUTING can see that identifying a person by specific details which they had not themselves revealed here could, not unreasonably, be seen as outing. That wouldn't in any way excuse COI editing, of course, but it does raise some potential problems. I also note that there have been recent edit summaries by Heicth which could be seen as being problematic in this regard as well. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I think a review of Heicth's own history, including his user page and his earlier user name as per that page, might well raise questions regarding his status as a possible SPA and rather POV driven editor. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but, in context -- given the user has given his full name and his association with Buddhism -- I just don't see it as worthy of any sanction beyond a warning to be careful. NE Ent 23:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree.Heicth (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom openly states who he is on his user page. He even has a picture of himself.Heicth (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The general rule is not to refer to off-wiki materials about editors, unless the off-wiki material is somehow related to Wikipedia itself. NE Ent 23:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The link given above is in the WSS article and has been since Kt66 introduced it the day after it was published (n.b., I seriously, seriously doubt anyone would think so, but Kt66's addition of that article isn't outing). Someone involved in editing an article and concerned about unwarranted claims should be expected to check its sources. Not only is there the article, but the no-permission photo (and standard procedure for anybody checking photo copyrights would likely lead to a connection). It would not surprise me if other sources previously in the article legitimately revealed a connection as well.

But of course, WP:OUTING discusses harm both in terms of "opposition research" (i.e., googling someone) and in making the link between off-wiki information and personal identity. Thus, even presuming Heicth caused no harm in terms of "opposition research" by accidentally discovering the information, the revelation of their job title might still be harmful in the WP:OUTING sense. I would say, however, that in light of the information we already had right in front of us, that damage would be minimal. But would it be zero? We can't presume that all sources legitimately included in an article are "on-wiki" for outing purposes, but I doubt we'd be talking about outing if the revealed information was more prominently featured (i.e., first paragraph instead of several paragraphs in). I think, at worst, this is one of those "edge" cases: conduct that should be discouraged, but probably not sanctionable given the totality of the circumstances.

In any event, I would also say it seems like Heicth was being fairly discreet above, and only let it fly after being pressured to provide evidence. While you did tell Heicth to be careful given WP:OUTING, John, I think you could have stressed the point more clearly. However, if there is damage from the revelation, I don't think this should mitigate any sanction—nor should it apportion any responsibility to you. I just think you might take it as counseling you to take greater care in making a similar request for evidence of a COI in the future.

Finally, I think the accusations of socking above are probably unwarranted. The specific evidence cited is easily readable as evidence to the contrary (I won't go into why publicly per WP:BEANS, though what I see certainly doesn't exclude meatpuppetry or canvassing). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most of this.Heicth (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello again!

I am concerned about the recent "outing" described above, so perhaps it's helpful to clarify a little: Yes I am pro-WSS, but I am not a member of the WSS, never have been. So it is simply false to say that I am member of the WSS, let alone a high-ranking member (the article cited above from The Foreigner only talks about the International Shugden Community in Norway, i.e. not the WSS, so it is not necessary to re-post this article as "evidence" that I am a member / high member of the WSS). I would appreciate if the spreading of incorrect, personal information about me could stop immediately.

Moreover, I am not a high-ranking member of the NKT. This is simply not true! Please provide information to the contrary, or stop these lies immediately. I do assist at my local NKT centre as 'Admin Director', but I am by no means I high ranking member within the NKT, there are hundreds of Admin Directors like me in the NKT (and to be honest, it seems a bit stupid that I am obliged to spell out my relationship with the NKT on this page, as it is probably not that interesting for most other people!) If "outing" is against Wikipedia's guidelines, than surely "outing" with false information to discredit novice editors is also against Wikipedia's guidelines?

I would appreciate it if the relevant moderators could take action to ensure this does not happen again.

Thanks very much for your help :) Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is part of why we tend to disallow trawling for off-wiki information; it's easy to, once you get to the point of doing PI-type stuff, come to a mistaken conclusion. Even so, I stand by my analysis of the above that nothing Heicth said above could not have been discovered by legitimate means (within the meaning of WP:OUTING), and in the same way, I stand by my conclusion that if there is damage, it is minimal. It does not change, in my view, that the only sanction needed is cautioning Heicth to take greater care in the future (as well as to take care not to let requests for proof cause him to release something that might be questioned). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor using 2 IP addresses

This guy is inserting rather funny personal commentary, for example "Jim Crow style discrimination." He uses the IP addresses 80.252.70.194 and 82.71.13.29.Heicth (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I moved this from the bottom as it was part of the same issue that is still currently open. Blackmane (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposing some form of page protection and/or discretionary sanctions on Shugden related articles

I have left a message on the user talk page of Kt66, who is one of the few recent editors as per the history of the page. I do note that there has been a recent flurry of activity regarding the page, unusual for the article as per its history here. Maybe some form of temporary protection to the article, or some form of discretionary sanctions on the article and the broader topic of the recent Shugden controversy, might be in order. For all the recent flurry of editing to the article itself, there has been damn little discussion on the talk page. Even editors who have a clear COI are not necessarily totally disqualified from editing, because they can often provide, among other things, indications of factual errors regarding the topic and additional useful information. And, like I said elsewhere, I myself get the impression that the only editor who does not seem to be rather centered on this topic is Kt66, given Heicth's statement on his user page here that his former user name of User:TiredofShugden, which is kinda indicative of maybe some sort of anti-Shugden bias. Calling for more uninvolved attention to the article, and maybe doing something to prevent the recent edit-warring, like some level of page protection and/or sanctions of some sort, might be the best option. As more or less the proposal of both, I would support both possibilities. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi John, thank you very much for your attention to these pages. As you can tell, the pages Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden Controversy, and Western Shugden Society had remained relatively unchanged for 4 years from 2009 to 2013. The recent flurry of activity is related to the resurgence of real-world demonstrations and counter-demonstrations about this issue. Aside from some minor edits from uninvolved editors, as far as I'm aware there are no significant editors of these pages who are neutral and unbiased on these subjects which, as you suggest, is a good reason for everyone to go to the talk pages instead of edit warring. Among editors, KT66 is not strictly "centered on this topic", but he is not at all neutral and unbiased on these issues and was the principal editor writing against these practices in 2008. The articles as they existed from 2009 to 2013 were not without problems, and probably some of the material lacked reliable sources. That issue needs to be corrected, but the articles as they currently stand are very one-sided in opposition to the practice of Dorje Shugden. I attempted to restore much of the content as it had been previously, but that edit was removed. At the discretion of the other moderators, some protection is probably in order, although the articles as they currently stand should not be frozen. Peaceful5 (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

And, just for the record, on the basis of the frankly minimal effort I did in accessing a few databanks, the group has had at least a few well reported demonstrations opposing the Dalai Lama, none of which are mentioned in the article, and some members, at least early on, expressed serious concerns about facing reprisals from Shugden, who is apparently not a really nice supernatural entity if annoyed, possibly including death, if his worshippers were to stop worshipping him. In fact, the DL himself has said Shugden could potentially kill him, which indicates Shugden has a great deal of power. I haven't checked the article history to see what all was removed, but the current nature of the article, after "clean-up" by opponents of Shugden, is pathetic and rather clearly one-sided regarding one particular aspect of the society, poorly referenced, and honestly at least a bit of an embarassment. If, as seems possible, the recent revisions have been to the detriment of the encyclopedic content, and those who might have tried to improve it reverted on the basis of their alleged bias, some sort of broader attention to the topic, and/or formal efforts to ensure that future partisan damage would not recur, may well be required. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous statement. The Shugden proponents are actively deleting the very little secondary academic material there is on the subject. For example they keep deleting Robert Thurman, one of the top experts in Tibetan Buddhism and specifically the Gelug school.Heicth (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case, then there are established procedures around here to follow, which include something that you have done little if any of yourself, discussing the matter on the talk page. Your own status as what might reasonably be called a Shugden opponent and SPA, based on your own history and former user name, raises extremely serious questions whether you are yourself in a position to criticize others. In fact, I think as per your own lack of knowledge of policies and guidelines, based on your own recent history, that you may be yourself among the least qualified people to unilaterally judge such matters. May I strongly suggest that you acquaint yourself with all of our conduct and content guidelines and in the future behave in such a way as to indicate a greater degree of familiarity with them. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I think the problem with the Dorje Shugden Controversy page is that it is an obscure subject where people have strong differing views, so the only people who edit it have one view or another. Would it be possible to have someone who is neutral who can help with the editing? At the moment the intro doesn't even attempt to explain what the 'Dorje Shugden Controversy' is or to say that different people have different views. Thanks March22nd (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I can try. There are a few administrators out there who have displayed over the years what I might call a remarkable, at times looking almost superhuman, ability to deal with sensitive, disputed topics related to the humanities. @Dougweller:, probably to his mild consteration, because he is already one of our busiest admins, comes to mind right away, but, given the amount of stuff he has to deal with on a fairly regular basis around here, I can well imagine he might find himself forced to respectfully decline. Give me a few days to finish a list of articles from one reference source and I might be able to pull up and distribute at least the sources available to me. Anyone else who might be interested is more than welcome to take part as well. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That's very kind, but I'm going to have to decline. I'm spending too much time on Wikipedia already, and that without being able to also do the article improvements for which I've acquired resources. Pretty unrewarding at times and I really don't want to get involved with this mess now. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

WSS and ISC are the same organization

Don't get tricked by the word games. The WSS and the ISC are the same organization. For example the old WSS website agreatdeception.com now redirects to the ISC. They also use the same publisher etc. Heicth (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Bdell555

Bdell555 (talk · contribs) was blocked for edit warring: [209] [210] [211]

After the block expired, user continues the edit war: [212] [213]

User has asked for more discussion on the article talk page, and I'm happy to oblige when I get the time, but meanwhile I find this disruptive.

Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If you do not have the time to discuss, you do not have the time to edit war. I find the stubborn refusal to discuss disruptive and am resisting the repeated preferencing of reverting to discussing. Because I got blocked for a week for a routine 2RR violation you evidently think it is open season on me. It looks to me like a concerted effort to bully "discussers' off Wikipedia by expecting them to limit themselves to 0.5RR or some such thing while you insist on your right to revert over your obligation to resolve the problem without coercive measures like trying to get the other editor blocked. I am more than willing to open a request for comment from the rest of the community, but it makes no sense to do so while the request for comment from you and others remains open on the article Talk page. If you were to even just say there that you have nothing to say when I pointed to that Atlantic article, also quoting the expert, for example, it would THEN make sense to go to some other board.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a RfC here following another editor making a Talk page statement. There are now four open discussions awaiting your response, on my Talk page, on your Talk page, on the article Talk page, and at the RfC.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Misandry

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 article Misandry could use a few more people to discuss recent content changes. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean the WP:SPA who focused on righting the great wrong of our handling of Warren Farrell? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about any one editor, or I would have named them. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I've protected the article due to the ongoing dispute. I encourage everyone to continue the discussion on the talk page. Mike V • Talk 21:00, 1 June 2014 (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.

Saket.earth, copyright violations, and WP:CIR

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.

---

Saket.earth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Repeatedly adding a copyrighted image to an article [214], [215], [216]
• Introducing copyrighted text my removal after a number of warnings
• Removing CSD tag [217]
• Creating articles like this

Talk page littered with notices. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for repeated copyright infringements and promotion. De728631 (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Given the number of versions of the same thing that have been deleted, should Draft:How a Good Person Can Really Win be zappped too? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Good find, thank you Boing. Yes, that was another copyvio taken from GoodReads and I've now shredded the page. De728631 (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2014 (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:OUTING attempt

Resolved. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved I have removed an WP:OUTING attempt here - would an admin please attend to this? 121.219.8.176 (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks, but please don't post links to sensitive information on a public noticeboard. Instead, please follow the instructions in the edit notice for this page - namely, please make a request per the instructions here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Note - the linked diff has been suppressed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs disruptive behaviour on the Reference Desks

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:Baseball Bugs has been a disruptive and unhelpful user of the Reference Desks for a long time now. His conduct today on WP:RD/H is symptomatic of the general pattern, rather than isolated. A user asked a reasonable question about terminology relating to disability, and got a perverse answer from User:StuRat which included an arguably derogatory term. User:Viennese Waltz queried this, and Baseball Bugs responded with unhelpful sarcasm: [218] ; he then tried to draw a very fine distinction of language to head off VW's criticism of StuRat: [219]. Then, BB directly accused VW of harassment: [220] [221] [222] - including providing this accusation as a false and unhelpful response to the previous OP's complaint about the hostile response to the earlier question: [223].

He's also tried suppressing other users' RD contributions: [224]; suggested that an IP user was too ignorant to know a human being isn't a plant: [225]; uses Google Translate to answer RD/L questions [226]; and claimed Roman Catholicism is polytheistic: [227]. This is not the usage pattern of someone who is on RD to help people. Above and beyond the obvious and repeated false claim against Viennese Waltz, I'd say this verges on WP:NOTHERE. During the 'Manning naming dispute', BB was censured for ad hominem attacks on other participants ([228]). I maintained then, and I maintain now, that this behaviour is not, and never was, confined to that case, but characterises this user's entire engagement with this site and its other users. I encourage the administrators to apply an appropriate restriction on his usage. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that AlexTiefling's had an account since 2004, has a user page with about a zillion user boxes and half-a-zillion categories ("Wikipedians who like Harvey Birdman"), and proudly displays a barnstar, yet in all his time here, he's managed to make only 5,134 edits, and of those only 882 (19.06%) are to article space, while a hefty 2,783 (60.15%) are to Wikipedia space. One might profitably question what this editor's purpose is in being here - is it to build an encyclopedia? BMK (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

BMK, that's entirely an ad hominem. What does the characteristics of AlexTiefling have to do with his central point? It's a DH-1 argument.--v/r - TP 18:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that arbitrator Newyorkbrad has had an account since 2006, yet only 12% of his edits are to article space, while a hefty 45% are to Wikipedia space. One might profitably question what this Newyorkbrad's purpose is in being here - is it to build an encyclopedia? Is there something in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines that says N% of edits must be to mainspace to remain here? BMK, I agree with TParis here. Your comment is out of line. Unless you are prepared to provide evidence that Alex is not here to build an encyclopedia, drop the accusations and back slowly away. There are many, many tasks to do for the encyclopedia. Mainspace is but one subset of the overall effort. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Hammersoft, please don't be disingenuous, you're much better than that. In general, admins, bureaucrats, Arbitrators and other fucntionaries spend a much larger percentage of their time outside of article space for obvious reasons that I know I don't have to explain to you. As for how AlexTiefling's stats are relevant, they reveal someone whose focus, as an ordinary rank-and-file editor, does not seem to be where it should be, on improving the encyclopedia. Thus one can legitimately speculate what his motivations are in bringing this matter to AN/I, especially when I'm not seeing anything for an admin to do here. Was it simply to stir up dramah? I dunno, but I do know that bringing AT's history to the attention of other editors here may well be beneficial in the long run, when the next complaint is filed, and the next.

If AT doesn't want to be characterized as a non-productive editor, there's a simple solution - he should edit articles or otherwise do something that improves the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What does any of it have to do with the validity of the complaint? You're trying to undermine the credentials of the complainant, without addressing the argument itself.--v/r - TP 21:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

BMK, I thought better of you than this. The issue here is not the location of someone's contributions - I make no secret of being quite as attached to RD as BB is - but their effect. It's none of your business who I am, or why I choose to spend my time on the site as I do. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I never asked you who you are, and I don't care, so that's another red herring you've thrown into the mix, along with the "laughable" SPI on Bugs, which you just had to mention. As for what this has to do with the complaint, the character and behavior of the OP of an AN/I filing is always a legitimate issue. TParis, you know that full well. BMK (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is AlexTiefling somehow guilty of some grave crime because he spends less than N% of his edits in mainspace? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Gee, has a "crime" been alleged? Has someone accused AT of violating policy? Must have happened when I was otherwise engaged.

  As far as I can see, all that's happened is that the relationship of the complainant to the project, as evidenced by his editing statistics (an admittedly crude instrument), has been explored in case it might tell us something about the OP's motivation in bringing a non-substantive complaint to AN/I. That's it, end of story.

  Are you planning to keep ratcheting up the rhetoric with each comment you post? Will I next stand accused of tar-and-feathering the guy, and then of keel-hauling him, and finally of lynching him? You clearly don't agree that my statement about his editing stats has relevance, fine, I disagree, or I wouldn't have posted the comment, but there's little need to keep upping the ante as you are doing. BMK (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of upping the ante, what has the content of my user page got to do with anything? Why did you bring it up? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• BMK, my only intent was to point out the absurdity of judging someone based on their % of mainspace contributions. It would be pleasant if you retracted your accusation, but not expected. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you believe that StuRat's conduct is remotely appropriate in this circumstance. [229] is among the most offensive things I've seen on Wikipedia this week, and that's saying a great deal. Notified user appropriately. Hipocrite (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You may not like the outdated term "retarded", but if you look closely, his was the only comment that actually tried to answer the user's question. And since no one would answer my question as to what the correct term is, I looked it up on the recent Supreme Court decision. The answer is "intellectually disabled". VW has long had the habit of coming to a given entry not to try to help answer the question, but merely to harass another user. He is the instigator of this latest fiasco, and he is the one that needs to be disciplined. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't care. People are not to be called retarded. Period, full stop. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously denying the complete and utter unacceptability of calling people retarded? Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting your information from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

List of disability-related terms with negative connotations. Are you seriously denying the complete and utter unacceptability of calling people retarded? Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. BMK (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I may have misread the comment, but other than the unfortunate/inappropriate word choice, StuRat seems to have been trying to be helpful. G S Palmer (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and it is certainly possible that even in the US and other individual countries, not every individual will necessarily know which terms do and do not give offense to members of groups to whom such terms are applied. The categorical statements by Hipocrite above seem to be almost attempts to unilaterally define policy and guidelines here, and this is not the appropriate place for such attempts. I can, and will now, say that it would probably be in the best interests of any reference desk volunteer to have access to one or more online databanks, such as those available at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, to help them in their efforts at the reference desk. I'd encourage that, actually. But I can't see any reason to denigrate StuRat for maybe using a word to which other people object for basically reasons of political correctness. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even slightly endorsing StuRat's conduct. But I can't tackle everything at once. And BB's response above - about the supreme court decision - does not provide an answer to the OP's question, but to a question about intellectual disabilities in particular which only arose as a result of StuRat's unhelpful first reply. The original question remains unanswered; the fact that BB claims otherwise is further evidence of the derailing and distracting conduct which characterises this entire farrago. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

StuRat said the ones he knows call each other "brother". How is that not an answer (in fact, the only answer so far) to the OP's question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't start this thread in order to evaluate StuRat's answer - which is one second-hand anecdote from a person he refers to by a derogatory term, and which the OP didn't find adequate - I started it to get a review of your conduct on the RDs. Please stop derailing it. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you started it in order to continue the harassment VW started against both StuRat and me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition to not recognizing harassment when he sees it, the complainant here misread what was going on. The IP in question had not only leveled an attack at another user but had also vandalized the previous paragraph. VW reverted it without paying attention to what was going on. Separately, JackOfOz fixed the vandalism part, and the IP's attack stands. Oddly enough, I never see VW criticizing IP's for their behavior. I can only conclude that his attacks on guys like StuRat and me are personal and vindictive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I can be reasonably sure you're the same person each time. I just discovered you've recently been exonerated in a sockpuppet investigation; we can therefore be pretty certain that every time your name appears, and only then, it's you 'speaking'. The same isn't true of most IPs. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you took that SPI seriously, you're not qualified to be commenting on anything here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hell, no. It was laughable and unjustified, and I take it no more seriously than you did. It's entirely separate from this discussion; would it help if I struck my rhetorical reference to it? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If it was "laughable and unjustified", why did you see fit to mention it here, except in an attempt to throw as much mud as possible on Bugs, hoping that some of it would stick? What the hell is your purpose here? In this thread and on Wikipedia? BMK (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I was simply making a rhetorical flourish to emphasise that dealing with BB's conduct is a different kettle of fish to tackling disruptive IPs. Anything else you're seeing there is in your own mind. My purpose here in this thread is to try and get the uncivil and anti-social behaviour of a fellow user addressed. My purpose here on Wikipedia is to help build an encyclopedia and provide helpful references; beyond that, it's not your concern. Are you through with the ad hominem yet? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so the fact that you brought the "laughable and unjustified" SPI out of nowhere, when no one else had mentioned it before: when it had nothing to do with the substance of your complaint, or, indeed, with the character or behavior of Baseball Bugs, all of that is "in my own mind"? My, I do have a very fertile imagination, don't I. I can imagine words and statements right onto the page, signed by you, even. Amazing! What a guy I am.

"Rhetorical flourish" my great Aunt Sadie. BMK (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, along with striking everything from your second paragraph, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As you can't answer a straight question, I think I'll leave it in. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What part of "Yes" did you not consider a straight answer? Actually, though, every complaint you've lodged in this section is bogus, so you may as well box it up now and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The part where you unilaterally extended my offer from the details of my rhetoric to the substance of my complaint, obviously. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your complaint has no substance. It's bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the addition of vy to the word might as vandalism? [230] If so this is a little extreme. It's the sort of thing which could easily happen unwittingly if the person had selected the wrong place and hit a key or two which they didn't notice because they weren't looking where they selected. It should have been removed when spotting it, but it should have no bearing on whether the comment is removed. (That removal will need to stand entirely bu itself.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: [231] - BB now decides that passing notes about the character of the participants in this ANI is a good idea. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're nannies. Sorry if the truth hurts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my use of the factually correct term "mentally retarded", see my explanation here: [232]. Part of the problem here is the euphemism treadmill. When I learned to talk, "mentally retarded" and "black" were the politically correct terms, but the next generation has new terms and has decided that any terms used by the old generation are offensive. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have some real-life expertise in this. Professionals stopped using the word long (like 20 years) before it became a slur specifically because it was factually inaccurate. "Retardation" means ""lateness" or "slowing", with the implication that the individual simply needs more time to reach an average level. (This is also why "growth retardation" is being replaced by "growth deficit".) "Retardation" also implies an external cause, as opposed to a genetic/chromosomal cause.

This reminds me of the Englishman who loudly defended "dyslexia" as a better term than "learning disability" despite the fact that there are fifty different learning disabilities and dyslexia isn't even the most common one. --NellieBly (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, "mental retardation" is still used by the New York Times and others. Slowness in learning is at least part of the problem, and many can learn the basic skills needed for life, given enough time and repetition. And, to me, calling them "mentally deficient" sounds even worse. StuRat (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the term "euphemism treadmill." I was very aware of the process, but hadn't heard that phrase to describe it before. BMK (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Also note that it's an ongoing process, so whatever term we use now, such as "special", as in the Special Olympics, may soon sound as outdated and borderline offensive as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People does now. StuRat (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. My wife's office is very concerned about these matters, and I keep trying to point out that they're running the Red Queen's race. Ultimately the problem is that people don't like being characterized, but since characterization is inevitable, given human psychology, they try to control the process by controlling the words used. However the words used are just a stand-in for the characterization they object to, so over time the words start to appear demeaning again, and we're back where we started. And scientific endeavors don't help much, because their attempts at "objective" characterizations -- words such as "moron" or "idiot" -- leak out into the language at large and become pejoratives. BMK (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I am getting a bit older, and I can agree that at least part of the problem regarding StuRat is that we change politically correct phrasing on a fairly regular basis. That is not my reason for commenting here, but rather in response to the rather absurd comment BB made about praying to saints, linked to above. Theologically, asking a saint for his prayers to God is no different than asking your next-door-neighbor for prayers, although there is a good chance that a saint might be more in tune with the Christian god than one's neighbor. Both are considered able to perceive the outside world, such as in Lazarus and the rich man. That particularly comment, which, honestly, is simply an assertion of so far as I can tell made after no research, here or elsewhere, and clearly stated in biased way, is very problematic, and honestly does not at all help provide the help sought at the reference desk. Granted, some degree of religious bias is expectable from people with religious opinions, but people legitimately trying to help at the help desk should be able to overcome such biases. I don't know that there is necessarily cause to request that BB have his degree of input in general at the refernce desk limited, but there is I believe sufficient grounds to ask him to read WP:COMPETENCE and make a bit clearer effort to conduct himself in accord with it.John Carter (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You may disagree with BB that praying to saints is a form of polytheism, or barely different from it, but has been a commonly held view with protestant denominations for a long time. You have a right not to be personally insulted, but you do not have a right to expect that opinions about religions should be suppressed because you believe they are mistaken. Paul B (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

While you have a point regarding the fact that John Calvin decried praying to saints, and all sorts of other veneration to saints as well, it seems to me that you, in a sense, are at least coming close to saying that those groups which like Catholicism and Orthodoxy do pray to saints should not be considered reliable sources regarding their own activities, but that only independent sources, which in this case are those of people who already disagree with them, are the only ones to be considered. I don't have access to the various Wikipedia Library databanks, but the reference books I know of on the broad subject of religion do not consider praying to saints any more "polytheistic" than praying to Michael the archangel or others. There is also the comparatively recently changed definition of the words "pray" and "worship". At the very least, one would expect someone at the reference desk to at least look over a few reference sources before commenting. Having myself been doing little but going through independent reference sources here lately, I have to say that so far as I can tell none that are not specifically denominational in nature would support a statement such as he made, and, if that is true, then there is a real question whether he is really competent to respond to reference questions, which more or less by their nature seek what might be called the opinions of reference sources. And I regret your implication that saying what Catholics and Orthodox say about themselves, rather than what some Protestant sources say about them, would be "suppressing" that opinion, although I think it clear the comment itself more or less seems to be "suppressing" the rationale used to explain/defend prayer to saints as it is done by those bodies which do it. That still, to my eyes, raises questions of competence as per WP:COMPETENCE regarding that matter. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your response is utterly bizarre. "you, in a sense, are at least coming close to saying that those groups which like Catholicism and Orthodoxy do pray to saints should not be considered reliable sources regarding their own activities, but that only independent sources, which in this case are those of people who already disagree with them, are the only ones to be considered." How did I say any such thing, or anything remotely like like it? No-one has suggested that Catholics should not be allowed to express their views. This debate was initiated by someone what wants BB's expression of common Protestant views about Catholicism to be suppressed, an aspiration that you seemed in part at least to support. There is nothing in my comments that could even vaguely be interpreted to support the claim that Catholic views on Catholicism should not be articulated, but only those who oppose it. This discussion has wandered rather far from the initial issue raised, but it illustrates why we should have a bias in favour of free debate rather than a rush to suppress dissent or "incorrect" language. Paul B (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Paul, you seemed to be supporting the comment linked to by BB in the very first post to this thread, which I reproduce here. In that comment, and the thread it links to, I see nothing which might be called sympathetic to the veneration of saints or indicating the reasons for same, and, yes, that was a discussion at the reference desk. It seems you may perhaps not have seen the comment earlier, and I urge you to read it now. In any event, that discussion certainly did nothing to support "free debate", which really has no place in a discussion at the refernce desk anyway. There is a difference between free discussion of ideas, repeating biased, sometimes outdated, criticism of others base4 at times on outdated positions of those others, and free debate. The reference desk is not a location for the latter. And, yes, misusing the reference desk in that way is seriously probelmatic, and, if I may say so, as the compiler of the pages in Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, probably in at least a way contrary to the purposes of the reference and wikipedia itself. If BB, as he said, found the matter "murky," then he should have done what someone at a reference desk would do, and consult reference sources. The fact that he apparently did not, but chose to voice a rather clearly prejudicial opinion anyway, is I believe something that can legitimately seen as problematic. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of censoring or suppressing dissenting opinions. BB's claim was presented as factual, but is not one which is taken seriously outside the propaganda of certain small groups. No serious scholar in the field thinks it's true. Few if any of the world's one billion Catholics think it true. It's hard to be utterly definitive about religious claims, but I think it's not going too far to describe the claim that Catholicism is polytheistic as a lie. We're not supposed to be lying to RD enquirers. Simple. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

BB also refers several times in that thread to "more modern" Protestant churches that do not pray to saints. It is not a response to the original question which was how is it decided that such and such a saint is going to be the patron saint of footballers or whatever. It is just gratuitous insertion of a personal POV, irrelevant Catholic-bashing.Smeat75 (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Retarded" may be politically incorrect, but the context it was used ("A retarded man I know...") is simply descriptive, not pejorative as "you are a..." directed at another editor would be. There's a fine line between maintaining decorum and becoming a stifling, college campus-esque free speech zone. I think attempting to declare a project-wide ban on the r-word in any form whatsoever is a bit over the line. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Darn 58 days late. Is this supposed to be an adult discussion by any chance? BB made a comment which may be all too apt an editor (I fail to see it as being sarcastic), but berating him for it is sad. "Mentally retarded" was used as a heading in a NYT editorial on 3 August 2012, so I doubt it is that ancient a term at this point. [233] and in an article on 14 May 2014. If the NYT uses a term, I doubt it is intrinsically offensive. But the NYT may simply be "behind the Times" so I looked up other sources: [234] Is Voice of Russia politically correct? A few hundred others? What we are left with is a tempest in a teaspoon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The word "retarded" means "delayed". It's similar to calling someone "slow". In fact, it is a euphemism, since it avoids saying directly "stupid". Of course, like other euphemisms, it came to be used as an insult ("Cretin" comes from "Christian", referring to the view that mentally deficient people have souls, equal in the eyes of God to others). But we have to be aware of what words actually mean and how they are used before we make knee-jerk announcements about how outrageous a comment is. Euphemisms can also be insulting, because their purpose is to evade and conceal. Paul B (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• What I find more problematic than the seemingly innocent usage of a potentially offensive word (I think we can all agree that StuRat had no malicious intent) is the inability of the participants to "drop it" and move on. That reference desk thread should have ended after VW commented that usage of the word is considered offensive, but instead it descended into childish bickering and wanting to get the last word in. The reference desk is not suppose to cater to your own ego, if your comment is not going to be helpful, then don't type it. I don't think it'll be amiss for me to say that people need to grow the fuck up sometimes. —Dark 21:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be. I do note that there does not seem to be yet any sort of discussion regarding how to deal with the complaint. If, as at least a few people agree, StuRat made an understandable mistake, and as he was never really the focus of this thread anyway, that still leaves the question of how to deal with BB. Any opinions from any of you out there what sort of action, if any, is called for in this situation? John Carter (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines about what sort of replies are appropriate at the reference desk? All I see is a statement that volunteers will not give medical or legal advice. Talk pages for articles, of course, are usually clearly marked "not a forum" but I see no indication that the ref desk threads should not be used for general chit chat on the subject or clearly POV remarks such as "more modern" Protestant churches do not practice "polytheistic" customs such as praying to saints.Smeat75 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Many Episcopal/Anglican and Lutheran churches bear names of Saints. Very few of the later-established Protestant denominations use such names on churches (a couple of historical anomalies, but generally true). The distinction between praying "to" a Saint and praying that the Saint "intercede" on one's behalf is an interesting subject. Further complications are "non-historical Saints" such as St. Christopher who have been "demoted" by the Church. Not a simple topic at all. Collect (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it's irrelevant. Saints are not deities in the ordinary sense; BB's claim was false on the face of it. I'm not here on this board to debate theology, politicised language, or whatever. The subject here is BB's conduct. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Normal standards of civil conduct apply, and it's my contention that BB has fallen far short of them. There's also a general expectation that one should not provide false answers as though they were true; BB's claim that Catholicism is polytheistic falls well into this category. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If Bugs agreed not to edit the refdesk, and instead worked on the encyclopedia, for six months, would that make you happy, Mr Tiefling? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That implies that the problem is with the RD, in which case I am in almost as much trouble as BB. I don't want to see him banished from RD; when he gives straight answers, they're often good. I want him to refrain from his incivility. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I entered here with an open mind. I rather think the behaviour of Mr. Tiefling has now provided me with a solid opinion about those who regard this as a kindergarten exercise. I suggest a rapid close with admonitions to the OP. Collect (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) WP:RD/G I think actually addresses both of those points. And, FWIW, I think the beginning of the second paragraph, saying snd I quote "We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork" is I believe specifically relevant, as is the secohd point of WP:RD/G#What the reference desk is not. There is also a bit of OR in terms of "more modern" Protestant churches (which are the most "modern"? Ones hundreds of years old which may have not had substantial review of the phrasing of their doctrines in the intervening time, unlike, say Vatican II?) And, FWIW, my objections are not specifically based on the fact of opposition to Catholic/Orthodox doctrine, that's just what struck me at the time as being the POV misrepresentation of a matter of opinion based on the opinion of one or more groups in some form of opposition to the primary group rather than the statements of the groups themselves on such matters. Such soapboxing in favor of one group's beliefs over another's is also specifically addressed on the RD/G page. The most important problem displayed, at least in my eyes, is BB's insistence of making a basically off topic and more or less irrelevant to the question comment in the first place. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John Carter I had not seen those guidelines."The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions." BB's insertion of a personal POV on a theological point entirely unrelated to the original question is clearly against those guidelines.Smeat75 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes - thanks, John. I should have included a direct reference to WP:RD/G myself; thank you for correcting my oversight. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTiefling:, what do you think of Demiurge1000's proposal above, about a possible self-imposed ban of BB from the reference desk, in favor of articles, for the next six months? John Carter (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not keen on it because it implies the RD is the problem, and I'm firmly of the opinion that BB's behavious generally is the problem - check out the Manning Naming Dispute findings, for example. However, pragmatically, BB not using the RD would at least take the heat out of it. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Then feel free to formally propose it below so we cna get this over with. I think this is much ado about nothing, personally, as the Wikipedia reference desk is more akin to yahoo answers than it is to a serious reference desk. Bugs at times does the equivalent of a fart in a church; not terribly appropriate but not heresy either. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit to not knowing whether it's me, or an admin, or whoever, who should propose a specific solution. I came here to get expert advice on dealing with the problem. But I'll start a 'proposed resolution' section, and see how we get on. Thanks for the prod in the right direction. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Demiurge1000 has proposed that Baseball Bugs should take a voluntary 6 month break from the Reference Desk. I am currently neutral on this proposal, but have the following queries:

• Does anyone with experience in such matters have an alternative proposal?
• Is Baseball Bugs willing to go along with the current proposal voluntarily?
• If it's a self-imposed exile, what's to stop him (quite sensibly) deciding that it's dull, and returning to RD ahead of time?
• What can any of us - me included - do to foster a more constructive tone on RD?

AlexTiefling (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Issuing the same suspension to VW would help a great deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Or, as a compromise, institute an interaction ban between VW and the set consisting of StuRat and me and whoever else VW attacks frequently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs:, no one specifically said so far as I can tell that you were going to be suspended. So far as I could see, what was proposed was that you might do so voluntarily. Are we to take the comment above as indicative that you would be unwilling to do so?

In response to AlexTiefling's last point, like I said somewhere above, it would help a lot if those who volunteered at the reference desk also took advantage of the various databank sources available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. It would probably help if even one person got involved there, and sent the documents he might recover to other volunteers as that individual would doubtless be overwhelmed personally. And maybe making it a bit clearer that it might take a few hours to respond, with the questioner pinged when a response is available, might help as well. That is the sort of response I have myself gotten when calling reference desks in the past, and at least once the reference librarian said she had to spend several days of time not otherwise committed at work trying to find an answer. (I used to ask really obscure reference questions in the past. The librarians at college allegedly even had a less than complimentary nickname for me, I was told.) John Carter (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

All I've ever wanted to do at ref desk is to try to answer questions. I don't always do it well. But invariably, when I stand up to bullies and nannies (such as VW), I get schlepped here for it. I'm willing to go away for a while - but not unconditionally. VW, who caused this problem today, needs to go away for an equal amount of time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal That Alex Tiefling, Vienna Waltz and Baseball Bugs all shall refrain from any interactions on noticeboards or at the RefDesk for a period of six months. And that cups of tea be handed to each. Collect (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Count me in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support this proposal, as opposed to any other on this page, as the only one offered which deals with all parts of incident. BMK (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I am somewhat concerned that Baseball Bugs' pattern of conduct is getting papered over by minor remedies that don't address the underlying problem. It was just a few months ago that we had a thread on this very noticeboard that imposed another mutual interaction ban on Baseball Bugs and a couple of other editors, based on a pattern of disruptive bickering at the Reference Desk: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis. That discussion came within a hairsbreadth of imposing a full-on Ref Desk ban on Baseball Bugs; one would have thought he would take that warning to heart.

Instead, he's back at it. And the attitude of "I'll go if I can take my adversary down with me" isn't exactly promising. I don't think that layering on another interaction ban is going to be a durable fix. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying I should just kiss up to the likes of VW instead of standing up to him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say that previous discussion came about as close to a "full-on Ref Desk ban of Baseball Bugs" as it did to a desysop of The Rambing Man, which is to say, not very close at all. BMK (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) Good point, TenOfAllTrades. BB seemed to indicate above that he would voluntarily ban himself on the condition that others be sanctioned as well. We rarely have given individuals being considered for sanctions such an ability to dictate terms in cases like this. I guess I should have to ask @Baseball Bugs: again if he would be willing to agree to a self-imposed ban for six months, regardless of other circumstances, or whether he would insist that any sanctions which may or may not be imposed on him would have to be imposed by others. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

VW instigated this problem, in his usual MO of attacking another editor (StuRat, in this case) while making no attempt to actually answer the OP's question. Why is that behavior somehow acceptable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs:, based on the comment above, which to my eyes rather clearly qualifies as tendentious editing/refusing to get to a point, I am going to presume that you would not agree to a unilateral self-imposed ban from the reference desk. Is that the case, and are you oh that basis asking us to act on the assumption that you are not willing to agree to a self-imposed ban? John Carter (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not willing to accept a ban if the instigator of today's problem, Vienna Waltz, is allowed to continue his behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been established - or even asserted by anyone apart from BB - that VW is in fact to blame here at all. The claim that he is - and that I'm furthering some pattern of harassment on his behalf - is unsubstantiated. I will therefore oppose any proposed measure which censures VW without a clear basis. Interaction bans when one party is clearly principally at fault are great for deflecting blame. I raised this ANI thread because I believe BB's behaviour needs to be closely scrutinised. Penalising VW just because BB says so is no adequate response to that. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is VW's behavior acceptable? He attacks me frequently, and he attacked StuRat today. Why is he allowed to get away with such garbage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Support six-month ban from the reference desk for Baseball Bugs, based on the material presented. I might also support sanctions against others involved, but that would probably best be dealt with elsewhere. Also, as noted by me and others above, his own conduct, which is the reason this thread was begun, has on more than one occasion fallen well short of the WP:RD/G, and I have no reason to believe it will not continue to do so should he be allowed to continue in like manner in the future without some sort of serious admonishment. And, of course, a ban would prevent such disruption from him during the period of the ban itself. I might also agree to an indefinite ban, which might be reviewable after three months, if cause for such a review were given by Baseball Bugs through his conduct elswhere during that period. John Carter (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Support. I agree with John Carter. 6 month ban for Baseball bugs from the reference desk. Other bans can be discussed elsewhere. His recent behavior on my own talk page leaves me little choice. BB seems to be looking for a fight and that is not what Wikipedia is for. I am going to oppose this after a re-reading of the proposal and BMK's comment where they state: "The offer to allow the complainant to choose the sanction is especially worrisome. Also, we don't generally say "This is a tempest in a teapot, but let's get on with it and sanction somebody so we can close the thread."". This does seem a bit odd. Look, Bugs can be a controversial editor, but in the long run much of this complaint is misguided and many of the comments don't seem to be looking to far into the situation. The retard comment was made by another editor in referring to a "friend" of theirs. this got way out of hand and i have to apologize if any of my own actions prolonged this. I think we may have a situation where there is indeed a tempest in a teapot.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Totally unfair. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

IF you feel that there is cause to request sanctions against others, please feel free to present the evidence to support that contention in a separate section. John Carter (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've complained about VW before, and no one will do anything. Hypocrisy. Double-standard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between "complaining," which is just so far as I can tell making accusations against others, and "presenting evidence," specifically evidence to indicate a pattern of misconduct of such nature as to provide sufficient cause for action. Please bear that in mind. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing less than a stern final warning for Bugs just based on the issue that brought about this complaint. No opinion on whether others require sanctions, nor whether stiffer sanctions are necessary in light of other disruption. "Retard" may certainly refer to someone with developmental problems, but not long ago the terms "idiot", "imbecile", "moron", "cretin", and a litany of others that I won't even repeat also referred to such individuals in various technical and medical senses, but it seems clear that it would have been very inappropriate to use those terms to refer to a developmentally-disabled person. The euphemism treadmill (or perhaps the pejoration treadmill) is a fact of life, and refusal for editors on noticeboards and help boards to recognize that a large number of people consider a specific term to be horribly offensive does not justify their use of that term. As much as I've enjoyed Bugs' efforts to lighten the mood in some cases in the past, there comes a time when we must take things seriously. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC) (stricken, see below —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC))
  • You seem to have forgotten that it was StuRat who referred to his friend as "retarded". That's not a term I'm inclined to use. They're mad at me here not because of that, but because I stood up to VW after he attacked StuRat but didn't try to answer the OP's question. That's something VW does frequently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I see nothing in [235] that constitutes any form of an attack. Referring back to your "didn't answer the OP's question" point, your comment also did not. I see a clear mentality of "he did something wrong so I can too", which is clearly not acceptable practice. —Dark 05:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • You're right. I've stricken my recommendation since it was based solely on my mistaken reading of the diffs as Bugs using the term "retarded" to refer to an individual. I'll let those more experienced in this dispute make their recommendations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Given the history of questionable behaviour on the RD, I would be willing to support a six month ban from the reference desk. However like TenOfAllTrades, I do think that this is a scrappy solution to a more extensive problem. Also, I may be unaware of the history between the editors, but I do find references to VW's edit as an "attack" to be rather bewildering. —Dark 05:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • • • If you did know that history, you would understand. Note how VW made no effort to try to answer the OP's question. He went there solely to harass StuRat, just as he has done to me countless times, i.e. to harass a user while making no effort to answer the OP's question. In fact, even now, no one besides StuRat has provided a useful answer to the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I'd like to note again that you did not make an effort to answer the question either. Your logic implies that because VW did not answer the question, he is there to harass StuRat. But how is that any different from your comments in that thread? From what I can see, your contribution did nothing but escalate the issue. It would help your case if you provide evidence of VW actively harassing you and StuRat, as I have nothing to go on other than your word. —Dark 13:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
          • I didn't know the answer to the OP's question. StuRat gave an answer, and then VW attacked him for it, and I stood up for StuRat. Then I asked what the right term is, and no one would answer. So I did a little google search, and the answer (or one answer, apparently preferred by professionals) turns out to be "intellectually disabled", which I posted there. So I at least contributed something factual to the debate. I'd like to know what useful or factual input you think VW contributed. As regards diffs, I don't know when or if he's attacked StuRat at other times, but I wouldn't be surprised. As to VW attacking me, look in any archive where I make a statement, and if VW has made a statement immediately after, it's most likely an attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
            • "I don't know when or if he's attacked StuRat at other times" - So basically, you are not aware of any history between VW and StuRat, but decided that this edit by itself constitutes an attack? I don't understand how that comment by itself could possibly be seen as an attack on StuRat. Also, I find your decision to "defend" StuRat from the perceived attack to be exceptionally questionable. "I at least contributed something factual" - so did VW, with his comment that the wording could be considered offensive. You're making a very poor case for yourself; I find your judgement to be biased based on your own poor interactions with VW and without any assumption of good faith. —Dark 19:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
              • Supposing that what VW said to StuRat was factual (and the discussion here contradicts that), explain how it was of any help whatsoever to the OP. As regards good faith and VW, he destroyed my assumption of his good faith a long time ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
                • It was as much of a help to the OP as any of your subsequent comments on that thread. Regardless of what VW did, you also did absolutely nothing in that thread except to bicker with VW and other people. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if someone else makes an off-topic comment, you have free rein to do the same. Also, if you are unable to assume good faith, I suggest that you avoid all contact with the editor. You are refusing to look at your own conduct - instead, deflecting all blame towards VW without any reasonable justification or proof. —Dark 03:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • I hear you. Farther down (and later) I've changed my attitude about VW and am ready to assume good faith on his part, i.e. I've had the epiphany that he's mostly a good contributor, is not targeting me in particular, and hence I no longer have any reason to get upset with him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction which singles out one party without dealing with all of those involved. Given that Bugs has a tendency to not shy away from actively pleading his own case, while one of the other parties (VW) has yet to make any kind of statement here, the attempt to sanction BB alone looks to me like a case of the squeaky wheel getting all the attention, if not outright anti-Bugs bias from some. Even-handedness -- which does not necessarily translate into equal sanctions for all -- is required here. The offer to allow the complainant to choose the sanction is especially worrisome. Also, we don't generally say "This is a tempest in a teapot, but let's get on with it and sanction somebody so we can close the thread." BMK (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - While I disagree with much of how BMK has characterised this dispute, I agree in one key respect: I don't think it should be me choosing the sanction. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's processes, and this needs input from people who are. I only started this subsection because Demiurge1000 advanced a solution and suggested I get on with it. If any admin here wishes to propose a better answer, I'm all ears.

VW commented on my talk page saying they didn't have time for this thread. I don't see why BB, who is the subject of this complaint, and who has advanced, I think, one isolated diff to support his claims about VW's behaviour, should get to dictate a sweeping resolution which penalises VW as well. Come to that, StuRat isn't the subject of this complaint either. I don't like his choice of words, but that's neither here nor there. Attempts to by BB widen the scope of this are merely a distraction. If BB thinks VW is harassing him, let him start a thread here with a collection of diffs like the one at the top of this thread, and have it out.

This thread has a lot of tangents. The specific character of the veneration of saints isn't the point here. The acceptability of so-called 'politically correct' language isn't the point. The point is that BB makes the Reference Desk an unpleasant place to be, by confrontational behaviour, constant derailing of topics, and giving unhelpful or simply false answers. I think the diffs I've provided - all from a period of about 3 days, but far from isolated - demonstrate that.

What strikes me about this thread is that BB has made no attempt to account for this behaviour. His only response has been a kind of tu quoque where he claims the complaint has no substance, and calls for sanctions against VW. There's no sign of any understanding on his part that there's a genuine problem here. As I say - I've witnessed this behaviour from BB before; nothing here is isolated. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a reasonable point above. Personally, I think the best thing that the editors at the reference desk might be able to do to make the reference desk function more easily would be to develop pages like Bibliography of encyclopedias and its related pages, go through some journals to find lists of good reference sites available at no cost which they might be able to use and perhaps generate a list of them somewhere, thus making it easier for people at the RD to find sources which might relate to questions of a particular type, maybe develop pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles, particularly for topics of a contentious or non-scientific nature, and also try to have at least one of your editors gain access to each of the databanks available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Steps of that nature are, more or less, what paid reference librarians do, and it would seem to me reasonable for those at our reference desk to do the same sort of things. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. For what it might be worth, I went through a 1986 guide to reference books and listed all those reference sources listed in it that would now be in the public domain at wikisource:User:John Carter, based on the fact that their inclusion in that work indicated tacitly and often explicitly that, despite their age, they were still considered useful. I also went through archive.org and added links to their pages relevant to the works in question. For some, more dated, topics, going through those, and other works at archive.org and elsewhere, might be another possibility. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose all topic bans here as not addressing the problem - that is, a lack of civil colloquy among those named.. And noting that an interaction ban between the three is not an onerous "sanction" but a means of promoting civility at the RefDesk. Collect (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I myself would support an interaction ban on the three primaries involved at the RD and related pages. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose anything that comes out of this. Tempests and teapots and such. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, BB can be a bit of an arse sometimes, but then so can most of us RefDesk regulars, including me and everyone above. No good will come of any sanctions here. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Is he page-banned already?. Out of the OP's diffs, the only one that bothers me is the removal of another user's Refdesk response. I am also plumb mystified by the "close" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community_sanctions:_The_Rambling_Man.2C_Baseball_Bugs.2C_and_Medeis -- it looks like Bugs is presently either warned from disruption at the Refdesk or presently banned from the Refdesk depending on how you "interpret" that close. If ANI is going to work you have to be clear about what your actions actually are/were. Wnt (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. I stopped taking an interest in that AN/I case when it became apparent that TRM was going to be treated equivalently with BB, just as BB is attempting to do to VW here. I can't make head or tail of the final resolution. Can one of the admins who oversaw that case help us here, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I dropped a message at the talk page of the admin who closed the last discussion, and have received a response at my user talk page here. I myself remember seeing on one of the noticeboards the discussion about jc37's closing of this discussion and others, but don't remember the details, although I suppose anyone who wants to can look them up. Neither do I remember the subsequent alternate close to which he refers. But it does seem to have been, well, a bit of a mess. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That close enacted a page ban, but after further review on AN, the page bans for the three were vacated (by me), as there didn't really seem to be consensus for them. So no, as of now, BB is not currently topic-banned from the Refdesk. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

My concern, and take this entirely as worth only what an anonymous concern is, is that this pattern keeps repeating, and Bugs continues to blame everyone but himself, to insist that it is always other people at fault rather than himself, to refuse to admit even the possibility that the common factor in all his disputes is himself. He uses a lot of distraction and derailing tactics, to prevent any discussion of his behaviour being about the behaviour he is reponsible for and which people have questioned. He continues to post things that he knows are not true, after he has been informed that they are not true (see: the stuff about Catholics being polytheists, posted several times by him tangentially on questions about Catholicism; see his continued, though less frequent these days, insistence that any ip user familiar with Wikipedia using a new ip address is a 'sock' or a 'drive-by'). I don't think I have ever seen him admit to being wrong about something, unlike nearly every other user of the Reference Desk, unless he is faced with an admin who seems on the verge of actually blocking him.

So, my concern is that, if we simply continue to impose interaction bans between Bugs and whoever he has decided is persecuting him, eventually he will have an intercation ban with every registered user on the Desks, and then who will be able to call for action when he berates and lies to new users? 86.146.28.105 (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And one of my concerns is that there are a number of editors who have taken a dislike to Bugs' style and who aren't shy about trying to get him in trouble whenever possible. Bugs does cross the line occasionally, I think even he would admit that, but then so do many of us -- after all, we're all human, there are no angels here that I am aware of. Bugs' behavior is nor particularly egregious, there are many editors who surpass him in that regard, but for some reason, Bugs attracts a fair number of detractors -- perhaps because Bugs has a quick and irreverent sense of humor, and displays it often. Most of us see that as lightening things up, but others apparently take umbrage at it.

So while we are bending over backwards to find fault in Bugs, perhaps we should also bend the other way to see that there are those who are -- not to put too fine a point on it -- out to get him if they can. That doesn't mean that every complaint about Bugs is necessarily to be disregarded, or that every complainant is part of the "I Hate Bugs" club, but it does mean that the complaints need to be closely examined to see if there's anything to them. BMK (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with DR

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.

---

Someone here evidently mentioned the suicide case that I had some discussions with Tutelary about, and because of that, Miller is holding Tutelary's DR hostage. Whoever commented on that, please remove it and notify Miller that he can re-open Tutelary's DR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you - that's very unhelpful. How can we get the DR moving again? It's entirely unrelated to this. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no urgency as long as any potential BLP issues are kept out until after a proper discussion can be had. It will happen, just not right this minute when it is linked to this issue here. There's no need to sidetrack either discussion with the other. It isn't urgent: we are gradually writing an encyclopedia, not delivering up-to-date news. Calm blue ocean. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that it's this case that's less urgent. I'd rather we got the facts straight in a case with external context first, and handled this internal matter afterwards. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The DR case was inappropriately closed due to the mistaken belief that this unrelated discussion is relevant; I think it's clear enough that this is not the case. I have reopened it since the dispute still requires resolution. It's at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd.23Hanged vs. found dead, the talk page discussion is at Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd#Hanged vs 'found dead'. The content issue involves points of principle that have a much wider impact than this rather silly argument. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Bless you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

It wasn't inappropriately closed. The above complaint is about the reference desk and baseball bugs and the DRN filing request brings up the reference several times and the above complaint touches on the DRN case. There was more than enough cross over to make it an issue. I also felt that Bugs behavior in trying to re-open the case was a little bullying and I don't respond to that.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if it seemed like bullying. My complaint was that you were closing Tutelary's DR case because of some alleged reference here. It's not fair to penalize Tutelary for something I've allegedly been accused of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Holding hostage", "Penalizing" and other aggressive statements can be taken for bullying along with overly aggressive posts after being asked to stop commenting on my talk page, but I should apologize to you since it seems our other positive interactions seem to make me "involved" enough not to open or close. This isn't in the guidelines but it seems that one other volunteer would not re-open the case because of a conflict with another editor so, it seems that this was not an action I should have taken.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears that was a personal restrictions of another volunteer and it was not a part of our guidelines. I have added content to restrict opening and closing based on interactions but this might be reverted if others find it too restrictive. We only have about 5 volunteers that are active and it could restrict DRN too much in the opinion of others.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe my words were a bit too strong. Emotion-driven. And I seem to recall that you and I used to get along well, so I am hopeful that we can return to that status. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't hold grudges and see you as a net positive for the project as many editors do. I have no problem with you.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2014 (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.

VW

Well, I guess I owe somebody an apology, though I'm not sure who. Certainly not Viennese Waltz (talk · contribs). In response to questions earlier about diffs demonstrating my complaints about VW, jI went looking through the ref desk archives for "viennese waltz". My intention was to try to find the time he told me that showing me up in front of the OP was purposeful. I didn't find that, but I've had the epiphany that "it's not just me." He's that way with most anybody, including not just folks like StuRat, Medeis, et al, but with other users, including OP's. In one case, he told a user to stop asking so many questions about some subject or other. (If that isn't nannyism, I don't know what is.) He's been doing this for at least four years. (The first archive item that turns up is an attack on StuRat in the summer of 2010). I must be resigned to the reality that VW is just naturally snippy with everyone, and nothing is going to change that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any diffs to support those assertions? NE Ent 01:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I could construct a list. But you could just do what I did, and look in the archive for the user's name. I scanned through a few pages of it. The very first item that showed up was a snippy comment at StuRat, nearly four years ago.[236] And by the way, I have never been able to figure out why the archives turn up in random order instead of by date, but that's another story. It's important to note that most of VW's comments appear to be factual rather than attacking. And my whole point in bringing this up is to say that I've changed my mind about VW, and won't be complaining at him anymore. (I'm too often an idiot, but I can learn eventually.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm impressed by this change of heart. I'd like to suggest that on this basis we close this thread and try to bury the hatchet. I can't swear that neither of us will upset the other again, but I'd rather try more civil means once again. @Baseball Bugs:, if you're agreeable, shall we abandon this spat and try to both do some good around the site? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This can be closed

Admins - as discussed above, Bugs and I are both content to close this and try again to be more productive. Could the next person who knows how to close one of these things please do so? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2014 (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.

Requesting block for Motique

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 give a short block to Motique (talk · contribs). They have been asked to stop making certain types of edit (removing Arabic transcriptions, changing date formats (e.g. here, where they leave the article with two different date formats in use)), but have repeatedly ignored other editors. They have never responded to any attempts to engage them (zero edits to user talkspace or talk pages), and unfortunately I think a block is the only way of getting their attention. Two other editors (@Sean.hoyland: and @LibStar:) raised these issues with me after my last request to Motique to stop. Number 57 13:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Please also block Mottic (talk · contribs), which appears to be an alternative account (they switched from one to the other on 10/11 August last year), just in case they return to using that instead. Number 57 15:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• They also appear to never use edit summaries: this is a user who has logged about 4000 edits since August 2013. It seems they have a major communication problem. I agree with Number 57 that a block is probably the only way to get their attention. G S Palmer (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have made at least 4 attempts to request they start using edit summaries with zero response. I fully support a block. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed, this editor has been a pain for months, such as promoting Hebrew text over Arabic text without cause or explanation. Zero^talk 14:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Adding category "Antisemitism in Norway", like Motique did here to the bio of a former Minister of Finance whose "crime" was that she had been critical of Israel: isn´t that a WP:BLP-violation? Huldra (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • In fairness to Motique, it was reported that she had been at a protest march shouting "Death to the Jews". Number 57 22:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    • In fairness to Kristin Halvorsen, please read the discussion here. Jpost withdrew the story later in the day, after it had caused a minor diplomatic row between the two countries. (I am surprised some of those libels/stupidities are still to be found on the net: if anyone believes that a politician would survive (politically) for 2 seconds in Scandinavia after shouting "Death to the Jews" at a protest march, then I have a wonderful bridge to sell you! Special price for you, my friend...) Huldra (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
      • My point was that it was reported in the media and the accusations are still on the newspaper's website (not sure how they withdrew the story if it's still there). But anyway, Motique may not have seen that discussion (it's not even on the Halvorsen talk page), so I think we need to AGF in this case. However, it would be nice if an admin would actually look at this section and do something. Number 57 08:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
        • It was reported here that they were withdrawn; the highly libellous claim seem since to have reappeared. My points still stands though: nobody with "any" knowledge about Scandinavia could believe such claims for half a second. We should not encourage people to edit sensitive issues in areas which they are completely clueless about, IMO. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• I too have repeatedly asked this editor to use edit summaries, and have protested at their promotion of Hebrew names over Arabic names. This editor has made some 4000 edits in the nine months that they have been active, but as far as I can see has not once used an edit summary, nor responded to, or indeed made, any talk page comments. With such a consistent pattern of contentious edits and a total failure/refusal to explain these or take part in any discussion, it is impossible to collaborate in any meaningful way wiith this editor, and a sanction would appear necessary in order to draw to their attention the need to communicate with other editors and to prevent any further disruption. RolandR (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. They had a final warning yesterday and haven't edited since. I've told them that if they don't communicate they will be blocked, possibly by me. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Number 57 13:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

as of a few hours ago, Motique is still editing without edit summaries nor coming here to respond to concerns raised. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Since User:Motique has continued editing past a final warning with no response here, and still no discussion they are now blocked 24 hours per the above complaint. In my opinion this is likely to become an indef if they still show no sign of cooperation. 4000 edits with no discussion is a lot. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Huldra (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

back editing after block

I notice Motique is back editing after block and still no edit summaries. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 01:04, 1 June 2014 (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.

botUser? : Staafros1

Account is being used only for promotional purposes. The user is consistently creating numerous articles like Boys_Union_Club (I have seen 10 articles) about small football clubs for promotional purpose without any citation. Large number of articles are created in such a less time, I even have a doubt that the user is a bot. Also user seems to be ignore all the warnings given in talk page. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 10:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Staafros1 (talk · contribs)

The contributions show 30 articles created in 17 hours—that's not evidence of a bot or a problem. Articles such as Boys Union Club and Western University FC are very short, but they have potential (assuming their text is correct), and there is no reason to think they are promotional. It's good to get world-wide coverage, with the only proviso being that the clubs are significant in their countries, although proving WP:N is satisfied might be a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

But the most of the articles don't have single source to validate their claim. It is just like creating numerous articles for a number of sports club which have no notability. I will be pleased if the user can cite a single source. Also user won't respond to any request.- abhilashkrishn ^talk 11:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Quoting WP:V: All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. With the exception of BLPs, while it is bad form to create an unreferenced article, by no means is it prohibited either. If there's no sources to validate the articles claims, looking for them is a good first step. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq is right, there really isn't evidence of illicit automated editing. Rapta FC, Rain Bow FC, and Munuki FC, for instance, only vary insomuch as the titles are different. If you knew of several clubs that played at the same stadium, you might just create stubs for each... and it mightn't even take a minute between each edit. That doesn't make the stubs any less poor-quality, but it's not evidence of use of a bot. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom

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 TheRedPenOfDoom is consistently and unnecessarily removing important edits on the page of Shanker Singham without valid reason. The user TheRedPenOfDoom continues to revert the page back to its most basic form full of errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkowitz1 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean he keeps on removing the blatant advertising that you keep adding to the page? Yeah, he's supposed to do that. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, and your efforts to make Mr Singham look like a minor deity are undermining that aim. Stop it. I also note that this is the second single-purpose account to focus on Shanker Singham (the first being User:Danijela Sremac) - that's at least mildy suspicious in itself. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've also notified TRPoD, since the OP didn't bother to read the instructions. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Apologies, didn't see that it had in fact been done. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the advertising, the user uploaded a copyrighted photo even after being advised that it's a copyright violation. Woodroar (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This is blatant advertising indeed and Amarkowitz1 should be blocked, for 24 hours, for edit warring.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:14, 2 June 2014 (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.

More eyes needed at Hungarian Turanism

Hungarian Turanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is currently a slow-ish but persistent (1 per day) revert war going on there with increasingly nasty edit summaries. The article appears to have a longish history of sporadic outbreaks of edit-warring, sockpuppetry, etc. starting in 2010. I have no idea who's "right" or "wrong", and know nothing about the subject. I ended up there when I was alerted to the excessive quotation of copyright material in Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 [237] and found similar problems with the same material at the Hungarian Turanism article [238]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Notified the two participants. In any case, either sanctions or temporary page protection should lie for their edit warring... I'm counting between 9 and 12 reverts for each one since the end of April. I have no clue what the Hungarian edit summaries say, but Google translate at least suggests they're being used for mudslinging or soapboxing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Assuming there is no sockpuppetry involved, there have been four participants in the revert war since late April. I have also notified the other two, one of whom has been very active there in the last week. Voceditenore (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I imagine this article is also subject to the discretionary sanctions put in place following Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. Voceditenore (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the ANI notices seem to have gotten them to slow their roll. If ARBEE applies, then AC/DS requires that the parties be put on notice of the discretionary sanctions before they can be applied. Even without that, I think there's clear evidence of a slow edit war, and that some sanction should lie if they keep it up. As to whether there's socking... Diverser and Diversitirif are pretty similar usernames. Those two accounts along with Dosemark don't seem to have edited outside Hungarian Turanism, and specifically outside edit warring with Maghasito. The three all have distinct editing periods though: the Diversitirif edits from 26 Apr. to 1 May, Diverser from 1 May to 3 May, and Dosemark from 6 May to the present. I'm not thrilled with either party's comments at Talk:Hungarian Turanism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ban evasion

86.157.103.109 is unmistakenly a community ban evasion by User:Jagged 85. The same range of topics, the same bias, the same sloppy research, edited from the same broad geographical region (London). See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#May 2014 Anon IP edits to Muslim history of science articles. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked one week for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, I have listed the IP's edits at Cleanup12. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

On closer inspection, Jagged 85 has been avoiding his ban for some time now. Several more IPs popped up while I undid the edits of 86.157.103.109:

• 86.186.44.113
• 87.81.139.93
• 86.157.99.120

All are from London, too. It seems the user is trying to make a comeback at Wikipedia below the radar. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree 86.186.44.113 and 86.157.99.120 are Jagged_85. I'm less certain about 87.81.139.93 (I wasn't aware Jagged_85 had such an interest in martial arts), however the edits to Hospital, Water wheel and Watermill are all suspicious. --Merlinme (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This diff [239] is enough to convince me that 87.81.139.93 is sock the same edit can be found in History/Zosimos_of_Panopolis J8079s (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Following are the details referred to by J8079s above. The edit by 87.81.139.93 (7 May 2014) is almost identical to the last of the following edits by Jagged_85 at Zosimos of Panopolis (the edit changes the first line to the second):

• 17 August 2008
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was a Greek alchemist and Gnostic Mystic
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an ancient Egyptian alchemist and Gnostic mystic
• 12 September 2008
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an ancient Egyptian
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an Egyptian
• 6 March 2010
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an Greek or Egyptian
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an Egyptian or Greek

References

Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

A sockpuppet investigation has been opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jagged_85--Merlinme (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

IP user adding non-free content to article, and reverting when I remove them

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

---

Hello. I recently noticed that one of the non-free logos which I uploaded on wikipedia is being used on an article for which I did not submit a rationale, on the Voronezh International Airport article. The IP user (User:109.106.138.194) has reverted three times (no. 1, no. 2, no. 3). I left a note on the IP user's talk page about this before he reverted for a third time (here) but he not only ignored it, but also reverted again. All of the logos the unregistered user is using on that page are non-free logos, and they should be removed immediately as per Wikipedia rules but this is made impossible when the IP user simply reverts the page back. I would like to request that the IP be blocked for this reason. --Philly boy92 (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 1 June 2014 (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.