Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive718

HiLo48

Resolved

 – Nothing to do here.

HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a track record of dissing American editors [1] [2]. He's about to be topic banned from ITN for such comments (see discussion). It seems that he's now taken his attacks elsewhere [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot Stop (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. This cannot possibly be a serious complaint. I will let the precise words of that post stand as my defence, simply adding that my goal here is always to make Wikipedia a better place. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What is certain is that no admin action is required here - this is certainly the wrong venue for such a complaint. Marking resolved. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Melesse on image deletion and threatening language

To whom it may concern,

File:Obamaarab mccain2008.jpg

File:Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.jpg

I have put up images and I have rationales on them. They are fair use according to wikipedia policy, and I have done everything to comply with wikipedia policy. Now, they are being marked for deletion by User:Melesse. I pointed this administrator to the rationales that I have given, but now I'm getting threats to block me. I want a 3rd party on this, because Meleese has been threatening deletion of 2 images without discussing the rationale.--Screwball23 talk 04:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your removing templates that have a right to be there. It is normal to dispute fair use claims - go discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Both are images of living persons. Per our non-free content policy, these are replaceable by free images of the people involved. Therefore, these are not allowable images to be used. --MASEM (t) 04:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts have already been stated by Off2riorob and Masem, so I have no further comment. Just saying something now so nobody thinks I'm trying to avoid this discussion. Melesse (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Masem, there are limited circumstances where a non-free image of a living person is allowed. I don't know about the first image, but the second one may just fall under this exception. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Arguably, with Gaddafi being heavily sought after for crimes, he likely won't be a public figure that we can readily get a free photo. But I'd also say that until we know if he's actually incarcerated or other status to completely block this, then such a non-free image isn't appropriate. --MASEM (t) 05:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the issue on the talk page of the Gadaffi image re that image only. Having looked at the first image, I can't see that there is a very strong argument for its retention. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why either image should be kept, especially the first one. Notability does not override the non-free content policy. –MuZemike 10:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The first one can only be kept if there is sourced commentary in the article about it. Right now, there is no mention of the incident at all, let alone detailed discussion. The second one is a non-free portrait of a living person, which is only allowed if the subject is provably difficult to locate in public, e.g. J. D. Salinger (well, when he was alive we did use a non-free image on him). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not true - on both counts. Check out File:Dole Kemp Time Magazine cover.jpg. Jack Kemp has photos of him. I even told Melesse about this, but for some reason, he doesn't have the balls to target something like that, about a VP candidate that never won, but he'll give me a hard time for posting a cover that signifies the weakening of a leader in a 42 yr regime - from an African nation - despite the fact that the Time magazine is published in the United States. There is commentary on the McCain photo too, so that's also a huge crock.--Screwball23 talk 20:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with someone else on this particular image issue. Melesse (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Contributions by User:Jm1106 redux

I wasn't sure this thread was fully closed. It was archived by a bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717.

• 14:36, 27 August 2011 MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m (401,211 bytes) (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 24h) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717.)

There were two issues. One was about User:Jm1106's having been blocked. The other issue was the question of the full utility and "in good faith" addition of a seeming somewhat useful but possible commercial link to 40 articles in one fell swoop by Jm1106. A third party editor had re-added the link in the forty articles despite their having been reverted out by an admin just prior to that. There was a question about the supposition of the adds by Jm1106 being "in good faith" and also not to be hasty with a newbie editor's first additions to Wikipedia.

However, it was later raised that there was also a question about the possible relationship of User:Jm1106 and User:Patriotledger and prior reversions and blocking. On August 19 2011, User:Patriotledger had made the exact same link addition to one article, ( Abington, Massachusetts ), and an admin ( User:Alexf ) blocked User:Patriotledger for commercial spam and COI, etc. (From admin Alexf to Patriotledger: "Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully." and the block and link reversion stands now still. And that was the first and only edit ever by user Patriotledger. See the history of the Abington, Massachusetts article:

• (cur | prev) 11:52, 22 August 2011 Ravenswing (talk | contribs) (16,514 bytes) (Undid revision 446082715 by SchuminWeb I do not, by contrast, believe this to be spam.) (rollback | undo)
• (cur | prev) 02:11, 22 August 2011 SchuminWeb (talk | contribs) m (16,407 bytes) (Reverted edits by Jm1106 (talk) to last version by Alexf) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:21, 21 August 2011 Jm1106 (talk | contribs) (16,514 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:20, 21 August 2011 Jm1106 (talk | contribs) (16,513 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:38, 19 August 2011 Alexf (talk | contribs) m (16,407 bytes) (Reverted edits by Patriotledger (talk) to last version by 123JD) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:16, 19 August 2011 Patriotledger (talk | contribs) m (16,514 bytes) (→External links) (undo) (Tag: possible conflict of interest)

That was just before the User:Jm1106 incident around August 21/22 2011 (two days later) and when Jm1106 added the same exact link to 40 articles en masse, in alphabetical order, starting with the article on Abington, Massachusetts. These links were reverted out and the user blocked by admin User:SchuminWeb for commercial linkspam.

That's when an argument occurred between editors and admins over it. The upshot was that the links were put back in all 40 articles by User:Ravenswing and the block on Jm1106 was lifted by admin Floquenbeam without any request by Jm1106.

I just wasn't sure it was fully concluded and the User:Jm1106 / User:Patriotledger was fully vetted. And then there's the inconsistent behavior in allowing User:Alexf to revert and block User:Patriotledger, with no community objections, and the other admin, User:SchuminWeb, being challenged for doing the same block and reverts, two days later, to another subsequent new editor User:Jm1106. Thanks. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

- - - - -

<... last part of read-only historical discussion -- excerpt follows ...>

- - - - -

As a note, "Answerbook" is not a "local paper" - it's a link to enterprisenews.com/<TownName>, which publishes the AnswerBook. That could very easily be considered advertising. From the paper's about: "The Enterprise is an afternoon daily newspaper published in Brockton, Mass. It is considered a newspaper of record for Brockton and nearby towns in northern Bristol and Plymouth counties, and southern Norfolk County."

So the question becomes why this paper is somehow more trustworthy than other papers, and the simple answer is that it is not. In my community, there are two papers, the major paper and a local weekly nobody reads. I think that this paper is the latter, and its competitor is the major: "The Patriot Ledger has been the South Shore's newspaper since 1837."

Therefore, there is no reason to be linking to it repeatedly for every town it covers (and the editor missed quite a few). There is likely a COI behind this, seeing as how this just came out both on enterprisenews.com and patriotledger.com (the competitor, owned by the same company) not one day ago. This is the very definition of linkspamming. I would imagine that the user won't make any more contributions, as the user has no more to make, having finished spamming the articles in question. MSJapan (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, a Captain Obvious! statement that not everyone would notice - the user went in alphabetical order through the towns, and by county as well, if I don't miss my guess. They were clearly using a list. This was not good-faith editing by any means, and while perhaps it could have been handled differently, I think the block itself was good. MSJapan (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the block wasn't good. The block notice was the first post to their talk page. We are supposed to discuss/educate/warn new editors first. You could very well be right about their motivations, but you could also be wrong. We shouldn't block if there is any possibility of it being a misguided but good faith editor. In fact, even if it was certain that this was someone affiliated with the website, a block would not have been appropriate until we explained that that isn't what we do here. If the link adding continued after a talk page warning, then a block might be in order. But "good block" doesn't mean "they were probably spamming, so let's block just to be safe". "Good block" means "we tried explaining and it didn't work, now we now they're spamming and unwilling to abide by our policies". --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, methodology could have been different, but the end result was likely correct. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it[s a very reasonable procedure for someone to find a source, and use it where it applies. It's a much more effective way of sourcing articles than taking an individual random article and finding a source, then taking another unconnected article, etc. Doing things alphabetically is also a good idea. To the extent we have information on local things, we need to use local sources. I don't necessarily support using them for notability in some topic fields (such as high school sports), but when we're dealing with an article on a town they're usually the best sources. We need to assume some degree of good intent from new users; even if their initial purpose or actions are not what we ideally would want, most of them can learn. Indefinite blocks of users should really be deprecated except for vandalism or repeated copyvio. Adding external links is not in that sort of category. I totally agree with Floquenbeam, but I';m saying it again to make plain how important I think this is. Without new editors, Wikipedia will first stagnate and then die, for none of the present editors will be around forever. The rule that a blocked ed. has to ask themselves is pure BURO. It is very good practice to remove things that would unfairly discourage a new editor. Remove, and apologize also. The statement that an admin considered the "merits" when they admit they just considered the formalities seems confused. The merits are whether the original work was block-worthy. It wasn't. But it's the sort of thing that's blocked here all too often. It's a disgrace, and anyone who has tried to work with new editors is surely aware of it. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor the point, but I don't think AGF applies, and I don't think this was a new editor. I noticed the previous edit (before rv) to Abington, Massachusetts was by User:Patriotledger who added the exact same EL Jm1106 did. I think that was what Bugs was referring to earlier by "familiar". Alexf blocked PL for spam (and I'd say an obvious COI, as the Patriot Ledger is the other paper, and the publisher of the link). Therefore, "I have no beak and I must quack"; I would say it was the same user coming back from a different IP. Why else would two "new editors" start with the same edit on the same article two days apart and get the wl correct on the first shot? RFCU, perhaps? Again, it might have been handled differently, but there may have also been some good intuition. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If this was believed to be a sock returning in defiance of a ban, either that should be the reason for the block or the user page should be tagged appropriately to note that it is a sock. In that case, there was poor communication here. If this is a new contributor, it's appalling to block without advising them of the problem with their behavior and allowing them to stop. In that case, there was poor communication here. Either way, communication was poor. (And as a matter of principle, I agree with User:DGG. We can't lose sight of how important it is to bring in new contributors.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:MSJapan has made a very key finding and point here in the User:Patriotledger and User:Jm1106 saga. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

- - - - -

< ... end historical read-only excerpt ... >

Thanks. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• I was informed of this discussion by Wikiklrsc. I saw an obvious COI and a username matching a company he was posting about. RBI and moved on. Revisiting the block, I stand by it. Looks like a spammer and a username vio to me. Had not seen and did not know of User:Jm1106. Looks like a sock or block evader. Should a revert and warn be better? Maybe. I usually do that unless there is an obvious groupname issue as I saw in this case. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Seems like reasonable behaviour on the part of both admins. Not to say we can't improve by encouraging people back to make more positive contributions, but that is down to refining the messages more than the basic process. Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC).
  

• • I continue to disagree. A new contributor may not realize the rule about usernames,.. They're likely to think that they are making an effort to be honest, by using the name of the group or firm they represent. rqaher than hiding it. (The paid spammer, a true hazard, knows better). Now, I agree with out policy that we don't allow it--I think it's very important in the war against OWNership of articles. But how can we expect a newcomer to use it. And I don't like that bit about returning as a sock either. If a person edits under a group name, and is told they are not allowed to, then they are required to use another name--it's not socking, it's following the rules we tell them to follow. I find it truly incredible that someone should be blamed for it. When I tell such people to change names, I tell them to declare their affiliation--making the same edit of course serves the same purpose, and I cannot see why they should think it wrong. I continue to think it was not promotion. A local newspaper is the proper source for local articles. We should be grateful for people who add these sources, regardless of COI. What would be promotion, would be if they were to add their local newspaper's stories on international events, where we already have major sources. The response in that case would be to tell them what sort of articles they should instead add to.

I recall a year or two ago, we were blocking editors from museums and libraries, for adding links to their holdings. We now have a major Ambassador program to get them to add this material to commons and have it linked to appropriate articles, on as massive a scale as possible. (some of them are still running into what I can only call ignorant and petty-fogging resistance when they add the links, not to mention the deletions for trivial errors in copyright statements that people at commons delight in).

I've learned to tell new editors I speak to or help here who I think can make useful contributions how to work properly and avoid being picked up by the people who think work with a COI is spamming. (I call that attitude spam paranoia, to go with the often co-existing copyright paranoia) Some of them for whatever reason do not learn how to do it properly. And if they are going on improperly and will not stop, yes, i do block them--though I almost never have to, because given the proper advice strongly enough and personally enough, almost all of them either learn or stop. A block is very often a sign that we are not doing our job right. Unless, of course, you think most people who need education are ineducable--and if you think this way, it seem quixotic to be writing an encyclopedia to educate them. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48

Resolved

 – Nothing to do here.

HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a track record of dissing American editors [4] [5]. He's about to be topic banned from ITN for such comments (see discussion). It seems that he's now taken his attacks elsewhere [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot Stop (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. This cannot possibly be a serious complaint. I will let the precise words of that post stand as my defence, simply adding that my goal here is always to make Wikipedia a better place. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What is certain is that no admin action is required here - this is certainly the wrong venue for such a complaint. Marking resolved. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:OfficialDzire

I'm not sure what OfficialDzire (talk · contribs) is doing. They're uploading new images of Madonna albums covers to replace previous images that were already here, then is tagging the old images as orphaned fair use images. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The user continues to revert the images and list the old ones for orphaned fair use. We had a discussion about listing them on the fair use noticeboard, but even though the user listed them there, they aren't waiting for a discussion to occur. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition of self-published sources to Lordship salvation controversy

208.40.217.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had a long history going back to 2009 of adding self-published sources (such as Lou Martuneac, In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, Xulon Press, 2010) to the Lordship salvation controversy article. After repeated warning on his talk page, he or she continues to add them in. He or she was blocked for edit warring a few days ago, but continues to add Xulon Press books. StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved this thread from the archives, still not resolved. StAnselm (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, someone act on this. The anonymous user is still at it. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: Do I just need to keep on making comments here to avoid this thread being archived? StAnselm (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Missed it. We have a big problem with editors using self-published sources such as Xulon. Recently I've been trying to remove those when appropriate. Sometimes they are used in good faith, but that doesn't seem the case here. I've semi-protected it for two weeks since it's clear the IP is editwarring and has been blocked. Discuss it on the talk page, we'll see what happens. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User Tito Dutta

I'm reporting here Titodutta (talk · contribs) who is continually opposing (currently his oppose count is 5) an RM at Talk:Swami Vivekananda. This isn't particularly about the requested move but about the behaviour of the user. The user claims in his infobox that he has been influenced by Vivekananda, and is going to any extent to oppose the discussion. I continually tried to warn him and told him to continue his point of view in his first oppose or start a "comment" thread, but he has till now opposed the move 5 times. I do not know what to do, so I bring the issue here. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not very experienced in this kind of discussion. Most probably this is my first participation in such discussion. I can't see where did you warn me, most probably I missed that! I am making a summary of the posts and making it compact . But, the amount of references I have collected there, it took me some time and effort! Yet, I am making a summary there! Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 16:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, a record 8 opposes by him at the most recent count. He closely associates himself with Vivekanand. Just take alook at his comments. Possible COI? Don't know. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have summed up the comments and I think it looks fine, there. And, BTW, the spelling of the name is Vivekananda, I don't what COI mean, but, the references I added there needed some study--Tito Dutta (Talk) 16:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Titodutta, to avoid confusion, please don't bold the word "oppose" repeatedly. It can make others think that many people share your view when this is not the case (speaking in general, not about this specifically). Avenue X, if he keeps doing this, remove the bolding and indent his comments to make it clearer. But the requested move appears to be sunk regardless, so I don't know if it's worth worrying about. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Please note, as I said earlier, I am not very experienced in Wikicreole and Wikipedia etiquette, I follow other's mark up. People were already using bold for "oppose" "support" there. I just followed that bold mark up. See that talk page discussion please!

I am not going to edit the section anymore unless I get some info 1) What is the way to discuss there? Can't I add any other information if I think that will help too establish our points? I was planning to go to local library tomorrow morning to collect book where the same point has been thoroughly discussed. 2) What is the best way to add reference in such a discussion? You can see I have added table, I am not satisfied with that. Shall I add a reflist? Also note a comment like- He closely associates himself with Vivekanand how it is related to the subject? Is not it a personal attack? Anyway, no grievance... Thanks!--Tito Dutta (Talk) 17:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, everyone is new here at some point of time. To make your Support or Oppose "vote" (we call it !vote here), use the bolded Support or Oppose. To add to your point, you can write about it below your original vote. Lynch7 17:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If you'll ask me, I'd advise you not to waste an otherwise productive Monday morning in the library for this purpose :) The discussion looks like its not going to result in a name change. That, however, is my opinion only. Lynch7 17:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I am not complaining but, I am mentioning some points. Consider on these

• Reporter says he has warned me. My question is where? Oops! I still could not find that!
• I don't know if it should be followed in such notice but, reporter has not signed my talk page. I needed to see 'last change' and 'page history' to see who edited that.
• Reporter has not given me direct link of this section. He has given me the main page URL. I did not even know that in Wikipedia there is section where user report like this. And in such a big page, actually I was almost going to miss this report. I think in such notification direct link of the section should be given
• The reporter did not try to talk or did not approach me (in my talk page) before reporting. This is not very friendly act.

About This Report! Why?

• The reporter has created multiple comments there. I don't want to comment on the standard of his posts, you can see yourself. So, what's wrong if I add comments there? I am working hard and studying hard to collect references, and I am being reported? (Yes, of course I am sorry if there were any formatting mistake), but, also see the standard of the posts I submitted there. Reporter says, I have made 8 edits, okay check each edit and see the changes I have made! Please answer this. Now I humbly challenge the root of this report.

Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 17:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated your previous comments in a collapsible box. You may delete it if you feel you don't need it. In these situations, to give references, you can just give links by enclosing them in single square brackets. Don't add a reflist, it'll probably complicate syntax further. And about that comment by Avenue X, well, its not a personal attack really, just his observation. You can reply to him on that. Lynch7 17:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think this is the first time Avenue X himself has been on ANI (this page). Nevertheless, lets hope he provides the section link next time. In any case, I think this matter is resolved now; it seems a mere matter of Wikiquette than anything else. I think we can safely leave this report here without any action being needed. Lynch7 17:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It (I mean, the box in Swami Vivekananda talk page) looks really good now! One or two reference have been duplicated now, yet, okay! And thanks Avenue X for adding the sign in my Wikipedia talk page finally! Every bad thing has a good side also. Here the good point is, I have learned some new formatting and about a new page today. I did not know these! Regards --Tito Dutta (Talk) 18:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese - disruptive editing/false edit summary/repeated viol. of AGF

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

Catholics for Choice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The behaviors at issue relate to Catholics for Choice (CFC), an article under general sanctions. In a discussion about the inclusion of info about Canadian and Mexican bishops' statements, Roscelese tossed out some pseudo facts and accused me of "just trying to cram the article full of criticism instead of improving it". I refuted her facts point-by-point and reminded her to AGF. Roscelese conceded her bad facts, but in her very next comment implied that I am a "Wikipedia editor acting as [a] free PR agent" for the Catholic bishops. More failure to AGF, but I let it pass.

I'd also identified a statement about Vatican "obstructing consensus" without support. Before removing it I posted to the Talk page. Roscelese responded with no substantive info whatsoever but claimed that there were unnamed sources scattered throughout the article that I should search for. I removed the unsupported statement and restored the Can/Mex bishops' statements.

3 mins. later, Roscelese reverted me, with an edit summary stating, "restore exhaustively sourced statement about Vatican reps blocking consensus (see talk page)." Problem is, she'd provided no sources on the Talk page, exhaustive or otherwise.

Rather than edit war, I took it to Roscalese's talk page and warned her to AGF, to properly source material, and not to put false information in an edit summary. She promptly removed the warning tag from her Talk page and chided me for "wasting her time."

So I took my complaints back to the article's Talk page, and challenged her removal of the Can/Mex bishops statements as disruptive and violative of NPOV, and her restoration of unsourced material with a false edit summary. To the NPOV charge, she replied dismissively, "Oh dear." To the unsourced material charge, she directed me to "ask another editor who agrees with you politically." Both comments here.

Suffice to say, she has no knowledge of my political views, so I posted a 2nd AGF warning on Roscelese's Talk page, which she again promptly removed, directing me to, "no really, get off my talk page."

All this inside about 15 hours. She's a longtime editor who demonstrates contempt not just for other editors but for the community's rules. Cloonmore (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cloonmore was put up to this by a user who was warned that the next time he harassed me at a noticeboard, he would find himself blocked. No comment on the frivolous complaints except to note that, quite apart from the more serious issue, the reporting user might do well to be wary of WP:BOOMERANG when complaining about disruptive editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Still more of the same -- imputing bad faith instead of engaging on the issues. The editor is utterly incorrigible. Cloonmore (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised you offered this edit as evidence in your favor, Cloonmore, when it shows you removing the "obstructed consensus-building" bit which was directly supported by two references listed at the end of the sentence: "=NGOs Call For Review of U.N. Status of Holy See" (IPS) and "Campaign to challenge Vatican's status at UN" (Irish Times). Both of those source speak to the Vatican's blocking of consensus. The failure to examine these sources was not a good showing, Cloonmore. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Bink, this isn't the place for your side discussion; in any event, you're wrong. Cloonmore (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I was showing the error of some of your supposed evidence. You saying I am wrong advances your case not at all. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like heated content disputes that result in marginally uncivil exchanges, not uncommon, not unsurprising, and not really that big a deal. Many of your complaints involve Roscelese's removal of material from her Talk page. She has a right to do that even without explanation, but she actually explains her removals, even if you don't like her explanations.

What administrative action are you requesting? Although not an admin, I don't see any need for intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You're off-base. I'm not complaining about her removal of material from her talk page. But those removals and the dismissive edit summaries, coupled with her contemporaneous edits to the article and repeated obnoxious statements on the CFC talk page, demonstrate a level of contempt for the rules and for other editors that goes quite beyond "marginally uncivil exchanges." And writing false summaries about "exhaustively sourced" info that's been shown to her to be otherwise has nothing to do with me not "liking her explanations." Cloonmore (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And she's been counseled about some of these behaviors before. Cloonmore (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah: "Editor asked to be more polite in future." Maybe, compared to January, she is being "more polite". :-) Putting aside historical baggage, I don't see anything here that goes beyond what I already described above. Perhaps others will view your complaints more sympathetically.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Accidental double nomination

Resolved

 – Fixed CIreland (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if originally put on the right board so throwing up here too just in case. Just need someone to delete page >>> Angel Carter 2nd nomination. Somehow TW did a double click on me and wound up with a 1st and 2nd side by side. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sneak editing by User:JASpencer

On List of Freemasons, JASpencer added an entry on Jonathan Rees today, because Rees was involved with the World News phone hacking scandal. He then immediately reverted it (as the diff shows). This wouldn't be a problem, except he did the same thing with Anders Breivik. In both cases, the edits were made before RS sources established membership, and in Rees' case, JA is using an opinion piece, which is not appropriate per the guidelines for adding listings (we require a RS to establish Lodge, at the very least). It is not appropriate for JASpencer to be making POV edits (he has a history of anti-Masonic POV, largely as the result of his own religious beliefs) and then reverting them, as he is clearly just trying to hide them in the revision history for some reason.

We in the article have never tried to block members from being listed, good or bad, but when it is done to cast aspersion on both subject(s) by claiming membership based on rumor and also by associating individual criminality with the Fraternity at large (as if to say Masonry is "bad" because of one bad member out of hundreds of thousands or that Masonry somehow had something to do with it) is POV and violates BLP.

I would note that JA has never made a non-critical edit wrt Freemasonry-related articles, and the fact that it was done twice pushes this beyond a content dispute (which there isn't, because it was reverted, but if it was reverted, why was it put there in the first place?) - this is now an inappropriate editing pattern bordering on sneak vandalism, and an admin needs to intervene to stop the pattern from continuing. MSJapan (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I discovered this diff, where JA removed a prod from an article he created, thus violating the prod policy, and subverting the process as a result. That article had been one sentence for four years (with one initial edit by JA) until it was prodded for dicdef, and it still remains one sentence today, over a month after the prod was removed by JASpencer. So perhaps a wider inquiry needs to be made into JA's editing rather than just what is Freemasonry-related. MSJapan (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Article creators are allowed to remove prods from their articles. They can't remove speedy deletion templates from articles that they created. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. First part of the statement still stands. MSJapan (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This would put it back into a content dispute. Try talking it out and educating, then try the dispute resolution process. Phearson (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As some of the vetrerans here may recall thave been differences between myself and MSJapan that go back years (in brief, he's a Freemason, I'm a Catholic, and erm that's it). Every now and again he tries to get Administrators to act like Kindergarten Cops and get me banned or disciplined.

On this case: The reason I took out both people after putting them in was that I didn't want the grief. The Brevik one was going to go in at some time any way (although MSJapan was against even listing him, he says he didn't block it so I'll take him at his word). Jonathan Rees was a different case as the sources (two articles in the Guardian and a reference to a parliamentary debate in The Independent) were going to go through strong RS challenges. Yes it would get included in the end but I've got better things to do with my life than this.

I really think that it is better to simply talk about these things, assume good faith, ask what on earth someone's doing if there seems to be an odd pattern and only if that doesn't work to go to ANI.

It really would have saved so much time. And I'm sorry to have wasted yours.

JASpencer (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have requested CSD G12 of Restitution (theology) it is an unambigous copyvio. I have no idea why it was proded instead of G12's, it is verbatim from source.--Cerejota (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably didn't use that because it was the Catholic Encyclopedia and so it is out of copyright. JASpencer (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the copyright of the bottom of the webpage. Apologies. However, we are not a dictionary, the article should probably be merged into another relevant article that provides context.--Cerejota (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet account of blocked user?

Some admin should take a look into that [7].TMCk (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a RoyPack (talk · contribs) and a Roypack (talk · contribs), both of which are clearly the same person, but the latter could be abandoned. This Upload, which lacks any licensing, is still concerning, and while I would be inclined to AGF and see if he would improve, but I'm afraid this is not the case. –MuZemike 21:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This user has been consistently uploading others' work as his own on both Wikipedia and the Commons -- including, just now, a photo to Wikipedia that was already marked and deleted from Commons. This user has also adopted the odd habit of trying to re-add the deleted images to articles. IFCAR (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Protection for List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1992

Can an admin please add protection for List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1992 to allow edits for only auto confirmed users? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:RFPP? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I get it. You're a meatpuppet and anti-Adams blogger. I'm sure you and a few others will be in trouble eventually. 12.184.15.242 (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a very serious allegation. Care to provide any evidence? Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

According to those who reviewed you and asked that you be banned from editing her articles any further, you referred to her as a "twat" (clearly you are probably upset that you don't know her personally) and seem to be obsessed with her in your hundreds of edits. Care to seek some mental help? 12.184.15.242 (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

12.184.15.242, if you continue to use personal attacks such as these I will block you. Stop.

I've also left a message about the content dispute itself at Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 1992, specifically giving the ref previously used for a paragraph which included some of the information the IP is adding. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The part about Fasttime calling her a "tw*t" is apparently true, and the rest is a bit snippy but is a reasonable conclusion to draw. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's only 1 IP adding the unsourced info at this point (the 12.184...above); I've issued a 3RR warning. If they revert again, that IP can be blocked; if the user switches IPs, then we can protect the page. As a side note, unless the issue is really critically time-sensitive, WP:RFPP is a better place to request page protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me where to go. One can learn a lot from this page. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Jenakarthik

Resolved

Even after several notifications, this user is continuing to run a bot under his user account to create new article stubs without proper approval. He had started request for bot approval, but has not provided the function details nor has answered the questions that have been raised. The articles are one-line stubs that use unreliable sources as reference. I would like to request that his AWB access be revoked immediately. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that he is not on the approved user list for AWB. Is blocking an option? — Ganeshk (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you know he is using AWB? I don't see an AWB tag on his edits. See, for example, this edit from another editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just confirmed that he is not using AWB. He is not listed on the AWB approval page. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply everyone, First of all i need to say that the articles i was creating yesterday got nothing to do with my BOT request. These are different and i just created only 27 for the whole day.i was just organising some articles that was created by some one and at that time i created a few with perfect references and sources.i think the admins can understand the situation.--Jenakarthik (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Gimmetoo

Resolved

 – Tempest in a teapot.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. I flagged tagged three files: File:Tram on the corner of Pitt and Park St, 1950.jpg, File:Trams on George St, 1929.jpg, and File:Bayswater Road Kings Cross in 1929.jpg as missing verifiable source information. Shortly afterwards, Gimmetoo removed the tags I had applied, claiming that the images were available online in the edit summary of this edit (and similarily at here and here). When I visited those links, for whatever reason, I simply could not find the images in question. I undid Gimmetoo's tag removals: [8], [9], [10], requesting that he add the source information himself. Gimmetoo responded by reverting and leaving a rude message on my talk page. In the exchange that followed, in which I tried to explain why I applied the tags, Gimmetoo responded with trolling, personal attacks, and more rude comments. I don't have the patience to deal with this user anymore. By starting this thread, I'm hoping two things can be achieved: 1) That someone can locate the sources of the above-mentioned files and link them to the file description pages accordingly, and that 2) Gimmetoo is reminded that tenacious editing and disruptive behavior are not appreciated. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, I'm looking for an indication that you notified Gimmetoo. Have you done so? I'm not seeing it in your contribution history. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Done now. I had it open in another tab, but I guess I never clicked save. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I had no trouble finding the images using the instructions provided by Gimmetoo in the edit histories of the images. I added the instructions to the image page as directions to the source and removed the no source tags. This could have been easily done by either Gimmetoo or Fastily if either had been willing to give a bit on their firmly held principles about what each very experienced editor firmly believed is required for source info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nor did I. It took me exactly 15 seconds to get to the picture. Gimmetoo's instructions were precise, and I see no "trolling" at all on the talk page. Also Fastily, since you are evidently not aware, there are some archival sources that do not assign permanent URLs to their images, so asking for a direct link is impossible. The Glenbow Museum Archives in Calgary are another such example. There was no need for this to end up here. Resolute 03:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just curious what is the right procedure for this. This user has made 1 edit, and it was vandalism.

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

Not to assume too much here, but this doesn't seem like they're going to become a productive Wikipedian.

Thanks for any advice. -- Avanu (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of one edit? Give them the appropriate warning and put them on your watchlist, that would seem sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left a welcome and a warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Use a cn tag on the first day, then remove all on the second day, using the 24 hrs to come up with a suitably wry reason your own research failed. :) Penyulap _talk 06:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid and civility

Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs) is once again having civility issues at at the talk page of Southern Adventist University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) yet another Seventh Day Adventist article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid does not appreciate being attacked when he tries to follow WP:BRD and when editors with open negative biases are ignored and other editors in opposition to the negative attacked.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It takes a very selective reading to say that Raeky has a negative bias. All he seems to have said is that he used to be an Adventist. This doesn't mean anything, in and of itself. I used to play Magic: The Gathering, and just because I don't any more doesn't mean anything. Please stop commenting on contributors and focus on content, Fountainviewkid. lifebaka++ 03:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes Lifebaka my point wasn't about his being an "ex" so much as his accusation of Seventh-day Adventism as WP:FRINGE which is certainly a controversial assertion. Nevertheless I will try to keep away from him as a contributor, a task that hasn't become easier now that I am not only one in the accusations "game".--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Raeky actually stated, "So I'm probably not 100% impartial as well." Assuming a bias doesn't require selective reading at all, it can be based off of a direct statement. However, that is the kind of admission I'd rather not see turned against an editor. I'd rather that we encourage editors to self-disclose when they feel that they might have a personal bias on a subject and not penalize them for doing so. -- Atama頭 06:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just want to add that my statement that I'm not completely unbiased was to state that by attending there (which was only part of one semester) that my personal knowledge of the school would be potentially biased in some direction, as opposed to an editor who has never heard of or doesn't know anything about SAU. I didn't have a bad experience there nor do I have any animosity or grudge against the school, which I have also stated. — raekyt 11:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Again my main dislike/negative reaction was to the WP:FRINGE label. I connected the entire statement made into an idea that to me made it appear as if the other editor were entering with a strong anti SAU/SDA bias. I'm glad to see a clarification and hopefully we can work collaboratively (by working towards rather than assuming consensus) in the future.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Being within the religion it's hard to see but SDA beliefs are certainly fringe to Christianity as a whole, which is all I was saying. — raekyt 15:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, a claim that has not be verified. As Donald correctly noted it depends on which SDA beliefs one is discussing. On health, salvation, and the role of the church SDA's are like any other denomination. In fact they are even classified by many as Evangelicals. The only real WP:FRINGE beliefs are Sabbath, Sanctuary, and eschatological views, though I might add that the later is in various forms within other Evangelical groups. I would suggest that Rakey not focus on the background of the commenter as he has asked FVK to do the same.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The problems at Southern Adventist University, a former missionary college, are recurrent,[11] often a mountain made out of a molehill. BelloWello (talk · contribs), on the progressive side—the opposite side from Fountainviewkid—has already been community banned for disruption that included sockpuppetry. Topic bans for Fountainviewkid have been discussed before, when BelloWello was still editing. DonaldRichardSands has complained on this board about Hrafn. Various editors have been adding probably undue content to the article, which is being "defended" by those on the conservative side of Seventh Day Adventism. Strict adherence to wikipedia policies would solve most of these problems. Fountainviewkid should assume good faith in Raeky's proposals on content, which seem completely reasonable. Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comcast article

Not sure the next step ... we've tried a RfC at talk:Comcast#RFC for discussion on criticism in the lead section, and I made changes to the lead based on that discussion (although the consensus was not entirely clear, I made a good faith effort to abide by the talk issues identified) ... now Weneedmorescience (talk · contribs) is reverting back to their version again, ignoring all but one of the issues and concerns brought up in the talk. This editor has only had one edit outside of this article, so appears to be here for the sole purpose of pushing their bias into the lead.

Can an uninvolved set of eyes take a look to provide their perspective, and/or to provide suggestions for an alternate DR path (although, having already gone through an RfC, I'm not sure what could be next). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think Barek has captured quite well the consensus of the RfC in his edit. Your edit seemed to be mostly cosmetic, without really addressing the legitimate concerns expressed by other editors in the RfC. I'm sorry to say, but I think you're on the losing side here. My advice: Let it go. VanIsaac_WS 17:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I thought it was User:Weneedmorescience that wrote here (those dang red links are SO PRETTY!). Sorry about that. Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. I think you did a very good job at capturing the RfC consensus, and I'll keep the page on my watchlist for a week or so and help revert it. VanIsaac_WS 18:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Agathoclea

Hi everyone. User:Agathoclea reverted my deletion of Islamnager, which I had deleted under WP:CSD#G5, as a page created by banned user User:Bogdan Nagachop in violation of their ban. However, after a somewhat lengthy discussion with User:Agathoclea, it seems we have failed to reach an agreement. I ask that the community review my deletion and Agathoclea's restoration of that page, and take action as necessary. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have yesterday restored an edit by a banned user (whose continued ban I recently endorsed myself I might add) as I would have repeated excactly the same edit becoming aware of its need (long story with articles at wrong titles and ambigous titles) The deleting admin was fully correct to delete the edit unchecked because the burden of checking every edit and article creation of a banned user for its validity is too much to ask. On the other hand the the banning policy explictly states that obviously useful edits do not have to be reverted. Speedy G5 was created as it is impossible to revert fresh articles as there is no other version to revert to. I have restored the edit as I feel it is wrong to just redo the edit over its deleted equivalent. This would go against our spirit of attribution that has been the core of wikipedia since its inception. I felt that this restoration would be the equivalent to restoring an individual edit as useful in a page history when it was originally correctly mass reverted. Just that In new article creations this option is technically not given. The artice (or redirect) is Islamnager the discussion sofar is at User talk:Fastily#Islamnager where I informed the admin and he disagreed. I have deleted the redirect pending this discussion if banning policy trumps copyright attribution. Agathoclea (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin observation) I have a couple of comments:

• On the other hand the the banning policy explicitly states that obviously useful edits do not have to be reverted. -- This statement is wholly supported here.
• I have restored the edit as I feel it is wrong to just redo the edit over its deleted equivalent. This would go against our spirit of attribution that has been the core of wikipedia since its inception. -- This seems to be inconsistent with WP:OWN. Considering that the user was banned, the fact that the user was considered largely disruptive to the project overshadows any concern that their work might not be attributed to them properly. Recreating their material isn't claiming ownership, because no one owns the article content. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• This isn't really the correct venue for this discussion - that would be DRV, but were this here I would be prepared to bet that the outcome would be to leave things as they are as the deletion was obviously correct but any user is allowed to restore a G5 deleted edit if they are prepared to take responsibility for the edit in question. Undelete/recreate? Honestly, we need to waste anytime discussing this? Fastily you need to get a sense of proportion... Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Spartaz is right about the best course to follow, but I am unsure about what to do with respect to attribution in cases like this. Wikipedia respects everybody's copyright, even the copyright of banned or disruptive users. If the same words are used in the recreated article, there needs to be some way of attributing them. (A possible solution is to rewrite completely, but it sometimes happens that t that banned editor did so good a job of it that this would seem pointless. Anyway, using such a source for a rewriter and not acknowledging it somehow amounts to plagiarism. I absolutely do not want to encourage banned editors to contribute, but the observance of copyright is a legal requirement and a Wikipedia principle that far outweighs any considerations of our local rules for dealing with editors. We can IAR -- but we cannot Ignore copyright law. Spartaz, any suggestions? ` DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm confused. :) There's no copyright issue here that I can see, since what was restored was a redirect and that's all it ever was. There's no creativity in #REDIRECT [[Islamnagar]]. Attribution is only required for content creative enough to warrant copyright. I fail to see how this would even be an issue of plagiarism. :/ If we want a redirect, it takes almost as little effort to create a new one as to restore an old. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

O was asking in general, about our practice of deleting articles by a banned user & re-creating them if another user wants to adopt them DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Questionable edits to kana articles

For your perusal: these IP edits, all allegedly adding trivia and extraneous examples to articles such as Ro (kana). I can't verify this, though I can say that the edits and editing behavior (no edit summaries, etc) look suspicious. But I don't want to roll them back en masse without being more sure. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor has made absolutely no effort to respond on his talk page to the concerns, and summarilly reverted all of my edits without an edit summary. The fact is, these pages contain a large number of links that are completely inappropriate, and the editor has made no effort to address the concerns that my edits corrected. I will be reverting those contributions, but will not do so again. I'm not going to get in an edit war, but someone needs to keep an eye on him. VanIsaac_WS 22:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And it's happened again. Ki (kana) O (kana) I (kana) and Ka (kana) were reverted without edit summaries or comment on the user's talk page. I'm going to ask for a short ( < 3 day) topic ban be imposed on User:98.237.20.196 until the editor answers for their reversions without edit summary. VanIsaac_WS 21:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

PS, I am voluntarilly abstaining from reversions to avoid an edit war, but I would appreciate a neutral observer taking a look at the changes and making an impartial determination on the matter and commenting at User talk:98.237.20.196 and my own talk page. VanIsaac_WS

The edits are entirely unnecessary and unhelpful in the articles. I have restord every single kana page to a place they were some time earlier this year or late last year. And topic banning an IP is pointless. The IP should just be blocked and prevented from screwing up these pages with unnecessary video game references and nonsense words that had no place on the articles to begin with.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I reported the IP to AIV and User:Ronhjones blocked the IP for 31 hours. I have notified him of this thread to see if he has opinions on further actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Conduct of User:Screwball23

Unresolved

• Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user has engaged in edit warring, personal attacks, and disruptive walls of text on the above article in regards to the inclusion of the (now withdrawn) candidate Jonathan Sharkey. While the user has certainly made many useful contributions to the page, and has sometimes engaged constructively on the discussion page, there are many instances where the user's comments have been inflammatory and have not helped develop consensus:

• [12]--This is bullshit. Nowhere, ever, anywhere, in any history book, encyclopedia, anywhere else would this happen. ; Saturn is absolutely bonkers if he thinks that the fact that 4 candidates worked for Fox News was "irrelevant" while he wasted days, weeks of his life to edit war me on some candidate like this. People who read this article years from now will not learn history from Sharkey's candidacy.
• [13]--You're full of shit and you know it.
• [14]--I want the admins who completely blocked this page to look at its history and the talk page to see the facts. I've added valuable info. All Saturn has done has been editwar and display ownership to anyone who stood between him and Sharkey

My involvement in this has been to attempt to resolve conflict. I asked the editor to avoid personal attacks as they are unhelpful to the discussion ([15]) and warned the editor on their talk page ([16]). The editor later added a general tirade/wall of text onto the Republican primary article talk page ([17], [18]). Although the editor has definitely improved the article, the editor also seems to be complaining about the wrong version, making personal attacks against editors, and has repeatedly engaged in edit warring. I'd like the community to discuss the possibility of issuing a strong warning to the editor (though many regarding 3RR and one about personal attacks have been given already),a topic ban, or some other alternative. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note that he also claims to have been removing stuff per consensus, while no consensus had yet been reached, and the motions for consensus had been moving toward just removing a picture, not deleting everything about a candidate. Thunderstone99 (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• This has been incredibly sad. I supported his idea to remove Sharkey from the start. But then he decided to become a bully. A month ago, he ad a clean talk page, and now its a rap sheet, basically a full criminal record. It's troubling watching an otherwise smart, thoughtful user turn into a disgraceful vandal. I fear that if he's blocked, the attacks would continue. It is troubling to see a veteran user act like this. It's almost like his account's been hacked. SOXROX (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I endorse your view on account being hacked. He filed a time-wasting SPI page (now deleted) and listed an account name which does not exist (plus the non-existent account name is identical to an existing account listed in that SPI investigation page without the "User:" prefix in front). We were laughing that according to Screwball's evidence, this user is his/her own sockpuppet. Ok, seriously, someone with a 5 year editing record should have no problem determining if an account exists or not before listing it and asking for checkuser. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The solution is easy. Develop clear and unambiguous rules. It sounds like those are currently being developed.

• Major Candidates (meaning those who have filed with the FEC and participated in at least 1 debate)
• Other Candidates (meaning those who have filed with the FEC and not participated in a debate)
• Speculative (other people that seem to be newsworthy or notable)

Lack of clear rules leads to disruptive behavior as people try to hash things out and get frustrated. -- Avanu (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

All right, I can see the discussion here. I'm going to take a voluntary leave until September 6th. I firmly believe in everything I say, and that's why my additions to the page have been valuable and thoughtful. I don't want people reading this page in 10 yrs learning garbage and following an indiscriminate load of debate dates, speculated candidates, non-running candidates, etc. I want to leave positive contributions, and I have. However, the talk page discussion has really detracted the page and myself from more productive edits. I'm smart enough to see from this discussion that it would help if I let it be. I think SoxRox, Kessy, and Thunderstone are doing a good job, and I trust them to reach a healthy and reasoned compromise.

I give admins permission to enforce that leave of absence on my editing account, since I don't know how to do it. I am not guilty of anything except telling the truth, but I could have used better words. I am genuinely concerned about the presence of speculation and trivia on the page, and I will take time to simply focus on other things for the week. I can't believe I let myself engage in such a long discussion with an editor so incompetent and over a candidate so minor. I stand by everything I said and I firmly believe the priorities that exist on the page should be focused on history. Moving forward, I am optimistic about the productive and lively discussion that has emerged on the talk page as of late and I hope to see some sense will be taken in the direction of this page. If a solid criteria on candidates is announced, which I am confident will happen, I would agree to follow the criteria. I will not, however, sacrifice the historical integrity of this page to William Saturn, who said Fox News was irrelevant to this page, and more than happy to delete that info in the heat of his editwarring for Sharkey.--Screwball23 talk 05:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't this edit violate restrictions against canvassing? Difluoroethene (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what can you do now, except say "don't do that again"? -- Avanu (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I endorse a topic ban. I think that him not participating in this debate again would probably be beneficial for all parties involved. Screwball, I'm sorry, but you've gone too far. SOXROX (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I support liberal use of topic bans from this presidential primaries, 2012 area. Clearly there is going to be a lot of partisan disruption and COI editing here and previous elections and primaries have suffered high levels of disruption. A warning to User:Screwball23 (and to all other users wanting to contribute in the topic area) that after a warning, a continued disruptive partisan editing pattern in the topic area will result in a topic ban will likely be enough in this case. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion on this matter that a full out topic ban is not the way to go. Yes, Screwball has made some questionable remarks, however his additions to the article when not edit warring have been productive and constructive. Is it possible to impose a more narrow topic ban, or even call it a section ban, where Screwball cannot edit areas talking about candidates in the US Presidential Election 2012 articles, but can add information as he has been in other areas? Kessy628 (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Would my edit summary need to be removed?

Resolved

On the article Bomb Pop, I noticed that I completely misread a source that I added so I had to remove two sentences that would have been interesting if they were true. Since I was unhappy about it, I removed it and I said fuck in my edit summary. I don't know if not censored protects it or if it can't be in an edit summary at all. Joe Chill (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This would probably be under WP:NOTCENSOR. Also, this should probably go to the help desk, not here. LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Only admins have the ability to delete edit summaries. Joe Chill (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course; I was simply replying. LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not Censored refers to article content, not people's conduct.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Don't see any need to delete it (do not think it be eligible anyway). –xeno^talk 21:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The appropriate response to this thread as well as to your earlier stress level is probably "Joe, Chill." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block Turkish Jew hater IP

149.140.34.124. Chesdovi (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There's been quite a few of these turkish jew hating IPs (and I think we can agree we don't want turkish jew hater ips) recently - see for example this lovely chap who is clearly a meat/sockpuppet. Worth doing a checkuser and perhaps page protection? Egg Centric 19:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That particular IP has already hopped several times today, enough variability that range blocking is unlikely to be effective. Monty₈₄₅ 19:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

At the very least an edit filter may be possible - see this history Egg Centric 20:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocks and edit filter modifications now in place. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:McAusten

Resolved

 – User indef blocked and talk page locked. — Satori Son 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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

This is a rather peculiar situation. There's this user McAusten who allegedly won't communicate with other editors, yet insists on tinkering with their comments about him at WQA. This,[19] for example. Can or should anything be done to get his attention? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And he just did it to my entry above, also.[20] Apparently he's trying to prove some sort of WP:POINT, but I'll be hanged if I know what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This user is becoming a serious issue in a multitude of ways. In the past two weeks he's been blocked and shown up at no less than two ANI threads for three apparently unrelated issues. It is growing wearisome; he is reluctant to engage with any user directly, but is not above personally attacking them and/or being disruptive in other ways, as noted by Bugs above. This needs to stop. --Jayron32 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

McAusten, please see my note on your talkpage, and follow the advice given there, or I am afraid I do not foresee an extensive future for your editing career.

Baseball Bugs, I think you can probably leave it to others to address the situation from this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I brought it up. Also, he's been editing for nearly 6 years, with nary a block until this month. I wonder if his account has been hijacked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty unusual situation, but the main area of editing interest seems pretty consistent over the editing history.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I edit the same topic area as McAusten (Australian rules football) and can confirm that his account has not been hijacked. He edits the same articles in the same manner, only discusses when he feels like it, blanks any messages left on his talk unless they are very positive, blanks other people's comments in the general Talk namespace if they portray him in a poor light, marks every edit as minor and makes irritating little tweaks to other people's talk page comments. It can be pretty frustrating and the issue has probably gotten worse since he was blocked a week or so ago. Jenks24 (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's taking my advice. I agree that the situation is a little ridiculous and I suspect a long-term block is inevitable if the disruption escalates further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on recent developments on User talk:McAusten (see the page history there), I'm seriously considering indeffing. Input would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that he hasn't responded. An indef could be justified in order to alert him to his behaviour and help prevent similar, unresponsive incedents in the future. If he's serious about continuing to contribute to the project, it should open up a line of communication between him and the community. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I beat you to it NYB. Blanking one's user talk page is, of course, allowed. However, steadfastly refusing to engage other editors despite repeated, direct, and clear requests to do so is unacceptable for a collaborative project. I have indeffed the account; though I would concede to any admin unblocking if this user showed one iota of interest in engaging other users at all. --Jayron32 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And this was his classy response: [21]. Good stuff. --Jayron32 02:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to block userpage editing, too. [22] I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done –MuZemike 03:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by Azra singh

Azra singh (talk · contribs) vandalized the Anna Hazare article by changing religion and other entries to mean exactly the opposite (Hindu was changed Islam or Muslims). [23] I went to his talk page to post a warning but I found that he has a history of vandalizing in the same or similar fashion at other articles. Just reporting it here to see if admins feel some sort of action is needed. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• I can't really see a "history" of vandalising in that fashion; can you point out diffs, please? Ironholds (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow...I agree with Zuggernaut here. If you look carefully at each of their past diffs (looking back through April), every single one adds false information. Things like changing the number of US representatives from 435 to 400 (and 325 to 300 for an earlier time period); changing who won elections, etc. This is clearly a very slow-moving, but very deliberate vandalism-only account. The user wasn't officially warned until today, but was told that they were making incorrect changes as far back as March. I can't find any examples of legitimate edits in this person's history, so I'm blocking it as a vandalism-only account. Feel free to chastise me here for being too extreme...Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Nope, seems acceptable; I came back to this thread having carefully gone through myself and reached the same conclusion. Unfortunately, you got there just before I did :p. Ironholds (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block Turkish Jew hater IP

149.140.34.124. Chesdovi (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There's been quite a few of these turkish jew hating IPs (and I think we can agree we don't want turkish jew hater ips) recently - see for example this lovely chap who is clearly a meat/sockpuppet. Worth doing a checkuser and perhaps page protection? Egg Centric 19:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That particular IP has already hopped several times today, enough variability that range blocking is unlikely to be effective. Monty₈₄₅ 19:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

At the very least an edit filter may be possible - see this history Egg Centric 20:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocks and edit filter modifications now in place. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:McAusten

Resolved

 – User indef blocked and talk page locked. — Satori Son 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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

This is a rather peculiar situation. There's this user McAusten who allegedly won't communicate with other editors, yet insists on tinkering with their comments about him at WQA. This,[24] for example. Can or should anything be done to get his attention? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And he just did it to my entry above, also.[25] Apparently he's trying to prove some sort of WP:POINT, but I'll be hanged if I know what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This user is becoming a serious issue in a multitude of ways. In the past two weeks he's been blocked and shown up at no less than two ANI threads for three apparently unrelated issues. It is growing wearisome; he is reluctant to engage with any user directly, but is not above personally attacking them and/or being disruptive in other ways, as noted by Bugs above. This needs to stop. --Jayron32 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

McAusten, please see my note on your talkpage, and follow the advice given there, or I am afraid I do not foresee an extensive future for your editing career.

Baseball Bugs, I think you can probably leave it to others to address the situation from this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I brought it up. Also, he's been editing for nearly 6 years, with nary a block until this month. I wonder if his account has been hijacked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty unusual situation, but the main area of editing interest seems pretty consistent over the editing history.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I edit the same topic area as McAusten (Australian rules football) and can confirm that his account has not been hijacked. He edits the same articles in the same manner, only discusses when he feels like it, blanks any messages left on his talk unless they are very positive, blanks other people's comments in the general Talk namespace if they portray him in a poor light, marks every edit as minor and makes irritating little tweaks to other people's talk page comments. It can be pretty frustrating and the issue has probably gotten worse since he was blocked a week or so ago. Jenks24 (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's taking my advice. I agree that the situation is a little ridiculous and I suspect a long-term block is inevitable if the disruption escalates further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on recent developments on User talk:McAusten (see the page history there), I'm seriously considering indeffing. Input would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that he hasn't responded. An indef could be justified in order to alert him to his behaviour and help prevent similar, unresponsive incedents in the future. If he's serious about continuing to contribute to the project, it should open up a line of communication between him and the community. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I beat you to it NYB. Blanking one's user talk page is, of course, allowed. However, steadfastly refusing to engage other editors despite repeated, direct, and clear requests to do so is unacceptable for a collaborative project. I have indeffed the account; though I would concede to any admin unblocking if this user showed one iota of interest in engaging other users at all. --Jayron32 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And this was his classy response: [26]. Good stuff. --Jayron32 02:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to block userpage editing, too. [27] I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done –MuZemike 03:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by Azra singh

Azra singh (talk · contribs) vandalized the Anna Hazare article by changing religion and other entries to mean exactly the opposite (Hindu was changed Islam or Muslims). [28] I went to his talk page to post a warning but I found that he has a history of vandalizing in the same or similar fashion at other articles. Just reporting it here to see if admins feel some sort of action is needed. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• I can't really see a "history" of vandalising in that fashion; can you point out diffs, please? Ironholds (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow...I agree with Zuggernaut here. If you look carefully at each of their past diffs (looking back through April), every single one adds false information. Things like changing the number of US representatives from 435 to 400 (and 325 to 300 for an earlier time period); changing who won elections, etc. This is clearly a very slow-moving, but very deliberate vandalism-only account. The user wasn't officially warned until today, but was told that they were making incorrect changes as far back as March. I can't find any examples of legitimate edits in this person's history, so I'm blocking it as a vandalism-only account. Feel free to chastise me here for being too extreme...Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Nope, seems acceptable; I came back to this thread having carefully gone through myself and reached the same conclusion. Unfortunately, you got there just before I did :p. Ironholds (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe and conspiracy theories (2)

Mystichumwipe (talk · contribs) is continuing his conspiracy theory campaign. As noted in a previous AN/I thread (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#Mystichumwipe and conspiracy theories), Mystichumwipe is a proponent of the view that Al Qaeda's crashing planes into the World Trade Center etc. is merely one of a number of "conspiracy theories". After being notified of the discretionary sanctions around 9/11 conspiracy theories, he has generally avoided the actual 9/11 articles themselves, and instead focused on the Conspiracy theory article, where his intent has been to prove that conspiracy theories are not fringe theories.[29][30][31][32], while arguing at length on the Talk: page. Today he decided to completely re-write the lede of the article, insisting that the term has a "primary meaning" and a "secondary meaning", and that one of the world's foremost experts on conspiracy theories, Michael Barkun, is a proponent of the "secondary meaning".[33] As it probably obvious, there are no sources that indicate that the term has a "primary" and "secondary" meaning - this is merely an invention of Mystichumwipe, as part of his larger project of re-habilitating the 9/11 conspiracy theories. He on-going campaign has now driven the article's main contributer to abandon the article. This cannot be good for Wikipedia, so I've brought the issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reposted this to the fringe theories noticeboard. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but the problem hasn't gotten any better. He continues to edit war against multiple editors,[34][35], and on the Talk: page insists that Barkun is a primary source, and that the editor he drove away from the page actually left because he agreed with Mystichumwipe. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any indication on the editors talkpage that they have been notified of possible edit warring, nor that it has been explained that it is entirely appropriate for people not involved in the discussion to revert a disputed paragraph/section/lede to the prior version while it is being discussed. Unless those steps are taken, and ignored by the party, there is not a lot admins can do - it remains a content dispute involving someone not adept at adhering to procedural processes. If you are requesting some third party provide those notifications then I, as an uninvolved third party, can certainly do that. Is this sufficient? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand - are you saying that each time someone is edit-warring, they must be warned anew that they are edit-warring before any other action can be taken? He's been warned about 3RR in the past, and even blocked for a month for (among other things) edit-warring. Regardless, please add whatever notices or warnings to his Talk: page you feel are appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

They haven't been recently warned on their talkpage, nor blocked, when the two reverts noted by you are under 48hours old. If they have recently been warned elsewhere a link would be appreciated. I shall now warn them, noting that they have already been sanctioned previously for policy violations and thus increasing the likelihood of an extended block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow! what can I say? I regard this as such a travesty of what has occurred and what has been written that I am not sure where to begin.

1. So I am apparently "continuing [my] conspiracy theory campaign"? :-0 I thought I was just contributing to pages by explicitly following wiki policy.

2. In my opinion the accusation "He continues to edit war against multiple editors" I regard as a very misleading and biased accusation. I DID twice revert undos that were made without any discussion by people not involved in or contibuting to the discussion who claimed I violated the consensus. That much IS correct. But I requested they engage in discussion as I had reached an agreement with one involved person to actually make changes so that we had something on which to base further discussion. When they edit-warred and undid my reverts I initiated discussion deliberately to avoid an edit-war and have not done anymore undo's. In the discussion pages there were three for and three against. So i don't believe I did do anything against a consensus. Thus the claim that I was going against consensus is debatable as the two people opposed to my view never objected to my edit, someone actually slightly adjusted it, and a day later one of the two editors explicitly gave permission to "do what we will" to the lede so that they have something to discuss.

3. Jayjg has also slightly misrepresented my views in his simplified version of "crashing planes into the WTC" etc., and his version allows for a misunderstanding of my view.

4. And he has misrepresented me again by writing "his intent has been to prove that conspiracy theories are not fringe theories". In actuality I have just included material backed up by reliable sources, after explaining my reasoning on the talk page, as every editor is entitled to do. I ask you to notice how Jayjg hasn't questioned the accuracy of my sources, but merely attacks his guess regarding my intent.

5. Jayjg wrote: "As it probably obvious, there are no sources that indicate that the term has a "primary" and "secondary" meaning - this is merely an invention of Mystichumwipe. " that is not correct. I provided sources for that which Jayjg has either not read or if he has, appears to be practicing a deceit. Its well known the term is being applied differently today, one a broad and neutral usage and one a pejorative usage. All this I have clearly outlined on the discussion page and supported clearly with the sources I provided. I am also not a lone voice as two other people have been in agreement with me and we have expressed our views openly and our reasoning.

6. The accusation that I have forced the main contributor to abandon the page appears to me to be another deceit and deliberate misinformation. That editor has stated that he became frustrated with the discussion, sure. But that was NOT just with me. And he has implied he is leaving as he has other concerns at the moment i.e implying untill he has more time.

7. Whatever, he had clearly been in infringement of wiki policy with his lede (VERIFABILTY) so I need no defence against pointing that out to him and insisting he change it. He left the discussion after being confronted with that infringement by THREE editors (not just me), and because of our continued disagreemenet with the lede which remains based upon that infringement.

8. Regarding:"someone not adept at adhering to procedural processes." What is that referring to? I assume it is to your acceptance without enquiry of Jayjg's misrepresentation of what is going on? I am now forming the opinion that the man has a personal vendetta against me from previous interactions on other pages. This misrepresentation of my views and what has occured at this page appears to be just another episode in that.

9. The accusation that I have' "insisted the editor he drove away from the page actually left because he agreed with [myself]" is a blatant deception and distortion of what both of us wrote. I never insisted any such thing. Read the talk page to check for yourself.

10. I did NOT "completely re-write the lede of the article": I only "completely changed" the first sentence of it. Yes, ONE sentence "completely changed". How outrageous of me. (n.b. sarcasm)

11. And then there's this: "while arguing at length on the Talk page". Hmmmm? So now discussing, reasoning and giving examples of wiki policy in support of a suggested change is now also some kind of 'crime'? Yet undoing contributions without discussion and ignoring a clear mandate to make changes is fine and dandy? Yet I am the one Jayjg accusses of edit warring?

How do articles get refined and improved then? And more appropriate to this article and these accusations from Jayjg, is the question. 'how do infringements of wiki policy get corrected then'?

12. "generally avoided the actual 9/11 articles themselves" This again is another guess in apparent attempt to mislead and defame me. He obviously can have no idea of the amount of time at my exposal or why I have not come back to my involvement there recently.

13. Finally, I dispute that I have ever knowingly violated 3RR in the past, or that I have even been blocked for a month. Interestingly I actually was attempted to be blocked, after what I came to suspect was some dirty tricks by Jayjg in a previous dispute with him. He also instigated that attempt at blocking me. But the facts are that that blocking was lifted upon appeal as it was agreed it should never have been applied.

I have previously asked for mediation with Jayjg which led no where and the person who accepted mediation responsibilites did nothing. That person also did nothing in a similar and totally seperate mediation request around the same time complaining of the exact same behaviour of Jayjg that I also complained of.

In conclusion may I ask you what do you suggest I do with my previous complaint and now the ones mentioned above of these current examples of Jayjg's misrpresentation and clear cases of deceit about me? The above I now regard as a clear evidence of at least lack of good faith which was one of my previous complaints against him. But this example has gone way beyond that. What courses of action are open to me to address this? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to Mystichumwipe the WP:RS material shows there is a serious problem with how "conspiracy theory" is defined. Thankful one of these WP:RS (Bratich, Jack Z. (2008) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 5-6) actually goes into detail as to what the problem is.

Here are some definitions that conflict with Barkun's:

"A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government."(Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9)

"a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17)

"As a publicly known and “proven” conspiracy, Watergate has a unique status, in that it serves to validate other conspiracy theories. From the time these interconnected conspiracies became known, Watergate was the measure against which other conspiracy theories could be judged." (Knight, pg 730)

"Other historians argue that past government lies, particularly in the past half-century, have helped fuel conspiracy theories, by giving Americans reasons to suspect their leaders. (“See, I’m not paranoid, I’m right.”)

So on InfoWars, the Web site of the hypervigilant radio host Alex Jones, a list of www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} “33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True”] leads from the deceptions of the Gulf of Tonkin and Iran-contra and then moves to accusations of plots by the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve." (Zernike, Kate (April 30, 2011) "The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories" The New York Times)

Alex Jones list of "Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True" is a problem as mixed in with fully documented conspiracy theories of the Dreyfus Affair, Sicilian Mafia, Project MKULTRA, Operation Mockingbird, Watergate, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Operation Northwoods, Nayirah (testimony), Iran-Contra Affair, CIA drug trafficking, Business Plot, Project Valkyrie, 1953 Iranian coup d'état, Operation Snow White, Operation Gladio, and Black Sox Scandal there are boarder lines such as John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and several often regarded as tin foil hat nonsense such as the New World Order (conspiracy theory).

When you have a list of conspiracy theories that puts Dreyfus Affair, Sicilian Mafia, and Project MKULTRA in the same category as the New World Order (conspiracy theory) you have a problem with trying to say all conspiracy theories are fringe.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think this is a content issue, and warrants attention by the fringe theory noticeboard. Phearson (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb's material is somewhat more of a content issue, but the issue with Mystichumwipe is behavioral. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How so? --BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, one example would be filling up the talk pages with repetitive walls of words that don't really respond in any way to the points being raised by the other editors there. Another example would be giving repeatedly giving lists of sources that don't actually support the point being made, and ignore the fact that editors have already pointed this out more than once. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As opposed to claiming consensus where there clearly isn't any and repeatedly ignoring the references that show Barkun's definition has problems and citing part of a policy and ignoring other relevant parts (P:LEADCITE part of WP:LEAD case in point)? Your claim that "the reliability of these sources is highly variable" when said sources are published by ABC-CLIO, Ashgate Publishing, Columbia University, Edinburgh University Press, McGill-Queen University Press, University of Oxford, and Wiley-Blackwell with no proof is ludicrous.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, you say the problem with me is behavioural yet I have answered and refuted all your accusations. Please point to one contribution from me that has "repetitive walls of words that don't really respond in any way to the points being raised by the other editors there"?

And also please point us to "repeatedly giving lists of sources that don't actually support..." etc? I maintain have never done anything remotely like that. I think you are confusing me with another editor.

And you haven't addressed my points. You have avoided every single point of my detailed refutation of what I regard as your unfounded, untrue and therefore apparently personal attack against me. Why is that?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

please anyone put a check on the work of Sitush, Qwyrxian, MatthewVanitas...

Nothing to do here; presumably refers to a separate thread on this page
these three guys (Sitush, Qwyrxian, MatthewVanitas) have been involved in lot of wrong work and making themselves as god of wiki who are invincible,i think someone should bring an end to there tyranny....thnks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.24.127 (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin Dougweller and user Hrafn

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

No administrative action required here. Mathsci (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I filed a WQA complaint against user Hrafn for personal attacks on me (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Hrafn). Admin Dougweller's first response, after such examples of attacks against me as "willfully ignorant" and "fanatic" were provided, as well as the location of other attacks on user DonaldRichardSands were provided, was to focus on not being able to find a third set of personal attacks by Hrafn at other articles, rather than focus on the concrete examples already provided. After that, the location of attacks at the Talk archives of another article was provided, as well as an instance of where Hrafn referred to me as an "idiot," Dougweller handled the complaint by leaving the following sympathetic message of practical "advice" on Hrafn's Talk page (see here):

You really need to avoid giving anyone a reason to take you to WQA - I've always felt I get a lot further by trying to be as polite as I can (hard at times) and let the others rave oon. It just gives others ammunition against you. Take the high road, see the error of your ways. Not as satisfying at times of course but it will make you a better Wikipedian and I think more productive at what you are trying to do.

As you can see in the message he left for Hrafn, he personally attacked me and the others who were personally attacked by Hrafn by giving him the advice to "let the others rave oon[sic]." Merriam-Websters gives the following definitions for "rave":

• "to talk irrationally in or as if in delirium"
• "to speak out wildly"
• "to talk with extreme enthusiasm

Dougweller said that he was talking about himself, but that is a a little hard to believe when you read the whole statement in context.

A quick perusal of the history of Hrafn's Talk page shows a cozy mutually-beneficial relationship between the two on WP. For instance, he warned Hrafn of 3RR not with the threat to block, but with the promise to watch a page for him that Hrafn was about to go past 3RR (see here. Hrafn's response: "Thanks." He also said that he'd hate to see Hrafn get drawn into a 3RR case that he might file against another editor for edit warring (see here). Likewise, on Dougweller's Talk page, Hrafn requested that he add certain accounts to a sockpuppet investigation.

It is also worth noting that the personal attacks on me by Hrafn were all related to articles dealing in some way with intelligent design. Besides the close working relationship in general he has with Hrafn, Dougweller himself also works on articles in the scope of creationism, which in WP includes ID articles.

I request that someone not associated with admin Dougweller take action against him for not disharging his duty to evenhandedly deal with WQA complaints and for personally attacking me to the very editor whose case he handled.

I further request that someone not associated with user Hrafn take action against him for personal attacks as outlined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Hrafn. When I initially posted at WQA, I would have been satisfied with a strong warning to Hrafn. Now that I see that at least two admins look the other way and talk to him as a good ol' buddy, either praising him for his humor in his attacks against other editors as admin Bishonen did here, or sympathetically giving him practical "advice" as Dougweller did, it indicates that the previous opportunities to strongly warn Hrafn have been passed up. The time for warning is over.

Here's the "warning" message posted by admin Bishonen in regards to an AN/I complaint filed against Hrafn (a weak complaint, but one that included many examples of at least incivility by Hrafn):

Please refrain from being funny on Wikipedia. People may spill their coffee all over their keyboards. If you continue to make me laugh, you may be blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Also, in both instances, I ask that admins with whom I have had content disputes not involve themselves in this matter.

Thanks. Drrll (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You seriously need to cool down a little. We have this tiny thing called WP:AGF, and we like practicing it. That's what Dougweller did. Just because he didn't whip out the banhammer to help you, it doesn't mean he didn't take you seriously - admins are not there to help you in an editing dispute but to ensure that wikipedia is not disrupted and clean up the messes we editors leave. Given that this apparently long standing, and you make only complaints on his talk page behavior (rather than edit warring or vandalism), if what I have said at WQA is insufficient for you, then I think you have no option but to request a WP:MEDCAB mediation, and if that fails, WP:ARBCOM. If they accept your case, however, be sure there is no WP:BOOMERANG issues, an neither the MEDCAB nor ARBCOM like it when something frivolous reaches them. You must show that Hrafn's behavior is harming the ability of Wikipedia to be improved. --Cerejota (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I just from my own personal standpoint would argue that Hrafn's behavior is harming Wikipedia by making editors like me think twice about sticking around here. My interactions with Hrafn were very similar to those I had with Bello except a little bit less revert and definitely no sock puppetry. He I would argue engages in the exact type of actions that led to this.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This post is TLDR, so I made my own research: Drrll, an editor who appears to be editing in favour of the full scale of American extreme-right biases and beliefs, clashes with Hrafn over Intelligent Design. Drrll reports Hrafn to WQA, accusing him of personal attacks with a number of diffs that prove no such thing when read in context. Drrll is unhappy with the level of support that he or she receives from admins. Shortly after the present report, Viriditas points to what superficially looks like actual, but not ongoing, problematic behaviour by Hrafn in November, at a completely unrelated article.

To go into some detail, Drrll in the first sentence of the present report says: "after such examples of attacks against me as "willfully ignorant" and "fanatic" were provided". The version of this claim at WQA was as follows: "Here he calls me 'willfully ignorant.' Later on, he calls me a 'fanatic' here, and in the same edit also makes what appears to a mocking comment about what he perceives to be my religion ('kindly stop nailing yourself to that cross -- you make a very poor martyr')."

For "willfully ignorant", the context was as follows: Drrll apparently wanted the biography of an ID supporter to say that anti-darwinists are persecuted, and in that context claimed that the National Center for Science Education, an anti-creationism organisation connected to the AAAS, is not a BLP-quality reliable source for creationist BLPs. Hrafn's comment was in response to a comment by Drrll that ended as follows: "DI may qualify as WP:FRINGE for its positions on science, but it hardly qualifies as extreme. The extremist position in the US is that a God had nothing to do with origins of the universe. I see that you apparently have no intentions of collaborating, taking a 'my way or the highway' approach." At this point, Hrafn's "I see no point in 'collaborating' with wilful ignorance" clearly did not lower the level of the debate, nor was it unprovoked.

As to "fanatic", in the diff Hrafn did not call Drrll a fanatic (although that would have been reasonable, I believe) but quoted Churchill as follows: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." The quotation introduced a satire based on the WP:DEADHORSE theme, which was in response to Drrll's following sentence, which appears to be straight out of the tendentious editing toolbox: "WP:DEADHORSE invocation is a sure sign that instead of refuting my points, you just prefer that I shut up and go away." (As I discovered while writing this, Drrll's comment was in response to my invocation of WP:HORSEMEAT [36].) Hans Adler 04:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I see Ddrrl forgot to mention that my response to him there included "If you want to take me to ANI to get me banned from this board, go ahead. Right now though I haven't said anything about you although you certainly have said something about me." Or that another editor applauded my advice and called it diplomatic rather than sympathetic (also saying I goofed on something). I can see why Drrll though it referred to him, and perhaps I should have added (not referring to anyone involved in this dispute) and for that carelessness I apologise, but as I said, off-Wiki I've a long record of both trying to take that attitude myself of politeness in the face of both aggression and comments with which I strongly disagree shall we say, and I don't see anything wrong with what I wrote except that the phrasing made it possible for someone to say it was aimed at them (shame about the lack of Good Faith there). And yes, I warned Hrafn of 3RR not with a template but with a friendly warning - at lesat three times in fact. We watch a lot of the same pages. I always try to warn everyone in a dispute no matter what my attitude is towards them, and of course where I'm involved report it rather than act directly. And I don't care who reports possible sock puppets to me, does that really matter? Editors report them to Admins they know, especially if the Admin is involved in an SPI or planning to file one. And when did editors working together in a beneficial relationship become a bad thing? Drrll is calling for 'action' against me - presumably either blocking me or banning me from WQA. Seems a bit drastic and aggressive, although I can see why Drrll would like to have me kept out of any disputes involving him. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgot, he asks that "admins with whom I have had content disputes not involve themselves in this matter". This is of course not acceptable. Asking me not to use my tools would be fine, this suggestion would clearly help editors who get into content disputes remove some editors who disagree with them. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Drrll's request for administrative action appears to be based on an assumption of bad faith. This dispute is already under discussion at WQA and I've recommended that interested users make use of the user RfC process if they are interested. This report does seem to be an attempt at forum shopping and as there is nothing actionable, it should be closed. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I had every assumption of good faith toward both Hrafn and Dougweller until they took actions that cast severe doubt on that assumption. Even after Dougweller entered the fray at WQA as an admin and focused on not being able to find all of the complaints against Hrafn, as opposed to focusing in on the many examples he could find, I still assumed good faith on his part. It wasn't until he handled the WQA case with his sympathetic message to Hrafn (without even a warning) and attacked me in the message that I started wondering about his intents. I suppose any posting here reveals that the level of trust in good faith has deteriated with the other individuals. I only came here because of the handling of the WQA complaint by an admin (and he encouraged me to come here himself), so the charge of forum shopping is baseless. Drrll (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• At the beginning of this section, I have been mentioned. I understand Drrll's difficulty with Hrafn. For ten days earlier this month, Hrafn and I have been debating a particular WP article. Hrafn seems to ignore WP civility. I try to take his advice and ignore his demeaning attitude. Does Hrafn harm the WP process? He knows the rules. His counsel is almost always correct. The only thing lacking is WP civility. Hrafn demeans those who frustrate him. In our situation, he eventually withdrew from the fray and is taking a break. Such an action is mature and helpful to the process. When Hrafn becomes involved in an article, the article gets better. If an editor can stomach his incivilities, that editor will be stronger for rising above the personal stuff. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Certainly, there is an element of truth in what you say. In the military, for example, a soldier may be molded into a warrior by such a process. Similarly, a law school student might learn how to best present themselves in court through the scolding of a professor. And in the recent past (no longer true today), a medical resident might put in 36 hours on a shift, a training regimen which has its roots in preparing for attending to wounded soldiers during war, which brings us full circle. Stress can improve learning in some respects, whether it is trial by fire or being hit repeatedly with a clue stick. However, these methods are at odds with the goal of encyclopedia writing. This approach hampers collaboration when we should be seeking to encourage it. Civility is not just a policy of Wikipedia, it is the fuel for collaboration, and if Hrafn can't bear it, then that problem needs to be addressed. The encyclopedia building process, and writing in general, requires not just self-motivation but the intrinsic freedom to create. Hrafn's role, as you describe it, defeats this process. Again, I recommend closing this thread and letting the WQA run its course. There is nothing actionable for an administrator to do here. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor note - Drrll has reworded one of his posts. It now says "I only came here because of the handling of the WQA complaint by an admin (and he encouraged me to come here himself), so the charge of forum shopping is baseless." What I wrote in his response to him saying "Maybe someone needs to take a looksee at your violations of WP:NPA policy and keep you away from a noticeboard where instead of displaying an interest in enforcing policy, you don't mind engaging in some policy-breaking yourself." was " If you want to take me to ANI to get me banned from this board, go ahead." I did not suggest he extend it to any other editors or disputesk, which he has done. Nor of course did I break NPA or take any Administrative action, so I think 'handling' is incorrect. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it sure appeared that you were "handling" the complaint. An admin shows up to a WQA complaint, talks about having examined the evidence, and then asks for a clarification about some of the evidence. The editors from whom you requested the clarification respond to your request. What action do you take next? Not responding to their clarification, but instead posting a message on the Talk page of the subject of the complaint. Can you see how that all that looks like administrative "handling" of the complaint? Drrll (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hans, you failed to point out that when I said that you would prefer that I shut up and go away, it is in response to your head-scratchingly unrelated statement "A high-profile international encyclopedia-writing project is not a good place for supporting an essentially US-only anti-science canard." It was so puzzling because it was your first foray into a WP:ORN discussion as to whether "a high-profile international encylopedia-writing project" should be engaging in unsupported original research by saying definitively in WP's voice that intelligent design is a form of "neo-creationism," as opposed to saying that it is viewed that way by certain academics (overwhelmingly by academics without relevant academic specializations). Exasperated at you saying that such a move would result in WP "supporting" ID (assuming it did, a quick perusal of the Intelligent design article hardly shows "support" for it), after having already been exasperated by others not caring about WP policies and guidelines, I said what I did to you. As to your magical divination with certitude about my politics, perhaps compared to your "biases and beliefs" I am "extreme-right." Compared to the views of other Americans, I am firmly planted in the mainstream of politics, with multiple opinion surveys showing a plurality of Americans holding conservative views. Drrll (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• I can see Doug's point, though. I started looking at Drll's list of Hrafn's "personal attacks", and of the first four I looked at, two were really minor, one wasn't really a PA at all, and one would have been a PA except for the fact that Hrafn was actually quoting another editor (Jim62sch) completely. I stopped looking after that. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, that's exactly the kind of experience that I had as well. There is only so many baseless accusations that I will look at in detail before giving up and deciding that the rest is probably just as baseless. Hans Adler 17:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you three view calling someone "willfully ignorant," a "fanatic," and an "idiot," as "minor," I sure feel sorry for the people who cross your paths in real life. Do you use those kind of "minor" words with friends?. And yes, he did call me and another editor "idiots," and was not "actually quoting another editor (Jim62sch) completely." For the benefit of others reading this thread, I'm going to quote the entire thread between Jim62sch & Hrafn and let the reader decide if Hrafn was or was not calling me that:

Be careful, amigo, Missy is trying to provoke "bad behaviour". Soon, either he or Drll will be screaming "edit war". I'm not sure that Hagel's comments much matter other than to prove that he's a nutter.  :) •Jim62sch•dissera! 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've followed Nagel since his endorsement of Signature in the Cell. He's basically a philosopher of mind having a hissy fit because scientific empiricism keeps encroaching on his freedom to pontificate on the 'Mysteries of Life™' (shades of the Deep Thought scene from Hitchhikers' Guide). It's difficult to see how any mention of him is merited, let alone expanding it. I don't intend to give them an edit war -- but I certainly don't intend to let their ludicrous claims go unchallenged. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. My thing is that I read his quotes and assign him to the category of idiot. But, maybe young and impressionable minds won't.

And yeah, sience is a bitch -- I keep hoping that someone will invent a "transporter" and the the uncertainty principle tells me it can't be done and I too throw a hissy fit. Damn.  ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 13:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if we keep letting the opinions of 'idiots' into the article, won't we (i) end up with an idiotic article & (ii) end up looking like idiots ourselves? But then, if we idiot-proof the article I suppose natural selection will tend to mean we'll simply get smarter idiots trying to break into it. ;) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. Unfortunately, natural selection doesn't object to idiocy. At least not today. Maybe tomorrow.  :( •Jim62sch

Drrll (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for proving my point - as you can see, Jim62sch was the one who introduced "idiot" into the conversation ("My thing is that I read his quotes and assign him to the category of idiot."). I think Cerejota summed the main problems up below. And I think this, and the WQA, can be wrapped up now. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Jim62sch was the one who introduced "idiot" into the conversation." Yes, he did so in reference to Thomas Nagel, as is clear from the above quoted conservation. It was Hrafn who introduced "idiots" into the conversation with regard to WP editors: "if we idiot-proof the article I suppose natural selection will tend to mean we'll simply get smarter idiots trying to break into it. ;)." I don't think Hrafn was concerned that Nagel might break into the WP article, do you?

"I think Cerejota summed the main problems up below": Being an admin, I'd like to know how many of Cerejota's conclusion-jumping accusations you still endorse in light of my response to him below:

• that I want to eliminate opposition via bureaucratic means
• that I exhibit disruptive behavior
• that I am guilty of meatpuppetry
• that I seek to have other editors blocked or banned if they don't get along with me
• that community action is needed against me

"I think this, and the WQA, can be wrapped up now": you are saying this as an admin. The WQA is about Hrafn and this ANI is about Hrafn and Dougweller. Can you say that you are objective in regards to Hrafn and Dougweller? You work a good bit with Dougweller, having posted to his Talk page 14 times in the past year, including 4 times in just the past 4 days. You also seem to know Hrafn pretty well, since you here added a section to his Talk page titled "Your favourite editor," in which you encourage him to get involved in an AfD discussion. Drrll (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as further exploration of all the allegations show strong disagreements but no NPAs. Drrll seems to be seeking to advance his or her position by eliminating effective opposition via bureaucratic means. Hrafn needs to tone it down a little, and give a little less of a fuck but as I said in the WQA, there has not been a single diff given that shows any personal attacks, or shows any pervasive edit warring, and as such, no admin action is needed.

I think WP:BOOMERANG applies. An examination of this discussion and the one at WQA , and of Drrll's editing behavior shows a worrying pattern of disruptive behavior and the meatpuppetry and pile-on of empty accusations (including attacking an admin who has not misused his tools of wrongdoing) are worrying too. Perhaps community action is needed to protect the integrity of the wiki? Perhaps I am over reacting, but I think the idea that we all need to get along and if we don't we need to be blocked or banned is very dangerous, and we need to make sure it is understood that assuming good faith is not optional. --Cerejota (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, you jump to an awful lot of conclusions about my behavior without evidence. WP:NPA, in answering the question "What is considered to be a personal attack?," includes the following: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."

If I wanted to "eliminat[e] effective opposition via bureaucratic means" I would have taking action 3 long months ago when Hrafn called me "willfully ignorant," instead of simply leaving that article for a long time. I had several additional opportunities to take action later with Hrafn's additional personal attacks, such as he calling me an "idiot" and a "fanatic," but I didn't. It wasn't until he personally attacked me in a very public venue that I decided it was time to act. And did I go straight to ANI with the list of various things he said about me? No, I went to WP:WQA where at the top of the page it specifically says, "Avoid intiating a request if: You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures." I was looking for a strong warning for Hrafn. It's just one of the many baseless accusations you throw out there.

Others you throw out there include that I'm exhibiting "disruptive behavior," and worse yet that I am guilty of "meatpuppetry." Where's your evidence? According to WP:MEAT, "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy." Yet another is that I am seek to have other editors "blocked or banned" if they don't get along with me. Where's your evidence? Explain how that throwing out all these baseless accusations against me is "assuming good faith" on your part.

This is the sixth time you've invoked WP:BOOMERANG to me in a 24-hour period. Do you have a particular fascination with that essay, or should I see your repeated reference to it as a threat?

As you say, "Perhaps community action is needed to protect the integrity of the wiki?" Drrll (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

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

• I archived the above thread in which I did not participate because, as indicated, no administrative action was required. Drrll (talk · contribs) proceeded to challenge that closure on my talk page, accusing me of bias, and continued to make personal attacks concerning Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).[37] In normal circumstances, persistent personal attacks of that kind would result in restrictions on editing privileges. Please see WP:HORSE. Mathsci (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

All this started out with repeated and increasingly public personal attacks against me by editor Hrafn as detailed at WP:WQA and above. When admin Dougweller gave all appearances of handling the WQA complaint, I noticed that after making one remark at WQA (a request for more information), he proceeded to leave a message at the Talk page of the subject of the WQA complaint. That message was not a warning of any type, but a friendly piece of "advice." In that advice, he advised Hrafn to let the others "rave on." Due to his handling of the WQA complaint, his characterization to Hrafn of his critics as "rav[ing] on," and Dougweller's own request at WQA, I filed a complaint against Hrafn & Dougweller on ANI. Not long into the ANI thread, editor Cerejota made a number of personal attacks against me, charging me with all sorts of bad behavior, but without evidence. Then admin Black Kite endorsed Cerejota's accusations at the ANI. Lastly, non-admin Mathsci took it upon himself to close the thread on the Administrator's noticeboard. Instead of immediately reverting as I had the right to do, I attempted to find out from Mathsci why he took the action he did, as you can see at his Talk page. When he gave no applicable justification for his action, told me he had nothing else to add, and told me not to post any longer on his Talk page, I then reverted his action as a non-admin reverting another non-admin. Instead of discussing it further before reverting me, he just preceded to revert and say that I was engaging in personal attacks, despite questions about WP:UNINVOLVED policy in regards to Dougweller, Black Kite, and Mathsci (if he is actually granted admin privileges). As you can see, I decided not to participate in his edit war. Drrll (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Threads here are not necessarily closed by administrators, particularly if they involve forum-shopping and WP:LAME arguments per WP:STICK. Nobody has agreed with your "assessment" of Dougweller, so please could you just drop this matter? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for being a little overwrought here and at WQA. Even though I have been editing for about two years, it wasn't until the past few months that I have run into a series of some very frustrating events on WP. In response, I have been letting my frustration and occasional exasperation get the better of me in my discussions.

In retrospect, even though I still think that Dougweller should have given Hrafn a warning and should not have been uncivil toward his critics in his message to Hrafn, I don't think it warranted bringing him into an ANI discussion.

I am still convinced that I should have brought up Hrafn's behavior at WQA (for the "willfully ignorant," "idiots," "fanatic" remarks directed toward me, as well as using unsubstiated namecalling to discredit me in such a visible forum as BLPN). I was looking for a strong warning to him (given the notice at the top of the WQA board that it should not be used "if you want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures"). My view changed after Dougweller's response to the WQA, wanting a short block of Hrafn instead, so I brought Hrafn into the ANI discussion as well.

I also still don't appreciate Cerejota making the following evidence-less accusations here, nor with Black Kite endorsing some of those charges:

• that I want to eliminate opposition via bureaucratic means
• that I am guilty of meatpuppetry
• that I seek to have other editors blocked or banned if they don't get along with me

Lastly, I was not forum shopping, as is evident from the turn of events which took place after I filed the WQA complaint. Drrll (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hacked account

Can an admin please check out this page regarding recent hacking of my account. I've posted in my userspace to avoid clogging up this noticeboard. Thank you. LordVetinari 13:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I can tell you- you used the same IP and computer as User:PennyDancer on the days which both of you edited (7/30 and 8/28). I'm not sure this indicates your account was hacked. TNXMan 14:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just on the technical end, you ask how Abd could be sending emails through Wikipedia while he's blocked - the answer is that his block prevents him from editing his talk page, but doesn't prevent him from sending emails. I'm not familiar enough with the situation to know whether that's allowed under the terms of his ban, however. Abd is not banned or blocked on wikiversity, which appears to be what the actual topic of his email was. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe banned users are allowed to email arbcom and possibly admins to request their ban be reviewed or other related requests and I guess also in case of emergencies. I can't see that other emails for general communication would be considered okay if a user is forbidden from editing their own talk page except perhaps for communicating with existing friends (although I would suggest they should establish a means to communicate outside wikipedia). Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If he was using it to email abuse at people, I'd remove it, but I've never seen a complaint about Abd misusing email since his ban, and this seems to be legitimate Wikiversity business. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes communication involving other wikis he still has access to would also be fine, sorry I didn't notice it considered some other wikipedia. My point was more that with a few exceptions, since he apparently isn't welcome on the en.wikipedia anymore, communication involving en.wikipedia (or anything not involving any wikimedia project) using the email function would often be unwelcome (except perhaps to his friends) even if not inherently abusive (so if anyone does complain our tolerance is likely to be low). Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocks needed

Disruptive SPAs

• Truthfinderdude (talk · contribs)
• 139club (talk · contribs)

Here's the situation:

• 'Universe Today' AfD closed - 00:14
• New AfD created by Truthfinderdude - 00:47
• AfD template removed and AfD tagged for deletion by User:Cunard almost immediately. (later closed by myself)
• Since then, Truthfinderdude and 139club have repeatedly re-added the AfD notification: [38][39][40]

It's a fairly obvious case of persistent (albeit minor) sock/SPA disruption. Please block. Thank you, Swarm ^{u | t} 02:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I indef'd 139club since that appears to be the secondary account, and blocked Truthfinderdude for a week, but would not object if any other admin feels like making it an indef. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thousandneedlesinred (talk · contribs) is disrupting the article again.

Due to the ongoing disruption, I ask that:

1. Universe Today is semi-protected for six months.
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination) is deleted per {{db-banned}} and then protected from recreation for six months. Cunard (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Universe Daily. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• When it comes to ANI, it seems that any editor with "truth" in his username already has 2 strikes against him. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mbiama Assogo Roger - Removing links

I do not know what this user is trying to do, but they appear to be using a bot. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on what's on the User Talk page, it may be an erring use of Twinkle's unlink backlinks function. My 2p is that such a function really should be limited to use by admins, or other users who have the technical ability to delete articles. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

He's targeting a particular page for un-linking. Don't see why, however, he seems to be active on fr.wikipedia and he's posted a message on another wiki in French, so perhaps he's not fluent in English? @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 16:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sneaky vandal

Resolved

174.101.157.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been, for all of this year, sneaking incorrect information into the personnel listings for albums by the band Lonestar (e.g. Lonestar (album)). This vandalism often goes unnoticed for months on end because the pages get such little traffic. Could I ask an admin to keep an eye on this editor and/or all the pages in Category:Lonestar albums? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked six months. Rklawton (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

LikeLakers2 - Harassment and persistent WP:TPO vio

Greetings all - this was to start out as a simple WP:TPO issue, but has now blossomed into WP:HARASSMENT and I am afraid I am going to need some intervention here. The first three (TPO1 TPO2 TPO3) "appeared" innocent enough, and the user was advised of WP:TPO here. He then removed my entries on another users talk page TPO4 and TPO5, the 2nd of which was restored by another editor here. He then proceeded to insert his opinions in a discussion on my talk page as a 3rd party, was told to stop, but he persisted. I removed his last comment, which he restored (TPO6). He also continued to ignore my request for him to stop posting to my talk page. Once I removed those (1 2), he still kept posting. I then removed that, which he of course reverted again (TPO7). I am sure that by the time I am done submitting this there will be more to add. As the bulk of this is happening on my own talk page, this has clearly become a harassment issue. Why he took it upon himself to insert his comments as a 3rd party to 2 discussions on it is not known - however it is also completely irrelevant. The scope of this complaint is the TPO vios and their evolution into harassment. My talk page is not the place for him to violate TPO just to try and make a WP:POINT. I look forward to this rampant behaviour of his to stop, and quickly cease the endless violations of WP:TPO. Thanks for your time. Srobak (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does appear both of you are in the wrong here. His edits at the IP's talk page are not TPO violations; your edits at the IP's talk page are TPO violations, however. LikeLakers2 was warned not to engage again at the help desk. He has not edited since. Let's hope he sees that notice and does disengage. You, too, need to disengage from the situation. You both need to stop running around with Twinkle, reverting each other as "vandalism," giving each other warnings, and threatening to go to AIV. either way (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Understand I am not arguing with you on your points - but I want to clarify that 5 of his 7 TPOs were on my talk page, and he was told to stop engaging long before the helpdesk notif. Your claim of my having violated TPO is under dispute (dynamic anonips having "owners") and will be RFC'ed shortly - and is outside the scope of this ANI request. Even if you remove those, we still have 5x TPO vios that stand on their own and the harassment issue. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that I shouldn't have done that now, I am somewhat scared to even edit Wikipedia, let alone reply to this. This is mainly due to the response I got at the Help desk after simply asking for advice.

I was going to put a way longer post, but after seeing what Either way said, I am not sure I want to do so, as I don't want to cause more conflict. I can, however, post my original post text if requested. As I said, I just don't want to cause more of a conflict by doing so here, really. Sorry about the misunderstanding, Srobak. LikeLakers2 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Srobak, I found your personal attacks warning to be completely inappropriate. There is not a single personal attack in this edit. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't think an anonuser combing through my edits and contacting users who I have warned in the past and lobbying them to lodge complaints against me to be the very epitome of a personal attack? That's unfortunate and I disagree with you - but I will respect your opinion. Srobak (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe you are in the fault here. You clearly instigated this problem by violating WP:BLANKING and WP:DRC. The only messages that an IP cannot remove from their own talk page are messages that it is a shared IP. This entire problem would have been avoided if you had a correct interpretation of WP:Blanking. One final point, I think both users should be trouted for edit warring over an IP's warning. When I was a child, and I would fight with my sister, my mom would always remind one of us to "be the bigger person" and stop. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I would accept all trouts, hence the {{troutme}} template on my userpage. (well, on my header templates page, but you get the idea) Also, assuming you meant to put "WP:Blanking" as the link instead of "WP:Blankingn", I have fixed your link for you, Ryan Vesey. (Feel free to put it back if you intended to have the n at the end) LikeLakers2 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the change, and was actually making it myself when we edit conflicted. Considering the current discussion, I don't think it was the best move you could've made though Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have left a warning on LikeLakers2's talk page for his behavior at the talk page of Srobak. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This wouldn't have escalated to this point had User:Srobak just got the point about anon IPs from the beginning and not caused this entire issue.--v/r - TP 15:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A point which I believe to be up to interpretation and debate and will be bringing to the foreground with an RFC in very short order, once I get all the T's dotted and the I's crossed. The non-removal of anonblock notices sets a great precedent to get the rest of this situation resolved. However - again... that is not the scope of this ANI. I already said above to nix the 2 TPO's on the other users page and to focus on the 5 on mine - which stand on their own as WP:TPO vios. Srobak (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is how it got started. 76.190.196.103 makes a perhaps misguided but good faith edit to Kenosha Maroons. Srobak "neutrally" reverts it but then decides it's "vandalism" and leaves a 76.190.196.103 a "final warning". Srobak, please answer honestly. Was your decision to use the "vandalism warning" tag based on you seeing all those other warnings on his talk page? Would you have warned me if I had made that edit? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact - yes, that is exactly why it got the warning it did. The IP has a long, demonstrated history of vandalism edits, as well as warns and blocks to go with it, and should have been blocked from editing with unregistered accounts ages ago. No, I would not have issued you a lv-4im had you done the same edit... but likely lv-1 noting non-constructive/not-relevant. Srobak (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You're demonstrating a startling lack of understanding of what vandalism is and is not. Giving a final warning for such an obviously good-faith edit is simply egregious. Even a level 1 warning would have been inappropriate. Note that the use of the term "unconstructive" in the warning template is to prevent biting the newcomers, not to justify its use in every situation where an imperfect edit has been made. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't an imperfect edit - but clearly WP:COMMENTARY and an WP:OPINION piece. Srobak (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have calmed down a lot since this morning. I guess coding templates, like I did here, is probably what I should do from now on when I get mad/scared/etc. LikeLakers2 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

He's at it again... just happened to notice this one from late yesterday where he replaced a page owners content with his own, and went to so far as to indicate in his edit summary that the page owner cannot remove other people's comments from their own talk page: TPO8. C'mon now - that's over the top. He has also recently edited actual user pages - not just the talk pages: (UP1), (UP2). Srobak (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have extended the warning on his talk page. I suggest that you both disengage and allow the issue to die. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I would... but it continues still... TPO9, UP3, TPO10 Srobak (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have commented on it here, but my phone's Opera Mini browser decided to put the char limit at 12060 when that was the ammount of chars already on this section. Anyway, see here for my response. LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I wasn't clear on my first three notices to him to stop posting on my page... *SIGH* <---- What does it take? Srobak (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It might help if you stopped posting warning templates on his talkpage [41] [42]. Seriously, it seems to me you are just trying to make things worse by doing that. Have you truly learned nothing from this ANI discussion? Yoenit (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to look at timestamps and think about the order in which things occurred, and also understand the root problem here. Srobak (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I see two problems: one is Likelakers2 editing stuff he should not edit such as Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive 13, but the second one is you reverting his edits "as vandalism" and slapping warning templates on his talkpage as I linked above. Yoenit (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As you can see in the links you provided - I reverted his 3rd party edit to another users talk page, and issued him 2 separate TPO warnings, as they occurred long after being warned TWICE by Ryan Vesey to stop. Those are the incidents I reported above (TPO9 and TPO10). Why is this not making sense to you? He has also been told and warned escalatingly to stop posting to my talk page, yet he continues to ignore it and keeps on posting. Those are the only things that have been reverted as vandalism - because it is. Srobak (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Interaction ban?

Since this is getting nowhere and is just a collection of tattling on each other and bad feelings, can we come up with a solution? I think we need an interaction ban between Srobak and LikeLakers2. They should not comment on each other's actions, revert each other's edits, or edit each other's talk pages. Thoughts? either way (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I will voluntarily stop interaction with him on my own - so no need to worry there. Sure hope you guys consider banning his constant TPO's of other users however... that is the root of the issue here, and is what needs a solution. If steps aren't taken to curb this kind of stuff, then why even bother having WP:TPO and WP:ANI? Srobak (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And there you go...you said "I'll stop" and then the first thing you do is comment on his actions. Drop it. Desist from commenting on, looking at, or thinking about the actions of LikeLakers2. Your actions are "the root of the issue" here as well. And they, too, need a solution, which is the interaction ban. This wouldn't be the "big deal" it was if it wasn't for your behaviour as well (labeling his reverts as vandalism...flouting policies inappropriately...hostile engagement, etc.). either way (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... the TPO vios stand on their own and have nothing to do with my behaviour. It appears that some folks operating in an administrative capacity is about as useless as even having policies like TPO. Why frakkin bother with either one? What a waste of keystrokes. I come here for resolution and instead get ignorance. Have fun y'all. Srobak (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he does that. I will also voluntarily stop interacting with him. I assume removing his comments from my talk page would be the only exception to the cannot revert each others edits, though? And Srobak, I was trying to be nice with that ANI response on your talk page. First off, it is NOT vandalism in any sense of the word. Second, your custom message near the end seemed to have a rude tone of voice. Please stop, Srobak. LikeLakers2 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that this interaction ban, which both users agreed to but which was not formally enacted here, is being followed: [43]. I would suggest someone uninvolved enact the ban and make clear to the users that agreeing to leave each other alone means leaving each other alone. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you likely meant this diff. Srobak (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant the diff I used. While it's obvious that LikeLakers is violating the interaction ban there, it seems fairly likely to me that you came to that MfD the same way I did - through a posting on LL2's talk page. If that's the case, and I'll readily acknowledge that it's possible that it's not, it's a violation of the spirit of the interaction ban, as you were goading him by appearing where you knew he was and !voting in opposition to him. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... His presence is inconsequential - and interactions on my part with him has been nil since I said it would be. I'd have opined the same if I had just come across it any other way. I think my position on principles is clear enough for you to be able to come to that conclusion on your own... but I guess some folks are just "glass half empty" kinda people. Srobak (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, especially if you take a look at the subsection directly below this. It's clear that the voluntary agreement to follow the guidelines did not stick. So, we need to either agree with a consensus to establish and enforce a ban or find another method for keeping these two apart. either way (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Or you need to actually read the section below, entitled "On second thought...". Let's try and keep up, kids. Srobak (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You guys do realize that an interaction/non-communication ban does not actually fix The Problem, right? In fact - it will do nothing to address or resolve it. What is this incessant need to shift focus? As I stated below - if someone has a problem with me, then bring it up in a new section and we will hash that out accordingly, but please do not allow it to shift focus and result in derelict actions. One problem at a time here, guys. Srobak (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that you are a part of the problem here. We're not attempting to shift focus as you say, we're attempting to solve some of the problem. One of the major problems here is your interactions with each other. either way (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You aren't paying attention... you see all of those instances listed in the section below? Not a SINGLE ONE of them are interactions on my part or the results of interactions on my part, and each of them stand completely on their own - most of them are on other users pages in fact. Take a very close look at each of them before lumping it all together, please. I'm sorry that you don't see it - but you are in fact shifting the focus, while occluding the actual problem. Srobak (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

With the ban in place a problem of user interaction will have been addressed (though the result will be no different than it is now, as I have not interacted with him since I said I wouldn't). That is the "some" of which you speak. However - the original, core, root, whatever you want to call it - problem of TPO and UP edits will still indeed exist, and likely continue un-checked... until some other user happens across it and tries to bring it to your attention here. If you folks haven't changed your perspective on dealing with issues at their core by then - then I deeply pity that poor, unfortunate user. Seems as though people are better off just keeping their mouths shut and letting the residents just run loose in the asylum. Heaven forbid some sentiment of order is actually desired and expected to be kept. How utterly stupid of me to try and bring this clearly problematic issue to light. Srobak (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey either way, how are you going to torch me for trying to bring a habitual WP:TPO user to your attention, and then pull a move like this for someone who conducted a single, minor edit? Can we say "hypocrisy" and "irony"? I knew that we could. You are making my case for me - you know that, right? Let's try a new word though... "consistency". Might need some work, but I'm positive you can attain it. Not to mention the fact that you only came across that user and his templates which you then speedy'ed because of my initial TPO complaint here. You're welcome. Srobak (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

On Second Thought...

This has not been brought to any rational resolution, and will need to be further addressed without again trying to shift the focus of the situation. Placating to, allowing or endorsing rampant WP:TPO vios is not something that an admin should be proud of and any admin that does probably needs to hang it up for a while. If someone has a problem with me, then bring it up as a separate issue and we can duke that out there.

The scope of this issue is 8 (eight) of 10 WP:TPO violations - each of which stand on their own, and have nothing to do with my warns or edits;

TPO1x, TPO2x, TPO3x, TPO4x, TPO5x, TPO6x, TPO7x, TPO8x

He was warned by Ryan Vesey after TPO5x to stop yet continued, and was warned a second time and continued.

In addition, there are these userpage edits which do not fall within the scope of WP:UP#OWN;

UP1, UP2, UP3.

Subsequent userpage edits out of scope; UP4,

This needs to be addressed at face value. Hopefully faith can be restored _{though I have my doubts.} Srobak (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You never looked at the edit I did after "UP4". See here. LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal interaction ban proposal

It has become clear that after four days of constant finger pointing and bickering between User:LikeLakers2 and User:Srobak, the community is beginning to get fed up with this. This continuous discussion, which has had time to be resolved cleanly, is continuing with neither side seeming to compromise. Therefore, on suggestion from User:Either way and User:Fluffernutter, I am proposing a formal community-sanctioned interaction ban between both editors, who if either violate it, can be blocked. This should restore order to things and end this waste of the community's time. Mitch32^{(God Bless America, Let Freedom Ring)} 03:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty sad that the expectation of addressing blatant, continuous WP:TPO violations, past being warned TWICE by an admin not to - are considered a "waste of time". If this is how some members feel about addressing problems, then perhaps some administrative review is in order as well. The lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Srobak (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. PLEASE. It's clear the users can't disengage on their own power. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support (obviously). either way (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. As I have not interacted with him since I said I wouldn't anyhow - it does no harm and I have nothing to lose by supporting a ban which I have self-imposed in the first place. However - the expectation of addressing the actual problem is still present, doesn't go away just because people stick fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la-la", and will be pursued through administrative review if necessary. Srobak (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The ban above will not resolve the problem in the section above. Remember that. Act accordingly. (chya right)Srobak (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, speedy-keeps and WP:INVOLVED

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

---

Resolved

 – TT has been indeffed by Ioeth, all AfDs are closed, and the episode will air on Saturday unless England is invaded from Mars, so I guess that's all for now folks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just speedy-kept two successive AfDs [44] [45] I started on the same article – both only ~2 minutes old – with a spurious reason, despite Sarek having strong 'WP:INVOLVED' issues with me and strong 'WP:INVOLVED' issues with the article and with Doctor Who content in general.
The AfD nominations were/are not in bad faith, and I would like them to run their course without a biased admin stifling discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 18:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh... If you agree that in three days the article will be fully fleshable [46], is it really crucial to ensure all the round pegs are in the round holes (...as halfway through the AFD, your rationale will become no longer relevant)? –xeno^talk 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you should probably !vote 'keep' in the AfD if you hold the view that articles that 'will' become notable are fine. It's not a view I hold. However, this is about Sarek's outrageous INVOLVED violations and rollback abuse – ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In other words, bad-faith nomination, as I said. Twice. The second time was worse faith, because TT knows that WP:DRV is the proper venue for contesting a close. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also contesting your rampant violation of WP:INVOLVED, WP:RBK etc. And seriously considering asking for an interaction ban. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FUTURE - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The episode will be notable and will take place (i.e. be transmitted) next Saturday. There are already numerous sources for it, including an interview with one of the actors on the BBC website, and an interview with Mark Gatiss in Radio Times. You need to stop this, pretty quickly. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WTF?. Seriously - its the next Doctor Who episode that airs in a week, and given that every episode of the new series has had critical review, it is completely bad faith to assume this one won't be notable and must be deleted. And then to revert the speedy close 4 times??? --MASEM (t) 19:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What I don't get is how there are 19K -- Nineteen thousand -- page views for the episode a day ago, which is a sign to me that it should not be deleted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh derr... Well this didn't go quite how I had hoped. As an FYI, TreasuryTag was blocked for ten days for edit warring, and then indefinitely for disruptive editing - I gather discussion of this will probably take place in the ongoing WP:AN#TreasuryTag thread. –xeno^talk 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, TT, but did you try looking for sources in the references? I did, and found three, two of which were non-trivial, and one of those was quite significant. Your entire delete rationale was mooted before you began, and it appears the AfD nomination was a tit-for-tat response to your attempt at redirecting being reverted. Instead of discussing, you chose to escalate. When that was shut down, you chose to edit war. When you became disruptive, use of rollback was justified. Resolute 19:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I hate ending up on the same side of an issue as a potentially abusive user. But in this case I have to ask: what is the harm in letting the AfD process continue? Speedy-close as a "bad-faith nom" should be kept to remarkably clear cases, someone nominating Earth or Christianity in an attempt to prove a point. In this case there are several valid reasons to file an AfD, that the user has an absolute belief in WP:CRYSTAL, that they want to make a test case that until an episode is known to be notable there shouldn't be a standalone article, whatever. Calling them a vandal and shutting down the process isn't an appropriate response. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you asked, the harm in leaving the AfDs consists in continuing to send the message (received by the Internet loud and clear for the past 5+ years at minimum) that Wikipedia can, any time one likes, be ruinously trolled by the most blatant gaming of process. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, however I think the message to the community that certain types of article are beyond questioning is equally dangerous to wikipedia. What is the harm of having to justify an article's existence? If I had my way more articles would be discussed in the manner of AfD, good articles have nothing to fear from a challenge. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the policies and guidelines on AfD's and Speedy Keep, it could be said that Sarek was acting as 'editor Sarek' when he closed the AfD in this manner. Non-admins *are* allowed to close deletion discussions, and even use a Speedy Keep rationale. I think part of the confusion stems from the idea that most of the time, admins are the ones to close deletion discussions (because they are the only ones who can delete a page), and it is arguably confusing for a person who is an admin to exercise an editing function that is typically left to admins, but actually acting as merely an editor. I suppose a question now is, rather than WP:INVOLVED, did Sarek violate WP:COI? The Non-admin closure essay says an editor should not close if "The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the deletion debate."

I'm not really sure Sarek actually did anything wrong, but it probably would have been advantageous to allow another editor or admin to Speedy Keep. -- Avanu (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Sarek didn't do anything wrong, or rather if he did it was only being slightly overzealous as an editor, not an administrator. My only concern is that I favor a very high bar for procedural speedy keeps. I've seen a disturbing trend lately of questionable speedy keeps based on the nature of the nominator or the like that poisons a subsequent AfD with the "second nomination" stigma and ends with "close bad nom, wait 30 seconds, someone opens a valid nom, start discussion all over" HominidMachinae (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Non-admin. The first speedy close was sketchy, in that it did not explain a rationale for calling what seemed a good faith nomination to be a "Bad Faith Nomination." Assume good faith, yes? The sources showing in the article were and are crap, whether one wants to keep or delete or has no opinion, that must be agreed. The second close looks to this outside observer to have been an exercise of poor judgment; another administrator should have been summoned to confirm the action. It was the practical equivalent of edit warring with closures at AfD. Very, very bad judgment, in my opinion. And Treasury Tag is the one wearing a ban over this? Odd. That is all. Carrite (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, TT does kind of get carried away, but WP:CIVIL has an expectation of each of us -- the pok-er-mon and the pok-ee-mon. -- Avanu (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• While I hate throwing mud around, especially at ANI and especially against an admin I respect, I think Sarek demonstrated incredibly poor judgement at best here, and it seems to have gone largely unnoticed because of the high-profile nature of the various sanctions imposed on TT these last few days. Sarek and TT have a long history of animosity (particularly surrounding Doctor Who articles) which one need only make a cursory search of the archives of this noticeboard to see. Sarek has previously undertaken not to take admin action with regards to TT, and I believe an interaction ban between them has been considered on at least one occasion. Not to mention that Sarek's rather-too-liberal-at-times interpretation of INVOLVED (particularly pertaining to TT) was a common rationale in the opposition at Sarek's reconfirmation RfA in May.

  Given all that, Sarek should have posted at AN or just waited for other editors or admins to decide what to do with TT's AfDs instead of intervening himself, and certainly shouldn't have just repeatedly whacked the rollback button. I'm tempted to say that the ten-day block for edit warring should be reinstated, especially given that TT is now indef'd (though I have agreed to negotiate terms with him for an unblock in a week or so), but that wouldn't serve any benefit to the encyclopaedia so I won't. I would like to see some acknowledgement from Sarek that he could have handled this better, and that he won't intervene against TreasuryTag in what could be construed as an admin capacity (or at all if it can be helped) in future. I also think we as a community should collectively encourage Sarek to stay away from TT if/when the latter is unblocked and to exercise more caution when dealing with users with whom he's been in disputes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Consider TreasuryTag's recent interactions with Xeno, and compare them with his interactions with me. Does he just get to eliminate one admin after another from dealing with him? I have no history of animosity with TT -- I have a history of him accusing me of involvement, harassment, you name it -- whenever I dared object to his actions. (Which I didn't always -- I speedied a number of articles he tagged.) And regarding me posting at AN, note this thread we're in -- and how many times TT reverted after posting it. I've got a much better idea. How about instead of me running and hiding, TreasuryTag learns how to actually work here without attacking people who disagree with him?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • TreasuryTag has his problems, which is why he has a block log a mile long and why he's indef'd at the minute, and believe me I'm far from his biggest fan, but I don't think the two of you have ever agreed on anything, and you should have known better than to get into this silly dispute. You had all sorts of other options, but you chose to keep whacking the rollback button—what did you think would happen? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Never agree? Little cauliflower theatre, Blitzkrieg (card game), he tagged and I deleted. File:AmyPondSeries6.jpg, he tagged as orphaned fair use, and I left it to run the full length, at which point someone else deleted it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Executive summary, he nominated, I initially agreed before the article was improved. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhytonInc, we agreed.

        On the other hand, when I objected to him claiming that sources talking about a synagogue in Winston Salem supported an article about a synagogue in St. Louis, I was "only interested in (attempted) point-scoring" against him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

    • - I am also very very disappointed in Sareks behavior since his Reconfirmation RFA (which I supported) - he has continued as previous with his involved actions and I no longer support his continuing as an administrator. As for TT , he has lost complete focus here and until he sees and agrees not to carry on like that, he should stay indefinitely blocked. As for Sarek - an administrator that has been blocked three times since May clearly has "issues" to address. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Two of those blocks were intentional violations of 3RR - the only way I could see to keep the other editor from continuing to damage the encyclopedia was to give up my own ability to edit for a while. Granted, this latest one I didn't see coming. I disagree with you that I have continued as before, though -- I have made much more use of noticeboards since my RFA. Maybe not sufficiently so, but my behavior has changed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Rubbish, Sarek! Between the block and protect buttons, the 800 other active admins on WP, and the various noticeboards, the only way to prevent damage was to get into an edit war? If you appealed a block with that rationale, any admin in their right mind would decline the appeal without getting past the seventh word. Somehow almost every other admin manages not to get into a situation where their conduct in enforcing policy isn't left open to question, but not you. How is that? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
          • I disagree. Sarek was administrating a behavioral problem with TreasuryTag. Those rollbacks were an administrator response to an abuse of editing privileges by TT. In this respect, it is no different from rolling back vandalism. The normal response would be for Sarek to block TT, but WP:INVOLVED would get in the way. Maybe it wasn't the ideal response, but it was still technically within his remit as an administrator. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
          • I didn't appeal the blocks, as you'll notice. Maybe the reason other admins' actions aren't called into question is that rest of the admins are smart enough not to play near tarpits. Those two blocks were in edit wars with Doncram (talk · contribs). Note the 204K of discussion archived here. There's a reason I thought nothing short of getting myself blocked would have results... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• It doesn't take a genius to see that the AfD in question would clearly result in a "keep", and that bringing the article to AfD in the first place was a waste of time. Without delving too deeply into the matter, I would be inclined to say that that the rationale given for speedy keeping the first AfD was inadequate, but not entirely inaccurate. Obviously the second AfD was a bad faith nomination, so the rationale for that speedy keep was spot on. I hardly think that Sarek's lack of verbosity on the first AfD closure warrants an ANI discussion. molehill >> MOUNTAIN -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with HJ Mitchell and Off2riorob here. I was pretty unhappy about the way Sarek flouted WP:INVOLVED in relation to TT and another editor just prior to his reconfirmation RfA. Indeed those two incidents are really what lead up to it unless I'm mistaken. There was also significant support for an interaction ban between the Sarek and TT, though no clear consensus emerged. Those unfamiliar really ought to have a look at the reconfirmation RfA, and not just the opposes but the supports as well. People expected that Sarek had learned to step back if there would be a question about involvement in the future, and this doesn't do him any favors in that regard. Those do look like bad faith nominations, but someone else could have handled them.Griswaldo (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• They needed to be closed as disruptive AFD's. It doesn't matter who nominated them, nor really who closed them. It was for the betterment of the project, and it really was not even against any rules. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• The drama caused by editors with unpleasant histories taking admin action on each other is never worth the extra 5 minutes it would take to find another admin.Griswaldo (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• And, fyi, it appears to be "against [some] rules," like in this case WP:INVOLVED which reads - "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." I don't think it could be clearer than that. You have a bad history with an editor, then keep away from admin actions related to them. It's pretty simple.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• I completely agree. Sarek has even previously undertaken not to intervene in an admin capacity with regards to TT, and his disputes with TT were brought up in the reconfirmation RfA, so this isn't new. Yes, the AfDs should have been closed, but it's not as if only Sarek could possibly have closed them, and given the extra drama that he knew, or should have known, would result from not waiting a few minutes for another admin (or any editor, a non-admin close would have been easily justifiable) to close them, choosing to get involved himself was extraordinarily poor judgement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• WP:INVOLVED also says "In cases which are straightforward..., the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• A lot of editors have criticised your handling of this issue, so I don't think it's as straightforward as you make it out to be. Reyk _YO! 21:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Those criticisms have generally been based on overly pedantic interpretations of the rules, contrary to both common sense and WP:BURO. Sarek is right not to take them too seriously. If TT came out of all this with, essentially, no serious consequences, it's adamn good bet that no admin is going to take action against SoV based on this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• No, I disagree. I don't think there's anything overly pedantic or bureaucratic in most of the contributions to this discussion. Would you care to point some out? Reyk _YO! 00:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• You can disagree, that's your right, but unless there's some admin action that is likely to be taken or even being asked for, this discussion has no further point in this venue. Discuss it with Sarek on his talk page or open an RfC on him if you'd like, that would seem to be the appropriate action if you feel his actions are out of line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'll be frank. Sarek ought to give up his admin bit since he clearly is incapable of abiding by the consensus at his reconfirmation RfA regarding issues of WP:INVOLVED. That's an admin action (taken by Sarek, an admin) that needs to happen.Griswaldo (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Resigning one's bit is a personal action, not a use of admin tools, therefore not an admin action. Open an RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Talk:National Transitional Council

Resolved

I'm assuming that Jimfbleak made an innocent mistake when he deleted the discussion page for National Transitional Council under G8, but he hasn't responded to my message on his talk page and the issue is somewhat pressing, as various editors were about to start a much-needed discussion after an edit-war over changing the article name. (I'm not participating in the edit-war or the discussion, but it was on my watchlist for unrelated reasons.)

Can an admin please restore the article's discussion page? Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Done; must have been a script error or misclick. –xeno^talk 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, it had been tagged {{db-g6|rationale=To move [[National Transitional Council (Libya)]] back to this namespace}} which asserts a non-controversial move by User:Russavia. I had no idea that this was not the case. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC on tendentious editing of policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability started

(moved to WP:AN; not an incident) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Fairly Ducky socking editing disruptively

Resolved

Ieodoiskorean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a rather unconvincing bid to add "Russia" to list of countries where Korean is spoken. It's neither an official language, nor spoken by any significant percentage of the population. He basically immediately stopped editing after that. Today I noticed Travelguidewi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) show up and re-add russia to the list, with obviously and intentionally misleading editing summaries.[47], [48] I'm not sure what the obsession is. But I suspect that a CU would give us rather obvious results, and this kind of intentionally disruptive editing just isn't helpful in the slightest.--Crossmr (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-Admin observation I haven't looked at all his edits, but that one is fairly reasonable, with or without WP:RS "The Association of Koreans of Russia hopes to resettle more than 150,000 Koreans in Primorskiy Kray by 1998.12 This plan ... the population of Koreans in Primorskiy Kray with the goal of setting up an autonomous Korean autonomous zone." It's a sore point with Koreans in Russia that Stalin resettled them to muslim Central Asia and denied them an autonomous zone where they were, happily nestled next to their Korean speaking relatives in Yanbian and the Rajin area. How many of them preserved the language I can't say, but I don't think a decision by Stalin is a good reason for not listing Korean as an language spoken in the CIS, since it is, here and there. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC) (what is Fairly Ducky?)

150,000 people out of Russia's population is not significant really. We don't list countries there unless the language is official or significant. Otherwise, we might as well list most countries in the world as almost every country in the world has some Koreans living in it. There has to be a threshold for inclusion in that list and 0.07% is unlikely to be it. Fairly Ducky refers to WP:DUCK, it appears to be fairly obvious that Travelguidewi is ieodiskorean. As he's a brand new account and his first edits were to that dispute and he edited it in a misleading and disruptive manner.--Crossmr (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

2nd Non-admin observation Crossmr Thanks for the explanation of what Duck means, I suppose that should have been obvious. Well, on the assumption that sockpuppetry is innocent until proven guilty I have notified Ieodoiskorean, as you had already notified Travelguidewi. But I can't say I think it's spectacularly significant that two Korean editors would both want Korean included as one of the languages of the CIS. (Though something totally unrelated, is whether the user name "Socotra Rock is Korean" is appropriate as a Wikipedia user name given that China also claims the rock?) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not always the assumption, it is why we have WP:DUCK and in fact Check users will refuse to run checks in obvious cases. The behaviour itself is enough proof. It would be much less clear if Travelguidewi was an established account, but their first edits to that make it very obvious, not to mention they intentionally used false edit summaries to hide what they were doing.--Crossmr (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer WP:DUCK situation. The edit summaries have the same weird style to them, and the editor is trying to push the same changes. I've blocked the new account as a sockpuppet and warned Ieodoiskorean. -- Atama頭 05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently disruptive socking is going to become a thing for him. Another misleading (empty) edit summary marked as minor by Coldorangeplay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We may need a CU to get the IP address and block that.--Crossmr (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest one blocked also, and I blocked the master since this last sock was created after a warning. -- Atama頭 06:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

non-admin comment, Crossmr, okay I to have admit you were right - in this case presumption of innocence wasn't deserved; now very clearly sockpuppetry. Though ironically if the puppeteer had only spent 10 min researching he/she could have easily found a suitable WP:RS to support the edit he/she wanted to make.... Go figure. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen an RS that Korea is spoken in Russia, that's not the contention. The contention is whether or not Korean is spoken in Russia to a degree enough to warrant its inclusion in the infobox. % wise, I don't think it's there, and I haven't seen any RS that would indicate that it's an official language anywhere in Russia. Heck there are more Koreans in Canada, and with a lot of them being recent immigrants and students, they mostly speak Korean, and Canada is a much smaller country.--Crossmr (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please Crossmr, have the good grace to be right on the sockpuppet and drop the language issue. The difference is Koreans aren't native to Newfoundland and weren't forcibly dispersed to Calgary and Winnepeg by Giscard d'Estaing. Objectively there are good RS for noting Korean as a significant language in Coastal Eastern Siberia during the pre-Stalin period. However, since this sockpuppet is behaving like this I for one am certainly not going to give him/her the satisfaction of making his/her edit. Admins should come down on this IP like a ton of bricks In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hanjinprotest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and it continues, I'd suggest a page protection for the time being as well--Crossmr (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy. And now the sockpuppet is admitting to being a sockpuppet and swearing to continue creating accounts. Due to the persistence of this person I'm going to semi-protect that article for a week. If after the semi-protection expires, the editor returns again with another account, I'll semi-protect again for longer, and keep doing that until they give up. -- Atama頭 16:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

2  Possible socks worth keeping an eye on: Poemshappygreat (talk · contribs), Dosamasala (talk · contribs) (note the edit summaries). Unfortunately, they are editing on what seems to be very broad ranges so IPBlock is not an option. -- Luk ^talk 16:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, are all the accounts on a very wide range, or is it just including these two that make it a wide range? But it does seem both of those counts are probably related. These accounts were created before he tried to disrupt the Korean language article though, which tells me he may have already been blocked for something. Most people don't start socking until they run into trouble--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Checkuser so I have no idea, I've been blocking on clear behavioral evidence. I will point out that Ieodoiskorean wasn't blocked when Travelguidewi began editing the article. One of the many reasons for creating a sockpuppet is to create the illusion of support, for example, if you're trying to insert something into an article and get reverted, you can create a second account to do it, and now it looks like consensus favors inclusion. It can also be done to get around 3RR, but in this case with edits being days apart I don't think that was the motive. I really don't know what the deal is. It might be worth actually creating a report at WP:SPI so that other sleepers from this editor can be found. All of the accounts have edited recently so there should be plenty of info for Checkusers to compare. -- Atama頭 22:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently a case already open, I added to it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ieodoiskorean--Crossmr (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Other socks have been blocked now, and apparently an IP address (they didn't say which). There was no comment on whether or not these all fell into a usable range or not.--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my sentence was not clear. The 2 socks matched closely some that were already blocked, but didn't edit enough to decide whether it was mere chance or the same person. The dynamic IP range where everybody is located cannot (IMO) be blocked easily. -- Luk ^talk 06:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well that's too bad. He seems to have cooled off a little. We'll see if a week or two later he's done or if he wants to start back up again.--Crossmr (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Question on PI

I'm not quite sure on this so I thought I'd ask. If a Wikipedian posts their own personal information on their Wikipedia user page, is that allowable or is it a policy breach? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No, there's no general policy against it. As per WP:USERPAGE#Personal and privacy-breaching material, users are cautioned about doing so, but there's no rule they cannot. There's a general practice of revdel/oversight when young minors post too much personal information. In the latter situation, my usual practice is to contact someone at oversight rather than post it on a noticeboard (which would otherwise defeat the very issue being looked into). Singularity42 (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There can also be issues when a userpage is obviously being used for promotional purposes. Are you suggesting that's the case here? And of course, there is the __NOINDEX__ template which helps defeat that. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts, and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content". Additionally, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators". That generally implies not being coy about precisely which editor one is looking for sanctions on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Block needed for edit-warring

User:Me-123567-Me needs a block for edit warring. In short: Me and User:117Avenue get it on on Yukon general election, 2011, neither behave very well but I give it to 117 on points, in part also because Me reports 117 for edit-warring, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:117Avenue_reported_by_User:Me-123567-Me_.28Result:_Declined.29. The complaint is declined by C.Fred for all the right reasons; C.Fred reverts to an earlier, pre-war version (which happens to be 117's preferred version). Moreover, Fastily rightly says that the next one to revert deserves an immediate block. Unfortunately, I only saw that after I had reverted Me's second (!) revert after Fastily's note, and after 117 had--apparently--stepped away from this rather stupid war.

Anyway, Me was whining, in my opinion, going to the 3R board (being just as guilty), and I don't want to be whined at for 'being involved'. I would like an uninvolved admin to look at this and (hopefully) enforce Fastily's warning by blocking Me for a little while, long enough to where they know that edit-warring is not OK, and restoring the article to what it was before the edit war. And, of course, suggesting to these two that they need to etc. etc. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Me-1234567-Me is at his third revert for the night. The question at this point is, what's his next act? Does he go to the talk page for discussion, or does he make a fourth revert? If it's the latter, then it's an easy, obvious block for 3RR violation. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, C.Fred--nothing escapes you! As far as I'm concerned, they don't need to break that clear line: they are guilty of edit warring in the letter and the spirit, and seem to have no interest in (or patience for) consensus. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they both need a 24-hour time out. This is ridiculous! LadyofShalott 03:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I started a second discussion, but 117Avnue refuses to discuss it. He simply thinks he's right. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep--now 117 is also playing the part of the fool. Maybe 36 hours? Lady, are you u n i n v o l v e d ? Drmies (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I admit I could and should be a cooler head, but it doesn't help when 177 doesn't bargain in good faith. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. They were acting in good faith, at least on the talk page--and until they also lost their cool. Me, I have a word of advice for you: convention counts for something, and being in a hurry to change something is probably not a good idea. We're not writing this thing for tomorrow or tonight: there is no rush. Find a consensus. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

They both have 24 hours to think about things. LadyofShalott 03:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And another 48 hours before they can change the article: another admin has full-protected it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(As a note, calling the editor "Me" is a bit confusing if you miss the username at the top. "Me was whining", "...and (hopefully) enforce Fastily's warning by blocking Me for a little while" and "Me, I have a word of advice for you" had me very confused for a moment.) - SudoGhost 08:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson

There is currently a DRV pertaining to an AFD 4 years ago. At the time of the AFD Ernest Emerson was a featured article and the discussion featured around the question its qualification as such. The article was kept and the AFD followed by a FAR which retained its status. The DRV is going down the same route discussing content and FAR status as the original AFD closure cannot be contended. I am also concerned with the long inactivity of the nominator appearing out of nowhere to do this DRV. The main contributor to the FAR has asked me to facilitate a speedy close. I can't do that myself as I have commented already after seeing the DRV advertised on CSCWEM's talkpage. Can someone speedy close the DRV or alternatively point me to something I missed. 17:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I speedy closed it - you can't challenge a keep this far out. They can file a new AfD if they want. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt the AFD would gain much traction... But people are within their rights to do silly things. --Jayron32 18:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

An AFD on a featured article? What did today's date change to 4/1? Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Last night, my fancy "atomic clock" said the date was December 7. I looked around just to make sure I wasn't standing on the USS Nimitz. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wildthing, FAs have been deleted through AfD before. The FA criteria say nothing about notability, and delegates (including me) cannot take notability concerns into account when closing the nomination. That said, modern FAs are held to a higher standard than those from years ago, and modern ones are generally required to have a lot of reliable sources, which means the articles meet the GNG. Older FAs don't necessarily meet that standard. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Fox#SPR, Society for Psychotherapy Research

Resolved

Not all that sure if this is the right place; can someone have a look into this and tell me what in the bloody hell is going on here? Three "different" professors all for the recreation of an article deleted as a copyvio? — Joseph Fox 07:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I happen to be a member of SPR and I know these three professors personally - I have no doubt this really is them making a co-ordinated appeal. I'll reply there and try and offer my services. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It would appear to me that four bona fide members of the Society for Psychotherapy Research wondered why the article - a neutral description of the Society itself - was deleted, especially as they created and held the rights to the material. From the full disclosure of their relationship to the Society on your talk-page , I very much doubt there is any issue of sock-puppetry. The problem is the article (I can see it as cached by Google) was, word for word, from The Society for Psychotherapy Research's "about us" page. (edit conflict) Looks like Admin Kim Dent-Brown is on the case, I'll butt out now. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If, as you say, they had created "and held the rights to the material" I am unsurprised the content was deleted as a copyvio - unless there was a specific release of the content compliant to WP's licenses, it would seem that the action was in good faith. I suggest that Kim Dent-Browns assistance includes ensuring the content that duplicates the subjects website is released under WP's licenses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Shukur92

Shukur92 (talk · contribs) has made some 25 edits today which have a political agenda related to the Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict. I have reverted all of them. Recommend a 24h block and to refer him to wherever we discuss this issue. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

IP 31.171.20.22 seems to be related to this, and is perhaps the same user. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup work needed, possible sockpuppetry

I stumbled across the work of new users Where R U? (talk · contribs) and Mademoiselle-Utopiste (talk · contribs) today, both of which are busy renaming articles about Franche-Comté‎ to "Free County", apparently without any previous discussion. Some articles have caught editor's watchlists and have been moved back, but there is still a lot of work to do. The fact that both these users started editing recently and jumped immediately into these actions seems fishy to me. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• That's not good. All of it needs to be reverted: such drastic changes require verification and certainly consensus. I'm relatively new at this job, and I'd like to hear from other admins, but I think both should be blocked at least temporarily for the suspicion of sockpuppetry and enacting serious changes without consensus. Other admins? Do we push the button here? I'm going to go and revert some more. Thank you Andrwsc. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll AGF and guess that it's an editor arriving here from fr.wiki, perhaps. I'd wait for a response on one of those talk pages before blocking. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked the Mademoiselle as a sock of Where R U: it quacks like a duck in a half a dozen languages, maternelle and paternelle. I am not going to block Where R U right now, though they probably deserve one, because I want to give them a chance to weigh in here. Between Andrwsc, another editor, and myself I think we've undone the damage. I am waiting to see now--if Where R U (or a sock) returns and does the same stuff, I guess we'll have to block and move protect, and at that point we can certainly block them all. I am curious though as to what Where R U might bring up as a defense--I think I know what to expect, but I love surprises. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There's an IP 82.250.52.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to add to the mix, too. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't CheckUser be a good idea to see if there's any more ducks in the pond? WikiPuppies! (bark) 16:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) The timing suggests very strongly that the two accounts are sockpuppets of each other. Also, on the French Wikipedia, User:Where R U? (but not User:Mademoiselle-Utopiste) has been indeffed for sockpuppetry. I suggest checkuser attention (also taking into account the apparent connection to Roo-70 (talk · contribs)), followed by a report to the French Wikipedia.
• Given the disruption caused by such extensive moving, I suggest an immediate ban on controversial page moves and on moving more than 1 article per day, for both editors. Hans Adler 16:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Good call, Hans--holy moly. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Faux-nez". I love that expresseion. Deli nk (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Where R U?. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support a ban of moving controversial pages, and moving only one page per day. Phearson (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It'sAlwaysLupus

Recently this user changed "Disco-pop" to "Nu-disco" on the Moves Like Jagger article. He used no reliable sources, and he used WP:OR has an explanation. I reverted it. There was no edit war or anything, however I checked his contributions and noticed there were a TON of edits where he had gone into articles and changed Disco to Nu-disco, or British disco, etc, (primarily in the external links section) without any reliable sources. I find this disruptive and I think he needs to go and revert all of his edits, because he used no sources and when I questioned him he used WP:OR. I would have reverted the edits myself but there was A TON. Nicholas (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(Before anyone asks, Nicholas already notified IAL.)

I don't see a problem here besides your own issues with the other users. Ironically enough the same user who is accusing the other users of OR pushing and generally disruptive behavior is doing the same things. But I'm no judge here, though. Please note that Wikipedia is not an anarchy and personal attacks such as this one are not tolerated around here. Case closed. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned with this editor, after this exchange at WQA. I found the exchange somewhat ironic, considering that IAL was very sarcastic and engaged in a borderline personal attack (calling an editor "arrogant"); keep in mind this was at WQA, where IAL was the one creating the request. In addition, IAL seemed very quick to assume the worst from the other editor, taking comments out of context, which is again ironic since the request was complaining about a lack of good faith from the other editor. To their credit, I was treated courteously in the WQA discussion, so I have not been the recipient of this behavior myself. Looking at the history of IAL's user talk page, I see the removal of legitimate notices (AfD nominations, 3RR warnings, etc.) with edit summaries like:

• "i replied on your talk page, i ain't need crap on MAH talk page du"
• "as a joke funny, but i don't want these pranks on my talk page, cats, archiving"
• "your trolling attacks are not welcome, be aware that I'm gonna report you to the Jimbo Wales"
• "-stalking and trolling comment"
• "just getting rid of the garbage"
• "flush"

Needless to say, I don't have a great deal of confidence that this editor is interested in collaborating with other editors. -- Atama頭 07:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Atama, you would be suprised how friendly and "soft" I can be! ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's all I can say, I didn't even know about this, I wondered why is talk page was blank. Nicholas (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering too. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's because all of that is old and when someone gives me a warning, I actually take notes and learn from it. You, however, delete the warnings without even acknowledging them and give a sarcastic remark to the editer, and you don't learn from it, you do it again. Nicholas (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I will say that an editor is allowed to remove warnings from their own user talk page per WP:BLANKING; the removal is an implicit acknowledgement of the warnings. What aren't allowed, even on an editor's own user talk page, are false accusations of bad behavior. And IAL, I'm guessing that from your user name you're a fan of House (so am I), but you've been acting a bit too much like the good doctor in your communication with others. ;) -- Atama頭 04:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well you know the rules. Your user talk page is your "castle", but apparently someone didn't get the rules. Haha... why, thank you but you know it's nothing personal. :) ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Note to Administrators: Is request apparently made by a 14-year-old person on the Administrator' noticeboard still considered reliable? I mean Wikipedia is not a playground, you have to accept as a Wikipedian (or as a Bureaucrat, it doesn't matter) the laws of Wikipedia and you simply cannot draw conclusions and revert other users' edits "just because you personally don't like it (topic, genre, etc)" and/or suffering from the anger management issues? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We judge people on their actions, not their age. I wouldn't doubt that we've had admins younger than that. Your "playground" comments are out of line, and you're skimming close to personal attacks again. Do you think it's helpful to go back to last year to dig up dirt on the reporting editor? How about this: knock it off, work on your own poor treatment of other editors, and stop treating people with condescension. And before you ask, I'm in my 30s. -- Atama頭 04:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course we do. We would accept every user who is contributing to this great project even if he/she is 3 year old. However, if you act in "accordance" to your age, just like this, you should seriously reconsider if you really belong here. Don't you think? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's really old. Do I act that way now? And I didn't remove the genres because I "personally don't like it", I removed them because they were not properly sourced. I reported you here because I think you need to go back and revert all of those edits you made.

And about the anger management thing, EVERYBODY in this world gets angry. It's a common emotion. So what I got angry and out of control? I'm only human like everyone else here. And to use that against me on Wikipedia? I can't. Nicholas (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to not understand Wikipedia and Wikipedia principles in general. If you let your emotions influence your editing process then you are basically disrupting this whole project. If this is "old", then following problems with you are pretty ancient, indeed; Nicky Nicky, why are you using the same excuses? Avoid that WP:OTHERCRAP attitude already, it's not an answer nor argument. Use your wasted time to do something more productive instead, like creating a new article. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are old. And why are you going off topic? This section is about YOU, not me. Quit holding old edits against me. This section is about YOU. Take notes to the things that Atama said. You clearly don't want to work this out, instead you go digging through my old edits and givng excuses of why I shouldn't be here.

Also, take a look in the mirror before you go through my history telling me I don't belong here or whatever.

If you are just gonna keep replying about me, then I'm not gonna reply back, because it's obvious, like Atama said above, you have no interest whatsoever in working with others on here. Nicholas (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You should put your angst-ridden energy to something more productive, like for example creating a new article for Wikipedia. Seriously, kid, this is going nowhere. Maybe you should just take Wikibreak for your own good – I'm telling you this as your friend. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ItsAlwaysLupus, you were already advised by Atama once to refrain from further condescension towards other editors; this is a final warning. Continuing use of terms like "kid", "Nicky Nicky", "angst-ridden energy", will result in a block, as will any further comments that are canonical examples of condescending terms of address: "for your own good", "I'm telling you this as your friend"—seriously? Attempting to goad another editor into making intemperate comments in response to your own faux-friendly advice is not a valid dispute resolution strategy. I hope and expect that Nickyp88 will stick with the course of action he has already outlined above—that is, that he will not respond to further inappropriate attacks from you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You're far more patient than I would have been based on the brutal and intentional WP:NPA's above. Of course, now that he's "promised" below, we can block for sarcasm on-sight, correct? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you and I want you to know that this won't happen again. I promise. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin or involved in this at all, but I just have to check: Other people are noticing how ludicrously uncivil and obnoxious IAL is being, right? Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) I was going to remain silent, but after reviewing IAL's arrogant commentary, along with unambiguous genre-warring, I have serious doubts regarding IAL's ability to edit in a collegial environment. Calling another editor's age into the equation only reinforces those doubts, and brings IAL into the arena of Wikibullying. While there may be no actual edit war ongoing here, WP:ATAEW would be good review material for IAL, especially the sections on WP:MYWAY and WP:MOREX. Given that IAL has already received warnings from admins, my recommendation would be for IAL to take a Wikibreak, before one is forced on him. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind advice, I feel like a real human now. Human who is suitable for this highly well-mannered collegial environment. Yes, this all was highly unprofessional of me. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously dude, take a WikiBreak. You're not doing yourself any favours here. Step back, take a break, maybe work on some template requests, but you are not making any friends and not looking like a productive member of the community here. VanIsaac_WS 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern I really appreciate it. Also don't call me a "dude" since it *could* be technically incorrect. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's enough. In addition to the sarcasm laid on with a trowel here, ItsAlwaysLupus' first edit after his last comment to this thread here was to go back to reverting edits by Nickyp88 (Nicholas)—the edit warring that led to the discussion here in the first place. In addition to reverting to his preferred genre description for the artist Kylie Minogue ("nu-disco" versus "disco") – a categorization which neither editor has gone out of their way to source, making IAL's allegation of 'original research' ring hollow – his revert also changed two correctly-aimed wikilinks to instead point to redirects for no apparent reason. I have blocked IAL for 24 hours for personal attacks and generally combative editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Fellow admin chiming in to support block. ItsAlwaysLupus's behaviour has been unpleasant, condescending and unproductive. Paradoxically, given IAL's issues with Nicholas's age, it is the latter who has been behaving in a more mature fashion! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be getting it. He's once again called Nickyp88 "the kid" on his talk page ([49]) and followed up with an accusation (presumably aimed at me) of libel: [50]. Against my better judgement, I have not withdrawn his talk page editing privileges or indefinitely blocked him for legal threats, but I have cautioned him against further policy violations. If he makes it to the end of his current block, he's going to be on a very short leash. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP address

Please review this edit and the ones around it, including the edit summary that instructs me to engage in a sexual act with the editor. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You do know that an editor is entitled to remove warnings from their userpage - it is considered notification that it has been read - restoring them is a pretty aggressive action. I'm also pretty sure that "fuck me mate" is not an invitation for coitus, it's a statement of exasperation. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Please review the two days worth of edits by this IP account. It's on a vandalism tear. Every edit has been reverted as vandalism, either by a bot or a live editor. The GRG-related and occasionally vulgar edit sumaries show this to be part of a campaign. There's an ArbCom case and bans in place about topics covered by GRG. (GRG stands for Gerontology Research Group). Thanks. David in DC (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"The GRG-related and occasionally vulgar edit sumaries show this to be part of a campaign. There's an ArbCom case and bans in place about topics covered by GRG. (GRG stands for Gerontology Research Group).'' David in DC, this past summer, I have been busy away from Wikipedia, but to let you know, I am now an official GRG (Gerontology Research Group) correspondent as of last month. I was provided this material about your smearing comments. I don't know what kind of internal campaign is going on but please do not include the official group, Gerontology Research Group, into the mix. It is clear that you are implying that GRG is involved in this so-called campaign. That behavior from you will not be tolerated. The ArbCom case you are referencing about did not have "bans in place about topics covered by GRG". That is slander right off the bat as it's utterly untrue. The ArbCom case only addressed the suite of longevity articles themselves and the principal editors involved; nothing explicitly saying that there are "bans in place about topics covered by GRG". I have no choice but, be forewarned, any further allegations about GRG itself by you will be met with taking action at Arbitration Enforcement, up to including the recommendation that you be either topic-banned in longevity articles or be banned from Wikipedia. Sorry for the strong response. Regards, CalvinTy 19:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• IP blocked for disruptive editing. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism to my talk page

Please review this. edit. It's part of a campaign I mention in the ANI request directly above this one. David in DC (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Solved by NW in thread above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and incivility on Neighborhoods (Blink-182 album) by Ufausti

Since this is a mixed bag of problems, I wasn't sure where to take it. So I stumbled into a mess doing some recent changes patrolling (when don't I). Apologies in advance for the length of this; I'm attempting to be very clear as I've had some problems with that recently. Since I don't actually follow the article in question, I may have some of the backstory on this off.

First I saw this personal attack and then I found the round of edits that are the source of Uafausti's ire. Apparently, on the album page, there has been some contention about the track list: media outlets are reporting (possibly) incorrect information and fans of the band are getting different info from other sources. I got the impression that their info is probably coming from places that wouldn't meet the RS policy but I'm not certain. Scanning the talk page I saw that the consensus has been to just leave the track list as it is and update accordingly if it turns out to be incorrect. The most recent source is a screenshot of a tracklist in iTunes. At first this was entered without any context but it's now been sourced to a Facebook post by a member of the band. I know we can use info from confirmed Twitter accounts from my work on film articles but I'm not sure about Facebook. In any event the article has been semi-protected recently to prevent the addition of this information, until a major music related media outlet picks it up or discredits it and encourage discussion of the issue.

So then we get back to Uafausti. As you can see from the page history, there has been edit warring over the information despite attempts to direct editors to the talk page. The actual edit (most recent diff as of my typing this) the user is making has problems beyond the factual information in terms of site wide MOS standards (capitalization, links instead of refs). Of course that could be cleaned up, if the content weren't a problem, and based on the talk page, it seems to be.

Uafausti, after a few more reverts, did finally go to the talk page, but with more personal attacks and very little helpful conversation (bonus points for logic fallacies and potentially incorrect inferences). So here I am. Is it a content dispute; maybe the source is fine? Edit Warring? Incivility? All of the above and something I haven't thought of? Beats me. I think I should stop doing recent changes, though. I always walk into the veritable shit storm, if you'll pardon the expression. Millahnna (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved, and I might be able to help give some background info. This is an upcoming album by a very popular group, and there's been a lot of speculation about it ever since it was first announced, with information changing weekly (if not daily) and sources coming in from all angles, some of the decent (WP:RS) variety and other of the bottom-of-the-barrel (Twitter, forums, etc) variety. A small handful of editors have done a lot to weed out the speculation and poor sources and keep the article in decent shape as it develops. The latest source of contention is the track listing: The one currently presented in the article was reported by several reliable sources (including Allmusic and Alternative Press) about 2 weeks ago. Evidently the original source for these reports was this document from Universal Music Group, the publisher and parent company of the record label. Apparently the bassist (Mark Hoppus) said on Twitter that it wasn't finalized yet, so we had a flurry of IPs coming in removing the track listing and the sources. Recently Hoppus posted a screenshot of an itunes playlist to his Facebook and Google+ accounts showing what might be a track list, however there's no caption or announcement confirming that it is. So again we have a flurry of IPs and SPAs changing the track listing, removing the third-party sources, and claiming this image as a source. A talk page discussion was started, and the consensus seems to be either to leave it as it was with the third-party sources or to simply remove the whole thing since there is so much contention and possibly conflicting sources. In the meantime the article was semi-protected to help prevent the IP and SPA disruption. However, Uafausti doesn't seem interested in discussion and has descended into edit-warring, incivility, and personal attacks ([51], [52], [53], [54]). I've been involved up to this point but am now choosing to step aside, having allowed myself to be drawn into edit wars before and not wishing to repeat that mistake. I think the talk page discussion supports either sticking to the third-party sources or leave the track list out entirely, but I'll leave it up to the community to decide.. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The entire track list should be removed until the album is released, since it violates WP:CRYSTAL, point 5. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've hidden it inside comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems so obvious now that you've done it. Heh. Thanks Ken. Millahnna (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've placed a final warning about civility/personal attacks on his talk page. I was tempted to just block right away, but it has been ten hours since his last edit, so let's see if he comes back and continues or changes his attitude (I'm probably assuming too much good faith here, but I'm a kind fellow...). Anyone is welcome to disagree with me and issue an actual block without any objection from me! either way (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Right about the time I posted this he stopped editing (just before I dropped him the ANI notice I think). Maybe he walked away and counted to 10. Thanks for helping me out with my unfortunate tendency to find bouts of weirdness that I find hard to categorize. Maybe I should call them "poop tornadoes" in polite company? Millahnna (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the extreme irony in that he edited Friendship a couple of years ago, and now has sunk to the massive WP:NPA violations noted above? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

He's back. Same revert. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Either way has blocked for one month after that revert. -- Atama頭 19:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Golb12

Golb12 (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)

Golb12 refspammed quite a number of articles likely as promotional. Another user removed the refspam and reported it at Wiki Project spam. Subsequently, Golb12 has adopted the attitude that if his link can't be included then he will remove all constructive edits that he has done. I told him that he could use other sources to help improve the articles but he insists on doing mass removals now. The contributions that he is removing look sound and could probably be sourced given time. I believe he is in violation of our users' agreement and need help getting him to stop acting destructively.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan

A POV-warrior Scythian77 (talk · contribs) keeps removing relevant information about Cricket in Afghanistan from the Afghanistan article. Can someone please warn him to stop this. He accuses me of being some kind of a "game" promoter with an agenda but I'm not that. In fact, I never watch the sport but today it is the most popular game because millions of Afghan refugees who returned from Pakistan to Afghanistan brought this sport with them. Even this and this Afghan news site shows how popular the sport of cricket is among the Afghans.--Dupree fan (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, simple as that, and there's editing and discussing going on--little for an admin to do here. Let me make a few notes: Scythian has no business removing the entire section, as another editor pointed out on the talk page (Scythian has not visited the talk page yet, but neither has Dupree). Also, the links you give above in no way establish reliably that cricket is one of the two most popular sports--you'll have to do better than that. But, again, that is not a matter for here. I propose this be closed until someone actually does something calling for action--an accusation of having an agenda is not serious enough, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

New account creating a bunch of other accounts

Resolved

 – All blocked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In the user creation log today, I observed User:Little Red Corvette Guy creating a bunch of other accounts; see account creation log for this user. I asked the creator why he was doing this, but he failed to respond. Thoughts? User has been notified. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Do I hear the unmistakable quacking of MascotGuy? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, seems clear to me. I have blocked all the accounts. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why haven't we had checkusers shut down his IP so he can't register accounts anymore?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MascotGuy suggests he repeatedly changes IPs. It might be a temporary fix to block a current IP or range, but considering his persistence, unlikely to be useful in the long term. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but are these account farms even him?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It has been going on for years. There's an edit filter setup to detect his account creation. Talking to him is a futile effort. Just block and ignore him until the next day. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

He's all over the CIDR spectrum, making it impossible to make any single rangeblock to stop him. –MuZemike 21:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

why are non-autoconfirmed accounts allowed to create others? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• An excellent question. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• To annoy the hell out of people who watch the new user log, perhaps? When I see MascotGuy pop up, I don't even bother saying anything beyond "get the accounts he created too", and it almost always gets responded to within seconds. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason is so accounts with inappropriate usernames (i.e. company names or website names) can create a more appropriately-named account after being blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but is there any reason for non autoconfirmed accounts to create more than one extra account? TNXMan 14:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any good reason for anyone (aside from ACC folks) to create more than two accounts in the same day? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd support lowering the threshhold for account creation from 6 to 2 accounts per IP/account per 24 hours. Really, the only people who go above 2 accounts are sockpuppeteers. The ACC folks (like myself) all have (or had, in the case of admins) 'accountcreator', so they can ignore the limit anyway. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

For non-autoconfirmed accounts, couldn't the limit even be 1 per day? I can't see any reason for them to need more than that. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but shouln't this conversation be on the policy section of the Village Pump? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It can be here, but lets RfC...--Cerejota (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Lower the limit of account creation in a 24 hour period by non-autoconfirmed accounts

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 discussion at WP:ANI on sockpuppets creating other sockpuppets seems to have consensus to lower this limit. The reason not to eliminate this ability altogether is to allow for a bad username to be changed by the user as they familiarize with WP:USERNAME policy. There are two proposals, one to lower the limit to two accounts per 24 hour period, the other to one account per 24 period.Cerejota (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Two accounts - Otherwise, inappropriately named accounts cannot create a per-policy account except by waiting 24 hours. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Shouldn't this be on VPP or a subpage of WP:RfC or somewhere that's not ANI? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a discussion is already happening at VPP, so the RFC should be there; definitely not for this board. —SpacemanSpiff
    • (edit conflict)There is already a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Remove_ability_for_new_users_to_create_other_accounts, perhaps the RFC should happen at that discussion? Monty₈₄₅ 20:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Restored TPO vio issue

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.

---

Bringing the WP:TPO issue with LikeLakers2 back to the active page as it was prematurely archived without resolution.

The scope of this issue is 8 WP:TPO violations - each of which stand on their own;

TPO1x,TPO2x,TPO3x,TPO4x,TPO5x,TPO6x,TPO7x,TPO8x

He was warned by Ryan Vesey after TPO5x to stop yet continued, and was warned againand continued.

In addition, there are these userpage edits which do not fall within the scope of WP:UP#OWN;

UP1,UP2,UP3, UP4,

Thanks all, Srobak (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is a continuation of this previous ANI thread, which included a proposal for an interaction ban between Srobak and Likelakers2 and was archived without closure. Perhaps that should be restored and this section added to it, but I don't know the neatest way to do that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

All 8 of those TPO diffs are before his warning for dickering around with other's comments (and a few of those, such as fixing your archive, were even helpful). He has not done it since he was warned. The three edits to Ezekiel153746's user page were clearly okay with the user as the user continued to edit his page afterwards. The final diff ("UP4") was a straightforward category fix. Not much misconduct there. Srobak, I suggest you leave LikeLakers2 alone and I'm sure he will leave you alone, too. fish&karate 13:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The pertinent issue was restored - less the focus-shifting clutter. An IB doesn't resolve the issue and is redundant as there has not been any interaction for some time. TPO's 1-5 were conducted before the warn, 6-8 after (like already stated above). As for "were even helpful", please see the opening line of WP:TPO. It is presumptuous to say Ezekiel153746 was "ok with the edits" simply because he continued afterwards as LikeLakers2 continued posting to, editing and reverting edits on my and other users talk pages after being told to do none of the above. UP4 was a fix that was not necessary and was undone afterwards. The issue is not "leaving each other alone", but is the WP:TPO violations and UP edits listed above - which stand on their own. Srobak (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Warning - 18:31, 28 August 2011
• TPO 6 - 20:06, 27 August 2011
• TPO 8 - 21:06, 27 August 2011
• TPO 7 - 21:23, 28 August 2011

So, TPO7 was after the warning. But this was not a bad edit, it was in good faith and was trying to fix an issue with a user's talk page. fish&karate 14:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That was the 2nd warning. 6 and 8 happened after the first, as did some of the UP edits. If you are invoking WP:GF for 7, then WP:TPO needs to be re-written as there is a contradiction in place. Srobak (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Srobak, I read over your talk page and you seem (to me) to be rather rude and confrontational with your fellow users. This will not encourage people to want to help you. fish&karate 14:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this. Please don't shifting the focus. If you have another issue you wish to address separately, then please do so. We don't need more unnecessary focus shifting and cluttering up of a perfectly valid issue. Srobak (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

But it is not a valid issue; you seem to be trying to get a user in trouble despite their having done nothign wrong since being warned. It is not shifting the focus; your generally uncollegiate attitude seems to be at the root of this. Let it drop. fish&karate 14:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be an inactionable and perhaps overly aggressive report - there's no clear TPO violation, only one editor who doesn't want to interact with another editor on their talk page. Fish and karate's right, the underlying issue here appears to be that Srobak is in a prickly state and lashing out. A certain amount of prickliness is usually tolerated by the community but all the same most people's experience here will improve if they try not to get into conflicts with others. It's not immediately obvious what brought them to this point but it shouldn't matter. Formal interaction bans are usually a bad idea. Informally, anyone is free to ask another person to avoid their talk page and having done so the other ought to respect the request, save perhaps for the most essential of notices. That would seem to solve the problem, no? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. This is pointless to continue here. I see it will just have to be escalated as folks can't seem to maintain focus. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As you have talked about escalation, you obviously need to read WP:BOOMERANG, as well as WP:DEADHORSE. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The topic was archived because the community did not feel that it needed any administrator action (except perhaps for an interaction ban between the two of you). Please read WP:DEADHORSE, and take note. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"I see it will just have to be escalated as folks can't seem to maintain focus." I sure hope I'm misunderstanding this, but in case I am not, DO NOT ESCALATE this. We are keeping perfect focus, and by now that focus is on you and this continued badgering. Your focus is on these TP edits, and (as has been pointed out to you) this horse is dead. Do not escalate this, do not pursue this any further--and do not suggest that we are condoning everything that Lakers did or does simply because we won't, at your whim, start handing out blocks. Let me propose a modified interaction ban:

User:Srobak will stop complaining about User:LikeLakers2. No complaints allowed anywhere--on talk pages, noticeboards, article talk pages, template documentation pages, and in user boxes.

Sorry Srobak, but you have taken this farther than it should have gone, and it's time to quit. BTW, LikeLakers2, I hope you have stopped messing with other people's user pages, even if out of good will--it does not look good. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why stop with just one TPO user then? Why not impose such protection for everyone who invariably vio TPO? You appear to be under the assumption that this is a problem with a specific editor - it is not. He is not the first to have vio'ed it, won't be the last, and isn't the first or last that I have warned and/or reported for it. The only reason I re-listed it here is because it was left un-resolved. That's not a very good position for admins to take on policy vios. Srobak (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It was resolved, just not in the way you wanted. I don't know what kind of protection you're talking about, but whatever that is, it is not a matter for this board. Drop the stick. The horse is dead. So is the parrot. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see a "Resolved" tag on the earlier report and I don't see one on this one either. Just because one or two people say "drop it" doesn't mean that the situation is miraculously fixed. It just means they don't feel like dealing with it under the provisions of the policy - which sets a very bad precedent. Srobak (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

... and the case to the banhammer has been unlocked... Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Because of a discussion and because I'm asking questions? Don't threaten me. If you think this conversation is grounds for enacting a ban, then do it - otherwise stop taking pot-shots. Srobak (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Thisthat2011 back again

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

---

I gave it a few hours of sleep and thought but this has to be nipped at the bud:

Fresh out of a three week India topic ban, it seems User:Thisthat2011 insist in contentiousness and combativeness on India related topics, in this case Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks (and in my talk page). The focus of his displeasure seems to be the solid overturning of an article rename that he disagrees with, and his inability to participate during that process due to the topic ban. He feels I was personally attacking him, and that I was uncivil. I don't have a specific proposal in mind, but it is clear to me the topic ban had zero effect on Thisthat2011's behavior, there is no inkling of repentance, remorse, self-reflection or any indication of progress towards a more positive editing behavior. I think a topic ban of greater length, or some other measure that allows him to reconsider and protects editors (like me) with having to deal with potentially disruptive situations. --Cerejota (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say this user is presenting the whole thing in extreme bad faith right from the beginning. I don't know how suddenly he started this whole thing in the first place.

"The focus of his displeasure seems to be the solid overturning of an article rename that he disagrees with, and his inability to participate during that process due to the topic ban." Again incorrect. Once the vote is over, I have nothing more to say about that or vote in my absence, other than that the user has an extremely assuming mind. So let me present my side here:

There was a vote on the mentioned page about change in title. The first vote was for including the word 'terrorist' in the title, the second was against it.

In between the gentleman connected other events and put forth an extremely biased question, indicating somehow connection of saffron terror and how I would like it if the word terrorist is added in saffron terror article - this when I could not reply due to a ban. This is an extremely sly behavior according to me. Once the discussion is archived, this mischief stays in archive and no amount of apology could change it.

Not only that was not enough, the user still says that "However, I support neutral titles for both 2006 Malegaon bombings and 2008 Mumbai bombings, but you wanted this article renamed to a non-neutral version." - Now what is that supposed to mean other than anything personal? Does it mean that the user is touchy even to others giving opinion during the vote? Did he really think that connecting random issues will affect votes either way? Even now, he continues how "The difference between you and me is that you support pushing aside neutrality when it puts your side in good light, but want neutrality when it would put your side on a bad light." This is baffling to say the least.

So where have I commented after change in title once the second vote was done? Nowhere, notwithstanding of "the solid overturning of an article rename" nomenclature.

Hopefully, some admin would like to point out to the user, as mentioned earlier, that it is better to avoid assuming things about others particularly as a vote is going on, as also in absence of others; that is why I put a message on his page- if he understands this part( which is unclear), its purpose is served notwithstanding comments from User:Sitush against it to block the message going through.

The only thing I still don't understand is his apparent aversion to understand on how unfair his views are still and perhaps his belief that somehow my views expressed during the vote could have tilted the decision in the other way but for mention of saffron terror, and how editors on wikipedia are somehow feel about saffron terror.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 12:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this debate had to be restarted in the first place. TT2011, if it is your intention to impress upon Cerejota's views, or to end the debate with you getting some "higher ground", no, this is not the place. I wish Cerejota had worded his comments more lightly, but such a strong personal attack by TT2011 was totally uncalled for. Lynch7 13:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:IDIDNOTGETMYWAY seems to be TT2011's main issue. I'm deeply concerned that TT2011 does not have ability to work within a collaborative environment, and statements like the above link only go to prove it. There is no excuse for that behaviour, ever. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Which also reminds me how the user got away, with all the people watching, for his arbitrary questions and later personal attack, and is served actually "wish"y-washy statements.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 13:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, sometimes editors have to come to good sense and drop the stick. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to settle personal scores. Lynch7 13:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I had also hoped that TT would use his 3-week topic ban to go refine his editing chops on articles about ornithology, or Chilean naval history, or any other topic that strikes his fancy outside of India, where he could edit with less emotion. Instead, he did zero editing other than talk about his topic ban,[55] and post twice at Christian terrorism; incidentally, regarding Hinduism which he had been specifically told was within his topic ban. And the very day his topic ban ended dove back into highly contentious India topics with a personal attack. So far as showing no remorse, one of his next acts was to confront an admin with smugness claiming that people had seen the light in his absence[56], although it's clear from the link he provides that the Talk discussion does not reinforce his point at all. He continues to miss the point, claim some nebulous moral high ground, and express both hostility and self-righteousness. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I do feel I had an incredible measure of restraint in this situation. Any in-artful wording is simply a result of a lack of coffee. However, I would gladly hear from Lynch - and others so inclined - about ways on how to handle situations like these better on the future (I would prefer this we done in my talk page if s/he is comfortable, to keep this thread focused). On this actual case I have little to add, except asking an uninvolved admin to {{archive}} close the thread at Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks, and of course, to stress the need for action in this case. --Cerejota (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How can anyone talk about Hinduism at Christian terrorism? Please be specific. This Christian/Hindu terrorism contentions are not something to be considered lightly. Or are you jut talking? Christian terrorism was not within topic ban, which you are spinning as within.

"dove back into highly contentious India topics with a personal attack" - I disagree, and also would like to know, why he was silent on personal attack on me.

There is no moral high ground expected by me out of this by the way. Let me also know what you editors have in mind.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 14:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Salvio made it pretty clear when he said what he said here (I haven't seen the edits in contention, but an edit regarding Hinduism anywhere would most likely be covered in the ban). Lynch7 14:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I literally just posted your edit history above; do you not recall typing the following during your topic ban:

“ ...though I would like to point out tolerance of people could be understood in a part considering that Hinduism is not even recognized as a religion on many European and Islamic countries. Perhaps a guy like Daniel Brannan, Chairman of the Kootenai County Constitution Party, could be exemplary in a USA town for his views(like 'the bestial thing'), regardless of its affects on image of Hinduism. ”

- Revisión de 19:17, 14 Agostu 2011 [57]

You disagree on my characterization of your diving back into controversial India topics right after your ban expired? Did you not dive into 2008 Mumbai attacks that day? Is that not a "controversial" article? Did you not use the phrase "Please keep your filth in your mind before vomiting it out. It stinks."[58]?

This is exactly the sort of coy "Huh? What? What'd I do?" that makes TT so aggravating to deal with. He is terribly fond of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and as denies misbehaviour even when it is blatant and linked/quoted right in front of him. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly (now if you'll notice, the debate has already digressed from the Personal attacks thingy, the main point of this whole thread). Lynch7 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have a high-level of tolerance for dickish behavior, in fact, can sometimes be a dick myself (even I try not to), but playing deaf and being unrepentantly dickish makes it difficult to assume good faith, and hence creates a poor editing environment.--Cerejota (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

@MV this is not about Hinduism, it is about how some Christians here look down on Hinduism. Without context of Christian terrorism, this looks hollow. Also, I am still not sure when exactly my ban expired, on 22nd/23rd etc and whether I dived on exactly the same day as if it matter. And yes it does stink that the editor has some presumptions while vote is going on and after.

Whatever may be the case, if its in violation of a ban, its a violation of a ban. Lynch7 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

@User:Cerejota, are you beyond the attitude of "The difference between you and me is that you support pushing aside neutrality when it puts your side in good light, but want neutrality when it would put your side on a bad light." yet? This is important.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 15:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing necessarily wrong in that comment by Cerejota is there. TT2011 may disagree with the comment if he wishes to do so, but I don't think it amounts to a personal attack, as claimed by TT2011. Lynch7 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

TT, pointing out some minor harshness (maybe incivility, definitely not PA, and specifically related to your editing vice you personally) on the part of Cerejota is not going to suddenly pull out a WP:BOOMERANG which will get you out of this and nail Cerejota instead. You were given a topic ban in hopes you would do something constructive and calm down. You did not do any useful editing whasoever during your ban. Instead, you briefly came back in in violation of your ban to post about one American's view of Hinduism (feel free to wikilawyer "Hinduism isn't necessarily Indian, not in my topic ban!!!"). On top of that, your Talk:Christian terrorism post was a horribly clumsy leading question in which you implied that one person's blog is somehow indicative of a widespread anti-Hindu bias, and made vague allegations of Hinduism "not being a religion" in parts of Europe (sounds against EU policies, source?). So fundamentally your act during your ban was to get back into an India-topic, get onto yet another highly controversial article, and then try to stir up trouble with a leading question apropos of little.

Christian terrorism was not in my topic ban is all I can say. That was what discussed there. It is about how some Christian demean Hinduism. I don't know what more to say.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It matters not whether you came to 2008 Mumbai attacks one minute, one day, or three days after your ban ended; that's yet more silly wikilawyering. The point is that rather than be a calm and productive editor following your re-entry, you promptly dove into a highly controversial Talk page, and used very inappropriate language towards Cerejota. And through all this, rather than say, "okay, 'vomit' was a little harsh" you've desparately tried a "he started it" while pointedly ignoring every mention of your own misbehaviour.

Frankly, unless Cerejota clarifies where his stand is, which to me looks like the same as "The difference between you and me is that you support pushing aside neutrality when it puts your side in good light, but want neutrality when it would put your side on a bad light." he stated earlier, this all makes little sense. As it is his statement that "The focus of his displeasure seems to be the solid overturning of an article rename that he disagrees with, and his inability to participate during that process due to the topic ban." is baffling. He still doesn't get what I am saying which is strange, and no one pointed that out to him, is still stranger.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore this layout of your misbehaviour as well, as that seems to be your modus. Hopefully it's illustrative to the neutral editors judging this discussion. You are showing little to no interest in Wikipedia other than engaging in fisticuffs on highly controversial India-related topics, and that severely limits any utility you may have to the project. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sure natural editors judging this discussion will see that my intention is not about 'changing title of the page', the vote for which is already over. The rest is, according to me, about the user throwing random statements during the vote, and assumptions later. About my inappropriate language, yes it stinks when he slyly asked loaded questions especially that I could not clarify, which he refuses to see as inappropriate and then goes onto personal attacks. That he has avoided to even admit that he did that just because I expressed my views during a vote is even more puzzling. I hope the user gets message and avoids such behavior in future during a vote.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, these replies simply demonstrate why thisthat2011 is such a disruptive and unconstructive presence. The post on Christian terrorism was nothing to do with the topic. Thisthat2011's defence is that "Christian terrorism was not in my topic ban is all I can say. That was what discussed there. It is about how some Christian demean Hinduism." But the post had nothing whatever to do with terrorism. It said that some unspecified European and Islamic countries do not recognise Hinduism as a religion and referred to some utterly obscure American guy who objects to a public statue of Ganesa. Neither of these are "terrorism" by any definition. No evidence what ever was even provided that any European countries do not recognise Hinduism as a religion (what does that even mean? 'Recognise' in what context? Which countries?). The whole post was little more than trolling. Thisthat2011's professions of innocence here and unrelenting argumentativeness merely demonstrate how disingenous he is. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you want to hear exactly? Proof that Hinduism is not recognized as a religion in many European countries? Here is | one, that says "Not many Hindus know it, but Hinduism — the oldest living spiritual tradition in the world going back about 8,000 years — is still listed as a “cult” in all European countries. Their governments refuse to accept it as a legitimate religion. They actively prevent establishment of any Hindu temple in their territories.", etc. etc. - just so that people could get an idea of what could a possibility be. It was an off-track discussion, nothing mainstream. About the 'obscure guy', though there is no proof of any claim to the contrary of whether how many % of American population is tolerant like Indians etc. But I will give you benefit of doubt because this is not the point of discussion here.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am just tired of it all. There were at least two offers of guidance in the last ANI report (linked to above by Cerejota), there was some patient explaining by Salvio giuliano (the topic-ban enforcement admin) and there were clear statements that using the three week period to look into other areas of WP activity might be beneficial. It seems that all of this has been ignored, as indeed is the tendency of Thisthat2011 with regard to anything that they do not like. Instead, we have pretty much had a three week hiatus from activity, followed by insults, the start of more tendentiousness, WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, WP:ITISALWAYSTHEFAULTOFANOTHERPERSON, spraying a disaffection across umpteen talk pages etc, all within hours of returning. I am fairly sure that any time now TT2011 is going to start popping up again at articles in which I am involved and I will once again be spending far more time having to deal with the fall-out rather than actually progressing anything that really needs to be done. Mainly because TT2011 clearly has a narrow range of interests & so our paths must soon cross even if only accidentally. So, yes, I am indeed tired of it all.

BTW, TT, don't you think that the blog you link to above is unlikely to satisfy WP:RS? - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Not many Hindus know it, but Hinduism — the oldest living spiritual tradition in the world going back about 8,000 years — is still listed as a “cult” in all European countries." What an utter, utter, load of rubbish. Some nitwit's blog does not constitute evidence of any kind. The statement is not even meaningful. As for the use of the word "cult", there are are of course cults of various gods in Hinduism just as there are cults of various saints in Catholicism, which may be what is leading to the confusion here about the use of the word in this context - wherever this blogger is getting his "information" from. But this is clearly not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. If you read the assertions of the "obscure guy" you will see that he is complaining about the fact that mainstream public view is the opposite of his own. Paul B (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to take this off topic, but I really doubt any such thing. I've known people who've been to Hindu temples in various European countries. Lynch7 05:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well lets see "Zed informed Pottering that Hindus are not allowed to construct temples anywhere in Europe. The applications to open new temples are kept under processing for a long time and then almost always rejected." etc. is coming from a report as mentioned by the blog. Is it not anti-Hinduism in Europe? It shows how civilized people can be anti-Hindu and then feign ignorance. More on it here, here, g-search-here, here etc. That makes Belgian Govt. extremely intolerant of Hinduism by Indian standards, and therefore extremely right wing Christian state. So who is ignorant of this extremely right wing Christianity in Europe here and blaming others of being ignorant here? Those who are feigning ignorance of intolerance of Europe surely needs to be penalized, no?इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 15:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Over this discussion, see how tendentious Lynch7 is, how many & what sources he has presented. No one is innocent here, especially passing off religion Hinduism as a "cult" because Christianity religion has sub-branches is anti-Hindu and giving excuses justifying the fact that Hinduism is not recognized as a religion in many European Countries. Isn't it a systemic bias that even educated editors are not aware of this and are trying to justify it or rebutting it and instead calling those who point this out as ignorant?इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 16:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This post is further evidence of how difficult it is to maintain any kind of useful dialogue with TT2011. He refers to a petition by one "Rajan Zed" which lists a long set of grievances about planning permission for temples and listing of religions on forms of various kinds. This is supposed to prove the preposterous claim that Hinduism is not recognised as a religion in Europe. Unpacking the confusions here would take pages and pages of explanation and would probably be useless, since TT2011 would just ignore all actual evidence apart from the blog-warriors he reads. This just goes on forever. TT2011 also clearly does not even recognise that this is not the right forum to debate this. He just goes on and on gringing his axe of victimhood unrelentingly. Paul B (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course ThisThat2011 does not understand what is relevant where. YES ThisThat2011 does not understand the importance of staying "On topic". Does not even understand what is "On topic". But do we need a topic ban to explain that much?!!! And without an explanation, what could a topic ban do?-MangoWong ^ℳ 16:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read point #2 of the proposal: a volunteer editor or admin in good standing, with significant experience as an editor and in DR, will mentor and help the user work towards a better editing style. It is clear that ThisThat has at least a basic understanding of the English language, so such a mentor will be able, in a period of six months, to teach him what "On Topic" and many other things mean.--Cerejota (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there is very clearly nothing else that can be said or done that has not been said or done before anytime. Beyond any issues discussed here, elsewhere and before, the consistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT shown here and elsewhere is proven to be seriously disruptive. I am raising a proposal for community sanctions/ban.--Cerejota (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for community sanctions

In the background of a community consensus that User:Thisthat2011 is failing to accept good faith suggestions on how he can become a productive wikipedia editor, and the disruption of the editing enjoyment of the community these : #The user be blocked indefinitely until he acknowledges the validity of the community's concern with the disruptive nature of his behavior. Once this acknowledgement is made, any uninvolved admin can change the block to a 24 hour block to allow the user to cooldown if less than 24 hours from the initial block have passed. (as per discussion --Cerejota (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

1. On the last block expires, the user be topic banned from all Indian, Religion, and Hinduism topics, broadly construed and interpreted, including but not limited to mentions of India or Hinduism in any article even if outside the topic area of India, Religion and Hinduism for a period of 6 months.
2. During this period, a volunteer editor or admin in good standing, with significant experience as an editor and in DR, will mentor and help the user work towards a better editing style, and a more collegial editing behavior. At this mentor's recommendation, and in consultation with the community, the topic ban period can be reduced or extended as seen fit.
3. Any violation of these sanctions can result on any uninvolved admin indef blocking the user.

#The user is reminded that editing in Wikipedia is optional, and he can WP:VANISH if he so wishes, upon request.

Discussion

• Support as proposer--Cerejota (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You make such vile accusations and then take this person to ANI. So hypocritical. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

First instigate someone. Then take them to ANI. Nice tactic.-MangoWong ^ℳ 09:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - TT2011 in an intelligent person, and clearly has some sort of interest in WP. I would be very interested to see that TT can do on topics where he doesn't have massive personal, emotional investment. I would submit that if he either a) goes out and finds some random fight like Serbs vs. Croats or what country should own Nagorno-Karabakh b) disappears until the ban is up and then dives back into Hindutva topics with Personal Attacks, we'd at least know where he stands on constructive editing. Hopefully instead he'll c) find a topic he enjoys that's not full of contention and ill-will, and produces some great articles about, say, Caribbean cuisine or Cajun folklore or what have you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been involved in endless disputes with many people whom you threaten to get blocked. Note: This user has been in disputes with thisthat2011 sincw time immemorial This is some sort of mob lynching. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Several parts of the proposal bother me. Point 1 is both unnecessarily punitive (seeking to extract, by force, a "confession", which, even if you get it, will be hollow anyway) and unnecessary (because if the problem is entirely covered by the topic ban in 2, there's no reason to ban TT from other articles). Also, the latter part of the sentence about the 24 hours cool-down is a definite no-go, given that blocking policy in WP:COOLDOWN specifically tells us not to use blocks for that purpose. On point 3, there's no reason for the mentor to be an admin--many of our best mentors are not. Finally, point 5 is just spiteful--you don't need to explicitly say "We're putting a bunch of restrictions on you--and if you don't like it, you can just go home!" As for the real issue--the 6 month topic ban on Indian articles, I currently withhold judgment, as I feel I need to actually get some context from the article talk in question before providing a fair analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Points well taken. Striking out 5, changing mentoring to "editor or admin", however I am not sure of the block and "confession":

Perhaps I am not explaining myself correctly, but this is my point: There is massive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on - to a person everyone who has seen this case agrees. By definition repeated IDIDNTHEARTHAT is disruption. I am not proposing that he admits any "wrongdoing" or "confess" any crime - just that he be indef blocked UNTIL he stops not hearing what he is being told, and acknowledges he is being told this by the community - that is, stops disruptive behavior. And that this block be of a minimum of 24 hours - so if he acknowleges the concerns before 24 hours in the indef, a block is placed that ensures 24 hours of blocking. It is not a "cool down" block, it is a block to prevent disruption by a WP:GAME acknowledgement. If this doesn't address your concerns, what proposal you have? I think that a block, rather than just a ban, is in order because of the disruptive nature of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but have no problem with a shorter block, its just that I believe (incorrectly?) that a shorter block is usually reserved for "in the heat of the moment" cases, not this kind of community sanctions.--Cerejota (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the topic ban, the reason for it being so long is that he just came back from a three week ban, unrepentant, raising issues that happened during the ban (ie holding grudges), and the original proposal when that topic ban happened was for three months and lowered in discussion for three weeks - which have proven clearly insufficient.--Cerejota (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

On the 24 hours part, it's just unnecessary. Assume this proposal is approved--that process will take at least a few days. Why does there have to be a minimum 24 hour block starting from the point of the sanctions passing? It sure looks like you're trying to get in a punitive "you must realize that this is serious so no less than 24 hours block". As for the more general block, the problem is that it doesn't prevent anything, which any block must do. Since the proposal requires that xe work with a mentor, that mentor will be able to find out through the process whether or not TT "hears" the community.

And now that I think about it, I think that the mentoring + banning won't work. It's pretty clear that TT specifically has concerns about India, Hinduism, and related topics. I don't think TT is just here to pick fights; at worst, xe's here to represent a specific POV (though I'm not saying that with conviction--it's just as far as I'm willing to go), and xyr commitment to that POV prevents xyr from editing civilly and neutrally on the topic. I don't see how the mentor can actually determine if the real problem is improving if the mentor can't work on the main problem. I would recommend modifying the topic ban to say, "Thisthat2011 is topic banned from all editing related to India and Hinduism in all namespaces except for conversations directly with xyr mentor in xyr or the mentor's user talk space." That way, TT can say something like "I have a problem with Article X" and the mentor can say, "Okay, how would you handle that problem" and they can dialogue about how to do so (and, if appropriate, the mentor can proxy TT's comments to the article talk page). Note, of course, that all of this is contingent on find a mentor willing to work with TT. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I can second that, the idea is to take some action that leads to hopefully positive outcome. I don't have a problem (in fact, find it enjoyable) working with users passionate about a topic as long as they are collegial.--Cerejota (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reluctant Support. I really don't like it whenever a person has to be topic banned, but in this case, I think its necessary for TT to realize why we are here for. I agree when Qwryxian says: " I don't think TT is just here to pick fights; at worst, xe's here to represent a specific POV". I support Qwryxian's proposal. Lynch7 05:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I gave up trying to reason with him long back in the India talk page. He just keeps repeating his side and forumshops everywhere trying to wear down the editors trying to working work with him. Any mentoring would be futile and a massive waste of time for the mentor involved--Sodabottle (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Before I read this proposal my thoughts were that a topic ban would be appropriate and should include religion as well as Indian or Hinduism related topics, and this one does. A shame but it looks necesssary. Please don't drop the 'religion' part.I'm happy about the rest of the modification proposed by Qwyrxian. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support As per Dougweller, the religion part is significant because it is so inextricably linked to the apparent POV issue and cuts across many boundaries (caste, Christianity, Buddhism, history, politics etc). Finding a mentor might be an issue but I support Qwyrxian's proposal, modified to encompass religion generally rather than Hinduism specifically. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm afraid this comes too soon after the end of his topic ban. The topic ban expired on August 24; this thread was opened on August 25. I just went through all of user:Thisthat2011's edits after his return. While they aren't always the most agreeable in tone, they could easily be seen as the edits of someone who has been champing at the bit for three weeks and needs to blow off a little steam. I feel that user:Thisthat2011 should be given at least a week (of unencumbered editing time) and a few warnings, before any further action. Trips to ANI, so soon after the end of his ban, will only put him on the defensive and bring out the worst. As someone who has been on the receiving end of many of user:Thisthat2011's tiresome conversations, I am frankly a little surprised that so many people have turned up here so quickly to offer their unmeditated support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If it weren't for TT's long, long history of contentiousness, I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, TT has uniformly been a fighter for his entire time here. And, importantly, TT has focused his editing exclusively on these India-related issues that he clearly cannot address without dragging in large amounts of POV. Frankly, I find TTs inability to find anything to write about during his 3-week topic ban (other than briefly coming in to break his topic ban) quite telling. I'd just like to see him write about something in a calm and agreeable manner. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a rule somewhere on Wikipedia that states that topic banned editors need to atone for their sins by actively editing articles far afield from the topic of the said ban? Different people atone in different ways. Some do it by staying away. We all understand that he has a less than stellar history, but he has to be evaluated now for the last three weeks, not again for the history before that, for which he has already served his topic ban. I simply don't see enough contentiousness in the edits of the last three weeks to merit a longer topic ban so soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A general one no, but see Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Single purpose accounts with agendas for precedent. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No, he's not a SPA even in the expanded sense of the Scientology Arb case. He's edited History of Mathematics, India, Ganges, etc, ... Besides, India-related articles are hardly as narrow as Scientology-related articles. I say this as someone who has likely had more dealings with him (as an antagonist) than most people voting here. The reason why I am willing to go easy on him is that I'm not sure he has understood what the problem is. A topic ban is not the way to teach him that lesson, as he is likely to disappear (again) for that time and then reappear with essentially the same issues. I notice that he has never been blocked (Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs)). Why don't we block him (for tendentious editing), say, initially for 12 hours at a time, and then gradually increase the duration. I'm guessing, he'll quickly learn a lesson. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the SPA point, although there is little doubt TT has a fairly narrow focus (ie: pushing a Hindu related agenda). However, given their apparent insouciance regarding what is going on here, 12 hour blocks would be pointless. Indeed, a three week block was pointless and countless explanations from people over the last few months have also been pointless. The POV and the tendentiousness are directly related, and unless they can move away from the POV then nothing will be achieved. They would benefit from editing in areas where they do not have the opportunity to express the POV and therefore can have a better chance of learning how this place works overall. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. IMO, Sitush, Qwyrxian, MatthewVanitas are well known for blackballing and then obtaining blocks on anyone who has tried to edit caste related articles. I see them as having done this to a number of users. The present case is also a perfect example. I see no value in what they say about others. They just want to insert S***** S***** S***** S***** in as many articles as possible. They do it by using OR/misrepresentations/synthesis/rubbish sources, etc. and do not want anyone to oppose them. During the previous topic ban proposal, I had tried to ameliorate the situation by suggesting that whether or not a topic ban be applied, an effort be made to explain to ThisThat2011 what the problem is. I had offered to do so myself. The result was that I came under attack from this trio. I had said during that discussion that if things are not explained, the situation is sure to repeat itself. I have tried to explain an issue to ThisThat2011 in the past(it was some other issue), and that issue has not cropped up again. I do not see any value in any topic bans/blocks etc. unless an effort be made to explain what the problem is. My impression is that ThisThat2011 still has no idea about what the problem is, or how it can be solved. I think that the issue can be easily resolved simply by explaining the problem and the solution. Without an explanation, bans etc. are useless.-MangoWong ^ℳ 13:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - the "S*****" used by MangoWong above refers to the word "Shudra", which their POV prevents them from typing in full. I guess that says it all. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• It definitely reflects the underlying bias. I don't think it is necessary to blank out "Shudra" when its taught in 6th standard textbooks to 11 year olds. Lynch7 14:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Being familiar with this word does not necessarily mean that I am biased. Please enlighten me if possible. I do not know of any sixth standard book which says "X caste is S*****". I have no problem if this word be used in an article on (say) "Caste System". Secondly, how does it become justified to insert and reinsert OR/misrepresentations/synthesis/rubbish sources, etc. in numerous articles? And how is it justified to blackball and ban users who oppose all this? And how are topic bans useful when the object of the ban does not even understand what the ban is about?-MangoWong ^ℳ 14:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That you three have been inserting and reinserting this word thousands of times by using OR/misrepresentations/synthesis/rubbish sources, etc. and you continue to want to use it even when it has become irrelevant in present day Indian reality, may also say something about your POV and your level of knowledge on the topic.-MangoWong ^ℳ 14:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A cursory look at TT2001's talk page, India noticeboard and India talk page will show how many people have tried to explain things to him. He has been here for nearly six months now. His actions clearly indicate he is not willing to change and never will.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sodabottle, User MangoWong is saying that these chaps have had their own POV, that lead to wasted time etc. but have got away. Ex: on page | on talk Nair, Lede, they have had put some stuff in lede that was not presented well, falsely mentioned and inspite of the article itself and users coming online to say that it is not so presently, did not edit the version. Then I pointed that out so and wordings are changed slightly over time, though not so well yet. In other article talk page on Yadav, | here & | here, a user is told that he could be banned unless he proves substantially that Yadava = Yadav which is also going on for some time! I guess everyone needs some warnings, and some didn't get it, and I could not be blamed for warning these for not 'coming to Wikipedia and do stuff' without first becoming aware of Indian society & varied complexities at all, which is going on since long. Similarly, these users who have come here to point out 'violation of topic ban', had not done so earlier on my talk page but are quick to come here only to point it & bring it here. I am sure the esteemed users coming here to support penalty have missed all this.These are all system bias (inactive/active) according to me, and someone has to be on the wrong end of the stick in a bias; in this case I am (as per me) and so I could point this out.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 15:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If that be the case, how come my previous attempt to explain an issue was successful? Maybe folks did not point out the critical points. Maybe they weren't able to see what the difficulty is.-MangoWong ^ℳ 14:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I am also unable to understand if the user Cerejota has understood the points I made i.e. not to assume things during voting and later, especially in absence of editors. As also, someone needs to get related discussion deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_Mumbai_attacks#how_would_you_feel_if_we_re-titled.. , may be after decision is made. Doesn't look proper & I guess those who are involved on the topic have already noticed.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 15:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is yet more classic TT WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He keeps trying to shift blame back to Cerejota over one brusquely-worded point during a debate long over. Then rather than admit he violated a topic ban, he blames us for not having called him out on it earlier (I for one didn't notice it until this ANI, when I glanced back to see if he'd done anything constructive on non-India topics during his ban, to demonstrate his behaviour in a less-POV environment). So far as MW's allegations on blackballing, and TT's list of articles on which we've "misbehaved" (spending weeks patiently trying to explain NPOV to a POV pusher, before finally warning him for warring), we've gone to ANI multiple times with Sitush, Q, and I consistently being found by uninvolved editors to be neutral parties of stated non-Indian background attempting to clean up the utter mess of POV/COI which floweth over on India caste articles. TT has been a prominent player in slowing down said cleanup through endless demands, and utter deafness to every response. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sir MatthewVanitas, did your attempts "to clean up the utter mess of POV/COI which floweth over on India caste articles"? Did you find a lot of POV in these articles and 'TT' is 'slowing down the cleanup'?All the tendentiousness because your work floweth over, and also considering how the view( without any standards presented even when asked) "I'd like to see more non-Indian editors covering India topics, and more Indian editors taking a neutral and unemotional academic look at, say Bolivia-Chile disputes, the decolonisation of Nigeria, and other such topics where their perspective and detachment would be a valuable addition."; it certainly appears that the views are pretty extraordinary.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 17:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You did not just warn that user, you guys got the user blocked. You may like to imagine that you are cleaning up articles. But that is not all. You start googling, and pouring S***** S***** S***** S***** all ove the article. And you guys go ahead and paste it even in rank stub grade articles. You guys go to any length to paste this word into articles. For example, here one can see Qwyrixian say [59] "no information is better than bad or uncertain information", then, here one can see Qwyrxian [60] criticizing colonial period sources, then one can see Qwyrxian criticizing some unnamed ed for supporting the use of snippet view in writing articles. But here, [61] one can see the same Qwyrxian put in a colonial source by just looking at the google snippet view!!!! (more examples can be provided)-MangoWong ^ℳ 17:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC) I myself have taken down misrepresentations and OR stuff conatining S*****. All of it was put in by you guys. Much of it by yourself specifically. Don't deny it.-MangoWong ^ℳ 17:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

He was not blocked. He was topic banned. He was free to contribute to the encyclopedia's millions of other articles, and thousands of other topic areas, and we do need the editors - and India related topics, whiole very important to any encyclopedia, are just a small part of the entire encyclopedia. Any good faith editor would welcome the opportunity to contribute to the encyclopedia at large, and recognize that perhaps they can't see clearly due to a passionate involvement on a topic. However, I suggest you desist from speaking about other's behavior, and concentrate on what this thread is about. So far you have provided information on the behavior of others, but precious little on ThisThat's behavior, which is what is being discussed. --Cerejota (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sir, why are you telling others to desist during this, when you yourself are pointing out something about him? Sir, it is great and WP is better with all the quality edits you have been doing, but please don't assume things doing discussions and vote, and then pre-judge. Pre-judging during voting is not too collaborative - just protecting WP's voting environment, where this roller began in the first place.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 17:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As I did in talk, I apologize for making it seem like I was questioning you as a person - I was questioning your position on the topic, a legitimate issue. Saying that the position you put forward is not neutral, and explaining why this view is held, is precisely how collaboration works - your response should have been to explain your position, not saying that my head was "full of filth" as you did. Not editing in topics you have strong opinions about, and seeking a strong mentor outside of the topics you feel strongly about, might teach you this. In addition, Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not vote, we discuss. That you don't seem to understand this, even after thousands of edits is one of the reasons you need a topic ban. If you were a new user, I wouldn't be calling for this, but you have been here long enough to know better - the community would be doing both you and itself a favor by topic banning and making mentoring a condition for your continued presence. Editing Wikipedia is not a right, it is a privilege that can be revoked.--Cerejota (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sir, your question of "how would you feel if we re-titled the 2006 Malegaon bombings to 2006 Malegaon Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist attacks? Just sayin" is far from being a 'discussion in good faith', especially in my absence. I have already pointed out many times this already, where this all started. 'head was "full of filth"' should be only be taken in that context only that you are assuming it in that sense during a vote/discussion; and could notice how user Tryptofish has said that his "direct observations don't really suggest ... any bad faith", contrary to what many have said so. I think that should rest your doubts, by quoting someone who has interacted. As from my side also, I have acknowledged multiple times your quality edits, on the same topic. Your doubts here seem misplaced, and I am making it a point here to clarify this aspect of discussion.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 08:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment on oppose alleging blackballing and "cool down" - I generally do not edit India related topics, nor had corresponded with any of the involved here until this. My concern is not even personal attacks. My concern is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If a user is unable to understand and provide a response that acknowledges - even to disagree - what is being said, it is hard to have a collaborative consensus seeking environment. Since the article in question is a GA that has been degrading in quality in part because of behavior like Thisthat's, I am seeking to protect encyclopedic quality. That is why topic bans are worth it, because they force a good faith editor to edit somewhere else they are not prone to misbehave. Its a win-win: the editor gets to contribute to the encyclopedia with quality and learn how to collaborate by working in articles outside the topics he has strong opinions about, the editors in certain topics can move forward in seeking consensus without disruption. I think topic bans are not punishment, no are they intended to "cool down" as an editor above claims. They ar eintended to allow the editor to explore the rest of the wiki and learn about how to relate to other editors in an environment less passionate than the one being banned. ThisThat obviously didn't use his time for topic ban to reflect, but instead used it to hold grudges with the expectation to settle scores once the topic ban was lifted. In this sense, the topic ban failed, and hence must be re-instated for a longer amount of time to allow for longer reflection. It is really that simple. A topic ban eliminates his passion and allows him time to reflect and become a good editor.--Cerejota (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course the topic ban failed. During the discussion of the last topic ban itself I had said that it would fail if the problem is not explained. How could it succeed when TT2011 does not even know what the difficulty is? How does a longer ban substitute the simple need for an explanation of WP:TPG ?-MangoWong ^ℳ 17:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have been confused by the length of all the multiple threads on this user's behavior, but all of the issues have been explained.

1. Refusal to accept legitimate, civil, disagreements and assessments from other users as per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
2. Refusal to follow the talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG
3. Refusal to accept criticism or opposing views in a civil fashion WP:CIVIL
4. Constantly making real, undebatable, personal attacks and flinging verbal mud around as per WP:NPA
5. Accusing editors of misbehavior while refusing to examine own behavior in an honest manner, as per WP:BOOMERANG
6. Not editing in accordance to the generally accepted principles of bold, revert, discuss.
7. And not following WP:NPOV, WP:AT, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS when editing, which are our primary content policies.

And a few other issues I am not recalling. It has been explained. And it goes back to point #1 in this list.--Cerejota (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is what I was trying to say. Showing links does not do the job. I agree that it can help. It takes effort too. But what happens if one gets a hundred links daily? The previous issue which I had successfully explained to ThisThat2011 was related to copyvio. TT2011 appeared to have dozens of warning signs on the usertalk page and scores of links in them, but still continued to get more warnings for copyvio. TT2011 was close to getting blocked over it. I happened along, and explained what his specific problem was, and the warning signs stopped appearing. What does that mean? Maybe I could get through where topic bans can't? Similar is the case here. I agree that TT2011's words directed at you were too strong and indefensible. I do NOT suggest that they were correct in any way. What I am saying is that, TT2011 needs to be shown some specific points from the WP:TPG. Without reading it, one is sure to get into problems. TPG is about the talk page after all. I think much of the problems which you show in points 1 to 6 is real. I also think that most of them can be solved by going Through the WP:TPG alone. Point 7 would need some separate treatment. I am familiar with this user (to some extent). I was also part of the previous discussion regarding the recently ended topic ban. I am aware that TT2011 was not blocked in that discussion. The user who was blocked (in some other way) is Bill clinton history. This is the user MV was referring to when MV said "POV pusher". Bill was a new user. You can also see Sitush concluding that a new user (making their first edit on WP) is a WP:SPA. Talk:Kurmi/Archive 3#Don't bite the newcomers. And when I object, I am stonewalled. No admitting that it was a violation of WP:BITE. Still I did not bring it to the ANI. I myself had to go through the experience of being asked to go away from WP (as a response to my first ever comment to Sitush). I am saying all this so that you may form your own opinion on how much value should be given to the opinions of this trio. And these are just samples. If you still feel that ThisThat2011's comment is sufficient reason for a topic ban....-MangoWong ^ℳ 18:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reluctant support, perhaps with modifications per Qwyrxian. I've looked carefully at the arguments to the contrary here, but frankly the long diversion immediately above only makes me more inclined to want intervention. I don't edit any India-related articles, but I've encountered Thisthat2011 a lot at Christian terrorism. My direct observations don't really suggest to me any bad faith. Instead, it seems to me to be about competence, from the difficult and unhearing style of discussion, to the user signature, to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Thisthat2011. Thus, I think it would be appropriate to try to reign in the editing that causes heat, as well as to try to improve the editing through constructive mentoring. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: No adverse (for the user in the docks) decision should be taken when a majority of those supporting the ban are (as is clear from the above discussion), into serious disputes with User_talk:thisthat2011, no decision like a long ban or block should be taken until there is a number of uninvolved users supporting it. I think I have read that there are a hundred thousand active Wikipedians, if you are talking strong action there should be lots of thumbs downs. A coterie shouldn't be allowed to mess a person's hobby. And even then reasons should be stronger than I don't like his signature. 117.195.70.234 (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — 117.195.70.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• The personal attack allegation looks like a boomerang.: The move was about inclusion of the word terrorist, without any mention of religion,[62]. user:Cerejota attacks him how would you feel if we re-titled the 2006 Malegaon bombings to 2006 Malegaon Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist attacks? Just sayin, (emphasis mine) user:Thisthat2011, then reacts that it is not about religion - his page title was not about xyz religion attack, but about using the word terrorist, then he reacts to the very provocative comment made by user:Cerejota, by way of a statement in which I find the word Bible, but understand little else. What are we going to do now? Is attacking one person's religious beliefs game and another's taboo?The proposal too was personal attack (later toned down), what action is the community taking against that? If striking off would work in the proposer's case then perhaps user:Thisthat2011 would be eager to strike off his offensive editing. Also user:Cerejota's logic reads that the word terrorist implies a person of a particular religious dispension which is very unfortunate. I think every one should shake hands and withdraw a little wiser.117.195.70.234 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — 117.195.70.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strongly oppose-- This is some sort of mob lynching. MatthewVanitas, Sitush, and Qwyrxian have been having dispute witb Thisthat2011 since long. Nothing that Thisthat did, these three editors have not an iota of understanding of India, but they consider it their God given right to stop anyone present a holistic picture of India. This is becoming some sort of killing all voices of reason. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Nameisnotimportant, none of the people you name opened this thread. Many of the people who have commented have had little or no interaction on articles with either myself, Q or MV on articles. The range of articles being discussed in this and the previous ANI report is broad (I for one would steer well away from anything to do with mathematics!). Qwyrxian has actually "watered down" the proposal, and I have broadly supported that watering-down. Like MangoWong below, you seem to think that this is a witch-hunt instigated by three people. It is clearly not so. - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Seems overdue. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. One comment, which was not unprovoked, in one day of editing sure makes a topic ban overdue.-MangoWong ^ℳ 02:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "was not unprovoked"? I don't recall having any disputes with you or him. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong is referring to Cerejota's comment ("how would you feel if we re-titled the 2006 Malegaon bombings to 2006 Malegaon Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist attacks? Just sayin"). I fail to see how this is even remotely provocative. It's actually an attempt to get TT to appreciate a point of view he does not share. TT decribed the comment as "filth" inspired - apparently - by reading the Bible! Paul B (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In that comment, Cerejota is assuming that TT2011 is a "Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist"....how would you(emphasis mine) feel. It is a direct personal attack. If that is not a provocation, what is?-MangoWong ^ℳ 03:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You are interpreting the word "you" in a specious manner. It is a rhetorical device, made necessary because Cerejota is responding to an individual. There probably is some grammatical construct that could avoid the necessity of using it ("how could we ...", "how could they ..." ?) but it is clear from the context that it is not an accusation. To see it otherwise is to adopt a pedantic position regarding semantics (perhaps no surprise there, then?). OTOH, Thisthat2011's response is indubitably addressed directly at one individual. - Sitush (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in my interpretation of that sentence. Cerejota's comment was a direct and severe personal attack on one person. That comment is assuming that TT2011 is a "Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist".-MangoWong ^ℳ 06:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I read Cerejota's statement as assuming the TT would be insulted at being thought of as a terrorist not that he was one; that was the point she was trying to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You should reconsider editing English Wikipedia and edit a Wikipedia of a language you actually comprehend. As explained above, there is no way my comparison of hypothetical titles can be seen as a personal attack, except in some fantasy version of the English language. And I am assuming good faith and thinking you are lacking language comprehension. Less kind people would think you are just trolling and perhaps block you to keep you from disrupting this thread further.--Cerejota (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comment does assume that TT2011 is a "Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist". If not, why does it ask TT2011 how it would feel if that phrase be used? How else is TT2011 expected to know how it would feel? And presently you are assuming that I do not understand English and that I may be a troll. Some AGF.-MangoWong ^ℳ 10:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Since my earliest interactions with Thisthat2011 on Tibetan and other Sino-Indian topics, this user has repeatedly demonstrated to me that his purpose on Wikipedia is to grind a Hindu nationalist ax rather than to build an encyclopedia. Qwyrxian's calls for caution are, frankly, too late. While many good editors nonetheless don't join Wikipedia with the purest of intentions, at some point (like after a three-week topic ban) new editors are supposed to acculturate to Wikipedia norms of civility and collaborative editing. The fact that TT2011 is, as of 25 August, still confronting users about "Bible" "filth" and Hindu "heathens" shows that he lacks a basic competency to edit in many respects and needs to be kept here on a tight leash, if at all. Quigley (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The situation could have been improved if the topic ban had also included steps to explain the WP:TPG. Even now, there is no effort to do so, and the only intention seems to be to impose a punitive topic ban.-MangoWong ^ℳ 03:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Given the importance of the issue with signature, I would take it upon myself to get it fixed too, if it be explained what the issue is.-MangoWong ^ℳ 03:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal for sanctions includes a mentor that would explain the TPG and anything else TT2011 might not understand to him. The topic ban, which can be modified if TT2011 shows improvement, is designed to stop further (well-demonstrated) disruption; not to punish. Quigley (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have the impression that some general points from the TPG, and a general advice to stay clear of contentious articles is sufficient. Anything more is unjustified.-MangoWong ^ℳ 04:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

'Question: Is anyone actually volunteering to mentor TT2011? If not, that part of the proposal becomes moot, and all we have left is a topic ban of some duration. Regarding the above comments impugning my motives and editing, I'm going to decline to address them for now; if anyone wants to take them up with me, tell me on my talk page, open another section on ANI, etc., but further discussion here takes us away from the main issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:Quigley's comments are a vitrolic personal attack: Quigley is a person who by his own statement is involved in content disputes with user:Thisthat2011, he mentions the Bible edit without mentioning the extremely provocative Hindu saffron terrorist edit by user:Cerejota, User:Quigley thus attacks him his purpose on Wikipedia is to grind a Hindu nationalist ax rather than to build an encyclopedia, now if that isn't a personal attack, what is? Now if user:Thisthat2011 calls someone like User:Quigley a X religious thug, why should one sided action be taken against user:Thisthat2011.? 117.195.82.50 (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — 117.195.82.50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Are you the same person as 117.195.70.234 or Thisthat2011? Forgive me if I find it implausible that just suddenly, multiple Indian IP users who have never edited before have quickly found their way to ANI and formed strong opinions on this monthslong matter. I'm discussing editor conduct on a noticeboard for editor conduct; this is appropriate, if not coddling discourse for the medium. Thisthat2011, on the other hand, has started provocative discussions about editors' religious preferences on article talk pages, which is a disruption. Your attempt to divert attention from the focus of discussion (User:Thisthat2011's behavior) has been duly noted. Quigley (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

    Another personal attack by user:Quigley: He now accuses user:Thisthat2011 of socking. Let uninvolved editors substantial in number take a look at this case, those with content disputes with user:Thisthat2011 may not be neutral on the issue. 117.195.82.50 (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In such a scenario, one sided action against ThisThat2011 is justified by systemic bias. There would be more votes against TT. So, one sided action becomes justified.-MangoWong ^ℳ 06:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Progress for Thisthat2011 and similar personalities (ie, you) starts at acknowledging one's own behavior as a cause for dispute, rather than the imperialist plots of the British Christian anti-Indian conspiracy. Quigley (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

user:Quigley's Attack no 3: Oh this takes the cake! user:Quigley now accuses user:Thisthat2011 of being a member of a gang of conspiracy theorists!!! Please someone invoke wp:TPG. Further in the face of such attacks if user:Thisthat2011 dares even to whimper that could be the end of his Wikipedia love story. 117.195.82.50 (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Quigley, where have I repeatedly demonstrated to you that my purpose on Wikipedia is to grind a Hindu nationalist ax rather than to build an encyclopedia. I do not remember anything beyond the Tibetan discussion, and the discussion was quite lengthy to admit. There were many participants and no one came out with 'flying colors'. By the way, I am not socking, and I don't have any idea about the other IPs so you don't have to spin 'socking' into this, along with 'the British Christian anti-Indian conspiracy' theories. Thanks.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 08:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Interestingly, the discussion has moved away from TT2011's strong personal attacks. Regardless of what the outcome of this discussion is, TT2011 should be issued a strong warning against further personal attacks, and we should not accept arguments like "Oh, the other guy started it, blame him first". The IP seems (I have little doubt that he's a quacker) to love jumping into conclusions. Despite all of TT2011's shortcomings, it is quite possible that he may have more left in him, and I think Qwryxian's proposal should still hold good. Lynch7 09:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has not moved away from Thisthat2011's personal attacks. These latest accusations against me are simply a continuation of them. First, Cerejota's desire to remove "terrorist" from the title of 2008 Mumbai attacks was a "personal attack". Then, Sitush, Qwyrxian, and MatthewVanitas's noncensorship of the word Shudra was a "personal attack". Now, my uninvolved support for sanctions against Thisthat2011 is a "personal attack". Such an extreme siege mentality is the antithesis of collaborative editing.

I'm not involved in any active disputes with TT2011, though I've watched his soapboxing on the caste and Christian terrorism articles with concern. I'm not Indian or Western; neither Hindu nor Christian. Closest to the "uninvolved editors" which MangoWong says he desires, I represent a viewpoint that TT2011 can't neatly fit into his "Indian vs. Westerner" narrative, and so he has to sic the Poona IPs upon me. It's tragic, and from this discussion I've lost hope that TT2011 can make a net positive contribution here, even with a mentor. Quigley (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your attitude is hardcore indophobic. Nothing else.[63]. And are you trying to say that you have never had disputes with TT2011?-MangoWong ^ℳ 04:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not justifying TT's comment. I too see it as undesirable. However, if there was a severe provocation, why should that be ignored? And the last time I interacted with Quigley, Quigley appeared to be criticizing some actions of the WMF and or Sue Gardner, and referring to Indian/non Western eds as "wolves".[64]-MangoWong ^ℳ 10:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per MangoWong and Nameisnotimportant. I have not always agreed with ThisThat2011 and have in fact asked him to drop some of the extreme positions. However he represents viewpoints (often backed by proper sources) that enjoy popular support in India and a subset of those viewpoints may even be majority viewpoints in Indian academia. It might help if he works a bit on his English skills. This is an attempt to get rid of an editor with whom people have had content disputes. Ironically some of these people have very severe WP:COMPETENCE issues. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut has also been topic-banned from India topics for nationalist POV-pushing, which I bring up only in noting that Z. has been identified as having issues rather similar to those of TT, so "birds of a feather" here. So far as "content issues", no this is a matter of TT's behavior, particularly, as mentioned so many times WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which is manifest even here in this thread. Again, TT has aggravated people across a wide variety of topics, and yet the only people coming to his defense are those who've been deeply involved in India POV disputes. So far as viewpoints that "enjoy popular support in India", TT has been frequently contradicted by footnotes by Indian authors, but again turns off his ears and simply blusters rather than debate references. Is there endemic Anglo-American bias on Wikipedia? Yes. However, it is terrible "crying wolf" to invoke endemic bias to support editors who cannot edit civilly. It is a terrible thing to claim "endemic bias" in defense of nationalist chest-thumping, caste glorification, and the like. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO. Zuggernaut is himself/herself a victim of mob lynching. He/She is the best person to know how it feels. no this is a matter of TT's behavior, particularly, as mentioned so many times WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Actually you guys seem to be suffering from a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Why else do you fail to see that TT2011 was given a severe provocation? You think only Westerners have feelings?-MangoWong ^ℳ 05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I understand that Zuggernaut was topicbanned due to some unneutral wording. Unneutral wording is quite common and can be fixed. It should not have been a reason for a long topic ban. For example, the heading of this whole thread is also non neutral IMO. Would that be a reason for a long topic ban on Cerejota?-MangoWong ^ℳ 07:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm If you continue to fail to assume good faith in the wanton way you are doing, I doubt the closing admin in this proposal will take your opinion seriously. Stop trying to poison the well and let this discussion happen. If you think I have done anything wrong, open a report on me, not throw accusations on a thread about someone else.--Cerejota (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What I am saying is that, even if the main heading of this thread be non neutral, it would NOT be a justified reason for a topic ban. Do you think it would be?-MangoWong ^ℳ 08:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm --Cerejota (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. And calling me prejudice etc isn't going to change that, so save the typing. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support the principle I haven't been involved with Thisthat recently (although although I've read through some of the caste discussion due to its appearance on various noticeboards). I did interact with them in the India talkpage. The situation was that Thisthat wanted to change the lead to include the word "Bharat" as an alternative english name, which was fine in itself. However, they wanted to change the article to read something like "India also Bharat" or "India that is Bharat". This was opposed by others due to the strange wording, but they did agree to include in with wording similar to "India, also known as Bharat". Thisthat rejected this, tedentiously (is that a word?) insisting on their particular wording, and the whole thing came to nought. Thisthat now links to the discussion as an example of where his proposal was rejected for bad reasons, even though it was basically agreed to. Although this was a long time ago, from reading over the previous ANI incidents and related talkpage discussion, and the conversation above, it appears little has changed. I don't see any personal attack by Cerejota, they just gave a theoretical comparison, which is perfectly fine, and in my opinion often a very useful thing to use in debates. The arguments given in this ani case by Thisthat and those that support them are devoid of the slightest admission of wrongdoing (or even a mistake), and have descended to the level of accusing other commenters as indophobic, and describing how hurt a failed SPI made them feel. MangoWong says that Thisthat simply doesn't understand some editing guidelines, and that all that is needed is a better explanation. Obviously, this could be quite true. However, policies and editing guidelines have been explained to Thisthat many times, and MangoWong has had months to try and explain these policies to Thisthat if they felt it was necessary. I don't know what's the best solution here, although from above I support Qwyrxian's idea, but something needs to be done. If nothing is done, I predict Thisthat will find themselves back at ANI in the near future, with much less community sympathy. This would be a bad thing for everyone. (Apologies for the TLDR) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have held for some weeks now that TT2011 is unfamiliar with TPG and this unfamiliarity is the cause of most of TT2011's difficulties. I think that the TPG is an excellent guideline and can go a long way in making ones editing experience pleasant. I have not got around to explaining those points to TT2011 because I was intent upon doing some other things lately. i.e. edit some articles of interest. And I am trying to concentrate on that. Secondly, I am a bit coy about explaining things to others because it feels a bit/hugely assumptive on my part. TT2011 would need to be explained some points about achieving proper focus/target of their comments. One can make a point, even make it strongly, without saying anything about the other person. Secondly, TT2011 would need to look at the name of the venue where they make comments+ look at the heading of the thread too, so as to know what is relevant where. There are some other points too. One would need to go through the TPG and explain them. I think that is all that is needed. As for Cerejota's comment, perhaps one might better appreciate the situation by putting oneself in a hypothetical situation where one is asked the same question that TT2011 was asked. Would one not feel flabbergasted and something boiling up? What would be the retort? Would not one say "Why do you ask me? Am I a *****? How do you assume that I am a *****?....."-MangoWong ^ℳ 12:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

TT2011 has had plenty of opportunities to read it, and ask questions about anything they're unsure of. I don't mind that you haven't explained it, it's not your obligation, but someone must either volunteer or TT2011 must seek help, because others have tried to explain it before. What you say makes me think a mentor would be very useful.

I assume the quote we are discussing is "how would you feel if we re-titled the 2006 Malegaon bombings to 2006 Malegaon Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist attacks? Just sayin"? As I said before, that's a hypothetical comparison, perhaps rhetorical, which presents an equivalent situation which asks for TT2011's input. I may feel flabbergasted if it brings an epiphany, but not due to any sort of insulted feeling. The retort would be either "Yes, and here's why", or "No, and here's why." The only part of Cerejota's question that which hints at a personal comment would be the "Just sayin" bit, by which Cerejota assumes he knows what the response will be. However, it's not a grievous personal attack by any measure. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

During the previous ANI, I had said that I see no value in a topic ban if it is merely punitive and does nothing to address the TPG related problems by explaining the relevant points. However, the ANI ended up becoming a punitive sanction in the end. Since nothing was done to explain the relevant points, I see it as a failure for the community. This thread too runs the risk of doing the same. I do not see anything wrong on TT2011’s part in the present case. Quite the opposite actually. TT2011’s difficulty with TPG is unrelated to the present incident IMO.

Perhaps, the hypothetical situation which I suggested was not clear enough. Maybe another hypothetical situation could help in seeing my point more clearly. Let us say that there is some dispute between some guy and a German national. The first guy says something like “How would you feel if we wrote that Nazis are %#@?>+/*!.” How would the German guy react? If I said something like that, I would expect to get severely mauled. I think it would be grossly uncivil to put up a question like that. You may still say that the Cerejota comment has no attack in it. I think it does have a direct personal attack.-MangoWong ^ℳ 14:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume Cerejota's comment was an attack. Two wrongs do not make a right. TT would still have done the incorrect thing. Provocation probably is insufficient as an excuse, especially given TT's history. The issue was, of course, far less clear cut and your reading of the statement is plain wrong, as virtually everyone here seems to agree: that yourself and TT seem often not to pick up on the nuances in comments made by others is as plain as day.

You offered to help TT at the last ANI & so did someone else (Fowler&fowler, perhaps?). Instead, TT decided to go quiet for three weeks. Now, whose fault is that? - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There are four guys who think that Cerejota's comment is a personal attack on TT2011. The IP, Nameisnotimportant, TT2011 and myself. Not just me. Maybe five, counting Zuggernaut. And Cerejota too has a history. And the fault for me doing nothing about explaining the TPG would lie partly with the guys who said in the last ANI that I would be a bad choice for explaining the TPG. If I had not been attacked for offering to help, I might have had more of an impulse to go ahead with the offer and make something of it.-MangoWong ^ℳ 15:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And that ^ is what I mean about not picking up the nuances. I said "virtually", not "everyone but you". I had it in mind that you would respond as you have regarding the comments at the previous ANI. Nothing said there prevented you from helping TT informally. Nothing said there prevented TT from continuing to contribute to the project. And, finally, you have just contradicted yourself since your earlier reasons for not helping did not include this & indeed would have excluded this latest reason as being even a possibility. There seems to be a problem regarding the logic.

Regardless, you certainly are not suitable as a formal mentor and that is what is needed here. Any suggestions? Bearing in mind that mentorship actually resolves all the points that you have raised, including the length of the topic ban since the mentor would have the discretion to reduce it as seen fit. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The topic ban wasn't punitive, theoretically it directly stopped 3 weeks of disruption and hopefully would allow TT2011 to gain editing experience in another editing environment. The users who said that ANI wasn't the best place to discuss the TPG are right, that would be the users talkpage. I'm sure noone would have "attacked" you for offering help there.

The hypothetical suggestion was quite clear. The German comment could be perfectly fine (depending on the conversation of course). Perhaps if they were discussing something about, say, Pol Pot, then I could see a question like that being very useful indeed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The users who attacked me for offering to help were not saying that the ANI was an inappropriate venue for explaining TPG. I too had no intention of explaining those points at the ANI. I was attacked by saying that I would be an extremely poor choice for explaining anything, etc. In the present incident, I think Cerejota should be facing a block/warning for making a personal attack. And mentorship for TT2011 need not include a topic ban at all. All that TT2011 needs is some explanation of some points from the TPG etc., whether through a mentor, or through some other method.-MangoWong ^ℳ 16:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone attacked you at the previous ANI? Why were they not sanctioned in some way? Sounds like you're being too emotive. In any event, your latest response still does not explain the failure of your logic. You are in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode regarding Cerejota's statement: nothing looks likely to happen regarding it & so repeating your position regarding it over and over is just increasing the noise level. The topic ban is precautionary: what is so wrong with it? The thing merely keeps a lid on things while TT adjusts to a more communal style. Without it there is every likelihood of further disruption in at least the short term, this observation being based on past incidents plus a clear inability to understand the umpteen previous explanations given to him/her. It is really a rather flexible arrangement.

Even if the topic ban were not in place, a mentor would be needed. For this reason I refer you to another part of my previous message which you have ignored: any suggestions? - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• The following editors are at fault for causing the problem they wish to be corrected : Cerejota, for causing very grave provocation, and for considering that the word terrorist by default means a terrorist belonging to a particular religion, and for taunting Thisthat2011 with Hindu, saffron terrorists. Against user:Quigley for attacking Thisthat2011 - Hindu nationalist axe grinder and for lying that he is an uninvolved editor, and for attacking Thisthat2011 - sock, and for accusing him of being a conspiracy theorist. Quigley has said that Wikipedia's expansion in India is like throwing it to the wolves, perhaps that is why there is a suggestion that much of India's internet backbone be blocked. I also share a participant's surprise ...that so many people have turned up here so quickly to offer their unmeditated support. (to the lynching)

• @Lynch @Cerejota - At an AN/I there is no such thing as changing the subject: There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehaviour is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehaviour of the original reporter is "'changing the subject'" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny. Your assertions simply betray a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policies.
• @Chipmunkdavis - If you do not understand why Cerejota's question is gravely provocative, and you assume it isn't because you don't percieve it as such, aren't you unqualified to take part in this discussion, kindly recuse yourself for lack of familarity with the issue and/or lack of AGF. No closing admin would take into account votes cast on a whim. Could you explain why Thisthat2011's statement is such bad a personal attack that he should be put in cold storage for it? I don't say that it isn't like you say about Cerejota. Just explain.

I hope the closing admin will take my above post on its merits. As for your question, I don't think Thisthat2011's Mumbai post is worthy of a block or ban. An overreaction definitely, but also definitely nothing sanctionable. It was their actions on this ANI which made me support the proposal; they clearly don't understand what the community has reacted badly to, and I wish for them to learn before they are "put in cold storage". Thus my support of the proposal which included mentorship, which I hope will integrate them into the wikipedia community. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• @All - This attempted lynching as it has been called above, is based on two premises (as I understand them) - Thisthat2011's lack of competence and Thisthat's personal attack, it has been demonstrated above that the perceived personal attack was a reaction to grave provocation, on the former, lack of competence has been manifest above to amongst other players in as simple a case as the direction a AN/I report may take. The foundations of this report are shaky. 125.17.118.34 (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because you state something, doesn't make it true. Any normal person will see how false your claims are, while your behavior on this thread, including careless unfounded accusations you had to strikethrough, severely compromises any credibility on this topic you might have. Are you sure you are not someone's sock? That is some WP:BOOMERANG for you. --Cerejota (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

011

The things that the IP says are correct. Your comment does contain a severe personal attack on TT2011. It is also correct that an ANI report can boomerang on the person who reports if they themselves are at fault. So, there is nothing wrong in discussing your behavior here. The IP is correct in stating that the user page is not the place to post messages. Even if the message had been posted there by mistake, it should have been striked out.-MangoWong ^ℳ 02:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm--Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

*Another boomerang: Sitush is grossly mispresenting facts, he put the mandatory information on Thisthat2011's user page[65], yes he put it on his user page and not on his talk page, so much for competence also. Getting back to what Sitush fairy tale to Nameisnotimportant was none of the people you name opened this thread (Nameisnotimportant had named MatthewVanitas, Sitush, and Qwyrxian)[66]. One person opens the thread, another puts the mandatory template on Thisthat2011's page, if that isn't an unholy nexus what is? What is to be done about a liar?[[Retracted. I am sorry. My bad. No hard feelings. I was careless. Didn't read the date, that template was dated 2011-07-31. 125.17.118.34 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Whup-whup-whup-whup. Recognise that sound? It is indeed a boomerang on its way back to you. I did indeed accidentally template TT about something a while ago. I apologised, and it was a genuine slip of the mouse. It has happened exactly once in my 20-odd thousand edits.

I did not notify TT of this thread; Cerejota did. What is more, I spoke with TT prior to the thread being opened and, despite allegations of me having a hair trigger, you will note that I did not open this ANI nor did I immediately respond when it was opened. Please retract. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Having following the seemingly neverending dispute on the Yadav article (because it was automatically watchlisted as a result of some wikignoming), I have seen how this evolved, and as such I reluctantly support a topic ban. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasons given by Fowler&fowler«Talk».The three weeks ban expired on 24th and this proposal was made in 25th. Looks like a pre-planned and motivated proposal. Shyamsunder (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny, a lot of the rest of us see something different; namely, "The three weeks ban expired on the 24th and the user immediately started the same type of disruption that got them blocked in the first place." Qwyrxian (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Making fun of editors not voting your way is unbecoming of an administrator. You are a new administrator . It seems you need some mentorship for the role.Thanks Shyamsunder (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - MangoWong is there any valid reason why you have posted a notice about this ANI report at Talk:Yadav and Talk:Kurmi ? Perhaps of more relevance, why you have neglected to do the same at all the other articles in which Thisthat2011 has been involved? I do realise that the list could be lengthy but yours is a curious approach on both counts. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

These are about the two articles which have been mentioned here. The James Tod article has also been mentioned. However, I have not known TT2011 to have been there.-MangoWong ^ℳ 10:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? You have an odd definition of "about" as there are quite a few others, eg: the original article (2008 Mumbai attacks) and Christian terrorism, the India project talk page, India ... do you want me to go on? Arguably, you should also consider Mathematics etc because those are referred to indirectly, as covered by the previous topic banning ANI report. Your definition appears to be somewhat skewed. Or is it something else? - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

These are the two articles on which I have known TT2011 and which have been mentioned. If you think it is relevant to put notices on other articles which have been mentioned, you can go ahead.-MangoWong ^ℳ 12:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite the same reason you originally gave. Since you have started the process, I suggest that you continue to post to the other articles or, alternatively, remove the ones that you have done so far. You have targeted two articles where it is probable that TT2011 will have support from newbie IPs etc, you worded the message in a poor manner (not making it clear that this discussion is about TT rather than the articles), and you appear to have selected only articles at which myself, Qwyrxian and MatthewVanitas have contributed. I find this odd and distinctly non-neutral, but the ball is in your court. I will not be removing them because they are your posts, but neither am I prepared to indulge in what might be construed as subtle canvassing by selectively posting elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to think that there may be something odd about those notices, I have removed them. I have not deleted your comments. You can delete them.-MangoWong ^ℳ 13:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I undid those, before I came to look at ANI, not knowing there was a reason behind them. In any event, the notices can stay, there's no real harm (I don't see this as any sort of WP:CANVAS violation0, and removing comments from talk pages tends to mess up the conversation, especially if others have responded. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My problem is not that the notices were there but that the placement was selective and somewhat misleading. A load of IPs coming here to comment on the articles in this thread seemed to be a possible outcome. OTOH, trawling through numerous article talk pages to insert notices, as it was suggested I do, is almost certain to lead to an accusation that I missed one somewhere. - there are lots, and where does one draw the line? Those articles are tangential to the purpose of this report. - Sitush (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed my posts again.-MangoWong ^ℳ 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fowler&fowler«Talk».--Snowded ^TALK 13:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to request that, if possible, an uninvolved admin make a call as to whether or not there is consensus for the proposed topic ban and enforced mentorship; if so, we can continue on with the conversation below about finding a mentor. If not, I think we're definitely starting to shift the wrong way on our signal-noise balance, and the discussion should be closed. If any of the other editors who are trying to turn this into a fight against the god-like tyranny (I paraphrase from the closed thread near the bottom of the page) of myself , Sitush, and MatthewVanitas would like to continue the complaints against any one or all of us, I recommend a new discussion, or perhaps a different venue like WP:RFC/U. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

117.195

Nothing to see here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I fear that the National Internet Backbone of Pune, Maharashtra is in danger of being blocked. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC) ...and potentially lock about 10 million from the Pune district (roughly about half of Australia's population) out of Wikipedia? Why not block individual IPs instead. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Of course the actual number of people from there who actually want to edit the English Wikipedia is significantly less and is further reduced by not blocking those who bother to register an account. So is the whole "10 million" thing really that relevant? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, someone seems to desire blocking of much/most of India. Internet backbone#India.-MangoWong ℳ 04:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I think people will find that FuFoFuEd's comment was intended somewhat wry-ly. It is sometimes frustrating when people who clearly know their way around decide deliberately to edit while logged out (which at least one of these IPs appears to be doing, per their original edit summary).I have a fair idea who the person is from stylistic evidence but it is not my place to out them here. Suffice to say that if I am correct then they have recently had their own problems with civility & were treated accordingly. - Sitush (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I see no reason to block much/most of India. Neither do I see a reason to block the IP either.-MangoWong ℳ 05:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Agree. Unless I am unaware of some policy that the IP is violating. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC) You are known to connect dots that don't exist so I'm not surprised you are drawing conclusions that in the end buttress your POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Hm. I am known by you for one failed SPI - the only SPI of many that I have filed that failed. You are known to me as a topic-banned editor who has been trying various routes to overturn the ban. Nonetheless, you are entitled to your opinion here, and so am I. Take a look at the IP edit summary. Query why one of your coterie is notable by their current absence here. Go figure. It seems blindingly obvious to me that the initial comment in this subsection was a wry one. Perhaps the subtlety is lost on others. - Sitush (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC) ...a failed SPI which caused pain to about half a dozen individuals. The initial comment in this section was an irrational threat. Unless someone can show that it is presently reasonable to block much/most of India.-MangoWong ℳ 05:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Oh, diddums. I apologised. Some of those named were subsequently blocked for various reasons. Look, just drop this bone: there is no way that range is going to be blocked. Common sense should tell you that. - Sitush (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Sitush, you have come here to point fingers at everyone else repeatedly though you have taken paints to pass off the issue as 'the initial comment ' and its subtlety lost'; while ignoring why you have not quickly warned the user with the same alertness which you are generally fond of. If you are not too neutral, how does your opinions reflect? You yourself have apologized per you on an issue and are trying to get over it while at the same time point fingers at others - this is against AFG that you are violating. This is not discussion on you. Do this routine when it is for you where you endlessly can stretch these opinions. So 'drop the bone'(which is civil as per yourself), stop conspiracy theories like the other guy(whom was also not warned by anyone including yourself on his 'thrown to wolves' nomenclature), stop pretending that your analysis is almost accurate therefore it matters("I have a fair idea who the person is from stylistic evidence but it is not my place to out them here. Suffice to say that if I am correct then"... - this is a bland accusation made just to convince that some banned user is 'almost' the guy as per Sitush for his brilliant analysis) and move on.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 09:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC) That you apologized does not mean that it is sufficient to take away the pain you caused half a dozen people. That most of the others were subsequently blocked for various reasons only shows that you are expert in obtaining blocks on your opponents. just drop this bone That you think I am a dog only shows your severe problems with WP:CIVIL. there is no way that range is going to be blocked. Common sense should tell you that. Whether or not the range is going to be blocked or not, I do look at the initial comment in this thread as a seriously intended threat.-MangoWong ℳ 05:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Both of you, feel free to open a report here about me. You know how to because you have tried it once. Perhaps you will have more success on this occasion. If you are not prepared to do that then I feel that you should quit the allegations etc. I know from User_talk:MangoWong#Please_file_ANI_against_Cerejota_and_Quigley_for_personal_attacks that you have a strategy to raise all sorts of issues in this thread but, honestly, they are not relevant. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

New section

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
One of our editors make me remember the British Comedy Keeping up appearances. The whole show revolves around the ridiculous attempts by Hyacinth Bucket to act above her class, i.e. act more middle class then be true to her original working class roots. There is tendency, particularly in Northern England, to denigrate people like Mrs. Bucket and the editor I am talking about probably shares the belief that people should not try to act above their station. That's why , the editor (he or she)is fixated on the Shudra / Kshatriya claims by various castes . What this person needs to understand is that Indian castes can not be equated with English class system and applying the same thinking to the former will not work and cause unnecessary aggravation and waste of time.50.11.153.223 (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC) This is utterly irrelevant nonsense. We follow what reliable sources say. A bucket is not a bouquet, any more than a bouquet is a bucket, whatever one may want to believe. Paul B (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Well the above IP has a point, Paul seems to have lost the point, the IP 50.11.153.223 suggests that an editor above is unhappy that some people wish to rise above their station (nothing to do with wp:RS, that is why that editor is unhappy with the unease with Shudra or the longing for Kshatriya. Well read Guv'nor!117.195.78.31 (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC) You rise above your "station" by your own efforts, not by redefining one's ancestry. That's rather pathetic. Yes, it all has to do with RS. These problems arise when people's grandiose fanttasies confict with them. Any differences between the supposed "English class system" and caste are irrelevant. Indeed, the sitcom in question was not even about a "class system", but a rather more universal distinction of social status which would work just as easily in, say, American culture. Paul B (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC) What I said is not about how a person should achieve a raise in station, or what the sitcom was about (about which I care a dunce) but what IP:20.11.153.223 said. You are free to disagree with him, but your disagreement seems to be based on a misunderstanding. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC) This section was hatted once as being irrelevant/off topic. The additional content from the last hour or two seems to me to be equally irrelevant and off-topic. Can we leave it alone, please? - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC) New section created per above. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that some editors bring biases from their own personal situation or, from the community they belong to, in their editing preferences.

In my opinion, the varna situation became important again only with the rise of the Marathas and British colonialism. Otherwise, Indian castes were just tribes of different social standings. I compare Hyacinth to the Kurmi caste because both have the pretensions of being of higher social standing. The Kurmi started working on getting elevated to the Kshtriya status more than a century ago. By now their Kshtriya status should be acknowledged. One can write the history of that "struggle" in the article but there is no need to rub the "Shudra" status in. I applaud F&F for cleaning some of the caste articles to get rid of the "offensive" content. This is my last word on the Hyacinth analogy and I don't think this piece was off-topic or or irrelevant. Regards. 50.11.153.223 (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone willing to mentor?

Qwyrxian queried whether anyone might be willing to mentor Thisthat2011 per the proposal but it is lost in the noise above. So, anyone? Of good standing etc as per the proposal, of course. If not then this is likely to become a straightforward topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've long thought I'd be well-suited to mentoring. What exactly is involved in mentoring? Nightscream (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an essay at Wikipedia:Mentorship. Qwyrxian has recently mentored someone and I am aware that Kansan is doing so, so they may be able to give you some background info. It has to be by mutual agreement, obviously. A specific mentor cannot be imposed on a contributor, and so if TT2011 does not "like" you then I guess it would not happen. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If one is offering to do mentoring, ones block log could also possibly become an issue of discussion.-MangoWong ^ℳ 21:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly true, MangoWong, although even for RfA I think that there is no requirement that a block log must be clean. I wonder if one day you may actually contribute something positive to a discussion? Indeed, this could be your moment: can you possibly name someone who might be both willing and suitable? It is one of several points which I have raised and you have chosen completely to ignore despite your general verbosity in this discussion. Every time and everywhere that you and I converse, I seem to find myself trying to move things forward and being faced by a constant negativity. It is dispiriting, especially since that negativity is often founded on misunderstanding and even when the misunderstanding is communally demonstrated to you there remains an almost complete failure by you to acknowledge it. User:MangoWong, including its history, perhaps would explain a lot to those willing to delve into it, as would recent removals from your talk page per WP:POLEMIC. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as you three continue your irrational obsession for inserting S***** S***** S***** S***** into caste related articles and as long as you three continue your campaign to drive away Indian eds from India related articles and as long as you three continue your campaign of obtaining blocks/bans on Indian eds (so that you can have a free run on caste articles and keep inserting S***** S***** S***** S*****, by googling and by performing misrepresentations and OR and synthesis etc.), you are likely to continue to encounter negativity from me. In the previous ANI, you guys are the ones who said that I am unsuitable for explaining anything to anyone. Apparantly because I had a block record. You say that I misunderstand things. Actually, you are the one who misunderstands things. You have previously alleged that I do not understand what is weasel word and even went on to suggest that I may be stupid. But ask anyone, "Claim" is a weasel word. My understanding is not at fault. If you continue to argue even after the MOS has been shown to you, which lists "Claim" as one of the words to avoid, it is your understanding and attitude which should be questioned. If you guys insist that "citation needed" tags justify edit wars and that such tags are somehow unnecessary in the lead and the infobox, your understanding should be questioned. I think that both the lead and the infobox are covered by WP:V and WP:NOR as much as other parts of the article. I see no reason to relax core policy requirements of verifiability and NOR in the lead and the infobox.-MangoWong ^ℳ 01:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

For reference, MW was casting doubts on infobox/lede statements on caste articles by cn'ing them, though the content was explicitly expanded on and clearly cited in the pertinent sections of the article. Further, when an RS says "John Johnson claimed that he did XYZ", it is not "weaseling" to state "claim" in the article in that context, since we can't well say "did" when the RS cites only the individual/group's claims vice substantiating the fact. MW, TT, and crew have also wasted pages and pages of Talk literally over one word, "Shudra" (labouring mega-caste) no matter how nuanced or backed by RSs, while showing zero concern for WP's horrendous over-use of "Kshatriya" (warrior mega-caste) which is the tip-top favourite claim for those using WP as a soapbox to glorify their personal "ancient and honourable" caste and then defend the POV-pushing to the death. Another favourite technique of caste-glorifiers is to turn around and accuse the NPOV editors of perpetuating the caste system as evil Orientalist outsiders, despite the fact that it's fictional caste narratives and "rah-rah go team!" caste partisanship that serve to perpetuate caste discrimination. MW's allegations of anti-Indian bias are ridiculous wolf-crying, and insulting to the many Indian editors struggling to maintain NPOV on the highly emotional caste articles, including self-declared Indian editors who have worked in harmony with Sitush, Q, and myself. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The above is a highly skewed interpretation of events. As usual. For example, folks may like to know that the trio could never provide a proper ref for the sentence in the infobox (the one which I had tagged). It has been deleted. It was in the Kurmi article infobox. We had discussed "Claim" being weasly or not at Talk:Yadav#Yadavas History. That sentence has also been removed. However, I now find that even after the MOS had been shown, and even after the "Claim" word was removed by agreement, another truckload of "Claim Claim Claim Claim" has now been added into the Yadav article. Is this some kind of a joke? Why must one go on explaining the same point repeatedly? Why can't you guys stick to a point once it has been accepted by you? And don't try to give the impression that the sources were also using the "Claim" word. None of the "sources" were using that word. Plus one of the sources turned out to be a non professor toilet designer. Presently too, I see tons of new poor sources and misrepresentations. And don't try to give the impression that I am here to push Kshatriya claims. In fact, I had "OK"ed your wish to take down rubbish Kshatriya claims at talk:Kurmi. I have known you guys at Yadav, Kurmi and James Tod. And all I could see was you guys trying to get blocks and bans etc. and doing various forms of armtwisting on anyone who has disputes on you. Thanks.-MangoWong ^ℳ 02:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the spiel, MangoWong. Now, would you care to answer my query? - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In an above post, you have linked Wikipedia:Mentorship. Did you not read it? That page clearly says that it is uncivil to volunteer someone else's name for mentoring.-MangoWong ^ℳ 02:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it does. However, I did not ask you to volunteer someone. You talk with people and could discuss the matter then suggest someone here. It seems to me to be a better approach because time and again you have demonstrated a refusal to accept suggestions (of various types) put forward by others such as myself. I was giving you an opportunity. The nuances of the language seem to have got in the way again, sorry. Anyway, a couple of people have put their name forward below. Thoughts?- Sitush (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this could be your moment: can you possibly name someone who might be both willing and suitable? You did ask me to volunteer someone's name. Don't be snide about it. And I am waiting for the discussion to progress before I could say anything more.-MangoWong ^ℳ 12:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I volunteer to mentor. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 10:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I volunteer to mentor. Please keep me informed on my talk page. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 16:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The mentoring part is a little presumptive and premptive at the moment, it assumes that a mentor is needed, it would make someone assume that the user offering mentoring supports that mentoring is needed for the reportee. This discussion could go in any direction, Cerejota who made horrendously provocative remarks, or Quigley who attacked the reportee with such vigour that the NPA flag should have been up. Why are the three musketeers so desperate to get an editor out of the way, or would inquisitors be a better word, one of them has put it like my way or high way, is that how Wikipedia works? Or is it about consensus? 117.195.78.31 (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This user has recieved a warning for making personal attacks. There are only two names above, and against both this user is complaining against. An editor/admin perhaps thinks a complaint is a personal attack. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Making a complaint against users is one thing, comparing them to inquisitors is another. Unless you have proof that they've been culling out heresy for the Roman Catholic Church, I don't think such a descriptor is accurate. It is not a complaint against an editor's behavior, it is a derogatory remark about an editor's personal behavior that lacks evidence. This is why I left that comment on your talk page. - SudoGhost 20:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh! I used it figuratively, is that also forbidden? lynching has been used above, we use impaling, I wasn't thinking of its literal meaning.117.195.78.31 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Webster uses it in a secular (non-religious) sense too "He had to answer his inquisitors' questions or be thrown out of school." The simple English meaning of inquisitor is "a person who asks many difficult questions in a harsh or unkind way" no personal attack or Catholic or hersesy or culling involved here. Please withdraw your templates on this users talk page. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, you made accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. That is, by definition, a personal attack. The template was simply a reminder to please back up what you say with evidence, you'll find your arguments much more effective that way. - SudoGhost 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Do you wish I provide diffs? (First you said it was about Catholics culling something), what is your point? 117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The following comment has been made by an admin who is involved in this report on TT2011: "...Indian culture is, I think, not matching to Wikipedia culture (which is based primarily in Western academic culture)" [67], can this be explained? 117.195.78.31 (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is explained by carefully selecting your quote to leave out the context. It begins with "this is one of those awkward cases where..." That is very different from what you imply above which is that Q. is stating that Indian culture in general is not a match to WP culture. LadyofShalott 20:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The editor contrasted "traditional Indian culture" with "international academia", which, of course, included Indian academics who adopt international standards. The post you condemn was an attempt to recognise and acknowledge cultural differences while pointing out that international standards prevail here. This who discussion is becoming sidetracked by the constant attempts at obfuscation. Paul B (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back your statements? If not then you are violating TGP. The diff is given, where that particular quote and on the page the entire discussion can be followed. I am not implying anything, don't accuse me of anything, such as careful selection. Are anyone of you reliable sources on the relative merits of traditional Indian culture and Wikipedia culture of which one manifestation is the closure of a discussion which was not favouring a particular view? Anyways let Qw answer. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's preposterous to ask for a "reliable source" to interpret a Wikipedian's talk page comment. Paul B (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't preposterous, please see wp:TPG, talkpages are not blogs, whatever you say, you should be able to provide evidence. Please read policy.117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of policy, which you are misrepresenting as sophistically as you misepresented the very comment you quoted. I do not need a reliable source to comment on what someone said. Paul B (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Gentleman, I did not misrepresent the comment, Q's comment has been linked to, a diff has been provided. Please explain in simple language what other issues you have. Short sentences please if you can. I cannot understand you (my fault), and I do not want to jump to conclusions. 117.195.78.31 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's my comment, so I guess I should respond. The context for this was a long discussion with an IP (different IP number from above, may be same editor) regarding the current status among reputable historians of James Tod's writings from the early 19th century on Indian history. You can see the details of contemporary and modern analysis of Tod's writing in the article itself, but the quick summary is that Tod was a weak (though not totally incompetent) historian who relied too much on the unreliable stories and writings of a limited group of people, some of whom were his close associates/patrons. The current problem is that those groups whom Tod spoke highly of, not surprisingly, continue to revere his writings, even though academics do not. As such, the IP and others before xyr object to any criticism of Tod, since that indirectly criticizes their own claims to historical greatness. My comment came because I noticed that the IP was misunderstanding how we evaluate sources on WP (and, similarly in standard international academic writing), and it's one that I am familiar with from interacting closely with other Asian cultures as an ESL teacher. The IP said "the scholars who have the same status as that of james tod can criticize him and not just any other scholar". This is a common stance among cultures who believe that one's ability to speak the truth (which includes one's right to criticize others) is defined in mainly by the relative status of the people. From this perspective it is actual nonsense for a "low-ranked" historian to criticize a "high-ranked" one, as the one with the better reputation necessarily is more accurate/truthful, no matter what evidence the less famous historian may have. Of course, that is not how Wikipedia, or Western/International academic culture works; otherwise, almost no one could write critical interpretations of Marx, Locke, Shakespeare, or Einstein. We show some deference to "greatness", but not to the point of denying well-researched criticism. As such, I was trying to point out that the problem here wasn't that anyone (either side in the dispute) was acting in bad faith; rather, we were operating according to different rules for how status interacts with reliability. Of course, ultimately, to write on Wikipedia, the IP and others will be forced to adopt our standards; I suspect that this is now and will be for a long while a significant source of conflict on Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself may well be modified by this interaction (I personally hope so, because I would like for us to somehow break down the colonizer/colonized hierarchy, and allow other types of truth and more diverse sources into Wikipedia); but it is likely that, simply due to our userbase, we're more likely to stay closer western academic principles. I meant no harm in my statement; in fact, I was hoping (foolishly perhaps) to defuse some of the tension by showing that both sides are trapped by our own cultures, that we have to recognize that, and that Wikipedia requires that users either follow its own culture or follow our own socially accepted mechanisms for changing that culture. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you blame Indian tradition for what one IP editor wrote. Very unfortunate. Why do you assume that the perceived faults are not just one person's but endemic to Indian culture? The least you could is say say sorry? On the other hand you seem to be taking some kind of high ground, broadcasting a lot of condescending and patronising. Looks like you owe a big apology. One that is heartfelt, and comes from an acceptance of wrong doing. Like a Zuggernaut said above, the closing admin should take a hard look at wp:COMPETENCE. 117.195.68.177 (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize because you are correct that I do not know for certain that this problem is endemic to Indian culture. I know, from both personal experience and from reliable research (Ilona Leki comes to mind off the top of my head) that the perspective is common across other parts of Asia. Perhaps, though, the perspective is not common in South Asia/India. I have strong suspicions that it is common, because that IP editor is not the only one from India I've heard make claims that a specific historian or historical text is above criticism. This is basically no different than Evangelical Christians in the US using "But the Bible says X" as their one and only argument to support a particular point--it's fine within their community, but it doesn't work on Wikipedia. Again, I submit that my intent was to help improve the situation by showing that sometimes problems occur not because one party is behaving badly, but simply because the two parties are behaving differently, and the other side looks completely wrong due to cultural issues. Too often Wikipedia editors who come from the U.S. and Europe fail to understand that a lot of our rules (the ones I notice most often are related to verifiability and copyright/plagiarism) literally make no sense in some other cultures, and so we have no right to get all angry because the person breaking policy "should have known better". We have the right to make people follow our policies or force them to stop editing, but we have to be aware that the failure to follow policy is often not due to malice, but due to different cultural paradigms. My goal in the comment was to get the IP editor to understand that xyr perspective on James Tod is not acceptable here even though it may be acceptable in xyr home community, and to indirectly get other editors to see that it's a more complex difference we're facing here than just "Obey policies or get blocked." Qwyrxian (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(There was an edit conflict, but I am putting this anyways)Does familarity ( I am familiar with from interacting closely with other Asian cultures as an ESL teacher.) make Qwyrxian a reliable source on Indian cultural traits. The whole concept of cultural traits is dubious and racist imo. Each individual is unique imo. I am sorry Q, you are displaying extreme cognitive bias. As an admin you should be looking at evidence, and not work off your experiences off-wiki and the assumptions gathered there from, these short cuts you take hurts editors. Please take each case on its merits, based on diffs.117.195.68.177 (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Again the same thing: You say some Wikipedia policies are hard with some cultures. An apology that does not come from an understanding of the wrong doing is no apology. You can say user:X shows he has not understood wp:V, you can say users x, y , z , a, b, c have not understood wp:V, you cannot extrapolate, that is taking a short cut, that makes one's judgement wrong.117.195.68.177 (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The more that people contribute to ANI reports while logged out (whether they by accident or otherwise), the more I start to wonder whether this entire noticeboard has a useful future. Sure, stylistic evidence often gives the game away but it is morally wrong. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This behavior does not seem to be common practice across this noticeboard. I think there are grounds for a sockpuppet investigation, as the user who's hiding behind the IPs has been acting very abusively throughout this discussion: evading scrutiny, personally attacking other users, and starting many off-topic conversations. If the user has genuinely made a mistake (although one edit summary contradicts that), then he should have his contributions correctly attributed to his user account and the IP addresses oversighted if necessary. Otherwise, "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." Quigley (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

For anyone interested and able to contribute, I've filed for a sockpuppet investigation into the funny business in this thread. Quigley (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I never should have got sucked into this conversation. 117, if you have a problem with that edit, or with my overall behavior, feel free to start a new ANI thread, an RFC/U, or whatever you think is necessary. Or if you just want to debate the idea of culture and identity, take it to my talk page, because it doesn't have anything to do with ANI. While it's true that scrutiny may fall on any participant in an ANI discussion, that scrutiny has to be at least somehow related to the issue at hand. ThisThat2011 has never edited the James Tod or Talk:James Tod, and thus my comment has absolutely nothing to do with the question of this thread, which is whether or not TT should be topic banned and compelled to enter mentorship. If you have something to say on that matter please say it, but this conversation is flatly irrelevant. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Follow-up

First, we need to choose a mentor for Thisthat. I am still available. Secondly, it would be great to compile a nice list or chart/table with all of the evidence and the underlying aftermath of each element. That would be good both for the record and for the mentor, as although I will read over all of the evidence, for such a long discussion, it's easy to forget some things. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 21:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with Thisthat choosing xyr own mentor, subject to approval (Black Kite, the closing admin, has already implied support for the three who previously offered mentorship; if Thisthat doesn't like any of those, I'd recommend xe recommend someone else to Black Kite). As for a list of evidence, that is neither necessary nor desirable. In fact, collecting evidence of a user's wrong-doings isn't allowed unless the intent is to take that evidence relatively shortly to some form of sanctioning (like arbitration or an RfC/U). Since this topic ban is the sanction, there is no more need to develop at list of what xe did wrong that lead to the topic ban. What should be done is for tt2011 to work with xyr mentor and develop positive editing skills for the future. There are already some great messages on xyr talk page that indicate that this is occurring, so I, for one, look forward to seeing improvements. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson

I started a discussion at Talk:Brandon Marshall regarding the placement of images within the article. Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who uploaded one of the images, was in disagreement with me about whether an image of Marshall in his current team article, though it is bad quality, should be in the infobox. The consensus appeared to be going against Chris, so he conceded defeat by making the changes per consensus and posted an irrelevant and highly inappropriate response, "I will not tolerate this racism from all of you. I removed the comment as being a violation of WP:TPG (but keyed in the wrong acronym later, and thus it appeared a redlink). He restored his comment, and removed again, threatening to take him here if he continued. I received this edit summary in reply: "don't be such a fucking asshole". In February, Chris was blocked for one month for making personal attacks and he will no doubt attempt to attack me here in this venue as he did the last go-around. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Baseless charges of racism are perhaps the most damaging type of personal attacks. IMHO at minimum the comment needs to be retracted promptly.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The racism assertion was made purely for disruptive reasons, FWIW. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked again. Since the last one was for a month, this one is longer--three months. As much as it pains me to block a long-time contributor, such charges and the accompanying edit summary are unacceptable. I gladly invite review. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I support this block, especially in light of this response. either way (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm a bit embarrassed about that; besides, I can't blame him for his response. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Based on his recent edits, perhaps his talk page access should be revoked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Agreed, he's just trying to be disruptive at this point. He clearly has no desire to request an unblock. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I agree with Eagles; he's only interested in being disruptive now. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 04:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
            • ironic really since his reworded template says he has no need to edit because he "has a life" and yet he's pretty much edit warring to keep his block notice.--Blackmane (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have disabled talkpage access during the block. The type of refactoring he was doing to his block notice almost led me to extend the block, but I decided that time heals all wounds. Let's not have any piling on or bear-poking in the meantime (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the current bastardization of the block notice reads more like a "goodbye" vent, and I see no reason to remove it at this moment. As it does not contain any specific WP:NPA situations (unlike some recent ones), let him vent - but he can go vent in his "real life", as opposed to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just like Martin Luther King? Fo shizzle. And I'm Hitler, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at his block history, I have to wonder if 3 months is long enough in this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I invited review, Sarek... But he has done good work here as well, I think, and surely that counts for something. That they come across like an ... is more than a little unfortunate. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Drmies, if Chris socks, do you agree that he should be indeffed? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I hate to speculate, but I would probably agree to that. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User fails to respond to messages

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.

---

Azumanga1 (talk · contribs) nevers responds to messages in her user talk page. Should an admin block her on not? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 22:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Block the user indefinitely with email and talkpage disabled for not responding to her messages. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 22:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL. You can't be serious? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What? She never responds. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 23:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason to block someone... Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That depends on what they're not responding to. This is a community and users need to communicate. If a user refuses to communicate it can cause issues. Even if their edits aren't necessarily terribly disruptive, if they ignore all attempts by anyone to communicate with them, that in itself can be seen as disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And after having a quick look, that doesn't seem to be the case here, they've responded to people in the past.. I'd question NYmets here. They go to their page to offer them being nominated for adminship, and when the person doesn't answer, they come here insisting they be blocked and have their talk page locked.. were there some serious editing concern they weren't addressing that is one thing, but in this case, perhaps we need to have a look at NYmets edits.--Crossmr (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What kind of response are you looking for from this editor? Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 23:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I notified the editor this is directed toward, as I didn't see where that had been done. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 23:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Boomerang: NYMets2000 and WP:CIR

Per Crossmr above, this appears a classic WP:BOOMERANG and WP:CIR. Per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NYMets2000 and NYMets2000's talk page, where he has previously shown no inclination of co-operating with others when they were trying to dissuade him from his RFA and again when another user asked him to declare any past accounts, should this be pursued further? I would think that to prevent further disruption, we should be thinking about assigning NYMets2000 a mentor, stat. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Since he has shown no desire to cooperate, I think you mean to suggest a block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't he at least be warned before being blocked? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling for a block here is also kind of boomerangy in an odd way. Anyway, mentoring might be a good idea. I was unaware of WP:CIR, and I can only hope that it's a simple test (I assume there's a test?) or I'm gone too. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at NYMets' userpage, and taking into consideration the way he talks and processes things, I would assume he's a younger editor. I think mentoring, rather than a block, would be the best thing for us to do at this point. If his bad behavior continues, and if he is sufficiently warned, then a block may be warranted. But let's see what mentoring does for him first. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a bit of a waste of time. NYMets2000 isn't acting like a clueful or mature member of the Wikipedia community, and I suspect that is something only time can cure. Time away from Wikipedia, anyway. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd block him myself because of User_talk:NYMets2000#RfA and the "other accounts" thread below that. He's clearly unable to communicate properly in a collaborative environment or apply common sense to situations like the section directly above. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at everything again, I agree. I still think he deserves a second chance, but based on everything he's done, I don't think we'll see much improvement. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 05:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's done anything blockable as of yet. I do believe it is heading that way. He's also making some article-space edits that are problematic: for someone who has "circa" birth and death years, he changed the categories to be the specific years listed instead of the decades. LadyofShalott 05:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Do the problematic edits include creating pages highly subject to XFDs, miscategorizations, etc.? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 17:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There's those, then there's the two things that SP mentioned below, many things similar to the things SP mentioned below, and the "RfA" and "What other account(s)" threads on your talk page. As mentioned below I think mentorship would be good for you. Your mentor could address these problem areas as well as introduce you to new areas that may interest you. Would you be willing to consider mentorship? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to consider mentorship. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• His latest gems... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cipspic and WP:BN#Desysop Jinian. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks like NYMets doesn't understand policy very well. Like I said earlier, I think we should try mentorship before doing anything more serious such as blocking. It might not do him much good, but it's at least worth a try. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 17:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The SPI is problematic. I wouldn't consider the Jinian thing that bad, after all it's probably not that common to have someone doing admin actions but not editing so easy to miss. The bigger issue is their failure to follow Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators the notification requirements but considering it doesn't seem Jinian was notified last time their admin bit was removed (the log seems somewhat broken so I don't know when that happened), it seems this requirement is not always carried out (unless the requirement didn't exist then). In other words, yes there are things that ideally should have been seen and more importantly should have been done before asking for someone to be desysopped and considering it's a fairly big thing even if just procedural, it isn't a good look taken together with the rest but still seems fairly minor. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For further information on the July desysops performed by stewards (logs are at meta [68]), see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 22#Removal of Sysop right for inactive Admins. –xeno^talk 20:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've invited the editor to participate in this discussion on his talk page under Strange Passerby's notification of this thread. He's edited since that happened, but not in the last hour or so. Northumbrian (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Since then they have added a stub tag to a new article that was already catagorised and demanded that a page at AFC be indefinitely protected. *sigh* Perhaps its high time for a competence block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The AFC thing is because one AFC was declined 7 times. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 19:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you a regular at AFC and is full protection the norm for repeated requests? If not, it seems to me you should let others deal with it. I presume they have a way of dealing with repeated requests for review which don't appear to address the concerns (if that's what's happening here). I don't really see why full protection is going to be needed, simply informing the requestor that they don't appear to be addressing the concerns and asking them to either seek further help then the confines of AFC can provide or stop and ignoring the request would probably work a lot of the time. Are you even sure that 7 reviews is abnormal or that progress isn't being made? Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

nymets2000, Utahraptor has a question for you above about considering mentorship; looks like it got lost in the course of this discussion, but now might be a good time to answer it. Northumbrian (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeffed

Looks like HJ has tossed the banhammer at him. It saddens me because I tried to help the guy, but I have to concede Fetchcomms is probably right and the best thing for NYMets2000 is to take some time (off-wiki) to develop the communication and collaboration skills needed for fruitful contributions here. Hopefully after he's had a chance to mature some he can come back and try again, with some mentoring. 28bytes (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) While it's something from which I derive no pleasure, I have indefinitely blocked NYMets2000. From the comments here, and my own observation, I do not think they (yet) have the competence to properly contribute here, and there's a real risk that they'll cause damage, albeit likely inadvertent, that's not as easily repaired. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why someone would want to jump in at the deep end if they can't swim. Templates, more templates, desysoppings, SPIs, and the expectation of an adminship... Drmies (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Some problems with article ownership and tag removal

Neutrality tags, POV and other notices are being systematically removed by the page's regulars here, stifling any sort of improvement or collaborative editing. One of the tags have been there since May and nothing has changed to the article, but the tags has been removed with no reason given. I've added a citation needed and an expert request and those have been removed also. I don't think this problem will be solved with me just re-adding the tags every 2 or 3 days I manage to log-in.KaraKamilia (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

After reading the article, and the most recent edit series, I've re-added the maintenance tags. We'll see if the WP:OWNership or WP:TAGTEAMing issues continue. If they do...well, now there are more eyes on the article and its Talk page. Maybe that requested expert will be one set of those eyes. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(KaraKamilia did not bother to notify any of editors he is accusing of "ownership" of this thread, and I am unsure of who to notify.) An accusation of tag teaming is an accusation of meatpuppetry, which is uncivil if without evidence. KaraKamilia's edit-warring with multiple users is less a sign of "ownership" than a sign that he is trying to act against consensus. In fact, KaraKamilia's entire edit history is one of constant edit-warring to promote a Korean nationalist point of view on controversial Korea-related articles. (There are at least half a dozen editors like him, for whom the accusations of tag teaming are much more plausible, some of whom can be seen at Goguryeo controversies)

As for the maintenance tags, they're not supposed to be impediments to reading the article; they're supposed to be indications that there is some active dispute on the talk page. There isn't: the last person to make such complaints, a similarly singular Korean nationalist edit-warrior called User:Kuebie, was recently indef-banned for the same behavior. The contention of these editors—that the subject of the article does not exist—has lost an AfD, despite genuine (closing administrator-acknowledged) meatpuppetry on their part. If KaraKamilia has any specific suggestions towards improving the article, besides placing tags on the article that just say "I don't like it", then he is welcome to start a discussion on the talk page. It's a very simple thing to do; starting a discussion, but apparently these edit-warriors aren't interested in doing it. Quigley (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with at least part of that assessment; the article did not read WP:NPOV to me, and if someone's asking for an expert opinion, I see no reason to arbitrarily reject that request, past history notwithstanding. Indeed, if more experts in certain fields were to weigh in on article Talk pages, we'd likely see more WP:GA and WP:FAC nominees that meet muster without significant rewrites. Now, with that said, I'll also stipulate that there are some who see maintenance tags as a means of casting aspersions on the content of some articles, for no other reason than they don't like what the article has to say about a particular topic. I'm not convinced this is the case here, though, which is why I was WP:BOLD in reinstating all three maintenance tags to the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you started a discussion on that article's talk page, I'd prefer to keep the discussion in one place (there). But I will say that as a matter of principle, drive-by tagging is discouraged; readers who want POV-changes or expert attention should give "specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" if they are serious about improving articles rather than casting aspersions, as you say. Quigley (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sambokim's latest sock

Resolved

 – Indeffed.

If someone gets the chance could you indef: Mckmoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is Sambokim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) latest sock. He still can't control himself and insists on spamming up every article he touches.--Crossmr (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Why don't you just get a mop yourself? Drmies (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  I'd never self-nominate.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please delete Dieter Nohlen

This article is a translation (without the version history) of the german article. The german one was deleted because of copyright violation, and so the english translation should be deleted, too.--Antemister (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've listed this at WP:Copyright problems, thank you for letting us know. January (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User Efekamer

I've just indeffed Efekamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for removing material from articles without giving any reason. This editor has been blocked twice before for similar offences, and was given a final warning on 16 August. I may have been a little heavy handed with the block, and have no objection to it being made a fixed duration block should another admin think that is a better option. Mjroots (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just left a long note on his talkpage that will hopefully provide simple help in getting the length reduced, should he choose to pay attention. An unfortunate - but needed - wake-up call (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

He has been trying to communicate but at first he didn't seem to know how talk pages work. There also seems to be a language barrier. This seems to be a case of someone truly confused as to why his edits are being reverted as in his mind what he is adding is true and what he is removing is "not true". Edit summary usage is zero. I don't think he knows what an edit summary is and he's simply editing articles like he would documents on his own computer. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that he is Turkish? Would some advice from a Turkish-speaking editor in his own language be beneficial? Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Realhistorybuff and India

A couple of hours after the expiration of a 24-hour block for edit warring Realhistorybuff (talk · contribs) resumes the same behaviour on the same article (India). Rather than joining the discussion on the talk page, said user is engaging in odd edits such as removing other's comments. Could an uninvolved admin please deal with this situation. Nev1 (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Also see WP:AN3#User:Realhistorybuff reported by User:Elockid (Result: ), the report that was filed a few minutes ago. The editor doesn't engage in any discussion but been told that his edits include copyright violations, synthesis and generally unreliable information. All his edits to other articles have also had similar problems and been reverted. Apparently every admin watching the article is currently involved in this round of reverting. —SpacemanSpiff 21:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Realhistorybuff's problems don't begin and end with India. Almost every single edit from that user has been disruptive or vandalistic, from China to multiracial to South Asia. [69][70][71][72][73][74] Quigley (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of problems with Realhistorybuff's edits. Almost all of his/her edits are basically to booster Indian related topics at the expense of other topics. What I mean is upgrade to how good India and other related topics are and downgrade the competition.

This edit here to Model minority was basically to showcase Indian Americans as the "best" group and removed other groups that are widely considered as a model minority. This edit to China was used to lessen the status of China. This is clear promotion and POV. For example, "The intellectual contribution of India to the world is unmatched". "In fact, India was the wealthiest civilization and possessed the most advanced economy throughout most of human history". That statement is so wrong in so many levels. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My initial concern was the resumption of edit warring, especially as there was an open discussion on the talk page, but the subsequent diffs added here suggest there is a more troubling pattern of disruptive behaviour here. Nev1 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that OrangeMike has blocked him for 72 hours, but given the quantum of disruption and no benefit, perhaps the next one should be the last. —SpacemanSpiff 21:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Could this be a puppet?

Given the recent topic ban of User:Thisthat2011 and the puppet-like IP activities surrounding it, could this be a sock related to this drama? I am not familiar with India-wide controversies, but if a topic keeps popping up at ANI that is a good quack quack quack for there being some sort of puppetry (sock or meat) going on. Thoughts?--Cerejota (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I had doubts that Realhistorybuff is a sock. But when he/she created Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/India, I had more suspicions. Requests for Mediation are not exactly a common place to go especially for an account that's only been starting to actively edit for the past couple of days. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This editor is a net negative to the project. Their very user page is an indication that they value their truth over anything else and are not willing to agree to some of the basic principles here like neutrality, verifiability, and collaboration. I would support the banhammer coming down, regardless of whether it hits a sock or not--and perhaps some friendly CU could check into some of these other suspicions. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User is already blocked. Yeah some CU should CU this so we can say CU later to any related accounts.--Cerejota (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ugh....the style and vocabulary in xyr edit summaries seems really familiar to me, but I can't for the life of me remember from who, and I checked contribution histories of a few suspects and none seem to match. One possibility is that this is someone who previously edited as an IP on somewhere I've watched, explaining both why they have familiarity with (though no actual understanding of) DR, as well as why they seem familiar to me.... Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement on the blocked user's userpage makes them appear to be a determined POV warrior and/or a crusader for "the truth". - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of socks, he/she's just started. Prrrrecious (talk · contribs). I've filed an SPI. The case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Realhistorybuff. Would appreciate an indefinite block on both accounts. It's quite evident he/she's here to push their POV without any sense of collaboration. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, WP:ER and possibly WP:CIR

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

I have reminded Kiefer.Wolfowitz that edit-warring is unwise, especially edit-warring with an someone on their own editor review. I don't believe there's anything else here an admin needs to do here. 28bytes (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

---

This might be silly, but I see no other place to do this.

Recently, I came upon an article, Vietnamese Trotskyism, that was in awful shape, tagged it with a few improvement tags[75].

Then User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, possibly alerted by my "expert" tagging started editing. I disputed a number of his edits etc using the NPOV template. Normal BRD, so far. In fact, most of my edits stand, and so do his, and indeed the article is improved. This is just background.

Before this, I opened an editor review to gather opinions etc: Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cerejota During the editing dispute at Vietnamese Trotskyism, User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz placed this [76] which I reverted He posted this, I reverted it and put and edit summary explaining why. Wikidan61 did ask me why I did it, and I replied, and he didn't even after I TB. - see note diffs coming I posted this in his talk page [[77]], trying to explain why I was reverting. It developed into this:[78]

At first I thought he had simply reverted the change, so I was going to raise the WP:CIR issue, but then I saw that in fact he had included a relevant review, so I striked that thru, and said so. I also removed the comment on the ongoing dispute. Then he did this as I wrote the initial ANI report. Without disputing what the template says, such templates are reserved for escalation or clear new account type vandals. WP:CIR.

So I ask:

1. Am I mistaken in assuming that WP:ER is not intended as a place to vent current disputes, but solely for reviews, even negative ones, of past issues?
2. Are my reversions, and my explanations, vandalism?
3. Are they otherwise incorrect?
4. Are ER pages talk pages like in articles, or is the editor being reviewed within his or her rights to refactor reviews seen as unproductive or otherwise out of scope?
5. Was my behavior such that such a template escalation had to be done?

I am assuming good faith because the editor seems extremely experienced (ie has a large number of edits). So I can only conclude, in good faith, that this is an issue of WP:CIR. While I am fully aware of WP:BOOMERANG, I have no beef in terms of the behavior at Vietnamese Trotskyism, etc, and that is not what I am reporting. What I am reporting is the stuff around my editor review. If I am wrong, so be it, but if I am right, could someone please tell him to stop this behavior? I have attempted to explain this in many ways, but it seems either he is ignorant of the intent of the process, or I am ignorant and he is unable to relieve me of my ignorance in a constructive way. That is the first WP:CIR issue. Just look at the editing history for the other WP:CIR issues, like not being able to decide what to say (I got three emails from talkpage edits for what amounted to the same edit, an no courtesy "minor" edit so my inbox wouldn't get full. Sounds petty, but in the context it increases my view that WP:CIR is something be looked at here. He also continued to expand the thread on the Vietnamese Trotskyists in his talk page, but didn't notify me via TB (as I ask in my talk page) nor took it to article talk, as I requested. WP:CIR seems to me.

NOTE: While I write this, User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz seems to have exploded, so I am posting an incomplete version and refactoring and adding diffs later just to get this out. My apologies. --Cerejota (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC) (refactor/expand: --Cerejota (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

In my opinion, both of these editors do useful work here. I see no reason to exclude discussion of recent incidents such as the Vietnamese Trotskyism matter from an editor review, but on the other hand, I see no reason for these editors to battle about it. I encourage both editors to cool it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer does tend to be more, err, 'forthright' than he should be – which does tend to create unnecessary friction. However, your removal of his comments seems, at the least, in poor taste. After asking for comments about your editing, you should let all such comments stand, (unless it's obvious vandalism). Removal of another's comments on a public board is not really kosher. LK (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the comments, I have refactored and expanded the report.--Cerejota (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

To respond, initially, I am willing to accept the review as is, however, it strikes me as "forum shopping" to use an ER to advance an editing position. And of course, there is the issue of the WP:CIR and misuse of templates. I do not think this is a simple case of two bulls locking horns, although it might be :P--Cerejota (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota,

If you template my page, then you should watchlist it for the next days.

Given your description of Vietnamese Trotskyism as an "attack page" against the VietMinh Communists, and given your removal of the fact of the mass murders of 1945 from the lede (and your softening of the lede to "executed and jailed" rather than Alexander's "exterminated" 07:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)), my restraint has been excessive (once again!).

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that. You claim I did, but I didn't - I said it approached an attack page - read the diff, it will come to you. Describing any group as "mass murderers", unless this is an undisputed fact, is a clear violation of WP:NPOV - and using only one source to do so is a violation of WP:V. You need to really take a deep reading of the house rules on content. However, all of this pales, as I said, with your other behavior, and demonstrates the WP:CIR issue I say you have: you seem not to understand there is a time and a place for everything, and discussing content issues is not something we should be doing at ANI (or for that matter, ER), but the talk page of the article.--Cerejota (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, "approaching 'attack page'"---that explains so much. Heaven forbid that the Vietnamese Communists should have been described as "mass murderers" (where I've quoted your quotes): Maybe you can clean up the article about Vietnamese Boat People? Perhaps the VietMinh simply misremembered the lyrics as "Now the Trotsky-ists must be shotsy"?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, without evidence, accused me of meatpuppetry, among other things, on another ANI thread here. WP:NPA on what constitutes a personal attack: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." Drrll (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

³--Cerejota (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Perhaps I'm being naive but given that an editor review is for the editor's benefit, it seems to me that if the editor doesn't regard the reviewer's comment as useful or within scope of the review, tells them that and removes it, there isn't a legitimate (i.e. constructive) reason for the reviewer to restore it. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I would have thought that talkpage rules apply - if the user removes it, they are presumed to have read it.

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:Gtadood

Resolved

 – Gtadood blocked for 2 weeks. 28bytes (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

After a disagreement over recently added content to the Matt Hardy article, User:Gtadood took it upon himself to vandalize my talk page with the line "Faggot who doesn't know what heshe's talking about!". [79] NJZombie (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

They have been warned. In the future, do not take light matters such as this one to ANI; rather, warn them, and if they continue, report them. As for the disagreement, bring the issue up on the article's talk page. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't have as much of a problem with the article as I do the language with which the user decides to vandalize the talk pages of users who don't agree with him. "Faggot" is pretty extreme language to be throwing around randomly. "Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted." NJZombie (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

These kinds of things can be discussed at WP:WQA.--v/r - TP 16:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the page on personal attacks instructs users to report extreme cases here. Considering the language used, that's what I did. NJZombie (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As a vandal fighter, I've been called much worse than a "faggot" on my user page by vandals. Being called a faggot once isn't extreme enough to be brought here; however, being called a faggot multiple times despite having warned the person is a different story. But even that should be brought to WP:WQA, as TParis said. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been called worse myself and my feelings are far from hurt but that's not justification for its use. It wouldn't be acceptable even if I had done something to initiate it. It's certainly not acceptable over an editing disagreement. I've seen user page vandals get blocked for less than that. Indicating levels of abusive language only shows others that it's acceptable to go so far with personal attacks. Where is the line drawn if it's approached that way? NJZombie (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Gtadood has been properly warned, and if they continue, as 28bytes said, they will be blocked. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree with TParis and Utahraptor here. NJZombie was perfectly right to bring this here. This is not acceptable language AT ALL and if it happens again (and I see it) I will be giving Gtadood an extremely long time-out. 28bytes (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with 28 on this one. The civility board's reputation is not that great, and this is serious enough. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling someone a "faggot" is not a WP:WQA issue. This user sure redact the comment, it is a clear personal attack, of unquestionable gravity that should result is a severe block if not self-reverted. "faggot" is slang for "homosexual" for those of you living under rocks, and that is an attack on "sexual identity" as per WP:NPA. Admin action is urgently requested. The warning is insufficient if no redacting of the attack is done. The policy is unequivocal in this respect. --Cerejota (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. I don't have any patience for vandalism of a user-page in the course of an editing dispute with language like that. Any one of those three elements would have been borderline. All three of them together are unacceptable. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Litch

In last July, Litch (talk · contribs) accused me of having a COI by editing at TOMS Shoes. For the record, I have zero connection with the company. After I reverted a contentious addition about the company that had no references. He reverted the removal and added references from blogs. One was Jezebel which, in my opinion, can be reliable depending on the content so I decided to research the information. I removed the information (it had a WP signature in it, had several external links, and used phrases like "received widespread criticism" and "ambiguous apology"), rewrote it back into the article, and added very reliable sources. Since then, Litch has taken to my talk page again to call me a coward and say, "bite me".

Even with the quickest of skims of the user's talk page, you can see that they're almost constantly in some sort of disagreement with other editors. They have also been blocked twice for "harassment and personal attacks". The second block was for "continuation of personal attack after return from block" then six days later, he's "highly doubting the good-faith" of other editors with effectively zero evidence. Litch has obviously not learned from his prior blocks and I request that more action be taken. OlYeller^Talktome 18:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I gave Litch a {{uw-npa4im}} regarding the WP:NPA message, and notified them of this discussion at the same time. I elected to drop the "immediate" bomb because Litch dug into OlYeller21's User Talk page archive to leave their message, rather than simply responding on the User Talk page. If I've overstepped, feel free to trout me, but my 2p is that dredging month-old disagreements out of archives and then responding to them in the same archives is well over the line. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama insisting on less reliable sources

Reikasama (talk · contribs) has refused to get the point that Anime News Network's encyclopedia (WP:A&M/ORS#Situational), MyAnimeList (WP:A&M/ORS#Unreliable), and the Japanese Wikipedia (WP:A&M/ORS#Unreliable), are not reliable sources because their contents is user generated and has demanded that Kodomo no Jikan‎ be unprotected so that s/he may "correct" the article despite the fact that the article was semi-protected in the first place because s/he was edit warring as an IP. Reikasama has been pointed to WP:V and WP:A&M/ORS multiple times during the course of the discussion but still insists that s/he is right and that the three are reliable source. S/he has also stated that Lolicon#Genre characteristics is completely wrong and that the sources there, which include several academic papers and books, are made up and even threatened to extend the edit war to this article as well.[80] —Farix (t | c) 21:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Is absolutely false, i've 100% reliable source as example like ANN, the best, proefessional and large community in the web. Also i have MAL, another big community and the same japanese wiki, where the word is created in origin and here is stated the correct definition by japanese people. The lolicon word in origin is not a genre but define a behaviour like hentai and ecchi. I provide 3 sources while the moderator for a reason i don't get insist to use the wrong terminology and linking me a blog with personal opinion made by 1 guy. I don't get also what's the issue to use another word instead of the improper use of this one. [81] [82] [83]. Also the improper use of this word is often use as internet meme in the west for practical use not because is correct like in original. If Farix deny this, it consider pratically japanese people where the word is originated liars. Like the pizza invented in italy is a lie. You also can ask directly to a wiki japanese administrator the meaning of this word in Japan. Reikasama (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk about hoisting yourself by your own petard. But Reikasama has now attempted to inserting their personal POV into Lolicon using unreliable sources such as the Japanese Wikipedia and ANN's encyclopedia.[84] —Farix (t | c) 10:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Source i provided are 100% reliable and accurate more than the source you post (1 person opinion), i provide links in the matter as proof and fix errors. Is not my POV, is the point of the enire anime and manga community as a fact. ANN is a professional website, one of the main hub of the www anime fandom. Fix errors is helping wikipedia for the best not for the bad. I gain nothing in this, i just don't like disinformation and false statements so i try my best to help with reliable and correct sources. also a classification in the west don't mean is the correct explanation of terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reikasama (talk • contribs) 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You should find some sources that are deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards, then. These are clearly not acceptable as the links provided by TheFarix shows. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you blind? I provide you link, every link i provide you told me that aren't reliable source. This is not a matter of cources, you attack me personally abusing your authority only because you don't accept my sources.Reikasama (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User generated content will never be considered "100% reliable and accurate", and continuing to claim that they are "100% reliable and accurate" will not make them reliable under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Farix (t | c) 11:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

They are, ANN is linked in wikipedia in every manga and anime post, if isn't a reliable source why is linked everywhere? simply because it is and is reliable without any doubts. Reikasama (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear for all to see that Reikasama is engaged in tendentious editing and disruptive behavior by repeatedly insisting that unreliable sources are reliable, even after being pointed out to policies that state that those sources are unreliable. —Farix (t | c) 11:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I provide 100% reliable sources, on the other hand you abuse your privileges to lock topics at random refuse to accept my sources as a proof. ANN is one of the most reliable sources on the www about anime and manga. Linked everywhere in the wiki too as database. You refuse the avidence and attack me personally. Reikasama (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a correction needs to be made above. Anything can be a reliable source for some purpose. However, it depends on how the item is used. It bothers me when people use a blanket statement like "such and such CAN'T be a reliable source", because it all depends on the context. It is equally bad when people say certain things are ALWAYS reliable sources. For example, saying anything put out by the New York Times is automatically valid. It simply isn't true. Our guideline on Reliable Sources needs to be applied as written, not as we would like it to be.

Back on topic, Farix, I don't know a thing about MyAnimeList, but without having seen it, I would tend to agree with you. My question to both you and Reikasama is, what sources are available for general research on Anime? If the statements made in these articles are reasonable, just leave the sourcing off for a bit until you find something in a source you both agree is fine. WP:V does support this type of process.

Reikasama, maybe if you work slowly for a bit while you learn the process for Wikipedia, it would help you succeed. You appear to be a very new editor, and sometimes new editors and old editors take time to learn to work well together. See if you can use different sources that everyone agrees are acceptable, and maybe over time, you will have a different view of the processes at Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In what way? ANN is the most know website on the net, the ANN database is linked for every anime and manga posted here in wikipedia. If you ask people into anime and manga what ANN is, 99% know the website as valid source. Moreover i linked another pretty popular website called MAL. They are the biggest. Biggest mean 90% of the community agree with these tags. More sources i provide and less accurate they will be because they fall into the small communities and personal opinions. I don't get also where is the issue to use the properly usage of a terminology. If you ask to a japanese administrator here on wiki i'm 100% sure that he give you the same explanation as me, as ANN, as MAL. Since the word was created in Japan, deny the original meaning mean that japanese are liars and don't know thir own alphabet. In the end i only want to edit tags and adding the ones used on ANN and MAL, removing the lolicon one because is inappropriate and incorrect. But i can't because this guy continue to block the webpages and delete my sources and post, he don't listen, he is selfish and do what he want. That's all. Reikasama (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so let's look at the sources mentioned.

• ANN - http://www.animenewsnetwork.com
• MAL - http://myanimelist.net

At first glance, I would probably say ANN is a news source. Personally, I have no idea if they are considered reliable, but they seem to be.

MAL seems to be written by various volunteers. How do I know something written at MAL is accurate? It seems like it would depend on each user. So it is likely to be a less reliable source than ANN.

Like I said above, find some sources for Anime that both of you can agree on, and use those. -- Avanu (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, have you read this: Wikipedia:General Disclaimer? It says "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" (not my caps ..). Sites with user-generated content are not a reliable source. That includes the English Wikipedia, and hence, also the Japanese Wikipedia. Yes, sure, most of the info there is true and correct - but you can not be sure that it is correct (it does not have editorial oversight, parts may be wrong (even temporarily), etc.). You can not use it as a reliable source. That does not mean that the people who write the Japanese Wikipedia, or the other websites are liars .. the problem is, that you will have to find other sources to show that the work on these websites is correct (and not e.g. written by someone who is mistaken, or made a small mistake, or even a vandal who just passed by), which makes those the sources that you actually want to use here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean by generated content. Anime and manga are part of the fandom, everything related to this media, info and databases are generated by communities and people around them. ANN is made by professionist that are anime and manga fans too since the beginning. MAL too. Animenation, the only source the moderator Farix use as a proof is a community too. If we deny these sources as a reliable source then everything is a lie. Also these are the only websites of news and databases on the entire internet (i point out that every anime and manga posted in wikipedia has a link to ANN, so i assume ANN is a reliable database). Also you can ask directly to a japanese administrator or moderator of wikipedia japan, he will sure know at 100% the meaning of this word in his motherlanguage and the proper usage of the terminology. Reikasama (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User-generated = made by volunteers. We have no idea if each volunteer is honest, even if 90% are honest, maybe 1 volunteer isn't. -- Avanu (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah i get now, no the database is made by professionist and locked, the community can only report errors but can't modify the database at all like here. Reikasama (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"i point out that every anime and manga posted in wikipedia has a link to ANN, so i assume ANN is a reliable database" - what do you mean .. do you mean that every Wikipedia page has an external link to ANN, and that therefore you think that ANN is a reliable source? Please do note then, that external links do not need to be a reliable source, they follow another set of rules on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you go back to the kojikan page a lot of sources are linked to ANN, like the interview to the original author, because ANN do interview to mangakas and translate news from japanese media. So i assume that these are all reliable sources and ANN is automatically a reliable source. Is what i mean by linking news. Reikasama (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. I just looked at Lolicon#2010s - present .. and all the references there go to ANN. All those ANN-news items are based on other (sometimes questionable) sources. As such, all those sources are useless without checking the actual sources. The actual sources should be used (when reliable), where the blog post can be used as an additional note-reference (to back-up the real source, and for readability). Although probably true, I would not trust the Wikipedia text in that paragraph based on the sources that I see here. Anyway, it is not a good idea to base conclusions on 'they do it there, so it must be fine here as well' .. maybe it is suboptimal or wrong 'there' as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, if you consider ANN not a reliable source then 90% of the articles about anime and manga are a lie. ANN provide translations of japanese news and interview with mangakas, and more content like reviews, preview, and a solid database (locked not open to everyone). Is one of the few professional websites that provide these services. Reikasama (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

'not reliably sourced' does not equal 'a lie'. And some of the ANN items I checked in that section actually have a link to a better source, which, I presume, will say the same. Still, the linked site is then more reliable than ANN I would say, even if both say the same. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Dirk, I don't want to have to argue the WP:RS page again... just read my post above. Sites with user generated content CAN be a reliable source, but they must first come under exceptional scrutiny. Please read the guideline, not make blanket statements. -- Avanu (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that, Avanu .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

An outside opinion from an uninvolved editor. I don't know much about anime/manga and have not looked closely at the sources he is trying to use but what I do see is several experienced editors banging their heads against the wall trying to convince Reikasama that the sources he is trying to use are not reliable sources. After looking at Reikasama's contribs I think this is a futile effort. When a typical editor loses an editing dispute, he can shrug, drop the stick and go "do something else". However, Reikasama seems to be here to remove the lolicon tag from Kodomo no Jikan and apparently that's the only thing he is here to do. That stick is permanently glued to his hands. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, because based on the sources i linked, expecially ANN, i get that lolicon is not a genre but a behaviour in Japan, here in the west is usend in a improper way like a category but originally isn't. ANN report it as a theme to go more deep in the description but not a genre. I want only edit the tags with appropriated tags picked up from ANN and MAL and discard the lolicon tag. I do not intend to edit more about the manga, rest is fine and properly explained. I've no more to say on this matter, choice is you admins to allow me to edit or not. Reikasama (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we can all agree on what Reikasama is here to do, it might be best to explain to him/her how to accomplish that goal. I'll give it a try.

The sources you provide, Reikasama, aren't necessarily wrong. What you need to recognize, however, is that they are not considered reliable by our standards. To get your way, you will have to understand why that is and find sources supporting your position which do not have the same problem. You seem to have understood already why the Japanese Wikipedia can't be used to back up your position, so I won't go into that. The same is the case with MAL, which is essentially a combination of a social networking website and an online encyclopedia. The situation is a little bit more complicated with ANN, which contains several kinds of contents all in the same web domain. It contains news (URLs starting with http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/) which are widely used on the English Wikipedia as sources for release dates and the like. It has a forum (URLs starting with http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/) which is essentially useless for our purposes. It contains reviews (URLs starting with http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/) which are often used in "Reception" sections of our articles to cite the reviewer's opinion. Most importantly, it features an encyclopedia (URLs starting with http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/) which is linked from just about every manga or anime article's "External links" section. This encyclopedia was once very widely used on the English language Wikipedia as a source for all kinds of information. That stopped following this discussion.

Bottom line: Wikipedia is not MAL or ANN. It has its own goals and policies. If you want to get anything done around here, you'll have to do it Wikipedia's way. Read WP:V and WP:IRS. Try to understand them. Ask questions if you don't understand. We are not evil gnomes trying to promote false information. You just have to give us sources we consider reliable. Continuing to insist that your sources are reliable will only get you blocked (meaning you won't be able to edit anymore) in the long run. And nobody wants that. Goodraise 15:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Then link me source that you consider reliable because i fail to see the difference. Keeping the word lolicon as a genre is a false information. Since a lot of references are picked up from ANN i don't get how this website shouldn't mark as reliable, 80% of the references in the kojikan page are from ANN articles translate from this website. The database is locked, and you can only report errors so is not that everyone can edit content there. The database is maintaining by professionals reviewers. Since all references are from ANN why i can't use the same ANN for change a mere tag used improperly here? If you don't consider ANN reliable then remove all the ANN reference in that page and others, comvalidate them checking the original source then re-approve or delete. But is complicated and make no sense at all. Since the tag used on ANN stated that lolicon is not a genre but a theme i completely trust them as reliable source since the same ANN website is used to make articles here on wikipedia. I intend to change the tags into [Drama][comedy][Romance][Slice of life] and remove the tag [Lolicon] because inappropriate use of the original terminology and i base my source on the same source used to made these articles. I don't get why some source there are reliable and some not? Also the source linked by Farix are the same as ANN, but what he link isn't related to kijikan but stated a general opinion. also why don't ask directly to a japanese dmin or moderator the meaning of the word? A motherlanguage know what mean so you can have more proof. Reikasama (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

ANN's encylopedia is not "made by professionist". It is made by any and all users who is willing to register an account on ANN's website. There is also no oversight of any of the contributions to their encyclopedia section and once information is entered, it can take months to change or correct. Even ANN's chief encyclopedist, who simply sets policy and doesn't actually verify any of the information, once stated that the encyclopedia section should not be considered a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 16:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Is made by professionist, people that once was anime and manga fans like me, now they work and get payd to maintain ANN database, do reviews and previews. The sources are reliable because all the articles translated are based on the original japanese page of the company or the author, from twitter and from personal diaries. All kojikan references are picked up from ANN translation articles. If ANN is not a reliable source then you have to remove all the reference used to write articles on wikipedia, kojikan included. Because is weird, all is ok but when i come here and edit a tag picked up fro the same source website is not ok anymore? There is a contraddiction. Reikasama (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, I regularly use ANN's encyclopedia, including often reporting errors when I find them, and I can tell you that their encyclopedia is certainly not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. While ANNs reviews, articles, and news stories are written by paid professionals and are certainly reliable, the encyclopedia information can be freely added by anyone. Since information can be added by anyone, but cannot be removed or edited except by staff members, mistaken information is often introduced and then sits for years at a time. There are currently only about half a dozen people who can edit or remove information from the encyclopedia, and there are simply too many error reports for them to deal with them all in a timely manner. Furthermore, since the staff members only review information that is reported as erroneous, there could be errors that sit for years without ever being discovered. You just need to understand that even though ANN is in general a reliable site run by professionals, the encyclopedia portion just isn't relaible by Wikipedia standards. Calathan (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is managed by competent people for what i know and can't be edited by anyone, try to make an account and change it, you can't. This database is well managed with reliable informations about every serie not managed by the community. But since both ANN and MAL share the same tags and wiki not, how do you know that the wiki is a reliable source and the tags are correct? I've checked anime.nfo too, and even this website share the same tags, everything but wikipedia. So is not more a matter of this is right this is not, if 200 person told you that this is wrong and only 1 told you is right what do you do? You follow 1 or 200? Moreover what are Wikipedia standards? Before you told me that wikipedia is not a reliable source, i've linked the japanese wikipedia page as a proof but you discard it cause this, then i assume that also the english page is a fake and not a reliable source, so a question arise: who made the kojikan page at the beginning and put in the current tags is a reliable source? He just build the page and use these tags, but where is the source that claim that these are reliable and correct tags for this specific serie? I propose a fix because i know the proper terminology from a lot of different source about this serie, and all my sources aren't different from the source in here. They are still sources. Then again if everything in the web is not a valid source then even the actual kojikan page is a lie and is a fake and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch with reliable and valid sources. -_- Reikasama (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, in meantime i find another source that use a different tag for this serie and the correct terminology. The author of the article of the AnimeNation staff use "lolita anime" or "loli anime" (abbreviated) as GENRE and not Lolicon as genre, because lolicon is not a genre but a theme. [85]. Is this enought to trust my sources now and the tags i intend to use (listed before) to edit the kojikan page? Reikasama (talk)

The source you link supports the one that Farix has and completely undermines your own position. Edward321 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon? He stated clearly that "lolicon" is not a genre, is an improper use of terminology, infact i propose a lot of times to use [loli manga] as tag, completely different. I want point out that the tag i propose has the same meaning. since i linked several sources that clearly state that the tag [lolicon] isn't used or is used as a theme but genre. Reikasama (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if you can actually read English or you are just selectively reading what you want to. John explicitly states that it is a genre. —Farix (t | c) 10:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are not going to believe anyone else who tells you the truth about ANN's encyclopedia, perhaps you will believe what Chris Macdonald, Chief Publisher and CEO of ANN, said about using their encyclopedia as a source and vicea versa. "Dan [DeLorme] and I recently discussed this. Wikipedia is to be avoided as a source for the exact same reason that ANN's Encyclopedia should be avoided as a source at Wikipedia."[86] —Farix (t | c) 01:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you talking about? Wikipedia, stated by an administrator before, is not a reliable source for the reason that everyone can edit the content, on the other hand ANN is a reliable source not only because tons of references and articles are pick up from there but because is a professional website and sources there are reliable because they are directly translated from the original authors. I don't get your point. Reikasama (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are calling ANN's CEO and publisher a lair because he admits that the encyclopedia section is unreliable. —Farix (t | c) 10:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, ANN is not a reliable source. Most information is right and true, but you can not be sure what information is right and true. Even if there is, under thousands and thousands of editors, one single editor who cleverly inserts wrong information, then until you know who that one editor is who inserts the mistaken information, you do not know which information is wrong, and hence, all the information is suspect. As you say, 'they are directly translated from the original authors' -> those are the articles that are the reliable sources that Wikipedia should be based on, not on the translations, even if 99.99% of them is correct. The ANN could there be used as a quick-check source, but it should never be the source where information is based on. In Wikipedia: 'Statement.<ref>a reliable source</ref><ref>ANN source saying the same</ref>'. And note, in the section I mention above, there are ANN items based on twitter posts. ANN may correctly state what the original source says, but if the original source is not a reliable source, then ANN does not become a reliable source either. It can be used, but with very, very much care. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If ANN is not a reliable source then you have to remove all the information gathered from there, delete the page and rewrite with reliable source discarding ANN. But since several website report that [lolicon] isn't a genre and label kojikan a simple [loli manga][drama][comedy][slice of life][romance] manga i trust them as reliable source. Is enought, is not 1 but several. You know japanese? If so link me sources in japanese as reliable. Translations on ANN are correct and made by people who has study japanese language not random users. In the lolicon page another user point out that there aren't source and information that define [lolicon] a genre after some research he made through japanese wiki and other info websites. Lolicon is used in west simply for practical use. So if there isn't any reliable source that prove that [lolicon] is a genre there aren't reliable source that prove countrary and the terminology should be put on hold and not used till some concrete data coming out as reliable source. Reikasama (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not how it works. I explained that already. And note, the term used is 'verifiable', not 'verified'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And if the owner of the site says "ANN's Encyclopedia should be avoided as a source at Wikipedia" .. how do you know that all the translations are correct? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine then, if you don't consider ANN translation reliable as a source then remove them all from the wikipedia kojikan page and relate pages to the side-terminology. Put the word in hold from usage till someone post another fully reliable source. If ANN is not a reliable source everything related to ANN is not. I can't accept that some of the translated source on ANN are reliable and some others not, and who decide that some are reliable and some not? You? Me? It make no sense. Or is all reliable or is all false, there aren't middle ways. Also consider that other users point out that doesn't exist a source that explain the word [lolicon] as a genre. If you keep the actual tag on kojikan without a proper reliabe source you keep on wikipedia a false and not confirmed statement. Reikasama (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, Reikasama, that is not how Wikipedia works. I would strongly suggest that you don't remove the references. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Then i don't uderstand how wiki works, provide me argouments please. Because make zero sence that some articles from the same source are reliable and some not. Who decide and why some reference are ok and some not? Can you provide me links that you consider reliable source about the matter? Can you provide me a source that stated that the tag [lolicon] in a genre in Japan? Can you provide me links where you consider reliable a translation and where not? Because you continue to repeat "is not how wiki work" without provide example and reliable sources on how should work. Seems that you are forcing a one side vision and a personal opinion for principle and not using facts. No doubt various communities consider wikipedia a crappy and not a reliable source, you keep in false statements and discard true statements, spreading disnformation and providing no sources and allow your moderators (or people with high rank dunno) to block pages without any apparent reason even when people post sources, they simply decide that is not valid. I'm not good at use wikipedia but this is ridiculous and beyond any logic. 80.182.44.218 (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's try and cut through all the arguments on either side and boil this down to brass tacks, folks, getting rid of the sidetracking as to whether ANN qualifies as a reliable source, and whether the American fanboy meanings of "hentai" and "ecchi" are correct Japanese. The short version, as I see it, is that Reikasama believes that lolicon isn't an appropriate term to use in the "genre" category for Kodomo no Jikan, as it's the Japanese contraction of "lolita complex" into a term that's much easier for Japanese-speaking people to say, and lolita complex isn't a genre, it's a psychological disorder (at least, under the current DSM-IV). Therefore, he removes it from the article's infobox, which is supportable since loli manga is already included as a genre. At this point, others revert his removal, and he re-reverts. This technically is the start of an edit war, but because the others continue reverting back to their version, rather than attempt to engage in discussion on the talkpage, we end up here. Is that an accurate summary? If so, then I'd say that:

• Reikasama did start an edit war, though through a good-faith attempt to improve the article.
• Other editors, rather than follow WP:BRD, responded by edit-warring to reinsert the removed tag, just making things worse.
• Reikasama has a valid point; I've not found any sources that define "lolicon" as an anime/manga genre, while the derivation of the word refers to a psychological complex that is distinctly not a genre of fiction, though its name is derived from a work of fiction.
• Those against removal of the tag from the genre insist that Reikasama provide a reliable source that it is *not* appropriate; this goes directly against WP:BURDEN, which states that the burden of proof lies on those inserting or restoring the information. This is a core aspect of the Verifiability policy, and is present because it is logically impossible to prove a negative. (Proving that it would be an inappropriate term would basically require showing that every single reliable source to the genre does not use the term lolicon, which would be a forever-moving target anyway, as new sources pop up every day.)
• While everyone involved behaved badly once the edit war started, Reikasama's initial edit was not disruptive and was supported by policy. The use of "lolicon" in the genre category isn't sourced, and is thus subject to removal as unsourced, with the same information implicit in the "loli manga" genre that is supported by sources.

My verdict: Trouts all around, and a suggestion to take the discussion to the article talkpage and/or the reliable sources noticeboard if you still want to hash out whether or not ANN qualifies under WP:RS. Just my non-admin opinion, of course, but that's my read on the situation. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yout statement is correct, the only thing i edit was remove the tag [lolicon] and use different tags picked up from these sources i provide. Then i told to the moderator that he can use [loli manga] instead because is more appropriate and is considered a genre both in the west and in Japan. Lolicon in Japan is considered only a behaviour not a genre. Then the moderator lock the page, he insist that my sources aren't reliable where in the same page there are a lot of resources picked up from the same ANN source i do, this is a contraddiction. After we are here to discuss. Speaking back in the discussion page of Kojikan is useless at this point, moderator still lock the page and think in one way. I've contacted the superadmin Fastily 2 days ago about the matter too, he told me that i have persmission and rights to edit the tags when the page back unlocked based on the sources i provided. Honestly now i have no idea what to do. Reikasama (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

@rdfox 76: One detail I think you missed is that at least some of the editors in opposition to the removal appear to hold that this article supports labeling Kodomo no Jikan as belonging to the genre "lolicon". What bothers me somewhat is that I don't find the term "loli manga" anywhere in the article. You said it was "included". Where? As for your verdict, I'm in agreement with you.

@Reikasama: Have patience. That's what editing on Wikipedia is all about. Take a deep breath. Never mind that the article temporarily shows incorrect information. Try to understand why people disagree with you. Read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (starting with WP:V and WP:IRS) to learn what those editors are talking about when they tell you that something is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is much like a body of water. You can dive in slowly and softly or fast and painfully hard. We're all human and making mistakes. Try not to get too frustrated with us. Goodraise 18:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in hurry don't worry, just i read these link you provide but still i don't get why some articles of the same source are considered reliable and others not, i don't get the principle and who decide if a source is reliable and another not. I link this website on AN because the guys who respond to the question refer to kojikan as “lolita anime” as genre. [Lolicon] and [loli manga] have 2 completely different meanings. The first is an offensive word used on the original country to explain a behaviour and don't belong to the content of this manga that has a seinen demography. Since i'm a reader of this manga and find this error in the wiki page i propose a simple fix with different tags, or in alternative a [loli manga] tag that 1) don't change the meaning of the old tag because has the same interpretation 2) is not a denigratory terminology. All the websites that review this manga do not use this tag but a different one and more than 1, the ones i propose from the source i linked. Only here in wikipedia this manga is tagged in this improperly way. Reikasama (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"why some articles of the same source are considered reliable and others not"? "who decide if a source is reliable and another not"? -- ANN is one source and many sources at the same time. It depends on how you look at it. Also, there is no reliable sources. And there is no unreliable sources. The same source can be reliable for one piece of information and unreliable for another. The decision whether a source is reliable for a particular purpose is made by the community of Wikipedia's editors (all of them, including you). How that works is explained here: Wikipedia:Consensus. Goodraise 22:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that that's not true, Goodraise. If the ANN is an open wiki, then it's not reliable for anything other than non-promotional comments about itself (such as would be used in an article on ANN itself). This is a case where it's pretty cut and dry: open wikis aren't reliable sources; if this is an open wiki (or nearly open) as it seems to be, then all references to it should be removed from all articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Mind telling me exactly what part of what I said you don't agree with? Goodraise 03:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Reikasama's (I presume you were logged out) reply to me of 15:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC): If a statement is there without a reference, it may be true or untrue, that is then difficult to check. Those sentences get tagged with a {{cn}} if one gives it the benefit of the doubt. If there is a reference, it is more likely to be true, even if it is referenced to an unreliable source. That does not mean that the statement is false, but that it needs a double check. The lousy solution is to add {{verify source}} and move on, the best solution is to actually check whether you can verify that what the unreliable source says is actually verifiable in a reliable source. For ANN that is very often possible, as they do link on to reliable sources (but also sometimes in themselves again to unreliable sources). If you can find a reliable source which verifies the ANN statement and which also verifies the statement on Wikipedia, then you should insert that reliable source as a reference (the statement on Wikipedia then gets 2 references), if the statement is not supported by any reliable sources, you will have to make the consideration, whether the statement is likely correct, and then consider to either remove the statement with the reference, tag the ref with a {{verify source}} or remove the ANN ref and replace it with a {{cn}}. In some cases, it may also be necessary to remove the ANN source, and replace it with a reliable source you found.

As it stands now, statements with an ANN source are likely correct, and the ANN source should lead you to better sources in any way. Removing them without question would be destruction of information which could help in improving the article in the end, and that is what I suggested you should certainly not do. That approach should only be taken when the unreliable source has been shown to contain a lot of completely wrong or misleading info, and that is certainly not the case here.

These articles aren't checked as reliable, the information are just picked up from ANN by someone and put in the page. Nobody touch them, i wont because i find them ok. Then i do the same with the tags but the moderator locked the page. There is something wrong here, seems that the moderator want the information on this page like he want and refuse everything else. I don't get it. Reikasama (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The key to it is, that "'unreliable source' does not equal 'wrong'". Wikipedia is an unreliable source. Still, I guess that way over 95% of the info here is correct. Hardly anything here is verified, a lot of it is verifiable through reliable sources, and of the amount of data that is verified nor verifiable (or verifiable only through unreliable sources) still a lot is correct as well. A massive number of pages here do get some attention from specialists who do generally weed out gross mistakes. Removing everything that is not verified/verifiable would remove a lot of valuable and correct info.

Then you consider these info valuables and mine not, i deserve to be locked and my post deleted? Using this concept everything not reliable should be put on hold and checked before approved. Reikasama (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And though specialists do use data from Wikipedia, they will hardly ever use it as the definite source, it all needs to be double checked against reliable sources (but Wikipedia is a great resource in getting there). For ANN it is the same. I hope this explains a bit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I wont delete anything as i said before. I only point out the contraddiction that some articles are reliable and some not and some people here decide that these info are ok and others not blockin the pages and delete fixes only because they can. These sources on ANN are used to made the kojikan page but that, using your logic, doesn't mean that they are reliable. So my conclusion is that if you consider ANN not worth then everything picked up from ANN isn't and should be put on hold and checked one by one by an expert. Amirite? I agree with Qwyrxian on this point. Honestly i find these resources translated by ANN correct but is only my opinion and don't matter, infact my only purpose is to edit a tag not the entire article. @Goodraise Well, i provide sources to clarify that this terminology is wrong as a tag, since you said that wiki is not a reliable source because managed by everyone then i find nothing wrong to change the tag with a tag that i consider reliable. I explain already several times why i intend to change it (read before about offensive terminology in the origin country), Rdfox 76 explain the situation too. Reikasama (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not "is this particular information at ANN accurate", which is arguably 90-something percent correct. It's that "this site has no professional editing and fact checking process".

Wikipedia is not a reliable source by our own standards, because we have no professional fact checking, editorial review, etc. We have a lot of amateurs, and we're pretty good, but we are not a source of facts. We list references to sources which are good sources that meet our reliability criteria.

ANN is not a reliable source by our standards.

We're not insulting ANN saying that. You need to respect Wikipedia's reliable source standards and abide by them here. That's not negotiable.

This is a nuanced fine point of english language. It's very important. Please work hard to understand it and work harmoniously with Wikipedia standarts. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, not necessarily on hold. It is still a useful place to get info, but it should be accompanied by a reliable source.

Fine, then with this same logic i can edit with my sources and put in them, they still are usefull like the rest till someone will accompany them with more reliable sources. Amirite? Reikasama (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And it is not an assumption that it is not a reliable source, it is even what the website owner of ANN is stating. Again, unreliable does not mean that it is wrong, that is NOT what we are saying. Not knowing if it is correct is not the same as wrong.

You say here 'i find these resources translated by ANN correct' - so, they are translated from something, that is the reliable source (if that is a reliable source in itself, of course) that should be used, and the ANN translation can then be an additional source. If you use ANN in that way (adding both the original ánd the ANN translation) then that is the way to go. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Then my source is reliable and i have the right to change this improper terminology and improve wikipedia. Because the ANN enciclopedya is translated from the summary of the original works. Episodes listed are translated from the original source along with cover images and the link to the company page. Unlock the page and let me change the tag, you can check yourself the links from ANN where the same ANN translate and gathering info or you want me do it and put here japanese pages? But you know japanese? Ehhh no i assume so you need a translator and the loop start again because you don't know if the translation is correct assuming that ANN is not a reliable source like you have stated till now. Do you see the fail in all this? I don't believe that in other wikipages people is so blind like here and do a war like this for a mere tag (that have the same meaning). Reikasama (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No .. because there is no editorial oversight on the translations. ANN is not a reliable source. Yes, if the reliable source is in Japanese, then so be it. We are talking about verifiability, Reikasama, the ability to verify. We also have sources behind paywalls. Some of those sources are not available to me, but that does not invalidate them as a reliable source, or that we can not use them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Then the actual infos are considered verifiability or not? Because you told me not before, so why they still are there? Let me put more info and when more source are availbale edit and fix them. Reikasama (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never said that ANN is unreliable in its entirety. Its news and views sections are reliable sources. However, anyone and add information into their encyclopedia section and there is no verification of any of the information entered. But getting that information changed when its proven to be inaccurate talks a long time. ANN's encyclopedia is not based on translations of the original Japanese sources. Instead, much of the information is based on fansites, forums, twitter, episode credits, official website, and yes, Wikipedia. In fact, none of the genres listed in ANN's encyclopedia entry have any sources. I know this first hand because I have contributed to ANN's encyclopedia and flagged several errors, many of which have yet to be corrected. I can go right now and add science fiction as a genre to ANN's encyclopedia entry and it will show up. But I'm not going disrupting ANN's encyclopedia just to prove a point. That is why WP:ANIME has a detail explanation of which parts of ANN are reliable and which parts are not and it specifically lists the encyclopedia section as unreliable. —Farix (t | c) 15:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, only ANN admins can modify the encyclopedia page, the same who write articles posted here, it is managed by them. Random users can only report errors and admins correct the info after. It is, infos are picked up from original websites. Episodes titles, covers and summaries. Kokikan has. They don't fix error if they aren't accurate. Reikasama (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, either you have absolutely no clue how ANN's encyclopedia works or you are being completely disingenuous by ignoring all facts that doesn't fit your view. For now, I'm going to assume the former. What I stated about the information on ANN's encyclopedia is completely correct. It is not written by the ANN staff, instead it, like Wikipedia, is written by volunteers like me and others. If you don't believe me, then go ask them yourself. The fact remains that the genres listed on their entry do not have any reliable sources if they have any sources at all. Quoting from ANN's entry, "Genres: comedy (i) audit | no source , drama (i) audit | source [watching the anime, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodomo_no_Jikan] , romance (i) audit | no source".[87]" Oh lookie there, they are citing Wikipedia as a source for one of their genres, which is no longer supported do to lack of verifiability on Wikipedia's end. —Farix (t | c) 23:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I also want to stress Farix's point above, as I think a lot of people here are misunderstanding what Anime News Network is and are making incorrect statements on its reliability. Anime News Network is primarily a website reporting anime and manga news, reviewing anime and manga, and containing other articles written about anime and manga. In that respect, ANN is definitely a reliable source, as the people working on it are experienced professionals, and all news, reviews, and articles are overseen by professional editors. In fact, as stated at WP:A&M/ORS#Situational, ANN is essientially the newspaper of record for anime and manga news, as it generally has the most significant editorial oversight and most experienced writers among sources dedicated to anime and manga news. While ANN learns of anime news from other sources (just as a newspaper or magazine must get their information from somewhere), it does not merely translate news stories from Japanese websites or anything like that. Once the news is reported on ANN, that means it has been vetted by ANN's editorial staff, and can be trusted as reliable (again, this is just like how news reported in a newspaper works).

This is valid of all articles published, so why those articles are here in wikipedia as reliable? Have you checked them? Reikasama (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That being said, ANN has other sections of their website besides the news, reviews, and articles. These include a press release section (which obviously wouldn't be considered independent from the companies making the press releases), an "interest" section which is not necessarily reliable (again see WP:A&M/ORS#Situational), forums (which obviously aren't generally reliable), and the encyclopedia. While there is a paid staff member who oversees the encyclopedia, it is primarily user submitted data (not necessarily translated from a Japanese source), so it isn't reliable. As Farix stated above, before citing something from Anime News Network it is necessary first to check which section of the website it comes from, as parts of the website are reliable and parts are not. Calathan (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Reikasama: Here's something you don't seem to understand: The editors involved in this incident (including you) have misbehaved. That is why it was brought up here at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. The page wasn't locked to endorse a particular version of the article. It was locked, because you and several other editors were edit-warring instead of discussing. Here on this page, we're not concerned with article content (such as what anime belongs into which genre). We deal with editor conduct. What you (and everyone else) should have done is to discuss the issue on the talk page until resolved. Being the inexperienced editor that you are, your misbehavior is completely understandable and forgivable. But now that you've been told, you (and the other editors involved) are expected to go back to Talk:Kodomo no Jikan and try to come to a consensus. There will be no higher power intervening on behalf of either side. It's not what has happened and it's not what will happen. Another thing: Editing Wikipedia articles is not a right, but a privilege that can be revoked at any time if the editor in question doesn't play by the rules. Goodraise 16:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Since them don't provide me links that stated that the terminology [lolicon] is a genre and the word has unreliable resources to begin with it should be put on hold and re-checked with properly sources. There is no consensus on this, is a fact. Lolicon is japana is NOT a genre and will never be. There is only a solution and is to change the teminolgy with a word that have the same meaning both in the west and east, and is [loli] or [loli manga]. Or keep the page locked forever with false statements and not reliable sources. Reikasama (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources at Lolicon#Genre characteristic that demonstrates that lolicon is a genre. But then, you've been dismissing those as well because it doesn't fit your view. —Farix (t | c) 23:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to ANN i find exactly the main page of the producer in Japan. [88], the retailer [89] and the original author blog [90]. So you continue to claim that ANN has no reliable sources. All infos are gathered from here. Comic High is a seinen magazine and is the publisher. Where is this [lolicon] genre that the arctile on wikipedia claiming? I'm not able to find this word anywhere there. So what? Maybe is because is a bs and a false statement invented in the west? Can you provide me a link where explain that kojikan belong to this hypothetic [lolicon] genre? Since i provide you original sources now is your turn, can you provide me a valid link that convalidate at 100% what is written in the actual locked page of Kojikan? Unfortunately i presume you can't because these links point out to the original creator and publisher and there ins't anything else reliable as much as this. Deny that [lolicon] is not a genre is pratically say that the publisher and the creator aren't reliable sources and liars. If you provide me proof that 1) [lolicon] is a genre and 2) Kojikan belong to this genre with reliable sources i give up and leave the page alone. Reikasama (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reikasama, please stop inserting replies in the middle of other comments. I see you have placed a reply into the middle of my last comment, placed replies in the middle of the comment I was replying to, and placed replies between my comment and the comment I was replying to, while also changing the indentation of some parts of some comments. That makes it very difficult to follow the flow of the comments or to tell who wrote what. Please don't do that. Please read Help:Using talk pages and try to follow the instructions there on replying to comments and indentation. Calathan (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, this entire situation and long discussion could probably be prevented if someone would just ask on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if the two sources Reikasama wants to use are considered reliable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do it just now to listen more point of views, but who is people that decide there if a source is valid or not? The same as here? Through a pool? The only way to decide is to have an administrator that know perfect anime and manga genres, expecially a japanese mother language. This is the only way to have an impartial verdict on the matter. Reikasama (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that ANN has been to WP:RSN and that MyAnimeList may have already been there as well. The verdict for ANN was that its encyclopedia portion was not reliable, yet Reikasama doesn't want to hear anything that contradicts his/her point of view. —Farix (t | c) 13:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not true, you wont accept valid sources and lock the page only because you can and want use a false statement and wrong terminology without providing reliable sources to prove your point. You abuse power and refuse to accept the truth. Also i ask you to link me reliable sources but you fail on this because you don't have any. Only because a word is used as internet meme elsewhere but original country doesn't mean that this usage is correct and reliable. Reikasama (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, I just want to chime in here as an uninvolved editor who has been following the discussion. It looks like you're starting to get very frustrated because you're not getting your way here, and I think that a language barrier may be affecting the communication of a few points to you. First, none of us are here to make Wikipedia represent the truth. While it may bother you for the article to state lolicon is a genre, have you ever considered that lolicon is considered a genre in places outside of Japan? Lolicon may be considered a genre in other places in the world because of idiomatic use and if this use is supported by sources that Wikipedia considers reliable, than that information can be included in the article. One of WP's problems is that it's too U.S.-centric, but being focused solely on what the meaning of a word is in only one country (Japan, in this case) is just as problematic. You need to accept that WP is about people working together; if several people object to what you're trying to do, that may be a sign that you're doing something incorrectly. This is not abuse, it's simply an element of a collaborative environment. Chillllls (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not frustrated, i just reply when i'm called. I told to Farix that if he provide me valid and reliable resources that confirm the matter i apologize for the time wasted and i leave this page alone. Since he refuse to provide me links that comvalidate the actual sources i assume that them are false or improperly posted there. If wikipedia don't state the truth then what's the point to have a wiki in the first place? Is this a joke? What's the point of blocking people who try to correct info with more info if someone is so selfish to abuse the system? Considering Lolicon a genre outside of Japan is false, because the word is japanese, i have no objections if you use a synonym, because in Japan [lolicon] is a debigratory terminology and so in the resto of the world. Again i ask several time to post here these reliable sources but i've no reply. This support my thesis and my sources as reliable and the actual ones not because you don't have data. To counter my sources as invalid you have to prove valid sources but you can't. Only because someone stated a thing doesn't automatically mean is the truth, you have to prove it. Amirite? If is collaborative i have the rights to add or correct infos based on more sources, if you don't accept help from the community and keep the pages and info for youself and you decide what is right and what not then keep the page close. Reikasama (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason nobody is supplying references here for you is because that's what this board is for. However, in case it will help, I will provide the references that you are asking for to demonstrate that Lolicon is described as a genre in reliable sources in English. Because that's not what this board is for, I'm putting a few of the sources I found at the Lolicon talk page. They were not difficult to find.

But this is all besides the point. What matters here is that Wikipedia has behavioral policies. You must work within those behavioral policies or, even if you are right, you are likely to be blocked from participating. If you follow dispute resolution but can't gain consensus to change an article, you can't change the article. It's as simple as that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@Reikasama: You will have to get this point into your head somehow: Wikipedia's administrators don't have the authority to decide things like that. There is no single person who could make that decision. On Wikipedia, basically all content decisions are made by community consensus. Wikipedia:Consensus explains how that works.

The protection of Kodomo no Jikan already expired at 23:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC). Nobody is abusing power to keep you from editing the article. But you have to engage in what we call "consensus building". I know it would be easier if there was some expert admin who could make an "impartial verdict" and I know you're tired of hearing this, but that's just not how Wikipedia works. Goodraise 17:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If all decisions are made by community consensus why the page is locked? This Farix decide to close the page without the community consensus, and without prove facts that convalidate what he caliming and the actual sources. I prove facts but i get blocked. Nobody here provide facts and sources that prove that 1) lolicon is a genre in Japan 2) kojikan belong to this genre. Nobody because these sources aren't existent but someone decide that is ok anyway over all. ALSO i ask opinions if ANN is a reliable source in the reliable_source_noticeboard and again this Farix try to deviate the main discussion into something personal with the same redundant fake sources. Seems he is scared that more people may agree with me, while i want only provide correct sources and improve the kojikan page, a manga i like since 2007. Unaccettable. Reikasama (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama restarts contentious editing

Reikasama has just removed a sourced genre that he disagrees with and installed a series of genres that don't have any reliable sources.[91] —Farix (t | c) 20:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely provide, otherwise will be pointless don't think? Here you have. [92]. And before you start with the unriable wall ot text, people in reliable_source_noticeboard tend to agree that is RIABLE. Reikasama (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty frustrating case of WP:IDHT. Reikasama is definitely making good-faith edits, but this refusal or inability to realize why other editors are objecting to these unsourced genre changes is only going to get the article full protected again or him blocked or both. I feel like he should be cut some slack because of the language issue. Chillllls (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is so much of a language barrier as it is a complete refusal to accept anything that contradicts his/her point of view. —Farix (t | c) 20:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well not at all, you are selfish and refuse other user sources, edits and opinions, i ask to you seversl times to provide source but you wont so i assume you are only a mouse clicker, a blocker and nothing constructive at all, only QQ. Also if you notice another user add the tag [other], at least i'm not the only one here that i think you are wrong. If i was a mod i will leave the article open and only the community should manage it not you just because you can lock threads as u like with the illogical undo war. I'm sure too that u have no idea what kojikan is in the first place since almost all summaries of tv series are user made without sources. Reikasama (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also in the reiable_source_noticeboard finally people agree with me that ANN is a riable source and concur that this terminology doen't exist in the west and has a different meaning. But i'm sure that Farix, even with evidence he refuse to accept my fix and continue to lock the article only because for him is a personal battle. Is sad. Reikasama (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama, that is not at all what happened at WP:RSN. In fact, the person said, "I want to say while I disagree with the sources Reikasama as being "reliable" or "not reliable"...." No one--let me make this clear--no one in the entire discussion above or at RSN has accepted your claim that the encyclopedia portion of ANN is reliable. If you continue to treat it like a reliable source, you are going to be blocked for disruptive editing. Furthermore, the fact that it was never called lolicon in Japan does not mean that it is not properly labeled "lolicon" here, on Wikipedia, since we take not just one country's perspective, but a world-wide perspective. It doesn't even matter that the manga was never published in the US--if reliable sources, from wherever, call it lolicon, than it is properly categorized this way. Furthermore, you say that no one has given you references to say that is categorized that way, when, in fact, Moonriddengirl has said that she did exactly that at the talk page (I can't go check right now because I can't visit a page that might be related to this topic at work). Even if one person on RSN had actually said "ANN is a reliable source" that does not mean you can suddenly go and edit the article the way you want, because one person is not consensus. At this point, let me make this fully clear: you must stop editing that article until such time as there is clear consensus to make the changes you want. If you cannot get that consensus, then continue to follow dispute resolution. And if consensus continues to be against you, well, that happens sometimes. But continuing to edit war is simply not an option, and will result in you being blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying that even in Japan has a precise meaning can have a different meaning in the west? Are you joking? Is a japanese word belong to another language with a precise meaning, you can't use this word in a different way, or is like calling pizza for shoes only because someone say so. In unaccettable. I edit because at the moment ANN is considered a reliable source like someone said before till someone else put in evidence that it isn't, so everything is "usefull" at the moment. Where is this general consensus? For 3 guys debating? I put thereference on reliable_source_noticeboard to have more opinions, and finally this Farix agree to wait more references and remove the improper terminology form kojikan page. He remove the other tags too but i wait more opinions on the matter before adding them. If he or someone else provide facts that is a genre in Japan, because the word is japanese and can't be used by another meaning, i accept the sentence and i agree to put the word back. Also this Moonriddengirl don't show nothing that stated that lolicon is a genre in origin or translated from reliable sources, they just put opinions without source. Countrary on ANN, when ANN translate original japanese articles the source ios cited, meaning you can check if the trnslation is correct. Also i don't have do any bad actions like removing sources or change entire sentences (i don't do these things, never, also i will never do again a undo war), i simply use "classification" or more apppropriate "foreign classification" instead of simply "genre" since is questionable and based on personal opinions and different usage, so we should specify at least that is a matter of the west. Reikasama (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not going to get anywhere if you continue to deny the existence of any reliable source that contradicts your point of view. Moonriddengirl posted several reliable sources with quotes that explicitly state that lolicon is a genre, yet you are in perpetual denial of these sources. Your all or nothing attitude about ANN also isn't helpful, especially when you misrepresented Jinnai's comments which were about a possible systemic bias with the dependence of English language sources. There are parts of ANN that are reliable, and there are parts, such as the encyclopedia, that event their staff admits are not reliable. The reliable parts of ANN do not magically convert the non-reliable parts into a reliable source. As Qwyrxian has stated, not a single editor has agreed with you that ANN's encyclopedia is a reliable source. It's time to get the clue. Otherwise you are just trolling and its time that you are blocked from Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 10:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

They are personal opinions of random people, with a western point of view, they don't translate from original source that prove this point. ANN translate from original japanese press media and companies. Are you stating here that western opinions are more reliable that japanese meanings where the word is coming from? Make zero sense. Is like i write an article and i claim a thing without a source and you believe it. I told you several times to link me an article that provide a translation from an original japanese source that stated that this word meaning this and not this. You fail to privode me links, instead you quote opinions made by random people without a valid source. You get my point? You are just trolling over and over again, i'm serious and i have a valid source, the word is originated in japan and the meaning in Japan is different from here. This is a FACT confirmed by more people not only me. If you block me for no reason you abuse power and deny original reliable sources and facts, and you do it because you don't want listen other sources because you are selfish and lost in a personal battle. I offend no one and i don't fall into a perpetual undo war, i ask you to change the word into something that stated the same meaning and because this meaning is INVENTED in the west and is not the same in Japan, this is evidence. If you have no more argouments but blocking you show your true intentions since the beginning. Reikasama (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this discussion but have been following it, Reikasama is now forum shopping over at the RS board which is sure to another big waste of time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Developing an understanding of "reliable sources" is probably not a waste of time, unless Reikasama proves unwilling to accept what he learns. The note he left at talk:Lolicon in response to the sources I produced per his request above displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what a reliable source is. I do not believe that the RSN listing is forum shopping, as this board is not here to resolve the content dispute. RSN is where questions of sources should be addressed. But I am concerned that Reikasama is showing a refusal to get the point. Reikasama, it is important you remain open to community input if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia. Refusal to work with the community may result in users being banned from certain topics or blocked from editing Wikipedia at all. Please understand that few of us are satisfied with the outcome of disagreements on Wikipedia 100% of the time. If the community does not agree with you on this point, you will have no choice but to let it go and focus on a different way to improve Wikipedia's articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Then provide me a source from japanese press that stated that this word is a genre in Japan and not only a behaviour. If you link me a translated article i accept your sources and leave this page alone. An opinion in the west used for practical use don't automatically mean is correct, they use this word because they want categorize some content where in the mother country isn't. What's the problem to use instead of lolicon, that has questionable meaning outside japan, a synonym like the exact translation? Loli - con as lolita complex as loli manga or loli anime, a media that feature loli char. This is correct without be offensive, because even if you consider this word a genre there are others that consider it an insult like me! Understand the point? Also instead of genre is better use "foreign calssification" or last chance "genre as foreign interpretation". As i stated in my example in the discuss page, this word in Japan is often used as a joke in anime media as a mere behaviour. Reikasama (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid this situation may still not quite be clear to you. :) First, I am not involved in this debate. I don't care whether Lolicon is a genre, a behavior, or a flavor of ice cream. This is not the place to debate which is correct. This page is only for discussing behavioral issues that cause problems on Wikipedia. The discussion here involves the way you are approaching this debate, not whether or not you are correct.

If you aren't involved and you are lazy to read all the matter you don't have time to judge people. Reikasama (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to argue that Wikipedia should only permit sources from the native language when it uses loanwords, I'm afraid you're likely to have a difficult debate ahead of you. English borrows many words from other languages and develops them in its own ways. As the English language Wikipedia is categorically written in English, it follows English usage customs. (But, again, you are welcome to try to change that practice; you might want to begin at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.) Until practice changes, however, you must recognize and respect reliable sources, which are not required to be in Japanese, even if discussing subjects that originated in Japan. And you do need to continue to work within the consensus process, even if you disagree with other editors. You are free to attempt to persuade others and to try to reach compromise if they will not be persuaded, but you can't change content without reaching consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Asking to use properly tags using a reliable source, not listed in you links, is not different from list an article from ANN that is considered riable like this. [93]. Is english wikipedia but if the translations is picked from the original material is more reliable than an mere opinion stated by a foreigner. If i write something and i stated an opinion, you consider it reliable only because is published on internet? Also this word is not originate in the west but in Japan, so you have to follow the criteria in the original country not in the west OR if you want use a different meaning in the WEST you have to specify it as a "foreign interpretation". I don't know why this word here in the west is considered a genre but in Japan is not and this is a FACT. Also using this word is some contest is offensive and bring misunderstanding. Reikasama (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying--"Also this word is not originate in the west but in Japan, so you have to follow the criteria in the original country not in the west OR if you want use a different meaning in the WEST you have to specify it as a "foreign interpretation""--is simply not supported by policy or guideline at this point. Loanwords are constantly used here in their definition in the west. If you want it to be otherwise, you need to convince others that it should be otherwise. Until you do, though, you cannot act as though that is policy. And this is not the place to change that policy; this is only the place to make sure that you understand how things work on English Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Is what i'm trying top do in the dicussion page, to convince people that the actual meaning is wrong. But you are right, is a definition here on the west not in the original country but this should be specified CLEARLY that in Japan this word has a different meaning compared to here. Is because i propose a differnt title from "genre". Change 1 word in the title don't change the inside content and meaning and purpose. Reikasama (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a valid conversation for the discussion page of the article. If you conduct the conversation in a manner in keeping with Wikipedia's behavioral standards (basically: be polite, respect other opinions, try to find compromise, and recognize when the conversation is done), you should do fine. It's important to remember, too, that during an active debate the article should in most cases be left the way it was until consensus is reached. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not intend to edit again the article till the debate reach a solution. Reikasama (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reikasama warned

I've noticed a few edits that step over the bounds of civility, and have issued a warning on Reikasama's talkpage for this latest one. Reikasama, please do not call other editors lazy, delusional etc or you will be blocked for it, which would not be a good outcome, particularly as the discussion seems to have finally got to the bottom of the issue, at least as far as Kodomo no Jikan is concerned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize and i accept the warning because is my fault too but he assault me with arrogant manners and ban resolution and i find this insulting simply because he stated that he never read all the discussion in the first place and have no idea what the argoument was. Reikasama (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

because he stated that he never read all the discussion in the first place and have no idea what the argoument was. Em no I never made such a statement. Please do not lie about other editors. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

He said the same thing to me on his talkpage. As far as I can see, no-one in that discussion made a statement of that kind. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1rr at Austrian School

Following this 3rr report on User:Misessus by User:Dark Charles, I have put both of them under a 1rr restriction at Austrian School for two weeks. There has been way too much back and forth at AS for too long. Taken altogether, I thought it might be more helpful to do this, than to block both editors or protect the article.

Review and any comments are welcome. I'll also tell them both they can appeal it here. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to appeal this. Misessus violated WP:BURDEN and WP:3rr multiple times. I've done neither. I don't see why I should get proportionate punishment.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mostly because you're edit warring; WP:3RR is not a license. lifebaka++ 02:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Gwen Gale is an involved admin. She has been actively supporting one side of this debate for years. She should not have been the admin to decide on this case. I would like to formally request a review of this action. LK (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems like she evenhandedly gave you both the same restrictions in order to stop the edit warring.Heiro 03:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is not, were equivalent restrictions given. The relevant question is, was Charles and Misesus being equally disruptive, both currently and in the past? And should Gwen have reclused herself from judging this issue, as she has been a long-term partisan in this matter?

Misesus has been a long-term disruptive editor, as can be seen from his contributions and talk page history.

Gwen has been actively supporting one side of this debate for years. I will have to dig to provide the diffs. But a recent comment shows where her partisan sentiments lie: [94]

LK (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You and Dark are assuming this is about punishment for disruption. Sanctions here, such as restrictions and blocks, are not punitive, they are preventative. In lieu of blocking participants in an edit war, Gwen gave both a 1RR restriction to convince them to use the talk page and work collaboratively. Seems preferable and legitimate to me. Unless you would prefer that an admin block both for edit warring?Heiro 04:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at Charles' contributions[95]? Was he being disruptive? If he wasn't, then he shouldn't have a 1RR restriction.

The point I'm trying to make is that Gwen is a partisan in the matter, and she should not have made this action. It looks to me like she took this action to prevent a more severe restriction on Misesus. LK (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to help out on this article back in July (I don't recall why I first came across it; likely a report on some noticeboard), but left after only a few weeks because I felt like I didn't have so much help to contribute after my initial comments (my knowledge of economics is somewhere between zero and nothing). So I'm still mostly uninvolved. Looking over recent edits, I see edit warring from both parties. While my past experience leads me to believe that Misseus has the most difficulty engaging productively on the talk page (or, at least, used to), looking at more recent edits shows equally problematic behavior from Dark Charles on the article itself. I support the 1RR restriction on both editors. Heck, I'd support a 1RR restriction on all editors to the article, if that would help things seem more "fair". But I definitely see DC and M going back and forth on several points, and there's no clear evidence that one is more at fault than the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What charge is being levied against me? I didn't break WP:3rr, nor WP:CON. The material I restored had been in the article for years, and the argument being used to remove it was not solid.--Dark Charles (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "charge." This isn't a courtroom. You and Misessus (along with others) have been edit warring too much for too long and it should stop now. 3rr is not a licence for edit warring with 3 or less reverts a day. Both of you, along with some others editing there, should be sticking to 1rr (at the most) anyway. Edit warring harms the article and the project, along with whatever PoVs are being fought over, it sends everything to rot. For months I've seen edit warring, bickering and even gaming of policy on both "sides" of an issue where, in writing an article here, there shouldn't be sides at all, only a straightforwrd, good faith task of writing and sourcing text which is neither advocacy nor a hit piece. I began this thread because I wanted other editors to know about and comment on what I'd done to try and deal with a long burning edit war going on at Austrian School and also give both of you a means to appeal. I don't think I'm involved enough for this to be a worry (I've made three edits to the article in the last year, along with talk page comments mostly about what sources might be taken as reliable under the policy), but if some editors think that makes me involved, I'm happy to know about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So I undid an edit? WP:CON was on my side (at the time at least), and Misessus' argument implemented a formal fallacy in reasoning. Why specifically me? Why not S. Rich, who has questioned motives and has been involved in name calling, along with edit warring? Why no harsher punishment for violations of WP:3RR, which is supposed to be a "red line". I don't see how you can argue that my edits have been disruptive. For the most part, I haven't been advocating for changes of the Austrian School page. I've been undoing edits that are unreasonable and I've mostly tried to leave the page as-is. --Dark Charles (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Undoing one or two good faith edits a day (yesterday you undid at least two of Misessus' edits), more or less every day, whether or not you think they're within policy or consensus, is edit warring, which isn't allowed (WP:Edit war). I didn't want to see either of you blocked, since neither of you seem to understand the edit war policy yet and moreover because other editors indeed have been in on this slow-burn edit war. Now you know. I didn't think page protection would help, given the topic is fast becoming a political one and traffic will only get higher. Again, you should mostly stick with 1rr anyway, on any article and if you're doing even that a few days a week on a given article and it keeps up, it's too much and may be taken as edit warring of the slow kind. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You did the right call, and the sanctioned editors need to let it drop and realize that playing with the rules only lasts for so long. 2RR is a classic edit war technique. It best gets resolved by 1RR - you like slow-warring so much, the community imposes it on you!--Cerejota (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I do believe that Gwen Gale has an obvious sympathy (bias) for Austrian economics, but there is evidence s/he can be fair-handed in matters involving the topic. I think it is somewhat interesting that Gwen Gale generally does not levy sanctions in 3RR noticeboard cases, so IMO, it probably would've been better to keep to that trend and just completely avoid any perception of possible pro-Misessus bias. BigK HeX (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

In checking User:Lawrencekhoo's link to WP:INVOLVED#Involved_admins, I think it is quite possible that Gwen Gale could fit into the description provided. I think s/he has shown a desire to be fair, which I don't find a huge need to question ATM, but -- according to the guidelines -- in the future, Gwen Gale may want to consider recusing herself. BigK HeX (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Having an outlook on a topic (whatever that may be) is not the same thing as WP:Involved. I've made three edits to the article in the last year (all three were in hopes of stopping the same slow burn edit warring, which they did not) and have watched and commented on the talk page only as to policy (mostly sourcing policy, as I recall). Gwen Gale (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

To Gwen Gale: That's simply not true. I don't undo edits every day. Almost all of the edits I've undone on the Austrian School page regard recent edits by Misessus. What rule did I break specifically? Misessus broke WP:3rr, WP:CON, and a few others. And I'd like to point out, again, WP:3rr is supposed to be a "red line". Not all reverts are created equal and I explained all of mine on the talk page. The editor that makes the changes shouldn't just be able to force their edit on everybody else; they can't just undo reverts and then only be held equally responsible for the dispute. The burden is on the person that makes the changes. And consensus was actually on my side. Do you expect me to simply acquiesce to Misessus's edits, no matter how silly and no matter what Wikipedia policy is? You're singling me out and then your argument seems to be "well, editing waring is bad".--Dark Charles (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You mistake what the red line is between, Charles. On one side of 3RR is "definitely edit warring", sure, but the other is "maybe edit warring", not "not edit warring". Edit wars occur on both sides of 3RR. For example, if two users reverted each other twice a day for a week, they're certainly edit warring, even though neither ever broke the three revert rule. As is stated specifically in WP:3RR: "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." You should also note that "consensus" is not an exception to what is considered a "revert". Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm going to give you a somewhat recycled answer since I've been talking about this on several pages (sorry about that): I was following WP:BRD. Misessus made an edit and I undid it. We went to the talk page and I got consensus for my position, but Misessus kept redoing his edit regardless. And I wasn't trying to force an edit on anybody; I was following WP:BRD and helping to enforce the consensus position that favored the original content. (Note: WP:BRD says it's not a rule, but it was the sort of editing structure that I was using.)--Dark Charles (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Once someone reverts you twice, you should stop reverting and take other action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, putting everyone on that article on a 1RR limit would be helpful. While there is a fair amount of talk page use, there is a lot of reverting that really got excessive in the past couple of days. Might even be helpful to consider a week or two of full protection with the requirement that all sides actively work on rewriting contentious sections and use relevant projects / noticeboards to help resolve some of the disputes. The topic is too far past my knowledge in that area to usefully contribute, alas. Ravensfire (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the page history last night when this popped up, I pretty much came to the same conclusions, as there seemed to be more than those 2 editors involved in the reverting. Either a 1RR on the page or a full protection for a week so a talk page consensus for the section could be worked out might be more useful than an 1RR on only 2 of the involved editors. Heiro 16:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that's more reasonable. My WP:1rr restriction seems arbitrary to me. I've followed the rules; there's no explicit violation that I've made. If the point is simply "don't edit war", then that's about the page, not me.--Dark Charles (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understood the rule on edit warring and in not understanding it, you broke it: One need not breach 3rr to edit war. The 1rr restriction is only what one should abide by anyway, mostly. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What rule in particular? Consensus and burden were on my side and I discussed the issue on the talk page. There's no one revert rule convention. Your solution is arbitrary and unfair.--Dark Charles (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The rule is at WP:Edit war. As you've been told, 3rr is not a licence to edit war. Even one undo a week, over time, can be (blockable) edit warring. As you've also been told by now, one cannot edit war (undo edits time and again) in support of consensus or any other editorial policy. Consensus is not a vote, by the way (WP:Consensus), although overwhelming numbers can have something to do with it. However one puts it, though, edit warring at Austrian School would need to stop first, before before any content worries there can be dealt with in a meaningful way. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Other editors should emulate my civil editing at Austrian School! ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Return of the kana vandal.

Resolved

 – Blocked by Ronhjones for 1 week — frankie (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:98.237.20.196, fresh off a block has continued to add the same objectionable content to kana articles as he was blocked for. You can see the previous ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive718#Questionable_edits_to_kana_articles. VanIsaac_WS 00:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops, someone already got him. VanIsaac_WS

Alessandro57 using powers unfairly to revert edits and label them "vandalism"

Resolved

 – I'm going to presume this is resolved. User being accused has apologized, it has been accepted. CycloneGU (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I typed in "Wikipedia request help from admin" on Google and found this page - I hope it's the right place. I recently made some edits to the "Istanbul" article. The edits were carefully worded, and sourced. Alessandro57 immediately reverted them saying "Reverted to Version edited by LlywelynII at 20:30, 31 August 2011 because of vandalism". [96]

So I then clicked on his "contributions" history, and found he appears to show a pattern of unjustified reversions - i.e. deleting sourced additions and describing those additions as "vandalism". August 23rd [97], On August 20 he twice reverted Wolcott's insertion of a seemingly innocuous but informative image, [98] [99], again calling another user's edit "vandalism" [100], etc.

I'm sure I could find more if I had the time.

I checked his page and it says "This user has reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia." I don't know what these means, but I assume it's some kind of privilege, and I would hope in light of his disruptive behavior he is warned not to use this powers in such a way - and not label other user's good faith attempts to improve Wikipedia as "vandalism".

Best regards,

Manocihr (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

He continues [101]. He has not only marked by contributions as "vandalism", but also marked his own revert as "minor". Manocihr (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree calling it "vandalism" wasn't correct – but that said, I was about to revert your changes too when you reinstated them, except that yet another user (Dinkytown) apparently beat me to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that he's using Twinkle, which automatically marks vandalism reversions as minor. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely that makes his behavior even more careless? On my talk page he says I am "wasting his time". A little civility wouldn't go astray. [102] Manocihr (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

...and have you raised this issue directly with the user before coming here in order to try and resolve it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

yep, see his Talk page. Manocihr (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? Please give us a pointer to the diff. I can't see anything from you on User talk:Alessandro57 until after you'd raised it here on WP:ANI. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I only posted that notification there according to the instructions on this pace. But note that he reverted me twice without discussion or responding to my edit summaries, so I assumed he was going to stay non-communicative. What's wrong with asking for help? I'm a new user and unsure of how all this works. Notice he hasn't appeared here to defend himself. Are you an admin David Biddulph? Manocihr (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin. I appreciate that if you are a new user it will take you a while to get used to how Wikipedia work, but I would recommend that you read carefully. For example at the top of this page, it says, in bold, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." - David Biddulph (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Manocihr (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Manocihr, just to clarify, Alessandro57 does not have any special position and didn't do anything (e.g. using special powers) that you couldn't do. "Reviewer" relates to a currently inactive experimental program. So "misuse of powers" is not a valid complaint. But step one is always to try engage in a discussion with the individual, or to discuss the content issue at the article's talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. And point taken, I will be sure to do so in the future. But I do believe the most important point is escaping us here. Looking at his edit history, it is clear that he routinely describes other people's genuine edits as "vandalism", and has displayed a marked lack of civility and common manners. Manocihr (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct: improper use of a tool (especially one like Twinkle) is problematic. If another user removes a notice from their talkpage, it's considered to be at least acknowledgement that it has been read. In a collegial environment, we rely on editors to work it out ... civility issues are often dealt with at WP:WQA and not through admin means. Arguably, the misuse of a tool plus a reaaaallllyyy bad case of invicility would end up here pretty quickly. You did you part - you let him know that your edit was not vandalism, and using Twinkle to say it was is wrong - later/repeated violations would become problematic. The other thing is that this is the internet: apologies are few and far between, so don't go looking for them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. And thanks Bwilkins. Manocihr (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hallo all, and good afternoon. I read half an hour ago the wikipedia definition of vandalism, and I understand now that it does not coincide with my concept about it. So, my apologies to all who felt them offended for my improper usage of twinkle against vandal. After that, I confirm the validity of all my reverts, since I found them disruptive (this is the right word). You can look at them one by one and judge about them. Another thing: I confirm that I have no power whatsoever, I am a normal user. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your apology. Manocihr (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Northamerica1000

Resolved

 – Northamerica1000 is now aware that GAR and article talk page discussions are preferable to unilateral delisting. 28bytes (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) is in the embryonic stage of initiating a mass de-listing of GA articles. Could admins please take a look at this behavior? I'm a bit concerned that this campaign has begun on the eve of the Labor Day holiday weekend in the States when many editors who are normally watching these articles will be away on vacation. The timing of this mass delisting appears to be highly disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The user's stopped for the time being, so consider that we've gotten the initial warnings/clarifications in place now. Clearly if the behavior continues, there may be admin action; right now would be premature. That said, some advice to the user on collaborative editing is probably in need. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no "mass de-listing" of GA articles, only a few articles, which a different friendly editor corrected by referring me to Wikipedia policy stating that plot summaries don't need to be referenced. These were corrected and relisted as Good articles, I double-checked them myself.

The only article thus far that I delisted as a Good article has a plot summary of over 900 words, with subsections. Refer to: Treehouse of Horror VIII.

I don't agree with the name-calling above of being termed as in an "embryonic stage" - this is name-calling, unnecessary, and against Wikipedia policies of being civil. All of my edits are always civil, and my discussions.

The above editor is gaming the system seems to be more interested in keeping popular culture articles that don't meet Good article criterion listed as Good articles, for whatever reasons.

I placed this on Viriditas's talk page, and then I saw the message on my talk page that I had been referred to administration for the ambiguous description of "being disruptive", without any rationale for the statement.

• It's never "disruptive" to delist Good articles that don't actually meet Good article criterion. It is constructive and necessary to maintain appropriate standards.

• Per discussion page headers for good articles: (Article name) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

• Articles that fail Good article criterion can be delisted; it's unnecessary to use GAR when an article fails Good article criterion.

• It is superior and more constructive to improve the articles and then relist them as good articles.

• Essays are not Wikipedia policy.

Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken and you have misread the instructions. The process for delisting articles is explained in our guideline, Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, in the section delisting older articles. It requires you to follow the delisting guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There's at least two other GAs I see you delisted from your contributions, so you've done more. And as I've explained on your talk page, long plot sections are easy to fix and not grounds for immediate delisting of a GA - this should only be done in the case where the GA is in a state of much disrepair that it would take significant effort to correct it. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror VIII

Treehouse of Horror VIII was automatically relisted as a good article, despite an overly-detailed plot summary section. I won't revert it. I don't believe in edit-warring, etc. I was just following Wikipedia policy. It seems that some editors have a possible ulterior motive to keep Simpson's articles, South Park articles, etc. listed as Good articles regardless of article content. Also, the name-calling above should be noted by administrators, it's unnecessary and has a higher gravitas of violation than my good faith edits. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Pfft, you call that "assessment"? I call that copy & paste. By the way, what you are doing is very pointy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ohana, you really have to stop making these aggressively judgmental remarks. If you read further you'll see that the user was obviously acting in good faith, and believed he was complying with policy. You caused tremendous strife here not long ago by making a similarly inappropriate accusation toward a different good-faith user, as you know very well. Please exercise greater restraint in the future.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Good article section in Discussion pages in articles should be revised

The Good article section in Discussion pages in articles should be revised, it states directly that good articles that don't meet criterion can be delisted as such. This should therefore be corrected. It is never by intention to ever be disruptive or counterproductive. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The manual of style makes it clear that plot summaries need no citation. That just leaves the length of the plot section. For my money, an over-long plot section, on its own, would not be sufficient reason to unilaterally de-list an article. While being disruptive may not be your intention, it does seem as though disruption is being unintentionally caused - it might be better if you took a step back from delisting articles quite so enthusiastically. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Good article section in Discussion pages in articles should be revised

The Good article section in Discussion pages in articles should be revised, it states directly that good articles that don't meet criterion can be delisted as such. This should therefore be corrected. It is never by intention to ever be disruptive or counterproductive. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Template problems in Discussion pages, the exact problem

The Good article section in the Arts Discussion pages should be revised, it states directly:

(Article name) "has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment."

This needs to be corrected, because this was interpreted as policy, as template messages should be. It is misleading, and led to several editors collaborating against actions based upon the wording of the template. If the template remains as is, the same unnecessary misunderstandings will likely continue in the future.

Per the advice of MASEM that I received on my talk page, Good article reassessment will be used in the future. The following is the verbatim message I received regarding these matters, which was useful and constructive:

"While the pages on good articles do suggest that delisting can be done, this is meant to be considered where the problems would be extremely difficult to correct as to require either reassessment or delisting. If it can be fixed (and plot trimming is always like this), then it shouldn't lose its GA just because of a long plot. If you don't think you can trim down the plot yourself, feel free to notify the page of your concern at the talk page or by adding the {{plot}} tag. But delisting articles just for having long plot sections is very inappropriate despite how you believe it fits into the rules. We avoid disrupting WP, which the process of delisting is, as this is a collaborative environment and thus should be working together for improvement. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)"

Thanks to the editors who provided constructive and useful information.Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Template messages are not policy. Please consider that unilaterally delisting a GA may provoke a social response. While you are permitted to delist articles it may not be the best route. Why not start by editing the article or making comments on the talk page? Protonk (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• It appears that people prefer using Good Article Reevaluation to reassess the quality of articles listed as "Good". It also appears that at least in part, my being noted here as being "disruptive" as was stated on my user page, and "in embryonic stages" of expertise as listed on this discussion page above was stated in error. It turns out that people are permitted to delist articles, although GAR is the preferred method. Thank you Protonk for your professional and appropriate response regarding this matter. Consensus is much more functional. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Per the message received from Protonk:

• "Template messages are not policy. Please consider that unilaterally delisting a GA may provoke a social response. While you are permitted to delist articles it may not be the best route. Why not start by editing the article or making comments on the talk page? Protonk (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)"

It seems appropriate to inform some of the users listed above about the matter of article status delisting as actually being allowed, although not the preferred method. Several people above stated that delisting is absolutely not allowed, apparently in error. I hesitate to notify them myself, because regardless of how tactful I could compose a message, some of the editors above may possibly falsely construe a message from me as being "pointy", "disruptive", "unconstructive", etc. It would be very constructive to inform people about this matter, to promote consensus and prevent further misunderstandings. Thanks again to the editors who provided valuable, constructive and tactful advice and information. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

user Elizium23 violating WP:CANVAS, engaging in tendentious and unproductive editing

Resolved

 – Toddst identified the source of the quacking and blocked the IP. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

May I draw your attention here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elizium23#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.2FNoticeboard.23Talk:The_Dating_Guy

User Elizium23 has been engaging in tendentious and unproductive editing. His violations have included filing a false claim of "vandalism" at WP:AIV, a deliberate WP:BEAR tactic designed to provoke another editor into angry counterfilings, the net effect of which was to trick the other editor into getting blocked for a day.

He has further refused to engage in open and collegial debate on the content dispute with his fellows, as evidenced by his "I know I am right" comment as well as his "getting some backup" comment, a clear violation of WP:CANVAS.

Apologies for not posting a long line of diffs but it is very difficult to do so from a phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.109.127.141 (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

S/he was blocked and has not resumed editing. Is there really a problem? Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Todd--am I missing something? [103] Drmies (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm apparently experiencing temporary brain damage. Toddst1 (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't be the first one. I'm on such friendly terms with Dr. Alzheimer that I started using his first name--though I seem to have forgotten what it is. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

His first name is... um... you know... Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Back to brass tacks--IP, are you really trying to get us interested in a discussion from June 2011, where apparently someone thought that Elizium made a rude comment, and Elizium retracted it? No, this must be the more recent discussion, in which Todd played a mediating part on 31 August (on Elizium's talk page). What I see on Talk:The Dating Guy are a bunch of hotheads who all-too often don't sign their name (very irritating). In the article itself, I see Elizium make edits such as this and this, which are perfectly justified.

  On the other hand, you, IP, make such empty accusations as this one (and will you please start using those tildes to sign your name) and this one, where you adopt some sort of passive royal ("Your deletion is considered vandalism"), as if it's God speaking out here on the topic of an unverified cartoon. For real.

  Now, that you say you can provide no evidence of canvassing diffs is mighty convenient, and I would urge you not to return to this board until you've dropped the phone and picked up the netbook (and have logged in, perhaps) so you can give those diffs, since I see no evidence. Careful of the boomerang: I see you lobbying here and bluffing here--complete with an abjectly false accusation of vandalism (pertaining to this edit by KoshVorlon).

  You asked admins to weigh in, so here it is: can it. Stop bringing empty accusations without proof. Stop forum shopping. Stop accusing others of vandalism. Stop asking others to apologize for actions that were clearly within policy. Start signing your name. Leave Elizium23 alone. Clear? Drmies (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This IP seems to be quite likely to be linked to User:KSEVWatch, who got into it with Elizium over the same page a day or two ago and has been showing some serious failure to disengage from the issue on IRC. Quack, quack? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• I had the same suspicion, yes. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like an active edit war on Least I Could Do - quack, blocked as a sock of KSEVWatch ‎ (talk · contribs) Toddst1 (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I second the duck quackness of the duck. CU is in order.--Cerejota (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wading in^{(Accidental WP:DUCK pun, I promise)} to say thank you. I had the misfortune to get myself involved in this situation and got bitten by IP with vandalism accusations also. RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 20:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

RandomAct, your block is on the way, and you're not getting any grasses, aquatic plants, fish, insects, small amphibians, worms, and small molluscs for a week. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Harsh pun-ishment there! Ravensfire (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone DID o-pun the door... Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Lotfi A. Zadeh

A edit war is continuing in the article Lotfi A. Zdeh. Your immediate attention to this matter is appreciated. Takabeg (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see this, which I posted on WP:ECCN earlier today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And for background on why Takabeg filed this, please see the following threads from various places:

• Conflict begins here, on T's talk page when I inquire as to why he has created Category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent when there is already a Category:Iranian Azeris. I don't understand what, if any, the distinction is supposed to be between them. This leads to
• this CfD discussion, in which T can't or won't explain the distinction. Eventually a consensus is reached (I think, I stopped following it), but not before some personal remarks are made by T about the motivations of other editors, including myself.
• To complicate the matter, T was canvassing, behavior that he's done before.

• A second point of conflict begins on T's talk page, when I inquire why he is removing a map from a large number of articles without consensus to do so,
• and gets kind of personal again (from T) with these two threads on my talk page, this leads to
• this discussion on WikiProject Ottoman Empire, in which T makes what I believe to be a personal attack (not towards me - although he's made similar comments about me which I've pretty much ignored). I redacted his comment, he reverted, I restored and told him why I thought they were a personal attack, and restored the redaction, saying that if he removed it again, I would bring it to admins' attention.
• Here, I explain specifcally why his remark goes against NPA.
• And Takabeg responds by coming here.

Where does Lotfi Zadeh fit in? Well earlier today, an editor (not Takabeg) started to make edits there that were distorting the article. Discussions on that can be found on the other editors talk page, on my talk page, on the article talk page, and, of course, on the WP:ECCN report I filed, linked above.

A reminder that Lotfi Zadeh is a WP:BLP.

Sorry for all this stuff, it's going to be an awful bore for anyone to wade through it all, but there's a lot in it all that shows Takabeg's behaviorial problems, so it might be worth taking a look at. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it is a geopolitical ethnic and religious conflict. But it's very clear that edit war is continuing. Administrators can approve some options, protection the article, warning both sides etc. Takabeg (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPREMOVE, removing unsourced or badly sourced material from a BLP article is exempt from 3RR restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As an addendum, consider this: Takabeg seeks out advice from a third party, who patiently, carefully and politely replies, but T. ignores the proffered advice, instead restating his editing POV:

Neo-Ottomanism is very popular in Turkey in last decade. That map is also created under the influence of Neo-Ottomanism. At the same time, traditionally Turks are under the influence of Pan-Turkism (most of them are not so extremist). This is caused by Turkish Historical Theses (formerly), Turk-Islam synthesis (since late 1970's) were adopted as a official historiography by the Ministry of National Education. They are very harmful to neutrality of Wikipedia. But some users cannot understand it.

Now, T. could well be right, I don't know enough about the subject to make that judgment, but this is the lens through which he sees Wikipedia, and the basis upon which he acts. He does not assume good faith about those who disagree with him, but automatically assumes that any editor who questions him or his edits is a POV-pushing nationalist, and then escalates from there, personalizing the conflict. His goal of preserving neutrality on Wikipedia is an excellent one, it's my goal as well, but his method of going about it is flawed, and leads to conflicts such as the current one which would never had come to this pass if T. had simply explained the reason behind the creation of a new category, or had bothered to have a consensus discussion before making changes in a contentious subject area.

I don't think that any sanction is warranted against T., as long as he keeps his behavior in check, but I do think it might be worthwhile for other experienced editors to offer him some advice: perhaps a number of non-involved people doing so might awaken him to the flaws in his behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

One last thing before this thread gets archived, more input on the WP:ECCN discussion I started here would be useful. I can totally understand editors and admins staying away from contentious ethnic/nationalist conflicts, because they are both a quagmire and a minefield – I usually try my best to stay away myself – but if someone brave would like to wade in and offer an opinion, it would be good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ken, you didn't notify me about this discussion, but anyways, since I am being indirectly mentioned here, I would like to note that I responded on all relevant pages, and want to re-emphasize that your statement of the problem is quite unfair and making a problem out of nothing. Beyond My Ken has removed at least two new sources - video's of Prof. Lotfi Asker Zadeh speaking himself and being interviewed, in 2007 and 2009, at his university, UC Berkeley. The article Lotfi Zadeh is a biography of a living person (BLP), and those video's are invaluable and more credible than any third-person reporting in any print publication. All my sources are reliable and authoritative, and enrich the article about the professor. For some reason Beyond My Ken thinks he is the only one who can make edits, automatically reverts all my edit despite absolutely no reason for it. I do feel he has good intentions, but he does assume bad faith and thus becomes trigger-happy. Meanwhile, there is no requirement about any "self-identification". Although he is quoted by Betty Blair from Los Angeles-based Azerbaijan International as considering himself both American, Azerbaijani, Iranian and Russian - and that quote has been in the article long before I or Ken took any interest in the article (I came to edit the article after being told about it in a conversation between Beyond My Ken and User:Takabeg). At any rate, Prof. Lotfi Zadeh was born in Azerbaijan - this is an indisputable fact. He also states in his video speech at UC Berkeley that I cited that he considers his years of life in Azerbaijan as being the most important to his life. So this is also indisputable. Finally, he is an American, a US Citizen and has lived in US for almost 70 years. Thus, he is Azerbaijani-American. Of course he can also be, at the same time, Russian-American and Iranian-American - the latter have included him on their page, even though he was not born in Iran, he lived there for only 11 or so years, and his parents were not Iranian (his father was originally from Iranian Azerbaijan, but left for independent Azerbaijan Republic and then stayed there after it became part of USSR - anyhow, he lived there for well over a decade, had an Azerbaijani and later Soviet citizenship). Sorry Ken, but no "permission" is needed to describe any famous person as being some hyphenated American - please show me such a rule, and better yet, show me a pile of "waivers" or "authorization sheets" from all the different living persons (or dead persons) who have allowed to Wikipedia editors to call them as Irish-/Scottish-/Russian-/Iranian-/Azerbaijani-/etc.-American. You won't find such a thing. So PLEASE, let's be reasonable here and not create artificial problems out of nothing. Especially since despite rejecting my edits, you have in the end revised the intro and removed the improper information that was leading to misunderstanding and violating WP:WEIGHT by over-emphasizing Russia or Iran as a factor. --Saygi1 (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't file this discussion, and I haven't mentioned you by name or discussed the issues underlying our dispute, simply asked for some more participation on the ECCN thread, so there was no need to notify you. This thread was filed by Takabeg about me (in the guise of a neutral notification of an edit war), and I responded with my concerns about Takabeg.

As for your comments above, there's little point in having that discussion in two places, and I've already responded to these same arguments in the ECCN discussion (which I did notify you about). In any case, even though they are repetitve of what you've already said, they would be better posted there. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it's a natural mistake, but the "Ken" in "Beyond My Ken" is not short for the name "Kenneth", it is the English word "ken", derived from Scottish and meaning "knowledge". "Beyond My Ken" or "BMK" are good for addressing your remarks to me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, will address you by either full nick or as BMK. I did assume that Ken is your name. --Saygi1 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is too much! Beyond My Ken and one other of his editor-friends [104] have been engaging in a revert war, removing reliable and verifiable information and sources, including the living person's own direct speech and interview on video. Please see the difference between my version and the latest version by Beyond My Ken [105], where he deliberately removed the fact that Prof. Lotfi Asker Zade:

• 1) is a member of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences (ANAS) - for which he, well in his 80's, traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan, to accept the membership/award/honor. At the same time Beyond My Ken does not object all other memberships, honors and awards - so again a double standard, a violation of WP:WEIGHT, suppression of reliable and verifiable sources;
• 2) speaks/understands Azerbaijani language (in addition to the Russian and Persian that does not seem to object being featured in the article - clear double standard and violation of undue weight, as well as simply wrong and unethical);
• 3) considers his years in his native Azerbaijan, where he was born and lived for 10 years, went to kindergarten and school, as having the deepest influence on his life and career.

This is a very unfortunate that user Beyond My Ken, despite repeated pleas and outreach, attempts to conciliate and compromise, rejected everything, assumed bad faith, engaged in Original Research WP:OR and chose the path of a mini-revert war! I request that administrators take action against this by expressing their opinion and asking Beyond My Ken to desist from such unconstructive behavior. --Saygi1 (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The bulk of Saygi1's comment is essentially presenting his side in a content dispute, so is not pertinent to this discussion, and should not have been posted here. In my latest post there, I explained (once again) my stance. The behavioral complaint made against me is groundless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated on that same page, as well as here, I stand by all my words, and find that Beyond My Ken is incorrect and violating multiple Wikipedia rules, from assuming bad faith, to engaging in original research, to revert warring, to removing sourced information from reliable and verifiable sources. I've outreached multiple (!) times to Beyond My Ken, on my and his Talk pages, as well as on other pages, pleading him and his friend to read everything carefully, and reach a consensus and compromise. Unfortunately, he rejected it outright, saying its his way or the highway. --Saygi1 (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Request a warning to Saygi1

(edit conflict) Unfortunately, Saygi1 has taken the regrettable step of edit warring to restore his edits, which were removed under WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, and the removal of which has been supported by two others besides myself, William M. Connelly, here, and admin John, here. I believe a warning to Saygi1 to not edit war would be justified, since the current consensus is that his edits should not be in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not the one who started reverts - you did, and called William Connelly to do the same. So the revert warning should be addressed to you, Beyond My Ken. Similarly, as described above, it is actually your edits that violate all of the above rules. Here's the latest proof - in the comment at this page [106], Beyond My Ken very clearly and vividly displays his poor judgement at the very least, and at worst, bias and bad faith, doing not just a very selective short quoting, but suppressing some key words (indeed, sentences!) from Prof. Lotfi Asker Zadeh's speech. Please compare his transcript to this transcript I've prepared starting from minute 1:41 of this video [107]: "But I must say that what influenced me more than perhaps anything else, were the 10 years, the first 10 years of my life in Baku. I was there at the time when there was very strong ideological influence everywhere. But one thing which had an impact on me was the fact that in school, what we were taught, was not material things, not trying to make money, not buy XYZ, but have some dedication to society, to culture, to science." As you can see, watch and hear, Prof. Zadeh's clearly states that his years in Azerbaijan were most important to him in his life as both a human being and a scientist. And it's a violation of WP:WEIGHT and a host of other rules to suppress that kind of valuable and important information from his biography. --Saygi1 (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not dispute resolution, you've posted this complaint in two other places, and it's untrue in all three. The word "influenced" is not in the sentence, I've listened to the clip five times now. Please let's centralize the dispute discussion on the ECCN thread, this board is about actions needed to be taken by admins, and that can be done by reference to threads elsewhere without repeating entire posts. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? On 1:43/1:44 through approximately 1:46, Prof. Lotfi Asker Zadeh states the word "influenced". I stand 100% by my transcript and once again declare your transcript as manipulative and done in bad faith. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, can you support you contention that I "called" William Connelly? William is a high-profile editor, so I know who he is, and have almost certainly had some interactions with him in the past, but we are not Wiki-friends or even Wiki-aquaintances, and I most definitiely have no capability of "calling" upon him to do my bidding. From what I know of William, I believe that if I tried to do that he would tell me to go peddle my papers. My supposition is that he went to the article as the result of this thread, but I don't know that for a fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, he is not an expert no the issue and just appeared out of nowhere and just reverted me, and in the processed removed multiple reliable and verifiable sources - a violation of Wikipedia policy. This does look very suspicious, when a high-profile editor, with supposedly no stake in the issue, just comes and blindly reverts, to YOUR version, and then just goes to my talk page and attempts to intimidate me (and only me) with the 3RR rule. So yes, looks like a couple editors decided to tag team against the other editor. Which fits the profile - you attempted to do the same by threatening me with "admin John" in the context of asking for administrators to issue a warning to me. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Diffs, please, to support the charge of canvassing. And, really, you very much need to chill out a bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You could have done it by email, phone or chat. It's clear as day that no neutral high-profile editor, well familiar with Wikipedia rules, but not familiar with the subject at hand, would just barge in and blindly revert to YOUR version. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Or I could have done it by telepathy, but I didn't, nor by carrier pigeon, instant message or smoke signal. I explicitly and with finality state that I never contacted William Connelly to ask him to do anything about this article. Your logic is bizarre because it ignores what is an ordinary, everyday occurence: there's a post about the issue on this forum, one of the most highly trafficked pages in the project, and an editor saw it, took an interst, went to the article, presumably read the changes, reached the opinion that they were not well-sourced, and removed them. That kind of thing happens thousands a times a day.

I confirm that BMK did not canvass / contact me in any way before I edited the article (and subsequently, only via the messages on my talk page) William M. Connolley (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Saygi1 blocked

I have blocked Saygi1 for 48hrs for edit warring. Beyond My Ken, I recommend that you don't revert his last change as that might also warrant a sanction. Anyone else is free to edit the article as they see fit. Saygi1 needs to get that Youtube video cleared as a reliable source before he attempts to add it again, or it will result in a longer block. I do find it slightly ironic that he appears to be edit warring to enhance the Azeri credentials of this notable scientist who I'd been unaware of before reading this dispute, while the chap himself keeps giving interviews to Azerbaijan International magazine [108] [109] (sources are in article) saying things like "The question really isn't whether I'm American, Russian, Iranian, Azerbaijani, or anything else". Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Elen: I reverted Saygi1's last restoration before I saw this advice, so I self-reverted, sorry about that. However, I'm a little confused about that advice: you acknowledge that Saygi1's material is poorly sourced, so therefore my removal of it is firmly within the aegis of WP:BLPREMOVE, which states categorically that such edits are immune from 3RR restrictions. Add to that the fact that two other editors agree with me, so the current consensus is that this material does not improve the article. Given those two factors, why could my removing Saygi1's material be subject to sanction? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't sanction you - in fact, in other circs I'd probably remove the material also. It was more in case another admin took a different view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the clarification. I believe the case is open and shut – it was just this kind of biased distortion that BLPREMOVE was meant to make easier to get rid of – and I'm willing to take the chance that the admins here understand that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Digirami

Digirami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user seems to have made it a point to vandalize any and all pages that I significantly contribute and it is getting to the point where I am being forced to do one of this (personally ridiculous) reports since I think wikipedia is to contribute. As crazy as this sounds, check the logs three days ago on my block and you will notice that he and a user named PeeJay used a double-team tactic to get me blocked. Since I am not too experienced in wikipedia, I fell for it. However, I did study up on it and it seems this user feels the need to create an edit war on anything I heavily contribute to, even those pages which are far from Digirami's interest (as I could see on the contribution's list on Santos FC, Template:Santos FC, etc. Sincerily, this is getting detrimental and purely disruptive.

I have tried at first talking and discussing. When that didn't work, I merely ignore him. There is nothing else I can do. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. This is a content dispute, plain and simple (more or less). User:Strawberry on Vanilla seems to think any edits I make to the Santos FC and related pages and templates is considered vandalism, even though it is clearly not vandalism. I think some pieces of information should be displayed differently and some information should not be placed in templates (current squad and honors, for example). Truth be told, Strawberry on Vanilla is displaying a high degree of ownership when it comes to this subject and related pages to the point where a user like myself, or another, cannot even edit it to correct from minor mistakes (for lack of a better word) in the article. Secondly, he has never contacted me directly except for a minor comment in his edit summaries (and they have never been constructive; always claiming "vandalism"). My talkpage history will clearly show that. In fact, in two previous instances over content dispute, it is I who reached out with him and to others to help resolve it. Digirami (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Even articles I create at the spur of the moment come under his attack as shown here. I have spent a lot of time turning, for example, this into what it is now. Also, this into that. I have created many more articles and his tactics of disrupting, regressing, edit warring, etc. just to spite are simply detrimental. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain this: you don't own any article, no matter how much effort you put into it. No ones any article. Very simple. Your first example (the Brazil football template) was deemed redundant not just by myself, but by other editors. That's consensus.

But on the whole, what I do is not disruptive. I don't want to play the "experience card", but I do have more experience editing football related articles and am involved with the related WikiProject. As a results, I may know things about what is expected from an article or template that you may not know. So if I see something off (like a template being used for one article, even when it is not needed), I will be bold and fix that. That's the beauty of community editing we got going on on this site. Digirami (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been looking at his history and, to be honest, I was apalled that I got a ban 3 days ago and Digirami obviously should have had one also. Looking at this, this...I have to ask how does he never get block or anything as such. Gaming the system to continue this is no excuse for regressing and destroying pregress. I have noted several FA (that I have taken for reference) and he doesn't mess with any of those. Mainly, anything I touch. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That bears no relevance to this. But, the other editor (MLitH) had no basis for his complaints against myself or the other editor. He was petty that consensus was not in his favor and I was one of the louder voices in that consensus Digirami (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the Santos F.C. article to its pre-edit war state and protected it. I suggest you both discuss your points of view on the talk page and involve other editors from the football Wikiproject to try to achieve a consensus. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of report

I have removed Jotamar and edit warring from this archive to replace it at the front of the ANI page to receive further comments. Lechonero (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The Standells

This is a 1960s rock band, still active, where there has been disruptive editing by a series of apparently COI-compromised editors. The basic problem seems to be that there is a dispute between (former?) band members over the rights to use the "Standells" name, and, hence, edit warring over the content of the article by new SPA editors on each side, notably User:Larbabe and User:Standell66. In trying to resolve this, User:Wwwhatsup and I (who are both entirely neutral on the issue, but wish to improve the article), have repeatedly tried and failed to engage in discussion with those editors, on their own talk pages and the article talk page, with virtually no success at all. We also resorted to article protection here, but that also had no effect on subsequent behaviour. This is very frustrating. One option might be, I guess, to block User:Standell66 for disruptive editing, though it's not "vandalism" per se - just a persistent refusal to engage in proper dialogue or to take account of WP practice and policy. I'm happy to remove myself from any further editing on that page until there is some resolution of this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPT does seem to allow for admin action against editors who persistently "fail to get it". However, driven by the appearance from this report that two editors are edit warring but only one is proposed as being sanctioned, has there been an RfC or other dispute resolution process that has determined where consensus lies? I recognise that two uninvolved editors have reviewed the matter and tried to promote discussion, but perhaps it is time for more outside opinion on the premise of the dispute. Once a consensus is derived on the best encyclopedic presentation of the subject, then any editor (old, new or passing ip) can be sanctioned for disrupting the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It appears that User:Larbabe tried to warn (but incorrectly using the ownership of a patent # which could be considered a thinly veiled legal threat) User:Standell66 regarding his additions. Perhaps Wikipedia is being used as a battleground for a pending/current legal spat? If so, the page might need to be reverted to its last accepted addition and fully protected for awhile. Phearson (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We tried protection before, for a week, but all that happened was that User:Standell66 started up exactly where they had left off beforehand without any change in behaviour. Incidentally, I had to revert my last edit for fear of fouling WP:3RR, so if there is protection I hope it's not of the current wording. All fairly trivial but irritating, and at least the bickering and searching for sources has led to an article which is an improvement on the version that existed prior to any of the warring parties becoming involved. They have all been notified of this discussion and it'll be interesting to see if any respond here. An RfC would be a possibility, but it's not a course I've ever followed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have even handedly indeffed both Larbabe and Standell66 for legal threats. There clearly is some kind of legal dispute going on, which is referenced repeatedly in both their edit summaries. I'm tempted to revert to this version from before either of them started editing, but would like the opinion of uninvolved editors on that. NB both editors appear to have editied as IPs as well as logged in, but this doesn't seem to have been an effort to sock in either case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd much prefer that the article be reverted to this recent version - as I mentioned, a lot of referenced material has been added to the article by neutral editors, as well as those on either side, since this argument first surfaced, and I wouldn't want that to be lost, though I realise that a bit more tweaking might be needed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you - though I expect this won't be the end of the story. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste move: North Vietnam

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.

---

North Vietnam was cut and pasted to Democratic Republic of Vietnam by User:Dÿrlegur Kauffner (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this discussion, Kauffner. In my opinion, Democratic Republic of Vietnam may be more appropriate than North Vietnam to use. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam existed from 1945 to 1976 and it was known as North Vietnam from 1954 to 1976. - Dÿrlegur ^talk 12:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)What is the problem here that warrants admin attention? This looks like a content dispute that hasn't been discussed on the talk page of the article. Phearson (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste loses the edit history, and is thus not correct - the proper procedure is to WP:MOVE the content. The question of consensus can then proceed, which is the dispute resolution issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

User:AnthonyQBachler

User:AnthonyQBachler is determined to impose his preferred solution to what he sees as the problem with the Status Quo and status quo articles. I have tried to get him to enter into a discussion about it, to no avail. I do not wish to enter into silly an edit war. To date he has;

• performed a page move on a long established without any discussion, and without fixing any of the wikilinks to the article.
• Created a redirect page that leads all these existing wikilinks to the wrong article.
• Reverted three times the repair that was done to fix this.
• Requested page protection for "Persistent vandalism" because he wasn't getting what he wanted.
• Ignored my efforts to explain why what he's doing is wrong, against policy and discourteous.
• Created a Disambiguation page for two articles, and redirected other pages to it.

To be fair, I don't think he understands how what he's doing is messing things up, and there is a possible problem here that could be addressed with some discussion. But I'm finding it difficult to get through to him. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Escape is repeatedly vandalizing good faith efforts to implement a disambiguation page by summarily reverting. The band page is obviously his pet article and he insists on requiring everyone who enters Status Quo to go to the (band) page when in fact the band is named after the Latin phrase, not the other way around. As the Latin phrase has intellectual precedence, it is obviously the intended target, but to be fair, a disambiguation page is the best option to resolve this issue, I even did the ground work of finding multiple potential other targets. Escape however refuses to accept a disambiguation page and is abusing his position as an admin. He has been extremely hostile to any effort to resolve the issue and is acting in bad faith. AQBachler (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with AnthonyQBachler on this one. The overwhelming vast majority of readers who search for "Status Quo" will almost certainly be looking for Status quo, not Status Quo (band) (Status quo gets 4-5 times more page views than Status Quo (band)). The hatnote at the top of Status quo handily provides a link to the small minority who were actually looking for the band. Since there are only two pages using the "Status quo" title, there's no need for a dab page. —SW— ^yak 22:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the hatnote on Status Quo (band) so that it no longer claims that it is the redirect target from Status Quo. The only thing left to do (in my opinion) is redirect Status Quo to Status quo, and delete Status Quo (disambiguation). But, I'd suggest holding off on making that happen until a few more editors join the discussion here. —SW— ^gossip 22:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What of all the articles that link to Status Quo on the basis that this was the band's article? This is the same mistake that AQBachler started out on. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you read more of the discussion you'll see that the issue here is not what the redirections should be, it is the fact that AQBachler is failing to implement his changes in any kind of organised fashion and without any attempt to discuss them. I have repeatedly tried to get him to discuss before he acts, but he's simply not interested. And his repeated accusations of vandalism, agendas and bad faith are not helpful.

By the way, where did you get your above figures from? We should take into consideration the mess AQBachler has created between these articles in the last month. You'd be better looking a few months further back. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The band article averages about 600 hits per day, the latin term is more like 2500 per day. —SW— ^converse 22:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Granted. But are we not differentiating between status quo and Status Quo? Why would someone searching for the latin term give it capitals? What percentage do this? And are their needs not addressed by the disamb hatnote? Again, I'm not ruling anything out, just the failure of any attempt to discuss what, to me, isn't a clear cut solution. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to fix the links to the article, just click on "What links here" and get to work. If there are really a ton of links, there are bots out there that can help you do it automatically. Just ask on WP:BOTREQ. Also, your attempts to communicate with Anthony weren't exactly the friendliest tone, although Anthony probably should have responded instead of just blanking the message. In the future, when you're in an argument with one other user that's going nowhere, bringing the argument to WP:3O can be a good way to resolve it. —SW— ^soliloquize 23:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There are hundreds of links. I took it as the responsibility of the editor who moved the page to be the one to fix them. Apologies if I wasn't sounding my friendliest, but I was having no success in raising any response from him. And I wouldn't call it an argument, more a failure to communicate in any way. It's hard to reach any agreement with someone who won't even acknowledge. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue has been going on for at most the last few weeks. The original situation was there were two articles, status quo about the latin phrase, and Status Quo about the band. Copypasting the contents of Status Quo to Status Quo (Band) wikified that article. I then redirected Status Quo to status quo, since it is the obvious intended target. This is when Escape came unglued, threatening me with vandalism charges after only a single, obviously good faith effort. He then began reverting all my edits, undoing said good faith effort and posting passive aggressive messages on my talk page. Recently, in another good faith effort to resolve the situation, since users are still being misdirected to the band page when searching for the latin phrase, I created a disambiguation page Status Quo (Disambiguation), and even did the ground work to find 2 other potential targets, making for 4 potentioal articles in the disambiguation page, one of which I have already begun writing (about the restaraunt). Only after I created the DAP did I then fix the redirect on Status Quo to go to the disambiguation page as it should. This obviously was lost on Escape, who reverted my edits and created this discussion, after further threatening me with vandalism. To be honest, I do not think he is acting in good faith in the best interests of Wikipedia, and needs to have his admin rights revoked, or at least suspended. AQBachler (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing a link to those "vandalism charges" I supposedly wrote. All I have ever asked you is to fix what you have broken and discuss what you were trying to do, before you do it. You have not once done this. And you do not "Copypasting the contents of Status Quo to Status Quo (Band)" to accomplish page moves, that is just one of the things you were doing incorrectly, yet wouldn't listen. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I responded on his talk page to several of his posts. I blanked my talk page as it had a lot of older discussions that were no longer necessary, with the understanding that the history woudl retain the posts if anyone cared to look them up. AQBachler (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This user has continued to revert war regarding these articles permalink while accusing users who disagree with him as vandals and sockpuppets. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

semi-threats and other "niceties" with User:J3mm0

Wikiquette assistance said to "Take it to WP:ANI, there are much more serious issues here..."

This involves Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julien Modica

Normally I'd just brush this off, but I have a feeling this will only continue. Could somebody tell her that threats and other "niceties" are on the inappropriate side. I don't think I should say something about her conduct as it will only agitate her. Bgwhite (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I left a warning on their talk page.--v/r - TP 00:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear admins: please pay attention here. This is possibly WP:COI a disruptive WP:SPA and pushing for an obscure perennial candidate in local politics in the USA. I know assume good faith etc, but this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND issue of some severity. Indef block severity. Need The Mop for cleanup in aisle crazy...--Cerejota (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

They are passionate about the topic, let's give them a chance to correct their behavior before a block.--v/r - TP 00:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Come on! Threats like that [110] [111] are completely inappropriate. Also, the account is clearly being used by two people, "Modica's greatest supporter" and "the mother of Modica's greatest supporter". I have blocked indefinitely for the latter reason, although if you or anyone else wishes to discuss terms for an unblock with them, please be my guest. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate, yes, but I don't think they are block worthy. I'd like to WP:AGF that folks can get passionate about subjects and tend to make unreasonable or irrationale remarks sometimes. If you want to block for sharing an account, that's fine, but I wasn't going to block over the WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA issue. I hadn't seen the quotes you've given.--v/r - TP 01:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the two has agreed that both were editing. If you wish to counsel them in the error of their ways, please do so. I believe however that it would be preferable for them to remain blocked until the AFD has run its course, to prevent any repetition. After that, if they agree which one is using the account, it should be possible to unblock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't it just be suggested that they avoid the AFD as they've been disruptive in the discussion?--v/r - TP 02:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The sole purpose of this account since its creation has been the promotion of Mr Modica. So yes, I do think they need to remain blocked at least until after the AFD has run its course. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Out of interest, this account (the mother, I believe) has now posted this as an appeal against the block - explaining her enthusiasm for Mr Modica (her reasons seem cogent and I have every sympathy with herself and her son) but unfortunately adding if you want to get in touch with Mr. Modica I could assist, but I would very, very much like to finish the work I am doing on Mr. Modica's page and get "out of the Wikipedia business..." this weekend. - as fun as it has been for all of us (Ha! Ha!) You could help by allowing me to edit Modica's page. Admins either way and BWilkins have reviewed the appeal and have both declined, so I don't think I'm being unusually hard. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that even with good faith in mind, WP:CIR is clear. This account belongs to someone who is clearly shown no competence in editing wikipedia.--Cerejota (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Over-aggressive warnings/ blocking of User:204.111.64.196

204.111.64.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked for five days for vandalism, and cannot even edit their own talk page, after what appear to be a series of good-faith edits sparking what seems (from a random sample) more like a content dispute combined with some technical errors. None of the messages on the talk page during the period concerned reaches out to offer a welcome or support, or invite dialogue. None specifically describe the supposed faults with the edits concerned; their boilerplate refers to "...page blanking or addition of random text, spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons ", none of which seem to apply. I've not found any discussions on the affected articles' talk pages. I think the IP editor may require assistance or mentoring.

To declare an interest, I've recently been involve in a separate dispute with the blocking and warning editors, who may well see this notice as hostile. That's not my intention; I just believe newbie editors should be encouraged. Accordingly, I'll not participate in deliberations unless asked; and I'll accept whatever view uninvolved admins take regarding the block. It's also why I'm not offering to do the mentoring.

If there's a better forum for this, please either copy my note there, or ping my talk page and I shall do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I do think that the block was harsh. The IP has a history of editing US interstate road articles, and has vandalized in the past. Though more recently it has been changing content rather then inserting text, which isn't vandalism per say. I think the editor is trying to be constructive but doesn't know how wikipedia works. Phearson (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Further to Phearson, my review is that the ip has not responded to earlier warnings (except to change the manner of their disruptive editing, perhaps), has not used any talkpage, and that they have been editing that subject range exclusively for almost a year. They may not understand Wikipedia, but they do not appear to have made any effort to do so. I have no issues with either the warnings, and their tone, or the length of the sanctions - my only concern is that both admins are very much involved in editing the range of articles that the ip has been disrupting, and that it would have been better for them to allow an outside admin to review and take action. It sometimes helps to allay suspicions of over zealousness to step away and let someone else make the final decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Agree with the previous contributor. This editor was given sufficient warnings about edits and then removal of references, and IMHO any IP who starts messing around with tables - apparently without knowing what they are doing - are not doing themselves any favours. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Based on the the pages being edited and changes made, this appears to be the same person as blocked User:204.111.65.151. They don't respond to talk page messages and warnings, they blow them away. The edits haven't been minor misunderstandings or technical issues but outright changes (like renumbering all the freeway interchanges) or fantasy additions of things that don't exist. This doesn't seem like a good-faith user who just needs some assistance; it strikes me as someone who is deliberately trying to be disruptive. I support the blocks. Bitmapped (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have come across a few talk pages that were created by this IP. They have been for fictional roads (Talk:Interstate 894 in Minnesota for instance.) I tagged them all CSD:G8 when I saw them as there was no article attached. This is on top of the changes Bitmapped mentioned. I do, however, think this IP knows what (s)he is doing and believe most of the issues addressed on the IP talk were deliberate. I support the blocks, too. –Fredddie™ 13:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As Bitmapped pointed out, 204.111.64.196 is also 204.111.65.151 who is sufficiently warned under both IPs. To prevent further block evasion and disruptive editing, I have extended 204.111.64.196's block to expire the same time as 204.111.65.151. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Good block of an obvious and disruptive IP-hopping sock who totally ingores warnings and advice. Also support the talk page protection for inappropriate use of a talk page while blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 19:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't have any further comments since people have made them already. Also, whatever happened to "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." ? Sometimes the immediate reason for a block isn't quite apparent, especially for those who aren't familiar with adminspeak. This is why we ask the admin before we go to the dramafest of ANI. Also, if we can't block vandals who target road articles only for vandalism, I think that's pretty crummy. --Rschen7754 20:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User:AnthonyQBachler

User:AnthonyQBachler is determined to impose his preferred solution to what he sees as the problem with the Status Quo and status quo articles. I have tried to get him to enter into a discussion about it, to no avail. I do not wish to enter into silly an edit war. To date he has;

• performed a page move on a long established without any discussion, and without fixing any of the wikilinks to the article.
• Created a redirect page that leads all these existing wikilinks to the wrong article.
• Reverted three times the repair that was done to fix this.
• Requested page protection for "Persistent vandalism" because he wasn't getting what he wanted.
• Ignored my efforts to explain why what he's doing is wrong, against policy and discourteous.
• Created a Disambiguation page for two articles, and redirected other pages to it.

To be fair, I don't think he understands how what he's doing is messing things up, and there is a possible problem here that could be addressed with some discussion. But I'm finding it difficult to get through to him. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Escape is repeatedly vandalizing good faith efforts to implement a disambiguation page by summarily reverting. The band page is obviously his pet article and he insists on requiring everyone who enters Status Quo to go to the (band) page when in fact the band is named after the Latin phrase, not the other way around. As the Latin phrase has intellectual precedence, it is obviously the intended target, but to be fair, a disambiguation page is the best option to resolve this issue, I even did the ground work of finding multiple potential other targets. Escape however refuses to accept a disambiguation page and is abusing his position as an admin. He has been extremely hostile to any effort to resolve the issue and is acting in bad faith. AQBachler (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with AnthonyQBachler on this one. The overwhelming vast majority of readers who search for "Status Quo" will almost certainly be looking for Status quo, not Status Quo (band) (Status quo gets 4-5 times more page views than Status Quo (band)). The hatnote at the top of Status quo handily provides a link to the small minority who were actually looking for the band. Since there are only two pages using the "Status quo" title, there's no need for a dab page. —SW— ^yak 22:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the hatnote on Status Quo (band) so that it no longer claims that it is the redirect target from Status Quo. The only thing left to do (in my opinion) is redirect Status Quo to Status quo, and delete Status Quo (disambiguation). But, I'd suggest holding off on making that happen until a few more editors join the discussion here. —SW— ^gossip 22:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What of all the articles that link to Status Quo on the basis that this was the band's article? This is the same mistake that AQBachler started out on. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you read more of the discussion you'll see that the issue here is not what the redirections should be, it is the fact that AQBachler is failing to implement his changes in any kind of organised fashion and without any attempt to discuss them. I have repeatedly tried to get him to discuss before he acts, but he's simply not interested. And his repeated accusations of vandalism, agendas and bad faith are not helpful.

By the way, where did you get your above figures from? We should take into consideration the mess AQBachler has created between these articles in the last month. You'd be better looking a few months further back. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The band article averages about 600 hits per day, the latin term is more like 2500 per day. —SW— ^converse 22:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Granted. But are we not differentiating between status quo and Status Quo? Why would someone searching for the latin term give it capitals? What percentage do this? And are their needs not addressed by the disamb hatnote? Again, I'm not ruling anything out, just the failure of any attempt to discuss what, to me, isn't a clear cut solution. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to fix the links to the article, just click on "What links here" and get to work. If there are really a ton of links, there are bots out there that can help you do it automatically. Just ask on WP:BOTREQ. Also, your attempts to communicate with Anthony weren't exactly the friendliest tone, although Anthony probably should have responded instead of just blanking the message. In the future, when you're in an argument with one other user that's going nowhere, bringing the argument to WP:3O can be a good way to resolve it. —SW— ^soliloquize 23:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There are hundreds of links. I took it as the responsibility of the editor who moved the page to be the one to fix them. Apologies if I wasn't sounding my friendliest, but I was having no success in raising any response from him. And I wouldn't call it an argument, more a failure to communicate in any way. It's hard to reach any agreement with someone who won't even acknowledge. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue has been going on for at most the last few weeks. The original situation was there were two articles, status quo about the latin phrase, and Status Quo about the band. Copypasting the contents of Status Quo to Status Quo (Band) wikified that article. I then redirected Status Quo to status quo, since it is the obvious intended target. This is when Escape came unglued, threatening me with vandalism charges after only a single, obviously good faith effort. He then began reverting all my edits, undoing said good faith effort and posting passive aggressive messages on my talk page. Recently, in another good faith effort to resolve the situation, since users are still being misdirected to the band page when searching for the latin phrase, I created a disambiguation page Status Quo (Disambiguation), and even did the ground work to find 2 other potential targets, making for 4 potentioal articles in the disambiguation page, one of which I have already begun writing (about the restaraunt). Only after I created the DAP did I then fix the redirect on Status Quo to go to the disambiguation page as it should. This obviously was lost on Escape, who reverted my edits and created this discussion, after further threatening me with vandalism. To be honest, I do not think he is acting in good faith in the best interests of Wikipedia, and needs to have his admin rights revoked, or at least suspended. AQBachler (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing a link to those "vandalism charges" I supposedly wrote. All I have ever asked you is to fix what you have broken and discuss what you were trying to do, before you do it. You have not once done this. And you do not "Copypasting the contents of Status Quo to Status Quo (Band)" to accomplish page moves, that is just one of the things you were doing incorrectly, yet wouldn't listen. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I responded on his talk page to several of his posts. I blanked my talk page as it had a lot of older discussions that were no longer necessary, with the understanding that the history woudl retain the posts if anyone cared to look them up. AQBachler (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This user has continued to revert war regarding these articles permalink while accusing users who disagree with him as vandals and sockpuppets. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

semi-threats and other "niceties" with User:J3mm0

Wikiquette assistance said to "Take it to WP:ANI, there are much more serious issues here..."

This involves Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julien Modica

Normally I'd just brush this off, but I have a feeling this will only continue. Could somebody tell her that threats and other "niceties" are on the inappropriate side. I don't think I should say something about her conduct as it will only agitate her. Bgwhite (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I left a warning on their talk page.--v/r - TP 00:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear admins: please pay attention here. This is possibly WP:COI a disruptive WP:SPA and pushing for an obscure perennial candidate in local politics in the USA. I know assume good faith etc, but this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND issue of some severity. Indef block severity. Need The Mop for cleanup in aisle crazy...--Cerejota (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

They are passionate about the topic, let's give them a chance to correct their behavior before a block.--v/r - TP 00:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Come on! Threats like that [112] [113] are completely inappropriate. Also, the account is clearly being used by two people, "Modica's greatest supporter" and "the mother of Modica's greatest supporter". I have blocked indefinitely for the latter reason, although if you or anyone else wishes to discuss terms for an unblock with them, please be my guest. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate, yes, but I don't think they are block worthy. I'd like to WP:AGF that folks can get passionate about subjects and tend to make unreasonable or irrationale remarks sometimes. If you want to block for sharing an account, that's fine, but I wasn't going to block over the WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA issue. I hadn't seen the quotes you've given.--v/r - TP 01:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the two has agreed that both were editing. If you wish to counsel them in the error of their ways, please do so. I believe however that it would be preferable for them to remain blocked until the AFD has run its course, to prevent any repetition. After that, if they agree which one is using the account, it should be possible to unblock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't it just be suggested that they avoid the AFD as they've been disruptive in the discussion?--v/r - TP 02:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The sole purpose of this account since its creation has been the promotion of Mr Modica. So yes, I do think they need to remain blocked at least until after the AFD has run its course. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Out of interest, this account (the mother, I believe) has now posted this as an appeal against the block - explaining her enthusiasm for Mr Modica (her reasons seem cogent and I have every sympathy with herself and her son) but unfortunately adding if you want to get in touch with Mr. Modica I could assist, but I would very, very much like to finish the work I am doing on Mr. Modica's page and get "out of the Wikipedia business..." this weekend. - as fun as it has been for all of us (Ha! Ha!) You could help by allowing me to edit Modica's page. Admins either way and BWilkins have reviewed the appeal and have both declined, so I don't think I'm being unusually hard. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that even with good faith in mind, WP:CIR is clear. This account belongs to someone who is clearly shown no competence in editing wikipedia.--Cerejota (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Over-aggressive warnings/ blocking of User:204.111.64.196

204.111.64.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked for five days for vandalism, and cannot even edit their own talk page, after what appear to be a series of good-faith edits sparking what seems (from a random sample) more like a content dispute combined with some technical errors. None of the messages on the talk page during the period concerned reaches out to offer a welcome or support, or invite dialogue. None specifically describe the supposed faults with the edits concerned; their boilerplate refers to "...page blanking or addition of random text, spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons ", none of which seem to apply. I've not found any discussions on the affected articles' talk pages. I think the IP editor may require assistance or mentoring.

To declare an interest, I've recently been involve in a separate dispute with the blocking and warning editors, who may well see this notice as hostile. That's not my intention; I just believe newbie editors should be encouraged. Accordingly, I'll not participate in deliberations unless asked; and I'll accept whatever view uninvolved admins take regarding the block. It's also why I'm not offering to do the mentoring.

If there's a better forum for this, please either copy my note there, or ping my talk page and I shall do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I do think that the block was harsh. The IP has a history of editing US interstate road articles, and has vandalized in the past. Though more recently it has been changing content rather then inserting text, which isn't vandalism per say. I think the editor is trying to be constructive but doesn't know how wikipedia works. Phearson (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Further to Phearson, my review is that the ip has not responded to earlier warnings (except to change the manner of their disruptive editing, perhaps), has not used any talkpage, and that they have been editing that subject range exclusively for almost a year. They may not understand Wikipedia, but they do not appear to have made any effort to do so. I have no issues with either the warnings, and their tone, or the length of the sanctions - my only concern is that both admins are very much involved in editing the range of articles that the ip has been disrupting, and that it would have been better for them to allow an outside admin to review and take action. It sometimes helps to allay suspicions of over zealousness to step away and let someone else make the final decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Agree with the previous contributor. This editor was given sufficient warnings about edits and then removal of references, and IMHO any IP who starts messing around with tables - apparently without knowing what they are doing - are not doing themselves any favours. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Based on the the pages being edited and changes made, this appears to be the same person as blocked User:204.111.65.151. They don't respond to talk page messages and warnings, they blow them away. The edits haven't been minor misunderstandings or technical issues but outright changes (like renumbering all the freeway interchanges) or fantasy additions of things that don't exist. This doesn't seem like a good-faith user who just needs some assistance; it strikes me as someone who is deliberately trying to be disruptive. I support the blocks. Bitmapped (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have come across a few talk pages that were created by this IP. They have been for fictional roads (Talk:Interstate 894 in Minnesota for instance.) I tagged them all CSD:G8 when I saw them as there was no article attached. This is on top of the changes Bitmapped mentioned. I do, however, think this IP knows what (s)he is doing and believe most of the issues addressed on the IP talk were deliberate. I support the blocks, too. –Fredddie™ 13:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As Bitmapped pointed out, 204.111.64.196 is also 204.111.65.151 who is sufficiently warned under both IPs. To prevent further block evasion and disruptive editing, I have extended 204.111.64.196's block to expire the same time as 204.111.65.151. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Good block of an obvious and disruptive IP-hopping sock who totally ingores warnings and advice. Also support the talk page protection for inappropriate use of a talk page while blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 19:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't have any further comments since people have made them already. Also, whatever happened to "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." ? Sometimes the immediate reason for a block isn't quite apparent, especially for those who aren't familiar with adminspeak. This is why we ask the admin before we go to the dramafest of ANI. Also, if we can't block vandals who target road articles only for vandalism, I think that's pretty crummy. --Rschen7754 20:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

IP on peculiar vandalism spree, possible need for RevDel

92.19.187.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on an extended vandalism spree, hitting more than a dozen articles, then usually (but not always) restoring the original text. Some of the content may be particularly offensive. The purpose of this could be to embed the vandalism in the article history, so the vandal can show it off to others at their leisure. I don't know that that alone justifies RevDel, but a couple of the ones I've looked at come close to crossing the line. A short term block may also be in order, of course. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I also came across this IP's edits. As HW says most of them were selfreverted and HW has taken care of those that weren't. There was this one [114] that slipped through. I have fixed it but other editors should be on the lookout for a return to editing by this IP or others in the 92.19 range. MarnetteD | Talk 19:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how this was going on for four hours. Given that we have a thousand trigger-happy Recent change patrollers and one inappropriate AIV report after another, odds are that someone would have reported them. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

And some editors and admins argue there is no admin crisis... there are maybe 100 active admins and no one wants to RfA, so this slips in the cracks...--Cerejota (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If this had been reported to AIV after the first couple of edits, it would have been taken care of--I never see a backlog there. What I'm thinking is that the edits and their immediate reverts are considered not serious, and no one took the trouble to actually look into it. The IP gets away with it a half a dozen times, and then does it a dozen times more. On the other hand, armed with Twinkle and Huggle, editors looking for vandalism perhaps have less incentive to spend time investigating edits. That's the cracks, not a lack of admins who are often dependent on what information is given them on the various noticeboards. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Leandrod

Leandrod (talk · contribs) has been asked repeatedly on his talk page to stop altering citation styles in contravention of WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITECONSENSUS. He has consisently refused to discuss the issue, and continues to flout the guidelines. Can we have some sort of restriction banning him from making any further citation template changes? DrKiernan (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• My question is, what is the problem with consolidating a page with 104 references to a page with 44 and more to be done? I would think it's a good-faith effort to improve the readability and usability of the reference section of the article. The particular article I've mentioned would have about 5 citations upon completion, and the page numbers are still included but in the mainline of the article so they'd actually be easier to look up for someone with the book. N419BH 06:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference consolidation is fine. But it doesn't have to be done in this appalling style. And, reference consolidation and cleaning up for the references section should never take preference over the appearance and readability of the prose. --Merbabu (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user has been asked on a number of occasions by a wide number of editors to cease the unconventional, ugly, awkward, confusing, and generally perplexing citation style a number of times. As seen here. Almost always he doesn't reply - on one occasion his justification was irrelevant to the citation style.

I see no talk page comments actually supporting this style. Leandrod has most recently used this format here. --Merbabu (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The <ref name=> parameter addition seems good faith enough to me. The page numbers I agree are ugly. Perhaps he should be encouraged to include the page numbers as hidden text aka <!--pp-->. I think that would be a better solution than simply banning him from making edits to references. N419BH 06:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't suggest some sort of ban, and no-one said his edits weren't done in good faith. I do suggest an effort by the editor to engage with other editors over their concerns. And, suggest he modifies his editing given the overwhelming opposition to a certain aspect of his changes. In his defence, my main (only?) gripe is the odd use of the rp parameter, indeed, some of his citation changes are OK, but this makes it hard to roll back his poor changes. --Merbabu (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem in that example? the references look fine.--Crossmr (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the use of the {{rp}} template, which leaves ugly page numbers everywhere in the prose. I think we have enough here for me to suggest the following: let's instruct Leandrod to use either <ref name=zzz/><!--p #--> or <ref name=zzz>p #</ref> instead of the rp template, which I agree is too much of a negative impact on readability. N419BH 06:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

And, I don't think it does help usability - while the page number might be there, one still has to click down to the list to find the reference, and then repeat this for as long as one doesn't remember what refs [1], [2], [3], etc, etc actually are. And, for novices, they may not even know that it's a page number. Or that Leandrod's preferred "18-9" actually means pp. 18-19.--Merbabu (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Consolidating one reference repeated 50 times to a single reference seems like an excellent idea in my book, and it's something I've done myself without complaint at two articles I've edited to GA status. I agree the page numbers need to be formatted something like "p. 17-19" or similar. However, for a user with 20,000 contributions, having only 29 edits to their own talk page tells me we may unfortunately be dealing with a broader issue of refusal to communicate or respond to community concerns. This may require administrative intervention to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Leandrod's response to this ANI thread, if any, will likely determine what road we go down here. N419BH 07:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine to consolidate one reference from 50 times to 1 reference if that reference is the same page. If it's a whole lot of different pages, then it's really a different reference and I don't have an issue with it being separated. ON a related tangent, is a reference being used 50 times in one article all that advisable? Firstly, it makes the article heavily dependant on one source, and secondly, is that a copyright concern? Anyway, that's a tangent to the discussion here. --Merbabu (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the article in question would be better served by the use of {{sfn}} for the book references. See St. Lawrence's Church, Mereworth for an example of an article using this system. Click on ref #1 and it brings you to a linked ref, click on that ref to get to the source. The refs are from individual pages of a book, and should stay as separate refs, rather than being consolidated. If the book has chapters, then consolidation could be done by referencing to the chapter, as at BOAC Flight 712, but that would mean that the person doing the consolidation would need to have the books in question. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

For now, I've reverted a couple articles he's messed with, as the ref changes were only partially implemented. The referencing style used in both cases makes sense as is; the books are fully cited in the bibliography section, with the individual page numbers in the references section. Hopefully the removal of his changes encourages him to discuss. N419BH 17:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. "Appalling style" and "messed with"? I've used the style myself, and it is noted in the book "Wikipedia" by John Broughton. If consensus develops that the style should no longer be used, so be it, but right now it is acceptable. As for "messed with," I imagine that is frustration talking. I'm sure the editor in question believes he or she is making things better. Why that person does not respond to messages, well, that is another matter. Good luck solving this interesting problem! GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

N419BH: There is indeed a larger issue here. A great many of Leandrod's edits are in the areas of typography and style, many of them routinely ignoring WP:MOS in favor of his own ideas about what is correct. He routinely ignores comments about this on talk page; there are now 101 sections on his talk page, many of them with multiple contributions, and according to your count he's only edited it 29 times. The one thing he does seem to do in response to complaints is - sometimes - to stop the particular edits complained about, but then he switches to a different, non-WP:MOS sanctioned set of changes. And as you will see from his edit history this has been going on for years. The damage to the encyclopedia is, frankly, mostly superficial. (And some of his edits do conform to MOS.) Nevertheless he really shouldn't be doing this, nor should he be ignoring other editors' comments about it. Should he? Jeh (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the behavior you've described is exactly what is happening. He has stopped messing with citations and has instead made a few typographical edits to a couple articles. One of these changed dates from the "1825-1829" format to the "1825-29" format. I have reverted that change. Interestingly enough, Citation bot (talk · contribs) was activated to work on both of the articles whose citation changes I reverted yesterday, but the user who activated the bot is not listed. Coincidence? I'll be asking the bot's owner. N419BH 05:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that my report here is very much "more in sorrow than in anger." Imagine if this amount of industriousness was directed toward MOS-compliant improvements? Jeh (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Same here. I'm beginning to wonder if language/cultural differences may be at the heart of this. N419BH 06:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Valid point. A claim of 'near-native' English on the user page may be far from the truth, judging from the few comments on their own talk page. It seems to me we have a user here with good faith and some expertise but without much interest in community matters and consensus. They have found something to do which often helps articles look cleaner (from some point of view or another), and that is what they do. Criticism of those activities is hard to deal with then. I do hope that they respond here, but it's worth pondering (in sorrow more than in anger) what consequences of non-compliance might be. Regardless of the merits of the particular system they applied to the Princess Charlotte article (I see no merit in it at all and agree with Merbabu, above), you don't just go changing around an FA. Doing that is either a mark of arrogance or of ignorance of WP's conventions and spirit. Drmies (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What Drmies said. And, not all there edits are bad - it's mainly the way the users changes the way footnotes are presented in the text and the link. --Merbabu (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Reisio

I have a feeling this is only going to escalate, so I figured I'd better give a heads up. User:Reisio created a fork of {{IPAc-en}} at {{IPAc-en editable}}, which he's been substituting for the original template. I discovered it during routine cleanup, so I redirected its transclusions and deleted it. It is identical to the original apart from not supporting a deprecated 'icon' parameter; apparently its only purpose is to allow Reisio to edit it rather than having to request edits on the template talk page. The original template is protected as it's transcluded in 6,400 articles.

Reisio got quite upset that I deleted the template without asking him what it was for, though he has yet to say what it actually is for. He demanded it back and said I should have known to go through RfD. I told him to go ahead and recreate it for testing if he likes, but to keep it out of mainspace, and I added a RfD. Reisio promptly transcluded it back into maybe 40 mainspace articles and removed the RfD, though since he had just linked to the RfD policy I presume he knew not to do that. I can't believe he's edit warring over this nonsense; I reverted the articles yet again, and deleted and salted the template. I wouldn't be surprised if he recreates it somewhere else, and he's already making threats, so I figured I should mention it here.

Again, this is routine housekeeping; the forked template apparently serves no purpose but to allow Reisio to circumvent page protection. — kwami (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You didn't seem to have informed Reiso (maybe you were just about to). I have done so. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, edit conflict with you when I hit save. — kwami (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That took you seven minutes to rectify... and you were so speedy when reverting me. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I was choosing my words carefully, as forthright expression would be considered impolite. Funny how it takes longer to compose a few lines than to delete them. — kwami (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Upset that you deleted it, yes, particularly because you didn't tag it or wait seven days as policy dictates. I have told you what it's for, do not pretend. I said you should have known to follow policy and tag it properly and wait seven days. I promptly reverted his changes and an inapplicable (and misplaced) deletion template. I can't believe he's edit warring over this nonsense. I can't revert again without recreating the template elsewhere as he's abused his admin status once more and blocked recreation. I've made no threats. kwami is what I would characterize as a serial abuser of his admin status at this point. He's cited CSD without reading it (twice). He puts templates in the wrong locations (presumbly because he didn't read what they were for). He didn't even notify me of this discussion as the notice atop this page dictates.

Related:

• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:IPAc-en_editable
• Template talk:IPAc-en
• User talk:Kwamikagami
• User talk:Reisio

¦ Reisio (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Reisio, your battleground mentality really is not going to help here. How about starting to work collegially instead of making statements about "serial abuser", and you might also want to read the policies that you yourself are quoting. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If people were working collegially, I wouldn't have had to create another version of a template just to get something that simple done (38+ days later), and instead of suggesting I haven't read the policies I've referred to, I'd appreciate it if you stated specifically which policy you feel I have misinterpreted or ignored and how. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

In short, you created a new version of a template because WP:CONSENSUS said not to change the original, and now you're pissed off? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I created a new version of the template because I wanted to avoid having to fix past mistakes (adding |icon to thousands of articles and not being able to fix it from the template) more than once. There wasn't really a consensus either way (IMO those with my POV had trivially more numbers), and kwami (who didn't take part in the original template discussion) has even admitted the parameter is deprecated.
I still don't know what policy it is you think I have misintepreted or ignored, BTW.
¦ Reisio (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that it could have been "fixed" at template level had there been a consensus that it was a problem that needed fixing. Attempting to do an end run round the template protection put in place to prevent random undiscussed changes to major templates is not appropriate behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As kwami is the only person who seems to have minded, and as kwami has personally called the parameter deprecated, I don't understand your logic (or his). No random or undiscussed changes were made to the duplicate, none at all in the second instance. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The main issue is that it seems you're trying to bypass future needs with your template. By creating and inserting your own template, you are effectively bypassing a need for consensus. 174.254.161.158 (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw it as an attempt to bypass this problem happening again. No consensus was bypassed, unless there is a consensus that there should be no templates non-admins can edit. Otherwise if you think there was a consensus against what I've done, you haven't examined the relevant discussions well enough. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup here, folks. The icon parameter will be removed from the master template in due course. I've been meaning to do it myself for months. That's a far better solution than forking. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It certainly would be a far better solution, had anyone ever done it. At the moment it isn't a solution at all, because no one has. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue with the icon is in itself is minor. The editor doesn't agree with the protection policy so is willing to end up in a situation where we have largely duplicated versions of the template with different articles using different versions in order to bypass that. The problem here is the creation of a fork of the template to bypass the currently in place protection, and from the drv raised on the duplicate template, apparently a willingness to do so again in the future. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

To me the problem is the icon and that it was ever a problem, and yes those are problems because the template is protected. If I could have fixed the icon issue and attempted to keep it from happening again in some other fashion, I probably would have. Some (all?) of you seem to have a problem with me having actually taken action after forty-eight days of nobody addressing this issue, which I don't understand. Do you really expect me to understand that? Someone should have been able to fix this issue as soon as it was identified, never mind forty-eight days later (and at time of this writing, we're at one-hundred-and-nineteen days). ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Thunmperward refused here to remove the deprecated parameter because someone was writing a new "WIP" template. Ask him about the new template. If the new template is going to take a lot of time to be finished, then ask him nicely to please remove the deprecated parameter so people won't keep adding red-linked icons to articles. If he refuses, then I am afraid that you are out of luck. (this happens sometimes with collaborative projects, you are forced to abandon a position and move on to other issues). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If I won't be allowed to fix things in the only manner I have access to, yes I'm clearly out of luck. Asking is one thing I was (and still am) willing to do, letting a problem persist for 37 days and sitting idly by while an admin unilaterally deletes pages while ignoring policy are other matters entirely. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)