Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive801

Why is this guy getting unblocked every time he is blocked for a long period of time?

I personally feel that we have more than exhausted any value in this discussion. Everyone has had their views aired and the law of deminishing returns has now set in. Lets go do something useful instead. Spartaz Humbug! 15:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · logs · block log) There are so many issues that I don't know where to begin. I have skipped reeling off diffs with the hopes that you'll believe me. Here is an editor, Darkness Shines who is a persistent POV pusher, typical recidivist who is adept at seeming civil to those who he thinks matter (BTW I don't matter. I am a nationalistic prick according to him). He is an editor who was just recently blocked for two weeks (First time by Bwilkins), that block was upheld again, you'll see. The remarkable thing is that the block was lifted with claims that are, at best, vague and inadequate. He was unblocked by an admin (i.e. RegentsPark) who was, both the times, deeply involved with him on multiple threads about controversial topics. RegentsPark has, in past, unblocked him several times, no wonder he unblocked him after the first two weeks block, claiming he has changed. Bammm! DS gets blocked again (by Spartaz) within days of his unblock, again two weeks block. RP again amazingly deemed it fit to unblock him even when he again claimed that "this block is bollocks". Right way to appeal blocks? Here is his block log. Also, discretionary sanctions are allowed on those articles he usually edits. He isn't amenable to discussions[1]. Read what Mr Spartaz wrote after he blocked him, [2]. "DS was edit warring simultaneously at two articles at the same time with the same figures. Good thing I didn't see it when I dished out this block or I would have made it a month. EW does not require 3 reverts for a block. You were blatantly baiting MrT and editing without discussion. That's not acceptable." Admin Fut.Perf said, ″That new article of yours, Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, displays forms of blockworthy tendentious editing and source misrepresentation. If I see you editing like that again, I will ask for a topic ban for you via WP:AE.″[3] Even RP seemingly agreed with this view. You may ask what was his fault, in short I don't know all of them it will take three or four editors to rightly explicate what violations he committed within the last few months. Save me the repetition, read this. He created a purely offensive article, Anti-Muslim pogroms in India with cherry-picked sources and highly distorted claims. The moment it was deleted, he added this link of the closure of the AFD to his to do. Now no sooner had he been unblocked he resumed his previous pattern of disruption.[4] This guy is as unrepentant as any banned user I have seen. This guy is not only a danger to the project but also a danger to others because he has the capability to test others' patience. He is a guy who, if kept unblocked, will lead to not only his own block but also others' along with his. This comes after months of attempts to reconcile. Check his latest archive and see how many rejections his unblock pleas received. So the question is how long will it continue this time? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Is it too much to expect that you might name the subject of your rant somewhere, and also post the required notification on that user's talk page? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC) My net speed sucks but I did it now. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC) My notice is reverted [5]. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC) AlexTiefling, please allow at least ten minutes to elapse before complaining about an editor not being notified, and twenty minutes is better. Some editors have motor or dexterity impairments, others are forced to reboot or reconnect at inconvenient times, or they get a phone call, etc. Six minutes is not enough time. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC) These accusations are quite troubling. With a block log like that, a user should not be so quickly unblocked, especially by an allegedly involved administrator when other administrators have declined to unblock. Can you substantiate this alleged involvement with links? I will notify RegentsPark of this discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, I can but my wife is eating my head. GOD DAMMMMMNNIT! Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC) [6]This should give you an idea. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC) its barely 2 hours since we discussed this on my talkpage and I categorically refused to consider an unblock. [7] This is a highly abusive action - especially as I requested Regent's Park to bring this to ANI if he still wanted to unblock. I'm fuming and will butt out while I calm down. Unbelievable. Spartaz Humbug! 18:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) Assume good faith. User:RegentsPark is a helpful and positive contributor. --Tito☸Dutta 19:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Assume the assumption of good faith. Although I am not happy with how he credulously dealt with DS's issue, the primary subject of my accusation is not admin RegentsPark but Darkness Shines. I am not assuming anything on RP's efforts. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Bwilkins was not 100% happy with the first unblock either but he let it go[8]. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC) RegentsPark has certainly given the impression of consistently holding a protecting hand over this and other tendentious editors. He has now unilaterally unblocked DS three times within one year, each time cutting an intended two-weeks block short to a few days. This is worrysome and I would definitely ask RegentsPark to keep out of any such further events in the future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC) DarknessShines was blocked for edit warring on tags and has voluntarily agreed to restrict himself to not more than one tag per 24 hour period. Disruption over and time to get back to content. As for the rest, I can assure you that I'll block DS if necessary. I like good content editors and prefer to see them unblocked (be they DS or Mr. T) but that doesn't meant that I have some sort of special protective thing for any particular editor (well, one or two perhaps, but definitely not for DS).--regentspark (comment) 19:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC) That is precisely the problem with you: after all the disruptive tendentious shenanigans from these two editors and others like them, you can still claim you consider them "good content editors". Obviously, they aren't. I caught each of them at blockworthy acts of source misuse and source misrepresentation just the other day, as you are well aware. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC) FPaS, misuse and misrepresentation of sources is a wilful act that is grounds for an indefinite block from this project. Surely, there is an Arbcom case with appropriate sanctions available. Or you could just use Common sense and indef them now. If they have done it once, they have likely done it in the past, and will likely do it in the future. Such wilful and evidenced abuse of one of our core policies (WP:V) is not excusable under any circumstances. Russavia (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC) (ec) Perhaps 'useful' content editors is a better way to express it. They both add a lot of content that otherwise wouldn't be here. Either way, if you think there is a long term problem with these editors, you should look for consensus to get them banned. Using single blocks is not the way to go about that. --regentspark (comment) 20:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC) A block is not preventative if one knows that some friendly admin will unblock early. DS's block log has gotten long enough that unblocks should NEVER be an option (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Preventative not punitive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC) While I do think you're acting neutrally RegentsPark, you may want to let someone else handle unblock requests, especially if other unblock requests are being denied and you find yourself ready to unblock. Having Darkness Shines unblocked three times from a two week block certainly makes it seem like you're involved. While blocks aren't designed to be punitive, if you find yourself being the only administrator willing to unblock this one individual, that could be an issue. Considering how many administrators there are, you could certainly bring it before the community and see if another agrees before doing it yourself. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks Moe. These are good points and worth a thought. Particularly the one about being the only admin willing to unblock. I don't completely agree with the having unblocked three times thing, we don't ask admins to stop blocking if they have blocked someone often and the same ought to apply to unblocks. --regentspark (comment) 20:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC) To be fair, I would also ask an administrator to not be the only one willing to enforce blocks of a single contentious editor as well, FWIW. A single admin doesn't have to be the only one to perform blocks and/or unblocks of the same person (outside of obvious cases like vandalism), so that kind of "double standard", if you will, shouldn't exist. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC) The block log surely looks lengthy. As far I know DS does have good edit history but at the same time an annoyingly disruptive behavior which ends up with him being blocked. I am not sure if DS is being volatile in certain sections or topics? May be he needs a topic ban? As per my Opinion (which is of a semi-newbie in WP)- Some sort of neutrality should be shown by the admin here. RP needs to keep away from unblocking him, irrespective of how much ever a great editor DS be. Even if it is done in good faith, it does bring RP's neutrality to question. Also to RP's comment that he will block DS if necessary - DS was blocked by other admins when it was necessary and you unblocked him from these necessary blocks - Are you saying that the other admins are being to irrational in blocking him? Amit (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Amit, an editor can be blocked for a good reason and then unblocked when they are willing to acknowledge their mistake and move forward. In this particular case, Spartaz was right in blocking DS and my unblocking doesn't mean that I disagree with the initial block. Since DS addressed the reason for the block, and blocks are not meant to be punitive, it made sense to me to unblock. If there are longer term issues of the sort that FPAS is bringing up, then these should not be the province of single admins but rather should be discussed by the community. --regentspark (comment) 20:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC) I understand and agree (as I mentioned consider me a semi-newbie). But I tend to agree with other editors here that repetitive blocks do point to long term issues and hopefully this discussion will take care of it. Amit (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC) I would only point out that Regentspark has also unblocked the user who brought this complaint - in fact just five days ago - [9] - so regardless of the right or wrongs of this unblock, a claim that he is not impartial is probably not going to fly. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Black Kite, I kindly disagree, the user MrT was blocked for 72 hours(3 days) on 9-jun 14:14 and unblocked on 12-jun 06:44. Hardly a untimely unblock here - i think it was a normal unblock after the time of 3 days got over. Please correct me if i am mistaken in my understanding here? Amit (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Well, that's still 8 hours before the end of the block (which should have expired at 14:14 on the 12th). Not on the scale of this unblock admittedly, but still an early unblock. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC) I am not yet convinced that Regentspark is an involved party here. I'm beginning to understand his/her motivation, that good content generation forgives a multitude of sins. But in the case we have here, there is an editor with a long history of disruption and a number of other admins who object to these unblocks. In this case, I sense we may have a germ of a consensus forming to ask Regentspark to refrain from unblocking DS in the future without seeking community consensus here, and perhaps also extend that to other potentially contentious unblocks. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Comment as one of the admins who denied one unblock request: I declined to unblock because at the time I didn't see an agreement to not repeat the actions that led to the block. But if such a commitment was present in a later unblock, then I'm happy to accept Regentspark's judgment of that - and if the block was meant to be preventative, then unblocking once it has had the desired effect seems fine. If there are bigger and more long-term problems, they should be dealt with separately - an existing edit-warring block is not the way to deal with bigger issue -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Perhaps it's time for sanctions to be proposed. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 21:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Please note that I had closed this discussion and another editor took it upon themselves to revert [10]. I stand by the original close. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 21:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC) I took it upon myself to revert your decision to take it upon yourself to prematurely close a reasonable discussion. I fail to see the impending clouds of drama forming and I feel that was an unfair characterization of this discussion and the editors involved. Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Your opinion is noted but you are mistaken. I see people talking about sanctions when they have failed to identify a policy violation. That is a recipe for witch burning drama. The entire thread was started simply because one editor wanted to have a bitch session, which is outside of the purpose of ANI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 21:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Well, we have WP:GAME issues, for starters. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Are you claiming that regentspark is gaming the system? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Wrong (sorry, had to use the restroom). I am claiming that Darkness Shines has gamed (and continues to game) the system. With such a lengthy block log, it's obvious that a slap on the wrist won't help the situation. The user obviously doesn't get it, or doesn't care. Either way, it has become a serious problem. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Then you have no idea what this is about and should excuse yourself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC) A long term policy violator being repeatedly unblocked is certainly a valid matter to address, and your characterization of it as a "bitch session" is both unfair to the complaining editor (not to mention those of us attempting to look into the matter) and the sort of attitude which discourages editors from seeking assistance. Gamaliel (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not going to debate with you or get in a revert war, you are simply wrong here. Still now, you have not identified or even claimed any policy violation or abuse of tools but you want to turn this into a discussion for sanctions against regentspark, per your own revert summary. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC) The only thing I personally have advocated thus far is having Regentspark refrain from unblocking DS without consensus here on this page. A dramatic and onerous sanction indeed. Gamaliel (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, indeed. The only one I see who is causing the drama is Dennis himself. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC) And that advice was given in the close. If you want to impose official sanctions against an admin, you don't do it at ANI, you do it at WP:AN, and you don't do it in the middle of a different report. Any sanction against an admin is a serious thing, since trust is paramount to the bit. If it is important enough that you need an official sanction, then do it proper. Otherwise, if only an unofficial note was needed, that was already provided very clearly and bluntly in the close that you reverted, which I am confident he would have taken to heart. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Let me add one more point. I agree that regentspark should exercise greater care in contentious unblocks in the future. I said as much in the close. What I don't agree with is ad hoc official sanctions done this way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC) This is why Darkness Shines continues to be an abrasive trouble maker. It's called enabling poor behavior. And it's not the first time I've seen Regent Parks step up as chief enabler. I would suggest that he withdraw himself from those kinds of decisions in the future where that editor is concerned. Crtew (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC) When an editor violates a rule, he or she should be blocked. When an editor is no longer being disruptive and there is no preventive reason for being blocked, he or she should be unblocked. Fairly simple and policy driven. Moe's argument that it is worth a second thought when you're the only one willing to unblock is a good one, and something worth thinking about but I'm not sure I agree with the rest of this "two strikes and you're out reasoning" on unblocks. That way we'll have no admins left to deal with darkness given his tendency to get blocked! Personally, I have nothing to gain from an unblocked DS (and nothing to lose from a blocked one)- we're often enough on opposite sides of issues, so the idea that I'm doing this for some sort of personal gain doesn't hold water. At best, the only thing you can charge me with is a preference to see editors (any editors) in an unblocked rather than in a blocked state. Nothing wrong with that or 'are we here to stop editors from editing or to help them contribute to the project? --regentspark (comment) 23:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC) When an editor shows no sign of learning from his blocks, there's no reason to unblock him, and generally no reason to mess around with two-week blocks, either. Can you explain what signs you see that Darkness Shines understands the reasons behind his blocks and shows both the willingness to and capability of avoiding the behaviour that led to his blocks?—Kww(talk) 23:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Learned what? He was blocked for edit warring in the midst of a contentious bit of editing where all the editors got blocked. Are we going to throw him out of Wikipedia for that? If that's your opinion, then you should seek a community ban or a topic ban. --regentspark (comment) 00:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Are you saying that it's reasonable to unblock an editor when you have no reason to believe that he won't repeat the behaviour that lead to the block? Editors that don't learn to avoid the behaviour that led to them being blocked are typically given long or indefinite blocks, not unblocked the moment that the particular individual dispute blows over.—Kww(talk) 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Kww, did you even bother to read this thread? regentpark's very first comment was "DarknessShines was blocked for edit warring on tags and has voluntarily agreed to restrict himself to not more than one tag per 24 hour period." That seems to me to be "a reason to believe" and the answer to your question before you even asked it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC) The frequency of DarknessShines' blocks and the short space in between them have given us a reason to believe that regentpark's faith in DarknessShines' professed reformation may be unfounded, and that gives us a reason to believe that perhaps other administrators should be dealing with DarknessShines from now on instead of regentpark. Gamaliel (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, Dennis, I read it. My question is what reason regentspark had to believe it. Most blocked editors are happy to make assurances that they won't repeat the problem. Part of our job is to assess the credibility of these assurances.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC) My point is simple: If you think that regentspark needs official sanction, take it to Arb or AN. If you want to just discuss, then go discuss in a clean discussion. The editors here keep mixing up the two different issues, which is hardly a fair discussion to either Darkness or regentspark, and fairness is more important that any single unblock, period. My close was reverted before I could even finish writing a message to regentspark and start a discussion on his talk page, something I typically do when I close a discussion like this (see above, for that matter). This is not fair process, plain and simple. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 01:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC) It would be a reasonable conclusion of this discussion that regentspark made a truly ill-considered unblock and to reblock Darkness Shines. Nothing unfair about that at all.—Kww(talk) 01:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC) I don't think it is so clear. Blocking based on this jumbled discussion would be out of process, to say the least. Assuming that from this discussion would be an improper read of consensus since it wasn't even an option on the table. That proposal could have started at WP:AN after I closed this mess, for that matter. This is why process matters. I have no love for bureaucracy, but there is a reason we have established methods and a degree of bureaucracy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 02:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not saying we are at that point right now, just that the discussion could reasonably conclude that way. I see your preference for separate discussions at AN as a preference, not something mandated or recommended by policy.—Kww(talk) 02:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC) But this whole discussion is not done with a consensus kind of format of support/neutral/against. How would any one form/figure out a consensus in this non-formatted section? It would be best to wrap this discussion - and may be in a new discussion we can make consensus based points for the so called biased admin intervention. Amit (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC) I think you are arguing that consensus can't be reached unless there are people using bold words like support or oppose at the beginning of each statement. If so, I suggest you read WP:NOTAVOTE. —Kww(talk) 03:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC) If I am not mistaken you are saying voting doesn't replace discussion - I totally agree with you about it as a general point? But in this case the discussion has become so multi-pronged, (See below too). What is the end of it all? This seems just muddied water to me. No conclusion?. Amit (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Why hasn't he received a topic ban? Let him contribute to TOP 40 POP articles. Crtew (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC) This is an appropriate discussion for this noticeboard. Describing the discussion as a "bitch session" is simply ignoring the issue (at best). On a side note, I continue to be flabbergasted by the tolerance of disruptive editors to "avoid the drama" of dealing with their disruptive behaviour. user:j (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC) This is not the only user that regentspark has unblocked without appriate cause or consensus. Note the lifting in March of a consensus-imposed block here [11] and refusal to explain how consensus was determined here [12]. In that matter, too, there was a plausible argument of involvement, although a few years distant. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Hullabaloo, I must admit you've piqued my curiosity a bit here. What "plausible argument of involvement" are you seeing? --regentspark (comment) 14:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Yes he is not the only guy. See this. Spinningspark blocked Lihaas for two weeks, the very next day Lihaas was unblocked. Guess who unblocked Lihaas? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Uh, are we looking at two different things? It looks like RegentsPark unblocked Lihaas because they were blocked for a mistake they made, and indeed they haven't been blocked or in trouble since. That's an example of RegentsPark doing admin right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC) I too find it disturbing that Regentspark is unblocking eds he is involved with. RegentsPark, DarknessShines and MrT3366 all edit and hang around India related articles. See talk:Narendra Modi for one example. I have long suspected that RegentsPark might be using unblocks as a way of buying support/influence during content disputes + as a way of buying votes during the next arb elections ... as a way of buying votes from eds who might otherwise vote against them. RegentsPark had run for a seat in the present arb, and missed narrowly, and is likely to run in the next elections. So, one can see why they might want to curry favor with folks who might vote against them. Whatever. I certainly don't think it is respectable for an admin to block/unblock users he is involved with/ users who edit around the same articles that the admin is editing.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Now that is quite serious of an allegation (You are so close to suggesting WP:MEAT here among all involved admins here), If every one connects dots across such a wide area you would end up bringing another 10 admins in this whole loop. I would suggest keeping this topic for Darkness Shines alone. and starting a new AN for the questionable admin interventions. Amit (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC) I do not quite see how I am "...so close to suggesting WP:MEAT here among all involved admins here". My impression is that this thread is about regentspark's actions rather than about DarknessShines's behavior and I my comment is in keeping with that vein.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC) My mistake - I did not mean all involved admins - but read it as "mentioned editors" because you just mentioned that you suspect that RP is doing this to buy support/influence during disputes+ for ARB etc... Any such solicitation or way of influencing is WP:MEAT which is defined as - "Meatpuppetry is soliciting other people to come to Wikipedia in order to influence the editorial process in a topic or discussion. A "meat puppet" is another editor that has been solicited to sway consensus. It is a violation of this policy either to solicit meat puppets or to be a meat puppet for someone else." Amit (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC) I think this is somewhat different from meatpuppetry. AFAIK Meatpuppetry is when new accounts are created simply to support one person. I do not see that being done here.What I see here is an admin using admin tools to extend patronage/project power among involved eds and probably hoping to gain influence/support. Admin tools being used for personal gains/politics rather than for the benefit of the project. Maybe it is right to use admin tools in this manner, but it don't look right to me at least.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC) I would encourage all people reading these bizarre and unsubstantiated allegations to review the past interactions between Regentspark and OrangesRyellow. (Specifically, I refer to his red-linked userpage.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC) The fact that DS didn't even see it as necessary to put forth anything in his defense, intrinsically says something. Yes, I am assuming something that seems obvious here because our social policies are not a suicide pact. Also I would like to direct the focus on what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wrote above. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 04:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Please revive faith in wikipedia processes. I had no idea a person could be blocked that many times and keep on editing. At least a topic ban if he get's crazy on one issue... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Question: What exactly is at loss if RegentsPark is asked to stop from interacting with Darkness Shines as an admin? Let them interact as editors but RP can keep his broom away from DS, for both blocking and unblocking purposes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Proposed Close Re-apply block as per original block on Darkness shines and apply an extended block for Darkness Shines for a minimum period of 6 months for any future incident. Also Restrict Regentspark from unblocking Darkness shines at any time in future. Other incidents related to Regentspark to be handled in a new discussion. Amit (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC) What makes his current unblock OK? Why this unblock should be allowed to stand? Is he more special than the rest of us? I guess so, perhaps he is. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 04:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)The proposer changed the wording after I had commented [13] --Mrt3366 I agree, I changed the proposed close above. Amit (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Do you mean extend a topic ban for six months? Crtew (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC) If it was a certain topic, i would have proposed an indefinite block, but that doesn't seem the case here. Amit (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC) We ought to step aside and let the admins decide as to the proper course of action. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC) I would oppose reblocking Darkness Shines because it would be blatantly punitive to do so now. Darkness Shines should be reblocked only if he/she does something which could be seen as harmful to the project. It is Regentspark who has shown a lack of good judgement while using admin tools and I think they should be desysopped. From what I can see, Regentspark fully intends to continue using admin tools among involved eds if not desysopped.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC) My point is nothing has changed in his attitude as well as behavior and he hasn't shown that he learnt from his mistakes. He still firmly refuses to accept the issues regarding the Category and article about Anti-Muslim pogroms in India which were raised and explained to him by Multiple Administrators. See this and this. He still impenitently defends all this among many other things. He didn't even bother to clarify any accusation. There is not a vestige of contrition in his behavior. What do you call it if not "recidivism"? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Support reblocking of Darkness Shines. I do not support the setting of a 6 month block in advance of knowing the circumstances of any future offence. I do not support restricting RegentsPark from any future unblocks. The accusation of being involved and canvassing levelled at RegentsPark are unsubstatiated. RegentsPark should instead be censured for the unblock. After approaching the blocking admin and not getting support for an unblock from them the correct course of action would have been to open an ANI thread to seek community approval for an unblock. SpinningSpark 09:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose... I too oppose applying restrictions on RegentsPark. No comment on Darkness Shines. --Tito☸Dutta 09:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose - a reblock for an edit war that is over, when the original block would have expired now anyway, is just nonsense. If there's a bigger issue with DS's behaviour (and I agree there is), then start an RfC/U with diffs supporting long-term problems and let the community evaluate the evidence and decide on any appropriate action - don't do it as a knee-jerk reaction to a minor unblock for a minor bit of edit-warring. Dennis's close was entirely correct, and what were seeing here is a continuation of the pro/anti India/Pakistan/Muslim/Hindu POV wars that have been blighting this site for years - with a notable number of the protagonists turning up here to join in the fight -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC) This says RfC/U CANNOT impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures. We are talking about a potential re-block or ban. Could you suggest a venue for this purpose? Enough is enough. This is not the first time where Darkness Shines has been publicly censured for his behavior and editing pattern. I firmly he needs a topic ban otherwise others will needless be blocked along with him. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC) No, an RfC/U cannot impose sanctions, but it can present evidence and generate a consensus which can then be used at WP:AN to request sanctions. And if you want a topic ban, complaining about the unblocking of an edit-warring block once the edit-warring has stopped and after the block would have expired anyway is not the way to do go about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Support reblocking Darkness Shines. It seems strange to put a restriction on Regentspark that only involves one other editor, but if it prevents this happening again, I'll support that too, though I think it would make more sense to do a general restriction on Regentspark not unblocking anyone without both community consensus and agreement of the blocking admin. It's worse than just enabling here, the whole thing has the stink of Nixon-style backroom cronyism, and that's just about the last thing we need on Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose per Boing!. This is why I closed this discussion earlier, and reverting it was poor judgement. It has turned into cries of "burn the witch!" with no substance and lots of opinion and conjecture. What could have been a peaceful discussion on regentspark's talk page has instead become this incomprehensible and tangled mess with no real consensus and certainly no clarity. Sanctioning regentspark without demonstrating abuse or policy violation is a non-starter. Even here, the two topics are tangled improperly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Automatic oppose on random sanctions on admins for unblocking. The last thing we need is still fewer admins willing to extend the hand of peace and offer an unblock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Support the reblocking of Darkness Shines. No other comment on other proposals. — Richard BB 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Agree with Boing and Dennis as the supports and opposes above are all varied in topic. Having said that, if DS is blocked in the future, any early unblocking should probably be done via the community rather than by any individual admin. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Support re-blocking Darkness Shines and subsequent monitoring. Although against a formal sanction, I would expect RP to exercise some voluntary constraints before unblocking Darkness Shines ever again, esp. when that block is reaffirming a pattern of recidivism. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose - Honestly, y'all kinda blew it with the hasty unblocks and haggling, so a reblock now would look rather petty and punitive. Handle it better next time, so if this user steps out of line you can do something with conviction and make it stick. This is like a wiki-version of Ryan Braun and the mishandled drug sample. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Support action regarding un-blocking admin, Oppose reblocking as that would be punitive. (Same reasons as OrangesRyellow) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Can you please point to the policy that was violated, in order to justify your request for sanctions? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose all sanctions. Given the level of blind, unthinking partisanship here (on both sides, quite likely), this is a dispute that either needs to die quickly and quietly or go to (dun-dun-DUN!) Arbcom. Having quasi-votes like this, where everyone just toes the party line, is not going to actually resolve anything. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose...most DS should never have been unblocked early. But there's never going to be enough proper consensus in this forum for a re-block. Yes, it appears that the unblocking admin sure as hell had some past history and should not have unblocked for both that AND other reasons. DS is known to act like a jerk to many other editors. DS is known to push his POV. DS is known to push the envelope across this entire project - that's all RFC/U purview first, then ArbCom (based on the topics he covers). So, we admonish DS for his behaviour but cannot reblock ATM; plus we admonish Regents for performing a controversial unblock that they should never have touched to begin with. If you want sanctions on Regents, there's RFC/ADMIN. Now let's all move on and address all of our future behaviours, but remember that DS is on a very very very short leash (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC) This whole discussion is almost as stupid as the unblock was. The issue of RP's judgement and DS's behaviour have become conflated and no good ever comes of that. I tend to agree with BWilkins - indeed my comment on RP's talk kinda says the same thing. I'm mostly concerned that not two hours earlier RP had been told by me that I opposed the unblock and then he used the most ridiculous pretext I have ever seen to unblock when I already invited him to seek a consensus here if he disagreed. He seems to have a history of putting his judgement ahead of other admins' judgement and his commentary here suggests that this will happen again because he shows no evidence of taking on board the feedback from those who disagree. Frankly I can't see this ending anywhere except RFCU/A if there isn't some movement. Spartaz Humbug! 14:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Close without action per arguments and closing remarks by Dennis Brown above. If you want to sanction an admin (or anyone else), do this properly. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC) I assume you mean this[14], which arguably still applies. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC) I think there is a fundamental divide in the community as to what actions are necessary for incorrigible editors who still contribute some useful content. One view is escalating sanctions. The other is repeated short sanctions. I've seen this divergence regarding civility and now edit warring. I don't think there are any easy answers because the community is so divided that no general standard is going to be adopted. If it's any consolation, the divergence exists in real-life justice systems across the world too. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Jojhutton

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.

---

Jojhutton (talk · contribs) has made legal threats in this comment :"you have gone even further by making slanderous statements" and ". You cannot go around making slanderous statements on talk pages". "Slanderous" is a legal term and an implied legal threat, which I've seen other editors blocked for using. Yworo (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's hardly a legal threat. Slanderous means a malicious, false or defamatory statement. It can be used without any legal context at all. Given the context he used it in, it's clearly not a breach of NLT Niteshift36 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I made it very clear that admin action, not outside action would result. JOJ ^Hutton 21:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• You said AN/I, but as I am sure you know, AN/I is not a venue for content disputes. So that's a red herring. You were clearly trying to intimidate and chill speech by using American legal terminology, and preventing that is the specific reason for the existence of WP:NLT. Further, the policy clearly covers such use of legal terms, to quote "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are 'defamatory' or 'libelous', that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." Yworo (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yet you still haven't answered for the lies/misrepresentations you made in your comment. Want to answer why you did that?JOJ ^Hutton 21:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, now you know that's not what they meant. Are you going to close this petition? DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I made a simple mistake by not looking at quite enough of the article history. I'm sure not going to apologize given Hutton's edit-warring and intimidating behavior. So sue me. And no, I'm not going to close the petition, Hutton clearly meant to chill speech by using the words, and I'm happy to wait for an admin to apply the no exceptions policy. Yworo (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Which policy is that? user:j (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Weirdness

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.

---

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Suri_100. They seem to be creating an awful mess with page moves that will take considerable admin time to fix and generally blanking huge sections of articles with frivolous edit summaries. Pol430 talk to me 14:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea wtf they are doing... I think an explanation needs to be forthcoming (so far Suri has not responded). The most recent archive move makes no sense to me... Paulmcdonald has not changed his name either... and besides the point, we don't move RfA archives when people change their name anyway. Shadowjams (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Try clicking on Wikipedia:5yt... <shrug /> Based on their talkpage, which includes the fact that yesterday they turned off Cluebot, I would suggest there is a substantial competency issue here. Pol430 talk to me 15:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the Lear's Fool RfA to its proper name. If Suri 100 makes another page move, block them for disruption. Weird. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going through and deleting the implausible typos, and yes, by all means, block them if they do that again. Its a mess to clean up all the unnecessary redirects. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 21:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at their sandbox User:Suri 100/sandbox, combined with the "I want to be an admin someday" userbox on their user page makes me wonder even more. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 21:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think at this point a block would work, if for no other reason than it forces an explanation. But mjy spidey sense says this is an experienced troll. Shadowjams (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd wondered about compromised account, but 'little brother' wouldn't start off by moving AfDs. Possible, but vanishingly unlikely. Peridon (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

[15]...if we want to AGF then that shows that the user has no WP:COMPETENCE whatsoever; if not, then it shows that they're a liar. Both fairly undesirable. Theopolisme (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Nawiarigi

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 new contributor, User:Nawiarigi seems to be making random misplaced edits - I suspect a language problem, at minimum. See edit history: [16] Note the copy-pasting of text from an article from Indonesian Wikipedia into a 'category' here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

POV Editwarring at List of Freemasons (A - D)

User:‎Underlying lk is POV edit warring at List of Freemasons (A - D) to omit the inclusion of Ataturk in the list. I have tried amending the entry to alleviate his/her concerns (rejected), I have tried adding additional sources to support the inclusion (all rejected), and I have tried explaining on both the talk page and at WP:RSN why the sources provided are, in fact, highly reliable (arguments ignored). It is clear that he/she is determined to omit the entry, and plans to reject any source that supports it, or any effort to reach a compromise. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The matter is thus: his sources have been rejected by multiple uninvolved editors at RSN diff, diff. For my part, I provided multiple scholarly sources that implicitly reject his claim. Failing to achieve the consensus he wanted, he resorted to threats, and WP:FORUMSHOPping, hoping to find a more sympathetic audience here. His conduct is definitely uncivil, and I think a ban for incivility would be appropriate.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Blueboar here. He has (at least 3 that I checked) sources that explicitly state that Ataturk was a member of the freemasons and you expect an implicit non-mention to counter-weight that? I would say that you'd need a biography on Ataturk's life to explicitly state "It is a mistaken belief that Ataturk was a freemason." It's not my area of expertise, but I don't see why the sources must be scholarly.--v/r - TP 13:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

TP, this has been discussed in detail at the Reliable Sources board. Bluboar's sources are weak, and scholarly literature on the specific subject of Freemasonary and the Young Turk movement does not state that Ataturk was a member. Paul B (talk)

You'll have to educate me a bit, this isn't my area. Why are scholarly sources required here? Would I need a scholarly source to say that Steven Seagal was a member of the Screen Actors Guild? We have 3, maybe 4, sources that explicitly state a thing is true and another user arguing that no sources exist saying otherwise is evidence of the contrary. Please tell me how this is anything more than a "truth" argument? Because if it is, I'll remind everyone that we report on what the sources say, not on each person's own truth.--v/r - TP 14:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea what a "truth argument" is. Blueboar's sources are generally either weak, or they are overall histories that mention Ataturk in passing. Mistakes in such sweeping histories, even by experts, are common. I happen to have some expertise on William Blake. You can find many sources that say he had Irish ancestry. In fact this was a fantasy created by WB Yeats based on someone's speculation. Books on Blake by Blake specialists do not say this, but you'd be hard put to find one that explicitly denies it, because it's irrelevent to deny. You do find it in books on the Irish through history. You have to look in detailed historical literature on Blake to find rebuttals. In this case we are dealing with a list of freemasons. People should not be included on the list unless their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established. Paul B (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A truth argument. And can you explain what "People should not be included on the list unless their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established" means? What level of sourcing is needed to clearly establish a fact? In your example above, you failed to counter my argument. Why would a book on a person's life not mention common misunderstandings such as "It's a common misconception that Ataturk was a freemason"? Spell out what is needed. Because as it stands, that list should probably go up for deletion because it seems to me by your standards that none of those could be uncontroversial or clearly established. What is different about this guy? Why is his membership controversial? I feel like someone is dancing around a relevant fact of this argument that would make them appear to have a POV and I don't have a clue what it is.--v/r - TP 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I am fully aware of Wikipedia:Truth. This dispute has nothing to do with that whatever. The only person who claims to know "the truth" is Blueboar. I have great difficulty understanding what the rest of your post is trying to say. Why don't you read the Reliable Sources discussion? I have no interest in whether any other person should or should not be in the list. That's irrelevant distraction. The question is whether or not Ataturk should be. It's not a "common misunderstanding" about Ataturk. It seems to be something that only interests some Islamists (for whom Freemasonry = evil western conspiracy) and Freemasons, who want to associate their movement with great people and progressive movements. This is commonplace - just like Irish poets wanting Blake to be Irish. Paul B (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've seen you around and I've generally had a good impression of you, but you must have forgotten your coffee this morning. Blueboar has sources. He's not saying he has "the truth," he's got sources to support it. All you've got is your insistence that Blueboar is wrong. Luckily Zero found a single source for you, but Blueboar still has four. So, my question, if you're not trying to be deliberately obtuse, is what level of sourcing is required to reach the level of "their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established."--v/r - TP 14:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've seen you around and am surprised by the vey confused position you are adopting. I repeat read the debate. BTW, this is not about me. I came to this from the Reliable Sources board. I don't know why I have to repeat myself over and over: 1. Bluboar's sources are poor. 2. Other sources contradict his. 3. Specialist sources do not say what his - poor - sources say. You introduced the irrelevant wp:truth link. I replied that Blueboar is the only one who is claiming to have the truth, because other editors are saying that we do not know or cannot be sure based on the sources. Note that all independent editors have taken the same view. You are the "outlier" here, because you dived in without reading up on the debate. BTW, I found the same source Zero did, as you would know if you bother to read the debate. The debate, by the way, is essentially over, and Blueboar is now forum shopping. Paul B (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've read the debate. What I don't get is why the level of sourcing required was raised to "scholarly sources." Here's what I see and I'm begging for you to help me to understand: Blueboar wants to add Ataturk. Sources are required. He finds them. Those who dispute the claim raise the bar by requiring scholarly sources. I question why the bar was raised and you say "People should not be included on the list unless their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established." If it seems I support Ataturk being included, I really don't care about the guy. What I don't understand and why I'm inclined to support Blueboar is I don't understand why the level of sourcing is higher for this subject than what is required by policy. By that argument, you can dispute ad infinitum, or filibuster, any topic on Wikipedia to it's exclusion; which is why I brought up the subject of no one on the list being included. So, what is the logic for the higher sourcing requirement? I understand why things like WP:MEDRS exists. So please, explain why this is necessary.--v/r - TP 15:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It was obvious you hadn't read the debate when you commented that "Zero found a single source for you", since several sources are disussed in the debate. I was the person who added reference to the source you claimed Zero found, and this was not a conflict between Blueboar and me, but Blueboar and eh bien mon prince. Still, I'm sure you have read it now. I don't know why eh bien mon prince first disputed Ataturk. You will have to ask him/her. All I know is that when the dispute came to the RS board several editors, including myself, looked in sources on Freemasonry and Ataturk. It became increasingly obvious that the claims were problematic. Disussing the reliability of claims in sources is not a matter of simply following clear and simple rules. There are degrees of reliability. There are cases in which nominally reliable sources are clearly in error. That's why we have the board: to examine disputes. Paul B (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh puh lease. I'd argue some of those sources as well on better terms than "I just don't like them." The last one, for example, was paraphrased incorrectly unless the untranslated text says something drastically different. That discussion has very little merit, in my eyes, which is why I'm barely acknowleding it. Why you ask? Because I've yet to understand why the discussion jumped to scholarly sources so quickly. Moving on, you said that the claims are problematic. What determines it so? What prevents someone from arguing for higher and higher sourcing? What prevents a dissuaded party like Underlying_lk from continuing to demand more and better sources to push his POV? That's what I see happening here, and that's what I'm questioning. What is RSN's process to determine when 4 sources arn't enough? The way the process has worked in this case, it seems and again I'm trying to understand why my perspective is wrong, is that if someone argues loud enough that any level of sourcing can be disputed. I've got other questions, like Kmhkmh's argument about Freemasons writing on Freemasons automatically becoming primary, but this seems the most glaring.--v/r - TP 15:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid your responses are degenerating into taunting. This is frankly pointless. If you wish to join the debate about sources do so on the appropriate board. Your "questions" are so generalised as to be useless. This has nothing to do with anyone arguing "loud enough". It's about the quality of the sources, the context of the claim and the nature of scholarly writing. I've stated this repeatedly, so I see no need to do so yet again. It's getting into "I didn't hear that" territory. That's why we have detailed discussion of real examples at RSN, not of abstract claims that anyone can question anything. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Taunting? It's not taunting if you've avoided answering a very simple question. Be gone then. If you can't tell me where you derive the authority to raise the bar on WP:V because you don't like what the sources say, and you can't explain yourself, than you should not be making these kinds of decisions. All I asked was for clarification.--v/r - TP 23:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

How can I answer a meaningless question? You are acting like a spoilt child repeating "why" over and over after every answer. No-one in particular has the "right" to raise the bar on reliability - everyone does. It happens all the time when issues are contentious. Reliable sources are often in conflict, even over matters of fact. Somnetimes they are demonstrably wrong. There are degrees of reliability. I've said this repeatedly already. The debate revealled the complexity of the issue. That's what such debate ideally should do. Paul B (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, so when the answer makes you look bad, you deem it meaningless and resort to name calling. The question was, why was the bar raised. Policy is WP:V which was met. The counter-"sources", with the exception of Zero's link below, don't hold water. It's a decent thing that User:‎Underlying lk was kind enough to actually explain what the issues are. You should've tried that first instead of dodging the question. It was a simple one.--v/r - TP 14:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar is as much involved in edit-warring as ‎Underlying lk is. At RSN, Blueboar has failed to receive any support for his position. Reports here are not supposed to be for the purpose of winning edit wars after failing to achieve consensus. I first saw the argument at RSN (having had no involvement in freemasonry articles and barely any interest in the subject) and consider that the evidence regarding Ataturk is highly suspect. Some books and an article by senior freemasons claim that Ataturk was a freemason, with none of them mentioning the basis for their claim (afaik, correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand, of the vast number of academic studies of Ataturk, nobody (again correct me if I'm wrong) has found even one making the claim. A book published by the Turkish government example claims he was not a freemason (but such books are also suspect, for different reasons). These guys should seek mediation or something. Zero^talk 13:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Umm, Zero, did you read that? It says "For Mustafa Kemal, who was not a Freemason..." It didn't claim Ataturk wasn't a freemason at all.-v/r - TP 14:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Umm, TP, you do know that Mustafa Kemel is Ataturk? Paul B (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently not.--v/r - TP 14:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Something to note... there is a strong Anti-Masonic movement in the Islamic world (where Freemasonry is associated with a "Jewish conspiracy")... and thus there is a concerted POV effort to reject the idea that Ataturk might have been a Freemason at some point in his life. Whether this factors into the edit warring at the article I will not say, but it should be considered at least a possibility. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That argument cuts both ways. Islamists who see Ataturk as an evil agent of secularisation want to say he was Freemason, which is just as likely to be the origin of an erroneous meme as denial of it is. Likewise Freemasons have a motivation to associate their organisation with the modernising values of Ataturk. It's easy to understand how the involement of Freemasons in the Young Turks (which is undisputed) can slide into the assumption that Ataturk himself was a Mason. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If I search for Ataturk and freemason, I get a hit from Radio Islam and a website called atajew.com on the first page of google. So at least we know some of those who might have interest in promoting that. And how great Google Panda is (or not). 86.121.18.17 (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

And if the article attempted to use such sources, I would be the first to say the entry should be deleted. The fact is, the sources that support Ataturks inclusion on the list have no axe to grind. They are reliable secondary sources written by very respected Masonic historians.

But I did not raise this dispute here to argue sources... I raised this dispute here so admins could examine an editor's behavior. As I said in my opening comment... I have attempted to resolve this dispute in multiple ways... when User:‎Underlying lk challenged a source, I went and found a different source. When that was not good enough, I found a third. When he/she quibbled that the sources disagreed over the specific lodge, I agreed to omit mentioning the specific lodge... still not good enough. Every time I have attempted to resolve the situation to his/her satisfaction, he/she sets the bar higher. It's become clear that he/she is not interested in anything other than removing the entry for POV reasons. That's a 'behavioral' issue, not a sourcing issue... and that behavioral issue is why I raised this here at ANI. I would like it to be addressed. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You only came here because you didn't get the 'right' answer at RSN. You should be mindful of your own highly uncivil and disruptive behaviour, rather than blaming others.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No... I came here because of your behavior during our dispute. No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You came here because you didn't get your way with either consensus or threats.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar is correct to write that there is an anti-masonic movement in the Islamic world. It seems a lot of people in Turkey believe in conspiracy theories involving masons and Jews. In Turkey it is illegal to slander Ataturk (a ridiculous law from the 1950s I think) and calling him a mason has been judged by courts to be slander. That's why a government-published book about Ataturk is not reliable for a claim that he was not a mason. But, as someone wrote above, the same can be said for the masonic side of the story. How better to rehabilitate the image of masons in Turkey than to co-opt one of the most respected people in Turkish history? Where is the independent scholarly study of this question? Did Ataturk himself ever make a public statement about it? Zero^talk 02:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost continuous tirade of abuse and accusations

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.

---

174.118.142.187 has engaged in an almost unbroken tirade of abuse and allegation. There has been considerable past incidents at which at least one admin has expressed concern, but it has reached unacceptable proportions in the last week or so. In response to an observation at Talk:Power factor that there was suspected sockpuppet activity ([17]), I myself had a similar suspicion and consequently opened an SPI case (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wtshymanski - currently open). Since two further users have voiced their opinion that there is suspicious activity, this has reinforced my belief that it was correct to do so.

There follows, immediately abusive comments to the SPI ([18]) where in the first two paragraphs there are unfounded allegations and abuse (These same allegations have been going on for some time and are largely repeating allegations that he made at an SPI case - which was not upheld). They were certainly laid out at User talk:174.118.142.187/Sandbox2 - deleted by an admin as WP:ATTACK. Some other comments in the SPI accused myself of 'slander' and myself and fellow editor of being 'hoodlums'.

Almost immediately, a tit-for tat ANI case is opened by 174.118.142.187. The case is nothing short of a continuance of the attacks and allegations, on not only myself but other users ([19]). The IP users concerned appear to be users of the same (very large) supplier of internet access in the UK. There appears to be a good number of them who edit on a wide variety of subjects. 174.118.142.187 seems to be unaware of how IP addresses are allocated here - he attempted to demonstrate dynamic allocation by temporarily hopping IP address. Unfortunately, he spoilt it when he was able to hop back to the original IP address, something that you cannot do with dynamic IP address allocation. You get what you are given.

His allegations involve myself, User:I B Wright and a large number of IP address users. I believe that he is picking these users because we have been particular targets of Wtshymanski (his Sandbox2 list of enemies made that perfectly clear) and consequently Wtshymanski attracts our interest. 174.118.142.187 seems to hold Wtshymanski in some kind of awe. He keeps claiming that we always agree (usually citing but one example if at all), but totally ignores those many occasions where we don't completely agree (of which there is no shortage). We largely do agree over Wtshymanski, but then there is plenty to agree about.

I did attempt to engage in discussion 174.118.142.187's talk page. I do not believe that I was abusive ain any way, but nevertheless, my remark was deleted with an abusive edit summary and more unwarranted accusations ([20]). Further he then responds to my own talk page (but from a different IP address that geolocates to exactly the same place) with the now trademark allegations an the last sentence ([21]).

The latest tirade was made to an admin's talk page ([22]). This admin responded to the tit-for-tat an ANI complaint that 174.118.142.187 made directly as a tit for tat response to the SPI.

Neither myself nor any user of Wikipedia should have to put up with this level of abuse and malicious allegations.

Housekeeping note: I B Wright and 174.118.142.187 notified of this ANI, but not the other IP addresses. The list has been erased, but I am not convinced any of them will see the notification anyway. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution history there is no way this is a dynamic IP as the edit topics are always the same, and the IP has been editing their same incorrectly created sandbox (off a talk page rather than user page) since the 2nd of May. It's blatantly a static IP and always the same editor. Canterbury Tail talk 17:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Whatismyipaddress.com thing says it's static, too. Bishonen | talk 18:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC).

I would block this IP for a year. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And any accounts from the IP address as well, and account creation. Canterbury Tail talk 20:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I just closed the SPI case. Based on my investigation, the named account and IPs are clearly not the same person. Anything done here should reflect that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 21:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• With the caveat that I cannot comment on revision deleted material, I don't see 174.118.142.187 as being particularly disruptive. I just looked at his last 50 or so edits, and I just don't see it. He did have a SPI opened against him, with the result of "probably not connected", and he opened a SPI against another user, again with a result of "probably not connected". In the middle of this some harsh words were traded, but in my view someone who feels like he is being falsely accused and that an unfamiliar forum is being used against him can become understandably upset and should be given a lot of leeway. He also removed one talk page comment, and did not repeat that behavior once he was told that it is not allowed. I did far worse without being blocked in my first six months as an IP editor (this was almost seven years ago - does Wikipedia have a statute of limitations?). 174.118.142.187 does hold some fringe theories and has a bad case of "I didn't hear that" when anyone brings up the utter lack of sources supporting his theories, but so far this is nothing that cannot be handled with talk page discussion. I think everyone should just back off, they should ignore any final venting that 174.118.142.187 might do, and see if the situation will calm down and deescalate. I certainly don't see any need for administrator intervention. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not look back far enough. This tirade of abuse and accusation has not started recently, but has been going on almost unbroken since December 2012, just 2 months after 174.118.142.187 started editing for the first time. It was at this time that 174.118.142.187 started his list of Wtshymanski's enemies, but it was on his own talk page at that time. I had not included the earlier examples of abuse because I considered that the later examples were adequate without boring the pants off the admins. If you want more let me know. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

And the abuse continues unabated. This latest example from my talk page ([23]) yesterday despite the hint posted (presumably by an admin) on his own talk page ([24]). It is posted from the alternative IP address, 174.118.156.9. It is worth a look though, if only for the admission of sockpuppetry. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic comment: I saw the title of this thread on my watchlist and thought "Finally! Someone is raising with the community exactly what I have had to endure for years now on this project." Community, I am of disappoint. Back to scheduled programming. Russavia (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please note: I have refused to participate in the last few DieSwartzPunkt concerns raised during content disputes. It is not that I do not have a defence. This has become a regular occurrence and, again, in view of the lack of honest diffs usually provide by this editor, I have taken a lesson from another editor, to just ignore him (and I B Wright) and continue to attempt to improve WP and reduce the drama. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

And when you do try to defend it is only an attempt to deceive. "Lack of honest diffs"? Do the eight (8) in this ANI count as a lack of diffs? Count 'em. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User persistently adding promotional content and edit-warring.

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.

---

Main (problematic) users involved:

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

Other users involved:

• Stereorock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mlaffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - original blocking admin

Page involved:

• WSHE-FM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since February, Sheradio has been editing WSHE-FM to reflect a promotional viewpoint. This stopped for some time, but recently started up again this month. Earlier yesterday, Sheradio was reverted by Stereorock on the grounds that it was adding in promotional material. Sheradio started reverting him, as seen in the page history. Then Sheradio maliciously blanked Stereo's talk page before starting to edit-war with an administrator, leading to a block. Just before the block went into place on Sheradio, SOFLORADIO came along and picked up the same trend of promotional editing and edit-warring on the same article, leading to a block. Sheradio has shown a long history of promotional, unsourced, disruptive editing and may have created SOFLORADIO to circumvent the block. Both usernames on the accounts also appear to be somewhat promotional in nature. Neither account has made a single edit that has not been reverted for one reason or another, and I think both accounts qualify for indefinite blocks to prevent them from posting more and more promotional content. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 17:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Cncmaster is correct on all accounts. My talk page info was deleted to just read the word "Welcome" as was stated above along with the promotional material they kept including on the WSHE-FM page reappearing. I see now both users have been suspended and/or deleted.Stereorock (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If both accounts pick up again, I'm going to open an SPI. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 16:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have indefniitely blocked Sheradio and SOFLORADIO. Both of the names are obviously promotional—the first for the article in question, the second for SoFloRadio, which is a second "internet only" (or wi-fi only, I'm not quite clear) radio station in southern Florida. It appears that the users were trying to somehow argue that the "real" station is no longer the one on the radio waves, but in fact the internet-only station, including lots of promotional links and non-neutral phrasing. I've added the article to my watchlist, though if another new editor pops up, feel free to take it directly to WP:RFPP in case I'm not around. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:NewWorriedLad and Talk:Ruggero Santilli

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

---

Could some uninvolved (and preferably not Jewish) admin look at this diff and take appropriate action. I think, at the least, an indefinite block, and a sockpuppet check is needed. Probably, it would be a good idea to remove his edits and my replies from that talk page, but, again, I would rather not do that myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely for hate speech. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC).

And I've blanked the obnoxious stuff from the talkpage. I very much enjoyed doing both things, but admin-deleting the edits seems overly squeamish to me. It's good if any user who wonders about the block can see the edits in the history, IMO. If any admin disagrees, or if I'm reverted on the talkpage, feel free to delete the relevant revisions. But to request a sockpuppet check I think we need more info, Arthur. Checkuser needs two accounts/IPs, to compare, they can't do much with one. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC).

Whatever the context (and I haven't yet checked the diff above), I strongly object to the suggestion that a Jewish admin should not take action here. The implication that, by virtue of ethnic or religious background, an editor may be automatically biased, is one I find offensive in the extreme. I hope that I never see such a request again. RolandR (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, Arthur Rubin is himself Jewish (as he says on his user page), so he clearly did not intend any anti-Jewish sentiment. I'm sure all he meant is that, as it was an anti-Jewish screed, it would avoid any hint of involvement or bias if a non-Jewish admin were to deal with it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec, although Boing! said most of what I wanted to say.) NewWorriedLad is an avowed anti-Semite; it would play into his hands for a Jew to "persecute" him. It doesn't fall (yes, I said fall) to the level of WP:COI or WP:INVOLVED, but there's no need to encourage his belief that he is being persecuted by Jews, by, well, a justified persecution which happens to be by Jews. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I was shocked for a moment when I saw the request, but then I realised what Arthur meant, and didn't see any need to be PC about it. It gave me the sweet pleasure of being the one to block, too. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC).

This is getting close to an off-topic political conversation; but I must say that I disagree with the views above. I really don't think that the pernicious views of an antisemite should constrain any Jewish admin from acting as any other admin would do under the circumstances. I would be extremely uncomfortable if we started to create areas in which Jewish (or Muslim, gay, female or whatever) editors were recommended not to take action. RolandR (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't there a situation some time ago where an editor requested that a non-Jewish admin deal with it, as he didn't think a Jewish admin could be impartial? As I recall, that request was (rightfully) denied. I do understand Arthur's desire not to "play into the hands" of an anti-Semite, but we're not here to solve the problems of the world, or even of one extremely misguided editor, we're here to build an encyclopedia, and to protect that project from disruption. If a Jewish admin dealt with the situation, and the editor then created disruption about it, the editor can be indef blocked or banned, and the project goes on. I appreciate Arthur's concern, but think that RolandR is correct that we do not want to set up a situation where editors can specify what variety of admin they want to be helped by. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's be realistic. If a Jewish admin had blocked him, he next day he would be posting in his website new "proof" of how the Zionist cabal also controls wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.214.71 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but reading this editor's comments, it would appear that s/he identifies as a Jew. That is the only sense I can make of their repeated use of the word "us": "the price to be paid by all of us for our evident discrimination of non-Jewish scientists... a international waves of attacks against us,... our control of science... our control of the Nobel Foundation... the growing attacks against us for our 30 years of obstructions and discriminations you cannot dub “anti-Semitic” because fully justified... The consequences of the hatred we created against us by all Germans for our abuses of their country are sadly known" and more. This is not to deny that the remarks are offensive (they remind me of the position of Gilad Atzmon); but suggests that the situation here is more complicated than at first appears, and to my mind certainly invalidates a plea for Jewish admins to stay away. RolandR (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Does the race thing really matter for this anymore? I say no. Let's move on and not fret over unknowns or provoke more discussion on topics that should be avoided by friends, family and colleagues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Vandalism

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

---

User "N1of2" is repeatedly reverting edits made to the page "Wayne Hoffman." They are removing information that is justified through reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.204.248 (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wayne_Hoffman&action=history

N1of2's edits aren't vandalism. The article appears to be poorly written and extremely POV. They've tightened the lede and removed WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims stated in Wikipedia's voice as fact, such as:

“ Hoffman noticed his ability to predict what people are thinking as a pre-teen while riding the school bus. He noticed he could predict what color M&M’s his friend would choose from a bag. ”

Really? This guy can read people's minds and predict the color of MMs? N1of2 seems to be improving the article, although they might be a little too aggressive in what they are deleting.

In any case, I've notified N1of2 of this discussion.[25] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks A Quest For Knowledge (talk) for bringing this thread to my attention. The article Wayne Hoffman was started by Waynemagic (talk) in 2009 who on the face of it appears directly related to the topic. The article contained extensive self-promotional unreferenced material in January 2013 when I started editing it; I tried to clean up the extreme POV and promotional language and bring it up to wikipedia standards. Over the past 6 months several IP editors (including 98.208.204.248 (talk) who started this thread above) repeatedly reverted to virtually the same original (promotional) version time and again (at times adding small edits in addition to the reversion), strongly suggesting sock puppetry. The promotional POV, original research, usage of primary sources, obscure citations and sparse reliable sources, lack of any discussion on those editors' part in the article's talk page, and the fact that some of those editors contribute exclusively to this article, reek of conflict of interest issues.

I suggest the admins to consider placing the article under some type of moderation (maybe [semi]-protect to only allow authenticated editors?). Since the topic is of particular interest to its subject (and / or other apparently related or interested editors) but is otherwise rarely of interest to others, the article tends to degrade rapidly to its slanted, POV, promotional version without close monitoring (as it was evident between 2009 and early 2013). I would also welcome any other alternative suggestions for ongoing maintenance / monitoring of the article. N1of2 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Notified Waynemagic of this discussion. [26] N1of2 (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what difference it'll make: he hasn't edited in almost four years. — Richard BB 08:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Good grief, the edit history of this article is a mess. There's been a very clear back-and-forth of adding and deleting the same content for five months. Requesting immediate temporary semi-protection of article (even full protection wouldn't go amiss, though might be a bit extreme) in order to put an end to this debacle. — Richard BB 08:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As the dispute is between a registered editor and an IP editor (I have not looked to see who is right or wrong), a semi-protection would be favouring one side, so is not a valid solution. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The article has since been semi-protected. However, I disagree that it's not a valid solution: it would force the IP to create an account, which means that the edit warring would be much harder to perpetuate (provided both parties are equally warned for it as it happens, which has not been the case so far). — Richard BB 13:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I guess that's one approach - but I do have to say I personally don't like solutions that treat IP editors as second-class citizens. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it does. They're still able to debate on the talk page and would be able to edit if they created an account; this is preventative, not punitive. — Richard BB 06:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Before going on with hypothetical situations you should first check out the extreme promotional POV edits that this (these?) particular IP editor(s?) engaged in. In any event I am pleased with the contributions of the new editors that are now involved in the article and I am particularly thrilled that more people will keep this article on their watchlist :) N1of2 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

confusion on everything

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.

---

Dear Wikipedia very confused - set up user page and tried to do a wikipedia page - to post online .. can't find the answers i need on how to post online, does it need approval, how do i set up the references .. how can it be public ..??

username: najwa najjar

thank you Najwa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najwa najjar (talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Articles for creation. But also read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to learn how to do inline references. Take a look at some existing Wikipedia:Good articles to see how articles should be laid out. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good answers. I also recommend WP:Teahouse, which is full of volunteers waiting to answer any questions you have. They can sometimes find you a mentor to help you get up to speed as well. Glad to see you join the community. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Llibtrof and Metrication of British Transport

A new editor (User:Llibtrof) has taken it into his mind to make an addition to the article Metrication of British transport which I, along with four other well-established editors and have deemed to be inappropriate to the article as per policy WP:UNDUE—User:David Biddulph, User:The Rambling Man (an administrator) and I have reverted the changes. User:Steve Hosgood and User:Mcewan have given us backing on the article’s Talk page. This edit has been reverted 10 times] and the editor in question has been invited to address the WP:UNDUE matter both via his the Talk:Metrication of British transport#Road signs - height above sea level and his own talk page, but he is adopting a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach. Instead, an IP editor, who to date has never edited Wikipedia has reinstated the changes. I believe that the IP editor who reinstated the changes last night and this morning and the IP editor who added the changes in the first place is really User:Llibtrof.

These actions and the use of the abbreviation "POV" by User:Llibtrof here suggests to me that User:Llibtrof might be a sockpuppet of an established editor who has been banned from Wikipedia.

Martinvl (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oh my word. With the notable exception of The Rambling Man (who did one revert), you are all edit warring, and can all face sanctions. Furthermore, Martin, given you were blocked for edit warring on exactly the same subject back in January, you might do well to remember the old adage "those in glass houses should not throw stones." Take it to WP:DRN. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Like User:Rschen7754, I suspect that User:Llibtrof is a sockpuppet of DeFacto, (See below) but at the moment I cannot prove it. User:Ritchie333 might not be aware of all the details, so may I fill him in. User:DeFacto is a banned user who's sockpuppets have been popping up all the time. My initial brush with DeFacto came when he tried to make an addition to Metrication in the United Kingdom identifying one promotion campaign of one product line by one supermarket as being significant, just as User:Llibtrof is trying to make an issue surrounding one road sign that is not catalogued in the TSRGD. I objected on grounds of the policy on WP:UNDUE. I tried using WP:DRN to resolve the issue. Ritchie333 might care to look at the discussion. It spanned these six threads

1. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 4#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story
2. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 2#ASDA
3. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3#Asda report - 12 October update
4. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3#MedCab mediation offer
5. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 107#Using reports of market research surveys
6. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 34#Polls and surveys

DeFacto was banned shortly afterwards for gross disruption to Wikipedia.

In my overhaul of Metrication in the United Kingdom, the section on transport was threatening to become large, so I spun it off as a separate article Metrication of British Transport. Two attempts were made to kill the new article a deletion attempt and an attempt to Talk:Metrication of British transport/Archive 1#Merge discussion. The supporters of both actions were User:Pother, User:Ornaith, both sockpuppets of Defacto and one other editor.

The episode in January this year when I was blocked for 24 hours involved me making 3 (not 4) reversions within 24 hours of changes introduced by User talk:MeasureIT who was blocked at the same time. Three days later MeasureIT was banned as yet another sockpuppet of DeFacto.

Given the above background material, Ritchie333 might like to reconsider his posting. Martinvl (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

All the above put to one side, the simple facts are that two administrators thought you were edit warring. When you get involved in a dispute, you don't repeatedly override the other editor's contributions unless you are very sure they are bad faith, such as obvious vandalism or BLP violations. If they are bad faith, somebody else will probably restore the article anyway. By all means, come here and get him kicked for socking, but "he started it" and "it's the wrong version" never let your own behaviour off the hook. Be the better man. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto maybe? --Rschen7754 08:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense threats

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.

---

• Ladotelli123 (talk · contribs)

If AIV wasn't so backed up this probably would have been settled quickly with a user block: disruptive account making nonsense threats of kidnapping and torture [27]. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Add 82.12.254.91 (talk · contribs) as an affiliated account. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ladotelli123 has been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. IP 82.12.254.91 is now stale so there's no need for immediate action. De728631 (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:NFCR discussions in need of closure

• WP:NFCR#File:PBS idents
• WP:NFCR#File:Prince logo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:Women's World Squash 2008.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Geelong2008Logo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:AFCS-Uniform-HU2.png
• WP:NFCR#File:AFCS-Uniform-JAX.PNG
• WP:NFCR#Lots of images of sports uniforms
• WP:NFCR#File:2013 European Youth Winter Olympic Festival logo.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Gnnsjb001.jpg
• WP:NFCR#Screenshots of websites
• WP:NFCR#excerpt from famous music review
• WP:NFCR#File:1930 Rover Light Six Sportsman Saloon by Weymann (Photo).jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:LibertyFlames.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Scrabble Showdown (title card).jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Azad University Tehran BC logo.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Windows 95
• WP:NFCR#File:Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)
• WP:NFCR#Illmatic and the Source excerpt image
• WP:NFCR#File:GG Allin sshot.jpg
• WP:NFCR#Video game images in Color Graphics Adapter
• WP:NFCR#File:BBC News titles.png
• WP:NFCR#Bradley Joseph
• WP:NFCR#File:Watson's avatar.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Logo WSA Wolrd Series.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Djarum Indonesia Super League.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Adaptations of Les Misérables
• WP:NFCR#File:OasisTowerRender.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Botola vf.PNG
• WP:NFCR#File:Atlantic Coast Conference logo.png
• WP:NFCR#File:División de Honor.PNG
• WP:NFCR#File:Ivy League logo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:LourdesGrayWolves.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Pac-12-Uniform-UA.png
• WP:NFCR#File:PaladinsLogo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:1953 Playboy centerfold.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:UFL-Uniform-LV.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Poster World Junior Squash 2012.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Logo World Squash Federation.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:NFL(Australia).png
• WP:NFCR#File:UFL-Uniform-OMA.png
• WP:NFCR#KOFY-TV
• WP:NFCR#File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG
• WP:NFCR#File:TheSprektors.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif
• WP:NFCR#Question
• WP:NFCR#File:2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Server Core Notepad File Save Dialog.gif
• WP:NFCR#File:Osaka University logo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:Frosty paws.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Milton Avery - 'Green Sea', oil on canvas 1958, University of Kentucky Art Museum (Lexington, Kentucky).jpg
• WP:NFCR#Energy Tower (Midland, Texas)
• WP:NFCR#File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg
• WP:NFCR#Huge category
• WP:NFCR#File:NBL Logo 2009-2010.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Waterboard3-small.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Eminem - Role Model single CD cover.jpg

All of the above are discussions which have exceeded the discussion period and need closed so that it can be resolved. Werieth (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor EyeTruth: tendenitious editing in Battle of Kursk page

A number of editors have been having difficulty on the Battle of Kursk page with editor EyeTruth. He has been reverting edits and is not waiting for a consensus of opinion from other editors. Some of the reverts include this: [28] and this: [29]. His tone on the talk page strikes me as condescending and dismissive, and as a group we have had difficulty communicating simple guidelines such as what is MOS on wikilinks. I have notified EyeTruth that I am bringing these actions to the attention of the administrators. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, one or more admins/mods should look into this. Yes, I've reverted edits based on original research when the editor failed to discuss it in the talkpage. This editor is fond of inserting original material into cited passages or deleting cited passages based on his original research. And I've cleaned up many of such edits without even complaining. And no, my tone was never intended to be condescending. And yes, my tone has been dismissive towards this editor until he supports his opinion with sources, which he has almost always failed to do. And yes, I've been cautioned by others for being superfluous with my writing and wiki-linking, and I've conceded on that. Granted, I did question the reasoning behind their suggestions, but since it harboured even a modicum of sense and was also in accordance with MOS I conceded, before my scrutiny is misunderstood as lack of cooperation. EyeTruth (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is the edit that EyeTruth believed consititued original research on my part: [30]

The key porition was:

It was the most impressive fleet of German armour yet amassed for a single offensive. Even so, Hitler and several senior officers expressed doubts and concern.

which I reduced to:

It was the largest assemblage of German armour yet brought together for a single offensive.

The phrase "most impressive fleet" was exchanged for the phrase "largest assemblage". Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

But it was not correct, yet you fiercely defended it. And that is just one instance among others. You are fully aware of this. Besides, why do you keep attaching that extra sentence as if it's part of my edit? Why are you trying so hard to distort the issue? Why?!! You're aware any admin that is going to attend to this report will most likely read the relevant talkpages, right? So why?!!! EyeTruth (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin observation So I searched around for the source in question and found it here [31]. The exact wording in the source is "Thus, the Germans amassed the most impressive armored armada yet assembled for a single attack." So the source does not say "largest assemblage." However, it seems to me that "most impressive fleet" may just be Glantz's opinion, and I would say that unless a source can be found for "largest," the sentence should be removed altogether. There's probably more to the dispute than the one sentence, but I just thought I'd share my two cents. Howicus (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The sentence had already been removed by Gunbirddriver. But as you suspected, the dispute is more than that. Gunbirddriver is now out to contend every step I take on that article. But I'm not giving in until he justifies his contentions, which thus far he has categorically failed to do. EyeTruth (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NLT violation

Legal threat made by User talk:RJMI in this diff: [32] Ravenswing 02:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"If the references to Richard Ibranyi are not put back in the "Most Holy Family Monastery" article, I will try to contact the owner of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, and have you removed as an administrator because you will then be a twice-convicted liar and thus a very un-credible person to decide who or what can be allowed in an encyclopedia. If the owner does not correct it, then he will stand accused of the same." Easily meets WP:NLT. And their User page is not really helping matters... PantherLeapord (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Also: Considering that this was the account's first edit we may need to check at WP:SPI in case there are more accounts... PantherLeapord (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Therefore your removing Richard Ibranyi as a former member and thus implying he was not a former member is a bold-faced black lie which makes Richard look like a liar instead of you. Hence, if he had the time, money, and desire, he could take you to court for libeling his name and reputation," being the actual passage I had in mind, since the editor wound up his long tale by claiming that he was himself Ibranyi. Ravenswing 02:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I must have missed that part among the WP:TLDR! PantherLeapord (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FlaviusConstantinus while the AFD was ongoing. I didn't provide diffs (all from the AFD) and the case was closed without a CU after the AFD was closed and the article deleted. Stalwart111 03:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• QUACK!  It looks like a duck to me - may be time to re-open it! PantherLeapord (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Um .. since when is "threatening" to go to Jimbo considered a violation of WP:NLT? Since, um, never. The usual response to such blowhard-like activity is "well, I have policy and links to support me ... so go ahead, and WP:ANI is thisaway, or WP:RFC/U is thataway" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure, maybe "he could take you to court for libeling his name and reputation" refers to a basketball court... or a food court! We need to consider all the possibilities! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the whole statement includes having time and/or money, with a big "IF" at the beginning. He's not trying to chill discussion, he's trying to promote himself ... in 3rd person too. He quite clearly does not make a legal threat because he says he cannot afford to do it! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, seems like RJMI is just trying to use WP for attention seeking and self promotion, revert his edits reasonably and if he ends up edit warring report him for 3RR. The SPI if had proper diff's might have been valid, but also the three different user-ids though pointing to the same kind of edits might have been just one of his friends or colleagues. Amit (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Which, nonetheless, is a violation of WP:SOCK. There are four accounts, all opening within a week of one another, all with much the same editing pattern, all discussing the same fringe personality and the same two fringe subjects. Whether sockpuppet or meatpuppet, it's all the same. Ravenswing 20:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have just blocked Russavia indefinitely

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.

---

Russavia (talk · contribs) Since his return to the project Russavia has been constantly mired in controversy and has been blocked on a number off occasions for testing the boundaries of his arbitration restrictions. This culminated in the Pricasso troll where he appears to have induced an artist who uses his penis as a brush to paint a picture of Jimbo to illustrate an article about him that is now seeking to put on the mainpage as a DYK. While I am sure that we can all see the black humour in this, Russavia ended up by being topic banned from all things Jimbo by NYB in response. How does he respond to this? By taunting NYB on his talkpage of course including the nasty little comment NYB, what an interesting can of worms you have opened for yourself here, hey? clearly reveling in the drama as well as threatening consequences for users disagreeing with him. I'm afraid this is all really too much for me and its clear that Russavia is incapable of editing here without causing unacceptable levels of disruptive drama. I have therefore removed his editing rights. I'm placing the block up here for discussion as I am sure that this will end up here anyway. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hoo, boy, drama bomb incoming. Probably for the best, though for the record, I wouldn't consider the "can of worms" comment particularly nasty or taunting. Reveling in drama, perhaps, but since when has that been a blockable offense? If it were, half of us would be blocked, and the other half would be out of a job. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Its blockable when your behaviour is so disruptive it drags in too many other users away from doing something productive. I'm of the opinion that we are at the point the reveling is certainly a factor in deciding how much further rope an editor is entitled too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

More accurately, Russavia seems to be reveling in creating drama, which falls on the wrong side of WP:POINT and WP:DE. Russavia is a good content creator, and my interactions with him, limited as they are, have been good. But I have no doubt Russavia knew exactly what he was doing in commissioning this Pricasso person to create a painting of Jimbo, particularly since they have rarely seen eye to eye, and he has a history of creating images using Jimbo's likeness when he wants to make a point. He could have had the guy paint anyone else, and there would have been little drama. But where's the fun in that, I suppose. Resolute 14:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

[33] I rest my case about the reveling and I have to agree that he seems to be deliberately engendering the drama around him. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what does posting an unblock request and then deciding to remove said request have to do with "reveling in drama"? --108.38.191.162 (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block Russavia should have been blocked days ago for violating WP:NLT.[34] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Russavia's response to being blocked proved the legitimacy of Spartaz's actions beyond anything else (and it was already pretty certain, in my mind). Ironholds (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block. The block seems quite appropriate, given the circumstances. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse--v/r - TP 14:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• It's also worth noting that Russavia already announced that he would have the article translated in many other languages, and is quite eager to include the pictures in those articles as well.[35][36] --Conti|✉ 14:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Being generally snarky isn't usually grounds for an indefinite block (and, really, a Wikipedia ban)—but I think that Spartaz is somewhat understating the size and nature of Russavia's conduct issues. We're really more into suicide-by-WP:POINT territory, here. On June 15, Newyorkbrad imposed a topic ban on Russavia under the provisions for special enforcement of the BLP policy. While Newyorkbrad's topic ban specified that Russavia is

..."indefinitely topic-banned and prohibited from making any edit relating directly or indirectly to Jimmy Wales",

NYB took unusual pains to restrict the applicability of the ban to BLP-problematic content issues, while still permitting Russavia broad freedom to comment on Wikipedia governance and administration.

"This restriction prohibits edits concerning Jimmy Wales as a public figure, as well as posting or discussion of images related to him. The restriction does not prohibit your commenting in a civil fashion in userspace or Wikipedia space on actions that Jimmy Wales may take in his capacities on Wikipedia."

In blunt terms, NYB bent over backwards to preserve Russavia's ability (I won't say 'right') to be an obnoxious gadfly on project pages, while taking the minimum step necessary to discourage Russavia from screwing around by trying to drag his petty disputes into the encyclopedia itself.

Since then, Russavia moved an article from his userspace to mainspace, which contained a link to a category on Commons containing the image of Jimmy Wales that (in part) led to Russavia's topic ban. When another editor removed the link to Commons and pointed out the topic ban violation, Russavia restored it twice [37], [38]. He subesequently self-reverted that last edit (when called on it in a report on NYB's talk page), and issued an open invitation in the edit summary for anyone else to restore it for him: "OK I will revert this, and only because then I can say I only reverted once -- but obviously another editor is welcome to reinsert the commonscat link".

So, heartily endorse block. We're better off without this kind of game-playing. Newyorkbrad gave Russavia plenty of rope. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've discussed this matter twice with Russavia over IRC and his attitude has been that he's just been doing his thing to improve the encyclopedia and others have been importing drama onto Commons with their reaction. This strikes me as disingenuous. Russavia claims that he has no dispute with Jimbo, but that's clearly not the case. (The interaction between JW and Russavia around April 28th, regarding an image of a woman flashing her breasts at Mardi Gras strikes me as particularly heated [39].) Russavia's attitude to the whole Pricasso situation struck me as gleeful. I'll let administrators decide what actions are appropriate, but I think that at the very least Russavia needs to acknowledge that this type of disruption is not acceptable. GabrielF (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block - per Ironholds, Malik and Deskana. Right now this is probably best for all involved--Cailil ^talk 14:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block for a number of reasons, including those mentioned above. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Playing devil's advocate here, and admitting that I know nothing of Russavia's history on WP or the origins of the apparent spat with Jimmy Wales, are we in danger of failing to WP:AGF in this case? The "positive spin" interpretation of the facts would be:
  • Russavia decides to write an article on Pricasso, and the general consensus appears to be that Pricasso meets WP:GNG so that's fine.
  • Russavia also happens to know Pricasso personally, and decides to ask him to paint a piece specifically for inclusion in the article, to be released under a creative commons licence or whatever.
  • In choosing a subject for this Wikipedia centred artwork, the image of Jimmy Wales, the face of the foundation is chosen. In itself this does not seem unreasonable.
  • Pricasso paints the image and uploads it to Commons.
    If Pricasso were a regular artist, or perhaps painted with his foot, I don't think anyone would have any issue with the above. I have no opnion one way or the other on whether the block is vaild, but this is just a thought anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • How does the saying go? AGF is not a suicide pact. So yes, if the context of the article's creation were a different one, it would be a different situation. But it's not, and the situation we do have is pretty obvious, and it's clear that the article was used to attack Jimbo Wales. --Conti|✉ 15:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

My logic has pointed out that each one of these cases are not a problem itself; it was the ban about Jimmy Wales topics which the addition is portrayed to be trolling and/or an attack. In all fairness; if it was a different way of production it would probably be fine unless the artist had devil horns or some other trait that could be seen as malicious. I suppose its the whole "he painted Jimmy Wales with his dick at the request of Russavia to further an anti-Jimmy agenda by proxy" is the real issue. If it was any other user who did this I am sure the image itself would be up for deletion and the person would likely be blocked for defamation or PA because the nature of the art's painting is unusual and offensive to some, but Russavia was on thin ice already. That's why he was indeffed; but I don't have an opinion on whether or not it was valid... I'm really outside of this mess. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• “decides to ask him to paint a piece specifically for inclusion in the article”. Not so much commenting on the block or the user here, but instinctively I would be very skeptical generally about including an “artwork” specifically made for Wikipedia and not exhibited or published (or similar) other well-known places. Just like Wikipedia shouldn’t be the first place to publish new scientific research etc, Wikipedia shouldn’t be the first to publish an artwork. Of course, if the artwork is controversial, it will tend to make this more obvious, but as I see it, it is part of a general rule about avoiding original research and material. And with art specifically, we will be in the danger of becoming part of a "performance art" stunt if we accept original artwork, where Wikipedians’ reaction to and handling of the artwork becomes part of the art (and maybe publicity). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• If Pricasso is notable (haven't read the article yet, so no comment there), then asking the guy to demonstrate his technique is fair game. We actually allow a high degree of "original research" with media. The problem for me, and where AGF falls down, is in the fact that Russavia is very, very aware of Jimbo's disdain for the amount of nudity/sexuality on Commons, and Jimbo has caused some pretty big drama in the past trying to clean it up. Russavia had to be aware that uploading a video of some guy painting Jimbo's likeness with his penis as the paint brush was going to be taken poorly and as Russavia's comments - to NYB especially - show, he's trying to frame this deliberately as a notcensored argument. And I would have agreed with him entirely on that, if not for the fact that Russavia is trolling Jimbo by making him the subject of the video. Russavia could have had Pricasso do a generic painting, and he would have been fine. But he went for maximum drama with his choice, knowing exactly how Jimbo would react. It is tantamount to harassment. Resolute 16:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have not written on contemporary art and artists, so I am not familiar with the specific rules there, but if the rules or practice really are as you say, I belive they are deeply flawed. Say, we were to have an article on a political caricaturist. Some Wikipedian knows him, and gets him to draw a caricature specifically for Wikipedia. Would that be ok? Say further, that the caricature turns out to be very controversial for some reasons (maybe for some domestic reasons in a country few of us know much about) and generates a lot of publicity. Pressure groups say the caricature is deeply insulting to some person(s) or groups and demand that Wikipedia withdraws it and apologizes. Isn’ t this exactly a situation that Wikipedia tries to avoid by relying on secondary sources ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iselilja (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is a bit of a side discussion, so I'll reply on your user page once I have a moment. Cheers! Resolute 17:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block - for I really don't give a fuck if I am violating 3RR. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Enough is enough is enough is enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Snowball endorse block. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. — Richard BB 15:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Too much, for too long. Too bad. — Scott • talk 15:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. So far as I know, all Russavia was doing was editing an article in user space. Someone else started the forum discussion. Then he was hit with a topic ban out of the blue based on an excessively harsh interpretation of brand new policy. Now you're indef-blocking him for trying to make his case, and making a run-of-the-mill "WP:BOOMERANG" threat like you tolerate every day on this board. AGF is so dead here I think it may be time for a MfD on the policy - I see no reason why Pricasso wouldn't have chosen Jimbo Wales to make a painting of, the moment someone suggested he upload a painting to Commons, because making portraits of famous people is what he does, and Jimbo is the only obvious famous person associated with the project. Going to an artist and asking for an upload should not be the reason to indef-ban an editor. Wnt (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nice strawman as that actually wasn't the reason why I blocked him but don't let facts get in the way of your trying to defend the indefensible. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good faith editing by Russavia would've been in the form of avoiding areas that could be construed as disruptive. He dived into the deep end, not on accident, not unintentionally, no unknowing. He dived head first. There is no need to assume anything.--v/r - TP 15:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Well it's good to know that our admin corps regards criticism of a block they make as "defending the indefensible." I suppose the logical next step is to label anyone who does so as a "troll" and "disruptive," and deserving of a block themselves. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• .... naturally and every IP is a registered user logged out too! Do you have any other absurd statements to make? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather." --108.38.191.162 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Unfortunately, because I recall Russavia as a very able and skilled contributor. But the actions here are clearly an example of harrassment, and Newyorkbrad's attempt at resolving it was a very lenient approach. The responses here are unacceptable, so I have no choice but to agree with the analysis of Spartaz and TenOfAllTrades on this issue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block Noting my statements on UT:Jimbo thereon, and the apparent destructive nature of those editors involved. Collect (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. Russavia should have been blocked days ago for violating the topic ban NYB imposed by repeatedly posting self-evidently uncivil comments regarding Jimbo Wales (eg, "another 'editor' who has basically lied to the community"; "he will only end up embarrassing himself further if he continues to lash out wildly against me"; etc, as well as his plain efforts to evade NLT limits by making comments like "I would also have a civil case for the outrageous and totally libellous accusations of sexual harassment being levelled against me", but ingenuously claiming they aren't legal threats while posting generally threatening language on the commons talk page of at least one editor involved in these disputes. The best that can be said for him is that he has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in disruptive behavior in order to gain advantages in ongoing disputes, and his accusations elsewhere, especially commons, make any assumption of good faith utterly implausible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse - Unfortunately. I quite often agreed with him on Commons (although I now think Commons is getting excessive). But right now he is basically trolling. Garion96 (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse – I'd like to think that Russavia is at heart a decent person, and I certainly have often had pleasant and cordial interactions with him. But he's been dancing right up to the line and sticking his tongue (or possibly something else short, red and moist) out at the community. I don't think anyone can take much more of it. His schtick is amusing the first fifty times, but at a certain point we need to call it to a halt. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse Because he is just trying to bend the rules to justify his actions and trolling, at the end of the day his actions and explanations are not reasonable enough. WP:REASON RULE Amit (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block. As others have written, his editing both in discussions and in the latest article he created[40] had become far too disruptive and intentionally provocative (this is usually called trolling). Mathsci (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse, pretty much for all the reasons above. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Russavia's behaviour was trolling, plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Per just about everything said here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block - judging from the block log, sheesh that's long but I've seen longer, this is the third time they've been indefinitely blocked. I don't think there should be any coming back from that as they obviously cannot abide by any editing restrictions as has been proved on multiple occasions. Canterbury Tail talk 19:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block Every society needs a gadfly to question and challenge the status quo when necessary. Russavia has crossed the line from questioning those who have perceived power to actually creating drama and purposeful disruption in an attempt to mock and shame. It's unacceptable.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block for NLT and NOTHERE. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Wow. Just wow. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I just read the above, so I am late for the fist-ivities... But I will say this: What an incredibly Wikipedia-damaging, myopic, trigger-happy disciplinary action. The admins should have been creative here and limited Russavia to editing in the areas where he is unquestionably useful and completely uncontroversial, such as Russian aviation and worldwide aviation photos inclusion. Meh. --Mareklug ^talk 19:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Failure to discuss matter related to Algeria, leading to impasse

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.

---

Dear AN/I,

I had held discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algeria and Wikipedia:NPOV noticeboard about whether or not to insert the French name of Algeria into the article about the country. I had conducted research into the matter and compiled it in the Languages of Algeria article. Based on what was said in the NPOV noticeboard after a discussion in a thread at the Algeria WikiProject I concluded the NPOV solution was to include French.

User:TonyStarks removed the French, and when I reverted him citing the previous discussions, he reverted back.

In response started a new NPOV noticeboard at this place where I wanted to get Tony Starks to explain his point of view, asking him to reconcile his belief that French should be excluded with what was said on the NPOV noticeboard. So far no editors have responded there. I asked him to clarify his response on his talk page but he said on my talk page User_talk:WhisperToMe#French language and Algeria "I just don't have time for bureaucratic nonsense and discussions."

The result of the Dispute resolution noticeboard entry at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_73#Algeria was "No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. You've made a good attempt to get him to respond. At this point I would recommend either filing a request for comments on the point in question or report him to administrator's noticeboard/incidents for tendentious failure to discuss."

In light of this, I gave TonyStarks 24 hours to either participate in discussions or announce that he will not challenge edits that restore French. There has been no response. The 24 hours have expired.

Would someone please ask him to participate in discussions, or that if he does not wish to do so, to please not make edits in that area? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like you have made every effort to establish a consensus and he has refused to participate and no one else has disputed your claims. He has refused to engage in any way, in spite of at least a dozen attempts by you, except to revert. In my opinion, him reverting your changes out are disruptive as now the burden has shifted on him. I would consider this a notice that he may be blocked if he continues to revert without first entering into a dialog on the subject. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Dennis Brown: You're absolutely wrong. Please revisit the timeline of events before making such bold accusations about me. I have not edited the article in question at all since the original NPOV post, so to say that I'm being disruptive is a complete lie. I've chosen not to participate in the discussions, but in no way am I being disruptive and talk of a block is complete nonsense. TonyStarks (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • WhisperToMe: "Would someone please ask him to participate in discussions, or that if he does not wish to do so, to please not make edits in that area?" What are you talking about?? Why are you making a huge deal to make it seem like I'm editing the article continually and refusing to engage in discussion when in reality I have not edited the article since the NPOV notice went up. It's my right not to engage in discussion as long as I'm not editing the article in question, which is actually the case. So please move on and stop trying to make a problem out of nothing, this issue is closed for me. TonyStarks (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If you chose to not participate when you've had ample notice, you pretty much give up your right to revert. Assuming you don't go back and revert, then there is no problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Tony: If it's closed for you, that's fine. The thing is: I didn't know how to take silence on the matter because you had reverted two previous times. If you do not wish to participate, all you need to say is "Okay, I will not revert any edits" - At 01:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC) I said "So, I will wait 24 hours for you to respond in the NPOV noticeboard thread or to declare that you are not interested in challenging the insertion of French. If there no response, I'll have to either file an RFC on the subject, or AN/I about your conduct." - I added the emphasis. I don't know what to make of a silence. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I figured that me not reverting the article would have been a clear indication for you. But yes, just to make sure we're all on the same page, the issue is closed for me. I still don't agree with including French but I will not fight it or make any changes to remove it. TonyStarks (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you. This issue is closed :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Harrassment and sockpuppetry

resolved Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
'Quis separabit? (aka rms125a@hotmail.com, aka NYFinanceGal, aka Robert M. Sieger) has embarked on a campaign of harrassment against me which has included mimicry, sock puppeting, false flag attacks and off-line harrassment. I was falsly banned because of this and I want redress immediately. Sieger may have used a neighbor's Wifi or the library Wifi to disguise the location; he may have done it at Starbucks or his parents'; perhaps he had Anita do it. I don't know the details, but Sieger's fine hand was behind this. My proof lies in the fact that Sieger has: A history of doing this sort of thing, as indicated in wikipedia's records. The IPs are said to be in the same general location It's highly unlikely that some troll would randomly mimic me out of the blue. Only Sieger would do so. The shrill, feverish rhetorical style in the posts by "my sock" is very similar to that of Sieger's comments. I expect you to take some action against Sieger as Wikipedia has done in the past. If you don't want to bother, fine; I can have someone else speak to Sieger directly and you won't have to be involved. I've notified Sieger. sjp/MITBacon (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Outing people, or thinking you are and attempting to do so, plus evading a block, not helping whatever your cause is.  davidiad { t } 23:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC) I have no idea what this person is talking about. Yes, I was banned for sockpuppetry several years ago but was unbanned and have never done it again. User:NYFinanceGal is not me.; that is a sockpuppet of User:Sallieparker, who took umbrage about the Joseph Breen article and deleted source material she didn't happen to like. I thought User:NYFinanceGal was a sockpuppet of User:Sallieparker, who was banned for making threats and anti-semitic comments to and about me, and so was NYFinance Gal as an obvious sockie, albeit of banned user Jonathan Yip ([41]). The fact that this person (MITBacon), who is, of course, Sallie Parker (hence the initials "sjp"), who took umbrage about the Joseph Breen article and deleted source material he/she didn't happen to like, has mentioned my mother's name (Anita) raises the threat level even higher, as does the comment "I can have someone else speak to Sieger directly and you won't have to be involved." I have no idea what "false flag attacks" are. I have no idea what mimicry he/she is referring to (although maybe somebody used my name somehow on the Internet somewhere), and I most certainly have not engaged in any "off-line harrassment". The paucity, however, of facts and actual examples of "mimicry", "harrassment", etc. show how frivolous this nonsense is. I would like to see what he/she is referring to and where on the internet this occurred. I am quite curious. The particular nature of these threats may well need to be referred to the police or the FBI, so I will need MITBacon's IP address(es) as well as those of Sallie Parker. Quis separabit? 23:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC) You know that's bullshit! I also know for a fact (as per the wikipedia file on Yip) that he's been banned, not just blocked. The Long term abuse file on Yip also says that he's from the Philly area (South NJ), NOT from New York. Your IP and NYFinanceGal both geolocate in New York (NYC or Long Island). So don't try to pawn it off on some long gone troll. MITBacon (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Blocked as a  Confirmed sock of Johnathan Yip - also Villanos 7 (talk · contribs) - Alison ❤ 23:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Who the hell is Jonathan Yip/Villanos 7 and why does he hate me? Quis separabit? 23:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible NLT at Paul Denyer

Can this be considered as a legitimate legal threat? hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Already indeffed by Rschen. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:173.68.110.16

This IP editor's mainspace edits are relatively normal, but his conduct on talk pages and in edit summaries is quite rude (he generally called people "idiots" in one instance). It's hard to describe, so I'd rather you take a look at it yourself. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree - completely ridiculous. Who does he think he is - trying to be helpful to actual users??? 173.68.110.16 (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Trying to be helpful, with an attitude is a different story. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. 173.68.110.16 has been rather hostile with edit summaries such as "soulless android strikes again?", "The link is not "dead" - learn to recover it, idiots!" and "Wikipedia being worthless again? You don't say!" doing the exact opposite of helping matters... and the edits themselves are not really much better! PantherLeapord (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the difference. As long as the readers (who are by and large not interested in wasting time on editing the articles by themselves or on article's Talk pages) will find relevant, objective, non-offensive information useful - it is irrelevant how and in which way the info appeared in an article, or what actually happened on miscellaneous pages between editors themselves. I am certainly not here to find "virtual friends" or anything like that. If you believe otherwise and more concerned about playing "morality policeman" instead of spending more time on articles themselves - well, then, that's your choice, I cannot do anything about that. That is my final reply on this page. Enjoy your another "achievement" (whatever you intended it to be).173.68.110.16 (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Whether or not your edits to articles are good, you are still required to speak politely to other editors, and can be blocked for not doing so.Euchrid (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

He has edit warred in Microsoft Security Essentials over a rude contribution of his, which is reverted twice, once by 108.82.12.77 and once by User:Codename Lisa. Then he has started this talk page thread, calling one of the editors a "soulless android". Fleet Command (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for intentionally misrepresenting my actions. Also, thank you kindly for replying to me on that exact talk page with an intentional use of a "WP:HITLER" template shortcut (a template which also has more neutral shortcuts) - my grandfather fought against and perished in a war started by that murderer and you were most thoughtful to remind me about that part of our family's history and compare me to that person. It is great that Wikipedia is filled with such helpful editors as you are.

P.S: There's a big difference between using a harmless sarcasm and an intentional use of inappropriate insults targeted at a person's sex/religion/nationality or family members, something which YOU apparently do not understand, judging by a previous use of same "WP:HITLER" shortcut towards a German person here. I feel sorry for you, whomever you are. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Deny recognition: Hello everyone. Currently, an administrative action is not necessary, because so far, the users seems to have not been persistent in his disruptive actions. However, there is little hope in telling him to stop being rude – as evidenced by the fact that even after three people have expressed their disagreements with one of his edits, he is yet to get the point. I advise denying recognition for the time being. We will deal with any future development accordingly. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Temporary Block, Editor should understand that a certain amount of civility needs to be used in the edit summary too. Amit (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• This IP sounds like The Artist Formerly Known As Malleus Look at this recent edit summary and message, from one of our top contributors. Is he facing a block for that? If our IP friend is anything like Eric, he should be welcomed with open arms. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC),

Alas, poor Malleus! I knew him, Hillbillyholiday; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy... Srsly, though, I am most certainly not like him, nor am I attempting to be. But thank you for such thought, kind sir! 173.68.110.16 (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Russavia subject to community ban

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

---

WP:CBAN states:

Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".

Given the overwhelming consensus supporting his latest indefinite block that was demonstrated in the section above, I believe due consideration has been had. Consequently, I have added him to Wikipedia:List of banned users. I'm posting this notification not for another round of "I agree"s, but as a courtesy to readers and for any disagreements. My edit is subject to WP:BRD, as everything else is. — Scott • talk 22:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• That would be improper. I did not endorse a ban, I endorsed a block. I have reverted the ban listing. If you want to start a ban discussion, WP:AN is the place to do that. I know this may seem bureaucratic, but we have process for a reason. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Dennis; I closed a block review, not a ban discussion (which I would have left open for at least 24 hours, no matter how snowy.) Yes, it may seem like nitpicking, but as Dennis says, there is a mechanism for turning a block into a ban if that's what's needed. 28bytes (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Then let's proceed to a ban. Can someone please open a ban discussion at AN? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • My singular preference is to allow a few days to pass before starting ban proceedings, so the decision isn't a knee jerk affair but a weighted decision. In a nutshell, I prefer to treat everyone the same, regardless of my personal opinions. That doesn't mean you can't, only that I think it is wise to wait. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Re all of the above; fine with me. — Scott • talk 22:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Besides opening an office in Qatar, the Taliban has also opened an office here at Wikipedia, it seems. :( . Count Iblis (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Umm, what? Are you suggesting people wanting to ban Russavia are the Taliban? There's a new takeoff on Godwin. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The proper context is this issue. This leads to disputes involving editors who are "politically incorrect", it's then possible to get this dispute to escalate so much that one editor will step over some vaguely defined "red line" like "trolling" or whatever. That editor will then be blocked, but that's then not good enough, a discussion will then start about banning that editor. Count Iblis (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And all this means that people on Wikipedia are comparable to a regime that killed countless civilians, treated women as subhumans and mutilated people for transgressing religious laws. Yeah, that makes all kinds of sense. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Par for the course with that "editor". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Instead of beginning an argument over "I endorsed this, not that", why doesn't someone begin a vote discussion? Dusti^*poke* 06:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Roscelese behavior

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

---

User:Roscelese has issues edit warring, violating the 3RR, taking ownership of articles, and frivolously using warning templates to intimidate others. My first (and last) interactions with this user occurred tonight, so this really isn't about me. If Roscelese has this much disdain for the rules and has bullied and stalked at least 2 editors this month, then it's probably safe to assume that this has been going on for a while, pushing other editors away from wikipedia and lowering the quality of articles. I'm sure that this intimidation and warring will happen again without some formal intervention. After my encounter with Roscelese, I glanced at her editing history for this month and observed a disrupting pattern. I'm sure there's more than what I include, but I don't have the time or will to dig through months/years of her history.

Issues in the False accusation of rape article

Falsely accusing others of POV edits and assuming bad faith

My edit that simply restored someone else's addition [42] and my subsequent edit elaborating upon rationale to avoid any disputes [43]. My edit reason: "Article is 'false accusation,' not 'false accusation by a fake victim.' (And the text isn't ambiguous) . adding more colour: perhaps the lede should be explicit if this is only to cover false accusations by victims. as of now, it's general so the re-added text fits"

Roscelese's reversion of my edit (which was merely the restoration of someone else's sourced content) where she maliciously accuses me of doing personal unsourced POV edits - [44]

Violating the three revert rule and edit warring

[45]

[46]

[47]

More Edit Warring

[48]

[49]

Stalking, edit warring, and attempt at intimidation

It also seems like Roscelese stalked me after she made the false POV accusation above. 2 minutes after she made that reversion, she reverted another edit of mine in a separate article.

My edit adding specifics and sources (in fact, my source for this change was the lede, which i conformed the paragraph to) [50]

Reversion/ownership [51]

Based on my two edits detailed here, which clearly included 0 personal analysis or commentary and which were not even related to any POV, Roscelese issued me an obviously frivolous "POV" warning: [52]

I responded with a notice asking her to please stop misusing warning templates, [53] , which she promptly deleted [54].

Intimidation and personal attacks on others

Roscelese also seems to accuse others of bad faith and assumes they have agendas

"No, really, it's not okay to misrepresent research to push an agenda..." [55]

"Rv agenda edits." [56]

And I don't know anything about this user or incident, but this seems like another frivolous POV warning:

User:Danpiedra's reversion claiming POV at 19:00 on 5/30 when there doesn't appear to be any POV issue (if anything, Roscelese's edit seems to be more of a POV issue)

warning user for POV for that edit at 19:06

This is the type of troubling conduct by an editor that has made me avoid editing in the past and should not be tolerated. I don't think the intervention should be something permanent, but I do think it should be more than slap on the wrist given previous warnings. Thank you. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC) I'm also posting a notice of this on the user talk page of the other editor that was involved in the edit war I linked to, User:Federales. I do not anything about him/her other than seeing the name on the differences I linked to 69.127.235.74 (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Is this dispute simply because Roscelese interprets "false accusation" in this context to mean only deliberate lies, while you take it to include mistaken accusations as well? At a first glance, I agree that it should include both because that makes for a more informative article, but why did the two of you not try to discuss the issue to resolve the ambiguity? Instead of throwing clearly frivolous warning templates at each other. Reyk _YO! 04:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Honestly, I thought my edit history was clear enough to defeat the need for a talk discussion. I even added a second edit to add more detail. But the assumption of bad faith and labeling it as a POV edit plus the warning really made me think that my effort would be wasted. And then I looked at the page history and it's clear that this was part of a long pattern of behavior (evidenced by the subsequent reversion of my edits in another article). I didn't really open this to solve the content dispute; it's more because of the fact that it's clear that everything is going to be disputed and because I'm sure that other newbie editors have just gotten frustrated and walked away. I just think something formal (but not permanent) needs to be done to stamp out incivility like this 69.127.235.74 (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@IP. If you want edit controversial subjects like PRISM or rape, please register as a named account rather than editing as an IP. This is very important for accountability reasons. If there was a WP:3RR violation, this should be reported to WP:3RR noticeboard. If this is related to abortion (which I am not sure), this should be reported to WP:AE noticeboard [57], not here. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

MVBW; agree IP would have an easier time if registered, but that SHOULD NOT be an issue here. Similarly, while it is best if 3rr goes to the 3rr noticeboard, ANI is set up to be flexible and CAN consider 3rr complaints, especially within the context of other behavioral problems. Just in case the above was not helpful advice to a newbie (which I assume it was), but passing the buck. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm avoiding registering because I have a big work project coming up soon and know that I'll get too addicted to this once I sign up (I already feel addicted from the past few days!). I looked at the discretionary sanction page but that seems geared more towards repeated content issues with an editor rather than behavioural issues. Does the 3RR noticeboard also deal with the related incivility and bad faith stuff? If so, I will move this there. Thank you. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 3rr does deal with edit warring, and incivility and bad faith would play into that, but are not the primary topics for the page; it has to be 3rr and....--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• The IP user is apparently unhappy that the definition of "false accusation" in all the relevant literature isn't in tune with his own personal definition. (I'm sure the desire to grossly inflate the rate of false accusations plays no role in these edits.) The troubling thing here is his acting on this unhappiness by going through several weeks of my edit history and coming straight to ANI (with, pardon the term, false accusations about my behavior - such as the ludicrous claim that I "stalked" him to an article that I've been editing for many months and that I edited almost immediately before he showed up - I must be prescient!) without even trying the talkpage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think my point about incessant incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and frivolous POV accusations was just confirmed. And just to repeat, the notice I put on Roscelese's talk page was immediately deleted. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just FYI; removal of a notice from a personal Talk page is not regarded as a violation of WP rules, unless there is a RULING. Your 3rr and edit warring allegations, though, have merit. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• As best I can tell, the IP editor has not made any attempt to resolve this issue at Talk:False accusation of rape, nor even made a single post there. This matter is probably best referred back to the article talkpage, and the IP editor gently instructed to make at least a token effort to resolve disputes on the article talkpage before filing a lengthy AN/I complaint. MastCell ^Talk 05:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• I apologize if I was unclear, but I'm really not interested in solving this particular content dispute. I came across the relevant articles haphazardly and I simply don't care enough about the topic to resolve that dispute. This is about an editor's behaviour. While I may be the only one who has spoken out about this terrible behaviour, I'm sure that I am not the only IP editor/newbie/veteran who has been negatively affected by it. Solving this problem will do more for wikipedia than putting so much effort into some minor content dispute. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not saying it's intentional, but that seems a bit biased against an "IP" editor. Roscelese was just as capable of starting a talk page discussion.--v/r - TP 13:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Of course, but Roscelese didn't bring the issue to AN/I - the IP editor did. You need to make some effort to engage with an editor - like at least a single talkpage post - before filing a grievance at AN/I. That's pretty basic. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• I really cannot fathom that your ONLY defense of Roscelese, whose violations are clear, is to insult newbies (DONT BITE) and to basically blame the victim...... On an article on rape accusations.......If everyone's head hasn't exploded, let me add that, as several editors have noted, while IP did not go to Talk, their edit summaries are pretty easy to understand, and factual (meaning that explanations are there, just according to WP, technically not in the right place). Roscelese's arguments, while they can eventually be understood, aren't at all obvious, aren't civil and are problematic, since you really can't ascribe the same legitimate ignorance of best process (AGF) to a senior editor.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Neither Roscelese nor IP went to Talk, but Roscelese is the one who violated 3rr, AND has been on Talk before when OTHER editors raised the same objections to the non-obvious, highly limited definition of the subject Roscelese favors. I understand the specific technical definition that Roscelese wishes to apply, but given that over several years, it has become absolutely apparent that that definition is NOT obvious to someone who would assume COMMON usage, the behavior of Roscelese is unjustified. The IP would not be expected to follow a definition that is NOT stated on the Article page, nor one an average reader would expect. I had to read the whole article, the Talk page, the fights AND read the references themselves to understand why Roscelese is being so narrow. A page on False accusations would almost universally be expected to include sections on those who were Falsely accused, as covered by such things as the Innocence Project. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Propose a topic ban for Roscelese covering all articles related to sexuality, broadly construed. Federales (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • From this incident alone such a measure seems unjustified. I think MastCell's solution is far more reasonable. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That does seem overly hasty. If there are issues which can't be resolved through the use of the talk page, then is the time to start proposing wide-ranging topic bans. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed - hasty.--v/r - TP 13:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed - very hasty Thereandnot (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Do not support Too harsh, but a sanction of some kind is needed--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Article sanctions This could either fall under the Arbcom Sexology case or the Community Men's Right's sanction, I suggest we wrap this under one of those and call it a day.--v/r - TP 13:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Propose Tabling This - IMHO I don't see any serious violations as of right now(except for a possible 3R rule). The IP editor never tried talking with him about the issue. Btw, the user Danpiedra was most likely to be an employee of the Thomas More Law Center for which he was editing against conflict of interest. Roscelese did us a favor there. As for assuming bad faith Federales is not exactly an angel. He also refuses to discuss changes and then pretends like nothing happened. Dealing with Federales can be frustrating for anybody- see discussion on rape being forced. Once again, IMHO, if something like this happens again(3R), then I think it would be fair to reopen this and discuss the merits of a possible topic sanction. Thereandnot (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit summaries

Resolved

.. User:Johnuniq has undertaken the task to discuss the problem with the user. TY John. — Ched :  ?  13:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Could someone have a look at this and this please? I don't have the time to research the history, but note it's a clean block log and don't want to over-react. — Ched :  ?  03:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The first diff linked, way too much. The second, a bit over the top. Perhaps the best way forward is a conversation with the user in question, instead of jumping here. (I did not look at the history of the utalk, just its state as of the time of this comment, ignore if that conversation has been attempted.) — The Potato Hose 07:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Blockquotes of that size are rarely justified. The editor(s) using WP as a dumping ground for soundbytes and assorted quotefarms should be warned. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• I left some thoughts on the user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Block of User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz‎

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.

---

Sorry if this is being discussed formally elsewhere; I have not seen any formal discussion.

KW was blocked, apparently for an off-Wiki action. The blocking admin, User:Geni originally removed e-mail access. This was removed by User:Bishonen, but re-added moments later by Geni.

First, I'm concerned about this off-wiki-action block - there are very very few off-wiki actions that can ever lead to an on-wiki block

Second, the WP:WHEEL by Geni is concerning.

(✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see any policy basis for this block. 28bytes (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Same as the previous block combined with further evidence of an ongoing pattern of behavior.Geni (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Are we planning our own version of PRISM? --regentspark (comment) 12:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've not looked into that closely but I don't think it has anything to do with reading posts on publicly viable forums.Geni (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There are millions of "publicly viable forums" to monitor. Why should we care only about the ones you happen to haunt? If off-wiki activity is fair game then perhaps we do need to set up our own version of PRISM to be fair.--regentspark (comment) 13:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I hardly think that secret surveillance would be required in this case (or indeed in any other case of off-site drama). The purpose of such things is to draw attention to oneself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh WP:WHEEL doesn't apply. "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." since the reason for the action incorrectly assumed it was a mistake I there is no reason for me to assume (let alone know) that that Bishonen opposed it. Bishonen seems to have thought I accidentally clicked the wrong box which is fair enough and chose to act directly rather than contacting me. Since it wasn't an accident I responded in kind. I understand that discussing things in the block log may be less than idea but then I didn't chose the venue.Geni (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

(ecx2) It wasn't really wheel warring because the other admin assumed it was a mistake. So being that his assumption was incorrect Geni fixed it back to what he had. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that KW's posting at the off-wiki site at the time the block was imposed, was very substantially different from what is now found at the off-wiki site if one follows the link provided by Geni at KW's talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x millions I'm not sure the egregiousness of the original comment compared to its current version has any impact on the issue of the block, though. Whilst I can accept Geni's misunderstanding of Bishonen's email unblock (although since Bishonen has now made it clear that she considers it to be wheel-warring, perhaps Geni might consider undoing the email block again), the block itself is quite clearly for off-wiki activity. I condemn Keifer's attack at the site we do not name, but at the same time, blocks are for dealing with threats to Wikipedia, and I fail to see how this one does so. There is nothing stopping KW from continuing to post at you-know-where, and there's no indication that Wikipedia is made any safer as a result of him being unable to edit here. A bad block, in my opinion. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Block seems to be directly contradicted by policy, i.e. Wikipedia:NPA#Off-wiki attacks. If Kiefer ever goes before Arbcom, this kind of stuff is available fuel for the fire, but you can't block for off-wiki insults alone, unless it is a crystal-clear egregious circumstance, e.g. when Geni tossed this felon off en.wiki, that was the right call. This ain't that, though. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. Remember last time around Kiefer.Wolfowitz's excuse was basically that he didn't mean it. Since we have now established a pattern of behavior we no longer need to assume good faith with regards to that excuse. Thus blocking becomes an appropriate action.Geni (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Like a JJ Abrams tv show, you're just making this up as you go along. You can't block someone solely for off-wiki actions of this nature, period. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is exactly why I didn't just unblock Kiefer and instead posted a note, to get community support. Policy seems to support using off-site comments and actions as evidence, but not as sole determining factors when issuing sanctions. I don't like what he said, and if the community wanted to block him, that would overrule any singular policy since the community as a whole can overrule or change any policy, but no admin has the authority to do that on their own. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad block - blocks specifically for off-wiki activity will not stop that activity and thus are purely punitive. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bad block, though I have few doubts that Keifer will be blocked again soon enough unless they are very careful. As a side note, I'm disappointed in the argument being made by Keifer. Using 2009 to prove a 2013 hypothesis is a little silly. We've all changed a lot in these last four years. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"concerning" is an understatement IMO. IIRC, KW did not have an email option enabled just a few short days ago, so I'm indeed curious as to why the "block email" box is ticked. It's difficult for me to see this turning out well. — Ched :  ?  13:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

NB: KW does have email enabled - he has just selected the option to not receive email. Worm^TT(talk) 13:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bad block for all the reasons stated above and for the grave consequences blocking based on off site commentary will create. I do think we're needing to stop Demiurge1000 from commenting on Kiefer matters too, his commentary is seriously not helping matters. Nick (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting - I've made exactly one comment relating to KW since his last block (not this one) was lifted, and that was to neutrally correct a likely misapprehension. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but during the block discussion you posted over a dozen comments about him. Nick is not the first person to recommend that you and KW give each other a wide berth, and I do wish you would consider doing so voluntarily for everyone's sake. 28bytes (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Given the circumstances, only commenting that many times was a remarkable example of restraint. Some, including myself, preferred to consider that past incident as water under the bridge, rather than raking it up again here. But, since you ask politely, I'll see what I can do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, I appreciate that. 28bytes (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Horrible block, and I was giving serious thought to unilaterally undoing it before seeing the wheel-warring that's already in the block log. We are not the police, and the entire Internet is not our beat. We were given the tools (in part) to prevent disruption of Wikipedia, and there is no disruption of Wikipedia here being prevented, and not even a pretext of one. This is the very definition of a punitive block. The post was mean and stupid, yes, but it is outside our so-called jurisdiction. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

An argument from practicalities. The disruption is that its rather hard to ask editors to collaborate with people who then may go off and make accusations in a venue that is closely linked with wikipedia. In the end he's making accusations about wikipedians in the context of wikipedia on a site that is very much focused on wikipedia. I quite understand that we can't stop him from doing that however we should not be asking people to collaborate with him while such behavior is ongoing.Geni (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Another round of what borders on WP:BADSITES thinking. If we feel we must police the internet, this isn't the way to do it. KW is "welcome" to make negative comments about what happens here off-site without being subjected to what is plainly retribution and censorship. This implies no sympathy with his statements, but rather a principled standard about the right of editors to discuss Wikipedia without our administration acting like a petty oligarchy. Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed he is. The problem occurs when it continues a pattern and style of onwiki attacks on individual wikipedians.Geni (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Worm TT - thank you for that clarification. I noticed your explanation of details on Ms. 'Shonen's page after posting here. I'm still unclear as to the reason for his email abilities be restricted by Geni; hopefully that will be explained shortly. I'm also quite perplexed as to our remit as administrators in policing sites outside en.wp. As we have no power at even "commons", I don't see how it follows that we can dictate what happens at WO. Hopefully the dots will be connected soon in a fashion that I'm able to grasp (or "grok" if you prefer) — Ched :  ?  13:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. For the record, I see the block as inappropriate - for reasons Dennis outlined on Kiefer's page and removing email access is not necessary either - it should only be removed if the subject is abusing it. Worm^TT(talk) 13:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Copy of comment by KW

Please remind Geni that WTT and another posted concerns about WP:CHILDPROTECT at Sue Gardner's WMF talk page, and obviously WMF has a toothless child-protection policy, which shall be commented on by the community on- and off-Wiki. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• copied by — Ched :  ?  13:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Geni, no admin has the authority to act unilaterally in a case like this. This should be clear now. You could have brought it to WP:AN or WP:ARB, but just because you have the technical capability to do an action does not mean you have the community sanctioned authority to do so. In this case, you clearly overreached your authority, encroaching onto the authority that is reserved for either ArbCom or the community as a whole. Does the community want admin to patrol Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and other websites looking for reasons to block someone? The answer is a resounding no. The honorable thing to do would be to learn from and accept the community consensus here, undo your block and offer a sincere apology to the community for misusing the tools in this way. Allow us the opportunity to assume it was a one time mistake. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Regardless of the merits of who blocked what, where and when, I cannot believe that it is not obvious to everyone concerned that slapping a year block on Kiefer's page and directly linking to another site is not going to make him think "You know what, I see your point of view, I'll take a year's holiday from editing. Thanks for the heads up," and it was a certainty that it would lead to discussion on ANI, while giving "that other site" a massive amount of Streisand Effect-induced free publicity, and making their criticisms seem very justified. It's also a bit of a slap in the face to Drmies' rather difficult but brave unblock last week. Is that all something we really want? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Has this place really hit the point where some think it's ok to begin monitoring people's activities on other sites and then take administrative action based on that? Or is it selectively applied to "enemies of the state"? Foolish block. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment the general idea is that if there's some doubt regarding the intentions of an editor here on Wikipedida (i.e. are they really baiting another user, wiki-stalking, etc., or was it just poor word choice), then we can use off-wiki evidence to support one theory or the other. Otherwise we're better served leaving off-wiki well enough alone. Rklawton (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Even as an editor who voted for Kiefer to be blocked originally, and who was unconvinced by the unblock by Drmies, I still feel this is a very, very poor decision. If we're going to start having people blocked for a single off-wiki remark, where no outing, legal threat or any other kind of threat has occurred, then there are a hell of a lot of editors that need blocking. Kiefer should be unblocked fairly promptly, and Geni should be heavily trouted. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Astonishingly bad block, completely out of policy, and made worse by the insistence on blocking email for apparently no reason whatsoever - which if it is the case is also in violation of WP:BLOCK. Kiefer is not exactly short on giving admins excuses to block him, but I think it's probably if we, you know, stick to the actual blocking policy. And I'm trying not to think how much of a slippery slope blocking people for off-wiki activity would be ... Black Kite (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment (EC) So its okay to sanction people based on their comments at other websites but its not okay to actually listen to what they are saying... Well its an interesting way to go. Personally I think if you are going to sanction someone on Wikipedia, taking into account their activities off-wiki, then you should have a frank and open discussion about what they are saying/doing off-wiki.

Lets face it, no one really wants to do that given all the muck that is being raked up (correctly or incorrectly) at WPO, so the sensible course of ignoring off-wiki actions is the best all-round for everyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked

Per the very, very clear consensus here, I've unblocked. 28bytes (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Good unblock.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• (after edit conflicts). Note on the block log war: I don't think KW's e-mail should be blocked. I didn't mean in my block comment that Geni made a "mistake" in the sense of a mere misclick, but more that he did it without thinking. (Jimbo used to routinely block e-mail access in his blocks, until I called him on it. Those were mistakes but not misclicks.) I understand that it was reasonable for Geni to read it differently and thus not consciously wheel-war. But what do I know, I'm most likely an atheist or even a Democrat, anyway. Bishonen | talk 13:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC).

Support — Ched :  ?  13:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough.Geni (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Laurel Lodged: topic ban

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

---

Laurel Lodged has a history (years) of making mass changes to articles on issues to do Irish counties. Typically his/her changes involve making "corrections" to whole swathes of articles at a go changing references to "traditional" counties to "administrative" counties (e.g. County Tipperary to Tipperary North). Typically, these changes are controversial and without consensus (or under the pretence of some consensus).

The problem with Laurel Lodged making changes like these has been raised at WikiProject Ireland-related pages on many occasions. At this stage, Laurel Lodged knows that these changes are controversial and that the community does not appreciate his/her contributions of this kind. One of the last times this happend, I raised the question of a topic ban. There wasn't consensus then as to whether Laurel Lodged should be topic banned or forced to first seek consensus before making changes like these.

A new thread has been opened on WikiProject Ireland to do with a new set of mass changes Laurel Lodged's has made. I propose now that Laurel Lodged be topic banned from making changes to do with Irish counties and their names.

I've left a message on the WikiProject Ireland thread inviting comment here on whether Laurel Lodged should be topic banned. --RA (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. For some idea of the seriousness of the issue, see this AN/I thread, Request from uninvolved admin, from January this year. I might add that none of the other editors in that discussion have been involved in any disruptive mass editing since then, but Laurel Lodged still continues as before. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Scolaire 1. the quoted ANI case has nothing to do with the current case. The two are unrelated. This is about Counties of Ireland whereas the cited case concerned the Gaelic Athletic Association and their peculiar use of GAA county. 2. That case did not result in any censure for me or the other cited user - Brocach. So my account is still in good standing despite your attempt to impugn my reputation with the slur. 3. I have abided by the ruling in that case, even though I argued against at the time. 4. I defy you to find any edit of mine since that date that is in defiance of the decisions arrived at in that case. 5. No evidence of any misuse of wiki guidelines has been produced in support of the current case as presented (as opposed to the different case cited). 5.On any reading of our interactions over the years, which have usually been on opposite sides, it will become obvious to an uninvolved reader what may have been the true motivation for Scolaire's support in this case. There was a passing bandwagon and Scolaire gleefully jumped aboard. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Both cases involve you trying to substitute all county names with the administrative county name. How many times have you been involved in discussions that point out to you that the traditional name is the most commonly used name, and the one that currently enjoys consensus? The point *you* should have taken from previous discussions and ANI wasn't that you "weren't censured", but that the reasons you provided for switching to using the administrative county names haven't been accepted by the community, and although the previous ANI was focused on the context of GAA county names, it did not give you license to switch to a different usage context and carry on as before. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to HK In the cited ANI case, it was not about my inserting county names. It was about my inserting the letters GAA into (shock/horror) GAA articles. So the two are not comparable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support The strength of the previous case noted, plus the current case - added to the incredibly vindictive and attacking post above - all add together to say "topic ban as a minimum". Past behaviour always comes into play - especially if that behaviour has not demonstrably improved. To actually say what Laural said above in full view of administrators and the community really shows that they're not here to play nicely with others. As such, a 6 month topic ban and indefinite civility parole is supportable AND supported (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support I thought a Topic Ban has received support previously, and I support the current request for one. This editor is simply not learning that these edits have really no support or consensus. Given that these exact types of edits from this editor have been discussed on several occasions before (especially the whole "traditional" county vs "administrative" county) and didn't find support, the onus was on the editor to ensure that future edits were in line with existing norms. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support County names should be used sensible. Sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option, sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option. But the endless edit wars and disputes are tiresome and damaging to the encyclopaedia. So I support a) a six month topic ban for Laurel Lodged, b) a 2 month topic ban for everyone who starts edit warring about county names, and c) an investigation into ways of avoiding these conflict (i.e. rules when to use the name of an administrative county and when to use the name of the "classic" county) The Banner talk 12:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Banner I agree that edit warring is tiresome and damaging. I fail to see how topic banning me while leaving the other warring parties untouched is either just or sensible or in the best interests of Wiki. There are always at least two parties to a war. Why would you assume that my arguments are less worthy than the arguments of the other parties? Let them present their arguments and then come to judgement. Those arguments will probably revolve around WP:Common. My arguments revolve around Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use modern names. As HighKing commented in the WikiProjectIreland page, "There's a difference of opinion on what the "county" name is, as a location for towns especially in Tipperary.". That's very true - there is a difference of opinion and there is conflicting Wiki policy guidelines. In my opinion, I am perfectly entitled to rely on the "Use modern names" guideline. There is nothing, nothing to say that it is in any way inferior to "Common". To say otherwise is just a matter of opinion. In short, who's to say that the edit warring is not caused by those editors who obstinately stick to the "Common" policy while refusing to acknowledge the presence, let along validity of "Use modern names". Let he who is without sin in this edit war cast the first stone. Secondly, I also agree with Banner when he says "sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option.". That is to say, context is all important. To give an example, there are times when it is best to speak of Byzantium, other times when it's best to speak of Constantinople and still others when it's best to speak of Istanbul. To stick rigidly to Istanbul when speaking of Constantine the Great would be wrong, even though the 3 sites occupied the same ground at various times. Conversely, to say that the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge is located in Constantinople is also wrong. Yet this is precisely what many of the supporters here would have us do - to ascribe historical, defunct administrative names to current realities. Context is important; when dealing with modern realities, use modern names. This position in neither capricious, OR, disruptive or unsupported by wiki guidelines. I have every reason to believe that the opposite is true. That there is a claque of irredentist editors (excepting Banner) with a misty-eyed vision of a 32-county state who wish to pursue an "A Nation Once Again" agenda through wiki, is no reason for me to admit that facts are not facts. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Laurel Lodged - there's the flaw right there. You're pushing "I've got a policy on my side" while ignoring the general consensus and other policies. Also, name-calling won't get you very far no matter how frustrated you feel. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - North and South Tipp have been around a very long time and have never really caught on as a method of location. They are just local government areas. It's the same in the UK. There are plenty of boroughs and districts which are never used in addresses and, effectively, these instances are also addresses in the sense that their usage is intended to convey to the reader where a place is. Tipp on its own locates a place perfectly adequately. Thats the sensible option. Atlas-maker (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Atlas I'm afraid there are a number of holes in your argument. Firstly, this is not about post codes or addressing issues, it's about counties. As proof of this, see Dublin 4 which is a perfectly legitimate postal district but is not a county (though the denizens of that district might like it to be. But that's another story). You say that "They are just local government areas". This is incorrect - they are counties per the Local Government Act 2001. County Tipperary, by contrast is not listed in that Act as a county. While we may speculate about that omission (was it an accident of legal draftsmanship? Was it deliberate? Was it a sop to nostalgia?), such musings cannot find their way into Wiki. It is what it is. The use of the word "just" is also inappropriate as it implies that NT and ST somehow occupy a space and status that is less than County Tipperary(CT). It is as if CT fulfills some function other than demarcating areas of local government. It does not. If you know of some higher order functions that CT fulfills but which NT / ST do not fulfill, please let us know. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was about post codes. On the contrary I made clear it is about location. The reason we write that Dublin is in Ireland, or Clonmel is in Tipp, or Atlanta is in Georgia, is to assists users in 'locating' those places in their own minds as they read. Funnily enough, what most people use (and I guess there is a possibility that you don't do this, but most people do) is the various parts of an address. If you were posting a letter in Dublin to Clonmel, you wouldn't need to add 'Ireland' at the end of the address cos the chaps in An Phost would be quite capable of 'locating' Clonmel without it. Readers here c×an't be relied on to have the same knowledge as An Post workers, so we give them some help. We add some extra geo-location info to help. That this info is also shared by address databases is neither here nor there. It's just useful geo-location meta-information that we format and structure into readable prose. Atlas-maker (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thread was automatically archived by automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Unarchived to allow further input/action. --RA (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I previously withheld support for a similar topic ban in the hope that the editor would see that their position was not generally supported and even disruptive. My mistake. I particularly resent the accusation above that editors who disagree with LL are a claque (sic) of irredentist editors (excepting Banner) with a misty-eyed vision of a 32-county state who wish to pursue an "A Nation Once Again" agenda through wiki. False! This clearly shows their ideological motivation. Iwould have supported an indef. topic ban as I have seen not a scintilla of evidence, over an extended period, that the message is getting through. RashersTierney (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• The case for the defence Now that the Prosecution has had it's say and has rested, it's time for the defence arguments. (1) Just because I'm paranoid, that doesn't mean that they're not out to get me. A claque exists (yes Rashers, claque, not clique - look it up) and has been very united in its position over the years. While I have no evidence of organising or canvassing, they have been sufficiently effective so as to drown out or bully off any dissenting voices. But that does not mean that they are right. Don't be fooled by the pious posturing. (2) Apart from the anticipated ad hominem attacks, it's interesting that much of the debate has been about the merits of the "Common" versus the "Modern" argument. It's also clear that neither argument is so solid as to overwhelm the other. This is typical of what happens in a regular debate; what's unusual about it is that it should be taking place at ANI. From this observation, one may legitimately conclude that it would not be possible to have such a debate in any of the usual fora due to WP:ICANTHEARYOU from the claque and that my actions have a basis in policy, not vandalism. (3) It is usually the case that a user is nominated in ANI only for the most egregious behaviour such as we see with mobile IP attacks, sock puppets, rabid holocaust deniers etc. From the total absence of any such evidence, either from the nominators or from the other supporters, one has to wonder why it was brought to ANI at all. To my mind there is only one reason - to silence a voice that would not kowtow to the irredentist agenda. (4) Nowhere has it been demonstrated that any of the actions complained of are as a result of bad faith, vandalism or gross ineptitude. Rather, what we have is a difference of opinion between me any a vociferous cabal. I have every right to believe that all my edits on restoring the integrity of North Tipperary and South Tipperary are justified by the facts. While the cabal will not publicly admit to their belief that NT and ST are not counties, by their actions they demonstrate that this is the underlying motive. (5) In the absence of evidence of bad faith, vandalism or gross ineptitude, one is left with the relative merits of the actions undertaken (i.e. does "Common" trump "Modern"). In which case, ANI is not the appropriate forum. Another forum ought to arbitrate on this question of policy (as opposed to discipline). (6) The citation of the GAA case that was brought to ANI some months ago is irrelevant (see comments at top). Even if it is relevant, let it be noted that there is no evidence that I have violated any of the agreed points. This is because I have abided by all ANI decisions. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Note A contributor to this debate, Scolaire, has, against all etiquette, reverted an edit by another editor on this topic of NT / County Tipperary. See here. Had I done something similar, I'd have been hauled over the coals by him. Instead, he seems to think that my temporary, self-imposed suspension of NT/ST edits means that he can feel free to undo all references to NT. This should be condemned. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Consensus is as clear as can be. Can some Admin please action this or are we to wait for the 36 hr bot to archive again? RashersTierney (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think a topic ban is really all that necessarily. I feel like this is more personal than it is defending the wiki. Just an uninvolved parties comment. (FYI I don't think its wise to call consensus when there is still an active discussion and !vote going on) MaskedHero (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see how waiting for MiszaBot II to archive again is a measure of wisdom. RashersTierney (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As consensus is quite obvious (and Laurel's "defense" is well, indefensible), can we just get a confirmation of the exact wording to be used on this topic ban. This is clearly not a topic ban on Ireland articles, it's titles .. which will include article titles themselves AND anywhere in an article where an article title is referenced (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, the request is for a ban on edits relating to counties of Ireland i.e. a ban on editing any article on a county, changing the name of a county in any article, changing a link to a county in any article, or any edit that reflects a POV on Irish counties. Scolaire (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Rebuttal Consensus on what exactly? What exactly is it that I'm guilty of that warrants the penalty of a ban? The only clue is in the nominator's rationale. Let's parse that line by line. (A) "has a history (years) of making mass changes to articles on issues to do Irish counties.". Guilty as charged. Normally this would result in a round of applause, but not here. I assume that the nominator meant to attach some evidence that these changes were wrong and made in the knowledge that they were wrong. Unfortunately, he adduced no such evidence. (B) "Typically his/her changes involve making "corrections" to whole swathes of articles at a go changing references to "traditional" counties to "administrative" counties (e.g. County Tipperary to Tipperary North)". Guilty as charged. Normally this would result in a round of applause, but not here. I assume that the nominator meant to attach some evidence that these changes were wrong and made in the knowledge that they were wrong. Unfortunately, he adduced no such evidence. (C) "Typically, these changes are controversial and without consensus (or under the pretence of some consensus)." This is true. I have had a lot of opposition from a group that likes to hide it's true motives behind a veneer of wiki policy - when they can be bothered justifying the reversions at all that is. But again, just because they are controversial does not mean that they were wrong. I have (different) wiki policies on my side to justify the actions undertaken. (D) er.. that's it. So then, no evidence to support two charges, if indeed they are punishable things at all, and nothing more than "controversy" in the third, caused by the nominator himself in many cases. Not the strongest ANI case that I've ever seen. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2013 (UT)

Comment Dear LL, Will you please clarify why you believe a claque exists? Especially as by your own admission you have no evidence! Can you clarify which editors you are accusing of membership of this secret subversive group? In addition, can you elaborate as why you believe they are "out to get me".Moreover, can you please state what you believe to be the "true motives" of this group? Finnegas (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Just for Finnegas All together now...] Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately LL, a video of a children's cartoon aptly conveys your frequently, rather infantile and immature behaviour.

• Support topic ban for all Irish and GAA topics anywhere the word county exists. Consider extending to England to protect Yorkshire and the like. Finnegas (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Surely this is an issue which will solve itself? In June 2014, North and South Tipperary county councils (and counties) are to be abolished and replaced with a single county council (and county). Say what you like about LL, but they are a stickler for the law of the land, and when the law says North and South Tipperary have been abolished, I'm sure they will edit Wikipedia accordingly. Snappy (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Snappy If/when the county councils for NT and ST are merged and the counties are abolished, bearing in mind that the two might not happen simultaneously, then I would be happy to edit accordingly. As Snappy observes, I'm a stickler for the law of the land, which is why I edit for NT and ST as I do - it's the law of the land. However, that will not solve the Fingal and South Dublin issue as there are no proposals to re-animate the rotting carcass of County Dublin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

@Snappy, the up-coming change may mean that the problem with LL RE: County Tipperary may resolve itself. The issue with regard to County Dublin and Fingal, South Dublin and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown won't. And (without wanting to provide WP:BEANS), LL may then go on a crusade against Limerick city. So, no, I don't see this as a problem that will go away. --RA (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: the user may or may not deserve a topic ban, but the proposal offers no evidence besides a vague wave to "controversial changes" that the user makes. No diffs are provided. Proposer readily admits to canvassing a WikiProject. Without diffs, it is near impossible for an uninvolved user to knowledgeably comment on the accused behavior without going through the user entire contribution history. No one should come under editing restrictions in this manner. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  With regard to posting a notification of this thread to WikiProject Ireland, please see Wikipedia:Canvassing for examples of appropriate notifications.

  With regard to providing diffs, the issue is not individual changes but rather mass changes. So, unfortunately, you will need to look at the editor's contribution history. However, the more significant point is the community's patience breaking with regard to this editor (after several years). Hence, links to previous community discussions of his/her behaviour is more informative. --RA (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed wording

In reply to Bwilkins, here's a proposed wording for the topic ban:

Laurel Lodged is placed under an editing restriction from adding, removing or altering the names or significance of Irish counties (broadly construed). This restriction applies to all namespaces but does not prevent Laurel Lodged from participating in or initiating talk-page discussions with respect to the names or significance of Irish counties. The restriction will be recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and may be removed by any administrator at Laurel Lodged's request after a period of 6 months.

--RA (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I've asked this thread be closed at the administrators noticeboard. --RA (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment about broadly construed

I do not agree with the language broadly construed. This language has been used in other restrictions and ends up turning into a means for abuse because its too open to interpretation. The sanction needs be defined and if need be can be revisited later. We shouldn't be using weak language like broadly construed, whenever you feel like it or on the admins whim. They all mean the same thing. If the intent is that the user be restricted from editing adding, removing or altering the names or significance of Irish counties then let that be it. Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

To my mind, "broadly construed" is a way to ward off gaming. In the past, Laurel Lodged has sworn innocence by making distinction between "GAA counties", "administrative counties", "traditional counties", for example. It is what is mean by "Irish counties" that I mean to be "broadly construed".

But, I'm happy to delete it (and I've struck it now). --RA (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess that it means that discussions like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Overarching category structure and the GAA can go on. With the addition of "broadly construed" it is blocked off in my opinion. The Banner talk 18:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussions are explicitly exempted from the proposed wording. So while LL couldn't go and make changes in the area, he/she certainly could raise discussion on it and get consensus that way.

If the closing admin determines there is consensus for a restriction then, he/she can determine if "broadly construed" should be in or out. I'd be happy to have the restriction in place and if trouble continues then "broadly construed" can be added later. --RA (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Closure requested

Can we close this thread? It's been open for nearly two weeks and hasn't attracted further comments to the main body in a few days. --RA (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Tabarez = Tabarez2

Hi everyone. I think it is obvious that User:Tabarez (banned indefinitely on 11 June 2013 for copyright violations) returned with User:Tabarez2 as his sockpuppet. It just takes to look at their names and contributions to see they are the same person (WP:DUCK). It really looks like WP:SOCK to me, so I guess an admin should look at this case. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I explained fully this with admin that blocked me. Please leave it in his opinion. Tabarez2 (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To my mind, very obvious - but possibly mistaken in intent (WP:AGF). Blocked and warned. Peridon (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no doubt about it being a sock of Tabarez, he even admits it here. Thomas.W (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've posted at the Tabarez blocking admin's page too. I've pointed out to Tabarez2 that a block on one account applies across the board, and feel there has been a misunderstanding on their part of how we work. Peridon (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

He returned again, this time as 2.178.181.147. Again, same contributions as Tabarez and Tabarez2. --Sundostund (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thereby moving his actions from the category "possibly good faith" to the category "bad faith". Creating socks even though he now knows that the indef block applies to him as a person, and not to a specific user account. Thomas.W (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Now it seems that he plans to start an edit war on List of Presidents of Iran. Of course, I have no plan to follow him in that. I guess he wants to add edit warring to his breaches of Wiki rules (copyright violations, sock puppetry and block evasion). --Sundostund (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked 48 h for block evasion by User:Future Perfect. Thomas.W (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

He's back again, now as 2.178.181.45. --Sundostund (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

He's now 2.178.185.87, this really becomes pathetic. --Sundostund (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

He's now Namejavid, same contributions as before. --Sundostund (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked by FuturePerfect. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That guy is really stubborn. I've caught him on five different IPs by now, plus this sock account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think an RFCU should help, considering he's evading this block now. I'll open one now. Dusti^*poke* 19:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tabarez Dusti^*poke* 20:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, some additional information is needed to kick off that SPI. --Sundostund (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

They declined that SPI request. I don't understand why, its so obvious this is a sockpuppet case... Maybe a new SPI request should be open. --Sundostund (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I appealed the decision, but whomever that dick of an clerk is apparently disagrees with logic. Maybe an admin can open a SPI request? Dusti^*poke* 06:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Enough with the personal attacks. The clerk didn't reject your case, he just said that it was so obvious that admins could handle it without checkuser assistance. Admins have blocked everybody in sight now, so there's nothing to complain about.—Kww(talk) 06:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no personal attack there KWW. I'm voicing my opinion on the clerk who denied the case. The CU is actually needed to get those "out of sight" as well, and to help with a potential range block to ensure that those who need to be blocked, stay blocked. That's just my $0.02. S/he has figured out IP's get blocked, the obvious sock got blocked, and now there's a new username. That's where a CU is called into play - apparently I didn't format a "request" well enough to "document the case" - so WP:DUCK doesn't quite work with CU SPI requests. Dusti^*poke* 06:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Referring to the clerk as a "dick" isn't a personal attack? And Rschen is actually an admin, if you had bothered to check. Obvious DUCK cases do not usually require a CU, all admins are able to do rangeblocks but only a few are confident enough with that tool to do it. Tabarez isn't sophisticated enough to do more than just randomly create accounts and use IPs. To an admin well versed in rangeblocking, how severe would the collateral damage be to apply a rangeblock to these IPs? Blackmane (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I already rangeblocked them and that seems to have stopped them for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. "Dick" may have been poor descriptor to choose, and I struck it. Dusti^*poke* 14:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review trainwrecked by overzealous "peerreviewers" and Mos enforcers

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

---

The GA review of Phineas Gage has turned into a train wreck. The article was written by a subject matter expert in a somewhat personal style. Some of our fine reviewers (User:Eric Corbett and user:John) turned up and started to enforce the MOS in an overtly antagonistic manner with no respect for either the main contributor's style choices. Eric has no reverted twice to instate his preferred italization of et al. no less. Mos compliance is not among the GA criteria and antagonizing the main editor and the reviewer certainly isn't either.Could some admin tell them to go harass some other poor content contributor so that we can get on eth the GA review.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation: your fishing expedition at WT:GAN didn't find anyone to take your bait and ban every person who dared to disagree with you, so you thought you might find a better reception forum-shopping here. – iridescent 22:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually didn't go back and see the responses there. And it was several days ago after which the situation has escalated. Thanks for your good faith.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this. I didn't just "turn up", I was invited by the article's main contributor to comment on some of the issues that Maunus had raised during the review. And I find it quite incredible that any editor would object to their article being MoS-compliant. I think this report is despicable. Eric Corbett 22:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You were invited by the main contributor whom you then antagonized and editwarred with. Despicable? I don't know. Bad manners? Definitely.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you folks really having an edit war over whether or not to italicize "et al"? Facepalm Gamaliel (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unarchived. This is not about italics it is about an established editor going 4RR to enforce his MOS preference during a GA review. That is disruptive. He then goes on to say that "he knows it is not the Wikipedia way, but then I have never been a wikipedian". GA reviews are not FA reviews. GA reviews are supposed to be collegial and collaborative and not an arduous torment of the poor person whose article was nominated. IF we are going to want a Wikipedia with content creators we cannot allow GA to degrade into the ridiculous torture that is FAC.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait...What? Are you saying that FA reviews are supposed to be an arduous torment of the poor person whose article was nominated? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Alas many things related to MOS "enforcement" quickly become highly adversarial. I don't know what can be done about it. Does MOS say "et al." needs to be in italics? (MOS doesn't contain the exact phrase "et al." as of right now.) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • No it does not it says that as a rule of thumb words appearing in Merriam Webster Online should not be italicized. Some styleguide require italiczation of 'et al.' others don't. This is not a clearcut or important issue. If I were the main contributor I would not have reverted when Eric removed the italics, but I really think it is unreasonable to make an "I am right you are wrong" contest out of this on an article that one has not contributed substantially to at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Then report the 3RR violation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Why bring it here? Gamaliel (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• What Maunus has signally failed to explain is that the minor MoS compliance issues were not part of the GA review, and MoS compliance is not one of the GA criteria in any case. So the only people who made a train-wreck out of the review are him and the nominator. Eric Corbett 23:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I really don't want to have to protect an article and stop a GA due to italicizing a single phrase. This really isn't an admin issue, it is a GA editorial issue. I strongly recommend NO ONE revert back until a discussion is had on the talk page. This isn't rocket science, and it doesn't change the article in a way that the reader will even give a damn about. Go to the talk page and please don't make us play "admin" on this. You guys are really way too experienced to need an admin to jump in here. Otherwise, I will full protect the article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have already failed the article since Eric stated on his talk page that he would take it to GAR immediately if it were passed. I took that as a threat of retaliation if his preferences weren't accommodated.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, that seems to be a very unfair comment. It would seem that he and John both felt that change was for MoS compliance, not personal preferences. And I would hope you wouldn't fail an article you thought passes based on the comment of someone else. It would seem the most logical conclusion would be to leave out the italics (right or wrong, they provided a LOT of material to prove that point) and pass it. Failing it just to keep something italicized seems rather pointy and unfair, and that is what this boils down to. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't give a fuck about the italics and neither do the GA criteria. John has been poisoning the review with antagonist claims of ownership whenever the article writer argued against the arbitrary changes of his editing choices. Eric has said that he will take it directly to GAR if it is passed. I am not going to deal with that kind of battle ground mentality. GA reviews should be collegial and collaborative. This is no longer possible here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't like Eric saying he would go to GAR or his reverting (although he appears to be right on the content portion), yet at the same time he was defending the article being GA ready saying that a few people cleaning up the prose shouldn't stop the GA. In the "Captions style" section of the talk page, he and John were giving advice that was clearly backed by policy and you were hostile and resorted to ad hominem. "You would do Wikipedia a favor by finding somewhere else to show off your grand editorship and knowledge of what is right and wrong so that we can get on with reviewing this article in a collegial fashion. You think you can do that?" Come on now, both sides are shoving here. You don't need to come tattle to ANI when you are at least as aggressive in your wording than John and Eric. None of this is admin action worthy. Go hammer it out on the talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No, he is basically saying that he has the right to interrupt any ongoing review and make the final decision of whether an article passes or not. The GA criteria are not bright line criteria but open to different interpretations and different temperaments and tastes. The entire GA process is at risk if this kind of behavior is endorsed. WHo is going to want to review GAs if Eric can come by anytime and say you are both idiots and you have to follow my rules or i'll immediately take the article to GAR and waste your time and make you feel little and unimportant. He is basically appointing himself the new de-facto GA delegate. How the hell does that help us build a collaborative encyclopedia with a collegial editing environment? And as for the "aggressive" quote of mine you apparently didn't read the comment that it was a response to which it was mimicking - I was responding IN KIND. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you continue with these lies? I was invited to the review, and I made no decision about whether the article should pass or not, that would be you. I merely expressed an opinion. Eric Corbett 00:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. Just an hour before posting this denial, you posted on your own Talk: "I don't really know what it is, but if the article is listed in its current state I'll likely be taking it to GAR." [58] I won't call you a liar, but let's just say you're being disingenuous. EEng (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Also at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Eric_Corbett_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29, because I'm tired of Malleus' Olympian posturing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • And I've recommended closing it there because it is already open here. Andy, I hate having multiple venues open on the same problem. Eric has already said he will not revert again, it would be irresponsible to block him. Admin are not (supposed to be) revert counting robots, otherwise you could replace us with a bot. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have a 3rr (the only bright line) if some editors can apparently revert four times without anyone getting on their case?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Eric already said he wouldn't revert again. To block now would be abusive. I'm not as impressed with "bright lines" as others, and prefer using judgement. For instance, I seldom block, and more often I will full protect. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

well he doesn't really have any reason to revert when his version is standing and you have threatened with protecting the page if anyone reverts. That is an easy promise to make.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

He said that before I talked about protecting. Maybe I'm wrong then, maybe you guys can't act like a bunch of adults, but none of this seems large enough that it requires an admin. I give up. Between the obvious intent of some to get Eric blocked for any reason, and Eric's inability to resist calling someone an idiot, you all are making your own problems worse and causing your own drama. Maybe you all do need a nanny, I don't know, but I'm not a nanny. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get Eric blocked - I also don't care about him calling me an idiot (not just because I have in fact acted like one, as has he, but because it doesn't matter). I want someone to tell him that it is not OK to take over a GA and threaten with GAR if the reviewer doesn't follow one's style recommendations. I want someone to tell him that content contributors are a valuable resource that should be appreciated and interacted with in a respectful and collegial way. And I want someone to tell him that a peer review doesn't have to be a game about who knows more of the irrelevant details in the MOS - especially not at the GA level. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you continue to misrepresent the situation? It was you who constructed this mountain out of a mole hill, not me. Eric Corbett 01:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Much the same as, "I think you're a dishonest idiot. Now fuck off.". Malleus has a free pass to do whatever he likes. Policy only applies to the little people, not to him. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If I had a free pass to do whatever I liked then how do you explain my block log? If I really could do whatever I liked then Wikipedia would be a much better place than the shit hole it is now. Eric Corbett 00:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You mean after Maunus called him a "flaming asshole"? It does seem that some editors are free to be goaded and insulted without any form of comeback. Maybe we should advertise this more widely: “If you ever feel like letting off steam, just go and insult Eric at his talkpage. No one will do anything about. More likely is that he will end up being reported. Bonus.” Polequant (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Eric has well like 500 GANs to his credit...maybe try and see if you can simply look at his suggestions and sleep on it...it takes two to tango.--MONGO 01:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If he had made any suggestions I am sure no one would have objected, and they would probably even have followed them. He didn't - he made demands and threatened to take the article to GAr if they weren't followed. When the main article author disagreed with one of his MOS changes he reverted four times and told him that hhe was "wrong" - which he wasn't. Its great and fine that he is a prolific reviewer - and I'd be happy to consider his advice and suggestions, but few adults appreciate being taken to school by a selfrighteous schoolmaster when they are themselves volunteering their time and efforts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks MONGO. The irony is that I fixed some of the prose problems Maunus was complaining about in his review, for no thanks whatsoever, and would have been quite happy to help with the rest of the article, but not now. Eric Corbett 01:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The double irony is that I didn't complain at all, and much less ask for anyone but the nominator to come along and "fix" it. I made suggestions, for improvement, not commands or ultimatums. And if you expect thanks and a cupcake for a few measly gnome edits then how do you think the guy who actually wrote and researched the article feels about you and John's dismissive attitude. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"The guy" comments: I knew that my very unusual style (which, BTW, has been praised by two sitting Supreme Court justices; one assistant editor each from The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and Harpers; one Harvard English Department chairman; and several very kind Wikipedia editors [59] -- thus I don't feel the need to be defensive) would attract scrutiny someday, so when another editor nominated for GA I invited comment from everyone who had made at least X edits or had posted Talk in the last Y years, to get it over with. I did realize that included M.F., and I was pretty sure what we were in for. He doesn't stress me personally but I think it's a shame what he does to others. EEng (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What I think is that it's time you took a break, to clear your head. Eric Corbett 02:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So if I went ahead and blocked for 3RR violations and personal attacks, is someone going to claim that Eric has a free pass for that behaviour again? This is a classic example of how good content contribution is completely irrelevant when one is considering bad behaviour.—Kww(talk) 02:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I'll say something nice for you at your funeral. --Jayron32 03:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So you oppose in principle, or just recognize the inevitable futility?—Kww(talk) 03:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, MOS does specify

EEng rises from his comfortable desk in Widener 2E and, rubbing his eyes as he emerges from the quiet solitude of the library, is astounded to find the streets occupied by angry mobs battling one another. Civil defense vehicles are firing water cannon in an attempt to disperse the crowd, much the way one might turn the hose on fighting dogs.

I guess I'm the aforementioned subject matter expert with the somewhat personal style. I didn't know all this was going on.

I've already pointed out twice [60][61] -- before all this argument even started -- that MOS specifically lists et al. as taking italics. (And no, I'm not going to apologize for coining the moniker "Malevolent Fatuous".)

EEng (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Different parts of the MOS are mutually contradictory about this, and discussions have failed to resolve the discrepancy. We should work on that, not take it to articles to fight about. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can see there are some vague rules of thumb ("not italics if it's an accepted standard part of English", or whatever) versus a very clear direction that et al., specifically, should be in italics. But that's not the point here. It's the strident, superior, arrogant, denigrating, fuck-you attitude from Malevolent Fatuous who is, indeed, a smart person and a valuable editor, but not so smart and so valuable that it makes up for everyone having to put up with his public urination, defecating in the flower pots, and writing of obscenities on the walls. EEng (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

The 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 would like to request that User:Eric Corbett be topic banned from the article Phineas Gage (or at least from participation in any future reviews of it) so that he cannot sour the review after it is nominated, or use it to carry out petty revenge on the main content writer with whom he is now in a personal dispute. He has stated that he will take it to GAR if it is passed and that he has absolutely no intention of staying out of the review that he played a significant role in turning into a failure. Such statements does not suggest that he is able to approach the article neutrally or dispassionately.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• That is not what he said here. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No, this is what he said here:"if the article is listed in its current state I'll likely be taking it to GAR"[62] . User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note "in its current state". That is fair enough: there is another review going on and most likely the state will change. Eric does usually know what he is talking about and he usually selects his words carefully - oddly enough, these are reasons why he is a bloody good reviewer. In any event, if i goes to GAR then what is the big deal? GAR is where these things can get hashed out if people consider something to be unacceptable. It is part of the process and not necessarily disruptive. You are pre-empting, I think. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

He clearly did that as a threat to get his way with a formatting issue. I guess I can look forward to my GAs being taken to GAR shortly then. I doubt it will be hard for Eric to make up reasons for delisting them - or any other article that he hasn't personally reviewed and passed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why let the truth get in the way of a good story? Eric Corbett 14:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Absolutely no need for this; the very small issues involved should be worked out by standard talk page discussion. Eric not only has a right to appeal an article to GAR if he doesn't think it meets the criteria, he's correct to do so. Fresh, uninvolved editors could take a look there and hopefully break the talk page deadlock. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So we encourage revenge reviews now?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding your tone increasingly offensive. Do you have any evidence that I've ever, or ever would, conduct a "revenge review"? Eric Corbett 14:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

In the past twenty hours I have encountered a lot of evidence that you are a petty and vengeful individual yes. I care little if you find my tone offensive, just as you clearly care very little about causing offense to others.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to read a little more deeply then, and refresh your understanding of WP:NPA. Eric Corbett 14:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a distinct pleasure to have the honor of being lectured in NPA and civility by Malleus Fatuorum. That is something I can tell my grandchildren about. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you must be confusing me with Malevolent Fatuous. Eric Corbett 14:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a distinct possibility.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit warring at Jamshedpur

IP editor User:182.74.7.154 repeatedly changing major languages in the infobox to remove Bengali without explanation. This is inconsistent with the article text and the user has not responded to requests on their talk page to stop or justify the change. Warned multiple times and still no change in behaviour.

Diff of last change [63] noq (talk)

• Hi. I fully appreciate this can be frustrating as hell, and you've tried reaching out to the IP to get them to discuss on the talk page in your edit summaries, but even so, you shouldn't keep reverting, as you can be called out for edit-warring yourself. I'd recommend starting your own discussion at Talk:Jamshedpur yourself, explaining your concerns, as a first step. Also, you say that the infobox matches what's in the article, but the paragraph stating "The major conversational languages are Bengali, Hindi and English" isn't cited to a source. I realise from your point of view this is probably akin to stating the sky is blue or the Pope is Catholic, but if you can provide a source, it's a great way to make consensus go in your direction. Hope that helps. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  Here's a link for the state that it's in - http://www.mapsofindia.com/jharkhand/language.html (I found it used in the Jharkhand article) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:KhabarNegar

I believe that User:KhabarNegar lacks the social skills and competence to contribute.

He was taken to WP:DRN from his behavior on Sanctions Against Iran, the result is here. They refused/recommended WP:RFC/U or WP:ANB/I. He was taken here before but it feel through the cracks (result here).

Every edit he disagrees with is harassment, trolling, vandalism. He does not participate coherently in the talk page. He is incapable of understanding basic concepts like the difference between an opinion piece and a news article (eg here). He introduces copyvio's into articles. He's got so far as to edit war over over archival, apparently not understanding what it actually does (edit war and confusion). I took specific opinion-piece-supported passages to a RfC and he obliged but continues edit warring over similar usages of one of the articles which is also a copyvio (article history). He ignored the discussion in the talk page unless his version of the article is not the current version (eg here).

Currently, there's an opinion piece being used to support facts, rather than opinions (WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion demands an inline qualifier). Furthermore, the supported text is taken directly from the article without quotes in violation of WP:COPYVIO. I don't think he actually understands any of these concepts, due to a language barrier. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that User:KhabarNegar lacks the social skills and competence to contribute.--Isaacsirup (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that Khabar's edits are problematic. First, they are edit warring. Second, their version has three copyright violations, two in the lead, and one in the body. Third, their edits are non-neutral as they are supported by opinion pieces (mainly one). I don't think their language skills are the problem. They may not be perfectly fluent in English, but their communication skills appear more than adequate. At best, they have some fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Another editor's viewpoint: User:KhabarNegar has been frustrating to work with because he doesn't seem to understand policies and takes offense easily. Just one example below; too tired to look up a few more:

• June 7 at Right-Libertarianism using very poor sources he attempted to define the term as an actual philosophy, against the existing sources which support the consensus on the talk page.
• June 7th I reverted this writing in relevant portion: "can't used self-published webpages and little known groups as refs"
• His response was to revert to his material and put "citation needed" next to every one of his sentences.
• At this June 8 diff left an edit warring notice on his talk page
• Complaint on my talk page about edit warring notice: "When I see your harassment on my talk page, based on nothing just a harassment attack I couldn't believe what I seen there. Never try to put your view on anyone using force even if you think you will make him frightened. It is just not good, & I think it is not just you. I really cannot believe your harassment there based on nothing when actually you were not true, where actually I talked to you on Talk page of the article."

At the very least he needs some strong mentoring. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As one of those who has been patiently trying to explain to this user for many months why his behavior on Sanctions against Iran is inappropriate, I am glad to see some serious discussion. Mentoring hardly seems sufficient. He has had his chance. Even though he sometimes makes valid edits, he often makes problematic ones and then will not permit any corrections to his edits, even with a clear consensus against him. As a result, any article he edits loses credibility. I don't know what the appropriate sanction is for this behavior, but something needs to be done to correct the damage he has done and prevent further damage. NPguy (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

User Comment

Thank you guys, First of all The stories you have given are not true stories... I will come here in next few hours, meanwhile kindly please gather anything else you may think is useful because I will comment just once, so please don't make anything remain. Specially Users:TippyGoomba & User:Isaacsirup you better have explanation for some edits by you. So, I will be here in few hours(right now I'm busy) please gather everything you think may can be useful. Regards, KhabarNegar ^Talk 06:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If that's the beginning of your statement, and is a precursor to seeing your overall attitude, this will not be going well for you in the near future ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

KhabarNegar, please remember that contributors to this page are not paid staffers, but unpaid volunteers, many of whom lead busy lives as well. Each will contribute when they can. There is no deadline, so this doesn't have to be resolved today. While I haven't been here forever, I've been following this thread for quite some time, and do not recall anyone whenever requesting that all other parties should respond quickly so that a single response will be sufficient. I'm quite sure that no such request has been granted. If you would like to propose a change in policy, we can show you where to make such a request, but I urge you not to waste your time, as I am quite sure the community will not find such a request reasonable.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Above there are lots of words mostly wrong stories and lies, and only 11links provided which are about 5 different interesting issues:

1- [64]

2- [65]

3- [66]

4- [67]

5- [68]

6- [69]

7- [70]

8- [71]

9- [72]

10- [73]

11- [74]

1- According links (1&2&3&7&8) User:CarolMooreDC should be warned not to give fake wrong warning to other user and should be mentioned about WP:Ownership.

2- According link (4) I should give one explanation and some links, although it doesn't against about violation of a Wikipedia rule.

3- According links (5,9) User:TippyGoomba acted against WP:3RR, and done WP:Trolling. Its easy to prove that and you will read it below...

4- According link (6) you will see its actually again removing sourced parts of the article ignoring Talk page of article & again WP:Trolling, all details provided below.

5- According links (10,11) you see personal attacks and trying WP:harassment, which is continued till now by making this section here.

OK, now details and the real story with more links:

Case 1:

The lead section of Right-libertarianism have no source so editors come and add anything they thing is true to the lead [75] .

And this continues [76],

I was watching that [77], and so I decided to make the lead section sourced so to stop this [78] . User:Carolmooredc revert me, and made the lead without sourced again [79] the reason she gave was that the sources are not Reliable! my reason was at least they are better than no source original research so why you revert me? Then she gave an alert of edit waring in to my talk page also actually she was the one which revert me twice, plus in talk page of the article I was discussing and they are users who tell she is wrong. This is the warning she gave me[80] just because of editing on the article, she had told I will be blocked? The question is why? and isn't it an attack?! When there is actually no edit waring giving warning for what? telling you are going to be blocked?

You may check Talk Page of the article for more information. It is so useful, I strongly recommend checking the talk page of the so called article.

Case2:

Case tow is the only case which is actually not a lie. I'm talking about these edit[81].

And now the reason of this edit:

Here in this edit User:NickCT joined User:RightCowLeftCoast & User:TippyGoomba in remove of a part of the article. In this RfC [82]. As you see the reason he gave is "Remove' - Poorly referenced. Clearly a matter of opinion and Wikipedia is not opinion."

He is talking about this [83],

By the way when I explain to him that [84] & [85], because it was obvious he didn't even see the sources, as you see.

Then instead of changing his vote, he changed the words[86].

So then I said this at last [87],

and he told this[88], that is the main whole story.

Case3:

About this[89] User:TippyGoomba Forcing to archive the Talk page of the article and the reason I am disagree with that now.

User:TippyGoomba starts this RfC[90],

although we have talked about anything before in the same page above.

When I joined the RfC User:TippyGoomba said:"I'm glad you've finally joined the discussion."! [91]

Then I said!:

""I'm glad you've finally joined the discussion.", Nice joke, Thank you. But don't forget all people are able to read and understand this.... "[92]

Then suddenly he decided to archive the talk page! [93]

...

Once again read above if anyone don't get the point...

...

[94] No Comment...

Then he went to Village pump on about this Talk page & the answer he got is interesting: [95]

But he continued putting archive bot on page...! again. [96] & plus again & again...

I said: "They are necessary PLEASE DON'T DELETE THEM AGAIN. STOP IT."[97]

and this continued by him again & again & again...

I said:"Its says It is helpful to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, there is no rule. Its helpful, There is active dispute in this article do not archive previous discussions." There was active discussions and RfC in the Talk page[98]

No Use:[99]

I got tired...

and its done[100], talk page is archived...

and this is the only link he is giving to you [101] :))

He this time make it 60d [102] Archive bot...

Case 4:

About this removing by him [103],

I asked[104] him to say which part have problem and he wants to remove first in Talk page, so we can see if he is right...

But no use he didn't answer and continue removing parts of article, [105]

and this removing continued: [106]

Case 5:

I want an admin take action I'm tired of these attacks and harassment, here User:NPguy [107], Then he copy pasted the same thing in WP:ANI! I was unaware of this![108], [109]

Thanks, if anything else is there please bring it here. Regards, KhabarNegar ^Talk 18:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. WP: TLDR is another issue added to the list. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 18:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Friendly bump :). TippyGoomba (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Still hoping someone can have a look at this. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Holy cow, I would rather slam my head repeatedly in a car door than read all this mess, but I'm reading all this mess. I don't have the full story yet, but it doesn't look good for KhabarNegar so far. I see a serious clue deficiency, warring over archiving using arguments like "don't worry about performance" (we don't worry about server performance, we DO worry about people trying to read using a smart phone or tablet, or who don't want to read a million lines of text on any computer...). Still reading, but wanted to say I'm looking at it, and encourage any other input here as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have read virtually everything here, trying to understand the context of the entire sequence of events to the best of my ability. I absolutely hate these types of conundrums. The short version is that KhabarNegar's enthusiasm exceeds his clue to the degree that it is causing disruption for a number of people. While he may have some good intentions mixed in there, his methods are fatally flawed. Edit warring, copyvios, misunderstanding policy to an extreme degree, not understanding what is and isn't a reliable source. I don't want to claim incompetence, but it is an inability to cooperate in a collaborative environment and abject misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. I think his language skills are adequate to communicate, even if not perfect, but there is a serious listening problem. There are only two possible scenarios here and both require mentoring, learning the policies on sources and copyright as well as pledging to cooperate in a way that does violate the spirit of WP:TE. The only real question is whether or not a block is needed. At this point, the disruption and intensity is such that I can't help but to think an indef block is the only way to immediately stop the disruption while he works on the other issues. This shouldn't be seen as an infinite block, but it should stay in place long enough that the editor is able to gain some clue on what the community expects from every editor, themselves included. Unfortunately, I feel like I don't have a choice here. I have implemented this block and would ask that volunteers work with him to get him up to speed on the expectations around here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER- I 16:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE - I'd like to point out that KhabarNegar has been helpful to WP:MEDICINE in the past with some translation efforts. Is a full indef really necessary? KhabarNegar has posted an unblock request at User Talk:KhabarNegar and there's some talk about agreement to avoid problematic areas, could an uninvolved admin please check that out? Thanks... Zad68 19:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Should this maybe get a RevDel?

It's been reverted - ClueBot got it - but I thought I should bring this here to see if any admins thought it should be stricken from the record, so to speak. It is a BLP, after all. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No objection. It looks like we get similar garbage from that IP every time it edits, and over a period of some months. Any thoughts on a block? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Requests of this type can be sent directly to oversight using the instructions at the top of this page. I have rev-del'ed the revision and sent a request for oversight. The IP is assigned to West Alabama University, and is now templated as such. The level of disruption does not yet warrant a block imo. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info re: oversight - I'll remember that for next time. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dawn. We do want to oversight the majority of diffs of this type, so contacting them directly saves a step and avoids posting the potentially libellous diff on this board. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:IP98

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.

---

IP98 (talk · contribs) has decided to unleash a flurry of attacks against The Rambling Man (talk · contribs). Their userpage was what alerted me to this; it's mostly dedicated to attacking TRM.[110] This is not a new occurence, even on their userpage: see the content added here, and the edit summaries.[111] I queried what was going on with their userpage - perhaps the wording was imperfect, but I was just calling it as I saw it,[112] and, well, the discussion is frankly ludicrous (they were editing whilst logged out, but it's clearly them.)[113] It appears this user is WP:NOTHERE for the encyclopedia, and is here just to attack The Rambling Man - I can see talk page comments from February that were incredibly hostile as well. In addition to this, there is at least one page in userspace that this user has written as attacks on TRM - I can't see them as they've been deleted, but the one I know of was located here: [114]. So, what should be done about this user? A block, or a final warning, or an interaction ban? It's ironic for them to publicly state "I do not engage in sarcasm and name calling", only to then make the edit summary remarks "two faced conflictinator" and "bully". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I reset my password to a random string, and have no recovery. I do not intend to return. It makes me so sad that I've been a victim of this guy for so long, have presented evidence to the same, and am now facing a block. If you could reach out to User:Medeis and User:ThaddeusB, maybe they have something to add. I'm done. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I mean, seriously, restore the second to last version of his sandbox, find the comment from my edit history, and his edit comment "typically stupid". Typically stupid. And I'm the bad guy. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And one last thing actually. A year and a half I'm here, reading articles nominated at ITN, offering feedback. TRM comes out of no where and relentlessly attacks me, and you honestly suggest that I'm only here to attack TRM. Really? Come on. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Am I claiming TRM is innocent? No. I can see one talkpage thread on your talk where TRM had a disagreement with you, and ever since, you've been incredibly incivil. TRM has not dedicated the majority of pages to attacking you, so you've gone above and beyond anything they've done. And your comments in the latest discussion were utterly out of line. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• He's been incredibly incivil to me for a very long time. I'm so sick of it. The walls of text, the sarcastic quips, the manufactured conflict. Look at the WT:ITNR discussion on the Heineken Cup. Am I out of line? Sure. But this has been a long, long time building. I have no way to recover this account, block me if you want. He won. I just don't enjoy WP anymore. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment IP98 and I have disagreed on a number of issues, (and yet even only a few days ago agreed on some, bizarre), but I would be happy to never engage with this user ever again and would abide by any kind of interaction ban. On the flipside, I've never resorted to calling IP98 a "gobshite", or telling him/her to "go to hell" or accused him/her of being "the worst piece of garbage" or suggesting "You fuck off" or "You're horrible, truly horrible. God, may he damn you to hell". IP98 has a host of diffs about me which he/her claims as a catalogue of my misdemeanours, I'd prefer it all to be opened up here and resolved, once and for all. I've got zero energy for a fight here, so much more to do in real life and here, so this will be my only post. Please decide amongst you the way forward, examine the "evidence" and let me know the outcome. Many thanks to all concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Typically stupid" TRM, those were your words, when pasting a direct quote from my edit summary to your sandbox. Typically stupid. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, what's worse? Damning someone to hell, or calling someone stupid? Both are evidently inappropriate, but... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• But he did it weeks ago... Like I said, I'm done, so close this however you see fit, but I enjoyed ITN/C, liked the other editors there, liked reading the articles nominated, liked being able to offer feedback. The only person I ever had conflict with was TRM, yet you can see he's had it with ThaddeusB, tariqabjotu, 331dot, and certainly Medeis. So I snapped, I'm out of line, and I'm sorry that I lost my cool. I just honestly couldn't take it anymore. It's not fair to label me as WP:NOTHERE. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

These are comments and records kept on IP98's talk page, correct? Unless there's some campaign by him outside his user space this should be dropped now--it's only provocation, and he's entitled to his own records and thoughts. I don't even see TRM starting anything over this. I have had issues with both users, so I'll recuse myself at that. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• I fail to see how anything IP98 has kept, on either their userpage or talkpage about this user, is appropriate. And, you're right, TRM didn't ask to start anything - this is my request for action, not his. And, IP98, you really should've sort some kind of friendly assistance before spewing bile about this user. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • We're talking about a guy who was unrepentant in calling me a liar. An AN/I would have failed. He's not uncivil by the classic definition, but he's very unpleasant to me. I snapped, and I'm sorry for that. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment IP98 has apparently scrambled his password and left. The Rambling Man has clearly stated he won't be posting anything further in respect of this report. I think it's very sad to see this (I follow ITN/C a lot, even if I rarely post - I spend most of my time logged out these days), but what admin action is now required? As far as I can tell, none. Pedro :  Chat  21:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• A short-term block for the 76.110.201.132 IP, presuming it's a static IP - for someone who has said they're walking away, they've not really shown that they genuinely intend to comply with that. If that's inappropriate, and/or the 76.110.201.132 IP (or any IPs used by this user) doesn't edit again, then I'm happy to have this closed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's a cable internet IP, probably won't change. Do a 48 hour block just to help make sure I don't respond to another TRM provocation. I'll clear out the TRM section of my old userpage before I do. Plz don't delete the user, I may want to reference it's contrib history in the future. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Turns out I can't, the spam filter stops me. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no way I (and I doubt any admin) will block the 76.110 address. Luke - you seem to requesting a punitive block IMO. TRM has stepped away, so has IP98 (I'm willing to accept 7.100.... is the same person). looks like no further action to me, accept perhaps some regret from both sides might not go amiss. Pedro :  Chat  21:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I have no idea how the fight between IP98 and TRM started. For a while it spilled over into ITN on a regular basis and I asked both parties to stop. As far as ITN goes anyway, they did. I don't know how the latest round started, but I'm quite sure the whole thing was a personality clash. I think both acted poorly at times, but both also made numerous positive contributions. Perhaps IP98 acted worse, but on the other hand TRM is an admin and should have known better. I'm sorry to see IP98 go, but I don't think there is any admin action required. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I'm closing this for now. Luke is commended for his concern in keeping Wikipedia civil, but at this point I don't see how any admin action is likely based on where we are right now. It is an unfortunate series of events that is in the past, but right now I don't see any action forthcoming. --Jayron32 22:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Brocach once again

I'm posting this straight here as Brocach has been brought here before for similar behaviour and talking with ordinary editors will not work. Doesn't help that there is little good faith either between us either, as I frequently call him up for his bias, which will be highlighted here.

It was only back in February that Brocach was previously reported here for his manner of editing on Wikipedia, and well he is still persisting to forge on with making groundless edits. To modify what TheBanner said in Brocach's last report: There are no effective reasons for his edits but he just invents excuses for them.

Firstly Brocach has a history of trying to remove "County Londonderry" from GAA articles, this included back in September/October 2012, trying to have all the GAA related County Londonderry categories either deleted or renamed, having went ahead and emptied them without discussion or consensus and populated County Derry ones to replace them. These County Derry ones where deleted.

More recently Brocach has been removing from certain GAA player articles "County Londonderry" citing no source that the player was born or is from the place in the county they are attributed to being from: [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123]. As far as I am concerned Brocach is gaming the system here to remove the mentions. This view I feel is backed up by the fact they didn't do this on articles of players from other counties and their insistence on ignoring sources in the article that make it clear that the person is from the place that is in the county and then trying to keep it out of the article. Case example being the Eoin Bradley article:

• 13 May 2013, removal of birth place citing "no source for place of birth". In response I add "from Glenullin, County Londonderry" into the lede as is the manual of style for Northern Irish and Irish biographical articles, and if anyone looks at the article, this is sourced in the personal life section.
• 15 May 2013, Brocach reverts citing "no source for birthplace but unlikely to be a rural valley with no medical facilities", despite the fact it doesn't even state "birthplace" but "from". I reverted this stating the obvious " doesn't state born in, states he is from which is sourced in the article, see personal life".
• Brocach removes it again citing the same reason "no source given for birthplace or "from"; stick to "plays for". Yet again I restore. Just to make it crystal clear for Brocach who didn't seem able to look past the lede I added a name to the source citation in Personal Life and then link to it in the lede.
• Once again Brocach reverts it this time stating bemusingly "club should be in lede; clarify NFL win was as team member; add Irish name". Nowhere does he explain his removal. I revert again. At the same time he removed the name tag in the source citation in Personal Life.
• This causes AnomieBOT to cite the source in the lede to be an orphan, which gives Brocach another excuse to remove it.
• I have reverted the article back to the sourced version as that is how Wikipedia works - by sources.

Brocach also removed for no reason "County Londonderry" from the Draperstown and Ballymaguigan GAC articles. There was no justification for these edits whatsoever.

Secondly, whilst the above shows quite well his manner of editing, there are other examples of his poor editing behaviour:

In one of those articles stated above where Brocach removed "County Londonderry", Gabriel Bradley, I removed the nationality "Irish" from it as we only state a nationality in Northern Irish biography articles if we have a source for it or they have chosen to represent NI/RoI/UK etc. in a particular sport. GAA on this island is based on an all-Ireland basis, and despite being a nationalist organisation does not make all participants automatically Irish. We have no evidence of what he identifies as. Yet the no source thing only seems to work one way for Brocach:

• Brocach reverts this stating "suggest you try telling Gabriel that you don't know his nationality"
• In an effort to enforce Wikipedia guidelines I restore my edit citing the obvious "requires a source just as much as stating where they are from or does that only work for co lderry?"
• Brocach reverts again citing another bewildering reason "nationality has been static since creation of article - up to anyone changing it to provide justification"
• Restored by me citing the obvious which is the justification: "Static doesn't mean it can circumvent need for reliable souces."
• Despite this Brocach once again reverts stating "revert change to long-established nationality statement - the vast majority of Irish bio articles lack a specific source for nationality; add Irish name".

So here we have an instance where something is removed by Brocach as it's unsourced, however his insistence on keeping something in despite being unsourced.

More of the "my way" includes his insistence that his knowledge of Gaelic outweighs sources. In the Lavey GAC article I amended the clubs name in Irish to include "CLG". Brocach has reverted the positioning of this term 3 times. Despite providing my evidence for "Leamhaigh CLG" at Talk:Lavey_GAC, Brocach still argues that instead it is "CLG Leamhaigh" without providing a single source other than his knowledge of the language. This is not how we work on Wikipedia.

I would of taken action on all the articles rather than just a few as there are many GAA aritcles that need amended to abide by Wikipedia standards, however that would only have turned into a massive edit-war between us. However to tidy up those articles, I will take it to the appropriate venue to get community consensus for it.

I know that me and Brocach have probably both violated 3RR somewhere in the above, and are guilty of edit-warring, even on a slow basis. If that merits a sanction against me, fair enough, however I propose a long-term topic-ban on Brocach in regards to County Londonderry and some form of sanction to encourage him to stop his "my way" editing behaviour that no doubt will be raised again at some point in the future. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Just driving by and noticed. WP:ROLLBACK is likely necessary. This is a tribal and political divide that is never going to be resolved in this venue, so the letter, not necessarily the spirit, of the rules regarding Derry/Londonderry must be the driving principle. Quis separabit? 23:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing "tribal" on my part, "Quis Separabit", and the Derry/Londonderry usage is not a "rule" but guidance that, as the record shows, I have repeatedly supported in a non-partisan manner. Anyone else driving by (and preferably not using the motto of the UDA as their username) might want to check out the very recent discussion that resulted in a topic-ban on Laurel Lodged, a long-standing ally of my accuser Mabuska, for matters relating to Irish geographical nomenclature. I have, for some time, resisted LL's tedious attempts to insert egregious references to "North Tipperary", "South Tipperary" and "Londonderry" into articles on GAA matters since the GAA county system does not use any of those administrative or (in the last case) former administrative divisions.

Let's start with Mabuska's "I'm posting this straight here"... the record shows that when I revert changes, I have frequently tried to engage on the relevant talk pages, without much response from Mabuska or others.

Anyone momentarily prejudiced by Mabuska's reference to a previous discussion of my editing should take the trouble to follow the link and find out that I was not sanctioned in any way, and the closing admin strongly supported my effort to establish consensus at the proper venue. Being mentioned at ANI is not a criminal record, least of all when the outcome supports my proposed way forward!

In relation to birthplaces of Glenullin and other Derry GAA players, I happen to know that many Derry people (some in my family) were born in a maternity facility outside the county, and that very few, if any, current WP-listed GAA players were born in Glenullin, which is a small rural area convenient to two urban centres with maternity facilities. I was thus entirely justified in removing unsourced refs to birthplaces. I don't know whether this applies to any or all other counties, so I haven't edited those other articles in the same way; that doesn't invalidate the approach I have taken on Derry.

For anyone still awake, I will answer some further points as follows. "CLG" (i.e. Cumann Lúthchleas Gael, Gaelic Athletic Club) is required by the grammar of the Irish language to come before, rather than after, the name of the club; thus "Leamhaigh CLG" is nonsense and any English-language source that uses that corrupted version is not reliable. Anyone wanting to revert to the wrong Irish-language version should produce an Irish-language source that uses it (which would still be wrong).

As for Mabuska's repeated attempts to boldly change the long-standing assertion that the Irish GAA star Gabriel Bradley is Irish, I have reverted these because (a) a vanishingly small number of the thousands of articles on Irish GAA players contain a reference relating to their nationality, and I don't see why Bradley should be treated differently; and (b) I reckon that a statement of nationality re any living public figure in a WP article that has not been challenged for many years, as in this case, acquires some degree of currency, and the onus to provide a source shifts to the editor who wants to delete the nationality.

In conclusion: there is nothing in this complaint that merits the attention of ANI, since everything complained of could have been discussed by the complainant at the relevant talk pages, but in nearly every case wasn't. Every single edit that I have made in the articles mentioned has been within WP policy. Brocach (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Speedy template

Resolved

 – Blocked by Diannaa as a sockpuppet. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:DFCola keeps removing a speedy deletion template from Roland Baines, a page that he created (it is being deleted for being a blatant hoax). He has been warned four times by me and User:Eyesnore combined. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 20:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 20:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the immediate step has been taken: I've deleted the article in question. I'm watching the user's contributions to see if further sanctions are justified. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked User:DFCola as a duck sock of User:RJCola, who was blocked by Material Scientist at 03:22, 20 June. Watchlisting Roland Baines for re-creation. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User is back, apparently, see Roland Atwood Baines by User talk:PWCola. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Some admins (Material Scientist and Nawlin Wiki) have dealt with the new article and the new sock. He must be on a dynamic IP to be able to create new accounts, otherwise he would be autoblockd. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Edward Snowden

@Fangorn-Y: back from a forced "holiday" of 31 hours, immediately made this edit and this edit, clearly in continuation of his pursuit (123456)for which they were blocked. There is pretty clear consensus that such content should not be in the article, but Fangorn keeps ignoring it by arguing that the info is interesting and source is reliable, or some repetition thereof. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

First, the consensus is not clear - at least Surfer43 and A1candidate agree with my main proposals. Other editors differ widely by their proposals. Second, you 'forget' to say that YOU was recently blocked for the same action here: User_talk:Ohconfucius#Block, which was made immediatedly after a admin's warning: User_talk:Ohconfucius#ANEW. To faster undo my revision, you even reverted together another revision by A1candidate, without any reason (it was not related to petitions): User_talk:A1candidate#About_the_edit_war_in_.22Edward_Snowden.22. You has already been blocked 8 times by various admins. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AOhconfucius And do you ask about the edit war? Fangorn-Y (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you missed Ohconfusius' unblock 7 minutes later which was reviewed as not an edit warring block. Having read through the section, my take on it is that there is consensus for a brief line on the content you want to add in but not using the source you seek to use as it is not considered reliable. The consenus seems to be that anything more than a brief mention is undue focus on a comparatively minor point. Blackmane (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The wrong information. First, Ohconfusius was unblocked 15 hours later (not 7 minutes, as Blackmane wrote) by another admin. Maybe this admin didn't know the previous history User_talk:Ohconfucius#ANEW ? Of course, his last reversion itself is not a sufficient cause for blocking. Second, the discussion was not about 'a comparatively minor point'. Third, all information I inserted is based on sources considered reliable by all (including my opponents). Fangorn-Y (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It was in fact about 15 hours later. You've got that right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll concede that point, I saw the time stamp but misread the date. Blackmane (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Fang appears to be trying to use Wikipedia as an advocacy tool for the White House "petition" about Snowden. He's been stymied from doing that on the Snowden page, but he's still active on the White House "petition" page We the People (petitioning system). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

On the White House "petition" page We the People (petitioning system) I simple copied the update of secondary sources from the Edward Snowden page. This update was made by Surfer43, and has never been criticized. It only replaces an old secondary source claiming 30K signatures to a newer secondary source claiming >80K signatures (really now there is 86K signatures). It is now on the Edward Snowden page, and nobody ever appealed to revert it. Fangorn-Y (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

However, when I copied it to the We the People (petitioning system), it was reverted two times for two hours, first time without any explanation, second time by an unregistered user with the 'explanation' "(BRD revert. Snowden content not justified)" . If it is not a promotion, what is it? May I consider such reversion is vandalism? May I revert it? Fangorn-Y (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The "We the People" thing has to be discussed on its talk page. As the remover pointed out, there are many of these so-called petitions, and until or if the President responds to this one, having it on that page is undue weight and amounts to advocacy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Keeping such counts up to date smacks of advocacy. It's also worth pointing out that Fang's previous entries were about biology. He stopped editing on October 1. Then he started again in early June, totally focused on this one thing. Beware of possible sockpuppetry and/or possible hijacking of someone else's account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Even though it is a little suspicious, WP:AGF. Surfer43 (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the editor is clearly pushing a political agenda, he's pretty much eroded whatever good faith he might have started with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Serious IDHT in any case. It would have been a whole lot more sensible to just wait for the petition to peter out and then look for a secondary source that gave a final tally. Any other use is WP:UNDUE and WP:ADVOCACY per Bugs and Surfer. Blackmane (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Reisio, disruptive editing and combative behaviour, again

Reisio's behaviour does once again (for the umpteenth time, judging by a quick search of the ANI archives) merit a report here at WP:ANI. Three weeks ago he was sternly warned by Rannpháirtí anaithnid for edit warring on all pages relating to the letters of the ISO basic Latin alphabet and for systematically marking his edits as minor edits in an attempt to fly under the radar and avoid scrutiny. Which didn't stop him, because he's still marking his edits as minor, whether they're minor or not. But he has shifted his attention from letters of the alphabet to maintenance tags, deleting maintenance tags en masse without making even the slightest attempt at solving the underlying problems in the articles, that is just deleting the tags. In spite of protests from numerous other users. And warnings from numerous other users. His combative mood can be seen both in his edit summaries and in his standard response to criticism and warnings: copying all warnings on his own talk page (thousands of bytes worth of it) and pasting it, along with a short comment at the end of it, on the talk page of whoever dares criticise him (diffs showing that behaviour on the user talk pages of User:Tedickey: [124], User:Randykitty: [125], [126] and [127], and me [128],[129],[130] and [131]). His disregard for the opinions of others can also be clearly seen on some articles where his deletions of maintenance tags have been observed and opposed, in the form of edit wars, with Reisio making three reverts on each article during a 24 hour period, but stopping there, deliberately (ab)using the system to the max ([132], [133], [134]). So there's a clear need for some administrator action, and a forced leave from WP for Reisio (which wouldn't be his first block, because his disruptive editing and combative behaviour has been going on for years, with no improvement shown). Thomas.W (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Will someone please LART that thing with the bouncing warning templates: [135] [136] [137] Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW - Someone, claiming to be Reisio, has been following this up with a bunch of trolling email. I didn't think it was him, but given how combative his behaviour seems to be generally, I'm no longer sure. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Even the ANI-notice that I posted on Reisio's talk page bounced and found it's way to my talk page, which makes me believe that there might even be a competence problem involved. Thomas.W (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I’m beginning to believe there might be a competence problem as well. ¦ Reisio (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I see Reisio has been blocked - but meanwhile he had chosen to provide clearly-misleading legal advice on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Further grounds to question competence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've given him a week off, which is the next step up from his previous couple of 72-hour holidays (along the same lines of edit warring, hostility and tag-removal). My overall impression of Reisio is that he treats other editors and the collaborative process with something resembling contempt, which isn't a good fit for the project no matter how good or knowledgeable an editor one is. Any recidivism post-block should be responded to promptly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocks aside, can we please have a clear ex cathedra statement here that bouncing the warning templates back is not an appropriate action. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • We don't need to codify every example of obnoxious behaviour. It should have earned him a block before this, and will certainly earn him a block of twice the duration if it happens again. If anyone else decides this is a clever thing to do we could put something in our guidelines about it, but I think it's a fairly unusual tactic of annoyance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Thumperward. User/Abuser:Reisio seems to enjoy pissing others off in pure trolling fashion. He should not be answering questions at the help desk with such immaturity. 50.160.220.114 (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• IMHO, this user needs to be introduced to the use of {{talkback}}.--Auric talk 07:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Stemoc and 2013 mid-year rugby union tests

Can someone please take a look at Stemoc's conduct on this article? He has been repeatedly un-civil about me, and about User:PeeJay2K3. See Talk:2013 mid-year rugby union tests, this deletion discussion, and edit summaries here - [138]

I now realise he has also breached WP:3RR - [139] [140] [141] [142]

I'm not looking for him to be blocked, but if someone could warn him to play nice, it would be appreciated. --hippo43 (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Believe me, no 3RR was breached, I changed it to an earlier version which i didn't consider the first time and what i reverted is regarded as vandalism in wikipedia i.e "removing sourced or verified information relating to an article", 3RR does to include vandalism and the user in question, PeeJay2K3 has a long history of being banned for 3RR. Secondly, you nominated that article for deletion and when the deletion request was DENIED, you started removing things from that article and many other related articles. What you did is what we class as WP:DRAMA and I should have reported you here but i chose not to.

• [143]
• [144]
• [145]
• [146]

I hope you admins consider this. The only thing i'm guilty of is incivility. When someone starts removing things without a valid explanation, its considered vandalism and reverting vandalism is NOT a crime on wikipedia...--Stemoc (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

PantherLeapord, again.

PantherLeapord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to show conduct that I have concerns about, such as an aggressive stance on several NFCC 1-related discussions. He has also publicly accused several editors (such as me and Masem) of being "deletionists", and listed them on his user page; which I had removed for being an attack page. After being warned of this policy, he then refactored the warning given on his page to say "Please do not create pages that show the truth about their subject. These pages and files are not tolerated by the people having the truth revealed about them." (in violation of the talk page guidelines). He also removed further comments clarifying the rules on refactoring talk page comments with increasingly aggressive remarks ("Is this YOUR talk page now" "EXCUSE ME!? AFAIK I AM ALLOWED TO DELETE SUCH COMMENTS ON MY OWN TALK PAGE" "Again; WHO'S talk page is this!?" "Stop harassing me about removing comments from MY talk page")

He was blocked for edit warring an image out of Xbox One that he felt was of a poor quality (and then began campaigning to have a non-free image restored because his interpretation of NFCC 1 does not consider the free image to be of good enough quality), on the condition that he stop edit warring over PlayStation and Xbox images. I don't think any of the things he's done today are worthy of blocks, but I'm becoming concerned about his conduct. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you insist on making a mountain out of a molehill? PantherLeapord (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This was not a molehill. As has been explained in a statement that you deleted with no apparent effort to read and understand it, if you repeat an edit like that, you will be blocked again. I'm unlikely to repeat the last go round where you were unblocked after a few hours, as your behaviour since your last block has been pretty abysmal, including using your user page as an attack page.—Kww(talk) 07:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well pardon me for pointing out how stupidly powerful free content purists that always prefer worse content that is DETRIMENTAL to the encyclopedia because free have become! PantherLeapord (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you continue to fail to understand that the exception to using non-free content is when suitable (note: I did not say high-quality) content is available, AND your attitude is going to be one where you create attack pages to disparage those who actually uphold the law, the rules, and policies, then I do not foresee your username appearing on Wikipedia for much longer. Do it again - ever - and you will be blocked, period (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that if you're going to express your opposition to our non-free policies, it is probably best to (a) dial back the attacks on people with different opinions, and (b) perhaps choose an issue to debate which isn't actually cut and dried - the PS4 image issue was absolutely straightforward as regarding our policies and not even close to a grey area. People are far more likely to engage with you if you make your points in a reasoned manner. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No; the only problem here is how free image purists have brainwashed people into thinking that fair use is bad and the crappy and unencyclopedic free > encyclopedic fair use. PantherLeapord (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your level of cluefullness < 0 ... you have not read a single fricking thing that has been presented to you? You can't make your own shit up - especially regarding copyright and fair use. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think claiming that anyone on a project that contains many dozens of thousands of non-free images - most (if by no means all) of which actually do meet WP:NFCC - is a "free image purist" is never going to fly. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

~473k non-free files exist on wikipedia. Werieth (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks like everyone sees what's going on pretty clearly, but just to chime in: this user has been rather difficult to work with. There's no discussing policy with them, every time its "I want to use this image, so IAR!" And every time they're told "No, that's not how it works", then we get an earful about "power hungry admin", "conspiracy", etc etc. Its one continuous example of WP:IDHT. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest topic ban from NFCC and related areas since this user refuses to get a clue, is extremely hostile, combative, and rude. Werieth (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• I support that, but will note that I am "involved"- I have been discussing non-free content issues with this user this morning, and I am one of the people listed on the deleted userpage. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• I think that a very clear warning that such a topic ban will be imposed if the behaviour continues would be better at this stage. A very last chance, but leaving no doubt as to what the next step will be. That'll probably still mean we are a bunch of brainwashing dictators, but at least we will have offered every possible opportunity for change before sanctions. I know, I'm an old softy... Begoon ^talk 14:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we add IMMEDIATELY that ANY referring to an editor or group of editors as "deletionists" lead to immediate block? This guy is quite clearly creating a WP:BATTLE by his sheer forceful lack of competence and compassion for the community (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If we were to apply that as a criteria, Dream Focus would have been banned ages ago. For better or worse, we've legitimized the use of that term by not acting on it in the past.—Kww(talk) 16:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, that's a very good point. But regardless of the use of that term or not, WP:BATTLE is the crux, and that's what mustn't be allowed to continue. Competence can sometimes be learnt or taught, battling with other editors is a style choice. Begoon ^talk 17:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, being called a "deletionist" as a pejorative merely elicits a "yeah, whatever" from me and an assumption that the person using it isn't capable of creating a policy-based argument; however the major problem here is incorrectly accusing other editors of being detrimental to the encyclopedia, which definitely is a personal attack. That needs to stop. As I said above, it isn't constructive and will result in editors not engaging with even any reasonable points one makes. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As on involved presently and in past issued with DF, at least DF argues the point for decent debate, which is the core of consensus building, even if DF refuses to budge. On the other hand, PantherLeopard is making no attempt to understand the rational of non-free and thus making any chance of debate nil. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Still going - [147]. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. That kinda undermines my earlier suggestion of a "very last" warning, doesn't it? You'd have to assume he's reading this, and that's his reaction. I support the topic ban immediately now, since I agree with incorrectly accusing other editors of being detrimental to the encyclopedia ... definitely is a personal attack. Begoon ^talk 00:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's my cynical take; what we have here is a generation gap, a wave of new adolescent-to-young-adult editors who grew up in an age of having every virtual thing at their fingertips. Want a song or movie? Torrent it. Want a picture for meme generation? Google it. Welcome to the collision of Web 2.0 and the 21st century, this is just a taste of things to come. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's cynical at all. Just observant and realistic. A whole new use for the term "free culture" perhaps..? Begoon ^talk 00:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

Although User:Werieth proposed it, let's formalize the wording, as it appears to be necessity:

I propose: User:PantherLeapord is topic banned from uploading images, participating in all image-related discussions, and from any other mention of images or those who have uploaded images across the English Wikipedia, added broadly construed. This topic ban is for a period of 6 months. After 3 months, User:PantherLeapord may appeal for a loosening of these restrictions on WP:ANI. Violations of these restrictions will be met by escalating blocks. The restrictions will be logged at WP:RESTRICT

• Support as proposer (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, broadly construed. GiantSnowman 15:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - if an editor won't abide by image policies, then they should not get to work with images at all. (Though I think any future appeal should be at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, I can understand Kumioko's concerns about "broadly construed", below, and I prefer BlackKite's alternative wording - it's not enough to make me withdraw my support as worded, but I do think we'd be on more solid ground with the more specific wording -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as above. — Richard BB 16:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support with clause, it should be indefinite, (IE until it can be demonstrated that the user's behavior has changed) setting a hard time limit just delays the issue. Werieth (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support with regret, I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but the repeated attacks on other editors, after warnings, who are actually following policy is not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose with the broadly construed language - As mentioned in detail in the subsection below.Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support The user has continued the behaviour without any sign that they even acknowledge the concerns. After 3 months of non-disruptive editing elsewhere they can appeal for relaxation. It would be a different matter if there were any indication that they recognise this problem and intend to address it. I don't see that, and continued personal attacks and disruption of discussion must not be allowed to continue. Begoon ^talk 00:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously some harsh re-education is needed! PantherLeapord (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - As per reasons given above. (wasn't sure where to put my vote so i put it here, dont hesitate to move it if its in the wrong spot) ★★RetroLord★★ 11:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - well, if the subject of this topic ban seems to support this (hurr), so shall I. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  Lol, I was about to point that out. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose #1 I'm not seeing any truly troubling links. Kww's link is certainly combative, but it's own his on talk page. Modifying a templated message isn't that horrible. His edit warring on images is a more serious problem, but he was blocked for that. He needs to have it made clear that he needs to act like a reasonable person. That said, his views on NFCC are fairly similar to my own. I don't like the idea of banning someone from an area because they hold a minority view. Especially when (IMO) the view is quite reasonable. I feel this is moving into WP:CENSOR range. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• So what you are saying, is that editors are free to (clearly, and absolutely) violate our policies and then (clearly, and repeatedly, after warnings) personally attack those that point this out, calling them destructive? Interesting idea, can't help thinking it wouldn't be generally constructive though. Although, given that the issue is NFCC it doesn't surprise me; there appears to be some sort of exception for WP:NPA when it is aimed at editors upholding NFCC. Nothing changes. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• You make a good point. I will point out that NPA isn't exactly our most enforced set of rules--I think you'd agree many editors get away with personal attacks stronger than these. Though yes, this user has going past what I think is blockable under NPA (Kww's block was a good one and further blocks for NPA would have been quite reasonable). But I'd personally prefer a short block for NPA (week?) rather than a topic ban in the hopes of improvement. That's what we generally do I think.

Further, I do think our NFCC enforcement is broken. And I can fully understand why people get extremely frustrated with it, because I'm extremely frustrated with it. When we have people speedying pictures when it is claimed to be the only picture of the creature (and that wasn't disputed at the time of the speedy though it is false) or arguing that a picture of an 80-year old is sufficient for an article on a person famous for his boyish looks. Yes, it's frustrating. And yes, I understand the anger. Further, and more generically, I really don't like topic banning people with minority opinions without first trying other options. Mentoring, escalating blocks or other options haven't been explored. Not sure it would work, but it hasn't been tried. Hobit (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm on the other side of that one. I would have thought, given that the user does have constructive edits away from his obvious problem with images, that a topic ban on images would be better than escalating blocks, especially as it would keep them away from the issue that clearly irritates them and which is likely to get them blocked (if that makes sense). I agree that our NFCC enforcement is broken though; that's because it's actually impossible to enforce - even to the extent of admins backing up those violating NFCC - which is why we have so many non-free images. Black Kite (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think a 6 month topic ban shouldn't be the first step--especially on a wiki-political topic. A block associated with the NPA policy would have been a better first step. I don't think I've seen a topic ban before with only one previous block on the account. I'm sure they've existed, but... And if you think the NFCC policy is broken on the side of over-including non-free images, I can't imagine what you would want FfD to look like. I suspect the delete rate there is already over 90%. Hobit (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment about broadly construed

I do not agree with the language broadly construed. This language has been used in other restrictions and ends up turning into a means for abuse because its too open to interpretation. The sanction needs be defined and if need be can be revisited later. We shouldn't be using weak language like broadly construed, whenever you feel like it or on the admins whim. They all mean the same thing. If the intent is that the user be restricted then it needs to be clearly stated what the restriction is. Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I take this as anything regarding files/images. Upload, FFD, DRV, NFCR, and anything else that we may have forgotten to spell out in regards to files. This basically means anything to do with files is topic banned. Using a broad brush prevents attempts at wikilawyering around the edges Werieth (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

But it also allows 1400 people with differing views and interpretations of the rules that they can do whatever they want. If you say anything to do with files fine. But adding broadly construed some admin that doesn't like the editor could justify that editing Photoshop is a blockable offense because its releated to files "broadly construed". It has happened a lot. Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's pushing it a bit, but I get your point. How about "User:PantherLeapord is topic banned from uploading images, commenting on image files or their usage, and participating in image-related discussions or discussions of policy related to images, across the English Wikipedia"? Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No admin would make that leap. You are building quite the strawman. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@Black Kite, I think that's much better thank you.

@Djsasso, I wish I was just building a strawman, but I'm not. It has happened many times. Liberal blocks have been doled out many times by admins, frequently involved ones, for things that are far removed from the purpose or intent of the block. I've seen it here on this page, at Arbitration Enforcment and in other venues and frankly I'm tired of editors being beaten up over poorly worded sanctions. I'm also a little disappointed you think so little of me for trying to improve the project....but I don't really care either. Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Commenting specifically on the language as I've not read the rest of the thread. The counter argument is of course that many editors have tried gaming a ban by editing a closely related topic in the same problematic way while technically obeying the wording of the ban. This is an attempt to avoid this happening. Although I agree somewhat with your concern we also don't want editors gaming a ban. Striking the right balance is difficult. I do hope however that if a single admin interpreted "broadly construed" too broadly their action would be overturned here. Dpmuk (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that as well but historically that has not occurred. I also understand and I sympethize to a degree but we shouldn't be dealing in what if's. If we say they can't edit images because editing images and we are afraid they may start editing videos, then by all means say images, video's and files. But we should leave it completely to the discretion of the admins becaue unfortunatly best intentions aside we don't operate in a utopian society where best wishes prevail. If the user starts editing something else (infoboxes maybe or Portals) in the same problematic manner then they can be brought back and we can revisit the issue. But we shouldn't be so generic that we have this "and stuff" language. On a related point and although I didn't fight this issue yet we should be specifying a duration. Is it 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, forever? The way these are written they infer forever when in many cases 6 months might be sufficient. Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Kumioko and Dpmuk's views. Not to mention that having a "broadly construed" topic ban implies that the editor being topic banned has been consistently disruptive in too many places such that a broad ban is required when in reality this is not necessarily the case. It's analogous to being banned from going into all bars in a city because you got rowdy in one or two places. Blackmane (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement from PantherLeapord

Someone probably needs to close this and make the topic ban official before this thread is moved by the bot to the archive... PantherLeapord (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

James Gandolfini

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.

---

Will an admin please look at the rampant vandalism at James Gandolfini. The pace and range of IP and new account abuse is perplexing. A request is at wp:rfpp but they can be slow and this recently deceased actor is getting seriously distorted. :) John Cline (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I SPP'ed it. Thanks for your maitenance work. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you! :) John Cline (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Salvidrim! saves the day again. Thanks! Taroaldo ✉ 01:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Around 2013-06-19 10:00 UTC, there was a similar battle among various previously-unseen IPs and newly-created accounts in Christopher Dorner and a related article. Any clue what's going on here? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Spam links?

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.

---

WARNING: read full post before accessing the link. I noticed that alumnac.com appears in hundreds of high school articles. Is this useful information? I can't tell because Chrome tells me that the site contains malware. That is, is this useful like "find a grave" or spam like "classmates.com"? Rklawton (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• This [148] tells a little bit more. Maybe we need to a bot to remove those links, and a filter to prevent them from being added? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• I only found links to that site in six articles; I manually removed those. They were all in the "external links" section, so it didn't appear they were there to support any referenced information. If there were hundreds of other articles using them either someone else cleared them out before I got there, or I'm not searching in the right way. 28bytes (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Someone should add that to the spam blacklist, something I've not done before. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good point. I will do that. 28bytes (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Done. 28bytes (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There weren't hundreds. I misread the search results. Rklawton (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

IP repeatedly removing shared IP template from own talk page

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

---

• 12.71.77.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On User talk:12.71.77.121: vandalism after final warning. IP-user repeatedly removing shared IP template from own user talk page, in violation of WP:REMOVED. The user has been edit warring on Google Nexus to the extent that the article has been semi protected, and seems to have just realised that the shared IP template clearly identifies the I'net connection he/she is on as belonging to AT&T Corporate HQ, and now wants to remove that embarassing fact from sight. Also note his/her less than polite edit summary in the latest deletion of the template. If the user is blocked removing talk page access might be a wise move since that's were the disruptive editing is taking place. I first reported it at WP:AIV but struck it there and moved it here, both because I'm asking for talk page access to be removed for the duration of whatever block, if any, is metered out, and because blocking an IP at AT&T Corporate HQ might be seen as a trifle sensitive by some (other reports filed after this one at AIV were taken care of, but this one wasn't...). Thomas.W (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This diff might also be interesting. Thomas.W (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Stay off of my talk page. Final warning. 12.71.77.121 (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that it's a corporate IP address, perhaps an email to the responsible IT department would be helpful. Federales (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked 3 days for edit warring. I will replace the sharedip notice and tell them that if it is removed again talk page access will be revoked. JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Three minutes after you posted your message on his/her talk page both the shared IP template and your message was gone. Thomas.W (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Restored, talk page access revoked, IP advised to read WP:BRD. JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Problematic behavior by user Smarojit

This editor thinks that he owns the Wikipedia-article on Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and edit-wars with any editor who he disagrees with [149] [150] [151] [152] [153]

Recently, he has been repeatedly attacking me and vandalising my Talk-page: [154]

[155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160]

Any help to restrain him will be highly appreciated. Thank you and regards.--Isaacsirup^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• A rather strange request, given that practically all your recent edits appear to have been reverting another editor over multiple articles. One might even suggest WP:STALKING. Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of WP:STALKING. But it is unwarranted here anyways. When you see an editor removing massive chunks from articles, suspicion arises naturally that something might be wrong.--Isaacsirup^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I guess you weren't aware that you are required to notify someone when you report them either, but you are. I did that for you. Please remember to do that in the future. I'm off for the night, but wanted to make sure that was taken care of. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 01:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I was aware of it yet I decided to not interact with him. He has been haranguing me on my talk-page in a regular manner, vandalising my talk-page and thanking me for all of my edits. But I think that I should've done it in any case, so thanks a bunch for your help. He is most welcome to disagree with me over the content in the article, but he has no right to curse me out.--Isaacsirup^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• When that editor is experienced and routinely leaves informative edit summaries, it's probably better to simply ask him or her about those edits rather than assuming bad faith. But since you didn't do that other editors have had to revert your problematic edits and even more time has been wasted. Slow down and ask more questions, please. ElKevbo (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• This edit proves that I didn't assume bad faith. Being an old editor certainly doesn't keep you from getting monitored. And likewise, doesn't give you the carte blanche to do whatever you want on Wikipedia. I collectively made a mistake and I duly apologize to the people (or person) who may have been offended by this deed of mine.--Isaacsirup^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's true, empty vessels make the most noise. I am not even going to lend dignity to this baseless accusation by trying to justify myself, but here are some samples of this user's disruptive editing on Wikipedia:

1.Blindly reverted edits by User: Ssg2442 and me, without citing any reference here: [161].

2. After I opened a talk page discussion here and asked him to provide sources for his claims, there was no response!

3. Disruptive editing at it's best can be seen at Talk:Dil Se..#Young Megha where he deliberately engaged in arguments with User:Vivvt and User:Bollyjeff for no rational reason whatsoever. His comments were crass and cheap. Again, he blindly reverted the edits of several senior editors which can seen here: [162].

4. More deliberate arguments can be seen at Talk:Karisma Kapoor#Sunjay Kapur or Kapoor?.

5. He has a history of edit warring, and was blocked for it. See this: [163]

6. After I posted talk page messages to him, asking him to stop his crass, rude behaviour (which he has kindly linked above), he promptly deleted my messages. On asking him to read about civility in Wikipedia, he deleted my message with an edit summaries that said: "learn some manners before posting here" and "you need to mind your tongue and learn some manners".

7. Since then, he has blindly reverted my edits on two separate occasions, one at Krrish 3 and the other at Salman Khan. For the former, I removed an unofficial poster of the unreleased film, which he reverted without citing any reason for doing so. See here: [164].

Given this is the way this user conducts himself on Wikipedia, I am not surprised that he takes joy in wasting the time of other editors at every opportunity he gets. (P.S: His user page reads: "I am quite powerful on Wikipedia") --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 05:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• His profanity is evident on this very page. Since he mentioned Krrish 3 and Salman Khan, I am going to clear the air. In the former (Krrish 3), I restored the poster but didn't refer to it as the official poster. In the latter (Salman Khan), I mentioned that Khan has starred in several commercially successful top ten highest-grossing domestic films of their respective years, then I listed them. His vandalistic retaliation was simply his revenge-edit. Note that he reverted my edit in the article on Salman Khan while he was persistently vandalising my talk page.--Isaacsirup^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 06:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• As can be seen from the respective talk pages, I provided four reliable references to back my point on Talk:Dil Se..#Young Megha and two reliable references to back my point on Talk:Karisma Kapoor#Sunjay Kapur or Kapoor?. It's about time that someone take action against this user for his profane behavior.--Isaacsirup^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 06:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Update: This editor is trying to rally other editors against me[165][166] --Isaacsirup^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 06:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Smarojit, ignore this thread and do your works. --Tito☸Dutta 07:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, Smarojit, ignore it. He is really wasting everyone's time. I have wasted my precious one day on this guy. If you give helpful advise to them in their tough times, they feel we are trying to take some advantage.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Vigyani is referring to this edit of mine. This happened when both me and user Vivvt were blocked for edit-warring over content in the article Dil Se... Vigyani, you need to stop bearing a grudge against me. Let go of it.--Isaacsirup^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 07:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• No, I don't bear any grudge if you think so. After that edit of yours, this is the first time probably I am talking about it. I was not interested in addressing to you, but since I am now, I will ask you to assume good faith, which you are seriously lacking. Also I am surprised that you still think that your references at Talk:Karisma Kapoor are reliable.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 08:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• (off topic) What a bad choice of color. I could not read anything and had to select the name to read it. --Tito☸Dutta 08:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Vigyani, we met on Dhoom 2 and its talk page, then on Dil Se..'s talk page, then on my talk page when I was blocked and now we are meeting here. You have been hounding me. As can be seen from Talk:Dil Se.. and Talk:Karisma Kapoor, I have cited 'Mid-day', 'Mumbai Mirror', 'THE TIMES OF INDIA', 'The Indian Express', 'OneIndia' and 'IndiaToday' but all have been called unreliable--meaning all Indian media outlets are unreliable. I need a break from this relationship--Isaacsirup^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 08:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What a pity to see that everyone on Wikipedia is "hounding", "haranguing" and "harassing" you. We must be the devil! --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 08:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Iscrp I thought you had suggest someone to read WP:BOOMERANG --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 10:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Admins, please close this unproductive thread asap. Smarojit is one of our most productive Bollywood editors and wouldn't revert editors without a valid reason. Isaac, move onto something more constructive and please change the ridiculous colour of your user name which nobody can see.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As I was notified by smarojit to comment on this, I can tell you that this user (Isaacsirup) is simply wasting other's time and doing no constructive editing since beginning. He/she either does not understand anything or does not want to. No matter how many talk messages you post on his/her talk page or on article's talk page, it does not help. (and only gets you blocked!) On Dil Se... talk page, he/she stared an argument providing hell lot of sources saying these are RS in support of Jiah Khan and declined to see the visuals. The discussion went for a week and got both of us blocked. When I asked other editors to list down their support/oppose for Jiah Khan and Priya Parulekar, this user listed his/her oppose for Jiah Khan saying "Obviously-all Indian media outlets are unreliable"!! - Vivvt (Talk) 13:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Resolved

• and best wishes with your daughter BK. — Ched :  ?  03:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Really sorry to ditch this on people and run, but it's 1.30am here and I have a small daughter with a rather messy health issue. It's probably related to the Darkness Shines thread above - contribs and name. Will notify, Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the talk page and read the sources. They are attributing my sources to material which it does not support. Read the page's first line. It is perfectly fine now. If it is reverted, you have a vandal by the very definition of vandal. And calling a user "problematic" when there is no other way to describe his SOURCED contributions you or the majority does not want to hear is not acceptable. Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• We're dealing with an SPA, who sounds like a professional crusader (note the name). The belligerent attitude suggests someone with a grudge--like a returning user. At any rate, I've blocked them for 31 hours on the strict charge of edit warring following the report at ANEW. Take it easy Black Kite. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Should we start an SPI? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:UnrepentantTaco -- Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – Blocking both as CU-confirmed sockpuppets. Leaving cleanup of AfDs to other admins' discretion. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

UnrepentantTaco created an account three weeks ago and since then has done virtually nothing but initiate deletion discussions and respond brusquely if not rudely to commenters who disagree with their nominations. The editor displays technical skills and policy familiarity not at all consistent with being a new editor, and a willingness to brandish WP:AGF against those who (quite properly) criticize his rapid-fire, poorly checked or conspicuously unresearched nominations that strongly signals past problematic behavior. Their complete failure to notify article creators of deletion proposals of any type is also a clear red flag. These [167] comments to User:Dolovis also suggest an experienced editor with past troubles resurfacing with a new account. Most (but not all) of the deletion proposals have gone down in flames, usually quite rapidly. Among the recent problem nominations are:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Yong-Cheol (Olympic athlete)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thon (river) (river whose existence is undisputed)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheep Look Up (rather well-known, award-nominated book)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helga þáttr Þórissonar (a medieval Icelandic saga!)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Metcalfe (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) (councillor to Richard III of England)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gil Skeate (1920's era NFL player)

There are many more. It appears evident to me that this editor is the same as User:Jamminjimmy, blocked for sockpuppetry in May (that block has expired). Some of their comments, including the rather odd motto on their userpage ("If these articles were a people, I would embrace their genocide") make me wonder if this is not yet another appearance by the indef-blocked User:IronKnuckle, who self-immolated in "a spectacular anti-Semetic meltdown" and has before and since been caught socking several times. I don't see any intent to edit competently or in good faith, and call for an indef block. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I too suspected (independently from Hullaballoo, but he posted first) it is the same user as User:Jamminjimmy. There is overlapping interest [168] [169] and [170] [171] to cite two examples. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• [ec] I am looking at them and haven't yet made up my mind. The Sheep AfD is now closed: that was indeed ridiculous--at the very least it was incompetent, BEFORE not being followed. But a few others seem reasonable. In all, though, I do get the feeling that they're just nominating for the hell of it. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And a totally inappropriate AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. C. Ørsted Medal. It is worth taking a look at the user's user page. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm just an ordinary but hard-working editor who was completely dumbfounded by the AFD posted for The Sheep Look Up, especially since the AFD notice pointed to a redlink for discussion. I had no idea where to protest this inappropriate nomination, but was relieved to see it closed as "Keep" some hours later. Whoever proposed the AFD appeared not to care about actually discussing this, or enabling anyone else to discuss it either. This rude and peremptory behavior is extremely upsetting and dispiriting to ordinary contributors not experienced with the AFD process. Reify-tech (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The lack of repentance is alarming too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The red link in AfD boxes within the articles is a Wikipedia software problem, not some malevolent action of this guy. He did create discussion pages. If you click on the red link(s) it takes you to a "blue"/existing discussion page. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

When I tried clicking on that particular redlink, it did lead to creating a new, blank edit box, implying that the AFD proposer did not see fit so say anything about why the article should be deleted. Fortunately, other concerned editors more familiar with AFD proceedings later piled on in the article's defense. If what you say is true (and I have little reason to doubt it), that is a rather unfortunate bug. I did take a quick look at User:UnrepentantTaco's contribs and user page, and felt overwhelmed by the sheer volume and span of the AFDs. Some, perhaps even many of them were valid, but the casually issued AFDs on serious and useful articles were very dispiriting. Rampant deletionism is very corrosive to volunteer contributions. Thoughtful pruning is certainly necessary, but the mechanisms for appeal and discussion should be very clear, and must work as advertised. I'm glad this particularly destructive sockpuppet has been stopped, and hope that the Wikipedia admin mechanisms for identifying and stopping similar meta-level vandals work as efficiently and quickly as possible. Reify-tech (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The redlink thing is a genuine problem, and not the result of any particular editor. Several of my recent edits have been fixing those redlinks: the link turns blue if you substitute underscores for the spaces in the {{Article for deletion/dated}} template's "page=" parameter, like this. Dricherby (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a weird and unfortunate bug. Has it been reported to the template maintainer? I don't know where to check on this, and know only what has been mentioned here. Reify-tech (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have personally closed one of the AfD as a clear speedy keep. I recommend topic banning User:UnrepentantTaco from AfD, a self confessed deletionist, to prevent further disruption by creating needless AfDs. Without prejudice to someone more familiar with the edits from opening an SPI with substantial evidence. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC).
• I ran a basic set of checkusers on this, looking for any obvious matches... but there were none. Any other CU is free to pick up where I left off, but there are no low-hanging fruit on this one. I would just indef the account and be done with it, given the polemicist user page, but topic banning would be fine, too. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Replying to myself because I forgot to do one other simple check.  Confirmed that these are the same person. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest a ban from AfD nominations and prods. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC).

• Just closed the Thon AFD as an obvious SK as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support AfD topic ban, broadly construed per related disruption [172]. Given the WP:SPA nature of the account, an indef block would work just as well. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• I should note that a number of his nominations (his earlier ones, not those in the list above) were legit. I'm not sure if that was done to confuse things or what. Anyway, each should be evaluated individually, some were good, some were bad. I see he was blocked for sock-puppetry in the mean time. Sock of who? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• The motto on their user page is a variant of "If these words were people, I would embrace their genocide." from The Best Page in the Universe. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• I had a look through some of the AfDs, and like other editors concluded some were valid and some weren't. His comments demonstrated a lack of clue about how notability and the AfD process works, but I don't think he was being particularly uncivil. He's not editing in bad faith, he just thinks a one line "microstub" (his words) article with no cited sources must be non-notable by definition and he thinks AfDs are the best way he can help the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Good faith (doubtful here) is not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC).

sockpuppet accusation

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.

---

Not sure whether this is the right place. In the edit-summary of this edit User:Delicious carbuncle seems to openly accuse two users of sockpuppeting. As he doesn't provide any evidence for that, I doubt such accusation is o.k.. --Túrelio (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• What administrator action would you like taken? He could just have been using sarcasm.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Blocked editor

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

---

This ia a case of where the user, originally as User talk:202.43.188.6 ‎ has WP:PA another editor in editing the article Suharto with little or no explanation as to why, has been blocked for edit warring, [19:35 (Block log) . . Gnangarra (talk | contribs) blocked 202.43.188.6 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎(Edit warring)], the article was also edit protected [ 19:47 (Protection log) . . Crisco 1492 (talk | contribs) protected Suharto‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)) ‎[move=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)) ‎(Persistent vandalism)] and the editor is now wandering around the various scenes of the crime with a sock (duck tested not needed, so obvious) User:Purnomor as if his/her version is the 'right way' to edit the article [173], and that normal protocols of wikipedian editing or behaviour can be totally ignored.

Seasoned editors of the Indonesian project had tried over time to reduce the size of the article, and have had similar issues with very similar editors - if it isnt the same editor as previous attempts on changing the article. It is highly likely that the language of the editor is not native english, which might have created some of the total reversals of the actual situation in the editors attempts to deal with the issues so far.

It seems the protection of the article encouraged this editor to do [174] and also almost surreal comments at [175].

Also re-tracing steps at Page protection - with comments in odd locations [176]

If there is indeed someone prepared to look at this, please be careful not to be misled as to who it doing what, a careful examination of edit history should explain the issue.

I suspect such an intrepid and incessant candidate for totally reversing the actual issue, might be a somewhat difficult character to hold a mirror to, in explanation. sats 15:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have appealed against the tyranny of editors who seems to insist that their way of editing is the only right way, and always seek to undo the hardwork and research done by others. This attitude is certainly very negative and will discourage others from positively contributing to Wikipedia. The editors show contempt and disrespect for contribution made by volunteer editor using well-balance reference articles. Hence, I've made formal complaint against this particular editor (Merbabu). Purnomor (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Which I think goes to show what we are dealing with here. A limited of understanding what WP:ABOUT actually involves. sats 15:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So with the IP number blocked, and the new sock created - It is my understanding that a sock of a blocked editor cannot launch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/merbabu - as it would in effect be allowing a blocked editor to continue WP:PA unabated. I believe other remedies for the IP and the user need to be rectified beforer further damage to other processes within wp en ensue. sats 15:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I will not be silenced on this issue. I also do not accept constant undoing and vandalization of valuable hardwork based on solid references done by certain editors. I also object to the constant personal attacks used by some editors to intimidate people attempting to add valuable information into Wikipedia. Purnomor (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Puronomor, you should sign your posts at the end of each post, not at the beginning. It is obvious that the IP who was editing the Suharto article and Purnomor are the same individual. However, in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with an IP deciding to register an account and stop editing as an IP. The article itself is semi-protected, meaning that Puronomor cannot edit the article as he's not yet auto-confirmed. That said, his brief history here has been disruptive. He has asked that the Suharto article be unprotected. He has started an abusrd RFC/U against User:Merbabu, in addition to posting at WP:AIV that Merbabu is vandalizing the article. He has also contacted User:Crisco 1492 and complained. He should probably be blocked for disruptive editing, which any admin is welcome to do, but I'll give him a little more rope to see if he has the ability to change course.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Retrolord personal attacking ad hominem on their userpage

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.

---

Attempts to remove this attack have been met with harsh responses from the user. PantherLeapord (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

They appear to have a WP:IDHT issue as well... PantherLeapord (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

In no way is this a personal attack. It is a warning and does not in anyway make representations about user:kudpung. Pantherleapord has been asked by me and an admin to stop posting on my userpage. An end to his harrasment of me would be apreciated. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted there is an ongoing discussion about panther's user conduct on this page. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note: user just got off a 3 hour block from User:Worm That Turned. I'd support a longer block for refusal to drop the stick. --Rschen7754 05:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Rschen. Clearly you misunderstand the issue. That was for accusations of bullying. Am I not even allowed to have a warning about another user in my own user space? Every time I mention this issue people just pile on and tell me to shut up or get blocked. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyways, this is not a personal attack, I see no reason why I should be blocked for having a warning about other users on my user page. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This clearly falls afoul of WP:POLEMIC, which lists one sort of prohibited content as "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." (italics mine) I've removed this content. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you removed my comment but anyways I said I have removed the offending material. I hope what I've replaced it with isnt a personal attack either?★★RetroLord★★ 05:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Do NOT take credit for another person's work! PantherLeapord (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. What relation does this diff have to the discussion at hand? ★★RetroLord★★ 05:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about removing your comment. I got an edit conflict, but it didn't show me yours, so I didn't know I should try to reconcile the two. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well this is pretty much resolved. I'd support a close? ★★RetroLord★★ 05:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to to close now, as long as you have taken into account your continued disruption of an RfA after having been told not to, using RfA as a platform for a grievance, false accusations of bullying, lies about being told to change your vote, and making personal attacks. I hope you will also take on board the fact that you have since been blocked, and received warnings and pieces of advice from several admins. That said, your 'ban' comments on your user pages are an utter disgrace to Wikipedia and demonstrate nothing less than a complete lack of maturity to anyone who sees it - note well that you yourself cannot even bide with users' requests for you to stay off their talk pages. Your behaviour is unbecoming for collaborative spirit of this encyclopedia, and you can rest assured that I have no desire whatsoever to post on your talk page, except if and when needed in my official capacity as an uninvolved administrator - which I will do without any hesitation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung as I have been censored by the adminship of WP I can't actually respond to most of your message, because as Rschen mentions above, that means I haven't dropped the stick. But I will point at that I got the idea of banning from talkpages from you yourself, after you did it to me. Does that by extension make you an 'utter disgrace'? ★★RetroLord★★ 06:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

So can we close it now, with 2 votes for a close and 0 votes against? ★★RetroLord★★ 06:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a vast difference between asking someone civilly to stay off a user's talk page, and posting the nonsense you did on yours and your personal attack above, plus the fact you have posted on my tp yet again. You appear not to be able to drop the stick after all. You've been given a lot of chances over all these issues, and I would prefer to see you getting back to some content editing rather than risking further blocks for WP:IDHT, PA, and whatever else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Violations of WP:Disrupt, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, etc., at the Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

Counterparty: Malke 2010 (talk)

Though the following issues arose in the context of a moderated discussion with an Arbcom member as moderator in relation to a suspended case, the burden on said moderator may have become too much, or he may be wanting to see what results when matters are left to the community. In any case, I’m compelled to seek input on the following matters. I have, incidentally, attempted to contact Silk Tork by email in relation to this matter, but he hasn't responded.

Earlier I posted a working draft for the major part of the Agenda section Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Working_draft_of_Agenda_section_.28partial.29_with_section_on_the_Constitution, largely consisting of material on the Constitution. As it is a “working draft”, the object of posting it was to solicit input and comments toward further editing on the way to achieving a presentable text which could be put to a vote to assess consensus (SOP on that page).

Before posting the text, there had been a question as to whether I intended to put it to a vote, to which I responded

Of course, a vote will be called to assess consensus once a text has been composed.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Granted, the response says "composed", but the that was made in haste, an as per past instances of proposing drafts and editing until a final consensus achieving text has been reached on the moderated discussion page, I as simply proceeding according to SOP. Moreover, the title of the section makes it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt what the intended status of the text was "Working draft of Agenda section (partial) with section on the Constitution". Naturally the text was to be a working draft subject to revision based on the response and ensuing commentary, as per SOP.

Malke called a premature vote for no stated reason other than to dismiss the text outright before anyone had a chance to comment. Obviously that would serve to curtail discussion on the substance of the text, not to mention potential modifications, thereto. The section heading she chose read, “iVoteon proposal to add enormous amount of non-relevant text about the U.S. Constitution” [177], She subsequently revised that to remove the hostile an insulting portions. Prior to that, I had hatted that premature vote and left a comment. [178] She the reverted my hatting [179]

The objective of the editing behavior raised here would seem to be to cut off discussion and force a vote before the text has been assessed, commented on and revised accordingly, which would seem to raise issues with WP:DISRUPT. Obviously I feel that the text is relevant, so there is an issue with WP:AGF in regard to the characterization that the text was “non-relevant”. The reversion of my hatting of her premature call for vote and comment clearly indicating the situation and pointing to previous related comments would seem to raise issues with WP:CIVIL.

There has also been some POV pushing in the following comments. [180][181]--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about others, but a previous situation where there was a previous vague and unclear discussion that went on that looked similar and then Ubikwit made a controversial edit saying that there was no opposition in the discussion. This I think has made me and possibly other folks want to weigh in clearly and early now on Ubikwit-led items. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? "Not sure" and "previous vague and unclear discussion" leave a lot to be desired in terms of specificity.

Indeed, I would prefer that you "weigh in clearly" and not in ambiguous term without providing diffs to that to which you are referring.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not "reporting" anybody....there is too much of that there already. My point is that some have become concerned of TLDR and unclear discussions where the inevitable resultant low participation might get interpreted as an "OK to change" and thus tend to clearly weigh in before that happens. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reporting party should remove this and post diff to User talk:SilkTork. He has been our babysitter at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion. †TE†Talk 22:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment to admins:

1. Over the weekend of June 15-16, Ubikwit started a thread about a contentious topic and proposed an edit to the lede, which is probably the most contentious section in the whole of the Tea Party movement article. [182]

2. Another editor supported his proposed edit. Ubikwit voted his support, and then actioned the edit. He then informed Silk Tork of what he'd done. [183].

3. The moderated discussion has been progressing well, but often it takes up to two weeks of revisions and input from other editors before edits are actioned. Ubikwit is a lead contributor to that page and therefore knows very well that his vote and the vote of one other editor is not enough to action any edit to the article and especially not to the lede. And particularly, not over a slow weekend when participation by the others tends to be down.

4. He did not wait for wider discussion or for input from other editors. He was met with opposition [184]. As a result, Silk Tork had him revert the edit.

5. Since then, Ubikwit has again opened another thread regarding the same topic with a large wall of text as his proposed edit. This appeared to be the edit he intended to make. Having the experience of how he handled that last edit, and as the weekend is approaching, I opened the ivote section and others have since opposed his proposal. [185]

6. Per the rules laid down by Silk Tork, any issues with the moderated discussion belong on that page and any complaints about editors are to be brought to Silk Tork's talk page.

7. Since Ubikwit has said he emailed Silk Tork and has commented on ST's talk page, there doesn't seem any reason to bring this here. It appears to be another example of Ubikwit hounding me. He's been doing that since February. He's often confrontational, mentions my name at every venue he can, makes comments like this: [[186]], and makes frequent personal attacks. If any admins want evidence of the hounding I will be happy to provide diffs. Otherwise, I agree with ThinkEnemies. This is best addressed at the Tea Party moderated discussion page. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of misleading statements above. First, there was a third editor that voiced support for the proposed edit to the lead before I actioned it, and not a single "oppose" vote. Meanwhile, it had been more than two days since the vote was called and more than 24 hours since the last voicing of support.

I reported the edit to Silk Tork:

User_talk:SilkTork#Actioned_edit_of_reference_to_Constitution_in_lead

Silk Stork did not state that my edit was improper or against the rules, just laid out the principle that the main body of the text should be worked on first, and the lead edited subsequently to summarize the main body of the article:

Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#The_Lead

Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Working_on_Agenda_section

After recommending that the lead be returned to the form it was in at the time the article was locked (I carried that out), he unhatted the section on the Constitution and the Agenda that Malke had arbitrarily hatted, which was another behavior I brought to his attention.

Malke has been making efforts to obstruct discussion of the Constitution for some time now. Whereas she hatted the earlier section and refused to participate in discussion regarding the edit to the lead (which has been edited and reverted even prior to the discussion on the moderated page and ensuing edit), now she appears to have adopted a reverse tactic of prematurely calling a vote before anyone has had a chance to participate in the discussion and editing of the sample text. Moreover, it was her revert-warring of precisely an earlier version of this text while refusing to engage in a discussion of the substance of the content on the Talk page that resulted in the article being locked.

The diffs posted above also include Malke commenting on my WP:Competence in an unwarranted manner

Plus, huge walls of text with block quotes suggests to me a lack of understanding of the topic to begin with. When a writer can't paraphrase something and relies on block quotes instead, it usually means a lack of understanding of the topic to begin with.

Silk Tork has prohibited such commenting on editors instead of the edit.

In addition, this is now the second time she has leveled the false accusation of WP:Hounding against me [187]. In that case, I responded by email to Silk Tork in order to avoid inflaming the situation. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• As long as there is an open, albeit suspended AC case, as well as an attempt to moderate this issue, I think it's unlikely that an admin. with a modicum of knowledge on the background will be willing to take action on this thread alone. If Silk Tork, or any other admin following the discussions at that moderated discussion feel that some administrative actions in regards to behavior are required, then I'm sure they will not hesitate to take the appropriate action. As this board was not designed to determine "content issues", I'm not sure that actions on this thread would be appropriate. Perhaps this should be kept at the talk page discussion level. — Ched :  ?  03:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I have notified Silk Tork of this thread.

I drafted this complaint in a manner such as to address the disruptive editing and related behavior, not the content issues in relation to which that has arisen, but I appreciate the complexity of the context.

At any rate, if Silk Tork declines to comment here, then this thread can be closed and I will simply add a link to this thread and a summary to one of the AC case pages.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, Ched, please do look into this. In suspending the case, we authorized discretionary sanctions for a purpose. If there is an editor who you feel is being disruptive, do not hesitate to topic ban them right out without fear of prejudicing the ArbCom case. NW (Talk) 03:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but as it entails a LOT of reading, I must beg a few hours sleep first. I'll do some research and reading tomorrow. (East coast USA time zone) .. and thank you for such trust - it is appreciated. — Ched :  ?  04:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The following links might save a little time and effort:

1. An example of the work flow that has been established for proposing, discussing, and revising text until it is presentable for a vote to assess consensusTalk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion/Closed_discussions("Trimming 2" section)
2. Relevant discussions relating to editing and other behavior issues as per AC case pages

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Workshop#Malke_2010 (“Comments by others” section)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Workshop#Malke_2010_2 (“Comments by others” section)--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have made it clear on several occasions that I am not always readily available to sort out issues, but that they should be brought to me, and then people wait. There is no issue important enough in that discussion that it has to be responded to urgently. I have advised people that obvious vandalism or BLP violations should be dealt with immediately - everything else is to be notified to me, and then people wait. Indeed, there can be a benefit for everyone involved in simply ignoring minor issues, and getting on with the more important task of building the article. Complaining about the actions of others is a huge part of the problem with that article. Walls of text, which are not about how to improve the article, but are about the behaviour of other editors, is not encouraging. I don't have the time today to look into the issue - I'm travelling - but I may have time to look into the matter this evening. I have no objection to an admin looking at the matter and making a judgement, and would indeed encourage that. The more independent eyes we have looking into the situation the better. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ched's Review which is limited with respect to the topic in its entirety, and focused solely on the thread before this board. After approximately 2 hours of reading last night, and another 2 hours this morning, I must say that staying focused on the core of this thread can be difficult. In the end my view is to try to remain on the "behavior" topics which I believe this board's function should be. I appreciate the passion of politics, but often find that editing in those areas to be contentious, frustrating, and un-enjoyable - and since I don't get paid for my time here, I tend to avoid it; but I digress. Ubikwit, my view is that you are attempting to rush to judgement here. While I understand that you may feel that others are stalling and filibustering to avoid your edits, I think you need to give others the time to review and consider things without the "I want an answer now" approach. While there is validity to the "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" syndrome on Wikipedia, I don't believe it's always been in the project's best interest to provide said grease. You need to stop, read, look, and listen to those around you rather than trying to >>>force>>> your views through with continuous rhetoric, regardless of its validity or merit. To continue with the tired old cliche' sayings I was raised with: "Patience Is A Virtue". In conclusion: I will not be taking any administrative action toward any of the editors in this dispute/discussion at this time; other than to suggest to Ubikwit that he take a deep breath and accept the fact that often the path to the proper end is end is not always a quick and easy one. To be more clear; I suspect that others may be considering whether or not your efforts may be edging ever closer to that disruptive line that nobody should want to get near. — Ched :  ?  11:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Followup I appreciate the amount of time you put into your work to evaluate the scenario, as it is rather involved. My concern in coming here with these issues was not to rush to judgement, but to seek relief against what I perceive as attempts to obstruct and impede progress on the article by running the clock out on the moderated discussion before issues that have proven intractable are addressed.

The moderated discussion is a time consuming process, and the discussion at hand was just getting underway before there was an attempt to prematurely vote down a text that was proffered as a working draft for comment, not presented as a proposed edit. Rather than stalling and filibustering of my edits, the concerns I intended to articulate were of the opposite nature of attempting to "I want an answer now" from everyone that this incomplete and unconsidered text is unacceptable for discussion.

I must admit that I do not see what you are addressing with respect to the statement "trying to >>>force>>> your views through with continuous rhetoric".

Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Cup of tea please. Everyone can read your posts here, on multiple drama boards, on SilkTork's user talk page, and in the moderated discussion, and note the nature of your own edits, and see your multiple accusations of incivility etc. That is why we have the "cup of tea." Collect (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No problem in taking the time. I do understand the passion involved with political issues. I have friends on both sides of the isle, and to say that the 2012 election was a difficult time for us would be an understatement. :). If you would have seen some of my Facebook discussions - you likely wouldn't have know whether to laugh or cry. I do understand that some folks may feel they are under a time constraint in that the moderated discussion has a deadline; but my point is that article improvement does not have that same time constraint. The trick here is finding a way forward, and often that means trying to understand where others are coming from. Once you find the "HOW" of collaboration, then the "what" becomes clearer and easier. For example: When I see the section heading "Agenda", I immediately put on my "this might not be good" hat. While indeed it may be the most accurate descriptor, it can also be a highly charged and divisive word. There is the misnomer that we provide no "POV" here, when in reality what we must do is provide ALL POVs. The "neutrality" of NPOV comes in when both (or all) sides are given fair and equal treatment. Just IMO, but there ya go. Anyway - I do wish you all the very best in resolving this very difficult situation, and wish you all enjoyable editing once everyone emerges out the other side of the ride. Best. — Ched :  ?  12:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the amicable discussion. I think that the advise regarding the "how" of collaboration is very important, and will make more of an effort to bear that in mind.

I don't want to belabor the point regarding the content issues, as they are extremely involved, but with regard to the Agenda section, since you mention it, that has been in the article for a very long time, and the issue with that is that it has consisted almost exclusively of primary source material, which is a position still being advocated by some editors Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Academic_sources. Silk Tork posted the following comment recently, for example, that draws attention to the issue sourcing.

There is a paragraph which consists almost entirely of a quote from Ron Paul. A paragraph with information gathered from a primary source - govtrack.us, rather than a secondary source. And a paragraph on an essay by Mead, which is the most useful paragraph, though is only one source on one aspect of the party, and leans too close to an editorial interpretation of the article.

The present discussion at the moderated page is focused on introducing the most focused on aspects by academics, and the entire section as it stands is sourced only to academic sources, but I am open to people introducing primary sources (in a policy compliant manner) so that corollaries can be drawn, weight evaluated, etc. I am aware that the text I have posted soliciting input has problems, but it does effectively illustrate a common thread in academic discourse that the article should include in some capacity.

Thanks again.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If time will permit, I'd like to bring some evidence regarding Ubikwit's behaviours. Since he's naming me here, I'd like that opportunity. I wasn't able to do so yesterday because of RL work commitments, but I have some time this morning before I'm off again. I'd appreciate being able to do so. But if admins feel otherwise, I won't. Please let me know, thanks. I'll keep a eye on this thread. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This tea party mess is pretty preposterous. Just a lot of petty bickering about a whole lot of nothing...add in the walls of text that are the bulk of the talkpages and I can't imagine anyone being able to decode it from the outside. Maybe the best thing to do is topic ban the partisan players and walk away and see if some less partisan editors may take up the slack.--MONGO 18:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. No sane, reasonable editor is going to get involved in that mess, given the personalities and dynamics which currently dominate the discussion. And without input from sane and reasonable outside editors, content disputes on Wikipedia are impossible to resolve. The options are to a) topic-ban the most obvious partisans and tendentious editors to create breathing room for a serious discussion, or b) indefinitely abandon the article to the current group of vocal partisans under the supervision of a volunteer referee. ArbCom seems to have favored option b), which I would charitably describe as optimistic (and less charitably describe as naive, doomed to failure, and disrespectful to the time and effort of editors who make a serious attempt to generate good content on controversial topics). MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the person most involved and in the thick of it all and involved on nearly every dispute is brand new and not a party to the ArbCom case. And most of the people who were/are parties have left the article. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This was already at ArCom. They temporarily suspended the case pending the outcome of the moderated discussion. This topic is currently under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions.[188] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork deserves a medal for their patience. I've been invited several times to "participate in the discussions" but that sounds as fun as a root canal. One bickering exchange dealt with whether the tea party movement was a grass roots movement or wasn't one...then the argument was about the definition of a grass roots movement...giant yawn.--MONGO 19:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

page break for convenience

My input is not at all related to any content dispute. The moderated discussion is to be used for that. My comments now are regarding Ubikwit's behaviours, specifically his hounding me. My understanding is that ANI is for behaviour issues. Ubikwit has brought me here and I believe I have a right to answer. Mongo, Quest for Knowledge and MastCell are right that the article is a mess but I have no quarrel with any content issues. I'm here solely because Ubikwit has created this thread accusing me of whatever he believes is yet another violation against him. It's time these behaviours were addressed.

Starting from the ANI, Ubikwit has been focused on me in a way that violates policy.

• ANI support topic ban for Malke. [189]
• Comments about Malke on ArbCom evidence page[190]
• Here he demands a response by Malke [191]
• Here he accuses Malke of advocacy on Moderated Discussion[192]
• Malke makes an edit on Moderated Discussion suggesting changes [193]
• Criticizes Malke [194]
• Opposes another Malke suggestion [195]
• Dogging Malke's edits [196]
• Malke makes edit suggestion on moderated discussion. Ubikwit demands to know, "What do you mean?. . ." [197]
• Gets reverted on an article edit and complains to ArbCom about Malke [198]
• Complains about Malke’s comments on ArbCom [199]
• Malke makes suggestion and raises point about proposed edit and Silk Tork suggests waiting on edit until Malke has resolved question. Ubikwit attacks Malke [200]
• Malke comments, Ubikwit attacks again [201]
• Ubikwit cherry-picks Malke’s edits to moderated discussion and posts this to Silk Tork's talk page: “Since we’re cleaning out the attic,” and refuses informal interaction ban by Silk Tork [202]
• And now he’s here looking for another venue for discipline. Everything I do he takes it to Silk Tork or ArbCom or he mentions things in other venues like the comment at the RfC/U.[[203]]
• Ubiwit also violated BLP on the moderated discussion to such a degree that it required oversight deletion. He called a living person a sociopath [204]
• In addition, I believe Ubikwit is User:Dylan Flaherty, who was indef blocked. Dylan also hounded me, as admin MLauba noted in this exchange: see collapsed "deny section" under Res ipsa loquitur: [205].
• I think Ched is right that Ubikwit might want to examine his own behaviours. I for one am tired of this hounding and would this resolved here.
• I wanted to also add that prior to the ANI in February, I'd never heard of Ubiwit, or edited the same pages. Don't know where his fixation is coming from other than the possible Dylan Flaherty connection.

Malke 2010 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The above indicates Malke's concerns that Ubikwit has been hounding / focusing on her, might be a banned user who has done so in the past, including ongoing efforts to "get her in trouble". I have seen the tendency for Ubikwit to characterize / spin-up semi-routine behavior as "wiki-sin words" (e.g. "disruptive" "personal attacks") in situations where most would not think that, every time they discuss them. I think the real test would Malke's previous proposal which I think was a mostly-disengagement between the two of them. Like maybe routine discussion but nothing else. I think that Malke expressed agreement with this type of thing. If Ubikwit would not agree to that, i.e. thinking that Wikipedia needs to have Ubikwit personally watch or go after Malke, then I think that such would be pretty telling. North8000 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sigh. SMH. I am not familiar with the Dylan Flaherty history, and I really try to stay away from dramaboards if I can help it. It does seem that Ubikwit is very quick to make accusations about alleged policy violations. Just recently he accused me of a WP:OR violation for an observation that I made on the article Talk page. I had absolutely no intention of using the material in the article mainspace, nor did I suggest or imply that I would. I've also noticed that he's had some unpleasant exchanges with Malke and North8000.
• At the top of this thread, North8000 also touched on a recent incident where Ubikwit was discussing a potential edit to the lede sentence of the article. Another editor, Arthur Rubin, made a remark which I understood as an objection Under the rules SilkTork has imposed, one objection means no immediate action on the proposed edit, and the involved editors stop and talk about it and work it out, so I didn't bother to say anything at the time; I'm sure several others took it as an objection as well, or they would have spoken up. Then Ubikwit went ahead and made the edit. Then he proposed another edit, really a radical overhaul of the entire first half of the article, and immediately Malke, North8000 and I registered our objections loud and clear. And Ubikwit acted offended. (?!?!?!?!?)
• Personally I really don't have a beef with him, but others clearly do. I've even said that Ubikwit was the type of editor I'm able to work with despite our differences of opinion. I just wish we could go back to editing the article, and try to avoid any further unpleasantness. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, others do have a problem with him and not just the editors on the moderated discussion page. He's topic banned from one article and already has an interaction ban with another editor. His talk page is full of disciplinary actions and suggestions for behaviour changes which he challenges and apparently ignores judging by the persistant behaviours. And now he's here with another complaint in which he's totally blind to his behaviours.

He went from all the turmoil on the Isaeli article to the Tea Party movement which was then under ArbCom review and yet he made an edit to a contentious section in the article with no consensus and no real discussion: [206]. What reasonable editor seeking to be collegial and work with others does that?

How many warnings does it take? How long has he been on Wikipedia now? Since 2009? And yet his behaviours are not showing any improvement, but rather they are getting worse. Here he was given an interaction ban:[207] which he violated three days later. He's caused numerous incidents of disruption on Wikipedia including this: [208]. And after an interaction ban and a topic ban, he comes to a moderated discussion on an article under ArbCom sanctions and does this: [209] and this: [210]

He's been given excellent advice by Malik Shabazz who demonstrated impressive patience and restraint with him here: [211]. And here as well: [212]

The moderated discussion page on the Tea Party movement article is meant to resolve issues at the ArbCom case. It's not there to mentor a clearly disruptive editor. Since Ubikwit has brought his complaint here, the community needs to resolve it. These behaviours are recent, this editor has been on Wikipedia for a very long time. It might be best for the project, to prevent further disruption, if he's given an involuntary break. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP behavior + an unwillingness to communicate.

For the past several weeks I've been dealing with the edits from the IP address 222.237.20.155, who has been removing arcade system information from a handful of articles such as Marvel vs. Capcom: Clash of the Super Heroes and Giga Wing. I would have reported this at blatant vandalism but, looking at his other edits, the IP does seem to be interested in improving various articles and appears to be acting in good faith. However, despite multiple reversions asking for explanations and various warnings on his talk page, I have yet to hear anything from him as to why he's removing the arcade system info. I've checked myself and I've made sure that the removed info was correct and that the arcade infobox still supported info on what system was used. I really don't want to have to revert his edits every few weeks but I would like some help in establishing communication with him. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Violations of WP:Disrupt, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, etc., at the Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

Counterparty: Malke 2010 (talk)

Though the following issues arose in the context of a moderated discussion with an Arbcom member as moderator in relation to a suspended case, the burden on said moderator may have become too much, or he may be wanting to see what results when matters are left to the community. In any case, I’m compelled to seek input on the following matters. I have, incidentally, attempted to contact Silk Tork by email in relation to this matter, but he hasn't responded.

Earlier I posted a working draft for the major part of the Agenda section Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Working_draft_of_Agenda_section_.28partial.29_with_section_on_the_Constitution, largely consisting of material on the Constitution. As it is a “working draft”, the object of posting it was to solicit input and comments toward further editing on the way to achieving a presentable text which could be put to a vote to assess consensus (SOP on that page).

Before posting the text, there had been a question as to whether I intended to put it to a vote, to which I responded

Of course, a vote will be called to assess consensus once a text has been composed.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Granted, the response says "composed", but the that was made in haste, an as per past instances of proposing drafts and editing until a final consensus achieving text has been reached on the moderated discussion page, I as simply proceeding according to SOP. Moreover, the title of the section makes it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt what the intended status of the text was "Working draft of Agenda section (partial) with section on the Constitution". Naturally the text was to be a working draft subject to revision based on the response and ensuing commentary, as per SOP.

Malke called a premature vote for no stated reason other than to dismiss the text outright before anyone had a chance to comment. Obviously that would serve to curtail discussion on the substance of the text, not to mention potential modifications, thereto. The section heading she chose read, “iVoteon proposal to add enormous amount of non-relevant text about the U.S. Constitution” [213], She subsequently revised that to remove the hostile an insulting portions. Prior to that, I had hatted that premature vote and left a comment. [214] She the reverted my hatting [215]

The objective of the editing behavior raised here would seem to be to cut off discussion and force a vote before the text has been assessed, commented on and revised accordingly, which would seem to raise issues with WP:DISRUPT. Obviously I feel that the text is relevant, so there is an issue with WP:AGF in regard to the characterization that the text was “non-relevant”. The reversion of my hatting of her premature call for vote and comment clearly indicating the situation and pointing to previous related comments would seem to raise issues with WP:CIVIL.

There has also been some POV pushing in the following comments. [216][217]--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about others, but a previous situation where there was a previous vague and unclear discussion that went on that looked similar and then Ubikwit made a controversial edit saying that there was no opposition in the discussion. This I think has made me and possibly other folks want to weigh in clearly and early now on Ubikwit-led items. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? "Not sure" and "previous vague and unclear discussion" leave a lot to be desired in terms of specificity.

Indeed, I would prefer that you "weigh in clearly" and not in ambiguous term without providing diffs to that to which you are referring.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not "reporting" anybody....there is too much of that there already. My point is that some have become concerned of TLDR and unclear discussions where the inevitable resultant low participation might get interpreted as an "OK to change" and thus tend to clearly weigh in before that happens. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reporting party should remove this and post diff to User talk:SilkTork. He has been our babysitter at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion. †TE†Talk 22:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment to admins:

1. Over the weekend of June 15-16, Ubikwit started a thread about a contentious topic and proposed an edit to the lede, which is probably the most contentious section in the whole of the Tea Party movement article. [218]

2. Another editor supported his proposed edit. Ubikwit voted his support, and then actioned the edit. He then informed Silk Tork of what he'd done. [219].

3. The moderated discussion has been progressing well, but often it takes up to two weeks of revisions and input from other editors before edits are actioned. Ubikwit is a lead contributor to that page and therefore knows very well that his vote and the vote of one other editor is not enough to action any edit to the article and especially not to the lede. And particularly, not over a slow weekend when participation by the others tends to be down.

4. He did not wait for wider discussion or for input from other editors. He was met with opposition [220]. As a result, Silk Tork had him revert the edit.

5. Since then, Ubikwit has again opened another thread regarding the same topic with a large wall of text as his proposed edit. This appeared to be the edit he intended to make. Having the experience of how he handled that last edit, and as the weekend is approaching, I opened the ivote section and others have since opposed his proposal. [221]

6. Per the rules laid down by Silk Tork, any issues with the moderated discussion belong on that page and any complaints about editors are to be brought to Silk Tork's talk page.

7. Since Ubikwit has said he emailed Silk Tork and has commented on ST's talk page, there doesn't seem any reason to bring this here. It appears to be another example of Ubikwit hounding me. He's been doing that since February. He's often confrontational, mentions my name at every venue he can, makes comments like this: [[222]], and makes frequent personal attacks. If any admins want evidence of the hounding I will be happy to provide diffs. Otherwise, I agree with ThinkEnemies. This is best addressed at the Tea Party moderated discussion page. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of misleading statements above. First, there was a third editor that voiced support for the proposed edit to the lead before I actioned it, and not a single "oppose" vote. Meanwhile, it had been more than two days since the vote was called and more than 24 hours since the last voicing of support.

I reported the edit to Silk Tork:

User_talk:SilkTork#Actioned_edit_of_reference_to_Constitution_in_lead

Silk Stork did not state that my edit was improper or against the rules, just laid out the principle that the main body of the text should be worked on first, and the lead edited subsequently to summarize the main body of the article:

Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#The_Lead

Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Working_on_Agenda_section

After recommending that the lead be returned to the form it was in at the time the article was locked (I carried that out), he unhatted the section on the Constitution and the Agenda that Malke had arbitrarily hatted, which was another behavior I brought to his attention.

Malke has been making efforts to obstruct discussion of the Constitution for some time now. Whereas she hatted the earlier section and refused to participate in discussion regarding the edit to the lead (which has been edited and reverted even prior to the discussion on the moderated page and ensuing edit), now she appears to have adopted a reverse tactic of prematurely calling a vote before anyone has had a chance to participate in the discussion and editing of the sample text. Moreover, it was her revert-warring of precisely an earlier version of this text while refusing to engage in a discussion of the substance of the content on the Talk page that resulted in the article being locked.

The diffs posted above also include Malke commenting on my WP:Competence in an unwarranted manner

Plus, huge walls of text with block quotes suggests to me a lack of understanding of the topic to begin with. When a writer can't paraphrase something and relies on block quotes instead, it usually means a lack of understanding of the topic to begin with.

Silk Tork has prohibited such commenting on editors instead of the edit.

In addition, this is now the second time she has leveled the false accusation of WP:Hounding against me [223]. In that case, I responded by email to Silk Tork in order to avoid inflaming the situation. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• As long as there is an open, albeit suspended AC case, as well as an attempt to moderate this issue, I think it's unlikely that an admin. with a modicum of knowledge on the background will be willing to take action on this thread alone. If Silk Tork, or any other admin following the discussions at that moderated discussion feel that some administrative actions in regards to behavior are required, then I'm sure they will not hesitate to take the appropriate action. As this board was not designed to determine "content issues", I'm not sure that actions on this thread would be appropriate. Perhaps this should be kept at the talk page discussion level. — Ched :  ?  03:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I have notified Silk Tork of this thread.

I drafted this complaint in a manner such as to address the disruptive editing and related behavior, not the content issues in relation to which that has arisen, but I appreciate the complexity of the context.

At any rate, if Silk Tork declines to comment here, then this thread can be closed and I will simply add a link to this thread and a summary to one of the AC case pages.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, Ched, please do look into this. In suspending the case, we authorized discretionary sanctions for a purpose. If there is an editor who you feel is being disruptive, do not hesitate to topic ban them right out without fear of prejudicing the ArbCom case. NW (Talk) 03:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but as it entails a LOT of reading, I must beg a few hours sleep first. I'll do some research and reading tomorrow. (East coast USA time zone) .. and thank you for such trust - it is appreciated. — Ched :  ?  04:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The following links might save a little time and effort:

1. An example of the work flow that has been established for proposing, discussing, and revising text until it is presentable for a vote to assess consensusTalk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion/Closed_discussions("Trimming 2" section)
2. Relevant discussions relating to editing and other behavior issues as per AC case pages

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Workshop#Malke_2010 (“Comments by others” section)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Workshop#Malke_2010_2 (“Comments by others” section)--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have made it clear on several occasions that I am not always readily available to sort out issues, but that they should be brought to me, and then people wait. There is no issue important enough in that discussion that it has to be responded to urgently. I have advised people that obvious vandalism or BLP violations should be dealt with immediately - everything else is to be notified to me, and then people wait. Indeed, there can be a benefit for everyone involved in simply ignoring minor issues, and getting on with the more important task of building the article. Complaining about the actions of others is a huge part of the problem with that article. Walls of text, which are not about how to improve the article, but are about the behaviour of other editors, is not encouraging. I don't have the time today to look into the issue - I'm travelling - but I may have time to look into the matter this evening. I have no objection to an admin looking at the matter and making a judgement, and would indeed encourage that. The more independent eyes we have looking into the situation the better. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ched's Review which is limited with respect to the topic in its entirety, and focused solely on the thread before this board. After approximately 2 hours of reading last night, and another 2 hours this morning, I must say that staying focused on the core of this thread can be difficult. In the end my view is to try to remain on the "behavior" topics which I believe this board's function should be. I appreciate the passion of politics, but often find that editing in those areas to be contentious, frustrating, and un-enjoyable - and since I don't get paid for my time here, I tend to avoid it; but I digress. Ubikwit, my view is that you are attempting to rush to judgement here. While I understand that you may feel that others are stalling and filibustering to avoid your edits, I think you need to give others the time to review and consider things without the "I want an answer now" approach. While there is validity to the "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" syndrome on Wikipedia, I don't believe it's always been in the project's best interest to provide said grease. You need to stop, read, look, and listen to those around you rather than trying to >>>force>>> your views through with continuous rhetoric, regardless of its validity or merit. To continue with the tired old cliche' sayings I was raised with: "Patience Is A Virtue". In conclusion: I will not be taking any administrative action toward any of the editors in this dispute/discussion at this time; other than to suggest to Ubikwit that he take a deep breath and accept the fact that often the path to the proper end is end is not always a quick and easy one. To be more clear; I suspect that others may be considering whether or not your efforts may be edging ever closer to that disruptive line that nobody should want to get near. — Ched :  ?  11:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Followup I appreciate the amount of time you put into your work to evaluate the scenario, as it is rather involved. My concern in coming here with these issues was not to rush to judgement, but to seek relief against what I perceive as attempts to obstruct and impede progress on the article by running the clock out on the moderated discussion before issues that have proven intractable are addressed.

The moderated discussion is a time consuming process, and the discussion at hand was just getting underway before there was an attempt to prematurely vote down a text that was proffered as a working draft for comment, not presented as a proposed edit. Rather than stalling and filibustering of my edits, the concerns I intended to articulate were of the opposite nature of attempting to "I want an answer now" from everyone that this incomplete and unconsidered text is unacceptable for discussion.

I must admit that I do not see what you are addressing with respect to the statement "trying to >>>force>>> your views through with continuous rhetoric".

Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Cup of tea please. Everyone can read your posts here, on multiple drama boards, on SilkTork's user talk page, and in the moderated discussion, and note the nature of your own edits, and see your multiple accusations of incivility etc. That is why we have the "cup of tea." Collect (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No problem in taking the time. I do understand the passion involved with political issues. I have friends on both sides of the isle, and to say that the 2012 election was a difficult time for us would be an understatement. :). If you would have seen some of my Facebook discussions - you likely wouldn't have know whether to laugh or cry. I do understand that some folks may feel they are under a time constraint in that the moderated discussion has a deadline; but my point is that article improvement does not have that same time constraint. The trick here is finding a way forward, and often that means trying to understand where others are coming from. Once you find the "HOW" of collaboration, then the "what" becomes clearer and easier. For example: When I see the section heading "Agenda", I immediately put on my "this might not be good" hat. While indeed it may be the most accurate descriptor, it can also be a highly charged and divisive word. There is the misnomer that we provide no "POV" here, when in reality what we must do is provide ALL POVs. The "neutrality" of NPOV comes in when both (or all) sides are given fair and equal treatment. Just IMO, but there ya go. Anyway - I do wish you all the very best in resolving this very difficult situation, and wish you all enjoyable editing once everyone emerges out the other side of the ride. Best. — Ched :  ?  12:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the amicable discussion. I think that the advise regarding the "how" of collaboration is very important, and will make more of an effort to bear that in mind.

I don't want to belabor the point regarding the content issues, as they are extremely involved, but with regard to the Agenda section, since you mention it, that has been in the article for a very long time, and the issue with that is that it has consisted almost exclusively of primary source material, which is a position still being advocated by some editors Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Academic_sources. Silk Tork posted the following comment recently, for example, that draws attention to the issue sourcing.

There is a paragraph which consists almost entirely of a quote from Ron Paul. A paragraph with information gathered from a primary source - govtrack.us, rather than a secondary source. And a paragraph on an essay by Mead, which is the most useful paragraph, though is only one source on one aspect of the party, and leans too close to an editorial interpretation of the article.

The present discussion at the moderated page is focused on introducing the most focused on aspects by academics, and the entire section as it stands is sourced only to academic sources, but I am open to people introducing primary sources (in a policy compliant manner) so that corollaries can be drawn, weight evaluated, etc. I am aware that the text I have posted soliciting input has problems, but it does effectively illustrate a common thread in academic discourse that the article should include in some capacity.

Thanks again.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If time will permit, I'd like to bring some evidence regarding Ubikwit's behaviours. Since he's naming me here, I'd like that opportunity. I wasn't able to do so yesterday because of RL work commitments, but I have some time this morning before I'm off again. I'd appreciate being able to do so. But if admins feel otherwise, I won't. Please let me know, thanks. I'll keep a eye on this thread. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This tea party mess is pretty preposterous. Just a lot of petty bickering about a whole lot of nothing...add in the walls of text that are the bulk of the talkpages and I can't imagine anyone being able to decode it from the outside. Maybe the best thing to do is topic ban the partisan players and walk away and see if some less partisan editors may take up the slack.--MONGO 18:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. No sane, reasonable editor is going to get involved in that mess, given the personalities and dynamics which currently dominate the discussion. And without input from sane and reasonable outside editors, content disputes on Wikipedia are impossible to resolve. The options are to a) topic-ban the most obvious partisans and tendentious editors to create breathing room for a serious discussion, or b) indefinitely abandon the article to the current group of vocal partisans under the supervision of a volunteer referee. ArbCom seems to have favored option b), which I would charitably describe as optimistic (and less charitably describe as naive, doomed to failure, and disrespectful to the time and effort of editors who make a serious attempt to generate good content on controversial topics). MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the person most involved and in the thick of it all and involved on nearly every dispute is brand new and not a party to the ArbCom case. And most of the people who were/are parties have left the article. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This was already at ArCom. They temporarily suspended the case pending the outcome of the moderated discussion. This topic is currently under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions.[224] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork deserves a medal for their patience. I've been invited several times to "participate in the discussions" but that sounds as fun as a root canal. One bickering exchange dealt with whether the tea party movement was a grass roots movement or wasn't one...then the argument was about the definition of a grass roots movement...giant yawn.--MONGO 19:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

page break for convenience

My input is not at all related to any content dispute. The moderated discussion is to be used for that. My comments now are regarding Ubikwit's behaviours, specifically his hounding me. My understanding is that ANI is for behaviour issues. Ubikwit has brought me here and I believe I have a right to answer. Mongo, Quest for Knowledge and MastCell are right that the article is a mess but I have no quarrel with any content issues. I'm here solely because Ubikwit has created this thread accusing me of whatever he believes is yet another violation against him. It's time these behaviours were addressed.

Starting from the ANI, Ubikwit has been focused on me in a way that violates policy.

• ANI support topic ban for Malke. [225]
• Comments about Malke on ArbCom evidence page[226]
• Here he demands a response by Malke [227]
• Here he accuses Malke of advocacy on Moderated Discussion[228]
• Malke makes an edit on Moderated Discussion suggesting changes [229]
• Criticizes Malke [230]
• Opposes another Malke suggestion [231]
• Dogging Malke's edits [232]
• Malke makes edit suggestion on moderated discussion. Ubikwit demands to know, "What do you mean?. . ." [233]
• Gets reverted on an article edit and complains to ArbCom about Malke [234]
• Complains about Malke’s comments on ArbCom [235]
• Malke makes suggestion and raises point about proposed edit and Silk Tork suggests waiting on edit until Malke has resolved question. Ubikwit attacks Malke [236]
• Malke comments, Ubikwit attacks again [237]
• Ubikwit cherry-picks Malke’s edits to moderated discussion and posts this to Silk Tork's talk page: “Since we’re cleaning out the attic,” and refuses informal interaction ban by Silk Tork [238]
• And now he’s here looking for another venue for discipline. Everything I do he takes it to Silk Tork or ArbCom or he mentions things in other venues like the comment at the RfC/U.[[239]]
• Ubiwit also violated BLP on the moderated discussion to such a degree that it required oversight deletion. He called a living person a sociopath [240]
• In addition, I believe Ubikwit is User:Dylan Flaherty, who was indef blocked. Dylan also hounded me, as admin MLauba noted in this exchange: see collapsed "deny section" under Res ipsa loquitur: [241].
• I think Ched is right that Ubikwit might want to examine his own behaviours. I for one am tired of this hounding and would this resolved here.
• I wanted to also add that prior to the ANI in February, I'd never heard of Ubiwit, or edited the same pages. Don't know where his fixation is coming from other than the possible Dylan Flaherty connection.

Malke 2010 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The above indicates Malke's concerns that Ubikwit has been hounding / focusing on her, might be a banned user who has done so in the past, including ongoing efforts to "get her in trouble". I have seen the tendency for Ubikwit to characterize / spin-up semi-routine behavior as "wiki-sin words" (e.g. "disruptive" "personal attacks") in situations where most would not think that, every time they discuss them. I think the real test would Malke's previous proposal which I think was a mostly-disengagement between the two of them. Like maybe routine discussion but nothing else. I think that Malke expressed agreement with this type of thing. If Ubikwit would not agree to that, i.e. thinking that Wikipedia needs to have Ubikwit personally watch or go after Malke, then I think that such would be pretty telling. North8000 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sigh. SMH. I am not familiar with the Dylan Flaherty history, and I really try to stay away from dramaboards if I can help it. It does seem that Ubikwit is very quick to make accusations about alleged policy violations. Just recently he accused me of a WP:OR violation for an observation that I made on the article Talk page. I had absolutely no intention of using the material in the article mainspace, nor did I suggest or imply that I would. I've also noticed that he's had some unpleasant exchanges with Malke and North8000.
• At the top of this thread, North8000 also touched on a recent incident where Ubikwit was discussing a potential edit to the lede sentence of the article. Another editor, Arthur Rubin, made a remark which I understood as an objection Under the rules SilkTork has imposed, one objection means no immediate action on the proposed edit, and the involved editors stop and talk about it and work it out, so I didn't bother to say anything at the time; I'm sure several others took it as an objection as well, or they would have spoken up. Then Ubikwit went ahead and made the edit. Then he proposed another edit, really a radical overhaul of the entire first half of the article, and immediately Malke, North8000 and I registered our objections loud and clear. And Ubikwit acted offended. (?!?!?!?!?)
• Personally I really don't have a beef with him, but others clearly do. I've even said that Ubikwit was the type of editor I'm able to work with despite our differences of opinion. I just wish we could go back to editing the article, and try to avoid any further unpleasantness. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, others do have a problem with him and not just the editors on the moderated discussion page. He's topic banned from one article and already has an interaction ban with another editor. His talk page is full of disciplinary actions and suggestions for behaviour changes which he challenges and apparently ignores judging by the persistant behaviours. And now he's here with another complaint in which he's totally blind to his behaviours.

He went from all the turmoil on the Isaeli article to the Tea Party movement which was then under ArbCom review and yet he made an edit to a contentious section in the article with no consensus and no real discussion: [242]. What reasonable editor seeking to be collegial and work with others does that?

How many warnings does it take? How long has he been on Wikipedia now? Since 2009? And yet his behaviours are not showing any improvement, but rather they are getting worse. Here he was given an interaction ban:[243] which he violated three days later. He's caused numerous incidents of disruption on Wikipedia including this: [244]. And after an interaction ban and a topic ban, he comes to a moderated discussion on an article under ArbCom sanctions and does this: [245] and this: [246]

He's been given excellent advice by Malik Shabazz who demonstrated impressive patience and restraint with him here: [247]. And here as well: [248]

The moderated discussion page on the Tea Party movement article is meant to resolve issues at the ArbCom case. It's not there to mentor a clearly disruptive editor. Since Ubikwit has brought his complaint here, the community needs to resolve it. These behaviours are recent, this editor has been on Wikipedia for a very long time. It might be best for the project, to prevent further disruption, if he's given an involuntary break. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP behavior + an unwillingness to communicate.

For the past several weeks I've been dealing with the edits from the IP address 222.237.20.155, who has been removing arcade system information from a handful of articles such as Marvel vs. Capcom: Clash of the Super Heroes and Giga Wing. I would have reported this at blatant vandalism but, looking at his other edits, the IP does seem to be interested in improving various articles and appears to be acting in good faith. However, despite multiple reversions asking for explanations and various warnings on his talk page, I have yet to hear anything from him as to why he's removing the arcade system info. I've checked myself and I've made sure that the removed info was correct and that the arcade infobox still supported info on what system was used. I really don't want to have to revert his edits every few weeks but I would like some help in establishing communication with him. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been blocked in Togo, and parts of Benin.

Trolling ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Sir/Ladies I can confirm to you today, that English language Wikipedia, and the French, Swedish editions, have been blocked by all ISP and governmental servers in the Republic of Togo, and small areas of the Republic of Benin. We have had reports coming in to our journalism office in Ghana that this is the case. --Togolaís Díplomátique (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you for letting us know. Do you have any idea whom we may have offended? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC) The government of Togo has blocked the viewing of Wikipedia due to 'incorrect sources' and 'blatent lies'. Just censorship really. This will hit African medoa attention soon. --Togolaís Díplomátique (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I have mentioned this at User talk:Jimbo Wales, where Togolaís Díplomátique would have been unable to post due to the page being semi-protected by User:Fram, despite Jimbo asking Fram in the past to stay away from his talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC) That's unfortunate but these would hardly be the only countries that block Wikipedia. It would be helpful though if they could give some examples of what they refer to as 'incorrect sources' and 'blatent lies'. They might be right and we might need to look at those but without knowing what they are its hard to say for sure. Kumioko (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC) "We have had reports coming in to our journalism office in Ghana that this is the case" Please I don't think this user lives in Ghana. And which part of Ghana is their located? There are no external links to prove also. Since am near to Togo I will try and check. Thanks. --Enock4seth (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you, that would be useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC) For reasons I won't go in to, I have some doubts here too. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC) http://allafrica.com/stories/201306121229.html Seems they are torturing their way to an election in July. It may just be a temp block.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) It's Technoquat. A SPI/CU will confirm this. Cheers. 24.46.162.17 (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Yep, even I recognize him and I've only seen two other socks of his. I think he wants to be discovered relatively quickly. There's not much in the way of WP:BEANS to be spilled here... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I don't know if this is related, but we had some serious problems with the coverage of that region when the editor MarkMysoe (talk · contribs) attempted to carve the Igbo speaking region of Ghana into a country unto itself around new year 2013.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC) We should refer the matter to the UNSC. Count Iblis (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone think of an alternative to blocking this editor?

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

---

I'm off to bed but BiasEXPOSED (talk · contribs) expects to be blocked quickly and all their edits so far indicate they are right. See their userpage User:BiasEXPOSED to see their intentions. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Being banned is not my "intention" but just a predictable consequence of speaking Truth to Power. Silencing criticism is the liberal way -- just ask Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. BiasEXPOSED (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that Stalin, Hitler, or Mao were 'liberals' probably deserves to be silenced ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not supporting a ban, but I am moving towards supporting a block, this shouldn't even be on AN its just a plain conspiracy vandalism account, along with a promotional userpage going against liberals. Prabash.Akmeemana 21:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I have trouble believing how things work in this place. That's a simple vandal, how can he have stayed unblocked this long? Indeffed. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC).

And user page deleted. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you or another admin revoke this user's talk page access? The user just posted something on his/her talk page that's clearly an attack towards another user. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, and I think we're done here. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Three solid days of bullying, insults and incivility by User:Flagrantedelicto

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.

---

Stemming from a conflict regarding WP:COPYPASTE at Talk:Muawiyah I, User:Flagrantedelicto has engaged in three days of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA breaches despite having been warned for such behavior by multiple users over the past few months.

• From the original content dispute itself:

1. " I am also going to reinstate some of my CITED entries. And if you delete again without discussing it with me, I will REINSTATE it again."
2. "Don't mistake me for a non-Muslim WP editor who is unfamiliar with Islamic protocol and etiquette."
3. "And who are you to decide what the "facts" are ?"
4. "And please do not offer me anymore unsolicited advice as to where to discuss matters here on WP."
5. "Don't go into any WP guideline bureacracy with me. You are a POV pusher who appears to be manipulating WP guideline policies to what you deem "neutrality"...There is nothing contested here. The sources have been cited and that is that."
6. "And where do you suddenly come out of the blue and question and accuse me of copy-pasting from polemical websites ?"
7. "lol...You must have me mistaken for your friend Johnleeds1...And I could care less what you suspect. Who exactly are you to accuse any WP editor?"
8. " you are a latent pro-Muawiyah Salafi/Wahhabi POV pusher who is manipulating WP guidelines and policies to impose your latent POV"
9. "First of all, my supposed or perceived "bad attitude" toward other WP editors is none of your business. Don't mix up your issues with someone else's."
10. "I don't really need to know who you are, nor do I particularly care to. But I am aware of your POV"

• Flagrantedelicto being uncivil due to my attempts at seeking conduct dispute resolution

1. "Where do you come across with such wild accusations ?"
2. "If anything, your actions give the impression of someone who is out of control."
3. " I shall introduce (or perhaps re-introduce) myself as the editor who is supposedly "out of control", or so I have been labelled...lol"
4. "And I don't need to report you, since you already brought attention to yourself when you went and cried to WP admin Diannaa."
5. "Your above semi-rhetoric of a response would even have been mildly effective had it not been for you running to a WP Admin and crying...You also falsely stated that I was "out of control" and had "outbursts"...lol"
6. You ask me to assume good faith, but lodge a false complaint of me being "out of control" and engaging in "outbursts"...You can offer all the policy rhetoric you want, but your POV is transparent"

• Flagrantedelicto's rejection of attempts at solving the dispute

1. By User:Toddy1 at 01:04, 17 June 2013, flat out rejected at 01:13, 17 June 2013
2. I asked Flagrantedelicto to cease his unprovoked mockery of me for quoting Stephen Jay Gould at 08:03, 17 June 2013, he simply denied what he was doing at 19:25, 17 June 2013
3. Toddy1 also expressed the view that Flagrantedelicto's comment was rude at 01:59, 18 June 2013, Flagrantedelicto once again flatly rejected this at 12:29, 18 June 2013 and denies that such concerns exist at 13:34, 18 June 2013.

• Flagrantedelicto's seeking of a third opinion even contains incivility

1. "::@MezzoMezzo. Your Stephen Jay Gould adage to Faiz Haider certainly sounds profound. It would be nice if you applied it to yourself."

• Flagrantedelicto's speculating about the religion of other editors

1. "Toddy1 (who gave the impression of being a non-Muslim) titled a new section header in Johnleeds1 personal Talk Page HAZRAT MUAWIYAH--Which almost no non-Muslim WP editor would have used. This reveals a Muslim affiliation..."

There is quite a bit more, but I'm only describing what requires urgent attention. In six years of editing, I've seen this maybe twice, and both instances ended with blocks. The longer this continues, the more bold this editor becomes, and thus I feel this requires immediate attention now. It is also worth noting that the admin I contacted, who previously warned Flagrantedelicto for incivility (he responded by saying "Before you start lecturing me, I couldn't care if you are the founder WP, please review both sides and don't cop to a double standard. If I am blocked do you think that really scares me ? LOL I don't like threats...Not from you or anyone. I also don't like your tone, either"), politely declined to mediate the dispute this morning due to other commitments. I don't see any other solution other than ANI at this point; this is a rather extreme case, at least in my experience. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Editor seems rude which cant be helped, otherwise the only issue I see is his use of religious beliefs as a reason to question other editors capability (as noted above and also in some of his talk page contribs). WP:PERSONAL Amit (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• MezzoMezzo must learn how to handle talk page disputes himself..this is the 2nd time he has opened an ANI thread in these couple weeks..whats ironic is that there are cases of him being uncivil but he turns a blind eye on his own actions..apparently this user isnt aware that talk pages sometimes do get heated during discussion...this is another frivolous filing on Mezzo's part instead of attempting to calm things down he expects other users to do it for him. Baboon43 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• The last thread was regarding you, Baboon. Nobody called it frivolous; I simply chose the wrong place and was encouraged to file an RFC/U by multiple editors, with one even calling it necessary. I thank you for your advice and perhaps I have made mistakes, but given that I drafted an RFC/U about your conduct I am inclined to be somewhat reserved in accepting your constructive criticism. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• There are two related articles Muawiyah I and Yazid I. Flagrantedelicto has made more edits to these articles in the past six months than everyone else put together. Flagrantedelicto was asked to provide further details about sources that he/she was citing, so that other users can verify that these sources support the statements allegedly based on them. He/she has been asked this before. The kind of details requested include, publisher, date of publication, ISBN (if any), etc. Page numbers would also be useful. These details are not difficult to provide if you really have seen the source you are citing (though finding the right page numbers is more time consuming that providing publishing details). I would of course entirely understand a delay - a "hold on" message would have been acceptable.
• When I asked for further details on sources being cited on Talk:Yazid I on 2 February 2013, Flagrantedelicto did not answer, but instead a reply was posted by someone who has only ever edited Wikipedia on 8-9 September 2012 and 5 February 2013 explaining that other parts of the article had no citations, and giving reasons why there was no need/point in providing further details on citations.
• I raised this issue again on 9 and 11 May 2013 on Talk:Muawiyah I. Flagrantedelicto's reply was the other stuff exists argument, listing some problems with some citations by other people, which I fixed on 12 May, but he/she did not respond by fixing the problem with his/her citations.
• MezzoMezzo has raised the same issue (using different wording) on 16 June. He/she has advanced the theory that the citations have been cut and pasted from online forums, which is certainly a plausible hypothesis. If Flagrantedelicto is acting in good faith, why does he/she refuse to provide further details on the books that he/she claims to be citing?

• Flagrantedelicto has a habit of providing walls of text on talk pages. It is often hard to see the relevance of these.

• The question is whether or not the article should have sufficient details on sources for other editors to know what book is being cited and verify statements in the articles. What possible relevance is outing me?

• Personally I find some of the remarks that Flagrantedelicto makes to be uncivil. For example, please see User talk:Toddy1#Yazid I Talk Page, which was in response to my asking him to remove some uncivil words from one of his postings about a new user. Unfortunately Flagrantedelicto appears to believe that everybody apart from him/herself is a POV-pusher...--Toddy1 (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, please can the comments by Flagrantedelicto outing me be removed by admins from Talk:Muawiyah I and any other talk pages with them on. I have a right to privacy, and speculation about my religion is not relevant to the topic.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even realize that, his speculation about your (Toddy's) private beliefs does seem like outing. He was already warned by two admins for trying to out another person back in January - User:Someguy1221 and User:The Bushranger - and his reply was that "My contributions on WP outweigh any undesired conflict. Is that understood (?)" and to accuse one of those admins of threatening him. An outing attempt in January isn't directly relevant now, but it does show that there is no excuse for this current outing attempt.

Look. The guy gets warned by an admin for incivility and he tells her "I also don't like your tone"; I don't know why User:Diannaa didn't slap a temporary block there but I admit I know little of how that works. He tries to out an editor that same month and accuses the warning admin of threatening him. Apparently on the Yazid article he's also behaving rudely and now, he launches into a tirade of insults and abuse for three straight days (hence my feeling that this is urgent and appropriate for ANI). This is clearly a case of a person who has been emboldened by the lack of action. He's violated WP:PERSONAL and WP:CIVIL enough times in three days alone to warrant administrative action and his history indicates no reason to believe that this behavior will stop. The two or three articles for which he has very openly claimed ownership are now essentially locked from discussion due to his rudeness. Something needs to be done not only in response to all these violations but for the good of the encyclopedia as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

As of a few hours ago, the user is still directing rude personal remarks at myself and Toddy1 as well, including on talk spaces that neither of us had previously commented on. I am looking bacj now and there were also more attempts than the one above to dig up private information in Toddy1 but I don't know how to post diffs because I am using my mobile browser and I'm not skilled with it. Look, this is a case of repeated incivility without provoking in our part in addition to what seems like attempts at outing. Something needs to be done. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE to me - constant attempts to out people, deliberately seeking out conflict, horrendous uncivil comments, etc. A lengthy block, or even an indef, appears to be required. With response to Baboon's comment, well, that appears to be quite clear trolling as well - MezzoMezzo has clearly attempted to discuss the situation, failed, and come here looking for valid sanctions - as is the point of ANI. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Past behavior is relevant if it shows the user either can't or won't adapt to the collaborative editing environment. I was the target of the attempted outing in January, during an unnecessarily prolonged discussion over Mark Antony's date of birth. We had unequivocal statements placing the DOB from ancient historians and classicists, some of whom are notable enough for to have their own article. Even after I located and translated a German article narrowly focused on the DOB, along with finding the primary sources on which the secondary sources had been based, the user continued to make an OR counter-argument. When it comes to marshaling scholarship, I can take care of myself, but I was appalled by the user's attempts to undermine my credibility on the basis of gender. The worst of this, as I recall, was in the suppressed post in which the outing occurred. As one admin noted at the time, virtually every post made by Flagrantedelicto contained an insult or bullying remark. We shouldn't allow users to create that kind of toxic environment. A few other editors participated in that discussion, at least one at careful length (P Aculeius), and none agreed with Flagrantedelicto—until, after a couple of reports at ANI, the mysterious LiShihKai, who had never before edited Wikipedia, weighed in. LiShihKai has made a total of eight edits, six at Talk:Mark Antony, the last of which is perhaps the most scurrilous piece of incivility to which I've been subjected on Wikipedia. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Since this party is hosted in my honor, please allow me to crash it. I totally disagree with Cynwolfe's input as it is biased and has no bearing on the Muawiyah I article which is the issue. As Cynwolfe has probably no clue as to what has been transpiring in the Muawiyah I article. Also, I have joined this discussion. So let us stick to the facts. Also, Cynwolfe kindly forgot to mention that she initiated the adversity by calling me "ignorant". That is why WP Admin Diannaa did not go further with Cynwolfe's complaints. Anyone may ask me about the issue in the Muawiyah I article who has actually read word-for-word the exchanges. I agree with Baboon43's analysis. The only comments that really belong here are by those who have read word-for-word the exchanges in the Muawiyah I Talk Page. I put in a considerable amount of effort to improve that article over a month's time. So did another user Johnleeds1. We had our differences in perspectives but came to an understanding and resolved them amicably. This can be viewed by anyone in the Muawiyah I Talk Page as well as the Flagrantedelicto Talk Page. MezzoMezzo was not involved in a single discussion for over a month. Turns up all of a sudden and deletes hours of work without discussing it first. These are the rather Uncivil remarks by MezzoMezzo toward me which was really INITIATED by MezzoMezzo. Anyone here in this notice board discussion can go visit the Muawiyah I Talk Page and see for themselves :

all you did here was go into a rant about your own personal viewpoints on the subject,..... MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

But you know what? I'm tired of your bad attitude with other editors...... MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And then MezzoMezzo admitted that he/she was not aware of the lengthy discussions between Johnleeds1 and myself. My dissatisfaction with Johnleeds1 is that he inundated this article with uncited entries (long before I restructured-NOT deleted any material of this article, which I only did later to uncited sources). All you have to do is go back and check the edit history to verify this. This article had dozens of sub-paragraphs that were entered by Johnleeds1 which were totally uncited. Toddy1 was surprisingly flexible about this, but with me, kept requesting even more detailed info than already provided to my entries which were all cited with references. These double standards are clearly evident and undeniable. And I voiced my CONCERNS regarding them, not accusations. And then MezzoMezzo suddenly turns up and DELETES considerable material which took quite an effort on my part to enter. MezzoMezzo also deleted the entire Shia View section of which I had no participation in (as I am SUNNI). The Shia View section was the product of other WP editors' efforts which were amply cited with references. MezzoMezzo did not participate in any of the lengthy discussions between myself and Johnleeds1 and just suddenly appears without having any awareness of what the content of our discussions were about. This statement by MezzoMezzo illustrates this:

Look, I didn't pay real attention to any of this until yesterday;....MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As for my dispute with Johnleeds1, he too accused of me of a couple of things I never stated. But at least Johnleeds1 realized this and apologized to me more than once regarding his mistake. Johnleeds1 mistook his debate with someone else entirely in another WP article altogether, then accused me of something the other WP user supposedly stated. After realizing his mistake, Johnleeds1 apologized.

Flagrantedelicto sorry if I offended you. It was not my intension to offend you. The Abu Bakr thing was a mistake. .... --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Flagrantedelicto sorry if I upset you earlier. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And my disagreements with Johnleeds1 were resolved amicably. You can view this yourself in both my personal Talk Page and in the Muawiyah I Talk Page. Johnleeds1 even complimented my efforts and agreed with some of the points I brought up to him. Here is what Johnleeds1 had to say about my efforts in the Muawiyah I article:

Flagrantedelicto you have done a good job of putting the article in chronological order. It looks much better now. Flagrantedelicto it may be best to move some of the text from the Shia section about Abdullah ibn Umar and others into the Sunni section too. All early books used by the Sunni favor Hassan and Ali over Muawiyah..... --Johnleeds1 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is what the contradictory Toddy1 has stated about my efforts in the Muawiyah I article:

When people see the generally good work you do on Wikipedia, and notice in your good work some small errors in wording, and fix it for you... That is called helping you.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are a good editor and are of great value to Wikipedia. But please be more self-aware, and more tolerant of views you do not share.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

--Flagrantedelicto (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If anything, the above block of text by Flagrantedelicto further proves the point - he is absolutely unrepentant and unwilling to address the concerns of his peers here. While his message was uncharacteristically polite - likely due to it being on ANI - it still seems to focus on editing patterns of myself rather than the issues of incivility and outing. According to WP:OUTING:

Unless unintentional and non-malicious, attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.

Here, Flagrantedelicto once again tries to justify his outing attempt on CNWolfe by saying that he felt the other editor brought it on themself. This is in addition to his refusal to address his outing attempts on Toddy1. This is the second time; he should be indefinitely banned immediately for this alone.

On top of that, we now have testimony from both Toddy1 and CnWolfe that this battleground mentality and proclivity toward insults has remained unchanged since at least January. Additionally, I only just now checked WP:NOTHERE as I had forgotten about the policy. It includes: General pattern of disruptive behavior, Treating editing as a battleground, Little or no interest in working collaboratively, Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention and Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods. I think everybody here can agree that Flagrantedelicto is both guilty and unrepentant on both counts.

First of all, a temporary block won't work; he has shown defiance and even rudeness when warned by admins and it seems that a temporary block will only be a temporary solution.

Second of all, we have grounds per the policies above to request an indefinite ban. He has tried to out two editors now and has been unrepentant both times, even trying to justify his first outing attempt. This person should not be allowed to have an account on Wikipedia, as just the diffs above (there is still more) show. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Wall of text by Flagrantedelicto

There was not any outing attempt on Toddy1. I will illustrate this now. Here is a copy-paste of how contradictory Toddy1 has been toward me-- In retrospective analysis, if it were not for Muawiyah's opposition to the properly elected Rashidun caliph, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Muawiyah's reputation would have been unanimously favourable among the eminent SUNNI theologians, chroniclers, and hagiographers. It was to illustrate this point that the section of Muawiyah's legacy was expanded. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Please stop POV pushing.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC) POV pushing of what (?) Flagrantedelicto (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC) "properly elected" is a POV phrase and you know it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC) First of all, what do you mean by "you know it" (?) And fyi, properly elected means election by the Islamic Shura (Council), which was the Islamic standard since the foundation of the office of the Caliphate. That is what is meant by properly elected. There are POV phrases ALL throughout this article of which so many are UNCITED which you conveniently seem to be unaware of, so what prompted you to conclude that properly elected is POV pushing (?) --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC) The following is a copy-paste of my CONCERNS (not accusations) about edtior Toddy1's questionable neutrality-- This New Section heading from Johnleeds1 Talk Page entered by Toddy1 -- Hazrat Muawiyah Thank you for the improvements you have made to the article on Muawiyah I.[2] The new section has some citations, which is great. Would it be possible for you to add some more citations please. You must have some sources for the information you amended, and and also for the new paragraphs you added that lack citations. It is much easier for you to add the citations for this than for other people. I also have one quibble. You have a paragraph that starts: "Sunni scholars interpret..." This is weasel-like. Please either give citations to a secondary source that says this, or amend to "Sunni scholars, such as X, Y and Z, interpret...", which would also need citing.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Only Muslims address a historical or religious figure of Islam with the honorific title of HAZRAT. When Toddy1 did this on Johnleeds1 Talk Page, this gives a strong indication of possible Islamic affiliation by WP user-editor Toddy1. This affiliation, from speculation, could be that Toddy1 is a possible revert/convert to Islam, or someone who is headed in that direction. Only someone of SUNNI or SALAFI/WAHHABI persuasion would address Caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT. It is almost certain that NO NON-Muslim WP editor/user would have addressed Caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT MUAWIYAH. However, even among the vast SUNNI population, there is a half percentage who DO NOT address the Umayyad caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT. Among the SUNNI Muslim populace, there is a division of those who address Caliph Muawiyah I as HAZRAT, and those who DO NOT. The point of all this being that if Toddy1 is presenting herself/himself as possibly a NON-Muslim, entirely neutral WP editor, then this revealing documented information has to be brought to the forefront and acknowledged. Not that whatever Toddy1's theological affiliation may be makes any difference as a WP editor/user, but it does make a difference if Toddy1 is acting as a mediator in the Yazid I and Muawiyah I WP article pages. This could manifest itself in potential favoritism and partiality toward Salafi/Wahhabi influenced views of nearly half of the Sunni Muslim population. Then the objectivity and neutrality as a mediating WP editor/user is clearly jeopardized. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Here are illustrations/examples of the apparent lack of objectivity and neutrality by WP editor Toddy1 from some of his/her responses in the WP Talk Pages-- You do not seem to understand my point. You object to Bewley's book. Your arguments against it were not based on Wikipedia policy (or if they were, you did not explain them well enough). Your posts show that you have an extremely strong bias against Muawiyah and his son. As far as I can tell, your objection to Bewley is that she is not one of your lot. .... --Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC) In your anti-Muawiyah opinion Bewley's book is polemical. Mhaider5 shared your view. (He/she made 29 edits to Wikipedia from November 2007 to November 2008.) Have you read the book in question? Do you have any evidence from reliable sources to back up your/Mhaider5's claims? ....--Toddy1 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC) None of this relevant to the issue of whether Bewley's book is a reliable source under Wikipedia rules. The valid objection to the website, is that the text of her talk in Norwich is self-published. This particular objection does not apply to the book, which I have a copy.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Thus, all of these above examples of some of the responses of WP editor Toddy1 indicate a possible bias toward my position (which seeks to represent a NON-Salafi/Wahhabi POV of traditional SUNNI Islamic ideology), while on the other hand, indicating possible favoritism and partiality toward WP user/editor Johnleeds1 (who gives the clear impression of representing Salafi/Wahhabi POV, or Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced POV of a percentage of SUNNI Islamic ideology). From further analysis, all the interjections of WP editor Toddy1 are clearly aimed at my responses and not a single one toward WP user Johnleeds1. This is further indication of possible favoritism and partiality toward one WP user/editor (eg., Johnleeds1) over another WP user/editor (eg., myself, Flagrantedelicto). Some further points to be addressed are that WP editor Toddy1 indicated that he/she had a copy of Aisha Bewley's book Muawiyah, Restorer of the Muslim Faith. This appears to be somewhat unusual for a WP editor who is acting as a NON-Muslim mediator. It is further unusual when this same WP editor takes it upon herself/himself to seek REFERENCES and cite them on behalf of another WP user/editor or users/editors that had listed nine (9) INCOMPLETE cited sources (when the author was cited but the actual BOOKS were not). This is puzzling because when I myself had requested this WP editor (Toddy1) to do so on my behalf several months ago, because this WP editor kept interrupting me when I tried to insert any citations, as I was (at that time) relatively new to WP editing, this WP editor expressed to me much later that his/her responsibility was to assist editors/users (such as myself) in our edits to WP articles so that these edits meet WP guidelines. A summarizing point to be made: When presenting the traditional historical persona of Umayyad caliphs Yazid I (which is almost unanimous) and Muawiyah I (which is ambivalent) from all the classical Islamic literature of mostly SUNNI Imams (Religious Leaders) and Ulama (Scholars), is subsequently referred to as having an extremely strong bias against Muawiyah and his son by the WP editor in question (who is acting as mediator to the differing views of Islamic historiography), this then indicates a propensity toward Salafi/Wahhabi or Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced SUNNI ideology. A prime example of such propensity is illustrated in this earlier exchange on this Talk Page between myself and WP editor Toddy1-- Please stop POV pushing.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC) POV pushing of what (?) Flagrantedelicto (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC) "properly elected" is a POV phrase and you know it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC) The bottom line of my objection is toward the apparent mis-representation in WP articles of what are essentially Salafi/Wahhabi POV which are being presented as mainstream, traditional SUNNI Islamic POV. What I am sincerely requesting is a mediating WP editor who is unbiased, neutral, and objective. This can only be properly achieved by a NON-Muslim WP mediating editor who is genuinely not influenced by any of the differing POV's of the various creeds (madh'dhab) of the Islamic faith. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Now where in the above transcript does it indicate that I am trying to "out" Toddy1 (?) My concern was for a NEUTRAL editor who could mediate. If Toddy1 had any Islamic affiliation, and that affiliation was partial toward a pro-Muawiyah I bias, then it is only natural to raise concerns about this. There is no "outing" going on. I am a declared SUNNI Muslim myself. And I sincerely requisitioned a truly neutral mediating editor. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My god, is anybody else watching this? He's trying to out Toddy1 again right here in the middle of ANi. This is absolutely ridiculous, on top of his further accusations of Wahhabism against an editor who hasn't even participated here. How on Earth is this person not blocked right now? He's literally trying to out the same editor again right now, in the middle of ANI. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Flagrant, I'm going to make this really simple. Unless you want to take a forced break from Wikipedia, stop speculating about other editors' personal lives, and restrict yourself to commenting on content. This warning will be repeated on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

@Someguy 1221...I'm going to make this even simpler: Don't threaten me. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved editor: Speculating on the religion of an editor is not WP:outing:

Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not.

Outing involves posting information that may be used to identify the editor (whether correct or not). Stating someone is possibly part of a religious group is not outing. If he stated the mosque this guy might attend, or what suburb he lived in, that would be a different story. I hate to point out the obvious, but chances are most people who edit articles which are related to a religion likely also follow that religion, its not outing, its common sense. In the case above all that has been said is that someone has refered to someone in a certain way which likely means they are a member of or associated with a certain sect of Islam. Just like if on a Christian article if someone refer to a non-canonical modern day saint as such, they might be an LDS member. Purely for the record, I hold no religious affiliation whatsoever. -- Nbound (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You do make a good point there. Regardless, the comment still raises serious privacy concerns, in addition to the fact that the user is trying to justify their speculation. That, with the constant aggression and combative tendencies since January, still causes me to lead toward a ban; I can only speak for myself. As an uninvolved editor, could you (Nbound) comment on the situation as it stands right now? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the way the situation could stand is if you treated me like a fellow WP editor (who has a different perspective), and stop running in every other direction to everyone else. I am no alien from outer space but a human being (and a fellow Muslim). I'm clearly open to reach an understanding as I did with Johnleeds1 and we even came to agree on most points. Instead, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I'll tell you this much, what faces me has never frightened me. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Scot as apparent on my talk page (my father's French but culturally I identify with my mother's side), so as you could guess the bulk of my family is still Christian. My brother is an atheist, like I was before converting. I don't deal with people based on their religion, not in real life and certainly not on Wikipedia. So the religion card doesn't work here.

While I'm happy you're suddenly being somewhat polite here on ANI, the reality is that you're combative and rude with just about everybody you interact here. Just a few minutes ago, User:Someguy1221 warned you on your talk page like he said he would here and your answer was: "First of all, do you have the authorization to do this (?) And also I'm going to make this even simpler: Don't threaten me." Really, are you going to just turn Wikipedia into a battleground and take on all comers? You're still mouthing off to admins? I will reiterate: User:Flagrantedelicto is not here to build an encyclopedia and he has made that clear, from January up until a few minutes ago. They need to be banned. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your closing comment is as hostile and uncompromising as it gets. Who are you to judge and evaluate who should be banned (?) You, who did not put in the hours of work on the Muawiyah article, nor improved it from its previous state which was a mess. It literally had paragraphs and sub-paragraphs duplicated in different sections. Neither you nor Toddy1 seemed to do anything about this. When I took the initiative, all I received was your hostile response. Even Johnleeds1 and Toddy1 openly complimented my efforts as I have already illustratred. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

TBH, the whole thing is a bit of TL;DR. As a bit of general advice I would warn any editor who uses strong battleground tactics, that their time on wikipedia will be limited, either by the community at RfC/U, an admin directly, or <insert deity here> forbid, ArbCom. Wikipedia is a collaborative work, and should be treated as such. Unless an admin has been following this, and/or there is a definitely unarguable cause for ban, its likely that this will quietly slink off into the archives. I would suggest one of two options: Either an RfC/U to gauge community consensus on long term editor behaviour, or DRN for a formal approach to the content problems. I will not personally take part in in any DRN case pertaining to this (Im a DRN volunteer) due to COI issues as I am now technically "involved". And am not familiar enough with the entire situation to comment on an RfC either. -- Nbound (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sad yet true, this has become bloated. To me it seems crystal clear considering that just minutes ago the guy is still giving rather defiant orders to an admin for warning him, but if someone hasn't trudged through the walls of text it may not be clear. I'd still like to see if someone will take the time, as the absolute hostility this guy us showing to editor and admin alike seems absolutely deserving of a ban. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• So, stepping in as an admin here, let me be clear and simple and direct (unlike this thread. oy). I'm going to block Flagrantedelicto. There we are. Ironholds (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by user Li3939108

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.

---

Page: Ping Fu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: ‎Li3939108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've already posted an edit warring report on Li3939108 this morning at [249]. It is not resolved yet.

Background: The Ping Fu article has been subject to continuing POV edits and vandalism, from a rotating cast of characters, ever since the Chinese blogger Fang Zhouzi launched a human flesh search engine attack against its subject 5 months ago. On Amazon.com (where the people involved in the attack coordinate their actions), they've recently put out a call for people to edit this article, to include their POV. (Which comes down to “Ping Fu is a shameless liar.” Put it in google if you don't believe me.)

The last edit by ‎Li3939108 at [250] was pointy at best, and certainly disruptive. When it's daylight again in China (where Li3939108 is), I'm assuming he'll pick up where he left off.

I don't want to short-circuit the process at WP:AN3, but neither do I want to spend the weekend wrestling with an editor who is bound and determined to post "the truth."

I'd appreciate some help in monitoring the page this weekend. (Apologies if this isn't the right noticeboard.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, it looks like you're both guilty of WP:3RR - I'd suggest full protection and the issues can be solved on the talk page. Dusti^*poke* 03:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I truly understand that wikipedia isn't a place to post "the truth". The content I posted has multiple reliable sources. User:Fearofreprisal has removed the {{POV}} tag. Isn't it a vandal ? --凡其_Fanchy 05:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ping Fu's alma mater Soochow University has posted two official statements against Ping Fu. And Soochow U has prepared to file lawsuits both in China and the United American . The info may soon be updated. I add {{current person}} to the page. --凡其_Fanchy 05:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• The POV tag is inappropriate IMO, as is the "current event" tag - it smacks of tendentious editing from you, Li. As did removing a bunch of information in retaliation to Fearofreprisal's edits. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• dusti - 4th revert was an exception under wp:NOT3RR for removal of WP:redflag pre-litigation material. Looking back at the policy, I should have labeled it clearly, and flagged as such in the talk page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Requesting summary block, and speedy deletion of all images uploaded by, User: Ontopgg

Account created earlier today, used only for promotional editing of Teri Ann Linn. Editor is edit warring without discuss to add back both inappropriately promotional text and multiple copyvios, both text and image. All of Ontopgg's image uploads, here and at Commons, are clearly copyrighted material from various sources, including Hachette magazine covers, claimed as their own work. Ontopgg has removed warnings from their talk page without responding. Enough whack-a-mole has been played already; time to speedy the images and block the editor until they agree to stop this; they've likely been editing the article from other accounts (both IP and named) for a while. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

All done on this wiki, but the two files on the Commons are still awaiting deletion. I am not an admin over there. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is clean I think; there's no difference between the current revision and revision 523924084 dated 6 February 2013. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Now for that unblock request. Anyone feeling friendly? Drmies (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to log off now. I am posting a message on their talk page first. If they show a sincere understanding of copyright law and conflict of interest before I return in the morning, please feel free to unblock. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

190.162.52.196 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is persistently edit warring at Jeremy Spencer right after returning from two blocks. Personal attacks have now been included here and here, not to mention some pointy edits at Python (programming language). I think it's time for a longer block. I would have done that myself, but, you know, I'm a "sanctimonious prick". Maybe the community can convince this anonymous editor that it is in fact themselves who're not here to build an encyclopedia. De728631 (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how removing subjective statements from an article could cause any kind of problem. But when you have people like De728631 blundering in without any clue about the situation, criticising me for calling a self described troll a troll, then we start to have problems. The mere fact that the troll had registered a username seems to have been enough for De728631 to assume that they were in the right. 190.162.52.196 (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The wording the IP has removed eight times is reliably sourced and has consensus. This IP understands neither of those things. The IP has three reverts at Jeremy Spencer within 24 hours [251], [252], [253], having already been blocked twice for edit-warring there. He's a single-purpose editor, leaves abusive edit summaries, he's called me stupid twice, and he's called an admin a sanctimonious prick, yet he's still here. Why is that? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No matter how many references you find that contain a subjective statement, it's still a subjective statement. Consensus doesn't trump NPOV. Would you want an article on Transnistria to start by saying "Transnistria, best known for being a separatist republic"? I hope you might eventually comprehend the absurdity of judging the facts when you can simply state them, but my hope is very distant. 190.162.52.196 (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What you have persistently failed to understand is that it doesn't matter what you think of the statement (and you're wrong about it), it doesn't allow you to ride roughshod over the rules of Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not wrong about the statement. If you can't understand the difference between subjective and objective, you're a problem. As for rules, NPOV is a core policy which you keep on violating. 190.162.52.196 (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV has not at any stage been violated. If you understand it all so well, why did you replace one supposedly subjective statement here [254] and replace it with another one? Did you do one of your global polls to establish "widely used"? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. "Popular" is subjective. "Widely used" is objective. Can you honestly not understand that? 190.162.52.196 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Widely used where? How? By whom? Enough already. This is an admin page so let's leave them to sort it out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

See the sources that are cited. They contain details on how the use of various programming languages are compared. You are asking for objective facts which are easily obtainable, which is fine. Can you see how this is different to making claims that require you to know how people feel about the subject of an article? Can you understand that actually, you don't know how people feel about the subject of an article? 190.162.52.196 (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Six minutes after I made an edit at Lindsey Buckingham, this IP went there (wonder why?) and made the self-same removal of uncontentious information as he has done eight times at Jeremy Spencer [255]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, can't imagine why I would end up looking at the article for more than one member of Fleetwood Mac. Once again your "uncontentious information" consists of subjective statements and puffery. Have you ever read Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms? Are you even aware of those guidelines? 190.162.52.196 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This edit by the IP-editor that Bretonbanquet is complaining about, improved the flow of English in the article. We should encourage the IP-editor to make more such edits.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Improved the flow? Didn't improve the sense, did it? Buckingham's still in the band. Coming from an editor who has a userbox on his user page that says he doesn't understand English, that's interesting. The IP is now trawling through articles on members of Fleetwood Mac, making the same edit [256], [257]. He's also so ignorant of the subject matter as to have implied that John McVie has left the group, when he is in fact still a member. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the IP is right or wrong, it is not acceptable to edit-war across multiple articles, nor is it acceptable to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.[258][259][260][261][262][263][264][265][266][267][268] This IP has already been blocked twice[269] for edit-warring in less than a week. Apparently, they're not getting the message. Can we please get a block on this IP? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition to edit-warring and disrupting Wikipedia across multiple articles, there's also personal attacks: "You are too stupid to distinguish between fact and opinion and that's a remarkable handicap for someone who is editing an encyclopaedia." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• The edit warring at Jeremy Spencer is ridiculous. PAs don't help. Blocked 1 week. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This now-blocked editor has returned under a new IP – his edits so far consist entirely of undoing my edits from yesterday [270], including further edit warring at Jeremy Spencer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This person appears to be back and they're continuing to edit-war across multiple articles.[271][272][273][274][275][276] They originally edited as 190.162.52.196 which is allocated to Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry in Uruguay.[277] Their new IP address is 200.120.211.239 which is also allocated to Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry in Uruguay.[278] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week, but I have a feeling they will be back soon. Maybe a rangeblock would be more effective, but I don't know how perceptible Chilean IPs are for collateral damage. Can a checkuser please look into this? De728631 (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

And the ranting goes on: [279]. De728631 (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This editor has a long history of edit warring over the phrase "best known for" or variants thereof. See Cleo Rocos and it's related entry in Wikipedia:Lamest Edit Wars. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

PantherLeapord, 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.

---

PantherLeapord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to show conduct that I have concerns about, such as an aggressive stance on several NFCC 1-related discussions. He has also publicly accused several editors (such as me and Masem) of being "deletionists", and listed them on his user page; which I had removed for being an attack page. After being warned of this policy, he then refactored the warning given on his page to say "Please do not create pages that show the truth about their subject. These pages and files are not tolerated by the people having the truth revealed about them." (in violation of the talk page guidelines). He also removed further comments clarifying the rules on refactoring talk page comments with increasingly aggressive remarks ("Is this YOUR talk page now" "EXCUSE ME!? AFAIK I AM ALLOWED TO DELETE SUCH COMMENTS ON MY OWN TALK PAGE" "Again; WHO'S talk page is this!?" "Stop harassing me about removing comments from MY talk page")

He was blocked for edit warring an image out of Xbox One that he felt was of a poor quality (and then began campaigning to have a non-free image restored because his interpretation of NFCC 1 does not consider the free image to be of good enough quality), on the condition that he stop edit warring over PlayStation and Xbox images. I don't think any of the things he's done today are worthy of blocks, but I'm becoming concerned about his conduct. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you insist on making a mountain out of a molehill? PantherLeapord (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This was not a molehill. As has been explained in a statement that you deleted with no apparent effort to read and understand it, if you repeat an edit like that, you will be blocked again. I'm unlikely to repeat the last go round where you were unblocked after a few hours, as your behaviour since your last block has been pretty abysmal, including using your user page as an attack page.—Kww(talk) 07:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well pardon me for pointing out how stupidly powerful free content purists that always prefer worse content that is DETRIMENTAL to the encyclopedia because free have become! PantherLeapord (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you continue to fail to understand that the exception to using non-free content is when suitable (note: I did not say high-quality) content is available, AND your attitude is going to be one where you create attack pages to disparage those who actually uphold the law, the rules, and policies, then I do not foresee your username appearing on Wikipedia for much longer. Do it again - ever - and you will be blocked, period (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that if you're going to express your opposition to our non-free policies, it is probably best to (a) dial back the attacks on people with different opinions, and (b) perhaps choose an issue to debate which isn't actually cut and dried - the PS4 image issue was absolutely straightforward as regarding our policies and not even close to a grey area. People are far more likely to engage with you if you make your points in a reasoned manner. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No; the only problem here is how free image purists have brainwashed people into thinking that fair use is bad and the crappy and unencyclopedic free > encyclopedic fair use. PantherLeapord (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your level of cluefullness < 0 ... you have not read a single fricking thing that has been presented to you? You can't make your own shit up - especially regarding copyright and fair use. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think claiming that anyone on a project that contains many dozens of thousands of non-free images - most (if by no means all) of which actually do meet WP:NFCC - is a "free image purist" is never going to fly. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

~473k non-free files exist on wikipedia. Werieth (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks like everyone sees what's going on pretty clearly, but just to chime in: this user has been rather difficult to work with. There's no discussing policy with them, every time its "I want to use this image, so IAR!" And every time they're told "No, that's not how it works", then we get an earful about "power hungry admin", "conspiracy", etc etc. Its one continuous example of WP:IDHT. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest topic ban from NFCC and related areas since this user refuses to get a clue, is extremely hostile, combative, and rude. Werieth (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• I support that, but will note that I am "involved"- I have been discussing non-free content issues with this user this morning, and I am one of the people listed on the deleted userpage. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• I think that a very clear warning that such a topic ban will be imposed if the behaviour continues would be better at this stage. A very last chance, but leaving no doubt as to what the next step will be. That'll probably still mean we are a bunch of brainwashing dictators, but at least we will have offered every possible opportunity for change before sanctions. I know, I'm an old softy... Begoon ^talk 14:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we add IMMEDIATELY that ANY referring to an editor or group of editors as "deletionists" lead to immediate block? This guy is quite clearly creating a WP:BATTLE by his sheer forceful lack of competence and compassion for the community (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If we were to apply that as a criteria, Dream Focus would have been banned ages ago. For better or worse, we've legitimized the use of that term by not acting on it in the past.—Kww(talk) 16:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, that's a very good point. But regardless of the use of that term or not, WP:BATTLE is the crux, and that's what mustn't be allowed to continue. Competence can sometimes be learnt or taught, battling with other editors is a style choice. Begoon ^talk 17:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, being called a "deletionist" as a pejorative merely elicits a "yeah, whatever" from me and an assumption that the person using it isn't capable of creating a policy-based argument; however the major problem here is incorrectly accusing other editors of being detrimental to the encyclopedia, which definitely is a personal attack. That needs to stop. As I said above, it isn't constructive and will result in editors not engaging with even any reasonable points one makes. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As on involved presently and in past issued with DF, at least DF argues the point for decent debate, which is the core of consensus building, even if DF refuses to budge. On the other hand, PantherLeopard is making no attempt to understand the rational of non-free and thus making any chance of debate nil. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Still going - [280]. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. That kinda undermines my earlier suggestion of a "very last" warning, doesn't it? You'd have to assume he's reading this, and that's his reaction. I support the topic ban immediately now, since I agree with incorrectly accusing other editors of being detrimental to the encyclopedia ... definitely is a personal attack. Begoon ^talk 00:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's my cynical take; what we have here is a generation gap, a wave of new adolescent-to-young-adult editors who grew up in an age of having every virtual thing at their fingertips. Want a song or movie? Torrent it. Want a picture for meme generation? Google it. Welcome to the collision of Web 2.0 and the 21st century, this is just a taste of things to come. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's cynical at all. Just observant and realistic. A whole new use for the term "free culture" perhaps..? Begoon ^talk 00:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

De-archived section. A near-unanimous topic ban shouldn't slide off into archive land without someone closing it.—Kww(talk) 06:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

Although User:Werieth proposed it, let's formalize the wording, as it appears to be necessity:

I propose: User:PantherLeapord is topic banned from uploading images, participating in all image-related discussions, and from any other mention of images or those who have uploaded images across the English Wikipedia, added broadly construed. This topic ban is for a period of 6 months. After 3 months, User:PantherLeapord may appeal for a loosening of these restrictions on WP:ANI. Violations of these restrictions will be met by escalating blocks. The restrictions will be logged at WP:RESTRICT

• Support as proposer (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, broadly construed. GiantSnowman 15:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - if an editor won't abide by image policies, then they should not get to work with images at all. (Though I think any future appeal should be at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, I can understand Kumioko's concerns about "broadly construed", below, and I prefer BlackKite's alternative wording - it's not enough to make me withdraw my support as worded, but I do think we'd be on more solid ground with the more specific wording -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as above. — Richard BB 16:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support with clause, it should be indefinite, (IE until it can be demonstrated that the user's behavior has changed) setting a hard time limit just delays the issue. Werieth (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support with regret, I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but the repeated attacks on other editors, after warnings, who are actually following policy is not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose with the broadly construed language - As mentioned in detail in the subsection below.Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support The user has continued the behaviour without any sign that they even acknowledge the concerns. After 3 months of non-disruptive editing elsewhere they can appeal for relaxation. It would be a different matter if there were any indication that they recognise this problem and intend to address it. I don't see that, and continued personal attacks and disruption of discussion must not be allowed to continue. Begoon ^talk 00:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously some harsh re-education is needed! PantherLeapord (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - As per reasons given above. (wasn't sure where to put my vote so i put it here, dont hesitate to move it if its in the wrong spot) ★★RetroLord★★ 11:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - well, if the subject of this topic ban seems to support this (hurr), so shall I. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  Lol, I was about to point that out. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose #1 I'm not seeing any truly troubling links. Kww's link is certainly combative, but it's own his on talk page. Modifying a templated message isn't that horrible. His edit warring on images is a more serious problem, but he was blocked for that. He needs to have it made clear that he needs to act like a reasonable person. That said, his views on NFCC are fairly similar to my own. I don't like the idea of banning someone from an area because they hold a minority view. Especially when (IMO) the view is quite reasonable. I feel this is moving into WP:CENSOR range. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• So what you are saying, is that editors are free to (clearly, and absolutely) violate our policies and then (clearly, and repeatedly, after warnings) personally attack those that point this out, calling them destructive? Interesting idea, can't help thinking it wouldn't be generally constructive though. Although, given that the issue is NFCC it doesn't surprise me; there appears to be some sort of exception for WP:NPA when it is aimed at editors upholding NFCC. Nothing changes. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• You make a good point. I will point out that NPA isn't exactly our most enforced set of rules--I think you'd agree many editors get away with personal attacks stronger than these. Though yes, this user has going past what I think is blockable under NPA (Kww's block was a good one and further blocks for NPA would have been quite reasonable). But I'd personally prefer a short block for NPA (week?) rather than a topic ban in the hopes of improvement. That's what we generally do I think.

Further, I do think our NFCC enforcement is broken. And I can fully understand why people get extremely frustrated with it, because I'm extremely frustrated with it. When we have people speedying pictures when it is claimed to be the only picture of the creature (and that wasn't disputed at the time of the speedy though it is false) or arguing that a picture of an 80-year old is sufficient for an article on a person famous for his boyish looks. Yes, it's frustrating. And yes, I understand the anger. Further, and more generically, I really don't like topic banning people with minority opinions without first trying other options. Mentoring, escalating blocks or other options haven't been explored. Not sure it would work, but it hasn't been tried. Hobit (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm on the other side of that one. I would have thought, given that the user does have constructive edits away from his obvious problem with images, that a topic ban on images would be better than escalating blocks, especially as it would keep them away from the issue that clearly irritates them and which is likely to get them blocked (if that makes sense). I agree that our NFCC enforcement is broken though; that's because it's actually impossible to enforce - even to the extent of admins backing up those violating NFCC - which is why we have so many non-free images. Black Kite (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think a 6 month topic ban shouldn't be the first step--especially on a wiki-political topic. A block associated with the NPA policy would have been a better first step. I don't think I've seen a topic ban before with only one previous block on the account. I'm sure they've existed, but... And if you think the NFCC policy is broken on the side of over-including non-free images, I can't imagine what you would want FfD to look like. I suspect the delete rate there is already over 90%. Hobit (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Fair use is a respectable and well-established part of copyright law. It is therefore quite reasonable to use this and we do so extensively. The fuss about the images for the Xbox One is ephemeral as we'll soon have all the images we want, when the device is released in a few weeks time. And trying to block or ban someone for using the word deletionist is blatantly partisan. See deletionist. Warden (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Except that that's not what the issue is about, as you'd know if you'd actually read the diffs. Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• There don't seem to be any diffs in this section and hardly any above. What there is indicates that there was some bickering on the User:PantherLeapord's talk page, where editors are usually permitted to speak freely. It all seems quite petty. Warden (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, to start off with, there was repeated edit-warring, multiple occasions of violations of NPA, and a userpage (since deleted under G10) which listed all the editors that PL had issues with, entitled "Editors bent on degrading the encyclopedia". Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment about broadly construed

I do not agree with the language broadly construed. This language has been used in other restrictions and ends up turning into a means for abuse because its too open to interpretation. The sanction needs be defined and if need be can be revisited later. We shouldn't be using weak language like broadly construed, whenever you feel like it or on the admins whim. They all mean the same thing. If the intent is that the user be restricted then it needs to be clearly stated what the restriction is. Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I take this as anything regarding files/images. Upload, FFD, DRV, NFCR, and anything else that we may have forgotten to spell out in regards to files. This basically means anything to do with files is topic banned. Using a broad brush prevents attempts at wikilawyering around the edges Werieth (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

But it also allows 1400 people with differing views and interpretations of the rules that they can do whatever they want. If you say anything to do with files fine. But adding broadly construed some admin that doesn't like the editor could justify that editing Photoshop is a blockable offense because its releated to files "broadly construed". It has happened a lot. Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's pushing it a bit, but I get your point. How about "User:PantherLeapord is topic banned from uploading images, commenting on image files or their usage, and participating in image-related discussions or discussions of policy related to images, across the English Wikipedia"? Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No admin would make that leap. You are building quite the strawman. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@Black Kite, I think that's much better thank you.

@Djsasso, I wish I was just building a strawman, but I'm not. It has happened many times. Liberal blocks have been doled out many times by admins, frequently involved ones, for things that are far removed from the purpose or intent of the block. I've seen it here on this page, at Arbitration Enforcment and in other venues and frankly I'm tired of editors being beaten up over poorly worded sanctions. I'm also a little disappointed you think so little of me for trying to improve the project....but I don't really care either. Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Commenting specifically on the language as I've not read the rest of the thread. The counter argument is of course that many editors have tried gaming a ban by editing a closely related topic in the same problematic way while technically obeying the wording of the ban. This is an attempt to avoid this happening. Although I agree somewhat with your concern we also don't want editors gaming a ban. Striking the right balance is difficult. I do hope however that if a single admin interpreted "broadly construed" too broadly their action would be overturned here. Dpmuk (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that as well but historically that has not occurred. I also understand and I sympethize to a degree but we shouldn't be dealing in what if's. If we say they can't edit images because editing images and we are afraid they may start editing videos, then by all means say images, video's and files. But we should leave it completely to the discretion of the admins becaue unfortunatly best intentions aside we don't operate in a utopian society where best wishes prevail. If the user starts editing something else (infoboxes maybe or Portals) in the same problematic manner then they can be brought back and we can revisit the issue. But we shouldn't be so generic that we have this "and stuff" language. On a related point and although I didn't fight this issue yet we should be specifying a duration. Is it 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, forever? The way these are written they infer forever when in many cases 6 months might be sufficient. Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Kumioko and Dpmuk's views. Not to mention that having a "broadly construed" topic ban implies that the editor being topic banned has been consistently disruptive in too many places such that a broad ban is required when in reality this is not necessarily the case. It's analogous to being banned from going into all bars in a city because you got rowdy in one or two places. Blackmane (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - In seeking out the information after my own encounters with the subject, I think a topic ban is warranted. The user is unnecessarily hostile; even in areas outside NFCC, but it appears to be supported by PantherLeapord, himself/herself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement from PantherLeapord

Someone probably needs to close this and make the topic ban official before this thread is moved by the bot to the archive... PantherLeapord (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I would, but since I proposed the wording then !voted, I'd hate for you to ever suggest that it was enacted by someone who was WP:INVOLVED. You're right, however, it's the easiest consensus ever (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Rahuljain2307, again

User has possibly abandoned his master account User:Rahuljain2307 and has created new account User:The Rahul Jain. He has redirected his master account and other two accounts User:Jain.rahul2307, User:Rahul2307 to new account. As per this, he should not remove sockpuppet template, block notices on userpage and talkpage of User:Rahul RJ Jain but he has redirected these pages to new account. Somehow he has not touched User:The Fake ID). He has resumed his vandalism like removing cats at whims, merging contents, redirecting pages. This is my third complaint about him. I know admin Bwilkins gets 'sick' when I ask admin help and all admins remain silent. This is just to inform you that I am prepared for long headache to counter his vandalism. He always try to trap me in 3RR. So I think slow motion edit war may be appropriate to counter his vandalism. If that's OK, then remain silent.

neo (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw another user mention this on a talkpage I watch. I've blocked the newest account. I don't know exactly what the idea is, but if he wants a new username, this is not the way to go about it; these actions appear to be a way to avoid scrutiny for his past blocks. He needs to pick one account and use it. Once I find out what that is, I can figure out what to do with all of the other accounts and user pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The user has agreed to edit only from User:The Rahul Jain. Neo, could you please provide diffs of exactly what problems you think are occurring now? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User:How to lose weight

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

---

This user is currently in the middle of a vandalizing rampage creating redirects etc.. kind of a mess. Can someone block asap? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The user stopped after being given a final warning. If problems continue, WP:AIV is the place to report simple vandalism. This noticeboard handles more complex issues. Pakaran 10:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd indef blocked before I saw there was a final warning - but it's a blatant vandalism-only account. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. If I'd seen all the redirects in deleted contribs, I'd have done the same. Pakaran 11:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright why is this on AN? It's just plain vandalism and should go to AVI. Prabash.Akmeemana 12:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal and other threats from IP 76.12.126.18

76.12.126.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be making a clear legal threat in this edit. Can someone else review this, please? -- The Anome (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's some more. -- The Anome (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

And this also contains another implied threat, namely: "there is currently rumor that Anons are considering an Operation to thwart further malicious publications from you." -- The Anome (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no comment on the rest of your complaint but I fail to see any implied threat of anon retaliation ops in the last diff you provide. ★★RetroLord★★ 12:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It's in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the diff, quote: "Your avid discomfort in the truth is leading to an investigation into your own bias toward Spamhaus and/or Cloudflare and there is currently rumor that Anons are considering an Operation to thwart further malicious publications from you." -- The Anome (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright I see it now. Well the threats certainly exist as you say. We should proceed as we usually do with IP-legal threat accounts then. ★★RetroLord★★ 12:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still not seeing a legal threat. "Leading to an investigation"? Where? On Wikipedia? In my livingroom? Not even an attempt to chill the conversation - more trying to huff and puff about something, plus a little WP:OWN (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you conflating issues. The threat mentioned is the suggestion of retaliation by 'Anonymous' in some form, obviously not legal action but most likely some other form of action, itself potentially illegal. The investigation thing wasn't AFAIK of so much concern although we taken together with the earlier suggestions of legal action seem to be problematic. While technically the claim was not in the form 'we will do this' but in the form 'someone else will do this' it would likely have the same chilling effect and since it's referring to retaliation it's a fairly questionable warning if taken seriously. The legal threat is the claims of libel, including the statement "The Homogeneous Party, a registered Political Party in the State of Florida and we will not tolerate deliberate libel to be published on your site and you continue to revise corrections that mitigate the damages of libel" which implies not just that they feel they are being libelled but that they are considering legal action. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Since this is also about me, can I just add that I really can't take these IP's messages seriously and aren't in the least bothered?  Yintan  13:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month. Ironholds (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, he jumped IP and sent me "We are filing for an injunction of your site today" and "We will also be launching an Operation against Wikipedia for being libel-mongers and will test the capabilities of your staff, system, and personal lives. That, my friend, is a promise!" and some more stuff[281]. It gets better all the time.  Yintan  21:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for one month by TParis. De728631 (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Very strange issue

Purely content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi everyone. Today, I worked extensively per WP:BOLD to upgrade and improve list at List of Knesset speakers article. After a while, I posted this version of that list: Knesset Speakers (1949–present) Colour key Mapai/Ahdut HaAvoda/ Alignment/Labor/One Israel Likud Kadima A total of sixteen people have served as Speaker of the Knesset, one of whom, Reuven Rivlin, have served two non-consecutive terms. Speaker Knesset No. Portrait Name (Birth–Death) Term of Office Political Party 1 Yosef Sprinzak יוסף שפרינצק (1885–1959) 1949 1959 Mapai 1, 2, 3 2 Nahum Nir נחום ניר (1884–1968) 1959 1959 Ahdut HaAvoda 3 3 Kadish Luz קדיש לוז (1895–1972) 1959 1969 Mapai, Alignment 4, 5, 6 4 Reuven Barkat ראובן ברקת (1906–1972) 1969 1972 Alignment 7 5 Yisrael Yeshayahu ישראל ישעיהו שרעבי (1908–1979) 1972 1977 Alignment 7, 8 6 Yitzhak Shamir יצחק שמיר (1915–2012) 1977 1980 Likud 9 7 Yitzhak Berman יצחק ברמן (1913–) 1980 1981 Likud 9 8 Menachem Savidor מנחם סבידור (1917–1988) 1981 1984 Likud 10 9 Shlomo Hillel שלמה הלל (1923–) 1984 1988 Alignment 11 10 Dov Shilansky דב שילנסקי (1924–2010) 1988 1992 Likud 12 11 Shevah Weiss שבח וייס (1935–) 1992 1996 Labour 13 12 Dan Tichon דן תיכון (1937–) 1996 1999 Likud 14 13 Avraham Burg אברהם בורג (1955–) 1999 2003 One Israel, Labour 15 14 Reuven Rivlin ראובן ריבלין (1939–) 2003 2006 Likud 16 15 Dalia Itzik דליה איציק (1952–) 2006 2009 Kadima 17 (14) Reuven Rivlin ראובן ריבלין (1939–) 2009 2013 Likud 18 16 Yuli-Yoel Edelstein יולי-יואל אדלשטיין (1958–) 2013 Likud 19 Sometime after that, User:Number 57 reverted my edits, saying my prefered version of the list is "awful" and restored earlier (and current) version: Knesset Speakers (1949-present) # Image Name Party Term start Term end Knesset 1 Yosef Sprinzak Mapai 1949 1959 1, 2, 3 2 Nahum Nir Ahdut HaAvoda 1959 1959 3 3 Kadish Luz Mapai, Alignment 1959 1969 4, 5, 6 4 Reuven Barkat Alignment 1969 1972 7 5 Yisrael Yeshayahu Alignment 1972 1977 7, 8 6 Yitzhak Shamir Likud 1977 1980 9 7 Yitzhak Berman Likud 1980 1981 9 8 Menachem Savidor Likud 1981 1984 10 9 Shlomo Hillel Alignment 1984 1988 11 10 Dov Shilansky Likud 1988 1992 12 11 Shevah Weiss Labour 1992 1996 13 12 Dan Tichon Likud 1996 1999 14 13 Avraham Burg One Israel 1999 2003 15 14 Reuven Rivlin Likud 2003 2006 16 15 Dalia Itzik Kadima 2006 2009 17 16 Reuven Rivlin Likud 2009 2013 18 17 Yuli-Yoel Edelstein Likud 2013 19 As per WP:BRD, I went to the Talk:List of Knesset speakers to discuss the matter. I was shocked to hear that Number57 thinks that adding of the Hebrew name and birth/death year of the officeholder represents "introduction of unncessary information", as he put it. I was even more shocked when, after I told him that I added that data to make the article more like the List of Presidents of Israel and List of Prime Ministers of Israel, he said that "both lists are awful", and continued: A recent discussion between myself and another user agreed that the format used in Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Israel) was the best way forward (as the colours were felt to be a distraction), so I have slowly been implementing that on Israeli office holder lists, but hadn't got here yet. I find this case really disturbing, because I thought we as editors here have a mission to make articles better than before, not worse. I'd really love to hear your opinion on this very strange issue. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC) The Hebrew names are quite useless to the 99.9999 % (not a scientific figure) who cant read it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Not to mention this is a content dispute. Take it to WP:DR. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC) And you have not notified other involved editors, as required. RolandR (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Unresponsive self-promotional SPA

BlakePolzl (talk · contribs) has been promoting his form of Satanism at said article, spamming his personal website. Multiple editors have reverted him, and he even edit warred over this on June 1. He has failed to respond to or acknowledge any warnings. He's on his last warning for advertising, but based on his prior behavior and my prior experience, I don't expect it to matter (either he'll advertise again and get blocked, or he'll come here and try to say that he never got all the warnings and explanations, maybe with some bad faith accusations thrown my way). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Blakepolzl has been notified of this thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Clear cut, blocked.--v/r - TP 20:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

THC Loadee, again

Prior discussions: (blocked for edit warring) and (blocked for edit warring). Also blocked December 2012 for vandalism and personal attacks, used a sock puppet during a block to state "I am banned....I'm going to ignore all of you and keep changing the article until Wikipedia no longer exists or someone comes to my home and cuts off my fingers so I can't type."

Along with problems with heat>light in a religious discussion, THC Loadee is repeatedly adding material against consensus at Coconut oil. [282], [283], [284], [285]; new sources:[286], [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], [293]. Note that most of these are simply reverting various editors with no explanation/edit summary.

Reactions to prior blocks have not been productive: "Fuck off." (promptly self-reverted), It wasn't me! You're taking me out of context!, I know I was just blocked for this, let's try it again followed by I know I was just blocked for this, restored it anyway and was reverted, maybe THIS time...

Now we have a new personal attack and the same Coconut oil edit.

Argh. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I've assumed 99.14.132.112 (talk · contribs) is the same person. The previous ip that was blocked as a sock was 99.106.108.141 (talk · contribs) --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sock case ("I have nothing but time.") and RPP added. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be admitting to be a troll here. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, consider indef andsemi protecting affected articles for a bit. Zad68 21:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Ironholds (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Zich

Can I ask for someone to keep an eye on Ryan Zich (talk · contribs)? I pointed out why his edits to the infobox in Tim McGraw went against what Template:Infobox musical artist/doc said, but he has not only reverted me, but also personally insulted me. His edits on my talk page suggest he's insistent in having his way and only his way, and I'd like someone to set him straight. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not the best start for a new user, worth keeping an eye on, but I don't see need for admin action yet.--v/r - TP 01:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would like someone to straighten out TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) There is no need for administrator action yet. There is just something about how he has been arguing with me that is a little bit scary. Its Just worrying me. Thank you. R.Z. Edwards (Did I screw something up?) (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you intentionally trolling or do you just not understand what's going on and you're trying to put on a tough guy attitude?--v/r - TP 03:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd also note that there's a series of page moves that appear excessive, and I think at leas tone of them needs to go, as I believe it may have created a double or triple redirect. MSJapan (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Zich, calm down and understand that a "tough guy" attitude doesn't work here, try a "rational guy" attitude instead. 173.58.60.143 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

David Eppstein

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 found administrator Eppstein's comment to be insulting and disrespectful.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't an optimal choice of words on his part, but your deletion nomination is extremely weak and should be withdrawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The deletion nomination for Hayford Peirce was made in good faith. It's practically a two-page article with no checkable references at this point. At this point it is a clear-cut violation of WP's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you suppose you want done? Do you want David to be harshly criticized for his rough language? Ok, it's not polite. But I can't see how you'd expect anything to be done on those grounds alone. I wouldn't block an IP for such mild language. Why did you even ask why he removed a PROD? PRODs can be removed for any reason by anyone. They are for non-controversial deletions only. Even the merest hint of controversy, say by someone removing the tag, means you have to take it to AfD. So go there. This doesn't belong on ANI.--v/r - TP 22:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that Eppstein's administrator privileges be removed. Eppstein makes all administrators look bad by such behavior.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The comment was disrespectful, and perhaps he could be trouted, but I wouldn't expect anything else to be done based on one instance of momentary frustration.

Taroaldo ✉ 22:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why do we think that everything is ANI worthy? This is not. Yeah, Eppstein's words aren't exactly kind, but to ask for a desysop is completely over the top. I'm going to close this right now. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruption by User:Up and in

User:Up and in has started a campaign of petty disruption. I believe that he is a sock-puppet of User:DeFacto who is now avoiding all the traps by which sockpuppets are normally caught out: a WP:SPI investigation last month was inconclusive. In the last few hours he has been subtly disruptive:

• He changed the article Charles Etienne Boniface to Charles-Etienne Boniface on the pretext that Boniface was French-born. The first time he merely changed the article content, after I reverted and request a justification from him, he changed the article name as well as links to the article. Rather than enter into an edit-war, I demanded a restoration of the situation and gave two citations showing that Boniface himself never used a hypen in his name. User:Up and in ignored my request.

In an earlier incident in this same article I had to revert changes that he had made when he mis-read a piece of Afrikaans text and got a piece of Seychelles history wrong – my justification is here.

• In the article Abraham Faure he changed the text

"he was ordained as a dominie (minister) in the Dutch Reformed Church in Graaff-Reinet, Cape Colony. In 1822 he was called to be dominie of the"

to

"he became a dominie (minister) in the Dutch Reformed Church in Graaff-Reinet, Cape Colony. In 1822 he became dominie of the".

(I bolded the changed words). I reverted, giving this explanation. His response was to replace the word "ordained" by the word "inducted" (which is totally inappropriate in this context), to edit the article Dominie and remove the South African connections and then in the article about Faure to state that "He wasn't a Scottish schoolteacher" (a reference to the way in which he had left the article Dominie.

• This change on its own might be innocent, but in the context of other changes, including this one by User:Up and in (which I [294]] to this one.

The way in which user:Up and in is conducting himself suggests to me that he is looking for a fight. Hew knows that I have South African connections and that I am reasonably fluent in Afrikaans and I believe that he is leaving this trail of subtle changes to wind me up, but in so doing he is also vandalizing Wikipedia.

I would also like administrators’ view on his choice of user name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 22:44, 23 June 2013‎ Martinvl (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I notified Up and in (talk · contribs) of this thread. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Up and in is a euphemism for a basket in basketball, generally a jump shot or a layup. I see nothing offensive or disruptive about it. Not an administrator, but I am thinking if you feel it is improper it is due to a lack of familiarity with American sports lingo. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

109.68.196.123 (talk · contribs) has posted a legal threat on my talk page, stating that a particular song is infringing their copyright, as if I have any power over the song. Any advice, as I've never had such legal threats posted on my talk page before. Wesley ☮ Mouse 10:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it's an actual legal threat, honestly. Best guess, based on Google, is that she's^[295] referring to the Secretary-General of the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union, a professional association of broadcasters in that region. Assuming she's actually done the promised "informing," I imagine she would just be ignored, since I don't think said association has any sort of authority for handling copyright infringement... Not really quite sure what advice to give you, but simply ignoring her might be the best bet. user:j (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks J. It came totally out of the blue. My first reaction was like "eh, do I look like Simon Cowell?". If anyone wants to revdel it from my talk page though, then feel free. I'll go back to some serious collaborating work again. Thank you again for the advice. Wesley ☮ Mouse 11:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Under what authority (or even requirement) could it be REVDEL'd? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:DOLT. GiantSnowman 11:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, she's advising Wikipedia that someone outside of Wikipedia stole her song... And she's told someone else outside of Wikipedia, who isn't an authority, about that. If she pursues this thing on-wiki further or makes an actual legal threat, I'd agree that it shouldn't be overlooked. But, as best as I can tell, she's made no legal threat, so there's nothing to overlook... But maybe I'm missing something? user:j (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not not a legal threat, I'm saying providing advice to simply ignore is not the best. GiantSnowman 11:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, she's advising a Wikipedia editor that she believes someone outside of Wikipedia stole her song... And, stay with me here... She's told us that she's told someone else outside of Wikipedia about someone outside of Wikipedia having stolen her song. If she pursues this thing on-wiki further or makes an actual legal threat, I'd agree that it shouldn't be overlooked. She didn't make a threat against a Wikipedia editor, and, again, as best as I can tell, she's made no legal threat at all against anyone, so I'm not sure what there is to overlook... But maybe I'm missing something? user:j (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF led to my post on the IP talkpage. Not ignored, but also not actionned with a hammer (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for rules explanation (regarding WP:BLP)

Dear colleagues, if I requested at wrong page, please, move my request to the appropriate place, and I would be grateful if you'll notice me about that on my talk page.

At ruWiki only less than a half year ago the analog of WP:BLP was aligned with current vertion of enWiki rule. The part regarding non-article space is precise translate of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Non-article space. But administrators don't have experience of rendering/application of this rule in non-article space (it wasn't any single usage of this part of rule). So we have had an issue: is not disclosed by user inwiki? or in other outer source, private information about that user (such as his sex orientation, faith/religion, political stance) is covered by "WP:BLP#Non-article space" or not, and if negative guesses about such not disclosed private information based on nothing is violation of this rule?

Because rule WP:BPL is applied for much more time at enWiki, can you give me an advice about such situation? Thank you in advance! --Cemenarist (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia, BLP applies everywhere - usertalk, article drafts, sandboxes, discussion pages ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

So does at ruWiki (after alignment), but because of experience lack some users says that negative guesses about such not disclosed private user information based on nothing is not violation of this rule. --Cemenarist (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

While technically a BLP issue, on en.wikipedia, guessing about an editor's religions, sexual orientation etc is generally much more of a WP:OUTING, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL issue. If the guesses are based on 'nothing' which would suggest they are not based on outside information then outing arguably doesn't apply. However it would still be inappropriate to guess about an editor's personal life, even more so if it's really based on nothing. Even if it's based on self disclosed information or other factors, in many cases bringing it up would be inappropriate, particularly if the editor asks someone not to. (Although if not done with malicously or to dismiss the editor's POV it would potentially be okay.)

Also I don't really know what you mean about 'negative guesses'. Do you mean when someone speculates that a person is not Catholic or Muslim even though they say they are? If so, in most cases, WP:AGF would say it's inappropriate. If you mean the guesses are wrong, well in most cases, it doesn't matter if the guess is right or wrong, if the guess shouldn't happen then it shouldn't happen and unless the editor wants people to know, they should decline to confirm such information as suggested by an outing guideline.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

146.255.13.111

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

---

146.255.13.111 (talk · contribs)
Hello. It's me again. I've noticed a different user who repeatedly vandalizes Lourdes. His talk page can be seen here. buffbills7701

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jess Jennings

Resolved

 – De728631 (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

without contacting a specific admin, this AfD requires closure as it has gone on for 10 days and not been relisted. thanks. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done. I'll forgive you the dangling modifier. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Block review - OrangesRyellow

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

---

I have just blocked OrangesRyellow for a week, for this attack, in which he likens the respect afforded to RegentsPark, Sitush and Maunus as getting "Nazis to lord over Jews". This comes after OrangesRyellow had previously made accusations of racism and had been warned for that. We are, sadly, plagued with nationalist POV-warriors on both sides of the India/Pakistan/Muslim/Hindu topic area, and OrangesRyellow is one of them. They are making the efforts of editors who are working very hard to present such topics in a neutral and well-sourced manner very difficult indeed. I think escalating action needs to be taken against such long-term troublemakers, and I request your feedback on my block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(I have notified all parties mentioned -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC))

• They've had a fair few warnings regarding the need to take care when commenting here. My last attempt was this. - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: A bit more context, "Giving paramount importance to comments from people with a particular orientation would be disastrous. It would be like giving paramount importance to people from palestine on Israel-Palestine affairs. If you do that, the effect would be same as when you get Nazis to lord over Jews. You may also want to keep in mind the point that RegentsPark may look like a Westerner to everyone, but may actually be Pakistani POV." To me that likening is not so clear here, maybe I am wrong. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  Any analogy of A to B, then B to C, etc, that ends in comparison with Nazi treatment of Jews is utterly obnoxious, however many steps it takes - it takes extreme bad faith to make an analogy between editor interaction at Wikipedia and the slaughter of millions of innocent adults and children. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oh wow! Another do-hell-with-WP:INVOLVED case. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• The block was warranted as OrangesRyellow had been advised or warned several times. Note that, apart from commenting here, Mrt3366 is forum shopping on User talk:Jimbo Wales.[296] Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• OrangesRyellow comment - copied from this on their talk page. "Nowhere have I ever likened anyone to Nazis. You have blocked me by misrepresenting and cherry-picking my words. I was only illustrating the effect of giving paramount power and hearing to people from only one side of an equation and the Nazi-Jew thing is an easily recognizable illustration of that phenomenon. There is nothing nefarious or PA there.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)" Sitush (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn block. There is no egregious personal attack here. Given the tendentious nature of editing by some editors who have been continuously assuming bad faith and are involved with bullying editors off talk pages, this action is unjustified and arbitrary. [297]. According to WP:BLOCK, "blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, the cavalry has arrived, You have been facilitating the POV-pushing for a while now. - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sitush, your continuous attempts at trolling users who do not agree with you are unhelpful. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Come on Nick, you know how it works. If people make personal attacks, they are warned in order to prevent further personal attacks, and if multiple warnings fail to prevent further attacks, blocks are the inescapable outcome, to prevent further personal attacks. That's the way it has always worked here, so please leave off the tired old "not supposed to punish" line, eh? And by the way, do you not think your own "assuming bad faith" and "bullying editors off talk pages" comments are verging on attack territory. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, and accusations of "trolling" now too - way to go, Nick -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• I fail to see how that was a "personal attack" – [298]. Problematic? Yes. Block-worthy? Hardly. As an administrator who has been peripherally involved in this dispute, you should be more cautious while applying blocks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have only been "involved" from an admin standpoint - and that does not violate WP:INVOLVED -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Oranges ought not to have said what he said, regardless of what the provocation was. My experience is that the provocation is not considered while such retaliation is judged. A few editors have been apotheosised, they can do wrong, they can hit below the belt, no action is taken. However that doesn't mean that they can be attacked similarly, that is a violation of relevant rules, and so actionable. Two wrongs do not make a right, so Oranges is wrong and he should understand that, and give an undertaking that he has understood Wikipedia rules regarding civility etc. are to be followed, if he declares that he does understand, there is no need to take/ continue action as that would be punitive and administrative action isn't meant to be so. If Oranges gets this message he ought to declare so clearly. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  If Oranges were to show clearly that he understands what he did wrong and that he understands the enormous hurt that *any* analogy with Nazi treatment of Jews can cause, and make a convincing statement that he will strive to avoid any such hyperbole in the future (and it's ironic that the issue that triggered his comment was simply that people who adhere to NPOV, RS, Civility, etc policies are the ones who are likely to be taken more seriously in arbitration matters), then I'll be happy to unblock him myself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  That's a fair deal. He ought to take it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  @YogeshKhandke. There was no provocation. So, why should I retaliate? And who am I supposed to be retaliating at without a provocation? There is no provocation-retaliation or anything like it. Please read my comment in question and subsequent comments. I have now clarified several times that I was not likening anyone to Nazis. Since I made that comment, I should know what I was saying. How can you guys know better than me about what I am saying? If you want an undertaking, I am happy to give an undertaking that I would not liken any user to a Nazi.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (Copied from user talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC))

  For me to unblock, I would need to see my additional condition fulfilled that you will strive to avoid further hurtful hyperbole -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• You are falsely claiming that I am likening people Nazis. I am not. I am illustrating the effect of giving paramount power and a hearing to one side of an equation only. Mathsci was saying that some particular people will have more weight (that means it would not matter what people on the other side are saying) at ARB and three out of four are decidedly on one side of the fence. There is nothing wrong with illustrating the dastardly effect of a one-sided hearing.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC) It is the effect of a selective and one-sided hearing which is obnoxious. You are confusing that with some people. "People" and effect of a selective and one-sided hearing are different things.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (copied from user talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC))
• Personally, I'm less concerned about the whole Nazi/Jew thing—basically, someone needs to be smacked with a trout upon which the text of the Godwin's Law article has been copied (with attribution, of course!)—and more concerned about the troubling practice of ascribing certain viewpoints to other editors. If an editor is editing from a certain POV, and said POV is non-neutral, then you should be able to show the problem with their edits simply by highlighting their non-neutrality. I think there's an important difference between Your latest edit seems to push a something-ist viewpoint and You are pushing a something-ist viewpoint. That said, while behavior like that is the type of stuff that can get you with some nasty ArbCom sanctions, I don't see it as blockable. But, like I said, definitely worthy of a Godwin-engraved trout. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There are many, many editors who have labelled a whole side as "editors who take part are entrenched nationalist and/or political POV-pushers," Boing! said Zebedee is one among them[299], he is involved in this and what right does he have to complain against other about his civility when he himself doesn't refrain from attacking me and others? He overtly vituperated me by saying :"MrT, let me state this openly and plainly here on Jimbo's talk page - you are one of the Indian/Hindu nationalist POV-warriors" even though I never said that I am an Indian or that I adhere to Hindu beliefs? Why should he act as a moral police here?????? (See this) Mr T^(Talk?) 11:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I an not "involved" as per WP:INVOLVED, and my comments on your POV over at Jimbo's page are based on your editing and your general comments in talk pages, which anyone can read, and not on any stated beliefs or opinions - I won't offer diffs here, because this section is not about you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support block until such time as there's an agreement to not use such provocative and inflammatory rhetoric in the future. — Ched :  ?  10:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block Even though I suppose I'm involved because his remarks are directed in part at me, one can't go around dragging Nazis into the picture or attempting to put nationalistic labels on other editors. I cannot see how Boing! is involved since he doesn't edit in this area. Mere admin action does not make someone involved. --regentspark (comment) 12:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• New comment by OrangesRyellow Copied from blocked user's talk page by --regentspark (comment) 15:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Looking at PinkAmpers&'s immensely helpful and insightful comment, particularly the Godwin's Law article, I can see the downside of mentioning "Nazi" even to illustrate a point, even when it is not intended as any kind of PA. Looking into their and some other people's comments, I can also see the benefits of trying to avoid hyperbole and will strive to do so on my own. But I see that you know Sitush personally and have a close involvement with him/her. It seems that you are here only to help Sitush turn these articles into his/her personal fiefdom. As such, I cannot rely on you to interpret "further hurtful hyperbole" in a neutral, balanced fashion and cannot give that undertaking to you. I see that this article sphere is being adminned by a small group of mostly involved admins. That is not how articles spheres are supposed to be adminned. I see this as a failure of Wikipedia adminning process. This article sphere is infamous for various problems and I think rather that eds, the problem is due to the failure of adminning process whereby articles are supposed to be adminned by uninvolved admins, rather than a small group of involved admins. If some admin is taking continuous interest in one particular area of articles, they must be having some kind of involvement/interest in the content in that area. That is not respectable adminning and will clearly lead to problems, as indeed it is here. It creates a situation where eds from only one particular orientation will have paramount power on article content and the eds on the other side will get butchered. I do not think this article sphere has any problems that do not exist in other article spheres. Other admins are being kept away by the continuous propaganda that this sphere is problematic and a small band of involved admins continues to occupy "their turf". Thanks and everything.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC) You block summary that I am likening admins to "Nazis lording it over Jews" is misleading (deliberately?)OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  Well, whatever you think of me, I wasn't asking for a commitment to me personally or for any personal trust. And I accept that you cannot undertake to avoid "further hurtful hyperbole" according to my judgment, as you cannot be sure how I will judge it. But your general commitment to avoid any further use of Nazis as illustration, and your apparent understanding of Godwin's Law - well, if you're prepared to try to avoid excessive hyperbole as best you can, then I'm happy to take that in good faith, and I shall shortly unblock you.

  As for my association with Sitush, I can't respond any better than Writ Keeper has in the section below, so I will do no more than refer you to that.

  The "two sides" editing in this area? I actually see at least three - those pushing a range of pro-India/pro-Hindu/anti-Muslim/anti-Pakistan viewpoints, those pushing a range of pro-Pakistan/pro-Muslim/anti-India/anti-Hindu viewpoints, and those trying to stick to Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NPA, etc (and that admittedly over-broad generalisation doesn't even begin to consider the various caste-wars that have been blighting this project). In my view, Sitush et al are in that middle area, working hard to build a quality encyclopedia against the POV-pushing of the various extremes.

  Going forward, it is my intention to continue to act in an admin capacity in this topic area and to support any editor who adheres to Wikipedia's policies (and to help protect them from those who try to attack them or otherwise try to prevent their hard work). To that end, I will continue to issue warnings and/or sanctions when I judge it necessary - and my decisions are, of course, always open to review by the community. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have now unblocked OrangesRyellow, as promised above. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment as long as the national socialists call me a communist and a Jew, the Hindu nationalist editors call me a nazi or Pakistani, the islamophobes call me a Muslim, and the rational skeptics call me a cult apologist then I think I am doing something right.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I've seen some of our best editors in this topic area being attacked as both pro-India and and pro-Pakistan, and having been accused of being members of at least half a dozen different warring castes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  By all accounts I am a pro Indian POV pusher and an anti Indian POV pusher, ypu just called me one of the better editors Darkness Shines (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Boing! INVOLVED with Sitush

• Boing! supports Sitush as admin
• Boing! voluntarily protects Sitush's talk page
• User:Lowkeyvision is blocked for some secret reason. User talk:Lowkeyvision shows Boing! protecting Sitush.
• Boing! personally knows Sitush and kept other editors informed of Sitush's health conditions.
• Boing! protects the article Sanjiv Bhatt and then gives a go by to Sitush to "rework" on it.
• Boing! blocked User:Indianprithvi for "attempting to harass or personally attacking other users". Alleged attack was "Mr Sitush is citing some unknown books and writing statements to hurt Rajus community".
• Boing! has blocked User:Intothefire thrice, each time while the user was involved with Sitush
• Boing! blocked User:Pnranjith for personal attacks on Sitush and sockpuppetry.
• Boing! got his admin rights back because he was "kinda feeling bad about the trouble Sitush and the others were having, with not enough admins to help!"

There are numerous more instances where Boing! and Sitush's involvements can be seen on each other's talk page archives, article talk pages and elsewhere. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean "involved" or WP:INVOLVED? What is the point of this? I've even admitted meeting Boing! in person - so what? - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You realize that our entire job as admins is to protect other editors, right? These all appear to be examples of Boing doing his job. Lowkeyvision, the only case of this where I was personally active, was not blocked for "some secret reason" (and incidentally wasn't even blocked by BsZ); they were blocked for attempting to out another editor (not Sitush), making threats, edit warring, and other various things. And BsZ was the most cursorily-involved admin of the entire case; Qwyrxian, Floq, and myself did far more. If you're trying to cite that as an example of BsZ "inappropriately" protecting Sitush (though even if he was, it's still irrelevant to the case at hand), you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

one small nit - we also protect articles :P (but yea - you are correct) — Ched :  ?  15:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles? What are "articles"? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Writ Keeper, you have put it much better than I could have done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Also You may want to keep in mind that WP:INVOLVED carries a cavet: "In straightforward cases (e.g. blatant vandalism), 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." Looking at this, even if Boing! were involved which I haven't examined, I likely would've taken the same action.--v/r - TP 16:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I see Oranges was unblocked already by Boing! himself (per promise to behave), so let's close this before it turns into a mere-venting thread a la the last Darkness Shines / regentspark thread... Dharmadhyaksha could assume more good faith. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/Pirokiazuma

Edit warring (violation of WP:3RR) after a final warning. [300] also raises a doubt about whether this person is here to build an encyclopedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pirokiazuma. Mathsci (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I've blocked, although I might be considered "involved", as having reverted one of its edits which was not obvious vandalism; however, it's possible the sockpuppet investigation may find "sleepers".
  • Requesting review by a clearly uninvolved admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Good block (including Seventeenman). Obvious edit warring and subsequent appearance of a duck. De728631 (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

75.70.142.23

75.70.142.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing maintenance templates multiple times on Japanese archipelago and on Honshu because user is of the belief that posting maintenance templates is somehow a discriminatory act representing racism, or something. Fair warning, I have reported this user before, to no avail. User also placed a warning on User talk:Tbhotch for no apparent reason. Efforts to discuss on at User talk:75.70.142.23 have been unsuccessful. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a week. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious editing at The Exodus

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.

---

Note: WP:FORUMSHOP at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 136#The NPOV policy has become a total sham and a fraud and at Wikipedia talk:Academic bias. Please try to centralize the discussion here rather than on multiple forums. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As I commented at Jimbo Wales' Talk page, claims there and here that "forumshopping" has gone on seem overblown. And there, Guy Macon apologized and struck the "forumshopping" claim. Anyone is welcomed by Jimbo Wales to post at his Talk page, and it did not seem to me like forumshopping for there to be a posting there, directed to Jimbo. I agree that parties here do not need to repeat their arguments there, however. --doncram 23:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

---

There appears to be a problem with tendentious editing at The Exodus.

In particular, User:Til Eulenspiegel disagrees with the consensus among scholars that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible. Which is fine -- he is certainly welcome to argue that -- but when asked for sources, he claims that none are needed because

"Several Christian Churches and other religions teach that this is historical. These account for hundreds of millions of adherents. You will never see them as significant because you have an anti-religious bias" ... "NPOV is a worthless sham if it only allows one POV to be presented and if it does not allow all POVs to be given impartially."[301]

There are some related behavioral issues such as edit warring and personal attacks, but the main problem is a rejection of WP:V and WP:NPOV because they conflict with religious dogma.
Note: I ran across this one while investigating personal attacks by Til Eulenspiegel elsewhere. Other than that I have no real involvement with the page or interest in the topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Followup Note: User:Til Eulenspiegel has another legitimate account (User:Codex Sinaiticus[302][303][304][305]. No evidence of sockpuppetry, but any admin who is counting previous blocks should add blocks from both accounts[306][307] Also note that some of the blocks were cancelled; the total number of actual behavioral blocks appears to be nine. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you the main person here repeatedly calling for my blood? What rule have I actually broken that you want me punished for, other than disagreeing with you about the neutrality of Exodus? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely dispute that there is any such "consensus" and make no apology for doing so. Those who say "there was never any kind of Exodus, nothing to see, please move on" do not enjoy the monopoly on all permissible discourse that they pretend to enjoy. Nothing has been proven, we need to give all significant perspectives, therefore this is a POV dispute, and adding POV tags are appropriate, not something to be reported as "tendentious editing' to try to get me "in trouble" and removed from the discussion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The tag I added was {toofewopinions} the one that says "More viewpoints needed". I have not even gotten around to looking for suitable sources yet, this is a tag stating that too few opinions are given and more need to be looked for. They are demanding that I supply sources in two seconds or there is no neutrality dispute because I supposedly lack standing to dispute the one-sidedness of this pov-pushing, heavily biased article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Re "They are demanding that I supply sources in two seconds", you were first asked for sources on 26 March.[308] It is now 22 June. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

In that summary from March, I see TGeorgescu flatly declaring that any sources for "Christian or conservative viewpoints" will be pre-disqualified. To state that I was "asked" for sources there seems like a falsehood on your part. But I was referring to today's "too few opinions" tag requesting further sources, not something else that was declared by fiat three months ago. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That's blatantly false, because I put no time limit on when you should provide sources at all, never mind "in two seconds", nor insinuate so in any way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a stunt that Til Eulenspiegel has pulled time and time again. His M.O. is to show up on a talk page pushing some fringe or extreme minority POV, accuses other editors of censorship, bias and bad faith, and, when asked to provide reliable sources, fails to do so or provides useless fringe sources that do not meet the requirements of out policies, arguing something that boils down to WP:IAR, all policies be damned. He wastes a lot of other editors' time, and the result is indistinguishable from common trolling. It is very disruptive and tendentious. Particularly irritating is his penchant for turning content and policy disagreements into personal disagreements, focusing on editors rather than on content or policy. I have warned him about WP:NPA in the past, and this time as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Except that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. are not "some fringe or extreme minority POV" except from your perspective, which is rather curious... that's basically the problem we're having. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that in fact I am not pushing any POV and never have. I have consistently been calling for "More POVS" to be included. Those who dominate the talkpage are setting it up so that exclusively their opinion gets included, others get barely a mention, and anyone daring to dissent gets branded a heretic and hauled into the heresy tribunal, everybody pick up a firebrand, blah blah blah yawn. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

They are fringe or extreme minority as far as scholarly topics like history and archeology are concerned. And your take on them is often fringe or extreme minority even within the religious community. Here's a classic example, complete with you making claims that were demonstrably not held by the religious group in question, attacking other editors, and failing to provide sources: [[309]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I dispute your assertion you keep repeating that the religious teachings of churches, synagogues and mosques are a "fringe or extreme minority". I do understand that your goal is to portray these religions' views of the Bible as insignificant, as fringe, as minority, as unworthy of mention, worthy only of marginalization. But you are coopting wikipedia, a neutral project used by everyone across the spectrum, when you expect it to become a vehicle for your polemic agenda. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I see four recent edits by Til Eulenspiegel to the article, all about adding a tag because he thinks the religious POV should be prominently included, which seems reasonable enough to me. It might be that a POV fork is actually appropriate for this article, with religious scholarship handled separately from academic inquiry, much like how evolution and creationism are handled. But I have to say, to my layman's eye the academic line doesn't seem very convincing; it reminds me of how everybody said Troy was a myth. (Isn't it possible that "slaves" was a rhetorical exaggeration (or not) used when workers in labor unrest were told they couldn't quit their jobs and do something different? And that the miracle of the parting and flooding at the Red Sea, like Moses drawing water from the rock, involved some (humble and insignificant) involvement of engineers who played with the locks on the ancient Suez Canal that flowed from the Nile?) I don't know this editor, haven't looked at his other edits, I've made no attempt to see if he's had another account, and if you want to make this out as part of a broader pattern of abuse go ahead -- but I'd hate to see somebody get penalized for just a few edits suggesting what seems like a reasonable intent to fairly balance the encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I will say this: I agree with you that there is not yet a need for any penalization. But don't limit yourself to looking at the article. When you read the talk page, it becomes very obvious that Til simply doesn't get it. this edit and others in that thread show that Til has both a profound misunderstanding of the neutral point of view as well as a severe battleground mentality. As is shown in that diff and others, Til considers the opinion that his point of view is insignificant to be an attack on his religious beliefs. So Til, if you're reading this, which I assume you will, you should probably just avoid this article in the future. Think about how personally you've been taking this content dispute, and you should realize how biased you really are on this topic, regardless of whether you have a point. But I don't think a few edits on the article and an argument going nowhere on the talk page required an ANI thread. So perhaps this can rest with normal dispute resolution practices unless something really serious arises. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

What am I not getting? I think I got it perfectly right. What I was told by editors on the talk page (in most authoritarian terms) was that any "conservative Christian" views of the Bible would be pre-determined to be inadmissible and insignificant to the article. Oh, but there's no bias here at all, no NPOV violation, nahhh.... It must be just me, eh? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read again the policy on due weight. In an article about a historical event, Wikipedia is interested in the views of historians, archaeologists, and scholars of other relevant fields. Wikipedia is less interested in the views of religious bodies. That is not to say we don't mention them. There is an entire article on The Book of Exodus, which could stand to gain some significant expansion. Some confusion may also arise from the use of the word "fringe". Wikipedia's fringe refers to viewpoints that are held by few or no scholars in relevant fields, implies nothing about the total number of people who believe something. You've been on Wikipedia for over six years, so I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. If the truth is that you simply don't like it, or you have a radically different interpretation of policy, your only recourse is to seek changes to the policies themselves. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I work with hundreds of Bible articles and have done so for years. On the standard Bible article, if any denomination or sect has a view or doctrine on the subject, we always give it in due impartiality, without presuming to declare whose theology is "correct" or who is a "heretic" if they dissent. There are only a relatively few notorious POV backwaters like Exodus and Genesis that seem to attract a polemic mentality that says "Christians and Jews views of their own Bible are all disqualified - WE'LL tell them what to believe about it and only our approved sources count. Come here if you want to see an opinion piece written by wikipedians telling you what to believe about the Bible!" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Instead of placing tags, why don't you propose additions and boldly add them to the article? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Or is this really a whole dramatastic dispute over a couple little words like "consensus"? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a Template:Toofewopinions? Is it never safe to use it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You say there are too few opinions. Other editors disagree. It would help if, on the article's talk page, you actually provided, with sources, the viewpoints being neglected. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A historicity section in any article is going to consist exclusively of content drawn from actual historians. Due weight is determined by the proportion of adherents amongst respected scholars in the field - the raw number of people who believe in a point of view is irrelevant. If you want to change the policy, you are free to try, but you will be tilting at windmills. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If we did start using the raw numbers criteria and a major religion (15 million members) said that the Garden of Eden was located in present-day Jackson County, Missouri, would we have to give that equal weight in our articles about American history? How big does the religion have to be? How about the one that says that the 75 million years ago the Evil Lord Xenu brought billions of his people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs? Is that one big enough? How about the one with the Beer Volcano and the Stripper Factory? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it seems like the disputed perspective goes beyond one section, and although it is a fundamentally religious story in today's society, there is little effort made to say what religious consensus is about the date and place issues. If you're going to write about the Scientology volcano story (see Xenu), you're naturally going to go on in depth about what that group has to say about it, and indeed, that article does. If that article focused only on "what academics think really happened" it would be one of Wikipedia's shortest articles. :) Wnt (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Exodus is an article about the historical migration of Jewish slaves from Egypt to Israel. Book of Exodus is an article about a religious text written about said migration. There could probably be a hatnote at The Exodus explaining this. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

So Garden of Eden is an article about a historical place in what is now Independence, Missouri, and the Book of Mormon is a religious text written about said location. Gotcha. Unless, of course, you believe all of those pesky historians who say that neither the Exodus or the garden of Eden are historical. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You know, I look at it again, and I was wrong. Book of Exodus is an article about a religious text, and it needs major expansion. The Exodus is, according to its introduction, an article about a story within the book, and according to the body of the article, an article about historians' opinions of that story. It seems there could be some merging, or splitting, or...something. I don't know. It's like a bait and switch: The intro tells you this is an article about a story, but then spends only one paragraph talking about the story. So you follow the link through to the article on the book the story is in, and that doesn't have much either. And yeah, you make a great point. This sort of split wouldn't work for everything. 90% of article on old testament events would become "ain't nobody got evidence for that". Someguy1221 (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You want to split off the theology from the evidence that it didn't happen, and that doesn't sound like a POV fork to you? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I Don't know what I want, actually. I was simply trying to rationalize the existence of two separate articles, which is already the case. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Till has been consistently pushing fringe views (and was supporting Paul Bedson when he was around), and appears to view himself as the defender of the fringe. What is really needed is an RFCU or someone to file at arbitration enforcement under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions with the evidence. Can someone please notify me if one is set up, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that this user is very problematic and probably he should be topic banned. Cavarrone 10:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would agree. The editor has been pushing fringe views over a wide variety of articles, so a topic ban ought to include all topics related to religion, history, archeology and fringe and psuedoscience. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Can't see that this incident requires a topic ban. The claim of widespread problems is not currently supported. Such evidence could be gathered at an RfC/U if needed. But really all that seems needed is here is 1) ask the user what additions they want and what sources they are using, and 2) basically ignore the rest if no such specificity is forthcoming (with a reminder of NOTAFORUM). Edit warring and the like might, of course lead to edit warring reports. It is true though that tags and claims that a POV is not adequately represented, actually need specific back-up on the talk page of text proposals and sources, otherwise such tags should be removed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reluctantly, I support a topic ban in this case. Til Eulenspiegel has made it abundantly clear that he will continue demanding that the voice of God be given parity with the voice of historians and other scientists and that simply reporting what the religionists believe will not satisfy him -- religion and science must be given equal weight and both must be presented in Wikipedia's voice. It has become abundantly clear that Til Eulenspiegel is unable to maintain a neutral point of view on any topic where his religion and science are in conflict. The fact that his preferred method of pushing his POV is through personal attacks and edit warring simply exacerbates the root problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You evidently see the world's major faiths as illegitimate and want your selected "scientists" to have the only say on how scripture is to be interpreted on Bible articles. That is the problem, and it is a problem of your Bias. I want to be able to read what ALL points of view are on the topic, not just yours (or mine). There are differences of opinion when it comes to how scripture is meant to be interpreted, but you are claiming your "scientific" interpretation holds such a magical priority over all other theological interpretations that it alone even deserves mention. Furthermore, you are attempting to build a "consensus" of editors by throwing a muzzle on any party that dissents from your interpretation of scripture. That will never be a true consensus, and that method of getting "consensus" also has zero to do with the Scientific Method. The Scientific method takes things that can be proven through experimentation to validate hypotheses. Nothing like that has occurred here; the same viewpoints have existed centuries before any of us were born and nothing has ever settled the controversy; claiming that "we are right because everyone agrees and nobody on your side counts" is merely cheerleading and attempting to claim a priority for your own bias. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I will wait for Jimbo's verdict, meanwhile I would like to point that everybody would see that it is ridiculous to reject the Ekpyrotic universe on the grounds that the Pope stated that scientists should not attempt to research what was "before" the Big Bang (according to what Stephen Hawking once wrote in A Brief History of Time). It is easy to see this when we discuss theology vs. physics but people tend to conflate theology with history, they don't understand that what is a valid theological argument could be bollocks in history (as an empirical science). We have no right to claim that it would be wrong theology (since the "correct" theology varies according to one's church membership or lack of it), but it is OK to say that Til's views are fringe history. In an YouTube video (search for The Big Questions - Is the Bible still relevant today) a woman rabbi declared that it is the business of historians to decide the historicity of Exodus (or David's kingdom?), but she will continue to maintain her theology based upon the biblical story of the Exodus regardless of what historians decide; she said it is not her business to meddle with historians or something like that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

What are we trying to discuss here? Is that a red herring or what? I have never expressed any opinion on Ekpyrotic universe, don't even know what it means, nor on the Pope or the Big Bang Theory, nor on Stephen Hawking's book. Is there a point to this? I do note you are very good at drawing arguments by analogy to portray me as "fringe" however. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your standpoint was "theology trumps history", my analogy was "theology attempting to trump physics is ridiculous, therefore theology attempting to trump history is ridiculous". I did not get this wrong: you maintain that historicity judged historically gets trumped by a theological assertion that there is historicity (historicity through theological fiat). For Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner there are different kind of truths: theological truth is different from historical truth: a story does not have to be historically accurate in order to inspire true faith. In fact, no religious people except fundamentalists believe that religion should dictate scientific outcomes. So, you are not an ordinary believer, content with non-overlapping magisteria, you are advocating "theology/fundamentalism trumps science". Most religious people from my part of the world made peace with science being autonomous from religion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You've yet again demolished that poor straw man good and proper, because my position has never ONCE been "theology trumps history". Complete and utter strawman. My position has always been "Don't just describe one viewpoint. Tell all viewpoints." I even want viewpoints I disagree with to be told, so when I read articles about them, I can get some insight on where these viewpoints are coming from. You on the other hand don;t want to suffer viewpoints you disagree with to be even explained or allowed a voice. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That might be a valid point, had you not chosen to tag the 'historicity' section of the article. You have failed to demonstrate that that section lacked balance, in terms of material appropriate to that section - instead, you seem to be arguing that it should be 'balanced' by material which is beyond the scope of a section on the historicity of the exodus. 'Other viewpoints' don't belong in a section which isn't discussing them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this like a willful refusal to comprehend? What I am saying specifically, once again, is that there are Other viewpoints about the Historicity of Exodus beside the one viewpoint represented in that section (as well as the "correct theological interpretation" endorsed in the very next sentence), and I am notifying all editors who come across the article, with this tag, that it might be a good idea to spend some constructive time looking for more viewpoints from various other schools of thought to be added. I know it is not something that can be discussed in terms of consensus and unanimity, and it's a classic tell-tale sign of "POV-pushing" to make claims of unanimity about something that is, in truth, still debated. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

And when asked to provide citations for these other viewpoints, you have failed to provide them. vWhere are they? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'm just trying to convince you that there is more than one viewpoint on the historicity of the Exodus as well as how the Exodus is to be interpreted theologically, the two assertions made in the first two sentences, and therefore we need a tag for "more viewpoints". I haven't got anywhere, because you still seem to prefer to believe there is only one monolithic viewpoint, and everyone else is "fringe". I know what some alternative viewpoints are, but I might not even know the full range of viewpoints on these issues. The tag Template:Too few opinions is merely to state literally that there are "too few opinions". Its usage should not be an unpardonable offense. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If you "know what some alternative viewpoints are", why haven't you told anyone what they are, in spite of multiple requests? Nobody has asked you to provide all of them - just to prove that such viewpoints exist. Please do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A very long page could probably be written with published sources for alternate views on the historicity of the Exodus and also how it is interpreted by various groups. With a little time I could surely be able to find a good representative. I really liked your comment on Jimbo's talk where you said See Moses#Historicity - our article does not assert that "the matter has finally been resolved". To the contrary, it makes clear that opinions differ. ANd as I replied, That sounds good, and I hope we will be able to say that about other articles on the topic. I am suggesting that if it can be conceded in Moses that there are multiple viewpoints on whether or not Moses lived, surely this is a good model for neutrality and we can similarly elaborate in Exodus on the various current ideas about the historicity of the Exodus or what exactly Moses did there if anything, without pretending there is a monolithic unanimity among all scholarship of all stripes on this question. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to write 'a very long page' I asked you to demonstrate that the alternate viewpoints regarding the historicity of the exodus exist by citing one. Please do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll look for a good one as soon as I get a chance. But in the meantime the stark contrast between what you get from reading Moses and Exodus should make a good point. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What 'stark contrast'?. As far as academic scholarship (as opposed to theology) is concerned, whether there ever was an actual 'Moses' or not can clearly never be historically determined - it could be pure myth, of maybe it has its distant roots in oral traditions concerning a real individual. The events described in exodus however are simply incompatible with information derived from Egyptology, archaeology and other sources of data though - and accordingly, academia rejects exodus as an accurate historical account. The only 'point' is that there are some things that academic research can't prove one way or another, and some things it can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with rendering theology-as-theology. I have a problem with rendering theology-as-history. You were told on the talk page that including theology is OK, it just does not decide historicity, since historicity is a scientific matter, not a theological matter. The tags you added attacked the scientific soundness of the references and other editors were infuriated because such tags were an accusation that they have misrepresented the scientific consensus. You are of course free to include theology, but not to challenge the references in the historicity section. Just don't claim that theology would be part of the scientific debate: it isn't. Theology is theology, science is science. Both are notable, but just as oil and water they don't mix together in the historicity section of the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about events that, if they happened, would be well before 1000 BC. It is false to pretend that there is a single view of history that has been "proven" correct by some science experiment. There are still multiple conflicting views of history, especially for anything that long ago. What's more, there is a Hindu view of history, a Christian view of history, a Jewish view of history, a Muslim view of history, etc. and these are all widespread views of history that exist in the world today; we cannot really declare any of those views incorrect "by consensus" especially without actual solid proof. That's why we originally had a NPOV policy, that's why it might make sense for someone to add a tag requesting for "more views" to be added to a historicity section on a theological topic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

How about "Science is about the facts and facts should be valid for everyone, regardless of religious affiliation"? Evidence for the Exodus does not appear by fiat, be it Christian fiat, Muslim fiat or Hindu fiat. And if there is no real evidence for it, then it is considered unhistorical until such evidence appears. Of course there can only be one sort of evidence: real evidence. Evidence is not categorized as Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is no evidence one way or another, then normally (any other article) we would impartially say "There is no evidence one way or the other", rather than "This certainly never happened, because there is no evidence one way or another." On the same principle of the example given on WP:OR, that we don't describe the number of wars fought after the UN was founded as "only x number of wars" nor do we describe it as "golly gee look how many wars", we simply give the number of wars and leave it at that for the reader to form their own opinion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the Exodus ever happened, in lack of positive evidence no one could know that it has ever took place, so maybe only God Almighty knows if it ever happened. But to mainstream historians the probability that it happened at the time indicated by the biblical chronology is so microscopically small that they tend to think that it has never happened as described in the Bible. In this case it applies what I have already indicated: by default any event in unhistorical, it only becomes historical if there is evidence for it. The same way there has to be some empirical evidence before physicists could affirm that strings are real. That is why no physicist knows if the strings are real. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Since he has launched a pre-emptive appeal to Jimbo, let's await the ruling by Jimbo. Count Iblis (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Guy Macon is now templating my user talk every few hours, stalking me and assuming authority to close my discussions on completely separate topics' talk pages. What gives with the WP:HARRASSment? Drop the firebrand already. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Guy Macon was correct in putting that template in your talk page as you are patently forumshopping through the website. Frankly, your behavior is not helping your cause. Cavarrone 20:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not Forum shopping. You have made another unjustified reproach. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You are literally forumshopping, as you are "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators...in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." Furthermore, "queries placed on noticeboards should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions" and you haven't done it. Cavarrone 20:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not in the least forum shopping. First of all, I did not open this ANI about myself. So I didn't exactly come here looking for any "answer". Yet some of my other conversations on other unrelated matters have been rediected here to this ANI about me, by Guy Macon. Where else am I "forum shopping"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that my placing warning templates on Til Eulenspiegel's is done out of basic fairness. His behavior is likely to result in a block, and I prefer that an editor gets plenty of warning before being blocked. I certainly would expect to be warned and given a chance to stop the behavior that I am being warned about rather than being blocked without warning. Til Eulenspiegel has been removing all warnings soon after they are placed (which he has every right to do), so we know that he has read them. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with IRWolfie that this needs to be handled at WP:AE. AN/I does not deal well with long term TE because it takes a long time to go through someones entire history to determine the merits of the complaint. I happen to agree with the merits of this complaint, being familiar with Til's editing over the years, but this isn't the kind of thing you can just post a few obvious diffs of. We have discretionary sanctions for a reason, so let's let someone like Sandstein who is skilled at this kind of investigation take a look and determine what sanctions - if any - are necessary. Sædon^talk 21:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Any sanction would essentially be for my boldly disagreeing that all the various Jewish, Muslim and Christian interpretations and views on the Exodus amount to a "FRINGE theory". Other than that offense, I ain't done no wrong. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Everyone in prison is innocent Sædon^talk 21:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, until they were proven guilty before being sentenced. Hence the phrase "innocent until proven guilty". Without it, "justice" is a very different concept. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You miss my point, perhaps it is an idiom of which you're not aware. In the US there is a common saying among prisoners that they are all innocent (it may actually not be true of real prisons but it's common in prison fiction). The point is, it is expected that you don't think you're wrong because it's you who is thinking it. So when you say "I ain't done no wrong" it is superfluous because as the accused it is assumed that you believe you are in the right otherwise you wouldn't be doing it. And if you were to be sanctioned at a venue like WP:AE you would say that you've done no wrong just as convicted prisoners maintain their innocence. Sædon^talk 22:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I miss your point because getting it relies on seeing it from the "guilty unless proven innocent", or Napoleonic, view of jurisprudence, a view of jurisprudence I was not brought up under. THe point of "innocent until proven guilty", or English jurisprudence, is to protect innocent people from being wrongly punished on the mere whim of a more powerful person. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with that. All it takes to "get it" is having seen Shawshank redemption or almost any other prison movie made in the past 20 years, or simply having had someone explain it to you as I did. In no way does understanding it require one to hold any sort of view on justice. All you need to know is that it's a common joke/saying/idiom in American prison fiction that even when it's obvious that some prisoner has committed and been convicted of a crime they still maintain their innocence. The fact that you can even somehow tie this in your mind to my or other people's view on jurisprudence is astonishingly ridiculous. This is not a complicated concept and the fact that it's taking so many words to explain it to you is a proper demonstration of how annoying it can be to discuss anything with you. You just don't get it. Sædon^talk 22:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Why, I have no problem at all understanding your words at face value, but if I'm missing something else, it must be that you need to express it more straightforwardly, since I cannot read your mind. Basically, my conscience does not rebuke me terribly for my not agreeing that the doctrines and theologies of major world religions are now suddenly a "FRINGE theory" - but if that's my crime, then I admit it, guilty as charged. In addition, I do not believe my conscience was created to answer to your conscience. Is there anything else here you'd like to discuss? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Theologically, you are not fringe. There are many millions of fundamentalists, especially outside of Europe. You are fringe historically, i.e. scientifically. There is a difference between theology and history, the later is a science, the former isn't a science and does not require weighing of evidence, scientific method, falsifiability, review by peers, criticism in scientific journals, seeking to forge scientific consensus or to become mainstream and so on. You seem to think that because an argument is theologically valid it should also be historically (i.e. scientifically) valid. Theology does not trump history. History, as a science, is autonomous from every religious faith. Historicity can only be judged historically, it cannot be judged theologically. Five hundred years ago it was a different matter, but science in the modern sense and writing encyclopedias are products of the Enlightenment. We cannot behave as if the Enlightenment never happened. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No. You don't know what I am "theologically" because I have not come here to preach or tell anyone what to believe, and you are unjustified in labelling my theology "fringe" or "fundamentalist" when I have not even shared what it is and consider it private. Once again, maybe you'll get it this time, I am calling for "MORE VIEWPOINTS" to be added to the article. I may be considered a fool for thinking the Exodus is relevant to theologians more than scientists. I may be considered a fool for wanting the article to explain what various theologians of all stripes say -- instead of the single, one-size fits all, "this is the only allowable correct interpretation of scripture" given in the article that I am being pilloried for questioning. Once again, you may find this utterly mind-boggling, but our role is not to make a determination about who has the Truth and who doesn't. Another concept you may find mind-boggling is that more than one viewpoint can actually coexist on the same page, side by side, without either one "trumping" the other. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If you had politely stated that you don't challenge the scientific consensus and that you don't accuse other editors of misrepresenting it, we would not have had this discussion on ANI. Nobody objected to describing the Exodus theologically in other sections of the article. From the vanilla assertion that many millions of true believers think that it really happened, it just does not follow that the Exodus was historical. As simply as that: don't conflate historicity with theological dogma and you won't have problems in editing the article. On Wikipedia you are an advocate of fundamentalism and what flavor of fundamentalism you subscribe to is less relevant. But it is clear that you are discontent with the academical arrangements which arose from the Enlightenment, I added once a quote from Allan Bloom about it in your user space. I think you object to the scientific study of religion in general, since you think it is a sacrilege. Bloom more or less made the same point, albeit in a very elegant and palatable way. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not consider myself a fundamentalist and I think you are trying to use that as a pejorative label for me, or something I am not associated with at all, thank you. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You mean you made a reasoned defense of fundamentalism at User:Til Eulenspiegel/Religious narratives as sacred canon and you don't even buy your own arguments/quotations? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

On that page, as anyone can see, I have quoted Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Mormon, fundamentalist, Ancient Greek and scholarly viewpoints to demonstrate that there are a wide range of disparate viewpoints represented about a topic that some are claiming a monolithic monopoly of allowable interpretations on. Obviously, I do not myself subscribe to all of the Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Mormon, fundamentalist, Ancient Greek and scholarly viewpoints I have quoted on that page. In fact, I don't believe I have ever said whether I myself subscribe to any of these viewpoints, or none of them entirely, because of my firm belief that what theology I believe or don't believe is my own business and irrelevant to wikipedia articles being neutral, and should be left out of it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Either way, that page is propaganda for fundamentalism in general. It's Wikipedia:Advocacy and the tags you have added in The Exodus are making a point in accordance with your advocacy for a fundamentalist understanding of the religious narratives. In fact, your whole apologetics, talk page by talk page and article by article, that myths cannot be called myths is an ad nauseam. You cannot reform the way Wikipedia handles myths, since it follows from how the academe works. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The article Exodus where I tagged it, currently states: "The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,[14] and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history." I have no problem with such a viewpoint being mentioned and properly attributed alongside other viewpoints. However I believe this particular viewpoint is not a consensus, but reflects the chosen favorite viewpoint of some editors, because it basically says in so many words "Everyone now agrees this never happened at all, but is merely a myth or fairy-tale invented by the Jews to feel special." And I'm sorry, but no, I do NOT subscribe to that point of view - and it really bothers me to see it represented as a "consensus" when obviously it's not. "Opinions differ" just as the Moses article says and Exodus should also say. And it bothers me even more to see editors being required to accept and go along with this "consensus" out of fear that they will be threatened with being muzzled, ejected and banned from the discussion if they even dare to ask for "more viewpoints". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is actually not such a bad point. Things to consider with this sentence in the lead of The Exodus and at the beginning of the Historicity section:

• The general context of the article (not the Historicity section) is religion more than history.
• "biblical scholars" suggests theologists more than people working primarily in history or literary criticism.
• Claims of academic consensus require very strong sourcing per WP:RS/AC. (I don't have access to the source cited after the sentence in question -- Dictionary of the Old Testament --, so I don't know whether it meets this standard .)
• I have a hunch that such a consensus exists in Europe but not in the US, and among scientifically oriented biblical scholars but not among theologically oriented biblical scholars. There might be implicit assumptions in the source to that effect. (Again, for lack of access I don't know.)
• Theological opinions are only of marginal interest for the Historicity section. If there is such a theological consensus, it's worth mentioning (as is the case at the moment), or if there is none, it's worth mentioning in one or two sentences that opinions are divided. But overall, in the Historicity section it's not the opinions of "biblical scholars" in general that matters but the opinions of those academics approaching the topic with the primary goal of finding facts, not religious fulfillment. Hans Adler 08:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In the past there were more sources in the article, so the case for consensus was even stronger, but it seems that it has been edited with brevity in mind. See e.g. [310]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I should note that while looking into the general subject further, I see we have a big difference in our perspective between the secular presentation of Jericho and the Biblical emphasis of Ammon. I think that the right approach is somewhere between the two, incorporating all the data on both perspectives - when people look up articles on this topic, they will often have heard of it from a Biblical context, and they definitely should see a presentation of all the details of the story, but they should also see all the details of the archeologists' approach. Wnt (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Boomerang?

User:Guy Macon has more or less admitted that he began stalking my contribs today simply because he didn't care for something I said to him in an unrelated AfD deletion discussion about the 13 Indigenous Grandmothers. He followed me onto the Exodus page, opened the above ANI about me, directed four nuisance templates to me that were unjustified, and then followed me to Talk: Jimbo Wales claiming the right to close down my conversation there (where I feel I have a right to raise matters with an editor whose opinion I value and judgement I trust more than many other editors) as well as to Wikipedia talk:Academic bias, a user essay that had a BLANK TALK PAGE until I posted feedback about the User essay there today, and he accused me of using that hitherto EMPTY TALK PAGE as a "FORUM" to solicit new opinions about this ANI, insisting that the conversation be closed and redirected to this ANI he opened up about me. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC) At this point I simply want him to drop his fire brand, get off his high horse, and stop persecuting me, find something else to do on wikipedia today. Thanks. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Guy has apologized for accusing me of using Jimbo's talk to "Forumshop", and has retracted the accusation. In the interest of "keeping the conversation to a centralized location" I am also accepting his apology here, and hope there will be no other hard feelings arising from factual issues we may differ on. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately despite his previous apology it seems as if Guy has hardened his heart for the sake of the Exodus once again, and has again picked up his firebrand. He is now stalking ALL of my contribs and undoing them with impunity. Talk about vengeance. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!" Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There should be policies against stalking and harrassment. Oh wait there are, they just need to be enforced. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

When I see an editor who is violating Wikipedia policy, I am allowed to examine that editor's other contributions. If when I do I see that you have inserted utter gibberish into an article, and that when another editor reverted it because it doesn't actually mean anything], I see that you are willing to edit war to keep the gibberish in while having the unmitgated gall to quote BRD while you yourself follow BRRD, then yes, I do have the right to remove the patent nonsense and ask you to follow the basic rules of grammar. If you don't like it, start following the rules like the rest of us have to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I didn't "insert" that phrasing, it must have been another editor. Yes, I did revert to it as the previous wording, because at the time I believed it was preferable to the newly changed wording. (and I am not certain it is "patent nonsense" either.) After more tweaking by other editors, it now reads completely differently, and apparently nobody objects to the current wording. No problem. This is all par for a day's work on wikipedia, and usually it's not a federal case. But I know how it is, when you are desperate to find a pretext to have someone muzzled and removed but don;t have a good enough reason, you will then go over their work with a fine toothed comb looking for anything you can seize on and wave around as a sign of trouble. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, quite the opposite. I am trying very hard not to get you into trouble (not that I think I could; admins have this habit of looking at the evidence rather than just doing what Guy tells them to do.) For example, right now we are discussing this not because I reported you or in any way tried to get you in trouble. I just saw that you had written something that isn't actually English and quietly corrected it. Then you made another change that was standard English, and of course I did not touch that change. Then you -- nobody else -- decided to raise a huge stink about it here, accusing me of "stalking" you, "harassing" you and (yes, you actually said this) "persecuting" you. So how exactly is my quietly fixing your grammar error "looking for anything you can seize on and wave around as a sign of trouble"? You are the one who brought it up here as evidence of me "persecuting" you. "Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed! Did you hear that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?" -- http://www127.pair.com/critical/food-05.htm --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have examined the recent diffs at Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.  An IP changed the word "claims" to "assures", which leads to the subsequent exchange of edits.  According to www.m-w.com, each of the two words involved are vt.  An applicable meaning for "claim" is, "to assert in the face of possible contradiction", and for "assure" it is "to inform positively".  I think the issue here is the extent to which the new construct is awkward.  An awkward construct is neither "utter gibberish" nor "patent nonsense".  Unscintillating (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This may help explain the above. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't view youtube, so I don't know what you are seeing there.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it really true that "you're not allowed" to have User names in a section title? Because that would be news to me, I've never heard such a thing before, and just looking at the table of contents for this page at the moment, I see about fifty violations of this "rule". So is this really a "rule", or is someone just making up "rules" here? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure you can have usernames, but not accusations against users formulated as if they were statements of fact.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

'assures its earliest origins from' = 'informs positively its earliest origins from', ergo. . ! Good grief. No native speaker would accept either form. If not gibberish, it is patently mangled or garbled English, and supporting 'assures' over the limpid alternative has only one function, i.e., misusing the word 'assure' to validate a claim as though there were some authority to trust it. That's the kind of niggling bible-bashers indulge in to weave around, over through, the neutral or sceptical analytic spirit informing modern scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Admins, please note that Guy Macon is continuing to WP:STALK my contribs today, follow me into every article I edit, send me templates threatening me with blocks for petty things, and make my experience here unpleasant as possible. He has made it clear that he doesn't believe WP:STALK and WP:HARASS apply to him, because in his mind I am illegitimate, I am "guilty" of something (presumably, not subscribing to his views on theology). Once again, I repeat, I JUST WANT THE DOGGING TO STOP. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Close and send to WP:AE?

I would like to focus on the following comments:

"Till has been consistently pushing fringe views (and was supporting Paul Bedson when he was around), and appears to view himself as the defender of the fringe. What is really needed is an RFCU or someone to file at arbitration enforcement under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions with the evidence. Can someone please notify me if one is set up?" (Quoted from post by IRWolfie, 08:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC))

"I agree with IRWolfie that this needs to be handled at WP:AE. AN/I does not deal well with long term [tendentious editing] because it takes a long time to go through someones entire history to determine the merits of the complaint. I happen to agree with the merits of this complaint, being familiar with Til's editing over the years, but this isn't the kind of thing you can just post a few obvious diffs of. We have discretionary sanctions for a reason, so let's let someone like Sandstein who is skilled at this kind of investigation take a look and determine what sanctions - if any - are necessary." (Quoted from post by Saedon, 21:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC))

Given the above, should we close this and refer it to WP:AE? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who opened this ANI on me, and you have been the main one repeatedly urging for my voice to be removed on any possible pretext from the equation, because that is your method of forming "consensus" on Exodus - have all dissenters ejected, and presto, instant "consensus". And it stinks. You spent the better part of yesterday dogging my contribs list, all day I kept seeing your name popping up on unrelated subjects where I had recently made an edit, undoing my work. You claim you are justified in doing this because in your mind I am guilty of some "policy violation" and therefore you have probable cause, rules like WP:STALK and WP:HARASS therefore do not apply to you. I have been convicted of no policy violation, and I do not even know what policy I have supposedly violated. I have not forum shopped, despite a whole pack of accusations, made under the presumption that now I've challenged Exodus, anything and everything else I say or do on any topic can and will be held against me. I don't know how many more days this dogging me and harassment of me is going to continue -- but I just want it to be stopped now. Your only other answer to it being pointed out that stalking and harassment are against our rules, has been to mock and disdain the rules that say this, to try to make harassing others seem "cool". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

[EC] The policies that you have violated are linked to in the many user warnings that you have received.[311][312][313][314][315][316][317][318][319][320][321][322][323][324][325][326][327][328][329][330]...

I would also point out that it isn't just me. Many other Wikipedia editors have "persecuted"[331] you by asking you to follow Wikipedia's behavioral standards.

This reminds me of the drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So far, you are the only one who has declared me "guilty" of all these violations and attempted to execute punishment by following me into several other articles I have edited. You think WP:STALK doesn't apply to you. You need to come down off your high horse. We don't have a king, and you don't get to be judge, jury, and executioner rolled into one, declare me guilty by yourself with your abundance of silly templating me, and then punish me by stalking my contribs. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You've written the following at talk:The Exodus: Several Christian Churches and other religions teach that this is historical. These account for hundreds of millions of adherents. You will never see them as significant because you have an anti-religious bias. There are hundreds of million according whose mythology the earth was once held on the tusks of a boar are you suggesting anyone not taking these stories seriously is biased against religions? I'm surprised at the rope given here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Very clever "spin", but not a logical argument. No, I do not believe that is what I am suggesting at all. In fact, I don't believe I suggested any such thing. (Have you ever studied "logical fallacies?) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Explain? To me it looks like beliefs vs knowledge, the later verifiable the former not. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't give you a whole course in logical training here. Basically, whenever you formulate an argument in terms of "Are you suggesting xyz" when xyz is something I have not actually suggested at all, and then proceed to castigate me as if I had suggested xyz, that is a red flag giveaway of a fallacy in logic. See strawman fallacy for more details. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You are suggesting that we take beliefs seriously, the more the adherents, the strong their case? Correct me if my understanding is wrong. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong, because you are taking what I actually said and transforming it into a different argument in your own words that is easier to attack, and attacking that position, but missing my actual position by a country mile. Again, read up on strawman fallacy. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No. You made a statement and Yogesh Khandke made a quite logical inference from it, and to clarify, used an analogy. This is not 'spin', unless you wish to dismiss 95% of Plato's diaslogues and their logical methods as 'spin'. You're dodging a legitimate query, and worse still throwing out vague remarks about logic while showing none. There are many problematical deductions and assumptions in that remark, like the idea of several Christian churches and other religions (?) teaching Exodus is 'historical'. You are not required in mainstream Protestantism, or Catholicism, or Judaism to believe in the historicity of OT stories like the Exodus. The small number of fundamentalist Christian sects do not constitute, unlike the former, hundreds of millions of adherents. Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There are currently around 1.99 billion Christians and 2.04 billion Muslims, so we really need to rewrite Gravity along the lines of Intelligent falling#Precursors. :)

So it's a "logical inference" that I would have some opinion on the "boar tusk" theory, which I've never even heard of before, and not only that, I can be held accountable for that opinion even though I never spoke it, because you have "logically inferred" what it is? LOL I have no idea how many people take the boar tusk thing seriously. My understanding of "significant point of view" is that if a vast proportion of the Earth's inhabitants believe something and take it seriously, and there are like millions of sources verifying that they do believe it and take it seriously, then it is a "significant point of view" and it deserves to be explained on the wikipedia artile about that belief, along with any significant views to the contrary. That would include the "boar tusk" belief, if that is indeed a widespread belief that is taken seriously, I have no idea if it is or not. The other way of looking at it is to say "We know whose beliefs are correct and whose are incorrect, therefore we will decide this for everyone else on every article, and harass or threaten anyone who resists us." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The "boar tusk" story is a belief, just like the belief that God created the earth in six days and then rested on the seventh, or that a virgin delivered, or someone died and then became alive again, or that a stick was pointed and waters parted, or that all the species on the earth fitted on one boat, those are beliefs not knowledge, we don't take them seriously, however strongly they are held or how many soever hold them. This is of course what I understand Wikipedia is. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok Til Eulenspiegel, I would like to know, do you think beliefs ought to be reported as facts on Wikipedia? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't and have not been advocating that any such belief ought to be reported as fact. I suppose this is a good question, it is important to clarify that this is not what I have ever called for, not even once, because often those I am arguing against will misrepresent me and deceptively attempt to re-cast it in those terms, using bad logic. I also do not think it is neutral to report such beliefs as "fiction" or any synonym. Neutrality for me includes recognizing that our readership around the world believes different things, and allowing this to be so, without trying to be an activist "force for change" to push things this way or that. Kind of like the prime directive on Star Trek. It is incumbent upon us to report and describe all the major points of view on every subject, not just our selected favorites. That is what the NPOV policy says, that is why the NPOV policy is so very important and not to be scoffed at or taken lightly, and that is why if an article is skewed by presenting only one POV as correct, it should be permissible to add a tag requesting second opinions beside just the one. Articles like these are telling readers who have other POVs "Sorry, but your belief system you were taught is wrong. We have never actually proved why it is wrong, but a bunch of people who are just plain smarter than you, all got together and agreed behind a closed door, that your belief system is wrong, and you weren't invited or included in the discussion, so you'll just have to accept that, too bad. And don't even try to change it or you will be pilloried as a dissenter." This is "neutrality"? This is what Wikipedia is good for? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So you seem to say that you would be happy with "XXX is what historians agree to and YYY is the popular belief" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If historians happen to agree, which in truth is rarely the case. We have to avoid the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and not try to redefine "historian" in any exclusive sense, which a lot of historians would love to be able to do to get rid of other historians that disagree with them, but is nevertheless not neutral. Remember, there have been historians since the time of Herodotus, and not all of them have been correct, and it is a deceptive illusion to suppose that there is a monolithic consensus or some universal credential-bestowing board of approval among the historians of every nation in the world. If there are several schools of thought in evidence, the formula should be "XXX is what the AAA school of thought says [1], while historians from the BBB school of thought have argued YYY [2]. The popular belief is ZZZ. [3]" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right about historians agreeing or dis-agreeing for that matter. I for now am of the opinion that in the context of the subject, your statement looks kosher to me. [3] ought to be a secondary source. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at it like this: in the history of Romania (or what is now Romania) there is a 1000 years gap or 1000 years silence. No historical evidence of anything happening there. Millions of Romanians believe that the Romanian people has historical continuity. Millions of Hungarians think that's false. How would you write such an article? If you take for granted the beliefs of millions Romanians, you make millions Hungarians unhappy and if you take for granted the beliefs of millions Hungarians you make millions Romanians unhappy. These cannot both be true at the same time, so writing an article affirming both beliefs as true is writing gibberish. Since in that gap nothing could be proven to be historical, no real event which happened then can be shown to have historicity. The same applies for Exodus (or Troy in 1850). Anyway, I find your line of reasoning quite weird: if you take for granted the faith of millions, then physics classes should teach about the World Turtle, on a par with geocentrism and heliocentrism and flat Earth. No more physical experiments agreed behind a closed door and then taught to pupils in order to indoctrinate them with facts about the real world. No longer calling flat Earth a delusion. It seems to me that your denial of science and scientific facts is a way wherein you want to eat your cake and still have it. And then accuse others of flawed logic because they point out that there is a contradiction between eating your cake and still having it. Your position has been shown to be absurd. I agree that the discussion among historians and theologians that myth cannot be simply equated with falsity is a lofty, sophisticated, high-brow concern, but pushing it to such practical extremes is untenable, even ludicrous. Not everything one learns in cultural anthropology classes could be transplanted in real life. Postmodernism may be fine and dandy as an epistemology of the social sciences, but mix postmodernism and physics and you get the Sokal affair. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem of Romanian and Hungarian historians each filling a 1000 year gap totally differently shouldn't be that big a problem for us. Presumably we would simply allow all points of view from all sides to be fully explained in their appropriate sections, without endorsing or refuting any of them. More than one POV can coexist on the same page, and the readers can make their own determination. What's so hard or mind boggling about that? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a technicality: popular opinion does not establish historicity. Only evidence establishes historicity. If you want to affirm that most Christians, Jews and Muslims think that the Exodus really happened, I have no objection. But don't conflate it with establishing historicity, since history (as a science) is not a democracy: when writing history books historians don't decide matters by popular vote. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You have a No true Scotsman definition of "historian", I think. Actually, historians when writing books use a whole range pf all kinds of methods to "decide matters", some of them we may never know. The point is, and this may really blow your mind, but if there is no evidence about something, but plenty of disagreement, then in those cases it is not our role to decide matters. It really is possible to have articles that state that there is disagreement among sources, without having to tell readers whose opinion is correct and incorrect. Even in Eastern Europe. It really is possible. I have heard that people there grow accustomed to always being told by authorities what to think about every subject. I am talking about a radically different philosophy, that may be new to you, called "using neutral language that lets the reader decide for themselves and make up their own mind what to think about a controversial subject". There doesn't always have to be a "winner" on every article, and our job was never to decide who the "winner" is, but only to give all major points of view as sourced, describe the elephant from as many angles as possible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific, Schliemann had what is takes to convince the mainstream historians, your millions of believers just don't have what it takes to convince the mainstream historians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The person who once told you it sounds like you would probably prefer "Citizendia" was right! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Schliemann was an amateur and he harmed the site, but he produced evidence for his claim of discovering Troy. That's more than all modern and contemporary Jews, Christians and Muslims have done in respect to producing evidence for the Exodus. This is not about Wikipedia or Citizendium, it is about how science works. You fail to see that while on Citizendium only experts are allowed to edit, Wikipedia and Citizendium have the same criteria for reliable sources. I.e. they have the same view of who counts as a scholar, so stop insinuating about no true Scotsman. You fail to see that through such attacks you disqualify your own stance. Any competent editor knows that there are scholars and that there are wannabes, and that the two categories should not be conflated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

@Til Eulenspiegel: First of all, popular opinion or the opinion of non-scholars on scholarly topics is of no encyclopedic significance whatsoever. Second of all, WP is very much biased toward real qualified academic scholars from real universities writing in real academically reviewed journals and books. If you have a problem with that, you're in the wrong place. Third of all, we cover only significant views, not extreme minority or fringe views. Last of all, and most important, you have not explained why you failed to provide any reliable independent secondary SCHOLARLY sources when asked to do so to support your contention that other significant views exist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and I do not see that as the reality that popular beliefs are of no encyclopedic significance to us. (Especially on the articles that are ABOUT those popular beliefs) Over the years I have heard this shrill voice coming from only a very few users such as yourself. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you assume Dominus Vobisdu that the "popular belief" citation wouldn't be from a reliable source? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Strawman. That's not what I wrote. Nice try, but no cigar. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments. Til says he doesn't consider himself a fundamentalist, but that is not the same thing as saying that he is not a Creationist or biblical literalist. To the best of my knowledge he is some form of Creationist and denies evolution, but he's welcome to correct me on that. He seems to be saying he supports NPOV, but then he is happy to add "self-declared authorities" to a lead[332] which is hardly complying with NPOV. I could raise other issues but at the moment it seems moot as this may be closed soon. I will note that if this is just dropped, we'll see more complaints either here or at AN about him within a few months and that some action, be it an RfC/U or a move for a topic ban, should be taken sooner rather than later. 11:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

This is typical of the attempts to demonize me, a constructive editor, as someone who allegedly believes the world was created and therefore ought to be banned, when I have repeatedly made clear my view that such opinions are best kept private because this is not the place for anyone to proselytize, and I have never been a proselyte. This is precisely the sort of witch hunt that should have no place on wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding that diff on Book of Kings, as I noted in the edit summary, that was a protest edit to register my protest, obviously not one that I expected to stick. This is the one book of the Old Testament that scholars have found the most agreement on as having some historical value. But sure enough, somebody has found a "reference" to an author whose opinion is that the entire Book of Kings is worthless for historical purposes, is pure fantasy and fairy tales, and sure enough, that opinion (currently) gets wikipedia's endorsement in the article, without qualification, as the only "permissible" analysis of the Book of Kings, according to that sentence I edited. Perfect example of the BIAS problems on wikipedia I am talking about. Note, I am not telling anyone what to believe about the Book of Kings. The article however IS telling people what to believe about the Book of Kings. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::The edit I mention above was certainly not constructive - some of your edits are very constructive, others the opposite. I was responded to your response about not considering yourself a fundamentalist - I wouldn't have commented on your beliefs if you hadn't said that. You don't proselytize but you push your pov in a way many find unacceptable. I just looked at the archived thread at Jimbo's page. You wrote ". When I first came to wikipedia in 2005, the article on Moses stated something like "It has been determined that Moses never existed because of the fact that no other ancient historian ever mentioned him except for the Bible. There is absolutely nothing that has ever been mentioned about Moses by any other source." That's selective quoting. The section "Moses in history" said "The school of skeptics called Biblical minimalism, whose views are commonplace among academics, suggest Moses never actually existed as a historical figure, and the events of Exodus, uncorroborated, are the products of pure myth. There is no extra-biblical evidence that Moses existed as a historical person." As in many areas, context is extremely important, and you left out the all-important context as well as misquoting what the article said - it did not say 'determined', it did not say 'absolutely nothing...has ever been mentioned by any other source. It took me seconds to go to your other accounts earliest edits and look for your edit to Moses. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not as nimble as you are with things like getting a diff from 2005 in a few seconds (I do know how to do it, but with my old computer it would take me much longer). I quoted the 2005 article based on my memory from 8 years ago, but it was not intended as a literal quote. The essential thing I remembered is that the 2005 article stated "There is no extra-biblical evidence that Moses existed as a historical person" but it did not at that time state that once writing histories of the world came into vogue among Greeks and Romans in the last few centuries BC, none of them failed to mention the Jews and what they speculated about their origins, and they all give independent, extra-biblical accounts about Moses' career. So the 2005 article was false to state that there is no extra-biblical evidence of Moses' life. Some of the other versions and diffs back then if I recall correctly went much further in stating falsely that Moses was never mentioned by any classical historians and is known only from the Bible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, found it... The 2005 article for Moses also contained this statement: "The only known historical record that survives mentioning Moses is the Bible." Plainly false statement. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Plainly, it's correct, since all other historical sources derive their information from the Bible. This is just the kind of tendentious reasoning, along with the unrelenting attritional argumentativeness and constant portayal of youself as a victim of others that destroys reasoned debate and drives away producticve editors from areas in which you have an interest. I think this very thread is evidence of the problem. Paul B (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Plainly, you aren't too familiar with the issue. All of the accounts by Greeks and Romans of Moses doing things like, say, invading Ethiopia, are not considered by scholars to be dependent on the Bible. And our article Moses currently makes no such fantastic claim as you are making. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Plainly, you aren't too familiar with the issue. Writings by Greeks and Romans are not "records" of Moses. They are generally considered by historians to be expansions or adaptations of the Biblical figure of Moses in the context of Greco-Roman encounters with Judaism - written a thousand years after Moses is said to have existed. They are what are known as counter-myths, reappropriating Moses to an alternative narrative. There are no historical "records" of Moses. That's not to say he didn't exist. Records of almost anyone from so far back in the past are hard to find. Paul B (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well that's not what the scholars say about the Greek and Roman historians on most issues. Regardless of the fact that we are now suddenly seeing a "No true scotsman" definition of the word "record", still "The only known historical record that survives mentioning Moses is the Bible" is a plainly misleading and false statement that appeared in the 2005 article, if you still feel that way you could try adding it to the 2013 version but it might look a bit silly with all the sections elaborating on Polyhistor, Strabo, Tacitus and all the other accounts that diverge from the Bible account so significantly that no scholar in their right mind has ever once attempted to pretend that these stories were derived from the Bible, as you just stated they were. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be fond of trotting out this "no true scotchman" canard. The film "Robin Hood Prince of Thieves" is not a "record" of Robin Hood, is it? But it's a lot closer in time to the historical Robin Hood, if he existed, than the "records" of Moses you are referring to. They are not records by the normal everyday definition of that word. You didn't even understand what I said. I never said the variant stories came from the Bible. I said thay are "counter-myths, reappropriating Moses to an alternative narrative." This is the problem Til, it is almost impossible to have a rational debate with you. You always make almost-instant comebacks, but show no attempt to really understand what your interlocutors are saying, and you misrepresent scholarship (in this case to suggest that Tacitus is somehow how independent evidence for the historical existence of Moses, when next-to no serious historian would say that). It is this systematic distortion and endlessly aggressive argumentativeness that create problems. No-ne can engage in a productive debate with you to improve content. It's always an all-or-nothing power struggle to "win". This thread, wandering off on tangents all over the place, epitomises the problem. No discussion can be kept on track. No reasoning is possible. Paul B (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"No true Scotsman" is not a canard, it really is a logical fallacy, believe it or not. You seem to be awfully fond of trotting out just about every fallacy in the book, including argument by analogy, and I just call 'em like I see 'em. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Like all logical fallacies, it's only a fallacy when the fallacious logic is adopted. It's not a magic phrase you can use to dismiss all arguments you dislike that appear vaguely similar in your mind. Argument by analogy is not a fallacy, it's a type of induction. Paul B (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"No true Scotsman" is always a fallacy. It takes the form, for example: A) There are no historical records mentioning Moses except for only the Bible. B) What about the Greek and Roman historians who mentioned Moses? A) Ah, but they cannot count as "records" of anything, because of the exclusive definition of "record" I designed to exclude them, but simultaneously include the Bible.

The assertion that the completely different Greek and Roman accounts were borrowed from the Bible is not a fallacy, just a plain false statement that isn;t backed up by anyone who has read these accounts.

"Argument by analogy" is usually a fallacy, but your right, it is possible to have an exception. The fallacy, which is the classic fallacy we see every day on wikipedia, takes the form "We took course of action abc in the case of something else that is remotely analogous, in a vague sort of sense. It is too hard to explain why it would be a logical proposition to take what we consider an analogous course of action in this case, so instead, we figured it would be easier to just point at that other, vaguely similar case as a precedent, ignoring all the differences that make the cases quite different, and insist that we take a vaguely similar course of action in this case too." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A little learning is a dangerous thing. You haven't a clue what you are talking about. "No true scotsman" (NTS), like all fallacies, is only a fallacy when the specific form of argument described by the phrase is used. You have to demionstrate that that form, exactly, has been used. A Scotsman is defined by something quite distinct from, say, liking football, so to say no true scotsman dislikes football is simply a fallacy. A "record", in contrast, is a term that can be used in several ways, but in this specific instance is intended to mean historical evidence for the existence of someone. Whether or not something is a "record" depends on how one defines the limits of such evidence. It's a complex and debatable matter, but is not remotely a case of NTS. You can't just say "it's always a fallacy" and then say every example you think is a case of NTS is therefore a fallacy. That, indeed, is a fallacy. It's simply false logic.
As I have already said, I did not say that Greek and Roman accounts were borrowed from the Bible. I said the figure of Moses was borrowed from the Bible and then was woven into other narratives (much the same thing that's happened with Robin Hood). This is largely uncontroversial. I challenge you to find a single serious historian who believes that some form of record of Moses' life wholly independent of the Bible actually existed. I've already clarified this point. The fact that you continue to misrepresent what I said again indicates the problem of any rational communication with you.
Your comment on argument from analogy just shows how much you misunderstand what a logical fallacy is. It's a common error. There are certain argments, like those from analogy, or from authority, that can be used fallaciously if they are misunderstood as deductive rather than inductive arguments. An argument from authority is fallacious if I say "Professor X is an expert on this, so what he says must be right". That's because I am treating an induction as a deduction. People who fallaciously trot out supposed "fallacies" in the way you do confuse this alogether. Argument from analogy/authority etc is fallacious if presented as a deduction. Leaving out the second part leads to ther utterly spurious assertion that such arguments are fallacious as such. This is all related to the broader problem of induction. Paul B (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Clearly we are not going to get an answer to my "Should we close this and refer it to WP:AE?" question, so I am going to be bold: Would an uninvolved admin please close this and refer it to WP:AE? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Would any admin please remind this user to stop WP:HARASSing me, WP:STALKing my contribs day after day, point out that these rules are meaningless if they do not apply to him as well as everyone else, and ask him please to try to focus on making contributions rather than dogging other users persistently, and trying to get innocent users muzzled and topic banned because their perceived theological opinions don't meet his litmus test? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 10:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

So all the editors with contrary views above are deluded? My guess is that religious articles may have been given a fairly wide degree of freedom in the years following 2005, but applying the standards that may have been accepted in some articles years ago to other articles now has led to the current fuss because Wikipedia is in fact based on reliable sources from acknowledged experts in the field. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is pretty much spot-on correct. Moses (as pointed out) is a much more informative article now than in 2005 when it was obviously biased and one-sided. I'd say there are still a few articles in this area that are one-sided, though. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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