Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive780

Disruption and personal attacks by IP user

The individual using the IPs 198.228.228.147 (Special:Contributions/198.228.228.147), 190.211.255.12 (Special:Contributions/190.211.255.12), 198.228.228.157 (Special:Contributions/198.228.228.157) and 190.211.255.20 (Special:Contributions/190.211.255.20) has used those IPs almost exclusively for disruptive POV edits, vandalism and threatening personal attacks. It's possible that the abuser may also be using other IP addresses.Spylab (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism and harassment after closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi

After closing the above AFD as "delete", my talk page and the talk page of Explicit (talk · contribs) who had previously deleted it because of a prod have been spammed and vandalized repeatedly by multiple IPs (we are the only admins showing up in the deletion log for this title). The vandalism has all been reverted and the first IP was blocked, but successive IPs were merely given warnings by editors who I think weren't admins and probably also didn't realize that these were continuing harassment, and the vandalism in turn just spread to not only those editors' talk pages but also to other editor's pages and project pages (all since reverted). I've blocked the other two IPs and I'm thinking about semi-protecting my talk page for awhile. Below are the three IPs so far; the post-AFD vandalism is the only contribution history for all of them. Perhaps a range block can prevent future whack-a-mole? Beyond my technical know-how. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• 118.103.228.136 (talk · contribs)
• 118.103.231.226 (talk · contribs)
• 118.103.230.12 (talk · contribs)

Note also another IP in the same range 118.103.224.4 (talk · contribs) had only made edits related to the AFD, none yet postdating its close. postdlf (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

New IP, different range, only contributions are attempts at vulgar insults about this deletion on five different user talk pages and several project pages: 111.119.164.72 (talk · contribs). All reverted and blocked now, but this is getting tiresome. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Range-blocked 118.103.224.0/20 for 36 hours; that should at least get those in the 118.* block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Both Explicit and I got hit again by a new IP: 115.42.70.200 (talk · contribs). Blocked and I've semi-protected my talk page. postdlf (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

User:XLR8TION and User:Yerevanci

Recently, the mentioned user have being aggressive toward me:

• First, he mockingly questioned my ability to understand English
• justified that stating It's apparent English is not your first
• called me stubborn and refuses to discuss

Also, notice how he uses bold and capitals letters to justify his moves and refusal to discuss. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 05:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. consider Wikipedia:No personal attacks as basis for my claims.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 05:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

One more thing. The user seems to get nervous for writing on his talk page and calls it "vandalism" ([1], [2]. Even when I notified him of this discussion, which is a rule clearly stated in a red box at the top of this page. An admin should also consider teaching him the basic rules of Wiki.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 05:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• User vandalizes page by reverting my constructive edits.
• Continues to remain stubborn and not comprehend that justices, military, and law enforcement are not politicians.
• Reverts pages within one minute if he doesn't hear from me.
• I have provided points in Talk Page on article List of Armenian American politicians about steps to follow when posting entries on list since August 2012. He refuses to even read or comply with these simple requests. Please see talk page discussion to see my posts.
• Has vandalized my Talk Page after I have warned him not to write on it.

Please provide guidance on how to deal with an unstable, uncooperative rogue editor who doesn't comprehend the U.S. political system, Wikipedia article formatting, or English grammar.--XLR8TION (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

From WP:VANDALISM:

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. (emphasis added)

Inserting "Penis" or "I love Mary" into an article is vandalism. Disagreeing with you isn't, necessarily.

Have you tried discussing your disagreements with Yerevanci?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sir, I would like to hear a statement about his aggressive behavior.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 06:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I won't comment on the content dispute, which is outside my sphere of knowledge although Gtwfan52 has made a point on the talk page. Please avoid calling edits "vandalism" if they are not blatant vandalism. Yerevanci's notification post on your talk page is required per the instructions when posting an ANI about another user. These are not vandalism and calling them such is a personal attack and continued use of this term is blockable. You can ask Yerevanci not to post on your talk page in future and by common courtesy Yerevanci should cease doing so. And Yerevanci, for your information, when XLR8TION removed the notices from their talk page it is considered that they have read acknowledged the notice so further posting isn't necessary.

There has been general combatativeness from both of you and really it's time to calm the hell down. XLR8TION please refrain from using caps, particularly bold caps, as it usually means you're shouting at the other party. If you're intending to emphasise a point without shouting, italics or bold italics would be preferable and is less inflammatory. Also, in [3] edit your comment overwrote Gtwfan52's hence their comment that you reverted their talk page comment. Yerevanci has posted a compromise on the talk page so here are a couple of trouts for making such a mountain out of a mole hill and back to the talk page you go. Blackmane (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been general combatativeness from both of you isn't quite accurate if you think about it. What languages I speak and what languages I don't speak isn't a discussion topic, at least, it wasn't last time I checked Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Calling names, SHOUTING through the computer screen isn't acceptable also. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 06:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly a content dispute, and I have suggested to them that they go to WP:DRN. But one side of the dispute has a serious case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. I am not a mediator, so I give up.Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• • I was off on Saturday due to employment. I have reverted the edits and have renamed the page. User Yeravanci has reverted all my constructive edits even though this is an active dispute. I have posted discussion on the article's talk page and that should be discussed. If I don't reply in a few hours or a day, it should not interpret that the dispute has been closed.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• See also below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Do you understand the word "stop"? I have told you only to discuss topic on article talk page. That is why each article has one? Why did you vandalize my page when I have told you numerous times to stop?--XLR8TION (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have constantly informed user ^talk not to discuss topic discussion on my page. He disrespects me and continues to vandalize my page. I have numerous historical links I can show that I have asked him to ONLY discuss on article talk page. I only use my Talk page to discuss bot-related changes and personal messages that I relay to other users first, and nothing else. Please stop dsisrepcting my talk page. I have told you numerous times stop vandalizing my page.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear XLR8TION, it had been stated several times (including by User:Beyond My Ken) that my edits on your talk page were good faith edits. If you still have a problem with that start another discussion. This case has nothing to do with you. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have told you numerous times whether good or bad faith edits, DO NOT write on my Talk page? Why did you disrespect my talk page?
  • • Dec 27[4]
    • Dec 27 (second Time)[5]
    • Dec 29 - [6]

Why didn't you comply with these requests?--XLR8TION (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• A user's talk page should be respected. If I tell you to stop, it means stop. What if you warn a vandal to stop vandalizing your page? Do they have the right to edit your page after you tell them to stop? The answer is no. Your edits are considered vandalism. I have provided you numerous warnings to stop.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Fourth time - DO NOT WRITE ON MY TALK PAGE! Only write on article talk page. It's my talk page. STOP!--XLR8TION (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, per WP:NOBAN, you may request that users not edit pages in your userspace, however the policy also states that "a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to" thus preventing you from outright banning people from contacting you and making their edits not vandalism. Best, Mifter (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• See also above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@Yerevanci: If XLR8TION has asked you to not post on his page, you should not do so unless required to do so. After the required post, stop. If XLR8TION deletes the notice, it's taken as an indication that he has read it - except for active block notices, there's no requirement that he leave the notice on the page. Do not try to repost it or comment on his removal, it's none of your business. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I notified him that I will report him for edit warring. It is a mandatory step I have to make according to the 3RR guidelines. Also, when did I repost anything? --Երևանցի ^talk 18:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

But then you yourself edit-warred to keep that notice on the page. Don't do that. Users are granted a certain amount of control over their talk pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, this (by another editor) seems to me like an abuse of that privilege. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

you don't seem to have a point. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at his talk page history where do you see edit warring by me? I simply notified him of the cases he's involved in and he simply removed them.--Երևանցի ^talk 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct - I have struck that comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would ask that an administrator merge this section below the line into the section above titled "User:XLR8TION and User:Yerevanci", as the discussion below the line is much more related to that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be thankful. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Nick.mon

Hi! This is my first time doing this, so I hope I'm doing this properly!<3 ^_^ I'm a very casual wikipedia(er?) who occasionally edits various election pages with new polling data. Recently User:Nick.mon has taken over the "Italian general election, 2013" page and has deleted a large amount of polling data (which was sourced and linked and everything) and reformatted the entire article. He left no explanation, and did not discuss his edit with anyone on "Talk" before hand. I attempted to reach out to him several times, but he reverts anyone who attempts to change the article, refuses to offer an explanation, and won't talk about his edits on the "Talk" page.

I realized I don't actually know what wikipedia's policy was, and did some research and his behavior seems to violate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

I got the link to this page from the article on dealing with disruptive editors. I hope this is the right place to report this, and if not, could someone please explain to me what I should do? Thanks for your time. ^_^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4idaho (talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that all the links in that page must be reduced because in view of the following election all that data are useless, it only takes an half. I apologize with everyone who have tried to formatted the page, but I'm not very expert of Wikipedia and its Talk Page. Excuse me and thank you for your suggestions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.mon (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Harassing editor banned from other projects

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:Fête, indef'ed this week over at fr.wiki & fr.wiktionary (at least) has moved on to ENWP and is now proceeding to relentlessly harass a myriad of editors, bluntly requesting that they record voice clips of Quebec pronunciation of words. I would not so go as far as to call this editor crazy or maniacal, because I hardly make a habit of insulting people, but I believe the behaviour speaks for itself... This needs to stop before it is allowed to escalate. I myself had to vehemently repeat at least three times to the user to stop harassing me on my talk page, and I was close to growing in incivility... although I am generally known for my serenity! Others will clearly not display the same patience and I'd hate to lose good contributors over something so trivially useless as this. I made the mistake of trying to help when he came to the Help Desk, before realizing the extent of the user's obsession, and I fear he may have taken it as enabling of his behaviour. Salvidrim! 16:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Note the fr.wiki admin warned him explicitely that he should top or a project-wide ban was going to be requested, on his en.wiki talk page. Salvidrim! 16:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've contacted said admin, meta:User:Quentinv57, who's sysop/crat on fr.wikt & meta, and is a Steward. Hopefully he will be able to assist. Salvidrim! 17:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 72 hours for now, but feel free to modify it if appropriate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, you've blocked account creation only. Salvidrim! 19:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

But otherwise 72hours should be enough for the Steward to have the time to review and decide if yet another indef. is needed. Salvidrim! 19:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No, a block on an account with any kind of settings will block editing as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Guess there's still some stuff to learn, heh. Just for information, if I understand correctly, the block you applied, in addition to blocking editing, blocks account creation from that IP? :) Salvidrim! 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but only for 24 hours. See WP:ABK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I was just reading that. Anyhow thanks for your time. :) Salvidrim! 19:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Vandalism only IPs (repeated vandalism, IP hopping)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/115.244.160.5
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/115.245.105.62

--Niemti (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

They stopped editing a while ago, so there's not much point in blocking them now. For a faster response next time, you might want to report them to WP:AIV. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the same user falsifying review scores on video games. I've left them warnings and notice of this discussion, but DoRD is right, if they make more such edits, AIV is the place to go. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot NG Must Go

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.

---

ClueBot NG Is Stupid And Pointless — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.227.104 (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably User:Boomage (see above). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I once thought AN/I had some sense to it. Entries like those above confirm my opinion that it's all a bit of a clique, really, and of no real benefit to WP. Is there any good reason why I shouldn't just delete this section as cobblers? Tonywalton ^Talk 00:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Was User:Boomage notified of the above? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look, he replied to the above section. Salvidrim! 00:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I'll re-open this quickly since the crusading user started attacking people, for instance in calling them big fat idiot. Boomage isn't blocked so this isn't evasion even if it is him, but whatever the case is, nonsense and personal attacks in the first 10 edits makes me think the user behind this IP isn't here to work on Wikipedia. Salvidrim! 00:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, blocked already... Salvidrim! 00:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Elizabeth Maconchy

User:Novaseminary has an attitude problem, being extremely patronising to other users who are trying to be reasonable WP:OWN while insisting on removing valid information from the article including (but not limited to) links to her husband and daughter while claiming this information is "unsourced" when in reality he just can't be arsed to check the sources and has a major attitude problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.242.193 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm quite confused. Not a single edit you reverted here was substantive. That is, Novaseminary made some cosmetic changes to the article, fixing some grammar and the format of some references, but made no substantive changes to the article's content, and it appears you just reverted them wholesale with no actual reason. Can you explain that? --Jayron32 23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Confused? Yeah me too. Sorry I thought he was continuing to be an ass but not yet at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.242.193 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Look further back in the edit history and see Talk:Elizabeth Maconchy#Novaseminary unnecessary removal of material, Jayron32. We're clearly looking at things like this edit, where Novaseminary removes Maconchy's daughters from the article, and this edit where Novaseminary removes all mention of the daughters, studying under Wood and Vaughan Williams, OBE and DBE, Bartók, marriage, tuberculosis, string quartet, and choral and vocal works.

    Not only is it the case that the LeFanu information is supported by the source that was cross-linked to the prose, which I've just read page 348 of and seen in the supporting source, but additional sources confirming this and all of the other information can be found in about 10 seconds with almost no effort at all. I found several without breathing hard. Maconchy has full length biographies in several encyclopaedias and dictionaries of biography, as indeed does LeFanu. Their mother-daughter relationship is amply verifiable. Maconchy's first daughter is in her encyclopaedia entry in the Encyclopedia of World Biography, which also has an entire section headed "Suffered from Tuberculosis", confirming the information about contracting tuberculosis that Novaseminary removed for being supposedly completely unverifiable. The marriage, husband, compositions, OBE, DBE, choral work, and other information is verifiable from places ranging from a composer profile at the BBC by Andrew Burn to the several page biography in Pendle's Women & Music.

    Yet these 10 seconds are effort that Novaseminary has not expended in eight months, preferring instead to grossly misapply the verifiability policy and remove encyclopaedic content (which is in encyclopaedias) that xe clearly hasn't bothered to check. It is understandable that 86.129.242.193 is peeved at eight months of such destructive and lazy "work" by Novaseminary. It is understandable that not reading what is right in front of xem leads one person to consider Novaseminary's "work" incompetent. This is not how one writes and behaves when there are biographies of and encyclopaedia articles on the subject coming out the ears that one can collaboratively check and cite in order to improve the article, and where the information repeatedly excised for supposedly being unverifiable was right there in the cited sources cross-linked to the prose.

    The venue for this, however, is, as was pointed out at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#User Novaseminary reported for obsessive battling and disruptive behavior by Blackmane, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. This isn't an incident requiring administrator intervention. This is a months-long pattern of destruction of patently encyclopaedic content, unhelpfulness, lack of collaboration, and blatant mirepresentation and misapplication of content policy that obviously requires stronger negative feedback from the editor/writer community at large to the person exhibiting it. Content writers know that this is not how one writes collaboratively.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe North8000 will need to be taken up on their offer to spend the time to gather the evidence for a RFC/U. Blackmane (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember an offer like that but I'm the Wikipedian most familiar with the editor. The 30,000 foot view is that some guidance for them in problematic areas is in order, (although they might have already have improved.) And that this will not be apparent to someone at first glance /not fully familiar. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, excuse me, I misread "it would take 20hours" for "would take the 20 hours" ie that you would undertake the gathering of material. This was in the previous ANI on Novaseminary that Uncle G linked to above. Blackmane (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I can say that as of a year and 2 years ago ago there were exhibiting very destructive obsessive battling behavior, and in a way that was clever enough that the casually involved would not be able to "see" it. I imagined a prize in my mind for the person who gotten the most editors to leave Wikipedia. I have not watched closely over the last year (though I did see a second ANI by someone else). My general impression / guess is their actions have improved or dialed back at least some since then. With respect to myself, they have 99% disengaged.....the remaining 1% has exhibited the same tendencies but has not done any harm. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware of this until alerted by North8000. The IP never got why I was doing what I was doing and, despite me trying to engage him/her constructively, made rather unbecoming notes on my talk page (User_talk:Novaseminary#Elizabeth_Maconchy). As for that article, I added the vast majority of the citations to RSs and could not find or missed the one fact. But I added it back in myself even before I could source it while looking for a source (the IP's source was a pay site). The article previously had been partially sourced to hard copy program notes from some performance apparently written by the subject's daughter. I am sure they were lovely program notes, but probably not RSs. I had removed it along with some POV language that the IP inexplicably (other than calling it vandalism) reinserted. Regardless, the article now has many good sources that can serve as the basis to grow it with proper citations. It looks like the IP made this posting in error (mistaking my referece cleanup for vandalism... further displaying he/she is less famiiar with how things work than one would expect before casting sones) and has moved on. (I am not sure why Uncle G has a bee in his bonnet.) I see nothing more here. Novaseminary (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

BLP redirect for delete and salt

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 redirect helps Wikipedia out a person who may have transitioned gender. A former sock and several tendentious editors have been using a tabloid source to try to re-add birthname to the article. The BLP subject does not apparently discuss this and it's bringing them real-world harm. There are also several postings of links on the talkpage that may need to be looked at. The article may need to be deleted as well but at least the redirect pushing this onto the top of Google results needs to go. Any help appreciated. Insomesia (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The article itself says previous to 2006 she published books under that name. And her own website is "tagged" with that name. So if it's supposed to be a secret, it's not being very well kept. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Self-report of an ad hominem

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

---

I am self-reporting an ad hominem response by myself to Doncram. If this means I get blocked, as would be likely per policy, then so be it. This type of thing has gone on for long enough. I will inform the other party. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Relatively uncivil, but not an ad hominem. @Doncram, what experience do you have with castes/what is your purpose in editing those articles? Ryan Vesey 01:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

For Christ's sake Sitush, if I had a sprat handy you would get it in the mush. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Doncram says in that diff "this is an encyclopedia-building project" so I would imagine that putting that together with WP:AGF would lead us to an acceptable conclusion about his purpose in editing any particular set of articles, absent strong evidence to the contrary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: Apart from the numerous embarrassing typos (now hopefully fixed), I really do not care. I often make typos but that is not the issue. Block me for the ad hominem and for god's sake sort out the underlying mess. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, a sprat is a very small fish, hence what you said does not even raise to the level of a trouting. Get back to editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I know what a sprat is. But the initial "s" may be redundant here, in my case. I'm past caring when it comes to the "polite incivilty" that goes on where Doncram is concerned. I am fed up of seeing this person steamroller stuff, seemingly accept consensus only when it suits and misrepresent what others say. Honestly, I'm pissed off with all this stuff. I may be wrong and I know what the likely outcome of this report will be but, well, I'm past caring. Doncram himself suggested RfC was the best option last time I recall him being here, but he has not filed one and my experience of him forms only a small part of all the various complaints etc. I'm not best-place to form something for RfC and Doncram (probably rightly) seems unwilling to self-report even though admitting it is likely the best option. What can one do? I certainly cannot stand by and watch someone with so little understanding of a subject matter run riot just because they think they are good at copying an extant primary source list on to Wikipedia and, well, "it must be right" (paraphrase). - Sitush (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel like the idea last time was that it should go to Arbcom, even Doncram himself suggested as much, but nobody ever took it there. For background on the issues see Doncram on Indic communities and subsections thereof. Ryan Vesey 02:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel honored by this. Sitush is stating at his talk page that he is "falling on a sword" towards bring me down, specifically:

....We are sleepwalking into a big problem here and someone who thinks they're good at turning a hardcopy list into a Wikipedia list is missing numerous relevant points while playing a very good game of pretending to acknowledge them. This is not the only sphere in which they've done this and their ability to insult without seeming to do so appears to know no bounds. I'll take him on and I know that I'll lose because the policy wonks will be unable to see beyond their beloved rules + he is very, very good with words even if less good with action. I'm past caring when umpteen admins etc are aware that there is an issue but nothing can apparently be done: block me, and let his new Wikipedia friends from India take pleasure in seeing that happen. Frustrated although I am, at least I will have fallen on my sword with honour.

Sitush opened a recent ANI and RyanVesey expanded the scope of that. What I think this new outburst seems to be about is my observing, at Talk:List of OBCs or Talk:List of Scheduled Castes, that virtually every comment made by Sitush seems to involve disparaging or attacking someone else. That is just what I observed. It gets in the way of any real discussion, for (almost) every entry to be presented as an attack on others' ignorance or other failings. I was giving feedback and asking him to show some other behavior. As evident from links from User talk:Doncram#Your interaction with Sitush, Sitush consulted with Salvio giulano and seemed to acknowledge kneejerk comments of that type: ""I need to back off, I think, and will try my best. My last there was a bit of a kneejerk, although verifiable. Must try to pay more attention to what you, Dennis and others have said, ie: there are many eyes. Mea culpa".

But subsequently several statements at my Talk page and at the given Talk page and at Sitush's Talk page and this ANI itself are also of this character. Sitush did make one statement at Talk:List of Scheduled Castes#Redlinks that was not of that character, but upon my reply to that he replied that I am clueless and he opened this ANI. At his Talk page he suggests "I'll take him on" and that he wishes to fall on a sword here. I don't care for a "self-reported ad hominem" attack turn into a trial of me here at ANI. I kind of would like to see some admonishment of Sitush, to tell him not to fall on a sword, not to seek to confront another editor. I hope not to comment much more here. I hope this could be closed with some response to Sitush who seems to have provoked some disagreement and seems to be seeking other admin involvement, where nothing should be necessary. Simply, at the Talk:List of OBCs and Talk:List of Scheduled Castes, just discuss the articles' contents, okay? Give Sitush some feedback: don't "take on" another editor, please. --doncram 04:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at two talk pages you link above, and by no stretch of the imagination is "virtually every comment" a disparagement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) To quote OrangesRyellow at Talk:List of Scheduled Castes#discussion and question:

....Sitush has tried to create the impression that India is a chaotic country and that the official sources on India are also chaotic (without showing any sources to support his claims). He keeps telling Doncram again and again at various places that Doncram is unfamiliar with this subject area. But then, Sitush is also an amateur and no more. I am only trying to set the record straight so that people can work on this article with official sources in the usual way. I see no unusual problems in dealing with the subject of this article and even if some problems crop up, we should deal with them when they do crop up. I would certainly like to help when such problems crop up, but do not approve the negative climate about sourcing that is being created now. I do not think it is helpful to demoralize people by talking about problems in vague terms without pointing out any specific problems in the article. I think it is quite easy to write this article by sticking closely with what the sources say.

I think it is reasonable to point out that Sitush has repeatedly suggested horrific consequences of any contributions, even if fully sourced and justified, I think with implication of inter-caste warfare or really I don't know what else being caused, which are all really vague. Editor OrangesRyellow is pointing out the vagueness. Sitush has mentioned death threats. But I think it is reasonable to say that the only outrage I have observed in any of this is Sitush's. I have not familiarized myself with past Indic article disagreements that led to Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups judgments, but I wonder if Sitush's aggressive style displayed recently had contributed to disagreements getting out of hand previously. He has commented to me that he has won previous ANI type discussions on Indic topics. I don't want to win anything, but i and some others including OrangesRyellow also don't see any real impediment to developing wikipedia, with sources, in these areas. --doncram 04:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider this a smacking

I suggest smacking Sitush with a minnow, since WP:TROUT would be too punitive here. (Here in Minnesota, in the United States, we use minnows as bait to catch other fish.) I can see why Sitush is getting frustrated -- it seems like Doncram's behavior has that sort of effect on people. I've seen plenty of people getting frustrated with Doncram's modus operandi on Wikipedia, but Doncram only has suggestions on how those other people should be admonished or punished or changed, while he considers his behavior beyond reproach. It's funny how that works out, isn't it? In fact, I remember how he accused me of lying about the date when the Floyd B. Olson House was built. Then again, I suspect that Doncram will vent all of his frustrations in the Arbcom case he's pondering submitting. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sadly, I have a sense of deja vu. In particular, I'm reminded of this statement from a few months back, by a long-active contributor who decided to quit rather than continue interacting with Doncram. He wasn't the first... --Orlady (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm....well, I quit rather than interact with you, so maybe the pot should stop calling the kettle black. Lvklock (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think this report will solve anything. There is a fundamental difference in editing strategy here. Doncram seems to believe that any info is good info, no matter how badly formatted, no matter whether it is even accurate. All that matters is adding info that seems to be correct because it's cut and paste from an official website. This, of course, ignores the fact that the same word can have multiple meanings in different parts of India. Then there's Sitush, who believes (as I do), that no information is better than that which is potentially in error. I happen to believe that our stance is fundamentally fixed in policy, but others, especially those who've been editing for a long time, harken back to the "good old days" when anyone could start a page on anything with one sentence, no references, just something off the top of their head (or copied from the 90 year old version of EB) and that someone, sometime, would eventually come along to fix it. So, whatever, this will fix nothing. But doncram, before you start casting aspersions and say Sitush is seeing things that aren't there, don't forget that Sitush has been the victim of an off-wiki attempt to very seriously smear his character and has, in fact, received real death threats for his attempt to make caste articles neutral. Furthermore, Sitush and myself both came to this topic after several others had already been driven off the site by coordinated off-wiki attacks. This isn't just random talk. It doesn't help that some of your edits are just hopelessly wrong, such as your belief, for instance, that there is a national, official list of OBC (in fact, there is a national list, but it actually has far less relevance to basically everyone's lives than the individual state lists). But, as I've told Sitush, sadly, there seems to be nothing we can do here. To me this is exactly like your behavior with the NRHP articles, where you felt that creating tons of them was worthwhile even if they contained literally no usable information and/or clear and obvious errors. Please note that I do believe you're acting in good faith, and that you really think you're improving Wikipedia...but I really, really, think that you aren't. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That is just absurd. Sitush self-reports, truthfully that he has been making ad hominem attacks, and his victim gets banned?!!???!!!! What a crock. --doncram 05:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

When the "victim" has been doing something worthy of topic-banning, they don't get a mulligan just for being a victim. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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

NovaSkola

NovaSkola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Non-consensual article edits ([7], [8]). Insists that the Facebook and unknown dubious Lithuanian web-site - reliable sources ([9]). On the talk page does not respond. Congratulate him on the New Year, grant him furlough. Divot (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not Russian Wikipedia, and we have a different mechanism for conflict resolution. You should really talk to the user on their user page, otherwise no action will be taken, since they are unlikely to be aware of the problem. The user also should have been notified of this thread, but this I will do now.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Divot, never been even talked to me, as far I know, he was previously banned for his biased reverts, and ignores other users' views by acting that he is always right, then makes instant attack like this without warning this users. I demand from moders to take action for such fake allegations against him. Furthermore please check out his sarcasm "Congratulate him on the New Year, grant him furlough. " this is personal attack on me --NovaSkola (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling that a personal attack just undermined the credibility of the rest of your reply. So was "demanding". Well done. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've warned both NovaSkola (talk · contribs) and Divot (talk · contribs) about edit warring on Khojaly Massacre although since Divot was previously blocked and placed on notice of sanctions for edit warring related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (AA) arbitration case, perhaps further action is in order.

I've also issued and logged an AA2 warning with NovaSkola. Toddst1 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

MalesAlwaysBest

This user has just come off an unblock for editwarring. He has resumed his disruptive editing, twice moving List of Syrian Civil War slogans to the title List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans in violation of NPOV. We also have this defaming/bigoted/vilifying/propagandising slogans whose tolerated presence make a joke of WP:NPOV) And accusing editors of dishonesty[10] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And he has just moved it again for the third time.[11] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor blocked for a fortnight. I admit the temptation to just indef for tendentious editing was rather strong... I may still succumb to it... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Steady. "Proaganda" is not a bad word - though it can be argued that this editor thinks it is. On the headings, I wonder how we would feel about labelling days "Friday of Crushing Rebels" for example? The editor simply needs to be made to respect BRD. Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC).

Personal attack by User:Sagapane

Moved from WP:AN#Personal attack by User:Sagapane

User:Sagapane abused Wikipedia:No personal attack, here, here, and here. He/she wrote

• But a turkish fascist user, who hates kurds, delated my map. I did “undo” but now my commons picture ( the map ) is removed “becoz of licenzing”
• I think, it is done by the same fascist user ( takabeg )

I'm neither a Turkish nor a fascist. Moreover I don't hate Kurds. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be next door? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have provided a hand-typed only warning for NPA. Also reiterated that they review copyright/IUP. I cannot see them as 3 separate personal attacks, it's exact same one 3 times - normally, I would indeed block due to the nationalist/racist connotations. Maybe I'm giddy over the upcoming calendar change, but I'm hoping that a stern warning will be sufficient to stop future similar behaviour (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've tried to give context to the copyright issue; BWilkins, Sagapane is having the (perfectly legitimate) problem of not understanding our licensing in the sense of "Wikipedia is non-commercial, the map says it can be used non-commercially, so we can use the map". You know why this is an issue, I know why this is an issue, but it isn't as apparent to a newcomer. I've tried to explain why our licensing doesn't allow for this content: in future I would request people give more nuanced copyright explanations rather than pointing people to a 27,000-character policy that may not actually address the point of confusion. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also offered what little advice I can on my talk page, having becoming involved from commenting on Doug Weller’s. I ignored the attack and unfair accusation of vandalism there because I was uncertain about the etiquette of confronting someone ‘out of the blue’ on an admin’s talk page.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sagapane has also been leaving messages on my talk, complaining about fascist Turkish users. If he continues on his current course he is probably headed into Arbitration enforcement anyway, due the fierceness of his national views. It might be a useful step for an admin to get him to agree to stop with the 'turkish fascist' language as an alternative to an immediate block for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The "fascist" comment on your talk page was before Bwilkins' warning (a fact I failed to notice before I blocked - and subsequently unblocked), so no further action or further warnings are needed unless it is repeated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

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.

---

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) has made an unambiguous personal attack here, accusing me of anti-Jewish advocacy. There are any number of things that I would like to say to this "editor", but in the hope that ANI isnt as broken as I think it is, will something be done about the straightforward lie of an attack directed against me? I know he spends a lot of time here and has friends who will undoubtedly rush to his defense, but this is bullshit should not be allowed to stand. nableezy - 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You're advocating for an obviously racist, anti-Jewish "news agency". What other conclusion can I draw? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That isnt true, and repeating it does not make it so. nableezy - 18:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) It's not clear that the edit you cite is a personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? In what world is saying somebody is advocating for racism not a personal attack? nableezy - 18:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The same world where someone can call an opinion a lie. Tiderolls 18:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you guys kidding? Accusing another editor of being an antisemite isn't a personal attack? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It would likely be, but I haven't found that yet. Toddst1 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you please say what exactly you think somebody engaged in anti-Jewish advocacy is if not an antisemite? For the record, an antisemite is somebody who has prejudice against Jewish people. nableezy - 19:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I never said opinions weren't sanctionable, Malik. Tiderolls 19:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

An opinion? An opinion that Im a racist? I cant call that a lie? What is wrong with this place. If accusations of racism are acceptable, there are a few things Id like to get out of the way before my New Year's resolution of being more civil takes effect. And no, that isnt an opinion. He made a statement of fact, a false one, that I engage in anti-Jewish advocacy. A false statement of fact, whats that called again? nableezy - 19:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading the diffs and comments above, the only person that said anything about you being a racist appears to be you. I think Bugs said you were advocating for an organization. Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so being an anti-Jewish advocate, whats that? There a reason Malik also sees that as calling me an antisemite? And no, he said I was engaging in anti-Jewish advocacy. nableezy - 19:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugs' quote here seems Ok to me. But this seems a bit too much, unless Nableezy was specifically arguing for the inclusion of anti-Jewish propaganda in articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I was not. nableezy - 20:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it crosses the line then. Bugs, will you strike that comment please? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I see it as a personal attack, but I wouldn't care. I guess some people can't take attacks, however I do see that reply as a personal attack and in actuality smart attack by someone who looks to be a narcissist. He really seems obsessed with being on top of everything, talking down to people and in general unpleasant to reply to. Baseball Bugs, or whoever he is, I'm worried about your mental health. --Hinata talk 20:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hinata, what you just said is a personal attack. Bad idea. Further, considering you deny mass killings ever happened under Communist regimes, I'd say you're not the person to be disparaging others. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The linked comments were comments on behavior. Their validity etc. can be debated, but such is not a wp:Personal Attack. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. WP:WIAPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence [emphasis mine]. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." I'd say that antisemitism is a serious accusation indeed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate antisemitism as a serious accusation? I thought that antisemitism accusations were so common that it was "medium" but not serious. Although I agree it was an attacks bugs made, antisemitism is not a serious accusation. --Hinata talk 22:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

They arent common here. Most things I have no problem brushing off, but that accusation, given the topic that I most often edit, isnt something that I am willing to ignore. nableezy - 22:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what wrong needs to be righted here? Are you using this as a forum to advocate that Bugs be blocked? Because that seems very unlikely.--WaltCip (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The wrong? How about the accusation of antisemitism that remains on RS/N, the author of which is happily editing along as though he didnt in fact make a rather cowardly accusation without basis. That wrong enough for you? And yes, he should be blocked for it, though I dont dispute the final sentence. nableezy - 22:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A block is absolutely appropriate. Whipping out the "well you hate Jews" card in a debate is a sucker punch if there ever was one, and in contentious areas like Israel-Palestine, such behaviour should merit sanction. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A block is probably not going to do anything though. What is the logic behind blocking? --Hinata talk 22:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am going to issue ARBPIA / Discretionary Sanctions warnings to both sides - further abuse will result in short term article or topic bans to keep you all apart for long enough for the situation to cool down. I would URGE that you all just step back on your own now, please. The discussion is not advancing the encyclopedia, or your own standings, in any way.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm agreed with GWH here. Blocking is only productive if it prevents future occurrences, and we've got no real evidence those are going to happen. Sticking a one-strike-and-you're-out system in is a pretty good way of ensuring that things are locked down if they do happen without punishing people for theoretical future excesses. Ironholds (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm kinda perplexed about the "both sides" bit, though. What exactly did Nableezy do wrong here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)The best place to address the ad hominem is within the thread, indented directly under it. For best effect, the sooner it is rebutted, the better. Context is critical as well. The debate was heated from both sides, steadily increasing, with no apparent efforts to deescalate. Everyone needs to calm down, take a break and bring in the new year in peace. Nableezy gets a minnow slap for feeding the trolls and BB gets a sardine slap for resorting to ad hominem when he realized his argument was weak; instead of acknowledging the other editors reasonable assertions. Happy new year across the globe. --My76Strat (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested response undermines WP:NPA policy which states "Avoid responding on a talk page of an article" with respect to a personal attack. Racism is a topic specifically mentioned as cause to seek intervention at a noticeboard. IMO you are blaming the victim on the basis of an essay rather than addressing the issue with policy, which to me underscores the need for a strong response to the incident in order to more clearly define community norms. ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

GWH, if I am going to be warned for something, at least allow me the opportunity to do something warn-worthy. If you would please be so gracious to allow me to let BB know exactly what I think of him and his accusation, Id be fine considering the matter closed with a warning to both sides. nableezy - 22:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you would probably have to be blocked for being disruptive.--WaltCip (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what Nableezy's personal beliefs are. But the fact that he considers an obscene racist diatribe to be a mere "op-ed" is extremely troubling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what the term op-ed means? I tried to explain it to you earlier, but I see that it didnt take. nableezy - 23:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I do, and you're wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? I'm wrong? What is an op-ed? nableezy - 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How is this agency "racist". That's a particularity strong accusation. In any case, why are you taking such an strong exception to this? --Hinata talk 23:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Because of an extremely vile and racist rant which they allowed, which Nab insists on calling an "op-ed" as if it were someone arguing over whether main street should be widened. That is not an "op-ed", it's something Hitler would write about the Jews, and that so-called "news service" stands by it. So I assume anyone supporting that news service stands by it also, until they demonstrate otherwise - specifically, by rejecting it as a "reliable" source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

So now, instead of redacting the cowardly attempt to silence others as racists, you expand that bogus attack to the numerous others who have in that same RS/N agreed that a source that the NYTimes, the BBC, the Guardian, the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz (those last two are Israeli papers) all cite is in fact a reliable source for their news reports? Awesome. I think that just maybe makes this more deserving of a block to ensure that Mr Bugs understands that he cannot brand others as racists because he has no better argument. nableezy - 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting uncivil. In any case, from my understandings Israeli media tend to cite the agencies work from time to time. --Hinata talk 23:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That news agency supported that obscene "op-ed", and Nab supports that agency. He has some 'splainin' to do, and he ain't there yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What is op-ed anyway? --Hinata talk 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It means "opinion-editorial". And if the news agency in question doesn't disclaim it, then they support it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"opinion" is opinion cannot be used as sources, but what about the agency as a whole? It cannot be deemed racist just on part of its operations? --Hinata talk 23:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No, actually it doesnt, and that last part of your sentence is as wrong as the first. An op-ed isnt an editorial, that is signed by the editorial board of the paper or one of its members. An op-ed is an opinion piece by an unaffiliated person, or a member of the board who doesnt wish to associate his views with that of the board's. So now that you hopefully understand what the term means, would you care to redact that comment at RS/N? nableezy - 23:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If the agency doesn't refute or disclaim it, then they must be assumed to support it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• The words of the currently in force WP:ARBPIA authorization for discretionary sanctions is All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Does that include WP:RSN? Monty₈₄₅ 23:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It covers all related discussions as well. nableezy - 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It took a while longer to actually lodge the warnings, due to a real life phone call and computer problem, but now that those are over...

Re to Tarc: Nableezy has used confrontational language and to some extent abusive language, and if not precisely escalating the situation has not acted to defuse it. I will restrict these observations to this thread and the RSN thread; I may have missed other behavior elsewhere, but that's what I am referring to. These do not rise to the level of personal attacks but are part of the overall disruption.

On the scale of things, he was approximately one step short of an actual serious problem, as was Tkuvho; I think Bugs walked right up to the line (personalizing the responses against Nableezy).

Were this another topic area, the odds of an ever-increasing spiral of nasty would be lower and we would hopefully not need the nasty.

To all three of you (Bugs, Nableezy, Tkuvho) - and AnkhMoorpark, though you did not participate in the borderline rude, your post to RSN percipitated this...

It is perhaps wise that all sides who are actively engaged in or caring about a particular troublesome conflict area post perceived source or information reliability issues to the noticeboard and then step back and let uninvolved editors assess, review, and decide. If questions are asked, it's reasonable to answer them. If you are feeling like getting more engaged than that, you're in danger of situations like this, where rhetoric escalates and obscures the underlying issue.

There are long, long histories of both non-Arab/non-Moslem and Arab/Moslem anti-Israeli sentiment or outright antisemitism on Wikipedia; that is a real problem we should acknowledge and not minimize.

There are also long, long histories of both antisemitic and Arab/Moslem (on one side) and Jewish or Israeli (on the other side) individuals or groups attempting to whitewash Wikipedia, remove sources, slant articles, etc. This is why ARBPIA was done in the first place, and it was neither the first nor last of these. You've been around the block, have all seen this before, etc.

You all have been around for a while and are not known for being problem editors in this space. In this particular case, you all are behaving in a manner that is problematic, however. Please stop. It's not helpful for you, your beliefs or causes, or the encyclopedia.

I am reasonably sure you won't all be sending each other new-years cards, but if you can stop pushing each others' buttons and sniping at each other for a while, perhaps you can be constructively editing together not that long from now.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, I have a responsibility to defuse a situation caused by somebody calling me a racist? What abusive language have I used? And you are aware that accusation still hasnt been redacted, right? nableezy - 23:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In order; No, you have a responsibility to not participate confrontationally in an abusive and disruptive situation, though defusing it would be ideal. You were confrontationally participating. Most of the time this is OK anyways, but when the topic is under ARBPIA / Discretionary sanctions and personal attacks do start, we can ask you to stand back. That is not the same as "you started it" or "you were making personal attacks", neither of which I have asserted or I believe to be true.

Re abusive, you used "sez who" repeatedly, "fricking op-ed", "asinine argument", etc. Not personal attacks, and not something the Wikipedia civility police have any justification to beat you up over, but in the context of an ARBPIA / Discretionary sanction disruptive conversation are justification to ask you to step back.

Yes, as I mentioned on your talk, I know it's not retracted. Give me a bit, that's not oK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Persistant copyright infringement at falsetto

User:Carlmarche has been repeatedly adding material to the falsetto article that is either copied verbatim or closely paraphrased from source material. I have left warnings on his talk page and on the article talk page to no avail. It appears he is now editing as an anon IP in order to avoid violating the WP:3RR rule. It should be noted that he and I are in a current content dispute which I hope can be resolved amicably on the talk page. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have blocked him for edit warring, but my main concern was the persistance in adding copyrighted material. I am concerned that this will continue after the 24 hour block ends based on recent comments made on his talk page after the imposed block. It appears that he sees nothing wrong with what he did. I am leaving for vacation tomorrow and will not be able to monitor the article for any potential copyright violations in the near future. I would appreciate it if an administrator would reiterate to Carlmarche wikipedia's policies regarding plagiarism/close paraphrasing, and having some volunteers agree to watch the article this week while I am away. Thanks to any and all who can help. Best,4meter4 (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 4meter4. Also note that the editor is making personal attacks on their talk page. A longer block/talk page revocation might be in order here. Vacation^nine 08:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by user:109.174.115.127

This IP has been persistently removing mention of an expansion for the computer game Call of Duty. He has continually claimed that it's an unofficial expansion, but this is not the case, as has been pointed out to him time and time again on the article's talk page. The IP mentioned here is his newest one. His previous one, user:109.174.115.255 has been warned and blocked before. Eik Corell (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's tough to rangeblock there. You're right, if it was someone with an account we might have to wake them up. I'm not even sure wP:RFPP is appropriate because there seem to be enough people watching that article to keep them in check. If it's outright vandalism, WP:AIV might do something, but I don't see this as vandalism (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a little addendum here -- The user doesn't seem to actively be switching between the IPs, at least there's not really that much evidence to suggest it. Eik Corell (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick one

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:SfBOT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been confirmed as a sock-puppet but is now at 3RR at Longboard (skateboard) while trying to add a mention of the company Gravitis into yet another article (see the talk page history of Unotretre for further history). I'm quite sure he'll be blocked for the sock-puppetry (when the SPI guys get to it) but the immidiate problem of continued unsourced promo-spam should be knocked on the head. The same user (under all previous usernames/IPs) has a history of editing anything remotely related just to sneak the company name into articles. Articles for the company have been deleted as NN and the article his alternate account created (about the company founder) is currently at AFD. I'm at 2RR reverting the first two attempts so some outside help would be good. Stalwart111 13:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Being "Confirmed" doesn't always mean block, so CU will leave it to the admin. In this case, the user name, the edit warring, and the connection were more than enough to justify a block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! Yes, understand comment about CU. If a passer-by could have a look at Longboard (skateboard) if they have a sec - now at 2RR and not wanting to grave-dance, I feel I should leave reversion of the latest edit to others. Stalwart111 13:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks KTC! Stalwart111 14:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Userpage content as a discussion topic

User:E4024 had been aggressive toward me lately. In numerous occasions he had brought up the past content of my userpage, particularly the photo of the ASALA monument in Yerevan (pictured) into discussion. Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia was a military organization in the 1970s and 1980s that assassinated few dozens of Turkish diplomats around the world to reach justice in the Armenian Genocide recognition. They fought for something I believe in, although there have been few cases of unintentional killing of civilians not having any connection to the Turkish government, which was also one of the reasons why it was dissolved, because their goal wasn't to kill innocent Turkish people, but diplomats in order to force them to recognize the Genocide.

So, this user claims that "those terrorists killed a familiar of mine", which he thinks gives him the right to bring that up in every discussion we have. While I never had brought up into discussion the fact that few of my ancestors have been killed during the Armenian Genocide, while others escaped. I don't bring this up, because it is not quite appropriate to discuss such issues with anybody on an online encyclopedia, especially with hostility he has:

• first he deleted User:Proudbolsahye's comment on his talk page and wrote for summary: "Go speak to your friend with the ASALA pic"
• he complained User:EdJohnston about me stating: "Were you who told me the other day something like "it was good to have people like me (aka Turks) who could bring whatsoever positive to WP"
• in Murder of Sevag Balıkçı article, he stated "We walked 100 thousand Turks after the Turkish journalist Dink. Go make Armenian WP, stop pushing your irredentism."

Also, this is not the first time he does this. On December 10, he also brought up my past userpage content into discussion: So you removed the ASALA monument pic from your TP and even began searching consensus?

Also, during the first discussion User:Deskana, who is an admin, said the following: "If you don't want someone potentially commenting on something on your userpage then you shouldn't have it there, anyway." Don't you think it is simply absurd? It's like one of those people who tell girls not to wear provocative clothes in order not to get raped. Why dooesn't he/she follow the basic Wikipedia rules?

Conclusions

1. Instead of discussing on the article talk pages, the user prefers to avoid a discussion by discussing my userpage content, which clearly is a personal attack.
2. He/she thinks of all this in a hostile way, singles out himself for being of certain ethnicity

Myself, being an experienced Wiki editor, tried to be civil as much as possible to the end. He twice removed the phrase "Calm down, my lovely friend, and then we'll continue our discussion", first replacing with "(Personal attack removed)", second time simply removing it summarizing "Removed Personal attack per WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. BTW I am not your friend. I do not support terrorism"

I would like the admins to take care of this user. Either block him or give him a warning that next case of personal attack will result in one.--Երևանցի ^talk 17:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. the user immediately removed my notification of this discussion (which is a rule) on his talk page.--Երևանցի ^talk 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversial stuff on user pages is subject to deletion. Meanwhile, I am puzzled, and must ask this: How many of those who were assassinated had been part of that 1910s-1920s genocide program? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Controversial" according to whom? And what difference does it make? Of course none of the 1915 genocide perpetrators were alive in 1970s and 1980s. Though, the main organizers of the genocide (Talaat Pasha, Enver Pasha, Djemal Pasha) were assassinated by Armenians, but in early 1920s, because the Western powers didn't simply care about justice as they still don't to this day. The United States, Israel, the UK and most importantly Turkey continue to deny the fact of genocide, while even in 1939 Hitler said: "Who remembers the extermination of Armenians?" and called the Wehrmacht to do the same with Poles.

Turks and Azeris also consider Andranik Ozanian, Vazgen Sargsyan, Monte Melkonian terrorists. Does it mean that I should stop admiring them as heroes or I'm banned from putting up their picture on my userpage? Obviously no. Turkey is a country that treats non-Turkish citizens of its own like US did with Blacks before 1964 and South Africa before 1994 has to be brought up to justice and if you think that killing diplomats is terrorism than it's your own problem. One the other hand Azerbaijan (that had also organized massacres of Armenians throughout history: 1918, 1920, 1988, 1988, 1990) whose President Ilham Aliyev had openly stated that "our main enemies are Armenians of the world and the hypocritical and corrupt politicians under their control". You can see the whole speech at his official website here. A clearly chauvinist comment, which is quite unacceptable in 2012, didn't get any reaction from the "cradle of democracy": the United States or the EU. What else are a nation of up to 8 million can do to survive in this planet?

The ASALA members, to whom a monument was erected in Yerevan, are nothing but freedom fighters for me and after all what had happened to Armenians you call them terrorists for fighting for justice that was never given to us, then it will be hard to talk about human values.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, I do not bring up the fact that few of my ancestors were killed by Turks during the genocide into every single discussion I have with Turkish users, because I do believe that this is an encyclopedia and it's not my userpage that needs to be discussed but the article itself.--Երևանցի ^talk 06:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is information on your userpage which indicates you may be biased in a particular discussion, then bringing it up is fair game. Furthermore if content on a userpage is deemed (by community consensus) to be offensive and disruptive you may be told to remove it. Prodego ^talk 06:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? You think it's rational to bring up the userpage content to every article talk page in order to avoid actual discussion? That's simply disruptive, don't you think? Also notice that it was replaced by me with another picture months ago, just because I decided to change the style of the page. It has been on my userpage from August 17 to August 22. So for 5 days it was on my userpage about 4 months ago. I still don't think it was "offensive and disruptive", but even if it was for him, don't you think it's time for him to move on? --Երևանցի ^talk 07:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, if it was so offensive for him, why didn't he report it instead of whining around. --Երևանցի ^talk 07:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm making general statements - nothing specific to this case. Bringing it up where it isn't relevant would not be appropriate for him to do. Furthermore I am not saying that this particular content is disruptive, but rather that in general disruptive content can be removed. Prodego ^talk 07:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

1st complaint. WP:OWNTALK says "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". I do not like this rule either, but it is the rule.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That being said, what am I suppose to do when a user brings up the past content of my userpage that was simply replaced by another picture in August into discussion on an article talk page that has no direct connection with it? --Երևանցի ^talk 19:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

He/she is raising that you may have a conflict of interest. He/she might not be doing it in the best way, but he/she might have a point. My advice is to try to avoid contact with him/her as much as possible.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid him, but he still does that in "not the best way".--Երևանցի ^talk 21:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, notice that labeling me a "terrorism supporter" is a personal attack. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

He/she said "Removed Personal attack per WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. BTW I am not your friend. I do not support terrorism." That is not the same as saying that you support terrorism. However at the start of this complaint you made statements that do seem to say that you are a terrorism supporter,[12] so it is hard to see why you thought that he/she was making a personal attack. Perhaps the problem is that you are making statements that other people interpret differently from the way you meant?--Toddy1 (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your last comment is simply ignorant. You realize that a monument isn't showing that I support terrorism, right? Please read my statements again. Yes, I do support ASALA's ideas and it's not terrorism, because of my stated reasons:

1. they only killed diplomats connected to the Turkish government
2. after accidentally killing a dozen of civilians they started to dissolve, because it wasn't their goal
3. the international community failed and still fails to recognize something that has been academically proven (the word 'genocide' itself was created to describe the events of 1915, see Raphael Lemkin's origin of the word genocide), which was the main cause of their actions

If after all this you call ASALA a terrorism organization then I don't have anything to say.

But again, don't you think that if he has so offended he would have reported me? Why didn't he? And now he talks about it months after. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

All normal people would say that an organisation that murdered their country's diplomats for political reasons was a terrorist organisation.

I have not expressed any opinion on whether displaying a photograph of the monument on your user page expressed support for terrorism. Your written comments on this page do seem to show that you you support terrorism.

If you are having problems with other users, the most likely reason is that you brought these problems on yourself.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me try this again, don't you think that if he has so offended he would have reported me? Why didn't he? And now he talks about it months after. What's the logic here? --Երևանցի ^talk 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a good example for you. You have userboxes on your page that say "This user believes that gunboat diplomacy can solve a lot of problems" or another one "This user believes in the power of armoured divisions.". Should I bring this up in every discussion I have with you? --Երևանցի ^talk 17:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Newbie biting by ElijahBosley

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'd like to bring an incident to the attention of some admins, if that's worth anything. I'm not asking for a block or anything serious, but a formal warning or notice so that this behavior does not continue in the future. This will also give any users that interact with him in the future fair warning of what to expect.

I was recently doing some research on torture in the United States. I found a few sources saying that waterboarding was derived from the SERE program, which was designed to train US soldiers to resist torture from Chinese communists in the Korean war meant to illicit false confessions for propaganda purposes. It seemed appropriate to add this information to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques if it wasn't there already. However, to my dismay, the article claimed the connection between SERE and Chinese communist torture was "erroneous". Having already found reliable sources contradicting this, I checked the link and the source. I didn't have access to the physical source, but this is how it was cited and linked:

though [[Mind control#Army report debunks brainwashing|erroneously]]<ref>A 1956 U.S. Department of the Army report called physical and psychological abuse resulting in brainwashing a "popular misconception;" thorough investigation had revealed no deliberate physical abuse of POWs by the Chinese for purposes of interrogation or indoctrination, and there was not a single reliable report of brainwashing.{{cite book| last = U.S. Department of the Army | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = |title = Communist Interrogation, Indoctrination, and Exploitation of Prisoners of War |publisher =U.S. Gov't Printing Office | series = | volume = | edition =Pamphlet No. 30-101 | date =15 May 1956 | location = | pages = 17 & 51}}</ref>

Both mention the debunking of brainwashing, but not the debunking of false confessions. With an obvious misinterpretation of the source discovered, I deleted it here, with a short edit summary for a fairly obvious and seemingly non-controversial edit. This is where the conflict begins.

• ElijahBosley reverted this deletion with the edit summary, "revert vandalism by IP address".
• I'm editing anonymously, so I understand the skepticism. Still, I did include an edit summary. So I reverted the hasty restoration of questionable content here, with a much lengthier edit summary.
• Enter user Zymurgy, who reverted without summary and placed a warning template on my talk page, calling my edit "unconstructive". (He later conceded that this reversion and warning were incorrect)
• Alright, maybe a second guy is so skeptical of IP editing that he'll revert without even checking its validity. But again, I had two lines (on my screen) of edit summary and I have yet to receive any response to the issues I raised, no comments on my talk page (besides a warning template), and nothing in any edit summary to indicate any consideration at all to the point I brought up. I posted on the article talk page, reverted and directed users to the article talk page for an explanation of the revert, and responded to the warning template with one of my own.
• Slowpoke admin Bbb23 chimes in with an edit warring warning and tells me to use the article talk page, which I had already used. I told him as much.
• ElijahBosley responds on the article talk page by showing 0 comprehension to the actual point I'm making, wiki-stalking, and fallacious threatening (I had only "reverted" twice, it takes 4 for an unambiguous 3rr violation), and of course, he reverts with the explanation, "edit warring--warning given". Keep in mind that at this point he has exactly as many reverts as I do: 2. He also posts on my talk page with more threats. The tone of this message is borderline harassment, I responded equivalently.
• So I do a mountain of research and make several posts on the article talk page and establish that not only policy is on my side (which was unambiguously clear from edit #1), but reality is on my side, as the very wikipedia article that Elijah mentioned covered the issue in "greater depth" in fact supported the very information that we were calling "erroneous". Additionally, being the good faith editor I am, I found another source.
• With absolutely no legitimacy left with which to argue, Elijah grudgingly re-deletes the material, but not without passive aggressive message on the talk page, making sure to establish that my anonymous editing was the reason for his hostility.

I can't believe that this is the kind of reception we should expect for anonymous editors who are making good faith, constructive, and correct edits. If this was just a misunderstanding about the validity of the edit in the first place, I would understand. But the last message is why I'm posting here. Elijah seems to have it in his head that all things go when dealing with anonymous editors, that blind reverting and open hostility are acceptable alternatives to reviewing a diff or reading an article. Wikipedia is in desperate need of new editors, our population is so low that we can leave RFCs open for months without receiving a response, while the number of articles continues to grow linearly. Trying to intimidate new editors is counter-productive. I would like a formal censuring of ElijahBosley from an admin to establish that this aggressive behavior is completely unacceptable. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

User notified here. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: I just realized upon more careful review of his re-deletion, that he merely tried to hide the erroneous claim (in a wikilink), rather than try to delete it entirely. I don't get this insistence on pushing material that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and without any sources backing his position. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• An IP address editor, 159:1:15:.34, has been warned four times, by three different editors, that his repeated edit warring on the controversial page enhanced interrogation may result in a block. In addition to deleting footnoted and cross-linked material in the service of his own point of view, this IP address editor left on my talkpage a nonsensical block threat (copied from one given to him) and abusive message "you sicken me." Geolocate and WhoIS says this IP address belongs to a public agency of the State of Washington, but Tracerroute says it is coming out of Texas. This may be a previously disciplined or banned editor attempting some form of IP address hopping disguise. I would be grateful for administrator oversight, temporary page protection on enhanced interrogation and if warranted a 24 hour block on 159:1:15:.34.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Lol this is a juvenile, "You reported me? Well, I'll report YOU!" post. See the immediately preceding post for a thorough timeline of the entire dispute. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Putting aside the content dispute, both EB and the IP have been edit-warring since December 27. The first round, which consisted of 3 reverts by the IP, one revert by EB, and one revert by another editor (EB's side), stopped on December 28. I believe I warned the IP about edit-warring after the 3rd revert. A new but related round began on the 28th and has continued through today with each party making two reverts. I can't comment on the geolocate/traceroute issue. EB should stop using vandalism labels in his edit summaries, and he should not use an edit summary like the last one ("Do this one more time-your're blocked") as it implies he has the power to block the IP, which, of course, he does not. I'm tempted to lock the article, but perhaps the two of them can step back and talk to each other civilly. There has been an extended discussion, but it's way too strident.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It saddens me that an admin is unable to accurately count reverts, considering how much of their job this constitutes. Look at the history pro. I had 1 deletion and then 2 reverts. How is the very first edit a revert? Lol. And here are two reverts with the default revert text in them for EB: [13][14]. So my count is wrong, his count is wrong, what else... After the weekend, I cleaned up the article by removing another use of the word "erroneously", removing the dispute tag that I added, and then removing the link that EB left. He reverted the latter edit. Apparently now that is an edit war...? And where I'm an equal participant I guess...? 159.1.15.34 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This IP address editor 159.1.15.34 is apparently neither a newbie, nor has he been bit. The posts give evidence of an experienced editor conversant with Wikipedia block procedures no longer able to use whatever moniker he had before, now taking refuge in an IP address. Told the misbehavior risked a block he has attempted a preemptive strike here. I take Bbb23's valid point about the inappropriate placement of "do this one more time and you're blocked." Still--have a look at how many other editors, on how many other occasions, have had to say exactly the same on the 159.1.15.34 talk page. This is an argumentative individual looking for things to argue about including on this page, who is counting wrong. Patience and understanding only work with those who want to resolve a difference, not with those who enjoy arguing for its own sake.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh shiii... I had no idea I was dealing with such a powerful psychic that he could read my mind from states away. Seriously though, if you want to talk about my past disputes we can. It's a lot of dealing with bad faith editors who think that reverting is a game, rather than a tool to protect the encyclopedia. In one case, I was unambiguously correct and the article now reflects that. In the other, the sources available weren't sufficient, and the dispute was resolved as soon as the restoring editors provided them, sound familiar? Except in this case you have no sources. You're being aggressive for aggression's sake. I have nothing to hide, so browse my history all you like, read every post I've written. My good faith will be apparent in every word I say. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: Regarding being "bitten". Like I said, this isn't about me. This is protection for future newbies that you might just casually revert and accuse of vandalism. That should not fly on Wikipedia, so let's see what the community thinks of your behavior. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

159.1.15.3 is apparently correct on the relevant content issues here. Other editors would have better utilised their time in exploring diligently said content issues including carefully reading the sources. Doing so and engaging in debate on issues of content and sources would have been more productive and may have led to article improvement. There are lots of legitimate reasons to edit as an IP. If another editor chooses to edit as an IP that, in the absence of evidence of malfeasance, is their legitimate choice and not an invitation to engage in (implicit) smears against them. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I might have been tempted to take a looksee but decided to better utilise my time elsewhere after reading the IP's first sentence in this thread -- "I'd like to bring an incident to the attention of some admins, if that's worth anything." Moriori (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for validating my contempt and lack of faith. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No, thank you. Btw, the word is "elicit", not "illicit". :)Moriori (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

While I respectfully differ with this editor's take on the content question, I'll leave that for the talk page of the article. On this page, I am curious about the assertion that there are lots of legitimate reasons to edit as an IP rather than an account. Reasons besides wanting to flee one's own history and reputation, and trying to get around a permanent block that is. Would this editor offer an example of such reasons? I ask because I am often advising IP address newbies to get an account for credibility, and because having a good name to protect results in more responsible editing. I would hate to discover that all these years I've been giving bad advice. One should edit without even the minimal accountability of a regular pseudonym because . . .  ?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not the right forum for a discussion about IP-editing. The fact is it's perfectly acceptable. Unless you have evidence that there is something amiss, you shouldn't be accusing any editor (IP or otherwise) of anything. And it sounds like your advice is misguided. You're certainly entitled to have an opinion on the matter, but policy is against you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Fiachra, like EB, I don't understand your conclusion that the IP is correct on content (you don't give a reason why), but generally content is irrelevant at ANI. What is most important, at least with respect to administrator intervention, is to prevent further disruption on the article. Thus, the parties have to cease their battles and discuss things calmly, or they may be sanctioned or the article locked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23 - It's certainly possible that I'm wrong in my assessment of the content issues but 159.1.15.34 does have an argument about the sources that has not yet been adequately addressed. As addressing those concerns is likely to lead to article improvement such engagement should have been prioritized, in my opinion, above the insertion of warning templates onto on his talk page. Such templates are most likely to lead to an editor disengaging entirely or escalating the dispute – better to talk to the editor about the issue and warn, if necessary, as part of dialogue rather than to use a pro formawarning.FiachraByrne (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Zymurgy is using Huggle, it is very hard to deal wit the volume of edits Huggle users patrol without ever making mistakes, and Zymurgy was prepared to admit and apologise for it, so I think they come off reasonably well out of this. Rich Farmbrough, 23:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC).

Next time you go to the trouble to uncover an apology, please provide a diff so others (like me :-) ) don't have to go hunting for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't begrudge him that. I only mentioned it so that people understood that EB's claim that "three editors" have warned me is, at best, misleading, and at worst, a lie. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean reverted, not warned, but even if Zymurgy states that he shouldn't have reverted, you still reverted right back. You could have, for example, gone to Zymurgy's talk page and asked them to self-revert. That would have been more constructive. And stop tossing words like "lie" about; it's unwarranted and doesn't help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In an effort to return to the point and to summarize where we are: this IP address editor 159.1.15.34 has had the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee impose discretionary sanctions on him here. Four different editors, including the esteemed Bbb23, have told this IP Address editor to stop engaging in edit warring, here here, here and last my own, here. The IP address editor came on this page to complain about 'biting a newbie' --though he is not a newbie, and the 'bite' was an editor acquiescing in what he wanted and then suggesting he get an account, here. He came here and expressed his "contempt and lack of faith" in the administrators on this bulletin board. In this discussion alone he has been twice warned about uncivil language: an WP:CIVIL from The Bushranger and Bbb23's caution about slinging around the word "lie," and suggesting a reduction in stridency is in order. So what I would like to know is, can we please tell this person to simmer down or risk a block, and otherwise conclude this?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 01:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest a note be left for IP 159 to have them engage in conversation a bit more calmly. He should also be linked to WP:BRD to explain how things should work from here on out. I'd also suggest a heavy trouting for Elijah. IP editors are editors, too; you were wrong in how you engaged him. You tagged his edit as vandalism, filed a retalitory report here at ANI, and just above you pointlessly brought up that he's under ARBPIA sanctions. Please drop the stick and learn to assume a bit more good faith with the IP editors; some of them ARE here to help. Ishdarian 03:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Very well then. I will accept a good trouting. Not sure what a good trouting is, sounds like something out of British public school, or maybe a Hemingway short story. But whatever it is I will accept it, with humility and deference, for having lost my temper. And I will move on. With perhaps just the smallest inward smile, knowing that I CAN move on, while I predict you poor folks will be dealing with this IP Address editor again. And again. With kindest regards for a Happy New Year.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• EB, trouting is one of those Wikipedia terminology adoptions that arguably becomes more used on Wikipedia than anywhere else. I'd never heard of it before joining Wikipedia. I do enjoy eating trout, but I confess it never occurred to me to use it for slapping anyone. :-) I'd like to add a little more detail to EB's allegation that discretionary sanctions were imposed on the IP. That's not accurate. Based on a report at WP:AE, the IP was notified of discretionary sanctions. However, in the discussion at AE, the IP's conduct was eerily similar to their conduct in this dispute (everything is a "lie"). I tend to agree with Ishdarian. The IP needs to be more civil in their discussions with other editors. Whatever the IP's history, at this point the IP can hardly be called a newbie, and they should abide by the same standards as all editors in collaborating in an appropriate way. EB has accepted his responsibility in this contretemps; the IP should do the same. And we should all move on. Above all, the article is not a battleground, and any editor's inability to recognize that may be met with sanctions. At this point, no further administrative action other than these admonishments is needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Israel/Palestine content dispute spillover onto RSN

This is a continuation of the closed thread above headed "Baseball Bugs". Some users seem to need more substantial support in using RSN effectively. I have been trying to pull the discussion back into line but my approach is apparently "rejected". The participants in the content dispute are letting it all spill out onto RSN instead of allowing time and space for non-involved board regulars to comment. Could some further warnings be given. The thread on RSN is "Ma'an News". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Like Judith, I'm one of the regulars at RSN and I'm uninvolved in the IP topic space. Some of Tkuvho's contributions have been unhelpful, particularly their rejection of Judith's good-faith and well thought-out attempt to refocus the discussion on the reliability for a particular source.[15] Tkuvho is currently engaged in a minor edit war[16][17] over their rejection of Judith's attempt to refocus the discussion. If Tkuvho hasn't already been warned of the IP sanctions, someone should do so. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just notified Tkuvho of this discussion and I now see that they were just warned yesterday.[18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit Filter on "Robert B. Bell"

The edit filter on this page: Robert B. Bell is oversensitive and is reporting multiple false positives. Two of the recent trips are described here: [[19]] and here: [[20]] 70.241.73.164 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:EFM might be a better place to resolve this? I see the issue is already posted there, they'll handle it. Salvidrim! 04:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was archived once (see the second link) without being resolved, so I want to make sure this gets on whoever's radar it needs to be on.70.241.73.164 (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is a false positive, but there's no way to fix that through the edit filter; that's just how it goes. Why do you say that this should be in the article? "Internet celebrity" is...exaggerated at least, I'd say. Chandler wasn't notable the last time someone tried to create an article for him; what's changed? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If the false positive is triggered by the edit filter, isn't that where it would be fixed? As to whether or not that information should be included in the article, well, editors can discuss that if they want on the talk page. The point is it's not "Sonichu and other repeat vandalism," as it is reporting. According to here: [[21]] the original creator of the filter needs to fix it. Can we find out who that is? 70.241.73.164 (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

MuZemike was the filter's author; I'll ping him to ask about it. Long story short, though, is that false positives are not something that can be eliminated entirely. You're probably better off discussing this before inserting it anyway; I very much doubt it's something that should go into the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Given some of the recent edits on the Robert B. Bell article and the recent above IP's request to unsalt and recreate a virtual BLP nightmare on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 20#Christian Weston Chandler, I conclude that the edit filter is working as intended. This latest attempt is basically an end-run around the failed DRV. --MuZemike 14:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The issue is not the recreation of an article on Chandler, I just want to mention him on the article on Bell, and your edit filter is claiming it is "Sonichu and related vandalism," which it isn't. Other admins have agreed that my trip is was a false positive. Please tweak this to allow legitimate edits. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Five X-Bucks says all those IPs !voting "relist" there were the same chap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Is it forum shopping if it's on the same forum? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing me to this. But regarding everything else you've written here: please stop acting like an idiot. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Beg pardon? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Elaborated version: Thanks for pointing me to this discussion. But, regarding your accusations of sock puppetry and associated charges, they are idiotic, so please stop making them. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• First, please read WP:CIVIL. Secondly, IP addresses are often dynamic. If an IP shows up requesting something of this sort, and then another IP shows up requesting the exact same thing, the duck test applies; a reasonable person would assume they were, in fact, the same person. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Um, excuse me? You're going to accuse me of sock puppetry and forum shopping, without basis, and then try to lecture me about civility? LOL. From the link you just posted: "Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others." There is a sizable community, and many outside of that community, following Chandler. I suggest you do your homework next time before being uncivil, in addition to brushing up on Wikipedia policies. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the current opinion is that the collateral damage caused by this filter is acceptable. You may wish to look in to registering an account so you could be exempted. Otherwise, you can use {{editrequest}} if you run in to a situation where you want to add this to an article. Prodego ^talk 23:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. The best course, I believe, would be for the edit filter to be tweaked, although I do not know the mechanics of it and if that would be possible. But I will look into the other options you have suggested as well. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Article needs temporary protection

I added some material to India and weapons of mass destruction and another editor also added the reference to the section. Then some editors proceeded to remove it. I requested discussion, but the reverts continued. Then discussion started and another editor also expressed complaint that one of these editors are removing material. The editor who is warring with me also refuses to provide any sources to support his claims and uses speculation. Please see: Talk:India and weapons of mass destruction.

I therefor request the article be temporarily with a disputed template in the sections edited. Thank you-99.226.203.145 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

" I requested discussion, but the reverts continued." - here's the first problem. The process is generally that after an edit is reverted a discussion is started. (This is known as Bold, revert, discuss.) So you should be discussing the material you wish to add, and hopefully reaching a consensus. Protecting the page is not really a solution, because the discussion will need to be completed anyway. I'm sure, though, a few experienced editors will find the time to visit the talk page and help resolve the dispute. Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC).

Based on reading the Talk page, it appears these two editors (IP editor User:99.226.203.145 and User:NPguy) disagree on: a) Whether the article is to include info about non-nuclear weapons; and b) Whether the sources support the edits (by the IP editor) regarding import of nuclear material/systems. Sounds like they need a WP:Third opinion. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

My experience with NPGuy hasn't been very good either. We clashed on a handful of articles. In my opinion, it is best to use scholar.google.com and .gov pdf factsheets with areas such as this due to users like NPGuy lurking. I'm not saying it's intentional, but be extra scholarly in your citations, and perhaps create a username so you can appear a bit more responsible. These are taken into account (human bias) and I'm only giving this advice to help you resolve your issues. Good Luck! Twillisjr (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour from an IP

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 (see edit summary) shouldn't be tolerated. Which is the way to proceed in such situations? I've also placed admin intervention regarding this case at my talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, for starters you should start thinking that if you go around reverting things just because they were an "unexplained change", you're going to be doing an awful lot of reverting. Don't revert things just because they were bold. That's a sure route to getting up people's noses, as you've just discovered. If there's no edit summary, look at the edit. In this case, you'll find that the prose that you've reintroduced twice, now, contains a grammatical error. This is not the first time that you've done this. I see "rv unexplained change" several times in that article's edit history from you. And this isn't even the first time that you've reverted someone who was fixing your grammatical errors. In this reversion of "unexplained changes" you undid the corrections of three grammatical errors in three paragraphs. People are trying to help you, by copyediting. Don't be such an obstruction to article improvement, reverting them for merely having the temerity not to seek permission beforehand, and they won't become so angry at being obstructed again and again in the execution of otherwise simple copyedits that they are rude to you. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The edit that is mentioned above reinstated the content as it's exactly appearing in the supporting reference, i.e., Convair-Liner 240 and not Convair CV-240. I'll take your advice regarding my edit summaries, but the concern I raised here is the profane language in an edit summary that wasn't done by me.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think this revert is more interesting as the IP fixed some copy problems (then reinserted by Jetstreamer), and at the same time introduced errors of their own. Then, of course, there's the issue of the material that was removed by the IP, indeed w/o explanation, and restored by Jetstreamer. That material is unsourced (at least through footnotes), and the article itself has been tagged as lacking citations since 2008.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• In this case, is it so difficult to provide an edit summary? I mean, edit summaries are there for a reason, so why not filling the blanks? The edit really needed one by virtue of the removal on two paragraphs.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. I can't speak for Uncle G, but I'm not condoning the uncivil edit summary. At the same time, your reversions have to be more carefully made. You didn't just revert the Convair part (above); you also reverted good copy edits the IP had made. You didn't just revert the removal of the material; you again reverted good copy edits. Look at the entire edit, not just part of it; revert only what should be reverted. And, as I said, it's hard to object to the removal of unsourced material, even if the editor removing it doesn't say that's the basis for it. It's unlikely any admin is going to sanction the IP for the rude comments in the edit summary in these circumstances. However, I have left a message on the IP's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, seeing that someone (partly) agrees with me regarding the uncivil edit summary is enough. Again, I'll take your advice regarding the matter, it's a positive outcome for me. Nevertheless, I've made profane comments neither at talk pages nor in edit summaries, but it's obvious that I cannot expect the same behaviour from others, let alone from those who hide behind the IP anonymate. I'll be removing the request for admin intervention from my talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit Filter on "Robert B. Bell"

The edit filter on this page: Robert B. Bell is oversensitive and is reporting multiple false positives. Two of the recent trips are described here: [[22]] and here: [[23]] 70.241.73.164 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:EFM might be a better place to resolve this? I see the issue is already posted there, they'll handle it. Salvidrim! 04:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was archived once (see the second link) without being resolved, so I want to make sure this gets on whoever's radar it needs to be on.70.241.73.164 (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is a false positive, but there's no way to fix that through the edit filter; that's just how it goes. Why do you say that this should be in the article? "Internet celebrity" is...exaggerated at least, I'd say. Chandler wasn't notable the last time someone tried to create an article for him; what's changed? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If the false positive is triggered by the edit filter, isn't that where it would be fixed? As to whether or not that information should be included in the article, well, editors can discuss that if they want on the talk page. The point is it's not "Sonichu and other repeat vandalism," as it is reporting. According to here: [[24]] the original creator of the filter needs to fix it. Can we find out who that is? 70.241.73.164 (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

MuZemike was the filter's author; I'll ping him to ask about it. Long story short, though, is that false positives are not something that can be eliminated entirely. You're probably better off discussing this before inserting it anyway; I very much doubt it's something that should go into the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Given some of the recent edits on the Robert B. Bell article and the recent above IP's request to unsalt and recreate a virtual BLP nightmare on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 20#Christian Weston Chandler, I conclude that the edit filter is working as intended. This latest attempt is basically an end-run around the failed DRV. --MuZemike 14:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The issue is not the recreation of an article on Chandler, I just want to mention him on the article on Bell, and your edit filter is claiming it is "Sonichu and related vandalism," which it isn't. Other admins have agreed that my trip is was a false positive. Please tweak this to allow legitimate edits. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Five X-Bucks says all those IPs !voting "relist" there were the same chap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Is it forum shopping if it's on the same forum? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing me to this. But regarding everything else you've written here: please stop acting like an idiot. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Beg pardon? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Elaborated version: Thanks for pointing me to this discussion. But, regarding your accusations of sock puppetry and associated charges, they are idiotic, so please stop making them. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• First, please read WP:CIVIL. Secondly, IP addresses are often dynamic. If an IP shows up requesting something of this sort, and then another IP shows up requesting the exact same thing, the duck test applies; a reasonable person would assume they were, in fact, the same person. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Um, excuse me? You're going to accuse me of sock puppetry and forum shopping, without basis, and then try to lecture me about civility? LOL. From the link you just posted: "Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others." There is a sizable community, and many outside of that community, following Chandler. I suggest you do your homework next time before being uncivil, in addition to brushing up on Wikipedia policies. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the current opinion is that the collateral damage caused by this filter is acceptable. You may wish to look in to registering an account so you could be exempted. Otherwise, you can use {{editrequest}} if you run in to a situation where you want to add this to an article. Prodego ^talk 23:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. The best course, I believe, would be for the edit filter to be tweaked, although I do not know the mechanics of it and if that would be possible. But I will look into the other options you have suggested as well. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

99.225.202.45

This anonymous user, 99.225.202.45 (talk · contribs), is edit-warring over sectioning (gasp).

• Revision as of 00:11, 16 December 2012 (this sectioning is no good. his 'conflict with Yugo authorities' (as you put it) including prison is an integral part of his academic career. the two are not separate.)
• Revision as of 01:55, 17 December 2012 (Him ending up in prison is part of his academic career. If he wasn't a university prof, he never would've ended up in prison despite having the same views and opinions.)
• Revision as of 06:25, 25 December 2012 (restored proper sectioning and removed Mueller's disqualification)
• Revision as of 01:57, 31 December 2012 (reverted arbitrary sectioning that disregards the context of subject's academic career.)

They appear to be so attached to Vojislav Šešelj that they've gone to really bizarre lengths at Talk:Vojislav Šešelj#Sectioning to try and argue that we can't call the part of the article that describes his incarceration - incarceration, instead we have to call it "academic career" because his academic work preceded the incarceration and, well, because.

I don't think I've seen this level of pointlessness from an actual anonymous newbie before; it looks more like User:Velebit or similar (but it's not him, at least it's not his standard ISP - this one is in Canada - could be a new entry from the Serbian Youth League or something).

Can someone else please handle it, because I'm WP:INVOLVED? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Presumably this is the same person as 99.225.203.13 (talk · contribs) ...? bobrayner (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly, their first contribution was this which fits the pattern. And the rest fits my WP:OWN accusation - the previous IP added almost 50 revisions and 10 references to vseselj.com. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

More wild, stab-in-the-dark accusations, POV labeling, insinuations of bad faith, and plain blatant Joy-style bullying. I'm not involved with anything called Serbian Youth League and I really don't appreciate this flippant tone garnered with accusations of the "oh, he's so attached", "he's gone to bizarre lengths", and "he's displaying a level of pointlessness" variety. But then again, this is how Joy talks. I'm not claiming "ownership of the article", I'm simply trying to ensure sectioning provides proper context - Joy for some reason doesn't want this.

What do I need to do (other than submit to Joy's bullying) to get this guy to stop accusing me of stuff while insinuating some grand conspiracy on my part? I've done nothing wrong here.

Also, references are to an extensive interview from the early 1990s that contains a lot of biographical info. It was conducted by an independent journalist (not affiliated with Seselj), that happens to posted be on vseselj.com.99.225.202.45 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You're persistently using the Wikipedia article about Šešelj to promote him and his ideas, which is prohibited by numerous policies, not least of which is WP:ARBMAC. This needs to stop. BTW love the cries of victimization, it fits in the profile perfectly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, only in your world, and in your world only, does providing proper context of Vojislav Seselj's academic career = "promoting Vojislav Seselj". Your entire argument is a ridiculous mix of:

1. constantly switching the subject (first you complain about the sectioning then you want to include a claim that "Seselj's become mentally unbalanced as a result of prison torture" by referencing a guy whose two out of three references DON'T MENTION ANYTHING OF THE KIND while the third on is a remark by an unnamed person and the you claim that it should be included anyway because it's "accepted knowledge in non-Serbian places frequented by Seselj" none of which you can support with anything resembling a reference),

2. daily Serbo-Croat or Croato-Serb politics / bickering (you're imagining me and projecting me into someone or something that's not even there and then you're engaging in a discussion with that person or that thing), all of which you're doing because you know you don't have a leg to stand on in an actual common sense and fact-based discussion so you want to take this on a plane of projected conspiracy theories and imagined political agendas

3. and finally personal accusations "supported" by misusing Wiki guidelines and throwing them around willy-nilly.99.225.202.45 (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

An unconvincing defence. It's hardly worthwhile to notify a fluctuating IP of the WP:ARBMAC sanctions so I've put semiprotection on Vojislav Šešelj. If there are actual arguments to be made, this can be done on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Article needs temporary protection

I added some material to India and weapons of mass destruction and another editor also added the reference to the section. Then some editors proceeded to remove it. I requested discussion, but the reverts continued. Then discussion started and another editor also expressed complaint that one of these editors are removing material. The editor who is warring with me also refuses to provide any sources to support his claims and uses speculation. Please see: Talk:India and weapons of mass destruction.

I therefor request the article be temporarily with a disputed template in the sections edited. Thank you-99.226.203.145 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

" I requested discussion, but the reverts continued." - here's the first problem. The process is generally that after an edit is reverted a discussion is started. (This is known as Bold, revert, discuss.) So you should be discussing the material you wish to add, and hopefully reaching a consensus. Protecting the page is not really a solution, because the discussion will need to be completed anyway. I'm sure, though, a few experienced editors will find the time to visit the talk page and help resolve the dispute. Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC).

Based on reading the Talk page, it appears these two editors (IP editor User:99.226.203.145 and User:NPguy) disagree on: a) Whether the article is to include info about non-nuclear weapons; and b) Whether the sources support the edits (by the IP editor) regarding import of nuclear material/systems. Sounds like they need a WP:Third opinion. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

My experience with NPGuy hasn't been very good either. We clashed on a handful of articles. In my opinion, it is best to use scholar.google.com and .gov pdf factsheets with areas such as this due to users like NPGuy lurking. I'm not saying it's intentional, but be extra scholarly in your citations, and perhaps create a username so you can appear a bit more responsible. These are taken into account (human bias) and I'm only giving this advice to help you resolve your issues. Good Luck! Twillisjr (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour from an IP

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 (see edit summary) shouldn't be tolerated. Which is the way to proceed in such situations? I've also placed admin intervention regarding this case at my talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, for starters you should start thinking that if you go around reverting things just because they were an "unexplained change", you're going to be doing an awful lot of reverting. Don't revert things just because they were bold. That's a sure route to getting up people's noses, as you've just discovered. If there's no edit summary, look at the edit. In this case, you'll find that the prose that you've reintroduced twice, now, contains a grammatical error. This is not the first time that you've done this. I see "rv unexplained change" several times in that article's edit history from you. And this isn't even the first time that you've reverted someone who was fixing your grammatical errors. In this reversion of "unexplained changes" you undid the corrections of three grammatical errors in three paragraphs. People are trying to help you, by copyediting. Don't be such an obstruction to article improvement, reverting them for merely having the temerity not to seek permission beforehand, and they won't become so angry at being obstructed again and again in the execution of otherwise simple copyedits that they are rude to you. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The edit that is mentioned above reinstated the content as it's exactly appearing in the supporting reference, i.e., Convair-Liner 240 and not Convair CV-240. I'll take your advice regarding my edit summaries, but the concern I raised here is the profane language in an edit summary that wasn't done by me.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think this revert is more interesting as the IP fixed some copy problems (then reinserted by Jetstreamer), and at the same time introduced errors of their own. Then, of course, there's the issue of the material that was removed by the IP, indeed w/o explanation, and restored by Jetstreamer. That material is unsourced (at least through footnotes), and the article itself has been tagged as lacking citations since 2008.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• In this case, is it so difficult to provide an edit summary? I mean, edit summaries are there for a reason, so why not filling the blanks? The edit really needed one by virtue of the removal on two paragraphs.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. I can't speak for Uncle G, but I'm not condoning the uncivil edit summary. At the same time, your reversions have to be more carefully made. You didn't just revert the Convair part (above); you also reverted good copy edits the IP had made. You didn't just revert the removal of the material; you again reverted good copy edits. Look at the entire edit, not just part of it; revert only what should be reverted. And, as I said, it's hard to object to the removal of unsourced material, even if the editor removing it doesn't say that's the basis for it. It's unlikely any admin is going to sanction the IP for the rude comments in the edit summary in these circumstances. However, I have left a message on the IP's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, seeing that someone (partly) agrees with me regarding the uncivil edit summary is enough. Again, I'll take your advice regarding the matter, it's a positive outcome for me. Nevertheless, I've made profane comments neither at talk pages nor in edit summaries, but it's obvious that I cannot expect the same behaviour from others, let alone from those who hide behind the IP anonymate. I'll be removing the request for admin intervention from my talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for Profile Removal

Andrew now feels administrator action is not needed. Feel free to offer him further advice on his talk page if some further point about his comments here needs making. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to the behavior of Skamecrazy123 and Avraham I am requesting account deletion. I do NOT appreciate there "Intervention" and refusal to hear my side or even see reason. Instead of pitching a huge fit and erasing 500 articles like I WANT to do, I will just withdraw and pray I can find another wiki site where the users are more understanding and don't bite the new guy! A Wiggin13 (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC) With all due respect, I have been nothing but civil to you. I didn't join the Teahouse to bite the first newcomer I came across. I have spent time that I should have spent trying to sleep off a bad chest infection trying to sort this out with you. I am starting to wonder why I bothered sadly. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I will add that the outright deletion of an account is impossible, as it brings up an issue for attribution of edits. Just a quick look through your interactions with these two editors, all of what they tell you is true. You may wish to talk to your parents about this as well, as I don't know that they'd appreciate you putting your age, picture, etc. up on the internet for all to see. But, all I really came to say was they did nothing wrong, and we can't delete your account. gwickwiretalkedits 03:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Look I would not being having such a problem if he had TALKED to me before doing stuff and letting me fiddle with my own page. But when people touch my pages it feels like a complete invasion of the time I put into the page! I even left I nice note on my page ASKING no one touch it without at least asking me to do it myself first but NOOOO you ignored that and erased anyhow!!!!A Wiggin13 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC) For the second time, they are not your pages. And the only edits I ever made to your userspace was the welcome template I put and the talkback templates on your talk page, so I am at a complete loss as to why I'm being accused of deleting stuff here. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC) It's not "your page". Please read WP:UP#OWN.--ukexpat (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC) AWiggin, the edits to the userpage were explained almost immediately after they occurred, and relevant policies were linked to the talk page (on Skamecrazy's excellent suggestion) for you to review as well. One of those policies, WP:USERPAGE, does make it clear that no one "owns" their own page, although some extra leeway is often granted. However, Wikipedia's policies regarding self-disclosure of information are needed to protect both the project and its users, as frustrating as that may seem to you now. Lastly, I'm afraid that making statements such as "pitching a huge fit and erasing 500 articles like I WANT to do" do tend to indicate a potential difficulty when it comes to dealing with the inevitable frustration and disappointment that is part and parcel of collaborative editing. Please consider that should you continue to want to work to enhance the encyclopedia, you will certainly come into conflict, or at least disagreement, with other editors, and the ability to deal with this frustration in a respectful and proper manner is a necessary component to editing successfully here. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Note - I don't know if this has any bearing on this incident report, but the user who has made it has stated that he will be leaving Wikipedia. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC) FYI: I am quitting IN PROTEST to Avi's behavior about this. He is being quite rude and you know he is. A Wiggin13 (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC) You are the only one being rude about it. As I have stated time and time again, I have been nothing but civil to you since your arrival and Avi has shown no signs whatsoever of any lack of civility. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I apologize if you feel I was rude, perhaps the message could have been phrased better, but it does not change the fact that your user page needed adjustment. -- Avi (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC) That does not change the fact that asking me to do it would have been nice! I had 7 hours of editing into my page and for you to just... Violate it... I mean I even had a sign asking people not to... I would have done it myself if you has just asked nicely :( A Wiggin13 (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC) So if you would have made the same revision any way, then what is the point in all this hassle? It seems that, as this debacle goes on, it appears more and more that the real problem lies not in what was said, but in the fact that you seem to think that you own the page and that no one else can touch it as a result. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC) You do not understand the situation. At least someone is explaining things to Avi... You and the other hand. A Wiggin13 (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I, on the other hand, have had accusations of deleting stuff on your user page leveled at me, an ANI incident thrown at me and now I'm being told that the past few hours that I should have been spent getting some much needed sleep have been wasted answering charges that were nonexistant. If there is any actual problem that I need to answer here, then please contact me on my talk page and I will come back and answer it. Otherwise I am done here. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately, part of my maintenance role (and I am an admin) is to take action to protect the project. In these cases, we usually act first and explain second, due to the fact that millions of people frequent wikipedia on a daily basis. -- Avi (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Well in the future I suggest you at least glance at the page before wiping it? A Wiggin13 (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I did, and restored the acceptable material (well, I missed the half french quip) after wiping, but the data needed to be removed from the publicly accessible repository. -- Avi (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Avi, Demiuge1000 is explaining just WHY I am so sensitive about this kind of stuff.... he says check my user page in about 5 minutes A Wiggin13 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Comment - as an uninvolved user, this is all very interesting, but unnecessary. A Wiggins needs to learn that it is not his page, it is Wikipedia's page, and it can be edited by anyone, with or without his permission. While it is true that user pages are not normally edited by others, they can be, especially when they violate policy. I have done so on numerous occasions, usually involving violations of the advertising policy. If he can't accept that, then perhaps this isn't the place for him. So far, all I see is I don't hear that. Based on what I've seen, Avi was completely within his rights as an admin & oversighter to change the information on the page, per Wikipedia policies. At this point, A Wiggins needs to drop the stick and move on, either by accepting that Avi/Skamecrazy did not violate his rights and editing articles, or by leaving. GregJackP Boomer! 04:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Just curious if this user will set some kind of record for shortest time on project before retiring and if there is a barnstar for that? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Have to agree with GregJackP here. Hate to be biting here but wikipedia isn't here for therapy. There are a large number of users who have one condition or another and they've managed to get by without causing any ruckus and work well with others. But for a youngster who has barely been here for 3 days to be raising such a brouhaha over a userpage of all things is patently ridiculous. Wikipedia is neither a social website nor a forum for debate. Blackmane (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

IP linking dates and unnecessary words

IP 190.111.10.43 has been linking dates on album articles (specifically on Spanish-language albums) and has been doing so despite repeated warnings. Similar IPs like 190.111.10.44 have been doing the same. Note that both IPs are traced to Guatemala, so it's unlikely to be different people. The IP has also been putting unnecessary repeated links on articles. Also this IP Special:Contributions/190.111.10.49 as well, which also traces back to Guatemala. Not only overlinking as with other IPs, but changing lengths of album or song tracks. EDIT: Another IP again traced from GT: 190.111.10.39. Erick (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Evildoer187: violation of policy WP:TPG and WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to “get the point”, tendentious editing

I am reporting Evildoer187 for violation of policy WP:TPG and WP:DISRUPT on the grounds of failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing for editing behavior at Colonialism and Talk:Colonialism.

He is pushing the view that Israel should not be included on the list of European colonial states, and refuses to accept consensus. In relation to that end, he has deleted Talk page conversations that relate to his editing conduct [25]

I confirmed with Malik Shabazz that this is a conduct violation before filing this report. User_talk:Malik_Shabazz#Colonialism_article_revisited

I’ve worked to involve other editors, in particular the editor whose edit he reverted to begin with [26]. The resulting discussion has been ignored by Evildoer187, though it demonstrates consensus at least between Matts77 and me.

Note that I see that a related case has been filed by deskana while I was preparing this case.

I have also filed a content dispute resolution request in relation to the List of indigenous peoples article, here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_indigenous_peoples_Talk_page--Ubikwit (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

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 an uninvolved/neutral admin give a ruling on whether WP:ARBPSEUDO applies to Conversion therapy? There's been a suggestion that discretionary sanctions under that decision might be helpful. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose- Not the correct remedy. The controversy at the article stems from flagrant disregard of NPOV by a small number of editors on only one side of the discussion. Admins should see that Wikipedia-wide policy is observed before invoking draconian article-specific measures. ► Belchfire-TALK 06:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a vote Belchfire. Sarek, in my (uninvolved) opinion, I believe that conversion therapy could fall under the category of "all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted", if it could be shown that conversion therapy represents itself as scientific. Personally I haven't seen that, and though the lead to the article makes that claim, it doesn't seem to be backed up. It is not pseudoscientific to act contrary to accepted science (as so much as there is accepted science in such a soft science), so long as one doesn't try to make scientific justifications. It's worth noting that the article psychotherapy describes (psyco)therapy as "therapeutic interaction or treatment contracted between a trained professional and a client" - which is not something I would consider science. Therefore I do not, at present, think WP:ARBPSEUDO applies. I am open to convincing though. Prodego ^talk 07:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is whether editors on wikipedia are treating it as having some scientific basis. This recent edit by Belchfire suggests that he is doing exactly that on the article talk page.[27] Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If editors are claiming it involves science, than it seems it should fall under: "all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted." Pseudoscience (broadly interpreted) is when people claim that something involves science, which does not.Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty clearly falls under WP:ARBPSEUDO. Proponents claim it to be a valid psychological process and, as noted, some trained psychologists practice in the field. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I brought this up on the talk page, so I thought i would ask here. Does Chiropractic fall under ARBPSEUDO? This seems to be a precedent.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say that chiro does fall under WP:ARBPSEUDO because of the numerous medical claims with no evidence. There are legitimate chiropractic procedures, but that's drowned out by the pseudo-medicine. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

The arbitration mechanism should be a last resort, yet there is a whole array of remedies available that have not had an opportunity to function. DRN, NPOV/N and RfC are all available, but have not attempted. Playing the arbitration card is just a handy way to short-circuit those processes and avoid discussion that might not yield the outcome that some editors would prefer.

In reality this isn't a pseudoscience issue at all; it's actually a political issue in disguise. Admins should take note that calls to invoke ARBPSEUDO are only coming from those on one side of the issue, and consider that the reasons for that might not have anything to do with the quality of the science. ► Belchfire-TALK 16:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but trying to claim science for something the most reputable medical groups say is bunk, that's pseudoscience. The politics is a side-issue (and note you don't know my opinion on the matter, so don't presume to speak for me). Further, accusing editors of "playing the arbitration card" is pretty far from WP:AGF. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Editors are in fact saying (on the talk page) that conversion therapy has a scientific basis. That, combined with the fact that there has been an edit war (with the article currently fully protected), shows a good case for applying ARBPSEUDO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Seems to me that shows a clear need for people to stop edit warring. If we follow your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, 40% of Wikipedia should be under discretionary sanctions. ► Belchfire-TALK 19:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversion therapy is widely regarded as pseudoscience by the medical and psychiatric community. Here's an editorial from the British Medical Journal, here's a position paper from the American Psychological Association (scroll to page three), and here's a google-scholar search for "conversion therapy" pseudoscience that shows highly cited papers on the topic. We've used similar approaches on creationism and other prominent bits of charlatanry - presenting statements from leading journals and national scientific organizations, as well as a large body of academic literature on the topic to support characterizing the topic as pseudoscience. There is also WP:MEDRS to consider when any mental health claims are made by CT proponents. The matter at hand is therefore a patent example of pseudoscience advocates disrupting an article - a situation which ARBPSEUDO is expressly meant to cover. Skinwalker (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an excellent example of how politicized science works. ► Belchfire-TALK 19:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Psychology is a science. Conversion therapy has been the subject of serious psychological research, published in peer-reviewed journals of psychology, and all of the studies thus far have found either that conversion therapy does not achieve its desired effect (of making gay people straight), or that it, in addition to failing in its desired effect, also causes psychological harm. Nevertheless, some people ardently believe that conversion therapy works, denying the research that has been done thus far and trying to circumvent the usual process of science by taking their argument directly to the public. I can't imagine any reason that conversion therapy wouldn't fit into the category of pseudoscience. It is exactly like Therapeutic touch, or Homeopathy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been some tag-team edit warring to restore disputed information to the lead so anything that brings that to an end would be welcome. Insomesia (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Decision. I have added a notice to the article talk page placing the article under standard discretionary sanctions. What was most influential in my decision were Principles #16 and #17 from the arbitration decision, both of which passed unanimously. #17 (entitled "Generally considered pseudoscience") states: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." #17 (entitled "Questionable science") states: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Based on the language of our article and the sourcing, it is fairly clear that the article falls under #16. I'll leave this thread open for a while longer in case anyone wants to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the topic falls within the remit of the DS authorized by the motion passed in November. The motion states that "pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted" and conversion therapy seems to be a fringe belief in the eyes of the governing bodies of psychology in both the US and the UK, it is logical to include the practice under WP:ARBPSUDO --Guerillero | My Talk 22:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Don't forget the November 2012 clarification of scope, WP:ARBPSEUDO applies to "all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted." (emphasis added) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

Just need a quick second opinion, somebody has raised the issue that the matter at [28] is not a personal attack, see User_talk:Snowolf#error but... a joke. Could another admin look at the matter and see if my understanding of it was correct, and if not, lift the block and un-revdel the two revisions? Kind regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If it was indeed a joke, then the perception by anyone who's not part of the "in group" is significant enough for the block and revdel ... any third party who read it would be absolutely gobsmacked, and believe it was serious. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Look up for the context = the cause (blockable and not funny) -> the effect (funny to the target audience). Sean.hoyland - talk 12:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but horrifically offensive to the 99.99999999999% of Wikipedians and casual readers of Wikipedia who are not the target audience. Failure to act could meet the newspaper test quite easily (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Man oh man, this place is hilariously messed up. I understand what you are saying but context matters. Nableezy was the victim of a vile, astoundingly stupid and ignorant accusation of being an antisemite. There was a failure to act by admins. Nothing happened to Bugs. There was zero cost to him for making a personal attack of the kind that is about as bad as it gets. The only good that came out of it was that someone tried to cheer Nableezy up by trying to make light of it. I understand that there are cultural differences when it comes to humor but editors rely on you guys for help when they need it. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, context matters - and 99.999999999% of Wikipedians are not aware of the context, and sooner or later someone would be here requesting a block (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) x2 Comment, It would be irresponsible to conclude the edit was a harmless inside joke. Considering this discussion, it is clear that the editor would be highly offended by the attack if it were discovered by unwelcome surprise. The blocked editor's "Yawn" response on their talk page is initially telling as well. Even if Nableezy returns editing and vouches for Nishidani, restoration actions would be inappropriate per BWilkins, and Nableezy should then be admonished for making ANI claims of "egregious distress" over a matter they were flippant enough to consider a joke when coming from their friends. Especially because it would be known to offend anyone similarly sensitive who was not of the inside crowd; and in fact anyone who had adopted the egregiousness that Nableezy taught so well earlier, on this noticeboard. IMO. --My76Strat (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• It was clearly meant to be a joke and a bit of moral support for Nableezy, but it was a joke that was not appropriate to make in public. I say leave it rev-deleted and lift the block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  In fact, as Snowolf has invited another admin to lift the block if they feel it right to do so, I have unblocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Oh come on. Anybody who seriously thinks that Nableezy is an antisemite, or that Nishidani believes that he is, is living in cloud cuckoo land. I donn't know exactly what Nishidani wrote; but I am concerned that it was hidden, and Nishidani blocked, while BaseballBugs claim that Nableezy was antisemitic was simply reverted by another editor, and can be seen in page history, and BB is still editing. Double standards, anyone? RolandR (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record. Sean Hoyland read with great precision. Nableezy and I, and a few others, Roland also, get multiple spam in our mail every other day telling us what vile 'antisemetic' (the spelling says all) scumbags or 'eurofilth' or Arab shit we are, who should be wiped off the earth. This is fairly well known by those who follow that area. I think the general principle by people who insinuate these things is to stack the record with pseudo-complaints so that in time some admin will think 'there's no smoke without fire'. I had Baseball Bugs' nonsensical claim about Nableezy in mind. Seems to be on the uptick. In the last two days, no admin has found anything problematical about Nableezy being called an antisemite - in fact defending himself got him into hot water. After I have been recently twice called as a racist antisemite (here and here, this morning it's even funnier. I suppose if I made a formal complaint, which I have no interest in doing, because the plaintiffs have problems in reading English and wouldn't understand anyway, I'd end up in porridge like Nableezy, with a rap over the knuckles. As Sean says, this place is weird. You only survive if you have a tough hide, shrug bullshit off and develop a taste for irony. If you missed the Vienna Concert today, then, may you all join me in singing the Galaxy Song, which sums it all up. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have received such e-mails via Wikipedia mail as well, though not so much recently as I no longer edit much in this topic area. That has long been a double-standard in this project in regards to how editors from this topic area are handled, a point made obvious here when an editor defending himself from charges of antisemitism gets sanctioned for having the nerve to defend himself. I have made the analogy before to professional basketball, where the referees who break up scuffles lack the temerity to sanction the player who actually instigated it, and just T up all-around. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an ailment across Wikipedia. Just as some editors are prone to being tolerated for their incivility, others are prone to having their civility complaints ignored, no matter how severe the incivility directed against them. Our civility enforcement is broken on two fronts, not one and I consider the latter front far more disconcerting than the former.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Civility enforcement won't solve the root causes of the problems in the ARBPIA topic area. Things would be a lot better if arbitration enforcement was used to remove editors from the topic area who can be shown to have edited in a systematically biased way over an extended period of time. That would require admins at AE to deal with substantial amounts of data and there is no evidence that they are able to do that. The editors who are catalysts for conflict are usually polite or passive aggressive, highly motivated to advocate of behalf of their favorite belligerent, and can reasonably be described as propagandists. But unlike accusing someone of being an antisemite, using the word propagandist is apparently not allowed even if you are a someone, a professional journalist, who probably knows what that word actually means, as the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bali_ultimate case appears to indicate. Editors who systematically misuse a charity's facilities and bring the I-P conflict here need to be removed. Their presence has a real cost to the project. Almost every edit I make in the ARBPIA topic area is about containment, mitigating the effects of the presence of partisans and dealing with the rampant dishonesty in the form of sockpuppetry. Every edit is an edit I'm not making to things like M'Pongo Love or Svay Ken or any of the other things on my to do list. I wonder how much time and effort is wasted on dealing with editors who are here to advocate. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's very unclear what you're trying to suggest here. You start by saying that civility enforcement isn't the solution, and that the catalysts of conflict are usually "polite or passive aggressive". But further up this same section you talk about "a vile, astoundingly stupid and ignorant accusation of being an antisemite" and "a failure to act by admins". And in this your latest post here, you compare the "anti-semite" and "propagandist" insults as though, again, your biggest concern is that civility enforcement should be equal.

People who can't resist calling other editors anti-semites should be shown the door; and they are, sooner or later. Equally, people who are unable to resist repeatedly describing other editors as "lying or ignorant", "Modern ignoramuses", "propagandists" and numerous other epithets, even after repeated warnings, when discussing a topic area that's under arbcom sanctions, need to have some brakes put on that disruption. It's irrelevant whether editors on the same "side" as the troublemaker use the supposed "professional journalist" status of the troublemaker as an argument for their being exempt from any such limits on disruption. (Especially when this "professional journalist" meme is one the troublemaker has taken some trouble to advertise on-wiki themselves.) The disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia is what is relevant in the AE request you link, as otherwise we end up with a situation where some people apparently think the person's current occupation should make them exempt from sanctions, and others seem to be arguing that the person's other off-wiki activities (including some as part of their occupation) make them more culpable.

Unless their off-wiki activities include canvassing or the like, the reality is that none of it is relevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement "Civility enforcement won't solve the root causes of the problems in the ARBPIA topic area" is perfectly clear. It means that the root causes of the problems in the ARBPIA topic area are unrelated to civility and therefore enforcing civility will not resolve the problems in the topic area. It doesn't say anything about whether civility should or should not be enforced. Editors who call people antisemites should not be shown the door if those people's edits can be shown to be consistent with those of an antisemite. You will find many editors who fit that criteria in the history of the Eustace Mullins article and others. Similarly people who lie are liars. There are many people active in the ARBPIA topic area as sockpuppets who are liars. Many people who are active in the topic area are ignorant by which I mean their views are uninformed and are highly inconsistent with and contradicted by large amounts of information in RS. They contaminate the encyclopedia with their ignorance. They can reasonably be described as ignorant. I could go on. Why do you assume that the basis of my objection to what Bugs said is related to civility ? It isn't. It's based on the statement being a pile of evidenceless idiotic crap. If Bugs turned his jumping to conclusions machine in his head on himself what would it come up with to explain his behavior ? Perhaps it would tell him that he was engaged in anti-Arab advocacy. That would be evidenceless crap too but he would probably be able to see that it was bullshit. If he had described someone whose actions were consistent with those of an antisemite and could support the accusation with sufficient evidence I would have no objection at all to the label being used because it would be accurate. But he didn't. So it's not about civility for me. It is about people being allowed to say stupid thoughtless things that are inconsistent with the evidence without having to pay for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sean Hoyland is right on target about the situation. Sadly, an example can be seen just two sections below this one about the ongoing superficially civil mobbing at WP:RSN, which no one seems to have the will to deal with. The persistent civil POV-pushing in the I-P area is bad enough in article space. When it spills over unaddressed into parts of the project meant to deal with content disputes and overwhelms them to the point where they can't function, it creates a real danger. It's analogous to diseases which attack the immune system to the point where it cannot deal with any disease. I have no solution to suggest, unfortunately, and what means we have are not working.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• To be honest, this is the kind of situation where I'd support removing the entry from his block log (that is possible, right?). We normally don't do that, but I'd support it in this case. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Mohdasad2006

Mohdasad2006 (talk · contribs) began editing in September of last year, focusing on towns in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, and has been nothing but trouble. He changes their articles to say that they're located in other states or in the nonexistent state of Harit Pradesh, he replaces valid geographic coordinates with incorrect ones (which is how I noticed him), and he adds unsourced and often clearly incorrect information to the articles. I took him to AIV in October, and he was blocked for a week; but I've just noticed that he reappeared in December, doing precisely the same thing (such as adding that a town was founded in 2005 by "Saif 'n' Preity"—a Bollywood actor and actress, apparently). He has also recently edited from—at least—the IPs 223.181.75.29 (talk · contribs) and 223.226.160.252 (talk · contribs). I'm finding it hard to undo his damage, since later edits frequently get in the way. Could someone just block him to prevent further disruption? Although he has never, to my knowledge, made a worthwhile edit, this seems a little involved for AIV. I'll notify him if you'll give me a minute. Deor (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block for utter incompetence. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I see that admin Yunshui blocked the user for a month after Grammarxxx (talk · contribs) reported him at AIV for ongoing vandalism. I would, however, like for someone to consider whether he shouldn't be indeffed as a vandalism-only account, so we don't have to go through this again a month from now (or whenever someone happens to notice his somewhat sneaky vandalism on little-visited articles). Deor (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No objections from me. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef, unless someone can show some constructive contributions from this account. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

User Hell in a Bucket has been very disruptive from day 1

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

---

I am bringing this matter to your attention that this user Hell in a Bucket has been very annoying from the day I have started an article on Wikipedia Rebecca Masterton. He has been putting up baseless tags on my article. He has been very biased and used very inappropriate and discouraging language. A notification has also been posted on his talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs) 10:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC) --Lubna Rizvi 10:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I originally nominated the article for deletion as it did not meet notability standards. The article has many issues, one complete section directs people to other websites or tells them to read the interview there [[29]]. The article is poorly put together so I have appropriately tagged the article. The user has accused me of being rude and racist, but when requested earlier can not or will not put any diffs showing how I have acted rudely. I have quite the opposite tried to help this editor [[30]] and also here [[31]], which ironically shows that the only uncivil and bad faith is coming from the article creator. I would suggest that they read through the WP:OWN and WP:MOS as it might help. I realize this is a new editor so this is likely just growing pains but the attitude of ownership must stop. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Lubna, if you want anyone to listen to you, you should immediately change your signature to something that includes your actual username. Most people reviewing an AN/I complaint like to be able to see some basic things about a user without having to check the page history. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(Here is what you should change your signature to: [[User:Lubnarizvi|<font color = "Black" face="Papyrus">'''Lubna''' ''Rizvi''</font>]]. It will generate the same text as usual, but with the correct link. I'd also encourage you to add a link to your talk page, since most people care more about your talk page than your userpage.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Lubna, you should take the advice of people who understand Wikipedia's notability requirements, the manual of style, and other core policies. The article as written needs an awful lot of work to bring it up to anything that should be live in articlespace - it should still be a draft somewhere while you work with editors like HiaB to move it forward. The issue with your signature linking to a non-existent account is an easy fix, as noted above - but please do it ASAP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• And Lubna, accusing someone of being racist without providing any evidence (and I can find none), as you did here, is completely unacceptable - if you make similar accusations again, you are likely to be blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• It is not an accusation, first he nominated it for deletion, then he come up with new tags. The language he has used is not acceptable for me. Like I said that I am new to Wikipedia and still learning but I find his comments very confusing and irrelevant. -- Lubna Rizvi 12:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean English language? Please explain to me where I've been inappropriate? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Lubna I've written over 70 articles on Wikipedia, I'm not picking on you, I've actually pointed you to many articles and policies to help you. We do require WP:COMPETENCE when editing if you can't understand or are unwilling to read or abide by these policies you shouldn't be here. We want you here but there are issues with your article, a few of my articles have been nominated for deletion Sister Vincenza or even recently Tom Stienstra does this mean those editors were picking on me? No all it means is they were acting in their ideas of what was best for the encylopedia. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read the policies and I do not see anything wrong with the new tag you have posted on the article. You had nominated it for deletion within the 15 minutes of the article was initiated. I have received quite encouraging comments from other users and they have helped me in making it better. -- Lubna Rizvi 12:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad they are because it needs the work. I'm going to stop trying to explain my actions at this point because I believe you are incapable or not allowing yourself to understand what the slew of editors here and on the AFD that have also tried to explain the same thing. Since there is nothing wrong in my actions as evidenced here and the lack of presented inappropriateness by teh complainant please close this thread as it is clearly a waste of time at this point. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Lubna, my first article was speedy deleted within 90 minutes of creation. You seem to be doing a lot better than I did. Maybe the tags are annoying, but they are there to help. Next time someone does something annoying, assume that they have good intentions, and if you do not understand the problem, be nice to them, and try to get them to help you understand. If worse comes to worse, use the article talk page to write an appeal for someone to fix the problem, you cannot fix because you cannot understand it. Avoid a battleground mentality. If you find yourself slipping into such a mentality, go for a long walk; it will help you calm down.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Toddy1: I appreciate your suggestions, but this user HIAB has been very annoying rather than being helpful. I am thankful to many people who have contributed towards the article and have assisted me. -- Lubna Rizvi 15:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of inappropriate behavior or move on. It's obvious no one agrees with you, please quit wasting our time. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been wasting your time! Today, you have said that "it is pretty poorly written article"! Is it appropriate to say that? This article was not deleted (although you have tried your best). Don't be so manipulative! -- Lubna Rizvi 15:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is appropriate for him to say that. He's not doing anything bad, he is trying to help Wikipedia. This whole discussion is a waste of time -- the tags should stay so that people can help fix the article. – Richard BB 16:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok three questions, if you can answer them (with something we here at wikipedia qualify as against policy) I'll gladly apologize, How am I being Manipulative? How am I rude or Biased? What is inappropriate in my actions? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur, it was appropriate for him to say that, as looking through the history, it was poorly written. There is nothing racist about that, and I noted in the AfD discussion, he took time to say that you were making a good faith effort to improve the article and he would not oppose moving it into your userspace until it was brought up to Wikipedia standards. As it stands now, the article is marginal--it has excessive use of inappropriate references, and it should be cleaned up. Unless you have evidence of something inappropriate, I would drop the matter and move on. GregJackP Boomer! 16:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It all makes sense now [[32]] The user is writing about a personal friend, I'd also note they have taken a non free image from that persons Facebook without the proper releases, I've nominated the photo for deletion as a copyright violation and would strongly suggest that Lubna read WP:COI which strongly suggests that this is not a good course of action and confirms that this does indeed appear to be a WP:SPA Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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

sweden democrats 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.

---

The Swedish Democrats page, while seemingly perfectly acceptable in the English version, is filled with whitewashing and deletions of relevant information in the Swedish one, apparently condoned by the relevant moderator. For example, in the mid-90s, party members were caught on film wearing full Nazi regalia. The source reports "this was not uncommon." The party later banned the wearing of uniforms due to this media scandal in a time when they were trying to distance themselves from the Nazi discourse surrounding them. All mention of Nazi uniforms gets deleted from the Swedish page for the Sweden Democrats, although this is a well known and well documented fact. There are other, similar issues, as can be viewed on the talk page. Perhaps a non-Swedish party should be invited to monitor this page, especially as Sweden approaches elections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.195.55.193 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussing issues on the English language Wikipedia only. Administrators here have no rights on other Wikipedias. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And, perhaps most importantly, very few of us are proficient in Swedish. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but Sweden wikipedia does not seem to be up to monitoring this problem, thus it may be that parties with no political interests in Sweden monitor this page. As it stands now, wikipedia may be a tool to further neo-Nazi politics in Europe. Matt 46.195.55.193 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the OP is asking that the English version of the Swedish Democrats page be given special attention given an incoming election and the state of the page on the Swedish Wiki.--WaltCip (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no "incoming election". The next election is in almost 2 years. Nymf _{talk to me} 20:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My ambition was for non-Swedish wikipedian moderator's to be made aware of problems at the Swedish page of the SD. The SD are well known for being extremely Internet savvy and for doing much of their recruiting this way, thus I need to report what may be a similar tactic being used at the Swedish wikipedia page for the SD. If, by any chance, a Swedish moderator is allowing his political bias to interfere, then I feel the potential problem needs to be reported outside of Sweden.Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.195.55.193 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, this is not an issue that the English-language Wikipedia can address. We have no authority whatsoever in the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Admin review requested

Sorry to be back here again so soon after my last visit. Rather than trawl round admins who usually deal with India-related stuff, I think it better to ask for an independent look-see of this thread and its possible outcomes. I am a bit concerned that the canvassing of a discussion at WT:INB across multiple article talk pages might be less than optimally phrased by a newbie and might cause more problems than it fixes. Qwyrxian queried something on my talk page and then initiated a thread at the project page. No problem with that, and I briefly noted the thread in the discussion that I feel caused Qwryxian to revise their opinion- see here. The revised statement says something like this, across several talk pages. It is an improvement on the earlier version that I reverted but it still seems to miss the fundamental point that the discussion concerns WP:BLP and I am concerned that the discussion at INB could become overloaded with irrelevancies etc. I deliberately have not linked "canvass" to WP:CANVASS but would appreciate it if someone uninvolved with India stuff could take a quick look. I'll mention this query to the newbie - Sreejiraj - and to Qwyrxian but hopefully it can be resolved without any drama. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My quick input: While I happen to be taking a stance at WP:INB that is not shared by Sitush or a number of the other regular Indian-caste editors, and while Sreejiraj's notifications have a chance of supporting my version, I'm not sure that the way he's going about it is proper. Yes, it's okay to notify relevant places...but I'm afraid that choosing any specific caste pages, out of the several thousand we have, may produce biased results. I also worry that his specific examples may further be "non-neutral". I understand the intent, but I wonder if there may have been a better way to go about it. And Sitush's goal in posting here is good, in that I think outside commenting may be the best way, since both he and I have had some disagreements with Sreejiraj already. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Insults and offenses

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 offer an apology in advance if this is'n the place to report the event and/or perform the procedure. My name is Saloca, sysop of Wikipedia in Spanish, as you can corroborate here. A few days ago, exercising my functions, I blocked indefinitely the PerryThePlatypusFan account for breaches of etiquette, and I also banned his IP for 2 weeks for Sock puppetry. Today, upon entering my account in the English version, I've been surprised to see this comment. I report to you that it is in accordance with policies, clarifying that, I'm not a woman, and that this behavior should not be tolerated. Thanks for your attention. Saloca (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I see the user has already been warned 2 months ago for personal attacks over here. I've reverted the attacks on your page, revdel'd them as they were pretty insulting (worse if you were a woman) and indef blocked the account.--v/r - TP 22:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I also notified the editor of this thread, because you hadn't done so. They have talk page access, so they can respond there. Though I think this case is pretty cut and dry.--v/r - TP 22:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(Just in case some spanish would help the user) TParis ha borrado los ediciones que son insultantes, y él dice que ha bloqueado la cuenta por tiempo indefinido. El usario que esta bloqueado puede hablar en su pagina discusion. Gracias por reportando esta usario, y si ves mas vandalismo en tus paginas en otras Wikipedias, es posible que necesitas reportar el usario en MetaWiki al los Stewards para bloquear esta cuenta en todos los proyectos. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both. An apology TParis, was not to my knowledge that I should alert the user. I appreciate the attention. At your service for whatever you need in our Spanish version. Regards Saloca (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior by Earl King Jr. (AN #2) and Neutrality of The Venus Project

Earl King Jr. has been disruptive on the article page of The Venus Project.

• 1. His first disruptive behavior incident noted that "he repeatedly accuses Ijon of being biased because Earl King claims that Ijon is a member of the group itself.--Bbb23" and informed him that, "Sorry, no, you dont remove other peopoles talk page comments twice on a whim. Thats grounds for an immeidate block! If you gfel it inapprooproate ou should discuss it or take it here.Lihaas" and "Earl, your repetitive comments about Ijon's supposed non-neutral position are not helpful.--Bbb23"
• 2. He reverted a constructive article edit containing encyclopedic information about the project's history that was verifiable and properly sourced with page numbers, paragraph information, time spots, and quotes, back to his incomplete and inaccurate version with the edit summary of "Remove new wordy promo version. More like propaganda from the group than literal information," which suggested a group member contacted the sources (Miami News, Lionel Rolfe, WTVJ/Larry King, and William Gazecki) to publish propaganda on their behalf.
• 3. A review of his contribution history since March 12, 2012 shows his edits primarily, if not entirely, consists of reverting and removing information from various articles surrounding the same topic. He was repeatedly informed on his self-created clean up section on the article's talk page to cease disrupting article improvement.
• 4. He reverted another edit with critical commentary by New York Times back to his incomplete and nonrepresentative version with the edit summary of "same edit, different name. No. En.Wikipedia is not a promotional mouth piece for any group or company." He was informed in the article talk page that the encyclopedic information was notable work (the Lionel Rolfe source references Madman Muntz's half million commission, Fresco's Air Force patent, Forest Ackerman nominating him for president, as told by Jack Catran), which he afterwards described in the talk page that "an exposition of their philosophy belongs elsewhere, assuming that it is sufficiently notable for other sources to have discussed it" which suggested the enecylopedic information belonged at an unnamed, somewhere else and aforementioned sources haven't detailed the project.
• 5. Conveniently, Bobrayner would revert the article to Earl King Jr.'s edit twice (equaling King Jr.'s own two times) using King Jr.'s promotional line in the edit summary of "Seems to be far too promotional." If the history/background of an organization or company "seems to be" "promotional," every Apple, Einsten/scientist invention, etc article should be reverted to their earliest, incomplete and unrepresentative edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 15:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that Ijon was topic banned from this area due to disruption? You seem to be going to AN over a content dispute. That's not the purpose of AN. Special:Contributions/NotDeletable and this account appearing looks like a potential DUCK. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

1-No, as I'm primarily concerned with article content and good faith edits being disruptively removed. 2-I'd say since his disruptive behavior was brought up in ANI before, that part belongs here, but I'll move this over to disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Our articles around the Venus Project, and Fresco, have historically had severe problems with promotion & spamminess (which has occasionally leaked out into other articles, so some of our articles on economic stuff would have lengthy praise of stuff which is obscure and fringey in the real world). We won't get neutral articles by cherrypicking from sources and then framing it as positively as possible. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure, but it appears that an editor (talk, that brought this issue may be using multiple accounts. If I am wrong on that I apologize now Special:Contributions/NotDeletable They may have used an i.p. address also for recent edits. My guess is the editors contribution is well intentioned but promotional or information placement oriented to the subject and so not neutrally presented. The article in question and other related articles, as has been mentioned, are problematic, with adherents to those groups making many edits that often are cut and pasted from the information given out by that organization. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Posted in wrong category, then was told to post in dispute, but this was the original destination (so the dispute should be closed).

WP:SPI would be a better place to answer questions like that, but looking at certain timestamps I doubt that the two editors are the same person. There might well be some off-wiki connection but that's always a difficult case to prove.I suggest that it's not really worth it though - nobody's hammering the revert button, there are plenty of other eyeballs, we even have a DRN page - I'm sure we can solve this disagreement by civilised means instead of reaching for the banhammer. I haven't seen any suggestion that multiple identities have been used to get around the three revert rule, and it's hardly a crime for somebody to edit with an IP and then get an account a few days later. This is at the polite and cooperative end of the content-dispute spectrum. bobrayner (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The dispute was closed. This is the proper board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't see Earl King Jr.'s earlier post of "edits that often are cut and pasted from the information given out by that organization." Are you saying the organization told Jack Catran what to say for Lionel Rolfe's book, told the writers what to write in the New York Times and Miami News, told Larry King what to ask on his show, so editors can "cut and paste" from the sources for the article page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Cherry picked information that is relentlessly going in some direction makes something lose balance though. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

I think we need some administrator intervention. I believe that edit warring, POV-pushing, or misuse of sources is still going on even after article was under semi-protection. The edit warring has continued. Sources like Norcross are being misrepresented. It is very complicated discussion with a lot of history but it very difficult to get on with improving the article because editors just work against each other or seem to be tag teaming or misrepresenting the sources. There are some sneaky moves to avoid detection. It is very complicated because it is partly POV pushing, partly content dispute and the article attracts editors who are either overly promotional or overly skeptical. It is hard to find editors who are genuinely trying to collaborate on improving the article. I'm trying my best to assume good faith but...

Recent edits between 25-29th Dec, 2012

• 21:59, 25 December 2012: Encyclotadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added "discredited" to opening sentence
• 22:20, 25 December 2012: Reconsolidation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) changed ([ diff]) last sentence from "certainly discredited" to "certainly discredited for addiction treatment" which is directly supported by source and more in line with NPOV. The study was specific to addiction treatment. doi:10.1097/ADM.0b013e3181c5f9db
• 22:40, 25 December 2012: GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed "discredited" from opening sentence
• 00:24, 26 December 2012: Encyclotadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted GoodDay so that now "discredited" in back in first sentence of lead.
• 00:24, 26 December 2012:Encyclotadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted: added "discredited" back into opening sentence again
• 01:40, 26 December 2012: Lam Kin Keung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removes the qualification "for addiction treatment" from the last sentence of the lead.
• 14:07, 28 December 2012: Encyclotadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) completely removes the qualification: "In research on ineffective addiction treatments ," from the lead so that it now misrepresents the source. He incorrectly cites the Norcross et al (2006 doi:10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.515) poll which was specific to mental/behavioural disorders and the rating was was between possible or probably discredited, not "certainly discredited".
• 01:22, 29 December 2012: Reconsolidation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) restores in the lead that it was specific to addiction treatment doi:10.1097/ADM.0b013e3181c5f9db
• 06:30, 29 December 2012: Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removes the qualification "for addiction treatment" entirely

So, it seems that several editors are co-ordinating their efforts behind the scenes to misrepresent sources and push their own POV.

The atmosphere at talk page is also uncivil. It is difficult to keep things on track in order to work together to improve the article in line with wikipedia policies. --Reconsolidation (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

My lone edit to that article was to restore (I thought) a consensus-backed lead. I haven't been involved with the discussion there, for quite a while. No longer interested, I guess. GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconsolidation is the current ID of a long term SPA, the original of whom is under ArmCom restriction. This is the fifth user name they have used in serial. Each new ID makes very similar edits after a long period of silence. Another part of the pattern is to bring an issue here when they know a case is being prepared (see user:snowded/nlp case against them. Its to muddy the waters. As Action Potential (one of the previous IDs) there was clear evidence of meat puppetry and todate we have had 15 new SPA accounts created in the November/December period all pro NLP. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This would really be better covered in a comment on user behaviour. As I said to you, I have already confirmed my identity through wikipedia. I'm not trying to evade a topic ban or sanction. I fully support the remedies of the arbcom case. Anyone editing articles characterized as pseudoscience are covered by discretionary sanctions which I fully support. This ANI is related specifically to disruptive editing involving misrepresentation of sources and POV-pushing. This misrepresentation of sources can be easily verified by an uninvolved third party. Your accusation that I am involved in canvassing off-wiki is false and unfounded. I have no way of confirming or denying it. --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've previously asked you to provide evidence of having confirmed your identity through wikipedia and you have not responded. Please do so ----Snowded ^TALK 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll get some advice on how your request can be fulfilled without violating privacy. I actually think the best way forward would be to create a series of RfCs to resolve our content disputes one by one. We can also resolve what I consider to be misrepresentation of sources using an RfC or even third party comment (but there is multiple people involved). The issue remaining is the incivility caused by people accusing each other of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. That would be less of a problem if we held people to abide by the suggestions of RfCs. If all that fails then we can use mediation. Would you agree to this plan? What about the other editors involved? --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The SPA accounts make discussing sources impossible for experienced editors. For example, one of the problems with the apparent meat puppeting is that the steady stream of new accounts do not take into account past administration and editor discussions and conclusions. They attempt to revert changes long ago agreed, and worse bring up arguments on the talk page long ago resolved. I think this kind of disruptive behavior in context of a pseudoscience that is nevertheless complex is doing untold harm to the pro-NLP perspective in the article. --Encyclotadd (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Snowded. User Reconsolidation has tried this before under different username [33][34] I.e. User 122.X.X.X.

User Reconsolidation appears to be trying to evade COI, and using multiple serial IDs and the meat puppets to bring up the same issues repeatedly and push an obscuring "new code" version of neuro-linguistic programming. The above items listed by Reconsolidation show mostly that clear encyclopedia editing of Wikipedia does not make neuro-linguistic programming look good and User Reconsolidation does not like it. Happy new year. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You cannot accuse me of disruption because I use reliable sources, discuss my edits and seek consensus via compromise. There is no evidence that I have promoted any particular point of view so you accusation of pushing a POV or having a conflict of interest (COI) is unsupported. I strongly encourage Lam Kin Keung, Encyclotadd and Snowded to participate in a series of RfCs and then mediation if that fails. The diffs I gave above show that several editors have been misrepresenting sources with a sort of tag teaming. That is what Lam Kin Keung, Encyclotadd and Snowded need to explain in reponse to the diffs above. The current response of Lam Kin Keung and Snowded is just a personal attack. A tactic they often use in the talk page discussion. Is there are way to compel all editors to engage in RfCs and be more careful with checking the sources? --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, the meat-puppetry problem at that article, should be taken care of first. GoodDay (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I can accuse of you distruption Reconsolidation bcecause you constantly change your ID to avoid association with the Arbcom sanctions and to allow you to raise again, without any new evidence, issues that have already been handled and the fact that you run a website to promote Grindlers "new NLP". There are no privacy issues involved, your previous IDs are known and can easily be listed so why not try honesty with the community? If there are legitimate reasons then choose a neutral admin (I am sure one will volunteer) and explain your reasons to them. If they certify that you have a legitimate reason then you are covered You state above "I have already confirmed my identity through wikipedia", OK where and with whom? Or were you lying?. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm confident we can work this out. Firstly, I do not "constantly change" my username. I made it clear that I created this single purpose account (SPA) to edit the NLP related articles from a neutral point of view using reliable source according to weight. I put an emphasis on the mainstream scientific viewpoint. I have not co-operated with obvious meatpuppets or used sockpuppets, as you constantly accuse me of. I did not canvass any support for my edits except through reasoned discussion. So please stop these accusations. Having openly stated that this is a SPA actually puts my editing and discussion at a higher level of scrutiny which I am happy with. I often refer back to the ArbCom recommendations on pseudoscience related articles for guidance. I'd appreciate if you just assumed good faith for a while. I do not intend to promote or disrupt. If you want we could open an RfC on my user account when I get back from holidays. I may be able to provide additional personal information depending on the advice from an experienced wikipedian. If you think the sources I use are poor or misinterpreted then we should look into dispute resolution. As I have suggested many times, we could file a report on the the reliable sources noticeboard to get an outsider's view of the sources. If we still cannot resolve our differences through the reliable Sources noticeboard then we could engaged in mediation. If the mediation is unsuccessful then we could look at other options like ArbCom. But in the meantime, let's continue reasoned discussion. By the way, you still have not dealt with the problematic edits and reverts that you made with your buddies which was the subject of this ANI complaint. --Reconsolidation (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Your wiki-identity must be clarified, first. Until then, little progress will be made at the NLP article. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The argument that I have abused multiple identities is just a distraction. I just tried to fix the misrepresentation of sources in the lead and it was almost immediately reverted (diff) and again ([35]) by User:Lam Kin Keung without discussion. Lam Kin Keung just put in the edit comment it this was "slow edit war". It is absurd that he cannot even accept a change that closely reflects the sources, see Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#change_to_lead_-_expert-consensus_lists. I think it is more closely aligned with NPOV. This is not a simple content dispute - there appears to be a co-ordinated effort by Snowded and Lam Kin Keung to push their extreme POV by misrepresenting sources and trying to escape detection by accusing me all sorts of edit warring. When you look more closely, it is Snowded and Lam Kin Keung who resort to edit warring to protect their edits. --Reconsolidation (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This content related issue has been dealt with in the proper place; the neuro-linguistic programming talkpage;[36]. The main behaviour issue of Reconsolidation needs the answer from you Reconsolidation, concerning your serial IDs. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

At least (sneakily) you reinserted the qualifier "In research on discredited addiction treatments,"(diff). You should not have put "revert" in your edit comment if you wanted to reinsert that qualifier. --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

User Reconsolidation, I am not sneaky in dealing with the long term disruptive editing you have engaged in. I also am quite able to deal with the coordinated abuse of some NLP interested editors (including your the other IDs and IPs) on the article and my talkpage e.g[37][38][39][40]. Your objections here appear to be highlighting your disruptive example, influence, and behaviour more than anything else. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. How can we work together on this NLP article, seriously? I genuinely want to work towards a good article candidate. --Reconsolidation (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Reconsolidation's multiple identities

You are still avoiding the question.

• You originally edited as User:Comaze from August 2005 and were were subject to Arbcom sanctions which you are currently breaking. Most recently yesterday with a continued slow edit war on issues discussed with your previous identities.
• You then edited as Action potential until July 2010 and redirected Comaze to that account (which is legitimate).
• From the start of 2011 to May 2011 you use User talk:122.108.140.210
• From to January to May 2012 we get User talk:122.x.x.x
• At the end of December 2012 to date you emerge again as [Reconsolidation] after a brief period as an IP

All of these accounts make very similar edits and are accompanied by the creation of SPAs (although 15 is a lot for the latest manifestation) I am others have suggest that if you have legitimate reasons for this then you should go to a neutral admin and explain them. Said neutral admin can then state their opinion. Instead of this you have stated here and elsewhere that you have confirmed your ID to wikipedia but not provided any link that would validate this. Without that link we have no way of telling if the statement is truthful or a downright lie. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Comaze/Action potential to confess. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is, frankly, beyond ridiculous. There appears to be a long-standing proliferation of single-purpose agenda accounts on neuro-linguistic programming and related articles. Whether these accounts belong to a single editor (sockpuppetry), a group of affiliated editors (meatpuppetry), or some combination of the two is largely irrelevant. The question is what needs to be done to make the article editable again for constructive editors working in good faith according to this site's policies.

  I'm going to take the following actions: first, I've extended the semi-protection on neuro-linguistic programming to indefinite, and will have a low threshold to semi-protect other related articles which are targeted by large numbers of single-purpose agenda accounts. Secondly, I've blocked Reconsolidation (talk · contribs) indefinitely. This is clearly an abusive use of alternate accounts to evade scrutiny, and the evasive responses above reinforce this impression. This editor is subject to active Arbitration remedies and is categorically not eligible for a "clean start" under a different account name. The immediate "retirement" of the account under scrutiny, and the simultaneous appearance of new single-purpose agenda accounts, is concerning as well.

  In deference to the editor's expressed concerns about privacy, I will leave them the option of contacting the Arbitration Committee, myself, or another admin via email and pleading their case, but given the way these accounts have been used to date I would be pessimistic about the likelihood of constructive contributions going forward.

  Finally, I would invite editors at neuro-linguistic programming to contact me or another admin with any further concerns about specific single-purpose agenda accounts; given that the article is already under ArbCom sanctions, I would have a very low threshold for acting to reduce the ongoing disruption caused by such accounts. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, dealing with this over the years has been deeply frustrating at time. I (and I am sure others) really appreciate you taking decisive action ----Snowded ^TALK 22:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just disgusting. You have just indefinitely blocked a long standing editor who has obviously made considerable contributions to the Wikipedia project, and you did it when he has no way of replying. The ridiculous case [41] cooked up by Snowden is a total traversty. There is no significant linking evidence against Reconsolidation. Keeping privacy on the web should be a basic right and it was a right he was entitled to. You basically just did the dirty work for a bunch of skeptics. Shame! LTMem (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record: The contributions of Reconsolidation…..Comaze have been considerable: Mostly the vanity editing. Investigation shows the editor’s commercial promotion of NLP company Inspiritive [42] and NLP corporate [43]. The “coordination” has also been significant and long term including addition of the commercial links by likely meatpuppets and SPAs [44][45][46] [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] [55][56] [57][58][59] [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70] some very recent [71][72][73][74]and subsequent removal by concerned editors. The block is constructive and will likely improve situation, though vigilance should continue. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats pathetic Keung. Half of your links don't work and the second one even accuses a Wikipedia admin FT2. All you have done is prove Inspiritive is a reasonable source and Reconsolidation is a reasonable editor with a good practitioner knowledge of NLP. LTMem (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like another puppet (LTMem) has arrived. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The links show a general pattern of commercial promotion. Not all shown here. There are too many to post. Apologies for any broken links. The paste was partly from previous relevant administrator notice [75]. The broken links are due neurolinguistic programming related articles being subsequently deleted because they were mostly vanity and promotional. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Bots fast edits spoiling WP notification system

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.

---

When I make edits, I often check my contributions page later that day to see if my edit is still "(top)". If it isn't, then I check if someone found my edit to be problematic/erroneous etc. MediaWiki's "(top)" notification system is very useful.

However, sometimes bots make edits immediately after my edit, for example to put a date field in a {{fact}} tag. This wastes my time because I check the edit, and it expends the "(top)" notification system. This makes Wikipedia a frustrating place and reduces my interested in continuing to contribute. One bot that causes this problem is User:AnomieBOT.

Adding a date field to a fact tag is optional but useful, but this functionality could also be done without causing the above problem by simply adding a delay of a week or a month. Either:

• Continue to check edits as they are made, but instead of acting immediately, make a note in a file and process that file a week or a month later; or
• Check the changes made a week or a month ago and act on those immediately.

I've proposed this to AnomieBOT but got a negative reply: User_talk:AnomieBOT#Delay_of_a_week_or_a_month

and previously: User_talk:AnomieBOT/Archive_4#Bot_breaks_WP_notifications_-_can_you_add_a_delay.3F

Is there any general rule which can be invoked, such as interference with non-bot editors only being allowed when it's necessary and proportional? I presume there's some kind of limits on how bots can operate and that they must in some ways limit themselves to not annoying non-bot editors, can someone show me the policy and who I should notify when bots don't follow it?

Thanks. Gronky (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:BOTPOL, however what AnomieBOT is doing isn't in violation of any policy. The best way to do this is just hide bot edits in your watchlist and see if anyone edited after you. Legoktm (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Since I'm using my contributions page rather than my watchlist, that solution doesn't work. I'll read the policy and possibly try to get it changed. Gronky (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about the case in question, but I keep on meaning to bring up the fact that SineBot often slows me down in reverting vandalism, since you can only use rollback on the most recent edit to a page. I'm aware that this isn't VPT, but per WP:BURO I figured I'd just ask here, while we're on the topic. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If you enable Twinkle (in your Gadgets Preferences), it gives you a "revert to version" when you do your diff, so you just diff over two versions instead of one and you still get a one-click revert. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which is what I do, a whole ten seconds and 2-3 clicks later. But I've literally had times where I get the "new messages" email and/or banner, and by the time I get to my talk page to be informed of just how much of a faggot I am, SineBot's already swooped in to tell me which sockpuppet saw the need to tell me this. Regardless, I'll bring any further thoughts on the matter up at VPT. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK. If it's a problem on your talk page, I believe there's some code you can include that keeps bots away (and it can be set to stop specific ones). Sorry I don't remember what it is, but I have seen it used somewhere. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

F&A: Boing's advice might solve your problem, but I might still get in touch in a month or two if I decide to go ahead and start a discussion about making bots less interfering. Gronky (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@Gronky: Sorry your thread got redirected by another user (no offense F&A, but kind of rude), but if you use these templates quite frequently then you might want to make a cheat sheet on your user page. Simply post the code {{Citation needed|{{subst:DATE}}}} on your user page and then cut & paste it into an article whenever you need it. This would eliminate the pesky bot (no offense to AnomieBOT) following your edits. I know it is an extra step for you, but maybe it can quell your frustrations. Rgrds. --64.85.221.190 (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

For Christ's sake! Thanks for making a good point, I mean, but honestly? He posted something about bots making edits too fast. I posted something about bots making edits too fast. He pointed out a need for something, and I supported that with a related case. In the future, please only write "no offense" when you don't intend any offense. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I honestly meant no offense, but it was a redirect and it was rude to the OP. This is also a redirect. Please, I mean no offense, just looking at this from the OP's angle. Rgrds. --64.85.221.190 (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It would be handy if when I checked the "Hide bots" option on my watch list, that it would then still show the last edit made before the removed bot edit. I think this would be more useful watchlist. 2 cents, R. Baley (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is on the floor below. Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Walledro and David Hammond (director)

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.

---

• Walledro (talk · contribs)

User:Walledro is a SPA for inserting negative material into the David Hammond (director) article.

The user has already been blocked twice for edit warring on this, and they're now back re-adding the same material without discussion. Seems like someone is really not here to be productive. a13ean (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• BLP Basics, A13ean: If you remove something from one page under the BLP policy, you don't then put it up on another page yourself, including the administrators' noticeboard. If it's a BLP problem for someone else to make such an edit, then logically it's a BLP problem for you to do so, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  Believe it or not, in the past eight years I have read the BLP policy once or twice, and I thought carefully about it before I copied here. The criteria at WP:BLPTALK is that material which is "unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices" should be removed. This material is sourced, but it has been removed from the article by multiple editors as it is undue to mention such an accusation in this biography. An argument was made for it's inclusion, and while pretty much everyone has rejected that argument, that doesn't mean it can't even be discussed. If you would prefer to make everyone click through to see what this is about I'm fine with that, but nuking the sourced (but undue) statement seems like overkill for such a borderline case. a13ean (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Supporting this report of a user with a long term disruptive agenda. User Walledro is a WP:SPA, and that purpose is to add inadequately sourced or flatly unsourced negative content to a single biographical article. I've previously commented at the article talk page under a different IP account, and noted that this pattern has continued for several months. Either article protection or a longer user block make sense. 99.156.64.147 (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I've contributed legitimate comments to the David Hammond web page. I have cited sources and specifically quoted from those sources. I have edited my comments in an effort to abide by wikipedia rules. I have respectfully asked for guidance as to what i can and can't post. Then responded in kind. However, for some reason, because the information I'm posting is of a negative nature it keeps being deleted and the rules seem to keep changing. So, it seems to me that I'm not allowed to post anything negative no matter if it's sourced or not. The rules seem inconsistent and more a process of censorship than any consistent or legitimate attempt for wikipedia to allow true, correct and sourced information to be added to a subject's page. This has been very frustrating. If you review my posts and reposts and comments and discussions on the talk page, you will see my argument bares out. I have no malicious intent, only to post legitimate information and provide a more rounded picture of Mr. Hammond's career. Am I or aren't I allowed to post negative information? And if I'm not, does this hold true for ALL wikipedia pages and contributors? Walledro (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)walledro

Quite the contrary; my observation re: the inconsistency of enforcement of guidelines is that someone may repeatedly vandalize or commit continuous BLP violations without receiving an indefinite block, provided they target the biography of a relatively low-profile subject. My contention is that your edit history never would have stretched this long otherwise. And it's clear that your interest has nothing to do with benefiting Wikipedia, but rather, with an apparently personal issue, which you've supported through unacceptable sources, apparently contrived content, and a motive that appears to be nothing if not malicious. 99.156.64.147 (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not committed any BLP violations. I have reviewed the rules and have met all the requirements. My edit history has continued this long as a stand against censorship. I have used legitimate quotes and sourced all my material. I have added a counterpoint and balance to a BLP. There is no contrived content or unacceptable sources cited. I'm curious to read your definition of an unacceptable source or exactly what is meant by contrived content. Walledro (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)walledro

• This is not a complicated case. Walledro is doing exactly what they were blocked for the last time. I've indef-blocked the account: the edit-warring alone is enough reason. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought so too, thanks. a13ean (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:MarkMysoe making the Akanland region of Ghana independent overnight

MarkMysoe (talk · contribs) has spent recent efforts on trying to describe the region of Akanland as an independent country with no relation to Ghana of which it is otherwise considered a part. He has created a wikiproject WP:AKAN whose templates he substitutes for those of WP:GHANA. And he systematically removes mentions of Ghana substituting links to the article on Akanland. This article however is largely a hoax based on falsification of sources and the reading of sources about "Ghana" as if they read "Akanland". This is going to require large scale clean up efforts from the community, and likely some kind of sanction is also in order. See also related discussions at: WP:BLPN#Nana Akufo-Addo andWikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#Ghana. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll look through what I can see in his contribs, and either rollback or undo them, unless someone opposes to using rollback in this instance. gwickwire^talk_edits 18:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have had a bit of a look and there does seem to be a promotional aspect to this users single focused contributions and I have reverted a few. Very weak sourcing/non existant - the couple I looked at did not even mention Akanland. - Lots os this users efforts to promote the independence of this area need reversing, imo until he can show he gets WP:Policies and guidelines he needs to be stopped from editing this sector - Youreallycan 18:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• What is the procedure for nominating a Wikiproject for deletion? Is it MFD? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As have I, there's definitally some form of "Akan"-high view that is being pushed here. I think a topic ban may be warranted here, as well as a block for 24-48 hours. I'll continue looking through his contribs. gwickwire^talk_edits 18:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done some. He's been doing things such as removing the flag of Ghana and replacing it with an Akan flag, removing Wikiproject Ghana from relevant talk pages, etc. From what I've seen, a topic ban is warranted. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• A bit of context - Akanland is, as claimed by MarkMysoe, a cultural region of Ghana. The problem is that Mark is talking about it as though it were an official administrative district of Ghana, and often substitutes mentions of the country as a whole for Akanland instead. It would be like describing Montgomery primarly as a bible belt city rather than a city of Alabama, or describing Cardiff primarily as a celtic capital rather than the capital of Wales. Mark has been engaging in similar practises on BLPs, changing nationalities to "Akan" (apparently a tribe in southern Ghana) from Ghanain. This is seriously problematic, and Mark has been doing it for several months pretty much unnoticed. A lot of damage has already been done. Mark has repeatedly ignored messages from others asking him to address these concerns, and carries on anyway. These two edits are typical.

I also feel it necessary to raise concerns about Mark's general editing. I have interacted with him at Kevin-Prince Boateng and my feelings about that particular meeting are no secret. Full details can be found at the BLP/N discussion linked above. In particular, Mark's repeated infraction of adding original research to articles under the attempted protection of bogus sources (which do not actually support the information added) is an unacceptable risk to this project. The fact is that we simply do not even know the extent of damage - we have no idea just how much false information has been added to this encyclopaedia by Mark. I don't want to be seen as running from my house with a torch and pitchfork, but at this point I honestly believe the only option this community has is to apply an indefinite block per WP:CIR and WP:IDHT. A topic ban won't work; this isn't the only area in which Mark has acted this way. This is just the way he edits, and this is just the latest target. Wherever he edits, we will have these same problems. There is simply no way that the contributions of this editor are anything but a net negative. If anyone thinks, without reading into his contribs extensively, that this is excessive, I will happily provide a detailed summary of what happened at the Boateng article as an example. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I support a Ghana related topic ban as there are clear issues with the users contributions, but at this time to request a site ban I think more diffs are required - I support a topic ban from anything related Ghana till he can show he can be more constructive in that area and I feel that will sufficiently protect the project at this time - see the blpn report and discussion for more details -

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nana_Akufo-Addo - Youreallycan 19:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

This is a proposal that User:MarkMysoe be banned from editing articles related to Ghana, broadly construed.

• Support as nominator per discussion above. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per all the diifs that there is a serious issue here with the users contributions to the sector - Youreallycan 19:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I regard this as the minimal preliminary measure in order to contain the problem. Any further sanctions will have to depend on the users response to this thread. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support in view of the damage already done, as discussed above. Mathsci (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• comment I see no evidence (maybe I'm missing it) that anyone has tried to get this editor to see the light.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  20:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Several diffs [76][77] [78] [79] [80] to users contacting MarkMysoe on his talkpage have been provided by Basalisk, they have been removed by MarkMysoe. In anycase the topic ban is necessary simply to contain the mess (the alternative is a block) before any attempts to get him to see light can begin.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Also it has been at ANI before Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive770#POV_editing_re_Akanland_.2F_Ghana_by_User:MarkMysoe.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of my blatant frustration with this user comes from previous interactions, and that's why my response probably seems over the top. However, this would be one example of the many times I've confronted him about his editing style. This was months ago, and yet here he is again still using false references. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, would endorse site-wide ban as the editor adds diffamatory, racially-aggravated nonsense to BLPs [81], in particular check the cats added at end, consistently lies in edit summaries, typo typo and cleanup, where he does nothing but remove anything that would be in Rawling's favour and slants everything to Togolese mercenaries/massacred Akans, and causes huge cleanup headaches for GF editors whilst IGNORING ALL RULES! The edit summary says it all. Wikipedia:CIR, Wikipedia:IDHT and Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND all come to mind, as does the fact that this is not saying that Lady Gaga has more hits than Justin Bieber on You Tube, this is serious shit concerning BLPs and ethnicities and peoples' identities. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. He often uses a string of edits marked as minor, with misleading edit summaries, to effect a larger overall change. It is all these practices together - mislabeled edits, strings of small edits in place of single large ones, bogus references - which make his editing almost impossible to monitor. He can essentially do what he likes and it's very difficult for anyone to check it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Akanland is a historic country of the Akan people, the Akan people ethnic nationalis agreed to a state treaty with the British, for the Akan people historic country Akanland (see here) to be part of colony and it was named Gold Coast. In 1957, a state union was agreed by the Akan people and Akanland government agreed with and lead by Akan politician Kwame Nkrumah to join their historic country Akanland (now divided as Ashanti, Brong-Ahafo, Central Region, Eastern Region and Western Region) as a state union with the Mossi people historic country known as the Kingdom of Mossi then named to Northern Territories (now named and divided to Northern Region, Upper West Region and Upper East Region) within Ghana (see here) and the Ewe people historic country Togoland then named British Togoland and French Togoland (now known as Togo and Volta Region) within Ghana (see here, here, here and here). These three countries governments (Akanland, Kingdom of Mossi, and Togoland) agreed to a state union in 1957 to create Ghana, and they decided to it after the ancient empire called Ghana Empire. The "Ghana" state union is a example of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, Montenegro decided to break their state union with Serbia in 2006 with a independence referendum and the country Serbia and Montenegro is now the countries Serbia and Montenegro.

A further look into the history of the lands and territories that created Ghana by a state union in 1957, before deleting Akan people and their land (Akanland) historic information and really informative information + a hard work of a small Wikiproject Akan, that a person has tried their best to do over four months. What good is Wikipedia if someone has taken a lot of their time and hardwork on a ethnic group and their historic Akan land and historic country (Akanland), Akan culture and Akan WikiProject, that nobody had even bothered to try and do. I have lost my passion for Wikipedia about now. I may just retire myself from Wikipedia since, a large, hardworked and wrightful information about the Akan people lands and Akan territory (Akanland), their Akan economy from their lands and territory (Akanland), their Akan culture and Akan society, Akan biodiversity has all been removed, and even their Akan WikiProject. What good is Wikipedia if somebody wants to find information about the Akan people and their land and historic country (Akanland), where the Akan people lived and currently live (Akanland), the history of the Akan lands (Akanland), their unique and independent Akan educational structure, the Akan people governance and Akan political structure, the Akan people and Akan lands (Akanland) sports history (Akan football history), the Akan people health status and independent Akan people health care, and the Akan people society and culture and social life, has all been removed. A large scope of Akan people history, Akan geography and Akan biodiversity of their land (Akanland), Akan demographics, Akan people health status, Akan peole life expectancy and Akan people health care structure, the Akan people independent educational structure, the Akan people and their land (Akanland) independent economical history, the Akan people land (Akanland) and their historic country (Akanland) infrastructure and transportation systems, the Akan peoples gold, Akan cocoa, Akan natural minerals, and Akan fossil fuels all from their Akan land (Akanland) and historic country (Akanland), the Akan people governance and Akan people political structure of the Akan people and their Akan land (Akanland) and historic country (Akanland), and the Akan people identity and historical anthem music, to just be removed and suppressed from being freely viewed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to be for freedom of information and where everybody can go to for as much helpful information of topics and subjects. It now looks like in the year 2013 (21st century) this is no longer the case. MarkMysoe (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If this is the way in which you want to respond to these very serious and well substantiated accusations then I will support a full site ban. Evidence has been provided that you have either misunderstood or willfully broken most of wikipedia's basic policies, and here you are suggesting that you have done nothing wrong. That does not suggest to me that wikipedia is well served by allowing you to continue editing Ghana related or any other topics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, should the indef block be lifted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, broadly construed - I have had a number of issues with some of this editor's Ghana-related edits, but he is normally a decent editor. I'll look into the indef in a little while. GiantSnowman 14:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

MarkMysoe blocked indefinitely

Okay, I've just twice reverted a close tag here -- indef block ≠ topic ban. Please let the topic ban discussion come to consensus. NE Ent 22:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy to have this reopened - regards - Youreallycan 22:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block in view of the tl;dr screed added above and on WP:BLPN. Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Re-open the discussion if you wish, but I have indef-blocked MarkMysoe, because I think the evidence of WP:tendentious editing presented above and at BLP/N makes it clear that he is here to promote his cause, not to improve the encyclopedia. Anyone may unblock who believes Mark has given credible assurances that his conduct will not be continued, but I think that is unlikely. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• support indef/community ban·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• support indef - yes as per my investigations and the users current responds - Youreallycan 22:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef site ban to be lifted at the earliest at 1 year out. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If I could clarify my comments, I support an indefinite site ban (no editing at all, or if any is to be allowed no article edits at all/only talkpages) to go for no less than one year, and only after that would the editor be able to apply for an unblock under the standard unblock template. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support full indef and topic ban to be maintained regardless of any unblock also indef, only to be lifted by the community, not automatically expiring. It's blantantly obvious this editor is not here to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef site ban  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban based on this episode and my previous experience with the user. Wreaks absolute havoc and we don't have time to babysit people. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 04:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block/ban - firstly, why are some people supporting an indef block and others a site ban? Quite a difference, especially as the latter should be discussed at WP:AN. Secondly, I don't think we should indef an editor when a topic ban has the potential to sort this out with less drama, and without us losing an editor who has done some good work. Should the topic ban not work, then we should consider an indef block. GiantSnowman 14:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The indef block is already enacted. What we are doing is turning it into a community ban that can only be lifted by the community and not by a single administrator. A topic ban cannot address the failure of this editor to understand the basics of wikipedia (as evidence by his response as well as his action), and also his problematic editing has not been restricted to a single topic area. I don't see what good work this editor has done, and especially not the kind of good work that would outweigh this particular disaster. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What he said ^^^  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Again - why are some, therefore, supporting the indef block and others a full site ban? Those are two seperate things and should be discussed at AN. I have encountered Mark at a number of footballer articles and his contributions/expansions have been generally good - though I'll acknowledge that he sometimes seems unable to accept consensus, sometimes makes big & bold edits (that are often incorrect) without discussion, and seems to enjoy over-linking. But I'd still prefer us to try a topic ban first. I'd even be willing to mentor Mark if the community/he was open to that. GiantSnowman 17:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be open to a mentoring if Mark makes an unequivocal statement that he realizes his attempt to erase Ghana from the map was completely out of line with basic wikipedia policy, and he promises to help clean up the mess he has made. Otherwise not. At this point he has basically stated that he has done nothing wrong, that he has retired and he was already tired of wikipedia - so i don't think there is much chance of either of those happening.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is this "other good work"? This does not appear to be an editor who is happily editing in line with policy and the five pillars except for one particular blind spot. That is the only case in which a topic ban is appropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll find diffs in a bit, once I remember the articles! GiantSnowman 12:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste my time if I were you. Even if he has done good work he would have to show that he is aware that this is not good work. And basically he doesn't seem too in being retained as an editor.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

After a quick look - [82] and [83] show he is capable of constructive work. The offer of mentoring is there; if the community decides against it then so be it, but I feel we have nothing to lose by giving him one last chance, and the potential to gain. GiantSnowman 13:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No longer Autopatrolled

I thought I should just add a note that in light of their block I have removed their previous autoreviewer/autopatrolled user right, since the community support for the block seems clearly to imply that the user is no longer "trusted not to submit inappropriate material," if ever they do return. I've posted a note here in case there are any objections, although the rights removal strikes me as fairly uncontroversial TBH. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of some trademarks

Further information: [[:../IncidentArchive676#User:Unotretre making continued legal threats via email|../IncidentArchive676 § User:Unotretre making continued legal threats via email]]

The owner of the a trademark is asking (via ticket: 2013010110003674) for the deletion of both his name and trademarks from the following pages:

• Talk:Freeboard (skateboard)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldo_Grippaldi
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unotretre
• User talk:Stalwart111

He claims there's an ongoing defamation or (honestly he seemed to change his mind during email conversation) a trademark violation caused by Wikipedia's editors misjudgement of notability about the trademark. Finally he asks for unblock of user:Unotretre, the removal of a line on freeboard plus a mandatory "presence" of the trademark on Wikipedia (I didn't ask where). I repetitively addressed him to WMF's Designated Agent but there was a quarrel about my supposed (legal) responsibilities. As a steward I'll reject the request concerning unblocking. Other ones don't compete to me so I'll avoid (harsh) comments before re-addressing the user to the Foundation.

--Vituzzu (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is the same editor I reported last night under Quick one above. Turns out, not so quick. User:Unotretre was blocked per NLT and then re-blocked last night for sock-puppetry. He has apparently responded by issuing more legal threats. The company in question is Gravitis and he wants it mentioned on WP, apparently, because a competitor (the inventor of the board in question and a probably-notable company) is mentioned in the article. Stalwart111 14:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a trademark issue here, and in any event being a company owner does not give anyone special status to demand Wikipedia avoid using his company's name, product images, logo, etc. If we allowed companies that kind of control of what gets said about them, there's no way we could maintain encyclopedic coverage. On the other hand, if there are serious content issues about notability, appropriateness of images, sock puppetry, legal threats, COI editing, etc., those can all be addressed in their own right. Also, there is some mixed precedent here to honor the requests of marginally notable people to have their articles deleted should they claim, reasonably or not, that the articles are causing them personal grief. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. This isn't so much about a BLP that an LP wants deleted - more that an editor has done the wrong thing (several times) and comments to admonish him or investigate his actions (the SPI) have included mention of the company he was trying to spam into articles and on behalf of which he has been making legal threats. He now wants all disparaging mentions of his company (made in the "negative" context of his actions) to be removed. He seems to be suggesting that such mentions (in the context of his admonishment in its various forms) should be removed as a trademark violation or as defamatory (though I can't see how bringing your own company into disrepute by breaking rules and being admonished for doing so constitutes defamation on the part of others). He also wants "positive" mention of his company to be added to various articles with equal weight to his more-notable competitors. He also wants his username (blocked per NLT and SOCK) to be unblocked. Stalwart111 22:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Gravitis? Facepalm We've been down this road before... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Is there any reason we don't just refer this to the WMF council and close the thread? Council can determine if there is any substance to any of this (doesn't sound like it to me, but IANAL) and act accordingly. LadyofShalott 01:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

/dev/null?counsel sounds like the right place for these odd antics. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My actions at Robb Alvey

Last night when I was tired I took two administrative actions connected to the Robb Alvey article, an article I am involved. I blocked an editor and semi-protected the article. When I did the actions I was thinking these were actions any admin would do. Looking back this morning I still stand by the block of Robbalveyhater1 but question the protection. I think I should have requested the protection and let someone else decide. So in hindsight I am now requesting others look at the protection and remove, modify or leave it as appropriate. GB fan 13:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I never thought specific admins would be so thoroughly reviled that they would actually have a "hate club". From a strict policy perspective it usually isn't recommended that editors use administrative action on articles in which they are involved with editing, but I think WP:DUCK applies here. Protection ought to be removed after 48 hours or so.--WaltCip (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can fault you for blocking User:Robbalveyhater for straightforward vandalism of Rob Alvey. Even if you're involved, there's nothing wrong with taking an administrative action 100% of admins would take (especially when in concerns attacks against a living person). The protection is also appropriate - indeed, looking more closely, the biography has been a persistent target for vandalism despite being of a comparatively unknown person. Long-term semi-protection or pending changes appears to be called for. WilyD 15:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That's really admirable that you came here and started this discussion, GB fan. I think you did fine, but thank you for asking for other eyes on it. delldot ∇. 16:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree -- these actions appear to have been entirely appropriate to prevent continued vandalism. --Orlady (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I see three poor choices here: GBfan ideally should not have taken admin action: "it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator ". Secondly, as soon as the first post was made the account name should have been reported to WP:UAA as the name is clearly in violation of username policy. Finally there's no need to be ratting oneself out here at ANI -- I don't think anyone would have noticed or been particularly concerned about the action. NE Ent 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment GB better stay away from the Vikings article this week. Jes saying.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

GB Fan keeps restoring a false section of information in the article. The parts regarding his "involvement with activision" are inherently false. He keeps replacing a section filled with citations that mention nothing of the fact. This is vandalism of information in the article. I keep removing the uncited parts and GB Fan keeps replacing them. The articles he uses as "citations" say nothing of the sort regarding Activision. As for the hater person, I am not sure who that is. I am just vouching for the integrity Wikipedia and with these actions, GB Fan has been lacking in just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.102.92 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor has a point about Activision. I have reviewed the two citation for that sentence, and it is not clear that he was particularly involved with that company.[84][85] He might have been involved with them; and then again he might not. I cannot tell from the citations. I have therefore amended the paragraph accordingly.

However, it was perfectly reasonable for GB to have reverted the paragraph deletion,[86] I can see that anyone might have mistaken the edit for vandalism in the circumstances. Particularly as most of the information in the deleted section was backed up by the two citations in question. It is a pity that the explanation given on this talk page by 108.17.102.92 was not given at the time.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone moves LOTS of historical articles without any discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Charles_Essie

I noticed it when he just moved the commonly accepted[87] (461,000 Google hits) 1991 uprisings in Iraq to completely fringe[88] "Iraqi Uprisings of 1991" (and even in these 34 results it was not being capitalized).

So, someone needs to revert it all back, with the use of a bot I guess. --Niemti (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and maybe even better proof:[89] vs [90] --Niemti (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hes/she has done a few moves (all in good faith).... someone should make sure they are ok though... I am not familiar with the topics at hand.Moxy (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I see there were previously several similar complaints before on his talk page (including changing names of the conflicts to invented names, and Random Capitalization), all were apparently ignored and now he started moving articles. Ignored me too, while continuing to edit. It really needs to be stopped. --Niemti (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You didn't bother notifying the user in question about this thread (someone else has now done this for you), and it's not abundantly clear that Google hits are a good guide to this topic. I think the moves were probably unnecessary, but why is this a big deal? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I did "bother"[91] and it is a HUGE deal. I showed you books, didn't I? Wikipedia needs to use the accepted name of the conflicts (this and many others), and not some guy's original reseach creative inventions. --Niemti (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not seeing the notification. Entirely my mistake. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And why is all this damage not repaired (reverted) yet? Also, in this particular case, the ONLY acceptable alternative is a singular "1991 uprising in Iraq", but still with no Random Capitalization no, it also isn't (almost every result is just the title of Endless Torment: The 1991 Uprising in Iraq and Its Aftermath). "Al-Intifada al-Shaabaniya" (as remembered in the name of the Islamic Movement of the 15th of Shaaban now) didn't hold in English translation almost at all - it's only Arabic name; various forms of "revolution in Iraq"/"Iraqi revolution" are also rarely used. Oh, one non-fringe alternative is "(the) March 1991 uprisings" - but I don't think it was really ever needed to redirected anywhere. The other redirects should be also reverted, likely his original research as well (and not discussed with anyone at all). --Niemti (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved it back, but I'll leave any of the content stuff to you, as I know nothing of this topic. I'd recommend starting a discussion on the article talk page about it, so, if he keeps doing this, there's more clear evidence that he's making moves against discussion/consensus as well. (Just say the type of stuff you were just saying above.) If it's a problem in the future, it could help Admin act on it a little more proactively in the future. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Socks

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.

---

My apologies for bothering you with this tediousness, but I grow tired of dealing with it.

Accused by sockpuppet of 3RR: here

Sockmaster and socks identified via checkuser: here

The sockmaster, and one of the socks, were banned/blocked (temporarily) but the others controlled by Meanie appear to be still on the loose.

I have been going through the spew of WP:VANITY articles and PRODing and AfDing. The genesis of this recent B.S. is yet again another dispute, with a sock, about the quality of sources. These same arguments have gone on for weeks on every article that is nuked. All of the prior articles were AfD'd, or PROD'd, by other users because of WP:PAID, WP:VANITY, WP:GNG, etc etc.

Can something be done? PeterWesco (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

On the vein as this - I want to file in the other direction - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shannon_T._Boodram - the aforementioned AFD is bogus. PeterWesco admits bias from the get go, which should disqualify the user from nominating the article. And when provided with a host of sources proceeds to selectively refute them (Ignoring Major Canadian media like MacLeans and CityTV) In short the AFD is abuse of process because the editor in question had a bias, and a conflict of interest and if had an interest in nominating the article for AFD should have requested an admin evaluate the request rather than actually looking into things.

note:User Peter Wesco didn't check the quality of the sources before nominating, selectively did so after nominating. But probably didn't actually look up the Media houses pages on WIKI to learn they're the who's who of media in Canada. Canadaindiefilms (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC) So I'll kindly have both sides of this investigated. Canadaindiefilms (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked the sources, thus that is why I PROD'd. I documented (spoon fed them), as I always do for you, after you questioned me. As usual, you still disputed my dissection to which I decided to not respond anymore. Regardless, this dispute is about the 3RR accusation, the continued used of sockpuppets after your other accounts have been banned, etc. PeterWesco (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Selectively checked - Presumably because The 2 you omitted comment on entirely are major Canadian Media and you cant refute it. That is why I referred you to 3RR - but as I was informed by the editor who closed the 3RR if someone makes a complaint here both sides are investigated. - Which means the legitimacy of the AFD will be considered. - But based on your take we should delete every sex book page on Wikipedia because their articles are mostly from the Lifestyles section - Newsflash - Lifestyles section is where Sex is discussed. Thus the articles would be relevant. Never mind the CBC or TVO they are just non notable nothing media sources and little more than government organs. And who watches Much Music Anyway. Oh WAIT They're Canadian sources. AHH No wonder I've never heard of them. Lets Delete Peter Mansbridge while we're at it. He's only ever been on CBC, definitely not notable. Canadaindiefilms (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ill apologize for being patronizing above - but I'd like you to stand back and ask yourself if you are willing to decimate a legitimate article about a known Canadian TV personality and Author - who media outlets in this country calls on when talking about teen sex - to prove a juvenile point. Ill tell you what - you admit you are in the wrong on the AFD - and Ill NEVER edit wikipedia again. Canadaindiefilms (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Per the SPI report, Canadaindiefilms (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) should be blocked indefinitely and Meanie's 36 hour block extended for evasion through sockpuppetry. Mathsci (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have just done that, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meanie. De728631 (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

TeeTylerToe Block Appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any volunteers to mentor?

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

I am about to given a six month ban...

Wrong venue, this is at AE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From the Israeli-Palestinian topic area for comments I made on this page that were and are 100 percent accurate. On the urging of two admins with no demonstrated expertise or ability in the area. You can read all about it here [92]. The naivete is stunning. What's funnier is I rarely edit such articles, and no edit I have ever made to any of them has been anything but a clear improvement. There's more that could be said, but it's frankly a waste of time (a sockpuppet of "nocal" being allowed to attack my professional abilities in that discussion is just the icing on the cake). It's no particular skin off my nose (especially since I don't care about scarlet letters from the "community") but it's an illustration of a site-wide problem, particularly in this topic area. So it goes. (This quote attributed to Thomas Paine -- but I wouldn't trust that -- just crawled across my twitter feed. Seems appropriate: "He who dares not to offend cannot be honest.")Dan Murphy (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC) This was already mentioned above at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Second opinion needed --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC) The case was mentioned, but only because of a comment someone else made and there was no mention of Dan's comment in that discussion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Editing the Israeli-Palestinian topic area is seldom anything other than a painful experience. While there are probably a few good editors there, it's possibly the most unpleasant part of the project. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Indeed, and there don't seem to be admins capable of solving the problem. Of course, I don't know how the problem should be solved either, but topic-bans for telling the truth won't help. How superficial is their view of civility? I didn't tell a propagandist that he was either ignorant or a liar, I said that the statement that he was either ignorant or a liar was a tautology. Why no topic ban for me too? How is the one more civil than the other? That's how deeply anyone at AE has looked at this.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC) A user calls another an antisemite, without any basis, nothing happens. A user calls somebody a propagandist, and backs it up, 6 month ban. This goes well beyond absurd, but probably around par for the course. nableezy - 17:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I don't really see why we're having a separate discussion here about a discussion that's already been had at length at WP:AE, but I suppose this silliness will continue regardless. Did he only call one person a "propagandist", or did the words "lying", "ignorant", "modern ignoramuses" and "without honor" also put in an appearance? While furthering a dispute that's subject to arbcom discretionary sanctions, and it's this exact behaviour that he's been blocked for before under those sanctions. The absurdity is the ever-so-serious protestations of amazement that he might get sanctioned for doing it yet again! I don't know the details of your comparative example, but if it's as you describe it, I suggest you go file an AE request. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats at Jamaican Republican Party

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.

---

Jamaican Republican Party has just been re-created, with accompanying threats of legal action if it's deleted again. Altered Walter (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to that by two seconds, it should be salted as it is not notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Deleted, salted, user NLT-blocked. He still has talkpage access in case he wants to withdraw his comments. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Potential threat of real-world violence

Thank you, the Foundation is aware and investigating. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The user 71.39.127.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made a statement that could be interpreted as a threat of violence in this edit. Granted, a campaign to "hunt the hunters" could also be interpreted as a campaign to harass, intimidate, or otherwise annoy those whom they feel are responsible for killing wolves. It could also potentially be read as just an IP lashing out in response to their self-proclaimed statements of truth being reverted. I wanted to bring this to the attention of others to see if others view it as a threat of violence, which should then be reported to the Wikimedia Foundation; or if others feel the statement is vague enough in its intent to not require escalation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Generally better safe than sorry. I've reported edits before where I was 95% sure it was just kids messing around. But if that last little bit of uncertainty turned out to be true, and I had not reported it.... Anyway, the reporting email is emergency@wikimedia.org. Once you've reported it, walk away. They'll handle it or not as the Foundation deems appropriate, and you'll likely never know what comes of it. You'll have placed the situation into their hands, and it'll be up to them to handle it. But in general, if you have the slightest concern that the threat may be real, better to report it and let them decide. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Can someone report this for me? It will be a few hours yet until I have access again to my personal email (I could try sending it on my phone, but harder get the links correct when copying them over manually). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Ok. I just sent the email. I really just directed them to this AN/I section, as I don't have the particular details myself, and they appear to be already laid out well enough here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC) (ec) The IP mentioned the "new movement" in the edit to Obama's pesidency. It seems that getting a well known writer to call Obama "Wolf Killer" is a major coup for this group, so I doubt we are talking about violence. However if someone wants to send the email, go ahead. Rich Farmbrough, 18:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

Interaction ban proposal: Ubikwit and Evildoer187

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

---

In the course of my administrator duties I have noticed Ubikwit and Evildoer187 are incapable of interacting with each other in a civil and constructive manner. This unfortunately is ending up being quite disruptive, and the two of them are (inadvertently) wasting the time of other users. Below I summarise the key points.

• Reviwing the mainspace edits of Ubikwit and Evildoer187 reveals the single-purpose nature of their accounts.
• The overall contributions of both accounts (Ubikwit, Evildoer187) shows that a great deal of their edits concern the other user.
• The two of them are incapable of being civil to each other. For instance, I only needed to go one edit back for Ubikwit to find an edit of Ubikwit accusing Evildoer of POV pushing, and similarly to earlier this evening to find a similar case of Evildoer accusing Ubikwit of POV pushing. Other examples include accusations of canvassing.
• The two of them edit war with each other across different articles, frequently stating "see talk" and then arguing with each other on the talk page. Then (sometimes) stop when I warn them not to edit war , although this frequently results in them telling me it's the other one that's edit warring, not them.

There are numerous examples of the two users being unable to interact constructively with each other, but they are too numerous to collate and list here. For those interested, I suggest reading the extensive discussions on my talk page and on the talk page of the users. Personally I think that both of them should just be indefblocked as they have their own interests, and not the interests of Wikipedia, behind them, but typically other administrators prefer a more measured approach.

I propose that the two users are hereby banned from interacting with each other as per the terms in the banning policy. Any violation of this will lead to them being blocked for a duration at the discretion of the blocking administrator. Please discuss this below.

Discussion

• Support as proposer, naturally. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Both users notified of this discussion [93] [94]. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• It just so happens that there's now more evidence of the problem I have documented in the section directly below this one. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 04:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support (edit conflict)x2 My principle tells me that a interaction ban will only see both users (or one of them) blocked soon, which is sad. Although, I believe that if Deskana wasn't able to solve this issue (and after watching one of the parties reporting the other one after being noticed of this thread) this is the best method to try out. The links above are proof enough. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support the interactions of this pair of users does not seem to build the pedia. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm not opposed to indef-blocking the editors, but I think an IBAN is worth a try first.
  Other pages worth looking at for more examples of the inability of the two editors to work constructively include List of indigenous peoples and its Talk page and my own Talk page (partially archived at User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 33). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support although I think the problems with both users go beyond their interactions with each other. Mathsci (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. However, I don't know what else to try short of an indefblock. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support An IBAN would be the last option before an indef block for both parties, in my opinion. Their level of mutual hostility is great. The page at List of indigenous peoples was fully protected on 10 December in part due to a dispute between these two. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127#Evildoer187. Since that moment the dispute continues to rage at Talk:List of indigenous peoples, with both parties requesting aid several times at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 28 and complaining about the other. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support-I think this could solve some problems--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I would also support an ARBPIA topicban for both.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  Comment - I can not see supporting an interaction ban unless it is explicitly tied to a discretionary topic ban (broadly construed) for both. I am not for or against either editor but acknowledge their interactions consume enormous resources in efforts to mediate. --My76Strat (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the interaction ban alone is unlikely to be effective without a concurrent topicban.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support 2-way interaction ban and, per Maunus, ARBPIA topic ban. The extensive List of indigenous peoples debate, in which many editors were involved, derailed the actual consideration of the topic of that article towards an extremely tangential issue. I think both editors have the ability to add good content but their current interaction is unproductive. I would hope that this is not a step towards an indef-block for either editor.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It's clear these two editors should stop interacting with each other, but if the goal really is to maximize productivity it would require an IBAN plus an ARBPIA topic ban for both. Because of the SPA nature of both editors, the danger of them brushing up against each other in the ARBPIA area is very high. I'd suggest a year-long two-way interaction ban concurrent with an ARBPIA topic ban for both. Experience with productive editing in other areas is needed. I don't support only a two-way IBAN as one or both editors will end up ARBCOM or AE or some such before long, and possibly several times, consuming those limited resources, before the otherwise inevitable. Zad68 19:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Zad68's proposal; let the below discussion serve as prima facie evidence that these editors simply cannot edit in a constructive fashion with each other.--WaltCip (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - think topic ban good idea as well. As seen below the relationship between these 2 is not salvageable. Can also see below how any criticism of there behavior or critique of there interpretation of references leads to name calling and labeling.Moxy (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic bans. Waste of time for everybody else. Every time Deskana or somebody else warns them about their interaction on one article, they pick right back up on another. The latest is Colonialism. Until both can learn to edit constructively by adhering to our content policies, the rest of us shouldnt have to spend the time dealing with this noise. nableezy - 18:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Ubikwit and Evildoer187

Uninvolved administrators considering the merits of this case should consult the corresponding content dispute resolution request and other information presented in the case below, which I had been preparing before deskana filed this case against me. In fact, deskana filed this case against me in relation to discussions on Malik's Talk page, as per this diff, in relation to editing at Colonialism I have provided the wikilink to the relevant section in the WP:TPG filing.

In addition to the above, as I have taken several measures aimed at remedying the situation, you should consider the following arbitration case I filed against deskana with respect to an SPI case reference in the following ArbCom case (withdrawn)[95]. It is not at all the case that I haven't made an effort to be constructive in dealing with the conduct of Evildoer. In the SPI case, for example, I presented the following diffs in which he accused me of "spreading crass anitsemitic conspiracy theories", against which he received not even warnings from administrators.: [96], [97], [98], [99]

In addition, another demonstration that I have been constructively engaged in "building the pedia" even on articles n which Evildoer187 is also active is demonstrated by the consensus building in relation to an edit on the Settler colonialism article in which the reliability of a source was called into question Talk:Settler_colonialism#Removal_of_official_UN_source.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "single-purpose account" I should point out that though deskana has again accused me of being a single-purpose account, My current focus is in fact Japanese history and religions, and I've found my way onto these pages because of what I have encountered first on pages dealing with Japan-related issues. The fact that there is a common thread running through some of the articles—false assertions/claims of descent from Ten Lost Tribes--does not make me a single-purpose account, and I have already made that clear in no uncertain terms. One need only look at the early edits I made after registering an account. Emperor Komei [100] [101] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hata_clan&diff=prev&oldid=456842213 [102] [103]

I have already indicated to deskana that I am a graduate of a top tier university with a degree in interdisciplinary social sciences and work as a professional translator dealing primarily with documents in the IP field. None of the articles on which I have been working fall outside the purview of my professional competence. I would suggest referring to my interactions at Talk:Jerusalem, where the editors have a generally higher level of sophistication with respect to the social sciences.

I have opened a content dispute resolution request for one article and made use of the procedural dispute resolution mechanisms in an effort to resolve related content disputes for related articles in accordance with relevant policies. --Ubikwit (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: AE case against Evildoer187

Note that in the above-mentioned administrative case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127#Evildoer187), which was presided over by EdJohnston, Evildoer187 repeats the accusation of spreading antisemetic conspiracy theories, and EdJonston doesn't even make a comment regarding that personal attack. In retrospect (now that I have studied WP:NPA), that would seem to represent an oversight on EdJohnston's part as an administrator adjudicating a conduct related case.

Let me rephrase that, EdJohnston was adjudicating the above-mentioned case when Evildoer187 leveled a personal against me in the course of the case, and EdJohnston didn't redress Evildoer187 for making that personal attack.

That may have contributed to the creation of an environment in which Evildoer187 thought it was permissible to carry out personal attacks with abandon (at least without sanction). EdJohnston didn't even mention WP:NPA to Evildoer187, simply closing that case by providing ARBPIA sanctions notices.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@Shrike Please elaborate what you mean by "problems"? I will have to point out here that you and I have also had content related disputes, but have been able to work them out in a manner that has not been the case with Evildoer. In fact, just today, I agreed, per your request, to wait until a discussion at Talk:Settler_colonialism#Removal_of_official_UN_source was archived before carrying out an edit related to the restoration of material which you deleted and which you now are in consensus was from a reliable source after I obtained a third opinion through the RSN. I gather that your intent is not to circumvent that edit by having me blocked from editing that article, correct? Therefore, I'd be interested in hearing about the "problems" to which you are referring.

Here are relevant diffs to the discussion. reply on the RSN page [104]

That article is also an article on which Evildoer187 has been editing in a somewhat disruptive manner, posting a list of sources with attributing content in manner such as to render that section not in compliance with WP:NPOV with respect to

representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources

--Ubikwit (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz on "antisemite" personal attacks, and relevant interactions with Evildoer187 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Baseball_Bugs strong comment from Malik on “anti-Semite” personal attacks

User_talk:Malik_Shabazz/Archive_33#We_could_use_some_help Evildoer187 accuses me of having “repeatedly indulged in classic Protocols style antisemitic conspiracy theories”

User_talk:Malik_Shabazz/Archive_33#On_second_thought Malik warning about accusing me of “approving of the Protocols—that is, of being anti-Semites”

In light of the foregoing, I find Malik's hostile disposition toward me here to be somewhat incongruent, perhaps even biased. --Ubikwit (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the entire text of one message left by Evildoer187 on Malik Shabazz's Talk page should be displayed here, with emphasis (mine).

I don't believe that my opinion is absolute. Rather, I hate racism, especially antisemitism, and I would go to the ends of the Earth to protect the rights and dignity of my people. Anyway, the reason I linked you to this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples) is because there is a clearly malicious user in there who is determined to get Palestinians included on the list and Jews excluded. He has repeatedly indulged in classic Protocols style antisemitic conspiracy theories, and even went as far as to call me a Mossad agent. In short, people like him are the reason I joined Wikipedia, to stand steadfastly in the way of their attempts to manipulate it in their favor. I have tried everything to get him to stop, but no matter what I do, he just keeps going. I just don't know what to do.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two clear personal attacks in that message, and I leave it to you to assess whether Malik's response as an administrator was sufficiently stern (Malik never addresses the "malicious" remark and doesn't even criticize the "antisemite" attack Evildoer187 calls Nableezy and anti-Zionist, four days later).--Ubikwit (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

deskana on WP:Canvassing

Maybe I still don't have a good grasp of the above-mentioned policy, but deskana deleted the following discussion from his Talk page earlier today, with the edit summary, "Nobody gets to argue on my talk page". In the discussion, Moxy appears to be lobbying deskana for sanctions against me for warning an editor against hacking the archive periods of the Talk pages for the List article and the Jerusalem article.

Moxy Canvassing deskana?

Neither Moxy nor Tritomex has responded to the content dispute resolution request, which I should perhaps have filed here with respect to their conduct in the first place.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that furthermore, as someone that is likely at least ten years older than deskana and Malik, and as I've mentioned before, educated and a responsible adult with a family, I find the following patronizing comment to be unwarranted--insofar as it is directed toward me--and insulting

They just like reverting each other and accusing each other of things. I'd personally prefer to just block them both, but an interaction ban would be a first step more people would be happy with I suppose. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that some Wikipedia administrators have issues dealing with their responsibilities in a responsible manner.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you really just imply that I'm uneducated and irresponsible? You're doing a very good job of badly representing your position here by making it personal. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Where did I imply that you were uneducated? To the other charge, one could reply that it was you made it personal by making an attack on my character or mental health, which is equivalent to a personal attack according to policy. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify that by asking if you really think I enjoy arguing with the self-proclaimed Zionist zealot Evildoer187 who is here on Wikipedia to carry out a personal crusade against phantom Anti-Semites?--Ubikwit (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the IBAN initiative. I am tired of arguing with this guy.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As I was mentioned here by Ubikwit without being notified I believe I have to address this subject. I have a problem with Ubikwit comments which relates to an entire ethnic group, namely Jews as engaged in continues attempt to " physically disposes through illegal occupation by settlers actual holders of the rights to lands in question" 1.[105]

Ubikwit commented "This is not a place for religious references. The Torah is irrelevant, as are all other religious sources. The term Palestine dates to the 5th century BC according to the Wikipedia article Palestinian people. Harry Truman was a Christian biblical literalist who also happened to be a Freemason and close acquaintance of Zionist activist Chaim Weizman, which many associate with the Knight Templar, who rose to prominence through the Crusades to the so-called Holy Land. The Crusaders thought that they had a claim to "land rights", based on religion--Christianity. Your assertions are all either misdirected and irrelevant, or simply incorrect. The questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question. This kind of stereotypes where an entire nation (in this subject Jews) are described with such pejoratives are unacceptable by Wikipedia guidelines.--Tritomex (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I have nothing personal against Tritomex, and would imagine that he is an accomplished geneticist, he would appear to be motivated by emotional proclivities associated with his religious affiliation, calling into question his competence to be working on articles in the socio-political sphere where issues even tangentially connected to that affiliation are at stake.

The context of the above-quoted passage can be found here Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#Israelis_and_Palestinian. I basically draw an analogy between the Crusades and modern settler colonialism in Palestine in conjunction with a second analogy between the Knights Templar and the Freemasons, of which Harry Truman was one of the most prominent in the USA in the 20th century. Chaim Weizmann was one of the individuals involved with drafting the Balfour declaration, and is reported to have been a key figure in influencing Truman to recognize a "Jewish state" of Israel over and against the recommendations of his Secretary of State, George Marshall. It is one of the most scandalous affairs in the diplomatic history of the USA in the 20th century.

I provided some relevant references relating to those analogies in a subsequent section

For the record, here are three relevant references to Harry Truman, Chaim Weizmann and the Balfour declaration:

• A Peace to End All Peace, 20th Anniversary Edition: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin
• Counsel to the President by Richard Holbrooke
• Friends in High Places: The Rise and Fall of Clark Clifford by Douglas Frantz and Daivd McKean

The last two books on the list are about Clark Clifford, Trumans counsel. The wikipeedia page on him contains the following quote:

In his role as presidential advisor, perhaps his most significant contribution was his successful advocacy, along with David Niles, of prompt 1948 recognition of the new state of Israel, over the strong objections of Secretary of State, General George Marshall.

Regarding serious scholarship (i.e., RS) on the Templars, there is this book published by Cambridge[106]

Since I am somewhat new here, I see that it was unwise to introduce my personal research in this context, but response was nothing less than reactionary. And the response on the part of the voluntary administrators to that reactionary outburst--including accusations of "spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories"--was totally unacceptable in light of Wikipedia policy.

Tritomex further attacks me for basically representing the position of the UN with respect to Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. --Ubikwit (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@FiachraByrne and Maunus

First of all, there has been no mention of the Indigenous peoples article in this discussion. That discussion involved Maunus and myself, and Crock81, who was apparently working in tangent with Evildoer187 on the List page in a manner such as to undermine the RfC consensus-based definition in vigor for the articles, despite the disparity indicated by the italicized blurb preceding the lead of the Indigenous peoples article. Maunus at first didn't even appreciate the gravity of the situation until I cued him into a diatribe Crock81 had posted on an administrators Talk page User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_28#I_have_a_concern. The following is the final sentence from Maunus' comment.

Crock81 is clearly trying to make the topic wide enough for him to shoehorn in Israelis as a part of it in spite of the fact that this is completely unheard of in the literature. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's get our facts straight, shall we? No offence intended.

Please refer to the following Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ubikwit.

Maunus had initiated an RfC on the List page to prevent discussion of the Palestinian issue as too politicized and controversial; however, there are current UN publications addressing the matter, and in light of the current geopolitical tensions surrounding the settler colonization of the so-called "E-1 Zone" by Israel, that situation is likely to have an increasingly high profile seeing the issuance of further official publications from the UN. So Wikipedia wants to shy away from it because it's politicized and controversial? Perhaps Maunus took offence at my initiating an RfC aimed at having the Palestinians included on the basis of at least tacit recognition vis-a-vis official UN publications.

I'm not sure about Maunus' rationale for advocating an "ARBPIA topic ban", but perhaps he'd care to venture an elaboration, so that I might have a chance to refute it.

While it is clear that you are all busy--as am I--and as I don't want to consume all of Wikipedia's mediation resources, I'll refrain myself from further response for the moment. --Ubikwit (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I corrected my Support statement above so that it now refers to the page Talk:List of indigenous peoples rather than the article Indigenous peoples.

In regard to the RFC/U which Evildoer initiated against you,[107] my statement there was highly coloured by Crock81's arguments at Talk:List of indigenous peoples which I regarded as specious in seeking to redefine subject of that list. I thought your subsequent attempt to have the Palestinian population considered an indigenous people on the basis of "tacit UN recognition" was misconceived. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not insult me in this thread by calling me things like "Zionist zealot". Thank you.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No offence intended, but I think that is fairly close to how you have presented yourself here at times.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And you have presented yourself as an anti-Zionist zealot. Probably not too far off the mark.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not support the topic ban. I feel that I am more than capable of working with other editors, provided that they are reasonable, on these topics. Moreover, my principle interest lies in topics pertaining to Jews, Israel, and the Middle East. I think once this separation is in place and everything has calmed down, I will be able to work rationally.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• You asked for my rationale for suggesting a topicban, and here it is: You are both clearly editors pursuing a biased agenda in relation to Israel/Palestine, and you are both clearly doing it in a way that is disruptive and litigious, and which drains resources from the community. It will be easier to achieve a neutral coverage of articles related to Israel and Palestine if both of you are not participating. Wikipedia needs editors who are primarily interested in building an encyclopedia, not editors who are primarily interested in advocating particular viewpoints or in righting great wrongs. The good thing about a topic ban is that it gives you a chance to show whether you are here for improving an encyclopedia, or whether you are here for political advocacy. If it is the former you can simply proceed to improve the many other parts of wikipedia that are not related to Israel or Palestine. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, thank for your reply.

I think that I've shown that I can edit productively on several pages, all of which are somewhat difficult because they relate to religion and politics. I collaborated with a couple of other experienced editors in straightening out the lead of the British Israelism article, for example, also brushing up against advocates. After that I read a book encountered as a source on the BI article to follow through with expanding the lead on the Lost Ten Tribes article, as well as the Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory article. I have approached that editing in a methodical, scholarly manner. And I have several other history books lined up in relation to the BI article.

Regarding the I/P conflict, what specifically is "biased" in my view? As I've said before here, there is an important distinction to be made between having a rational POV that is supported by RS and pushing an irrational agenda that is not supported by RS.

I've been working fairly hard on the lead to the Jerusalem article, in the preliminary discussions toward a binding RfC. The editors there generally have a higher degree of sophistication in academic disciplines of history, political science, etc., and the discussion are less acrimonious, though not exactly harmonic.

The Jerusalem issues fall squarely within the socio-political, so geneticists like Tritomex and Moxy are less active in advocating on that article talk page. Moxy accuses me of disagreeing with his interpretation of the sources on the List page while he has consistently been evasive in even offering an interpretation or address the facts presented in RS. I find his appearance on the comment list above while neglecting to respond to the content dispute I filed several days ago to be indicative of a bit of gamesmanship related to gaming the system.

My personal views on the I/P conflict are in accord with the majority POV of the international community, and I have supported that view with RS, some official publications of the UN or hosted on the UN website. In fact, Dailycare also presented UN sources on the List page by in response to the RfC, and those RS were not addressed in terms of the facts presented (being discounted arbitrarily for publication date, etc.). moreover, an official UN source was deleted by Shrike diif on the Settler colonialism article as per discussion under the following section of the Talk page Talk:Settler_colonialism#Removal_of_official_UN_source.

Editors like Evildoer187 and Shrike are not only attacking my, but the majority POV of the international community and the UN. And that is precisely what is at stake on the Jerusalem article, which is why I have been focusing on that. If they succeed in deprecating the the majority POV of the international community and the UN, then Wikipedia serves as no more than organ advocating their minority POV.

In discussions where religion is at issue, attacks on reason are fairly common, because the adherents of a religion want to believe in its teachings, not question them. The converse has also been demonstrated to be true here. That is to say, when an RS representing the majority POV of the international community and UN challenges the minority POV held by the group of pro-Israel partisans (whom I assume are co-religionists), they refuse to address the facts presented in the sources, or they attempt to deprecate the sources. In other words, they react in an irrational manner. Evildoer187 just happens to be the most extroverted activist among that group of partisan editors, who could be referred to as an affinity group in sociological terms.

The time I've spent here has seen a lack of administrator oversight in pointing out conduct issues (WP:NPA) in response to irrational and reactionary behavior on the part of one of that affinity group of co-religionists in the form of accusing other editors of being Anti-Semitic.

Had EdJohnston redressed Evildoer187 during the initial AE, then we might not be here on this page today. Malik Shabazz also missed opportunities to correct that behavior, basically giving him further license to violate WP:NPA at will, inadvertently adding a degree of support to his attempts to push edits without presented sources to support them because his irrational Anti-Semite labeling behavior was not being checked by more than one administrator. --Ubikwit (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on distorting what actually took place. I'd go more in depth, but I am not interested in starting yet another long and protracted battle with you.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposal to ban User:Craddock1 from further comment on the Amirite AfD

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.

---

Craddock1 (talk · contribs) created the Amirite article on December 7th. Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) nominated it for deletion on the 28th. Since then, Craddock1 has edited the AfD page 73 times. This has included numerous attempts to discredit those who've !voted to delete (e.g. here), and the AfD has now basically devolved into an illegible mess of poorly-formatted text, more of it off-topic than on-. I removed some of the nastiness about other editors, only for Craddock to re-add them with another criticism in his edit summary; even after he failed to respond to my request that he explain himself, I was prepared to let all this slide, until I saw that he'd removed another user's comments himself, citing a reason that applies much more to his own points than to PeterWesco (talk · contribs)'s. Anyways, Craddock has clearly had a chance to make his case - indeed, he's made it many times over; combining the lack of a need for future comment with his history of disruptive editing on this page, I propose that he be topic-banned from further comment. Additionally, if the AfD is closed as "keep" or "no consensus", I propose that the ban be extended to any future AfDs on Amirite. It's worth noting that there are two SPIs pending against him (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craddock1 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meanie), and that he's received a level-4 warning for removing comments, and it's quite possible that either of those might get him blocked before this proposal runs its course; however, I don't think the possibility of alternate sanctions should stop us from implementing the one I propose here, and I also note that both SPIs are in states of disrepair.

Incidentally, I consider myself wholly neutral in this case: My only involvement has been from a procedural perspective, and the AfD is such a mess that I haven't even formed an opinion yet on whether or not I support deletion. Perennial AN/I watchers may also recall that I have a well-documented history with one of the users whom Craddock has extensively criticized, so I think it should be fairly clear that my personal views do not come into play in this proposal. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I started off initially as a keep (based primarily on AfC creation), but on looking at the article further, concluded that the subject was not notable and changed to delete. From the very beginning, I also noted that Craddock1 went after the nominator and others who opposed retention of the article. This is classic WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior, and that, together with the existing SPIs, warrant an article (well, AfD ban for this article) ban. His position is clear, and it is hard to follow the legitimate arguments for or against deletion. GregJackP Boomer! 05:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, endorse block based on this comment "Firstly I don't think a 16 year old, depressed (as mentioned in their Bio) child should be deciding my fate." from Craddock1's statement above is exactly the type of conduct that is unacceptable, and has filled the AfD discussion instead of dealing with the merits of the matter. GregJackP Boomer! 06:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - At this point, it is probably wise to ban him as he has run out of arguments and has gone into discredit/personal attacks mode. He has had many chances to defend his statements, the sources, and he continues to go into circles. I believe Craddock to NOT be Meanie but somehow associated in WP:SPIP, WP:PAID, etc. This is a topic for the SPI, but I just wanted to make clear that I do not believe Meanie and Craddock to be the same person. PeterWesco (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban and propose an immediate block - based solely on the rants posted below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And we can add attempted outing to the reasons for an immediate block (this will need a revdel) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it was not outing, as A.Wiggin13 had 2 userboxes which linked to sites disclosing personal details, including his age. They have been rev-delled by Avraham at my request. Mathsci (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban and Endorse block — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and one month block while the editor grows some manners indef block. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm just gonna hat this. Everyone reading through this mess has enough poorly-formatted, irrelevant, uncivil text to read through. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, Firstly I don't think a 16 year old, depressed (as mentioned in their Bio) child should be deciding my fate. I thought I read somewhere that this was only for 18 years and above. I would like to apologize if my behavior has been out of bounds at times. As you all know I am new to Wikipedia and so didn't fully know the rules. I have spent a good deal of time reading them now and understand them fully. I promise I won't do anything against the rules again. I do of course understand if it is too late for me to show you that I am sorry. I didn't see any level 4 warning but if I had I would have responded. I propose that if I do one more thing wrong then you can block me. I don't see anything wrong in making 74 edits since firstly I created the article and have only edited to make the article better and have spent at least 12 hours editing the aritcle. Some articles have edits thousands of times. The comment I made about PeterWesco (who will no doubt vote in support of this) was because the fact that he was banned will highlight his behavior and why he is acting the way he is. The fact that I am new and don't know how to format properly isn't really a valid reason for me to be blocked. I have explained the James account but no-one seems to read what I write. Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Craddock1 06:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Furthermore I am still researching high level resources for the Article and so this banning is a blatent attempt to get the article removed because these users have probably also been banned form the site and so have a 'grudge' against the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Craddock1, that was borderline on a personal attack. Please read This Thanks! A Wiggin13 (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems coincidental how you are French too and share the same sexuality as Francophone and also under 16 Hidden by A_Wiggin13 - I would like to speak to someone over the phone who is over 21 and not involved in this case - I will also be reporting this conflict of interest to the governance committee Craddock1 06:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

(edit conflict) I don't decide your fate. The community decides your fate. I think that's a much more reasonable restriction than any one based on age or mental health. As for blocking you "if [you] do one more thing wrong", that's the type of overreaction that I've proposed this to avoid: To be clear, if this proposal is accepted, you will not be blocked; you will simply be ordered to not comment on this AfD, nor any future one on this article, though any violations would be enforced by block. See also WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Furthermore, a topic ban is no guarantee that your article will be deleted - as I noted, I'm indifferent, and you've already made your point as thoroughly as you ever could. In fact, the easiest way for you to avoid this sanction would be for you to simply agree to not comment any more on the AfD. Anyways, I hope your next comment here will be a bit less ad hominem, especially considering that this is the type of behavior that caused me to propose this. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do NOT place links about my personal areas thank you Craddock1! A Wiggin13 (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Craddoc1 for disruption, trolling, personal attacks, etc. Reading through the above and the AFD, I'm surprised it hadn't been done already. Enough is enough. postdlf (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

For some reason I've been in a very generous mood today, leading me to try to help Craddock get himself unblocked. Discussion to this end is located at User talk:Craddock1#My 2 cents. The wall I've come up against is that to have any realistic chance, he needs to find a mentor. It would, obviously, be quite an undertaking - ranging from interaction policies to content guidelines to minor things like indenting and not putting '''Comment''' before every comment. I'm firmly against applying the OFFER to first offenses, provided the account in question doesn't prove to be a sockpuppet, and I don't think waiting six months would change anything if no one shows him the ropes. Despite all of the policies he violated, even to the point that he became the first editor whom I felt seriously tempted to curse out, I honestly believe that he's editing in good faith. So, would any editor feel willing to agree to mentor him? The first step would be to finish my work of helping him compose a successful unblock request, citing the mentorship agreement as the prime safeguard against recurring trouble.

Also, if no one here is willing to help, could somebody please point me in the best direction to find someone who would be? WP:WER comes to mind, but this is one area in which I'm pretty much clueless. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe people were working on Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user late last year, to get it up to code. Check that out, perhaps? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Franco&Andro, I would take a stab at mentoring him, but I am, too new at this myself and too hotheaded for that line of work. I suggest finding a user who is well noted for diplomacy for this little task. A Wiggin13 (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If no one else can be found, I would be willing to give it a shot...never done it before, but I have an adoption program (located here, if you want to take a gander). I have no experience in anything but general new user adoption, but I would be willing to give it a shot with a user coming off a ban. Let me know. Thanks. Go Phightins! 21:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please, Go Phightins, you're our only hope! I don't think anyone else is going to step up to the plate (and I can't blame them), so I say do all of the necessary reading, and if you're still up to it, tell him you're willing to mentor him, and to endorse unblocking conditional on his strict compliance with rules you set. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

All right, I posted something on his talk page? Does anyone object to me volunteering to do this considering my lack of experience? I read WP:MENTOR and have adopted several users, but am not experienced in this type of mentorship. I'm willing to take it and learn along the way, but if someone else out there (hint hint Ryan Vesey) is interested, I would be more than happy to step back and let them do it. Go Phightins! 03:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

major edit war on Vietnam War

Two users (TheTimesAreAChanging and MiG29VN) are reverting each other multiple times (and have gone long past 3RR)[[108]] in addition TheTimesAreAChanging is rejecting sources as he does not agree with them [[109]], and both seem to be unable to accept a compromise that involves mention all the figures. TheTimesAreAChanging has refused to stop editing, and the actions of MiG29VN indicate (essentially) a SPA and POV pusher (he has also refused to stop reverting [[110]]).Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was careful to avoid violating 3RR.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

3RR is not a right, it's an upper level. You can be blocked for two reverts if you're being contentious. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

User:R.Arden

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

---

The user is edit-warring in Gérard Depardieu. In particular, they made this edit, writing in summary "rv vandalism". I issued them a warning drawing their attention to the fact that it is not vandalism and should not be called such (note that they were reverting edits which were not mine, but the third party, and generally I have no interest in this article, having made two edits - one of which they reverted, and three edits on the talk page). Instead of taking the warning on board, they issued a what they called vandalism and civility warning to me. For the record, this is my first ever warning in English Wikipedia (not speaking of accusations of vandalism). I request someone to look at the issue. The user will be now notified of this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently, in their "warning" to me they accuse me of somenthing I never did. I am pretty sure I never reverted anything in this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, i am not edit-warring, as stated by above user, as i am actively discussing on the talk page and reverting several cases of identified and banned vandalism such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%A9rard_Depardieu&diff=531099940&oldid=531099915 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%A9rard_Depardieu&diff=531098154&oldid=531097916 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%A9rard_Depardieu&diff=531098154&oldid=prev

My post at Ymblanter's talk page was meant as a response to what i perceived as badgering against me due to the fact i reverted an edition he supported, after it was made ignoring the talk page and abruplty changing the content of it in the midst of an ongoing debate.

The mention of vandalism however, was not meant to him but to X ziomal X, with whom i confused him.

-R.Arden (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It doesn't matter who it was directed at, it's not vandalism. I encourage you to read the link before you continue falsely accusing other editors of the same. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Said user just ignored the talk page, removed several references and just claimed as "Edit Summary" "15:57, 3 January 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-10)‎ . . Gérard Depardieu ‎ (nationality =/= citizenship, get over it)". If that is not vandalism, it is close to it, specially in the context where the exact points he changed were being debated on talk page... -R.Arden (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You quite obviously have not read the link provided. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no point in putting any effort into it; he already showed us many a time today that he was not able to read anything besides what he wrote himself… He constantly comes back with the exact same “arguments” and source material that others invalidated before, as if nothing had happened. (212.7.192.145 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC))

That is a remarkably weird accusation, coming from a guy who has not edits whatsoever on the article (and somehow has most of it's editions on a talk page endorsing another's person opinions, and less than 5 editions in anything else). Could it be someone else logged off just to "re-inforce" it's own opinions? -R.Arden (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Urgent admin action required, please!*

The above user being reported is displaying Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND, Wikipedia:IDHT, WP:OWN and POINTy behaviour as well as accusing other users of vandalism,[111] when it most certainly isn't. They have no consenus but repeatedly and bloody-mindedly keep on reverting other users' best attempts to get the article back on track, insisting on inserting the fact that Depardieu is now indeed a "French-born Russian" and changing the IPA pronunciation to Russian. Oh did I forget Wikipedia:Edit warring, as we are now at over a dozen reverts of valid material (all the while calling it vandalism)[112] in a four-hour period. Thanks, I'm informing them of this addendum to the original post, and then I'm off to get the article back to where it was. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not even editing anything other than the talk page anymore, so spare me from your accusations, please. I tried talking on the talk page, i tried to reach a consensus, and all i got were slanders. So i gave up. Simple as that. Next time someone claims Gérard Depardieu was born in Mordor [113][114][115] revert it yourself. I am no longer taking part of this, as clearly i have been ganged up by the hordes of IRC.

IRC, what are you on about? And your so called vandalism reverts just put all the shit back in (IPA, birthplace = Mordor) as well as your Russian nationality stuff, and wiped out all the good changes editors had been trying to make. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just one of them left a reference to Mordor unchanged (due to an edit conflict), and it was quickly followed with a fix to remove said reference. -R.Arden (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, i was not the one responsible for the edit changing the IPA pronunciation to Russian. You may want to actually read the page history before acusing me of that. Also, talk to user:Yulia Romero, as it was her contribution to the article.

The IPA pronunciation to Russian was done by me yes. But a later realized it was a mistake since other "immigrants to Russia" do not have IPA pronunciation to Russian in there Wiki articles (I had expected that they did). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than that, i am out. I am done with this uncivil atmosphere.

-R.Arden (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid we need to add AGF to this list of abbreviations [116] (as I already advised them on my talk page). For the record, I am not on IRC and have never been.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, further ignore this reference too: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/world/europe/putin-makes-gerard-depardieu-a-citizen-of-russia.html?hp&_r=1& -R.Arden (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This thread is not about content dispute, please do not take it here. It is about your behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My behaviour was caused by the content dispute, specially by some considering that i was not reverting vandalism (in the form of removal of correct content and sources), when in fact, i actually was correct, as demonstrated by the article above. That does matters a lot, at least when it comes to enciclopedic content, and not ego disputes or nationalistic claims. -R.Arden (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid you have not learned anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the lesson you are trying to teach me is one i learnt long ago, but that i refuse to abide by. I rather live, BE BOLD and be banned when it annoys someone than just be a meek editor with a lot of personal lobbying with other editors. If getting "uncivil warnings" and perhaps even blockade is the price for it, it is a price i pay gladly in exchange not be forced into some extreme conservativism (in the behavioural sense - not political) when writing and to the ever-lasting inter-user personal lobbying. I revert vandalism when i see vandalism. I correct wrong information when i see wrong information. And i add information when i have new sources to back it. Be bold and disliked or be meek and popular. My choice is for the first. -R.Arden (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• The user was blocked by Bwilkins, see below, so that this thread can be closed for the time being.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Captain_Screebo

After disagreeing with said user in an article talk page, and posting a reference that proved his statement wrong, i got my reply erased and the following message [117]:

(cur | prev) 20:50, 3 January 2013‎ Captain Screebo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,587 bytes) (-447)‎ . . (→‎Good now you've locked it down: btw reformatting other people's talk page comments is not on, so why don't you fuck off (from what you're doing, please, to keep it civil)?)

User was repeatedly claiming that i was edit-warring in Gérard Depardieu, yet he is the one who actually tried to recruit an army to "fight off the like-minded souls" in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gérard_Depardieu, in order to force down his opinions on talk page of said article.

Given that clearly uncivil behaviour (telling other editors to "fuck off" from a talk page), and the other notice created against me in this noticeboard, i would like to ask the administrators to keep an eye on this situation.

-R.Arden (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, adding this link [118], where i have been called full of shit, a huckster a sham and a fraud, after pointing out that said user should be working to make the article better and as close to the truth as possible, not just to enforce his opinion over the others. -R.Arden (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you notified the user of this discussion? JohnInDC (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see it there. JohnInDC (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed i have. There are already enough people trying to damage/block me, so i better not grant them a reason myself. -R.Arden (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, guilty on all charges, of trying to deal with a gaming, wikilawyering, IDHT, battleground pest, see above section for reference and diffs, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:R.Arden, are you seriously going to let this t**ll go on, several editors have chimed in, contributed, tried to discusss with x/he but we have "tried to recruit like-minded souls", "edit-warred" and "brought down the hordes on IRC", hmmm, who's the victim here I wonder, oh that was just a stick with aboriginal doodahs on it, (I hope). Sorry, but the tehter's end has been reached for this night, I do doth my cap and bid ye all a merry farewell! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And yet again, i get insulted by Captain Screebo in the Edit Summary [119], now calling me "a complete fucker".

And i would also like to point out that many of the "several editors have chimed in contributed, tried to discusss with" are likely to be IP puppets or have NO VALID EDITS AT ALL (being most edits on the SAME TALK PAGE), such as IP 212.7.192.145.

Anyway, after this extra insult on this noticeboard, i would like to ask special attention to this matter.

--R.Arden (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to know why this user's completely unacceptable behaviour, edit warring, accusing others of vandalism etc. referred to above has been completely ignored but now you're worrying about if I have been warned of this discussion, I can't even get away from my computer because of this Rearden, x/he should have been blocked hours ago. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And that pretty much summons it: Captain Screebo's crusade to get me blocked for disagreing with him and actually editing the page. --R.Arden (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding another link, of yet another insult by Captain Screebo in Edit Summary [120]:

21:12, 3 January 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-362)‎ . . User talk:Captain Screebo ‎ (→‎Uncivility warning: Yes well now you can fuck off my talk page as well

-R.Arden (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How about you pull back the reigns on what I perceive to be a confrontational/judgmental approach, and Captain Screebo practice a bit more civility? 192.76.82.90 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Both blocked for 31hrs - 1 for outrageous personal attacks (especially in edit-summaries) and the other for overall disruptive editing (EW, BATTLE, etc). No points if you guess who got which one (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Banned user still making edits

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

---

Recently banned user Necroshine95 (along with his sockpuppet Phantomlord95) has returned under a new name, and has once again began making pointless edits, adding sources without attempting to format them and adding sources which are clearly lifted from Wikis. Given the user's past disruptive history, I have a strong feeling his mass-edit sprees will begin again at some point. Best keep an eye on him. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest letting the folks at WP:SPI know.NE Ent 19:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ouch.. all of that looks complicated as hell. Never mind. I'll pass. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

He's blocked. Don't let the SPI form frighten you. It's actually pretty easy to fill out once you click the button.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And it's even easier if you use Twinkle -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Insults by User:Sayerslle

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

---

Sayerslle (talk · contribs) makes personal insults and refuses to discuss the edits on the talk page. Here [121]. Sceadwefax (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I see two editors having a discussion via edit-summary which is wrong, but I see no personal insults (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"before you knee jerk delete O'S" is clearly an abuse. Sceadwefax (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, "knee jerk" means "reflexively" or "without thought", such as "a knee jerk reaction" ... how is that abuse? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sceadwefax is not a native English speaker and does not seem to know the breadth of English language idioms.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

...although he claims on his userpage to be "near-native", and as such, the idioms such a "knee jerk" should be clear. As well, he claims to be a researcher, and thus has the ability and resources to have looked it up (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We might have an issue of WP:BOOMERANG then. I like how this account's first edit was reverting an edit by William M. Connolley.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think we need to do anything at this point besides close this thread. No abusive comment was made, as has been explained. If there is some other problematic behavior, let's take that separately. LadyofShalott 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Interaction ban proposal: Ubikwit and Evildoer187

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

---

In the course of my administrator duties I have noticed Ubikwit and Evildoer187 are incapable of interacting with each other in a civil and constructive manner. This unfortunately is ending up being quite disruptive, and the two of them are (inadvertently) wasting the time of other users. Below I summarise the key points.

• Reviwing the mainspace edits of Ubikwit and Evildoer187 reveals the single-purpose nature of their accounts.
• The overall contributions of both accounts (Ubikwit, Evildoer187) shows that a great deal of their edits concern the other user.
• The two of them are incapable of being civil to each other. For instance, I only needed to go one edit back for Ubikwit to find an edit of Ubikwit accusing Evildoer of POV pushing, and similarly to earlier this evening to find a similar case of Evildoer accusing Ubikwit of POV pushing. Other examples include accusations of canvassing.
• The two of them edit war with each other across different articles, frequently stating "see talk" and then arguing with each other on the talk page. Then (sometimes) stop when I warn them not to edit war , although this frequently results in them telling me it's the other one that's edit warring, not them.

There are numerous examples of the two users being unable to interact constructively with each other, but they are too numerous to collate and list here. For those interested, I suggest reading the extensive discussions on my talk page and on the talk page of the users. Personally I think that both of them should just be indefblocked as they have their own interests, and not the interests of Wikipedia, behind them, but typically other administrators prefer a more measured approach.

I propose that the two users are hereby banned from interacting with each other as per the terms in the banning policy. Any violation of this will lead to them being blocked for a duration at the discretion of the blocking administrator. Please discuss this below.

Discussion

• Support as proposer, naturally. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Both users notified of this discussion [122] [123]. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• It just so happens that there's now more evidence of the problem I have documented in the section directly below this one. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 04:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support (edit conflict)x2 My principle tells me that a interaction ban will only see both users (or one of them) blocked soon, which is sad. Although, I believe that if Deskana wasn't able to solve this issue (and after watching one of the parties reporting the other one after being noticed of this thread) this is the best method to try out. The links above are proof enough. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support the interactions of this pair of users does not seem to build the pedia. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm not opposed to indef-blocking the editors, but I think an IBAN is worth a try first.
  Other pages worth looking at for more examples of the inability of the two editors to work constructively include List of indigenous peoples and its Talk page and my own Talk page (partially archived at User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 33). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support although I think the problems with both users go beyond their interactions with each other. Mathsci (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. However, I don't know what else to try short of an indefblock. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support An IBAN would be the last option before an indef block for both parties, in my opinion. Their level of mutual hostility is great. The page at List of indigenous peoples was fully protected on 10 December in part due to a dispute between these two. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127#Evildoer187. Since that moment the dispute continues to rage at Talk:List of indigenous peoples, with both parties requesting aid several times at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 28 and complaining about the other. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support-I think this could solve some problems--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I would also support an ARBPIA topicban for both.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  Comment - I can not see supporting an interaction ban unless it is explicitly tied to a discretionary topic ban (broadly construed) for both. I am not for or against either editor but acknowledge their interactions consume enormous resources in efforts to mediate. --My76Strat (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the interaction ban alone is unlikely to be effective without a concurrent topicban.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support 2-way interaction ban and, per Maunus, ARBPIA topic ban. The extensive List of indigenous peoples debate, in which many editors were involved, derailed the actual consideration of the topic of that article towards an extremely tangential issue. I think both editors have the ability to add good content but their current interaction is unproductive. I would hope that this is not a step towards an indef-block for either editor.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It's clear these two editors should stop interacting with each other, but if the goal really is to maximize productivity it would require an IBAN plus an ARBPIA topic ban for both. Because of the SPA nature of both editors, the danger of them brushing up against each other in the ARBPIA area is very high. I'd suggest a year-long two-way interaction ban concurrent with an ARBPIA topic ban for both. Experience with productive editing in other areas is needed. I don't support only a two-way IBAN as one or both editors will end up ARBCOM or AE or some such before long, and possibly several times, consuming those limited resources, before the otherwise inevitable. Zad68 19:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Zad68's proposal; let the below discussion serve as prima facie evidence that these editors simply cannot edit in a constructive fashion with each other.--WaltCip (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - think topic ban good idea as well. As seen below the relationship between these 2 is not salvageable. Can also see below how any criticism of there behavior or critique of there interpretation of references leads to name calling and labeling.Moxy (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic bans. Waste of time for everybody else. Every time Deskana or somebody else warns them about their interaction on one article, they pick right back up on another. The latest is Colonialism. Until both can learn to edit constructively by adhering to our content policies, the rest of us shouldnt have to spend the time dealing with this noise. nableezy - 18:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Ubikwit and Evildoer187

Uninvolved administrators considering the merits of this case should consult the corresponding content dispute resolution request and other information presented in the case below, which I had been preparing before deskana filed this case against me. In fact, deskana filed this case against me in relation to discussions on Malik's Talk page, as per this diff, in relation to editing at Colonialism I have provided the wikilink to the relevant section in the WP:TPG filing.

In addition to the above, as I have taken several measures aimed at remedying the situation, you should consider the following arbitration case I filed against deskana with respect to an SPI case reference in the following ArbCom case (withdrawn)[124]. It is not at all the case that I haven't made an effort to be constructive in dealing with the conduct of Evildoer. In the SPI case, for example, I presented the following diffs in which he accused me of "spreading crass anitsemitic conspiracy theories", against which he received not even warnings from administrators.: [125], [126], [127], [128]

In addition, another demonstration that I have been constructively engaged in "building the pedia" even on articles n which Evildoer187 is also active is demonstrated by the consensus building in relation to an edit on the Settler colonialism article in which the reliability of a source was called into question Talk:Settler_colonialism#Removal_of_official_UN_source.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "single-purpose account" I should point out that though deskana has again accused me of being a single-purpose account, My current focus is in fact Japanese history and religions, and I've found my way onto these pages because of what I have encountered first on pages dealing with Japan-related issues. The fact that there is a common thread running through some of the articles—false assertions/claims of descent from Ten Lost Tribes--does not make me a single-purpose account, and I have already made that clear in no uncertain terms. One need only look at the early edits I made after registering an account. Emperor Komei [129] [130] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hata_clan&diff=prev&oldid=456842213 [131] [132]

I have already indicated to deskana that I am a graduate of a top tier university with a degree in interdisciplinary social sciences and work as a professional translator dealing primarily with documents in the IP field. None of the articles on which I have been working fall outside the purview of my professional competence. I would suggest referring to my interactions at Talk:Jerusalem, where the editors have a generally higher level of sophistication with respect to the social sciences.

I have opened a content dispute resolution request for one article and made use of the procedural dispute resolution mechanisms in an effort to resolve related content disputes for related articles in accordance with relevant policies. --Ubikwit (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: AE case against Evildoer187

Note that in the above-mentioned administrative case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127#Evildoer187), which was presided over by EdJohnston, Evildoer187 repeats the accusation of spreading antisemetic conspiracy theories, and EdJonston doesn't even make a comment regarding that personal attack. In retrospect (now that I have studied WP:NPA), that would seem to represent an oversight on EdJohnston's part as an administrator adjudicating a conduct related case.

Let me rephrase that, EdJohnston was adjudicating the above-mentioned case when Evildoer187 leveled a personal against me in the course of the case, and EdJohnston didn't redress Evildoer187 for making that personal attack.

That may have contributed to the creation of an environment in which Evildoer187 thought it was permissible to carry out personal attacks with abandon (at least without sanction). EdJohnston didn't even mention WP:NPA to Evildoer187, simply closing that case by providing ARBPIA sanctions notices.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@Shrike Please elaborate what you mean by "problems"? I will have to point out here that you and I have also had content related disputes, but have been able to work them out in a manner that has not been the case with Evildoer. In fact, just today, I agreed, per your request, to wait until a discussion at Talk:Settler_colonialism#Removal_of_official_UN_source was archived before carrying out an edit related to the restoration of material which you deleted and which you now are in consensus was from a reliable source after I obtained a third opinion through the RSN. I gather that your intent is not to circumvent that edit by having me blocked from editing that article, correct? Therefore, I'd be interested in hearing about the "problems" to which you are referring.

Here are relevant diffs to the discussion. reply on the RSN page [133]

That article is also an article on which Evildoer187 has been editing in a somewhat disruptive manner, posting a list of sources with attributing content in manner such as to render that section not in compliance with WP:NPOV with respect to

representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources

--Ubikwit (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz on "antisemite" personal attacks, and relevant interactions with Evildoer187 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Baseball_Bugs strong comment from Malik on “anti-Semite” personal attacks

User_talk:Malik_Shabazz/Archive_33#We_could_use_some_help Evildoer187 accuses me of having “repeatedly indulged in classic Protocols style antisemitic conspiracy theories”

User_talk:Malik_Shabazz/Archive_33#On_second_thought Malik warning about accusing me of “approving of the Protocols—that is, of being anti-Semites”

In light of the foregoing, I find Malik's hostile disposition toward me here to be somewhat incongruent, perhaps even biased. --Ubikwit (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the entire text of one message left by Evildoer187 on Malik Shabazz's Talk page should be displayed here, with emphasis (mine).

I don't believe that my opinion is absolute. Rather, I hate racism, especially antisemitism, and I would go to the ends of the Earth to protect the rights and dignity of my people. Anyway, the reason I linked you to this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples) is because there is a clearly malicious user in there who is determined to get Palestinians included on the list and Jews excluded. He has repeatedly indulged in classic Protocols style antisemitic conspiracy theories, and even went as far as to call me a Mossad agent. In short, people like him are the reason I joined Wikipedia, to stand steadfastly in the way of their attempts to manipulate it in their favor. I have tried everything to get him to stop, but no matter what I do, he just keeps going. I just don't know what to do.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two clear personal attacks in that message, and I leave it to you to assess whether Malik's response as an administrator was sufficiently stern (Malik never addresses the "malicious" remark and doesn't even criticize the "antisemite" attack Evildoer187 calls Nableezy and anti-Zionist, four days later).--Ubikwit (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

deskana on WP:Canvassing

Maybe I still don't have a good grasp of the above-mentioned policy, but deskana deleted the following discussion from his Talk page earlier today, with the edit summary, "Nobody gets to argue on my talk page". In the discussion, Moxy appears to be lobbying deskana for sanctions against me for warning an editor against hacking the archive periods of the Talk pages for the List article and the Jerusalem article.

Moxy Canvassing deskana?

Neither Moxy nor Tritomex has responded to the content dispute resolution request, which I should perhaps have filed here with respect to their conduct in the first place.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that furthermore, as someone that is likely at least ten years older than deskana and Malik, and as I've mentioned before, educated and a responsible adult with a family, I find the following patronizing comment to be unwarranted--insofar as it is directed toward me--and insulting

They just like reverting each other and accusing each other of things. I'd personally prefer to just block them both, but an interaction ban would be a first step more people would be happy with I suppose. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that some Wikipedia administrators have issues dealing with their responsibilities in a responsible manner.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you really just imply that I'm uneducated and irresponsible? You're doing a very good job of badly representing your position here by making it personal. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Where did I imply that you were uneducated? To the other charge, one could reply that it was you made it personal by making an attack on my character or mental health, which is equivalent to a personal attack according to policy. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify that by asking if you really think I enjoy arguing with the self-proclaimed Zionist zealot Evildoer187 who is here on Wikipedia to carry out a personal crusade against phantom Anti-Semites?--Ubikwit (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the IBAN initiative. I am tired of arguing with this guy.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As I was mentioned here by Ubikwit without being notified I believe I have to address this subject. I have a problem with Ubikwit comments which relates to an entire ethnic group, namely Jews as engaged in continues attempt to " physically disposes through illegal occupation by settlers actual holders of the rights to lands in question" 1.[134]

Ubikwit commented "This is not a place for religious references. The Torah is irrelevant, as are all other religious sources. The term Palestine dates to the 5th century BC according to the Wikipedia article Palestinian people. Harry Truman was a Christian biblical literalist who also happened to be a Freemason and close acquaintance of Zionist activist Chaim Weizman, which many associate with the Knight Templar, who rose to prominence through the Crusades to the so-called Holy Land. The Crusaders thought that they had a claim to "land rights", based on religion--Christianity. Your assertions are all either misdirected and irrelevant, or simply incorrect. The questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question. This kind of stereotypes where an entire nation (in this subject Jews) are described with such pejoratives are unacceptable by Wikipedia guidelines.--Tritomex (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I have nothing personal against Tritomex, and would imagine that he is an accomplished geneticist, he would appear to be motivated by emotional proclivities associated with his religious affiliation, calling into question his competence to be working on articles in the socio-political sphere where issues even tangentially connected to that affiliation are at stake.

The context of the above-quoted passage can be found here Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#Israelis_and_Palestinian. I basically draw an analogy between the Crusades and modern settler colonialism in Palestine in conjunction with a second analogy between the Knights Templar and the Freemasons, of which Harry Truman was one of the most prominent in the USA in the 20th century. Chaim Weizmann was one of the individuals involved with drafting the Balfour declaration, and is reported to have been a key figure in influencing Truman to recognize a "Jewish state" of Israel over and against the recommendations of his Secretary of State, George Marshall. It is one of the most scandalous affairs in the diplomatic history of the USA in the 20th century.

I provided some relevant references relating to those analogies in a subsequent section

For the record, here are three relevant references to Harry Truman, Chaim Weizmann and the Balfour declaration:

• A Peace to End All Peace, 20th Anniversary Edition: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin
• Counsel to the President by Richard Holbrooke
• Friends in High Places: The Rise and Fall of Clark Clifford by Douglas Frantz and Daivd McKean

The last two books on the list are about Clark Clifford, Trumans counsel. The wikipeedia page on him contains the following quote:

In his role as presidential advisor, perhaps his most significant contribution was his successful advocacy, along with David Niles, of prompt 1948 recognition of the new state of Israel, over the strong objections of Secretary of State, General George Marshall.

Regarding serious scholarship (i.e., RS) on the Templars, there is this book published by Cambridge[135]

Since I am somewhat new here, I see that it was unwise to introduce my personal research in this context, but response was nothing less than reactionary. And the response on the part of the voluntary administrators to that reactionary outburst--including accusations of "spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories"--was totally unacceptable in light of Wikipedia policy.

Tritomex further attacks me for basically representing the position of the UN with respect to Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. --Ubikwit (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@FiachraByrne and Maunus

First of all, there has been no mention of the Indigenous peoples article in this discussion. That discussion involved Maunus and myself, and Crock81, who was apparently working in tangent with Evildoer187 on the List page in a manner such as to undermine the RfC consensus-based definition in vigor for the articles, despite the disparity indicated by the italicized blurb preceding the lead of the Indigenous peoples article. Maunus at first didn't even appreciate the gravity of the situation until I cued him into a diatribe Crock81 had posted on an administrators Talk page User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_28#I_have_a_concern. The following is the final sentence from Maunus' comment.

Crock81 is clearly trying to make the topic wide enough for him to shoehorn in Israelis as a part of it in spite of the fact that this is completely unheard of in the literature. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's get our facts straight, shall we? No offence intended.

Please refer to the following Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ubikwit.

Maunus had initiated an RfC on the List page to prevent discussion of the Palestinian issue as too politicized and controversial; however, there are current UN publications addressing the matter, and in light of the current geopolitical tensions surrounding the settler colonization of the so-called "E-1 Zone" by Israel, that situation is likely to have an increasingly high profile seeing the issuance of further official publications from the UN. So Wikipedia wants to shy away from it because it's politicized and controversial? Perhaps Maunus took offence at my initiating an RfC aimed at having the Palestinians included on the basis of at least tacit recognition vis-a-vis official UN publications.

I'm not sure about Maunus' rationale for advocating an "ARBPIA topic ban", but perhaps he'd care to venture an elaboration, so that I might have a chance to refute it.

While it is clear that you are all busy--as am I--and as I don't want to consume all of Wikipedia's mediation resources, I'll refrain myself from further response for the moment. --Ubikwit (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I corrected my Support statement above so that it now refers to the page Talk:List of indigenous peoples rather than the article Indigenous peoples.

In regard to the RFC/U which Evildoer initiated against you,[136] my statement there was highly coloured by Crock81's arguments at Talk:List of indigenous peoples which I regarded as specious in seeking to redefine subject of that list. I thought your subsequent attempt to have the Palestinian population considered an indigenous people on the basis of "tacit UN recognition" was misconceived. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not insult me in this thread by calling me things like "Zionist zealot". Thank you.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No offence intended, but I think that is fairly close to how you have presented yourself here at times.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And you have presented yourself as an anti-Zionist zealot. Probably not too far off the mark.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not support the topic ban. I feel that I am more than capable of working with other editors, provided that they are reasonable, on these topics. Moreover, my principle interest lies in topics pertaining to Jews, Israel, and the Middle East. I think once this separation is in place and everything has calmed down, I will be able to work rationally.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• You asked for my rationale for suggesting a topicban, and here it is: You are both clearly editors pursuing a biased agenda in relation to Israel/Palestine, and you are both clearly doing it in a way that is disruptive and litigious, and which drains resources from the community. It will be easier to achieve a neutral coverage of articles related to Israel and Palestine if both of you are not participating. Wikipedia needs editors who are primarily interested in building an encyclopedia, not editors who are primarily interested in advocating particular viewpoints or in righting great wrongs. The good thing about a topic ban is that it gives you a chance to show whether you are here for improving an encyclopedia, or whether you are here for political advocacy. If it is the former you can simply proceed to improve the many other parts of wikipedia that are not related to Israel or Palestine. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, thank for your reply.

I think that I've shown that I can edit productively on several pages, all of which are somewhat difficult because they relate to religion and politics. I collaborated with a couple of other experienced editors in straightening out the lead of the British Israelism article, for example, also brushing up against advocates. After that I read a book encountered as a source on the BI article to follow through with expanding the lead on the Lost Ten Tribes article, as well as the Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory article. I have approached that editing in a methodical, scholarly manner. And I have several other history books lined up in relation to the BI article.

Regarding the I/P conflict, what specifically is "biased" in my view? As I've said before here, there is an important distinction to be made between having a rational POV that is supported by RS and pushing an irrational agenda that is not supported by RS.

I've been working fairly hard on the lead to the Jerusalem article, in the preliminary discussions toward a binding RfC. The editors there generally have a higher degree of sophistication in academic disciplines of history, political science, etc., and the discussion are less acrimonious, though not exactly harmonic.

The Jerusalem issues fall squarely within the socio-political, so geneticists like Tritomex and Moxy are less active in advocating on that article talk page. Moxy accuses me of disagreeing with his interpretation of the sources on the List page while he has consistently been evasive in even offering an interpretation or address the facts presented in RS. I find his appearance on the comment list above while neglecting to respond to the content dispute I filed several days ago to be indicative of a bit of gamesmanship related to gaming the system.

My personal views on the I/P conflict are in accord with the majority POV of the international community, and I have supported that view with RS, some official publications of the UN or hosted on the UN website. In fact, Dailycare also presented UN sources on the List page by in response to the RfC, and those RS were not addressed in terms of the facts presented (being discounted arbitrarily for publication date, etc.). moreover, an official UN source was deleted by Shrike diif on the Settler colonialism article as per discussion under the following section of the Talk page Talk:Settler_colonialism#Removal_of_official_UN_source.

Editors like Evildoer187 and Shrike are not only attacking my, but the majority POV of the international community and the UN. And that is precisely what is at stake on the Jerusalem article, which is why I have been focusing on that. If they succeed in deprecating the the majority POV of the international community and the UN, then Wikipedia serves as no more than organ advocating their minority POV.

In discussions where religion is at issue, attacks on reason are fairly common, because the adherents of a religion want to believe in its teachings, not question them. The converse has also been demonstrated to be true here. That is to say, when an RS representing the majority POV of the international community and UN challenges the minority POV held by the group of pro-Israel partisans (whom I assume are co-religionists), they refuse to address the facts presented in the sources, or they attempt to deprecate the sources. In other words, they react in an irrational manner. Evildoer187 just happens to be the most extroverted activist among that group of partisan editors, who could be referred to as an affinity group in sociological terms.

The time I've spent here has seen a lack of administrator oversight in pointing out conduct issues (WP:NPA) in response to irrational and reactionary behavior on the part of one of that affinity group of co-religionists in the form of accusing other editors of being Anti-Semitic.

Had EdJohnston redressed Evildoer187 during the initial AE, then we might not be here on this page today. Malik Shabazz also missed opportunities to correct that behavior, basically giving him further license to violate WP:NPA at will, inadvertently adding a degree of support to his attempts to push edits without presented sources to support them because his irrational Anti-Semite labeling behavior was not being checked by more than one administrator. --Ubikwit (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on distorting what actually took place. I'd go more in depth, but I am not interested in starting yet another long and protracted battle with you.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposal to ban User:Craddock1 from further comment on the Amirite AfD

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.

---

Craddock1 (talk · contribs) created the Amirite article on December 7th. Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) nominated it for deletion on the 28th. Since then, Craddock1 has edited the AfD page 73 times. This has included numerous attempts to discredit those who've !voted to delete (e.g. here), and the AfD has now basically devolved into an illegible mess of poorly-formatted text, more of it off-topic than on-. I removed some of the nastiness about other editors, only for Craddock to re-add them with another criticism in his edit summary; even after he failed to respond to my request that he explain himself, I was prepared to let all this slide, until I saw that he'd removed another user's comments himself, citing a reason that applies much more to his own points than to PeterWesco (talk · contribs)'s. Anyways, Craddock has clearly had a chance to make his case - indeed, he's made it many times over; combining the lack of a need for future comment with his history of disruptive editing on this page, I propose that he be topic-banned from further comment. Additionally, if the AfD is closed as "keep" or "no consensus", I propose that the ban be extended to any future AfDs on Amirite. It's worth noting that there are two SPIs pending against him (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craddock1 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meanie), and that he's received a level-4 warning for removing comments, and it's quite possible that either of those might get him blocked before this proposal runs its course; however, I don't think the possibility of alternate sanctions should stop us from implementing the one I propose here, and I also note that both SPIs are in states of disrepair.

Incidentally, I consider myself wholly neutral in this case: My only involvement has been from a procedural perspective, and the AfD is such a mess that I haven't even formed an opinion yet on whether or not I support deletion. Perennial AN/I watchers may also recall that I have a well-documented history with one of the users whom Craddock has extensively criticized, so I think it should be fairly clear that my personal views do not come into play in this proposal. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I started off initially as a keep (based primarily on AfC creation), but on looking at the article further, concluded that the subject was not notable and changed to delete. From the very beginning, I also noted that Craddock1 went after the nominator and others who opposed retention of the article. This is classic WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior, and that, together with the existing SPIs, warrant an article (well, AfD ban for this article) ban. His position is clear, and it is hard to follow the legitimate arguments for or against deletion. GregJackP Boomer! 05:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, endorse block based on this comment "Firstly I don't think a 16 year old, depressed (as mentioned in their Bio) child should be deciding my fate." from Craddock1's statement above is exactly the type of conduct that is unacceptable, and has filled the AfD discussion instead of dealing with the merits of the matter. GregJackP Boomer! 06:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - At this point, it is probably wise to ban him as he has run out of arguments and has gone into discredit/personal attacks mode. He has had many chances to defend his statements, the sources, and he continues to go into circles. I believe Craddock to NOT be Meanie but somehow associated in WP:SPIP, WP:PAID, etc. This is a topic for the SPI, but I just wanted to make clear that I do not believe Meanie and Craddock to be the same person. PeterWesco (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban and propose an immediate block - based solely on the rants posted below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And we can add attempted outing to the reasons for an immediate block (this will need a revdel) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it was not outing, as A.Wiggin13 had 2 userboxes which linked to sites disclosing personal details, including his age. They have been rev-delled by Avraham at my request. Mathsci (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban and Endorse block — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and one month block while the editor grows some manners indef block. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm just gonna hat this. Everyone reading through this mess has enough poorly-formatted, irrelevant, uncivil text to read through. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, Firstly I don't think a 16 year old, depressed (as mentioned in their Bio) child should be deciding my fate. I thought I read somewhere that this was only for 18 years and above. I would like to apologize if my behavior has been out of bounds at times. As you all know I am new to Wikipedia and so didn't fully know the rules. I have spent a good deal of time reading them now and understand them fully. I promise I won't do anything against the rules again. I do of course understand if it is too late for me to show you that I am sorry. I didn't see any level 4 warning but if I had I would have responded. I propose that if I do one more thing wrong then you can block me. I don't see anything wrong in making 74 edits since firstly I created the article and have only edited to make the article better and have spent at least 12 hours editing the aritcle. Some articles have edits thousands of times. The comment I made about PeterWesco (who will no doubt vote in support of this) was because the fact that he was banned will highlight his behavior and why he is acting the way he is. The fact that I am new and don't know how to format properly isn't really a valid reason for me to be blocked. I have explained the James account but no-one seems to read what I write. Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Craddock1 06:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Furthermore I am still researching high level resources for the Article and so this banning is a blatent attempt to get the article removed because these users have probably also been banned form the site and so have a 'grudge' against the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Craddock1, that was borderline on a personal attack. Please read This Thanks! A Wiggin13 (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems coincidental how you are French too and share the same sexuality as Francophone and also under 16 Hidden by A_Wiggin13 - I would like to speak to someone over the phone who is over 21 and not involved in this case - I will also be reporting this conflict of interest to the governance committee Craddock1 06:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

(edit conflict) I don't decide your fate. The community decides your fate. I think that's a much more reasonable restriction than any one based on age or mental health. As for blocking you "if [you] do one more thing wrong", that's the type of overreaction that I've proposed this to avoid: To be clear, if this proposal is accepted, you will not be blocked; you will simply be ordered to not comment on this AfD, nor any future one on this article, though any violations would be enforced by block. See also WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Furthermore, a topic ban is no guarantee that your article will be deleted - as I noted, I'm indifferent, and you've already made your point as thoroughly as you ever could. In fact, the easiest way for you to avoid this sanction would be for you to simply agree to not comment any more on the AfD. Anyways, I hope your next comment here will be a bit less ad hominem, especially considering that this is the type of behavior that caused me to propose this. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do NOT place links about my personal areas thank you Craddock1! A Wiggin13 (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Craddoc1 for disruption, trolling, personal attacks, etc. Reading through the above and the AFD, I'm surprised it hadn't been done already. Enough is enough. postdlf (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

For some reason I've been in a very generous mood today, leading me to try to help Craddock get himself unblocked. Discussion to this end is located at User talk:Craddock1#My 2 cents. The wall I've come up against is that to have any realistic chance, he needs to find a mentor. It would, obviously, be quite an undertaking - ranging from interaction policies to content guidelines to minor things like indenting and not putting '''Comment''' before every comment. I'm firmly against applying the OFFER to first offenses, provided the account in question doesn't prove to be a sockpuppet, and I don't think waiting six months would change anything if no one shows him the ropes. Despite all of the policies he violated, even to the point that he became the first editor whom I felt seriously tempted to curse out, I honestly believe that he's editing in good faith. So, would any editor feel willing to agree to mentor him? The first step would be to finish my work of helping him compose a successful unblock request, citing the mentorship agreement as the prime safeguard against recurring trouble.

Also, if no one here is willing to help, could somebody please point me in the best direction to find someone who would be? WP:WER comes to mind, but this is one area in which I'm pretty much clueless. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe people were working on Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user late last year, to get it up to code. Check that out, perhaps? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Franco&Andro, I would take a stab at mentoring him, but I am, too new at this myself and too hotheaded for that line of work. I suggest finding a user who is well noted for diplomacy for this little task. A Wiggin13 (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If no one else can be found, I would be willing to give it a shot...never done it before, but I have an adoption program (located here, if you want to take a gander). I have no experience in anything but general new user adoption, but I would be willing to give it a shot with a user coming off a ban. Let me know. Thanks. Go Phightins! 21:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please, Go Phightins, you're our only hope! I don't think anyone else is going to step up to the plate (and I can't blame them), so I say do all of the necessary reading, and if you're still up to it, tell him you're willing to mentor him, and to endorse unblocking conditional on his strict compliance with rules you set. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

All right, I posted something on his talk page? Does anyone object to me volunteering to do this considering my lack of experience? I read WP:MENTOR and have adopted several users, but am not experienced in this type of mentorship. I'm willing to take it and learn along the way, but if someone else out there (hint hint Ryan Vesey) is interested, I would be more than happy to step back and let them do it. Go Phightins! 03:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

AfDs added by a sockpuppet

Caalp (talk · contribs), one of the many sockpuppets of Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs), has created the following articles for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bronco Pep Band
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bronco Student Center
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Poly Pomona Broncos men's basketball

I am not addressing the merits of any of these AfDs, but since they were created by a serial sockpuppeteer who has an axe to grind against certain editors that have edited Cal Poly Pomona articles, can an admin remove or close these out?

Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Closed all as speedily kept. If a user who isn't a sock wants to start an AfD about them, their business. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe in the last discussion, we agreed that any bad faith AfD with no comments could even have the AfD page be speedy deleted (and some were), those with any other comments from non-sockpuppets were kept. Don't hold me to that though. gwickwire^talk_edits 15:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. See WT:CSD#G5, initiated in response my G5-tagging on the Cal Poly Pomona Broncos men's basketball AfD the first time Mangoeater created it. While speedy-keeping does pretty much the same thing, there's a case to be made that someone should still delete these three, per WP:DENY, and since, were the article ever to be nominated again, it would be listed as "2nd nomination", giving the implication that there was a previous in-process AfD. I can just imagine, five speedy keeps down the road, someone nominating with a rationale along the lines of "I see this article has been nominated five times, and in every case speedily kept on the flimsy rationale that the user was later found to be a sockpuppet. I think, however that the reviewing admin failed to consider"... blah blah blah, Randy-enabling bullshit. If that argument doesn't persuade you, Mangoeater's been disruptive enough that I think we should do anything in our power to crush his will, lest he think he's one even the slightest of victories. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunatly these, sensu stricto, can't be G5'd, as Mangoeater1000 is not banned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe G5 is worded so that it can be applied to block evasion as well: The tag is "Creations by banned or blocked users". Furthermore, I think the fact that we're discussing this here without anyone even coming close to suggesting that Mangoeater could be in the right, and in light the numerous unblock requests he's filed through multiple accounts, IMHO I don't think it'd be that much of a stretch to consider him de facto banned; but either way I think it's pretty clear that G5 can be applied to blocked users' socks. That said, while we're on the topic, what would others who've been following this think of submitting a formal community ban proposal, just to tidy this all up? He always seems to think that others will listen to him, so maybe seeing the massive consensus a ban would receive would (speaking optimistically, of course) make him realize that he's never going to accomplish whatever odd college-promotion-based goals he has. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would support a ban. Over 50 confirmed sockpuppets, harassment of other editors, promotional edits of his school . . . all this, with no sense of remorse, means that Wikipedia would be better off without him. 72Dino (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you write the proposal, I'll gladly support it. I've only been involved in the behavioral side of things, not the content side, so I don't feel familiar enough with the case to write a proposal myself. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never done a ban proposal before so it may take me some time. Can you provide me a link to a page that can help me with the process? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And he's back as Wicaretaker (talk · contribs). 72Dino (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah,  Confirmed - Alison ^❤ 00:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

major edit war on Vietnam War

Two users (TheTimesAreAChanging and MiG29VN) are reverting each other multiple times (and have gone long past 3RR)[[137]] in addition TheTimesAreAChanging is rejecting sources as he does not agree with them [[138]], and both seem to be unable to accept a compromise that involves mention all the figures. TheTimesAreAChanging has refused to stop editing, and the actions of MiG29VN indicate (essentially) a SPA and POV pusher (he has also refused to stop reverting [[139]]).Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was careful to avoid violating 3RR.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

3RR is not a right, it's an upper level. You can be blocked for two reverts if you're being contentious. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

User:R.Arden

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

---

The user is edit-warring in Gérard Depardieu. In particular, they made this edit, writing in summary "rv vandalism". I issued them a warning drawing their attention to the fact that it is not vandalism and should not be called such (note that they were reverting edits which were not mine, but the third party, and generally I have no interest in this article, having made two edits - one of which they reverted, and three edits on the talk page). Instead of taking the warning on board, they issued a what they called vandalism and civility warning to me. For the record, this is my first ever warning in English Wikipedia (not speaking of accusations of vandalism). I request someone to look at the issue. The user will be now notified of this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently, in their "warning" to me they accuse me of somenthing I never did. I am pretty sure I never reverted anything in this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, i am not edit-warring, as stated by above user, as i am actively discussing on the talk page and reverting several cases of identified and banned vandalism such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%A9rard_Depardieu&diff=531099940&oldid=531099915 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%A9rard_Depardieu&diff=531098154&oldid=531097916 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%A9rard_Depardieu&diff=531098154&oldid=prev

My post at Ymblanter's talk page was meant as a response to what i perceived as badgering against me due to the fact i reverted an edition he supported, after it was made ignoring the talk page and abruplty changing the content of it in the midst of an ongoing debate.

The mention of vandalism however, was not meant to him but to X ziomal X, with whom i confused him.

-R.Arden (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It doesn't matter who it was directed at, it's not vandalism. I encourage you to read the link before you continue falsely accusing other editors of the same. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Said user just ignored the talk page, removed several references and just claimed as "Edit Summary" "15:57, 3 January 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-10)‎ . . Gérard Depardieu ‎ (nationality =/= citizenship, get over it)". If that is not vandalism, it is close to it, specially in the context where the exact points he changed were being debated on talk page... -R.Arden (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You quite obviously have not read the link provided. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no point in putting any effort into it; he already showed us many a time today that he was not able to read anything besides what he wrote himself… He constantly comes back with the exact same “arguments” and source material that others invalidated before, as if nothing had happened. (212.7.192.145 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC))

That is a remarkably weird accusation, coming from a guy who has not edits whatsoever on the article (and somehow has most of it's editions on a talk page endorsing another's person opinions, and less than 5 editions in anything else). Could it be someone else logged off just to "re-inforce" it's own opinions? -R.Arden (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Urgent admin action required, please!*

The above user being reported is displaying Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND, Wikipedia:IDHT, WP:OWN and POINTy behaviour as well as accusing other users of vandalism,[140] when it most certainly isn't. They have no consenus but repeatedly and bloody-mindedly keep on reverting other users' best attempts to get the article back on track, insisting on inserting the fact that Depardieu is now indeed a "French-born Russian" and changing the IPA pronunciation to Russian. Oh did I forget Wikipedia:Edit warring, as we are now at over a dozen reverts of valid material (all the while calling it vandalism)[141] in a four-hour period. Thanks, I'm informing them of this addendum to the original post, and then I'm off to get the article back to where it was. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not even editing anything other than the talk page anymore, so spare me from your accusations, please. I tried talking on the talk page, i tried to reach a consensus, and all i got were slanders. So i gave up. Simple as that. Next time someone claims Gérard Depardieu was born in Mordor [142][143][144] revert it yourself. I am no longer taking part of this, as clearly i have been ganged up by the hordes of IRC.

IRC, what are you on about? And your so called vandalism reverts just put all the shit back in (IPA, birthplace = Mordor) as well as your Russian nationality stuff, and wiped out all the good changes editors had been trying to make. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just one of them left a reference to Mordor unchanged (due to an edit conflict), and it was quickly followed with a fix to remove said reference. -R.Arden (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, i was not the one responsible for the edit changing the IPA pronunciation to Russian. You may want to actually read the page history before acusing me of that. Also, talk to user:Yulia Romero, as it was her contribution to the article.

The IPA pronunciation to Russian was done by me yes. But a later realized it was a mistake since other "immigrants to Russia" do not have IPA pronunciation to Russian in there Wiki articles (I had expected that they did). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than that, i am out. I am done with this uncivil atmosphere.

-R.Arden (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid we need to add AGF to this list of abbreviations [145] (as I already advised them on my talk page). For the record, I am not on IRC and have never been.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, further ignore this reference too: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/world/europe/putin-makes-gerard-depardieu-a-citizen-of-russia.html?hp&_r=1& -R.Arden (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This thread is not about content dispute, please do not take it here. It is about your behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My behaviour was caused by the content dispute, specially by some considering that i was not reverting vandalism (in the form of removal of correct content and sources), when in fact, i actually was correct, as demonstrated by the article above. That does matters a lot, at least when it comes to enciclopedic content, and not ego disputes or nationalistic claims. -R.Arden (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid you have not learned anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the lesson you are trying to teach me is one i learnt long ago, but that i refuse to abide by. I rather live, BE BOLD and be banned when it annoys someone than just be a meek editor with a lot of personal lobbying with other editors. If getting "uncivil warnings" and perhaps even blockade is the price for it, it is a price i pay gladly in exchange not be forced into some extreme conservativism (in the behavioural sense - not political) when writing and to the ever-lasting inter-user personal lobbying. I revert vandalism when i see vandalism. I correct wrong information when i see wrong information. And i add information when i have new sources to back it. Be bold and disliked or be meek and popular. My choice is for the first. -R.Arden (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• The user was blocked by Bwilkins, see below, so that this thread can be closed for the time being.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Captain_Screebo

After disagreeing with said user in an article talk page, and posting a reference that proved his statement wrong, i got my reply erased and the following message [146]:

(cur | prev) 20:50, 3 January 2013‎ Captain Screebo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,587 bytes) (-447)‎ . . (→‎Good now you've locked it down: btw reformatting other people's talk page comments is not on, so why don't you fuck off (from what you're doing, please, to keep it civil)?)

User was repeatedly claiming that i was edit-warring in Gérard Depardieu, yet he is the one who actually tried to recruit an army to "fight off the like-minded souls" in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gérard_Depardieu, in order to force down his opinions on talk page of said article.

Given that clearly uncivil behaviour (telling other editors to "fuck off" from a talk page), and the other notice created against me in this noticeboard, i would like to ask the administrators to keep an eye on this situation.

-R.Arden (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, adding this link [147], where i have been called full of shit, a huckster a sham and a fraud, after pointing out that said user should be working to make the article better and as close to the truth as possible, not just to enforce his opinion over the others. -R.Arden (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you notified the user of this discussion? JohnInDC (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see it there. JohnInDC (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed i have. There are already enough people trying to damage/block me, so i better not grant them a reason myself. -R.Arden (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, guilty on all charges, of trying to deal with a gaming, wikilawyering, IDHT, battleground pest, see above section for reference and diffs, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:R.Arden, are you seriously going to let this t**ll go on, several editors have chimed in, contributed, tried to discusss with x/he but we have "tried to recruit like-minded souls", "edit-warred" and "brought down the hordes on IRC", hmmm, who's the victim here I wonder, oh that was just a stick with aboriginal doodahs on it, (I hope). Sorry, but the tehter's end has been reached for this night, I do doth my cap and bid ye all a merry farewell! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And yet again, i get insulted by Captain Screebo in the Edit Summary [148], now calling me "a complete fucker".

And i would also like to point out that many of the "several editors have chimed in contributed, tried to discusss with" are likely to be IP puppets or have NO VALID EDITS AT ALL (being most edits on the SAME TALK PAGE), such as IP 212.7.192.145.

Anyway, after this extra insult on this noticeboard, i would like to ask special attention to this matter.

--R.Arden (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to know why this user's completely unacceptable behaviour, edit warring, accusing others of vandalism etc. referred to above has been completely ignored but now you're worrying about if I have been warned of this discussion, I can't even get away from my computer because of this Rearden, x/he should have been blocked hours ago. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And that pretty much summons it: Captain Screebo's crusade to get me blocked for disagreing with him and actually editing the page. --R.Arden (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding another link, of yet another insult by Captain Screebo in Edit Summary [149]:

21:12, 3 January 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-362)‎ . . User talk:Captain Screebo ‎ (→‎Uncivility warning: Yes well now you can fuck off my talk page as well

-R.Arden (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How about you pull back the reigns on what I perceive to be a confrontational/judgmental approach, and Captain Screebo practice a bit more civility? 192.76.82.90 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Both blocked for 31hrs - 1 for outrageous personal attacks (especially in edit-summaries) and the other for overall disruptive editing (EW, BATTLE, etc). No points if you guess who got which one (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Banned user still making edits

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

---

Recently banned user Necroshine95 (along with his sockpuppet Phantomlord95) has returned under a new name, and has once again began making pointless edits, adding sources without attempting to format them and adding sources which are clearly lifted from Wikis. Given the user's past disruptive history, I have a strong feeling his mass-edit sprees will begin again at some point. Best keep an eye on him. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest letting the folks at WP:SPI know.NE Ent 19:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ouch.. all of that looks complicated as hell. Never mind. I'll pass. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

He's blocked. Don't let the SPI form frighten you. It's actually pretty easy to fill out once you click the button.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And it's even easier if you use Twinkle -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Insults by User:Sayerslle

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

---

Sayerslle (talk · contribs) makes personal insults and refuses to discuss the edits on the talk page. Here [150]. Sceadwefax (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I see two editors having a discussion via edit-summary which is wrong, but I see no personal insults (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"before you knee jerk delete O'S" is clearly an abuse. Sceadwefax (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, "knee jerk" means "reflexively" or "without thought", such as "a knee jerk reaction" ... how is that abuse? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sceadwefax is not a native English speaker and does not seem to know the breadth of English language idioms.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

...although he claims on his userpage to be "near-native", and as such, the idioms such a "knee jerk" should be clear. As well, he claims to be a researcher, and thus has the ability and resources to have looked it up (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We might have an issue of WP:BOOMERANG then. I like how this account's first edit was reverting an edit by William M. Connolley.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think we need to do anything at this point besides close this thread. No abusive comment was made, as has been explained. If there is some other problematic behavior, let's take that separately. LadyofShalott 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Uncivility and Te

I'm thinking we're at the point where a block is warranted for disruptive editing after this [[151]] ani post, the editor continued making attacks at myself and others on various pages, basically attacking anyone who tried to explain themselves on ANI saying they were just my friends. I do have his page on watchlist due to the attacks and what not and I saw him sanitizing the page from a legitimate discussion [[152]] and I quite nicely didn't even template as I thought it would not help with an encouraging message [[153]] which was responded to in typical uncivil fashion [[154]] and also [[155]]. I'm thinking we have a user that needs a enforced break to read through our policies as he WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT anything any of the editors have thus far told him. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have requested rather pleaded this user not to interfere but he has been putting up stuff on my pages which are not only annoying but also very discouraging. Being new to this wiki world it takes time for any editor to be fully knowledgable but this user from the very moment I have joined Wikipedia has been very disruptive. He has been non stop putting up tags. Whoever has given me an advice in a nice manner, I have not only acted upon but have requested help to those editors. This user has got on to my nerves. I just want to quit Wikipedia because of this person. I don't understand when I have requested him not to communicate, he still wants to be the champion to make unnecessary corrections. There are many editors who have been helpful and have tried to make the article better. This user has not contributed in any manner but just tagging! There was already a tag after AfD decision and I was working in fact other editors were also helping me out. If being a senior editor, he wanted to contribute he would have made corrections and should have asked others for help to but he rather requested other editors to go after me. If people like him remain on Wiki then there will be no room for new comers and he will keep of harshening them like he did to me. I am so fed up of him that I will delete my user account myself. -- Lubna Rizvi 02:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not true Lubna, please reread my responses here [[156]], [[157]], [[158]], I even tried to find Farsi editors [[159]]. Not sure how that is not being helpful. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And the only person I've engaged asking for any action regards to you have been Admin, please show proof where I enlisted anyone to come and pick on you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Easiest solution is to take the page off your watchlist. NE Ent 03:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is an easy solution, if that ends up being the consensus and my actions are found to be inappropriate I'm willing to do that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence HiaB's actions are inappropriate and my statement was not intended to imply such; rather I was implying what JBW explains below. NE Ent 12:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• The way I see this is as follows. Lubnarizvi started editing Wikipedia. Like many of us when we are new to Wikipedia, he/she found things rather confusing, and made some mistakes. Various other editors, including Hell in a Bucket, tried to help Lubnarizvi to understand how Wikipedia works. Lubnarizvi was generally grateful to these editors, including, at first, Hell in a Bucket. However, when Lubnarizvi did not like what other editors did, he/she unfortunately tended to take a battleground approach, with threats and incivility. Lubnarizvi has now been advised against this, and we are to hope that things will now be better. After at first being friendly and grateful to Hell in a Bucket, at some stage, Lubnarizvi changed his/her attitude to him (possibly as a result of Hell in a Bucket taking an article that Lubnarizvi had written to articles for deletion). It is clear to me that Hell in a Bucket has been acting in good faith, attempting to help Lubnarizvi to develop a better understanding of how Wikipedia operates, but that is not how Lubnarizvi sees it. For the last two days Lubnarizvi's editing has been 100% concerned with the problems between these two editors. This conflict is not helpful to either of the two editors, nor to the encyclopaedia.
• Although, as I have said, Hell in a Bucket is acting in good faith, his attempts to help are not being taken in that spirit by Lubnarizvi, and so are not being helpful. I think it would be better for Hell in a Bucket to stop trying to help for now. It would also be better for Lubnarizvi to try to stop seeing anyone who does anything he/she does not like as an enemy, and viewing anything that person does from then on as attacks. Edits such as this one are not helpful. Rather than using such language as "Just F off from my User page" it would be better to say something like "can you please avoid posting to my talk page at present, as I have, unfortunately, found your comments unhelpful". I have already explained to Lubnarizvi that incivility, threats, etc, are unacceptable, and may lead to a block if continued, and he/she really needs to take that advice on board. At present I don't think a block would be helpful, but it will come if similar editing continues.
• To summarise, my recommendations are:

1. Both editors should avoid one another, since, for whatever reasons, interaction between them is not helpful at present. I hope that, once Lubnarizvi has become better used to how Wikipedia works, they will be able to work together constructively if and when they happen to come in contact, but I suggest that for at least a month or so it will be better if they avoid any interaction with one another.
2. Lubnarizvi needs to try to bear in mind the need for civility and collaboration, rather than confrontation, even to editors who he/she thinks do not deserve civility. In this connection I should say that most of Lubnarizvi's interactions with others have been civil and constructive, but there are some exceptions, not all concerning Hell in a Bucket: for example, see this edit. It would also be helpful if Lubnarizvi could try harder to assume that most editors are acting in good faith, and avoid accusations of bad faith unless there is strong evidence to support such accusations. It is a fact that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are sincerely trying to be helpful and constructive, even when they do things that others see as unhelpful and unconstructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problems with this the problems that I had were when policy was being broken. I do believe friendly notes are needed to help explain policy at times and hopefully in time they can understand what was and is being explained by myself and others. I will indeed back away for right now so they can calm down a notch. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am more than happy to act upon on your advice but only on one condition that this user Hell in a Bucket do not communicate with me. I don't want his interference on either my user talk page or on the articles I am editing. Thanks James -- Lubna Rizvi 10:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And this is why I think we still have a WP:OWN issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I recommend the temporary communication ban on each other's talkpages (not a full WP:IB) between the two editors, it is clear that Lubna is not yet competent enough on Wikipedia to restrict HiaB (or by anyone else for that matter) from the same articles they edit. HiaB is fully within policy with their edits to the article so far. Be warned: you'll both have to use article talkpages rather excessively now, and note Lubna that if you make an edit and it gets reverted by anyone, you may not re-revert, or else you will be edit-warring. We have a be bold, if it's reverted then discuss concept forever. Lubna will quickly find that this restriction is a pain in the ass, but it's clear they're not willing to listen to HiaB's advice at this moment in time. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with commiunications ban. I agree with BWilkins that my articlespace edits are not an issue so I am not agreeing to avoiding articles Lubna edits (fully understanding those potential edits will be scruntized by the community at large due to the issues) but I will refrain from posting on his talkpage and instead bring it to Admin attn if warnings are needed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI I am a female.-- Lubna Rizvi 11:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh apologies when I first started I had that problem to my username was HellinaBucket and people thought I was named Hellina. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok Hellina. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

YOu made me laugh out loud for real on that one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

71.93.140.237

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.

---

Would someone please block 71.93.140.237 for vandalism and general nicompoopery? I'm not going to even bother notifying them. IAR.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Chemgirl131 inappropriately exercising WP:VANISH, mass deletions from user talk pages, article talk pages, including archives

It's been said in this discussion[160] on Jmh649's talk page that Chemgirl131 is acting inappropriately because it is "a WP:TALK violation for her to go around not only removing her comments from talk pages (article talk pages after users have already replied and user talk pages without their permission), and even archived talk pages (which is a huge violation), but tampering with others' comments and changing their words. Not acceptable in the least. WP:VANISH does not give her that right. If anyone were to be sanctioned in this case, it would not be Doc9871. And other editors have also reverted her because she was removing and/or changing a massive amount of text on their talk pages, and even in their archives."

Asking for administrative assistance. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that changing talk page comments should not be allowed. And if one needs to do it for privacy reasons one should not attempt it themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the precedent is for this, but this is their third username, and they are attempting to erase all posts under the earlier names. They are often going several years back into archives to do this, and when they are done the archives are a shambles. In the meantime, they are actively editing articles under the current account between removing archive posts, which does not seem like vanishing to me. If it's not vanishing, and it's not a clean start, I don't believe what they are doing to these archives is appropriate. Doc talk 21:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite get what's going on here. This can't be a case of WP:VANISH, because when one vanishes one just goes away and doesn't edit Wikipedia any more. One's old account can be renamed to something like "Vanisheduser xxxx" by an admin, and that's that. That is not the case here because Chemgirl appears to want to keep editing under her new name.

This also doesn't seem to be a WP:CLEANSTART, because in a clean start one starts over again with a new name and avoids connection with one's old IDs and the areas they edited, and Chemgirl is going out of her way to delete her old comments, making an indelible connection between herself and those IDs.

There's also the problem that the comments being deleted are those of at least two accounts (I haven't looked at all the deletions, so perhaps there are more). If both these accounts are Chemgirl's, were they properly connected at the time? Did they overlap in edits? Was there active sockpuppetry going on?

I think that Chemgirl needs to explain these things, and why she is doing what she is doing. I think that an admin should revert her deletion of her old edits as not being legitimate (especially when she deletes the comments of other editors), and injoin her from making any new deletions until we have a proper understanding of what's happening. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that Kww blocked Chemgirl a few minutes ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked until she agrees to stop doing this. Anyone can unblock at that point. I've restored the archives.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A correction to what I wrote above. Chemgirl did not have two previous account, but one account that was renamed. User:Rocknroll714 was renamed to User: el3ctr0nika on 13 August 2009. User:Chemgirl131 was created on 21 January 2008, and made their first edit on 13 August 2008. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't understand why El3ctr0nika was listed as having no edits, when I could clearly see at least one edit here, but it seems clear now that Chemgirl131 is not a new acount but a rename of el3ctronika - see this diff for the edit above. I don't understand why the rename is not listed on the log for el3ctr0nika, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

...it is listed on the User rename log for 21 December 2012. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I had crossed paths with this issue at WT:WikiProject Pharmacology, and Doc James left me a note on my user talk, leading me here. An additional thing that has struck me as needing some explanation is why an IP editor showed up with an SPA-like interest in undoing these edits; I say that because Chemgirl made some reference to hounding in one of the edit summaries I saw her leave. I agree with other comments here, that it's not OK to modify the comments made by other editors. But, unless Chemgirl turns out to be a false impersonator of the purportedly "vanished" account, I'd be inclined to cut them some slack for simply replacing the old account name with "snip" or "redacted". (Not the other stuff, like refactoring other editors' comments with respect to gender, or changing archiving, etc.) It's true, as someone pointed out on Doc James' user talk, that there's a Streisand effect, but if someone wants to (clumsily) erase appearances of a previous user name, that's not really disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If Chemgir131's intent was to disconnect her current name from the previous names of the account, she certainly went about it the wrign way. Probably the best way was to do nothing at all. All she's really managed to do is to raise a minor brouhaha. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If all Chemgirl did was change her name in the archives to the current one, that's one thing. We know the account has been renamed twice. Instead they are removing absolutely everything they said under the previous names. As far as her declaration [161]: this is a public website. Demanding that users not post to her talk page because she does not want her discussions to be public is sort of absurd. Doc talk 22:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Tryptofish. I was particularly puzzled why an anonymous IP would be undoing edits to talk pages. If the talk page "owner" insists on keeping that material that is another thing. From the few med-related edits it appears quite plausible Chemgirl131 is el3ctr0nika. It is not entirely unusual to edit/redact own "posts" wherever they may be - including deleting them. Richiez (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

They explained it elsewhere, somewhat outing-ish self-protection related, which I won't link here. It's not really wp:vanish or wp:cleanstart, and it is innocent. We should not talk it to death here....we should just close this out, & someone should just give them direction regarding the redactions and expect it to be followed. North8000 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We had a case of someone requesting sig-fixing by bot some years ago, which was turned down. In the case of RL stalking etc., this seemed a little churlish at the time, maybe its something we should reconsider.

Meanwhile I think it needs an admin to go and make a suitable unblock offer. Rich Farmbrough, 01:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

They already agreed in the request for review. This looks like a person in distress on a sensitive matter who may have innocently tried the wrong fix and wants to discuss it here but can't. Can somebody do something? North8000 (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

North8000: You are pretty much completely spot on. I suppose it would probably be in good interest of mine to simply go ahead and post the following explanation here (it is an excerpt of a message from me to an admin/personal friend of mine):

• http://pastebin.com/2fi5rva3

I didn't want to have to post all of that (i.e. privacy), but it's for the best I think. (Moved message to off-site location for my own personal privacy.) Hopefully it will clear up a lot. Help?! – Chemgirl131 (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: I have to go for tonight. I'll be back tomorrow. Good night~ – Chemgirl131 (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

User is unblocked, given her agreement to stop making these edits.—Kww(talk) 03:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)\

My 2¢: I'm just boggling at these attempted deletions performed by Chemgirl131 to Talk:Transitioning (transgender)… you see, arguing there against the needless WP:SPINOUT of the Transitioning (transgender) sections pertaining to the "Real-Life Experience" into Real-life experience (transgender) and trying to counter the bizarre prejudices against transsexuals expressed by User:Rainbowofpeace early on in the creation and editing of an article on "Binarism" (since renamed Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons) proved to be the final gasps in my ongoing struggle to cope with the flood of cranky "Joe Random IP Address" and pseudonymous editors here on Wikipedia… and just about everywhere else. As a consequence, I'm no longer trying: no Queen Canute, I: I quit! Though please note: I've not formally resigned, and if anybody actually wants my help with something super-important (such as this), I'd be available. PS: "Stealth" transitions of the sort Chemgirl131 claims to be seeking are nowadays exceedingly difficult to achieve. SINCERELY, - "Not A Pseudonym" - bonze blayk (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Competence issue

With this edit Chemgirl appears to have deleted a significant amount of this page. I have no idea how to restore the damage she has done, but she needs to be told that she shouldn't edit in places and in ways that she doesn't understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Moxy reverted her edit, so there's no damage to the page, but the competency issue stands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

She meant to post something but somehow the section got antecedently blanked, so what? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think she was only trying to remove her own quote, above, and post some explanation - she's clearly stressed and tired, so give her a break! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, look at little closer at the diff, she deleted a significant portion of the page while trying to add her quote above (which she later deleted in another edit.) I'm sure she did it "antecedently" , but that's really not the point, is it? No one is accusing her of deliberate disruption, but WP:CIR exists for a reason, since the project can be just as easily disrupted by incompetent accident as it can by deliberate action. Chemgirl131 really needs to find an admin or veteran editor she trusts and determine how to go about what she wants to achieve, since her own efforts have been, up to this point, decidedly disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The pedantic details don't matter - if you read the quote above, you'll surely understand why she's stressed and not working at her best now? A bit of personal consideration is what's needed now, not banging on about competence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Her problems, in respect to the project at least, are solvable, it just takes the right choices to do so. She's made all the wrong choices up to now, so I don't think it's unreasonable, considering her (apparently) fragile emotional state, to ask that she stop and get some advice from someone she trusts about what to do, instead of messing things up even more. After all WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. The last time I looked, we were here to build an encyclopedia, no? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "The last time I looked, we were here to build an encyclopedia, no?", there's no need for sarcasm. We also care about the people who edit here, and there's absolutely no damage been caused whatsoever. And she has indeed stopped editing in other areas, and is simply trying to discuss things and seek help. I also see you reverted her removal of her own quote. It is very detailed and personal and was posted on the most widely-seen of our drama boards, and if she wishes to redact it (while putting it somewhere else that is accessible), we should honour that. I am going to remove it again - please do not restore it again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You reverse the damage done by reverting or repairing the edit. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you really dont't know what you're talking about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Help:Reverting. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks, I have over 100,000 edits but I've never known how to revert until you showed me the way. --- Oh, and you still don't know what you're talking about. (Hint: Look at the page's history.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought that "you" was an "I". Still, you had no idea how to restore the damage, one way is reverting. How the heck is saying "I'm afraid you really dont't know what you're talking about" constructive, frankly, it's pretty uncivil. If you think that statement is constructive, maybe it's your own competence you should be questing. I looked at the page history and that didn't tell me anything. Unless I'm missing something here, I think your making something out of nothing, the damage was nothing a simple revert couldn't fix. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• A non-issue. AN & ANI periodically get messed up. We restore from history and move on. NE Ent 10:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• That edit was almost certainly the result of a section edit that conflicted. It's happened to me in the past. Uncle G (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still concerned about that IP. Is anyone paying attention to that? And this discussion has included (from some participants, not from all) way too much insistence on doing things by the letter of policy, and too little attention to recognizing that we are dealing with real human beings. I hope that one or more experienced administrators will guide Chemgirl through what it takes to protect their privacy without making difficulties for other editors on the project, and that Chemgirl will cooperate with that guidance. Beyond that, it's time to tone down the criticisms of Chemgirl. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I second Tryptofish's and Boing's comments. What is needed here is more understanding and less browbeating. I am also concerned about that initial IP who is clearly an experienced editor that apparently prefers to remain anonymous. Boghog (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm incredibly busy and I simply don't have the time right now, but I am not going to stand for what Doc9871, Beyond My Ken, and certain others are attempting to do to me and to my reputation here and elsewhere (link and link). Exaggerations and outright mistruths have been made about me (which resulted in an unfortunate, and in my opinion, completely inappropriate (and now revoked) block), and I have been made to look like an incompetent, rule-breaking, and even emotionally unstable mess. The level of character assassination that has been orchestrated against me is unbelievable. I will be back tomorrow and/or this weekend to explain my side of this whole unfortunate debacle and straighten things out here as best as I can. Then, I will not be dealing with the users in question anymore. Be back later~ – Chemgirl131 (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• No comment on the general competence issue but as others have said, I wouldn't read much of anything in to the problems she had which caused most of ANI to disappear. Various things could cause this which even an experienced editor may fall for. If it keeps happening it may be a problem but a single instance doesn't say much. I myself have done a similar thing 5 or so times (reverted all but one or two myself) when my browser crashes but since it's a decent browser it doesn't lose what I was writing however if I just submit it will kill everything but the section my comment was in. Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando editing against consensus of single-payer/USNHCA

Since our last dispute in 3RR, the consensus was established for single-payer healthcare and the United States National Health Care Act‎ pages.

Since then Thargor Orlando has done everything he could to overturn the consensus without going to dispute resolution. These include:

• Canvassing a sympathetic editor who then edited against it using weasel words (diff)
• Editing against that consensus (diff)
• Adding POV tags to delegitimize the page (diff)
• Moving the section (diff)

Even if we consider the contributions of North to no longer show a consensus, both editors are steadfastly against to any kind of dispute resolution and will simply edit war until they get their consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that a close read at the article talk page (and recent changes on the article) and the "canvassing" link pages that CartoonDiablo just linked will pretty clearly disprove most of what they just wrote. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:DRN or Mediation? --Jayron32 02:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We've done the NPOV noticeboard, which CD decided consensus was reached and abandoned. I've done WP:DRN with him on a separate conflict, and it didn't really go well, as he seems to misunderstand the basic points and intents of DR. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We tried DRN but Thargor left and refused to participate. Afterwards the consensus was established but Thargor tried going to NPOV where no new consensus was reached. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As the DRN page notes, "It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums." As the issue was being discussed at the NPOV noticeboard, your discussion was shut down and moved back there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

So, so much incorrect here.

• I did no canvassing, he's mistaken me for an administrator. Thread is here
• Two administrators have pointed out to CD that there is no actual consensus: [162] [163]
• I'm actually not against dispute resolution. I'm actually the one who initiated a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard, which CD abandoned: [164]
• CD is only here because he's up against the revert wall on the two articles in question:
  • 1st revert: [165]
  • 2nd revert: [166]
  • 3rd revert: [167]
  • 1st revert: [168]
  • 2nd revert: [169]
  • 3rd revert: [170]

This is a six-month long issue that's shown no sign of stopping because CD refuses to discuss it with anyone else who disagrees with him. It's an article ownership issue, it's a consensus issue, it's a content dispute issue, it's a verification issue. I'm perfectly willing to work with him on these issues, but this has long stretched the bounds of good-faith editing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the talk page at Talk:Single-payer health care for a good feel of what is happening. Also CartoonDiablo just did 4 reverts in about 2 hours on the article page. North8000 (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Solving the dispute

By that standard those "reverts" (one of which was not) were the same as the ones brought up in the previous 3RR of Thargor. My proposal for solving this is going to DRN or Mediation but both Thargor Orlando and North8000 refuse to do so. For reference:

• In the first DRN Thargor refused to participate: "The proper place is the talk page of the article, not to rush to DR"
• He has refused to do so here as well: "will you work with us here, at the article, to come to a conclusion? Otherwise, DRN would no longer be appropriate, as it would become an issue of your conduct at this article." CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? You've departed so far from reality on even matters of simple fact that responding is getting to be a waste of time. Thargor Orlando NEVER approached me. Second, I haven't been involved in this dispute, and was never asked about DRN or Mediation much less turned them down. My whole involvement has been a few quick comments in November and then yesterday & today when after an admin asked if I had any ideas to resolve. North8000 (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

To this point, North8000 was involved in the NPOV discussion and favored Thargor's position. He commented on North8000's talk about this topic. That is a WP:Canvass. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

CD, we tried dispute resolution. It was closed because of the discussion at the NPOV noticeboard, which you abandoned. Just like you abandoned it last time we had a dispute. What reason do I have to believe that DR will work this time? How much good faith am I forced to assume when you use DR as a stepping stone to sanctioning editors you disagree with? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

To explain it a bit, you left the first DRN discussion (DRN is not NPOV noticeboard) it "failed" because you left. The NPOV noticeboard discussion was "abandoned" because the consensus was established.

No, I left the first DRN discussion because it was a duplicate of an existing discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. The DRN volunteer agreed with me and closed the discussion. Read the thread. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Now would you be willing to go into DRN and this time not leave it? CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given your conduct, I'm not sure if DRN will accomplish anything anymore. All indications are that you want dispute resolution to build a case against an editor you disagree with, not resolve the dispute. And you abandoned the last discussion, so why should this go any differently? The issue, at this point, is your conduct. We address your conduct and I believe we'll be able to build a consensus at the article. After so much of this, my good faith is nearly exhausted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The June discussion was not a "duplicate" of the October discussion and the only person who has been avoiding dispute resolution and editing against the consensus has been yourself. If you are unwilling to solve it, it means you're only going to edit war until the problem is solved. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the October was a duplicate of the discussion at the NPOV board, which is why it was shut down. I took part in the DRN in June by noting that it was premature, and the person who volunteered to help didn't seem opposed to keeping it at talk for a time. We went to DR when it was clear the talk page wasn't going anywhere. As for consensus, that's been discussed above already, and repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make it true. At this point, it would be good for an admin to step in. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but it is true, and the only way to reconcile it now (barring an edit war) is to go to DRN. I'm willing to go and completely ignore any past behavior if it means we can get this solved. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

After going through this issue the past couple of hours I don't see how DR will resolve anything if it is going to be a continuation of the previous discussion. However, the DR discussion did resolve a question I had. If sources are referring to single-payor to be like Medicare than that is the language to be used. Polls are notoriously difficult to read, and it doesn't help the reader to rephrase the question to fit a description that an editor thinks it should mean regardless if any source says that Medicare is like Single-Payor. Arzel (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Except no DRN came to that conclusion? Virtually everyone from the Washington Post to NPR calls them single-payer polls so unless it was POV-pusing the discussion would go to DRN or ArbCom anyway. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect again, per our discussion here where you admitted to being wrong about what the Washington Post actually said. NPR is a similar issue, crediting the term to Dennis Kucinich, not saying so themselves. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

An update: we could really use administrator help here

We really could use administrator intervention here to try and direct the discussion a bit. CartoonDiablo opened a DRN request which is likely to be closed due to this discussion and his behavior, and attempts to discuss at the talk page are being met with severe resistance and a desire to move the discussion to ArbCom, which probably wouldn't be good for some of the parties involved. As a 3RR violation was reported but not addressed, CD is taking that as a validation of his actions. Any help here at this point would be greatly appreciated, as it has received basically no administrator attention. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing

Sauloviegas (talk · contribs) repeatedly canvasses his "Neighbourhood" friends each time he is engaged in a disagreement with another editor. I first noticed this last month when I had a discussion with him over the reliability of a source. After failing to respond to the validity of my argument, he then went and canvassed his friends so that they would give their opinion to the discussion. I decided to ignore it and move on after the discussion dragged on and was going nowhere. Yesterday, he was involved in a confrontation with Hotwiki (talk · contribs) on the article Beautiful Cause You Love Me in which they were reverting each other's edits. Again, he went and canvassed his friends so that they would "help" him in the situation, and one of them eventually assisted in restoring Sauloviegas's edits to the article. I'm sorry but it's quite clear that every time this user is involved in a confrontation or disagreement, they have to canvass their WikiFriends for them to help and no that's not okay. Till 03:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that when I visited the contribution page of Sauloviegas (talk · contribs) and one of his friends reverted my edit to Sauloviegas' edit without consideration of Sauloviegas' edits such as changing the release date to "TBD" without a source, copying and pasting infos from the other Wikipedia articles and changing the format of the article.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not know about WP:CANVASS. I can even remove the "Neighbourhood" from my page and not contact the users about that anymore. But what I was concerned is that SuperHotWiki was stating that my edits were Vandalism when they clearly weren't, at least, not in my eyes, reverted my edits and then added all the info I researched and added like it was his own. Of course, I made a mistake with TBD on Beautiful Cause You Love Me, but if the correct was 17 December 2012 and the format of the article was initially created by him, he only had to change those things, not claim that everything I did was vandalism. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

IP editor violating copyrights

A IP editor is persistently violating copyrights by directly copy pasting information from http://www.ozarkscivilwar.org/regions/greene in Greene County, Missouri. Please look into this. I am reporting here because I read at Wikipedia:Copyright violation that copyright infringements should be reported at ANI. Forgot to put name 12:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I see one occurrence, which you reverted. Why do you describe it as "persistent"?—Kww(talk) 15:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two occurences this morning (1, 2). The latter is more ambiguous as copyvio. Twice in the same morning being called "persistent" is arguable, but it is certainly repeated. Salvidrim! 17:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion(s) at Talk:Harry Partch

I'm becoming frustrated with the discussion(s) found at Talk:Harry Partch. I'm willing to admit that my behaviour is not flawless, but the discussion has gotten out of hand. User:Curly Turkey wrote the following on it: "What this article needs ... not [is] petty squabbling over personal preferences by editors who ... are not willing to make meaningful contributions to it, and ... [engage in] persistent disruptive editing." I consider this a personal attack—since, as I explained on the same page, I consider his accusations false—and as it was directed at me, I overreacted and removed his comment. The discussion at the moment is not going anywhere, with accusations coming from both sides, and I would welcome the enforcement of a civility standard—even if it may get me into trouble—as I do not wish the page in question to be dominated by what I perceive as Newspeak. Thank you for your time and attention. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute, and hence more suitable for WP:DRN, although I'm frankly baffled at how something as simple as an infobox can bring out so much red mist and aggression from editors. I don't think anyone has made a direct personal attack; in the above quote mentioned, Curly Turkey isn't actually referencing you directly. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

His comment was directed at me; it dates to 22:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC), and in it, he links to this edit by me. You can see it here. The infobox issue is being debated, among other places, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and WP:VPP. My main concern in this case is civility. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to say that I find their comment "What this article needs is some content generated, and a lot of references, not petty squabbling over personal preferences by editors" to be very much on point and well worth remembering. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to discuss the value of the rest of the comment in question. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That talk page looks toxic, especially with snipes by Toccata quarta, so beware the boomerang. I agree with Ritchie333 that the article content should be the focus rather than trying to win a point in arguing, here or there. Anybody want my 1974 edition of Genesis of a Music? I haven't cracked it open since 1981. It should go to a good home. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How is my behaviour ruder than that of User:Curly Turkey? I find that assessment unbelievably unfair, considering I was defending myself against accusations I perceive as false. The user claimed that I was engaging in "persistent disruptive editing", even though his comment dated from 3 January 2013, and I had not edited the article since 28 December 2012, nor violated WP:3RR. He later defended his claim with a false definition of the word "persistent", which I refuted. So how are those statements by him anything other than lies? Please enlighten me. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How is any answer I give you going to help the article be better for the reader? Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not the purpose of this discussion. Please answer my question, instead of avoiding it. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Then it appears we are at cross purposes. If you are not here to improve the article I should think it is time to step away from its talk page. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Civility is a prerequisite for discussions on talk pages, isn't it? I created this discussion because I wanted to improve the atmosphere over there, so that changes to the article could be discussed in a different manner.

Once again: please answer my question. If you are willing to accuse me of being the rudest person on the talk page in question, then I would expect you to reply to my rebuttal. Wikipedia is edited collaboratively. How can there collaboration on a talk page, if one user refuses to communicate with another? Toccata quarta (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You came out swinging with "As you can see, the ones who added a crapbox were the ones behaving illicitly", a purposely inflammatory opening. After that, the fight was underway—no surprise there. I agree with Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) that adding an infobox was not "illicit", it was merely an expression of the BOLD in WP:BRD. The hidden note telling the potential infobox-adding editor to "seek consensus on this article's talk page" was being followed, per DISCUSSION in BRD. The hidden note's injunction to seek consensus "before" adding an infobox was not justified or authoritative, in my opinion. At any rate, my assessment of your involvement on the talk page is that your sharp and accusatory comments served to raise the level of friction and dissonance, more than others, more than Curly Turkey. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You did not notify Curly Turkey that he was a subject of an ANI discussion. I have done this for you. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

With due shame I confess I misread that instruction; I read "editor" "as "administrator". Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I have the feeling that most of the discussion - which I watch but can't read all - did not belong on an article talk page anyway. I see two topics of more general concern than a specific composer: can a project request that their articles should not have an infobox? What should an infobox for a composer contain? - My understanding is that even if a request for no infobox is in place, it can be ignored as not binding, - on the other hand infoboxes are not mandatory. - I have a personal history of reverting infoboxes (because of the request) but came to understand that they are useful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"libellous statements" - legal threat

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

---

Legal Threat directed at who knows...? diff [171]. Not sure whats up - brought it here. Outback the koala (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be a legal threat. Saying an edit was potentially libellous does not say they're instigating legal action, nor was it an readily-apparent attempt to chill discussion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And really, those _were_ some pretty nasty changes the IP was reverting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that clears things a little for future reference. :) Outback the koala (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Lemmy Decker/User:Iggy Decker

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

---

About a while back, Lemmy Decker (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week after mainly disruptive editing/vandalism, including two page-move vandalisms at Baskin-Robbins and Mario Kart.[172][173] Lately, I noticed that another user, Iggy Decker (talk · contribs), began editing Mario Kart, also disrupting the page in a fashion similar to Lemmy. Also looking at Lemmy's contributions, I noticed that Mason Decker (talk · contribs), vandalized Baskin-Robbins, as like Lemmy. This is probably not worthy of a clue, but Lemmy has also given Mason food with nonsensical summaries.[174] Probably based on the "Decker" part though, but is it worth saying that all three are the same person, or if different, a potential meat-puppet network? ZappaOMati 19:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Might WP:SPI be more relevant? If that's your concern, I'd ask for an investigation there. Rutebega (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• They're all blocked indefinitely now, as vandalism-only block evaders and obvious socks. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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

False references and BLP misquotes: block user as hoaxer?

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 notice that NuclearWarfare recently indef blocked User:A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a for creating the Bicholim conflict hoax many year before. Ssilvers then changed A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a's user page to reflect that.

At User talk:Legolas2186/Fixing citation problems, more than ten months have gone by since editors started cleaning up after Legolas2186's false references and fabricated quotes, especially ones attributed to Madonna (entertainer), a BLP. We were all hoping Legolas2186 would join in cleaning up the mess he left but he has not done so. He has not edited since 12 February 2012. Is it time to block him as a hoaxer? If so, should his user page reflect that fact? Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that would be a purely punitive block.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is that User:A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a was blocked as a hoaxer even though he hadn't edited in five years. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No idea on blocks and stuff, but the user shouldn't be a reviewer or an autopatroller. I have hence rectified that. (Note: haven't touched his rollback permission). Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have also notified the user of this thread. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's probably a moot point as neither A-a-etc or Legolas is likely to return under those accounts, but I can't object to some note being made, either in the user page or block log, that this account has deliberately compromised the integrity of the encyclopedia. It's certainly reasonable to not allow either account to edit until they've explained themselves. 28bytes (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

When an account is blocked indefinitely, it seems to me that the blocking admin should make a prominent note on the user page and talk page to alert casual Wikipedia users of the fact. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Subtle hoaxes seriously undermine enwiki. If there is some possibility that a hoaxer will start editing again in the future, then a block prevents that harm. It's not a big possibility though, since a hoaxer who gets caught would probably prefer to come back with a different account. It's certainly a good idea to have some kind of permanent record, somewhere, for the benefit of future editors who notice something else suspicious (including similar edits by a new account) but aren't yet sure that it's a hoax... bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a list anywhere of users known to have perpetrated hoaxes? Should there be? LadyofShalott 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked. This reason - damaging the integrity of the encyclopedia - has been used uncontroversially before for indefinite blocking. This case seems to rise to that standard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive jingoistic behaviour by User:MervinVillarreal

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

---

This user has for the past few weeks been involved in nothing but the pursuit of a jingoistic agenda, arguing and edit warring with other editors over nationalities, primarily marking anything and everything as American and eliminating other nations even where sources say otherwise. When approached with sources or policy like WP:BRD he continues to edit war and tells the other editor to discuss, except discussions have been had and he ignores them.

For instance here: Talk:Prometheus_(film)#Nationality and here: Talk:The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Nationality and here: Talk:Rockstar_Games#Nationality_of_Rockstar_Games and here: Talk:News_Corporation#WikiProject_Australia.3F and here: Talk:World War Z (film) Among others.

Multiple attempts at a jingoistic agenda at Prometheus including 1,2,3,4, 5, 6, 7 And repeatedly restoring a banner with GA status to a non GA article here 1, 2, 3, 4. Warring at Chronicles of Narnia, Chronicles of Narnia 2 i think?, another Chronicles of..I'm not big on Chronicles of Narnia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_On_Stranger_Tides&action=history and Pirates of the Caribbean, ignoring BRD]. All of his edits relate to either his talk page where he's getting told off by someone or pursuing this singular agenda to the abandonment of reality, policy or consensus.

At Prometheus, the discussion went on and on partly because the user is 15 and partly because the user does not natively speak English as far as I have gathered. Despite the discussion he believed that he alone had achieved consensus, and then has repeatedly made efforts to move the added "united states" nationality above the previously existing "United Kingdom" nationality for no reason. Despite repeated warnings (that he has deleted from his talk page) and opposition in each of these discussions, he refuses to listen to others, repeatedly readds his edits and ignores any policies given to him. His actions are incredibly disruptive, and on pages not actively monitored, detrimental. I'd say a time out would be good but I don't think that would have any affect on him, but something needs to be done because discussion does not work, and its not fair that he continue to consume hte time of volunteers in endless argument and then edit wars over his perceived and personal notion of what makes something American. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

hello, are different pages, then, are not considered vandalism and is also needed to reverse the article at least 3 times in less than 24 hours. MervinVillarreal (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Being a part of several conversations with this editor it is my belief that he has no interest in collaborating or compromising with other editors. It should be noted that on this version of his talk page specifically says that he is here "to change nationality, LOL, no <3"He repeatedly spouts the same "Facts" and it seems like he is trying to "Shout the loudest" and is quite obviously following an agenda. Most of his sources are in Spanish and so not readable by the average English reader. MisterShiney ✉ 18:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for one week (before seeing this thread). User shows no apparent interest in cooperating with other users. And just to comment on his statement above; you were edit warring, and 3RR is only one part of that policy. Bjelleklang - talk 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional Comment It should also be noted that I suspect that this user socks using IP's to further their agenda and try and get past the 3RR. In particular this edit and this talk page addition. Among other older edits with different IPs. MisterShiney ✉ 19:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. I suppose Marvin's next block is indefinite. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• There's more on their talk page, including reference to blocked IPs (three by now). Mervin seems to completely oblivious to just about everything, but appears to have a new IP available at the click of a power button. Maybe some smart person can look into it. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • With the IP addresses given, a rangeblock would have too much collateral damage, unless there's a smart-person way to narrow it down. As an aside, I had a tussle with this user not too long ago about copyright, and his misunderstandings and violations thereof: the thread can be viewed here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yep. And look at how much time we've wasted on this. Oh, on the talk page he claims something about his IP address. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Rollback needed

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:Gilded rod III (link to Talk Page) has been blocked indefinitely after editing for only one hour (is this a record?). However, looking at their contributions, they left quite a mess. Will somebody who has rollback (or some other tool) please clean this up. (I have not notified the user who is the subject of this discussion; didn't see the point. I tried to put this notice on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but, as the user is blocked, I was directed here.) HairyWombat 18:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like HappySailor has already done so. It looks like someone obviously likes owls. a13ean (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit: there's a few left, taking care of them now. Now done, mostly by HS. a13ean (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Regarding User:ChrisGualtieri's edits with Ghost in the Shell and refusal to Discuss

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've tried to discuss with this editor on what the article Ghost in the Shell, the editor at first discussed refused RFC or DR. I really need some help. I'm trying not to revert but at the same time im trying to find a way to edit. I've attempted RFC but another editor (User: John F. Lewis) reverted. All im asking is for third party opinion (not here though).Lucia Black (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

First off you are required to notify anyone you mention here. You did not do that. I had to find out about it from John Lewis. Secondly, I was the GAN reviewer, I can fail the article if it doesn't meet standards. You do not need to open an RFC or a DR because you didn't get the answer you wanted. Third, it was you who unilaterally merged content and tried to change the scope of the article mid-review. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I must explain all of my reverts jus to give clarification on the situation. Lucia nominated the page in question for a GA, Chris had already dealt with the nomination and was waiting to close it was a fail, on the page he added the under construction template to sow he is working on improving the article, about 5-10 after, it was reverted by Lucia under the claim of no consensus. Immediately ChrisGualtieri come to #wikipedia-en on Freemode asking for help, at this stage I stated to discuss tihs with him while dealing with the invalid revert. After some time Lucia opened a RfC regarding the GA (from what I gathered) however the review had failed so I reverted it under not being exactly appropriate. After some time I was faced with a few reverts and changes my Lucia that I felt in my position as an editor was in need of me to revert under invalidity or a policy. If any user has any question solely about my actions I would be more than happy to cooperate. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

@Chris. I did. This wasnt here that long. And you shouldve given it more time.

@John.Clarification, the edits are more about changing the article rather than improving on it for what it is. Improving the article atm is "subjecive" if its about changing the focus.Lucia Black (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been notified now by Lucia. Also the diff of Lucia Black changing the media franchise to the manga mid-review is here.[175] I was under the impression I was going to be reviewing the franchise per the hatnote and began doing so. And Lucia Black unilaterally decided to move the content from the Ghost in the Shell (manga) after commenting on the talk page at Talk:Ghost in the Shell (manga) It caused a bunch of errors with the templates from other pages and made Ghost in the Shell awkward to read as a result. This move never should have been done, so I reverted it and doing as Lucia said, "I'm gonna be bold about it. If someone has an issue we can discuss it once it gets reverted." Well, I reverted it. We've discussed it to, in depth on my talk page and the GA review page. I was still discussing it with her up to the filing of the ANI. So that claim is wrong. Though in all fairness, convention seems to be that related media (movies, games, shows) in a franchise should have proper material to lay out the franchise and what is in it. Such as Mortal Kombat or Final Fantasy. The unilateral change did not have consensus and I am not removing content or distorting it, but restoring it and trying to fix it. Lumia Black changed the focus, not I. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, you've claimed that Chris is biased, without having any apparent reason. He admitted that he's a fan of the franchise himself, but how does that translate to bias against the article's nomination for GA status? I don't see any fault with Chris's behavior in any regard, and he appears to be attempting ultimately to improve the article. Furthermore, the edits he's making to the article seem to me unequivocally to be improving it, so I don't follow what you're saying when you claim that the improvements are "subjective", "changing the focus" or "changing the article". Rutebega (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Rutebega. I'll post more about this for clarity and ease of reading. This is how the article looked prior to the move. [176] On 03:02, 20 October 2012 turned the manga page into the redirect to push the content into the franchise page.[177] And these are the first three changes made by Lucia Black in which the content was copied and pasted in. [178] The page was previously the franchise and there was nothing wrong with it, it was just lacking depth. Though I should also point this out. In moving the content to the Ghost in the Shell page which was the franchise page the meaning and scope is completely changed. The story is not linear, it is disjointed in spots, but it is the same universe, the plot which Lucia Black merged in also isn't even accurate so anyone arriving from a search engine like Google is going to be given the wrong impression. Lucia's argument about having the Ghost in the Shell page be about the manga was based on the apparent non-notability of the franchise otherwise, as if the content had to be merged together in order to exist on Wikipedia. Despite Ghost in the Shell, better known for the #1 Billboard hit movie, carries the same name, and the video game which has an entirely different plot was also a huge hit on its release. The manga is a hit, yes, but I do not see any reason for having the main link be about the manga. The video to this date is still more popular and carries the exact same name, better to not confuse readers and give them the full scope and proper context at the overview from the franchise level. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)It seems to me that what has been demonstrated here is that the article very obviously fails the stability criterion of GA at this point, whether or not it meets any of the other criteria. LadyofShalott 01:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for late responce.This is far about the GA review. Regardless, the issues were being brought up were getting subjective. And provided no coherent advice.

The extensive knowledge was good but then started to rely on subjective issues. for example: the issue was just a misconception of the article. Continued to mention about his knowledge but not in a helpful way, but rather in a demeaning way. The subjectivity continued in his talkpage, for example: Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (SAC) video game being in the main article even though already extensively covered in the SAC argued. He argued that they werent really part of the same continuity, therefore not related to SAC. I mentioned they share the same subtitle and in the end, it came around with Chris stating that they are.

My edits were in accordance to the style and nature quality/featured content of WP:ANIME's scope. Theres no point comparing Final Fantasy or Mortal Kombat as they are more focused video game series. I dont know why the mention of the film supercedes the manga is relevant as the film has its own article.

The issue is now about changing what the article is, for one, how can we separate the original manga from the media franchise overall without the article's info being overly redundant. This isnt a necessity of the article, but a choice of what the article should be mainly about. REGARDLESS the issue is more about lack of consensus and refusing RFC (from another editor) and not even trying to reach consensus. I've warned the editor that we should reach consensus first, but refused. Hence why we're here.Lucia Black (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, I'm not trying to be a pain here, but answer these two simple questions. Ghost in the Shell, Ghost in the Shell, Ghost in the Shell. Which one is the manga, which one is the film, which one is the video game? Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. Which one is the TV series, which is the PS2 game and which is the PSP game. It isn't a port either, they are different games. Ambiguity is fine and can be handled on disambiguation pages, but outside of Wikipedia or any incoming internal Wikipedia link for Ghost in the Shell will wind up at the manga instead of the franchise. You are attempting to remove matter of the franchise because you said it was non-notable and would be merged anyways. Lucia Black said, "I have thought of a "compromise" such as separating things by "series" but, the outcome will lead to either the manga being split and the media franchise not being notable on its own (and had to sourced extensively on how the franchise as a whole supercedes the manga) and most likely be merged back with more organization and eventually go back to the layout we had before the GAN. ".[179] That's the key problem. The franchise is notable, it can stand alone. Though it also should stand because any time someone types in Ghost in the Shell into a search engine, Wikipedia is the #2 entry and readers can learn about the franchise and what it is. Other articles can split off and deal with matters of continuity, but if readers cannot find or access such material easily and directly, then the article is useless. According to the tracker Ghost in the Shell has been viewed 61308 times in December and the article is ranked 8278 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.[180] Its a top 10000 article. I consider presenting it as a whole franchise essential for our readers to understand the topic. The manga is just one facet of what Ghost in the Shell is. It should cover the topic of Ghost in the Shell, broadly, and not solely the manga. Let Ghost in the Shell (manga) hand the manga. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any need for admin intervention or sanctions here. Everyone seems willing to discuss things now, so I suggest this be closed and the discussion taken to the article's talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior at DRV

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.

---

Anyone got a large trout handy for someone edit warring over a close? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Use this, remember to subst. Bishonen | talk 01:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

I applied a block-sized fish, but anyone can unblock with my blessings if he agrees not to edit war any further on it. The trout by itself seems inadequate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we need Wikipedia:Deletion review review, for editors like Doncram who can't accept what should be a final answer for a Wikipedia process. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Deletion review review review... postdlf (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to poke or taunt him more at the moment, please... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Ubuntu

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.

---

There is currently a disagreement at Talk:Ubuntu for Android#Ubuntu about Ubuntu's new smartphone software (see http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/phone) and what relationship this has, if any, to Ubuntu for Android, a previously announced project. Right now the two participants are me and User:Walter Görlitz. I argue that the new Ubuntu phone software is pure Ubuntu and should be covered in Ubuntu (operating system); Walter Görlitz argues that it is derived from Ubuntu for Android and should be covered there instead.

The reason I have brought this here instead of WP:3O or the dispute resolution noticeboard is that Walter Görlitz appears to be no longer interested in discussing the issue, and has resorted to posting single line, mocking replies in response to legitimate requests - requests like please provide some sources. For example, I posted a direct quote from a WP:RS, reporting on comments by CEO Mark Shuttleworth, which very clearly and unambiguously settles the matter, to which Walter Görlitz responded flippantly "feel free to add your source as a counter-point and tag the contentious statement". I asked him to provide any kind of source at all to support his assertions, but he responded "Of course my opinions are just those and carry no more weight than yours."

It would be nice if someone could weigh in on whether this kind of approach and attitude to dispute resolution is appropriate. – Steel 03:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There are three involved editors including User:Yworo.

The order of events is wrong. I did restore the referenced statements and after Steel's continued insistence to remove it I have decided that others need to discuss it.

This is entirely the wrong forum for this discussion and I apologize for wasting your time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:MeasureIT and SPI comments

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

---

There is currently an SPI investigation against two users. On seeing that the discussion was developing a number of interwoven threads, I extracted my comments and moved them to a separate section (as is the norm for arbcom discussions). To date, there had not been any responses to anthing that I had written, so I did not break any threads in doing so.

User:MeasureIT, one of the editors under investigation as a sock-puppet then merged my statements back into everybody else's. I believe that he was hoping to have such a confused argument that an administrator could not find their way around the diuscussion. Although I could have initiated a discussion, my past dealings with MeasureIT convinced me that a WP:BOLD approach was needed as he would probably have disrupted everything. Martinvl (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You misrepresent the situation. At least one of your comments had further comments nested under it - here is a diff of one being added: [181]. Removing it upset the context of that part of the thread. Many of your "past dealings" with me do you no favors at all, many of them being the subject of outstanding noticeboard discussions of one kind or another, as you well know. I know it would be more convenient for you if I was out of the way, but please don't misrepresent or exaggerate my actions. MeasureIT (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Any kind of admin interest in this SPI would be welcome as there is a history of muddying SPIs where these socks are concerned, making them hard to read. A more disruptive user than De Facto / Lucy-Marie / Eff Won I have never encountered, and these new two (Curatrice and MeasureIT) are showing every sign of being the same person. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't concern yourself with comment refactoring. So little evidence is required for a check (one diff per account and a few sentences of text) that 95% of what's written on that case is probably totally irrelevant anyway. I wouldn't waste your time responding to them; if a clerk or a checkuser needs anything then they'll ask you for it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Admin Qwyrxian

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.

---

Admin Qwyrxian is violating WP:Involved and WP:Own by removing information supported by WP:RS in Sri Lanka page and also using tools to block users,protect in content dispute where he has reverted to his preferred version.He was asked to stay away as he was involved and there was a discussion but instead of letting other admins to act ,he choose to use his tools in violation of WP:Involved and WP:Own.Please ask other admins to handle disputes in Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka related articles.202.138.106.1 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This has already been addressed at length at Talk:Sri_Lanka#Full_protection; multiple administrators have reviewed Qwyrxian's actions and agreed that Qwyrxian's actions, including very minor edits and protecting the Wrong Version do not constitute involvement. NE Ent 12:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) What I see here is that Qwyrxian has reverted to the version before the edit war and protected the page. He didn't change the content (that would be construed as a violation of WP:INVOLVED) but he acted "purely in an administrative role" (quoting the policy). What I also see is that there is a discussion about what content to include, and I suggest you participate rather than report an editor for doing nothing wrong. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 12:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC here as well) Floating Boat and NE Ent have covered this much more succinctly than I; nonetheless, I'll include my statement for completeness sake.

Basically, this user doesn't understand the policies s/he is citing. First, there's no way I could be WP:OWNing the article; I don't even know what 99% of the article says, and I've made almost no edits to it. As far as the actual events, my detailed description is here:

Extended history

On November 30, Intoronto1125 added some material to Sri Lanka. Some editors removed it, some restored it, and there was a clear edit war. I don't recall what brought my attention to the article, but I fully protected the article on December 2. In addition, I reverted to the pre-dispute version. WP:PROTECT explicitly states, "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." In general, this is the approach I prefer, at least when there is a clear starting point, without other intervening constructive edits, which involved a clear change from a status quo; that was exactly what I saw here, so that was the version I chose to protect. After protecting the article, a number of editors tried to claim on the article talk page that I was involved, which is simply not true. I don't know why the editors don't seem to listen to me when I tell them, but I really, honestly, truly, absolutely do not care what version the article finally ends up in. All I want is for involved editors to make a consensus-based decision. However, no one bother to do discuss the matter, even after I tried to help by starting a TP section that summarized the arguments that editors had made in the edit summaries. The full protection wore off on Dec. 9. Still, no discussion. On December 30, Intoronto reinserted the info; he was reverted by SinhaYugaya; he undid the removal calling it vandalism; SinhaYugaya re-removed it. Since I had already made it clear on the talk page that further edit warring would result in blocks, that's what I did. After looking at the comments of both editors and history, I indefinitely blocked Intoronto and blocked SinhaYugayafor 24 hours. Intoronoto has been blocked for edit warring multiple times, has been indeff'd three times, and whose last unblock log notes that any further edit warring would result in a final indef. SinhaYugaya is new and had no history of edit warring; I probably should have not blocked at all, as another admin pointed out on my talk page. If I made any bad judgment calls throughout this process, it was this one, in that I probably erred to much trying to appear "fair" by blocking both "sides".

The short version is this: I'm not involved, I followed WP:PROTECT, and several other editors have already made this clear on the article's talk page. Intoronto is indeff'd because this is just the latest in a long history of edit warring; subsequent unblocks have been declined by 2 other admins and make it clear that Intoronto is simply unable to contribute to the project w/o edit warring. Nonetheless, several involved editors seem to want to focus on this side issue rather than actually discuss the content. I do not know why this is. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: there was more than one editor claiming I violated WP:INVOLVED; someone else may want to notify the article's talk page to let them know this is being discussed here. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have done so. GiantSnowman 12:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Qwyrxian's actions. Protecting an earlier version of the article, under WP:PREFER, was entirely appropriate, as was the subsequent block for edit warring. I can also see nothing in Qwyrxian's article edits that violates WP:INVOLVED; of the twenty edits he has made to the Sri Lanka page, none (save for administrative actions) are related to the current dispute. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a couple of months as most IP edits seem to be problematic to that article. I haven't reverted the most recent addition as I take no opinion on it - however I recommend strongly no more reverts happen there before talk page discussion. (PS: the protection system is kabloomed... Twinkle removed the move protection, then when I manually restored it the edit protection upped to sysop... huh??) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The actions of Qwyrxian after the discussion on Talk:Sri_Lanka#Full_protection in which the some editors including a editor he blocked clearly told him that he was WP:involved and he should have avoided taking admin actions in this dispute any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankancats (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Just because involved editors tell an admin he is involved doesn't make him so. The policy WP:INVOLVED determines that. You can't justify that claim in policy, in fact Qwyrxian has quoted in policy where he instructs him exactly what to do and you've ignored it. Instead you're going off feelings of "Well this is unfair to me" and in your mind that makes him involved. Well guess who cares, no one. He ain't involved, according to policy, and the whinny attitudes at that page make we want to trout some people.--v/r - TP 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I care. But I'm kind of "no one," anyway. As I've previously stated, Q's actions are righteous (except perhaps they didn't really need to comment here at all), but WP is really quite a complex place and folks are going to get whiny. So I'm perfectly fine with as many editors as Q needs saying they were copacetic before Q allows the thread to be closed, and I'll say as many times as necessary "not involved" but "no one cares" is harsh. NE Ent 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The surprising thing would be if the editor he blocked didn't claim he was involved. Also, the sudden appearance of Lankancats to comment here after not having been active since June raises an eyebrow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I too have reviewed Qwyrxian's actions and find them uninvolved. What is sad about this is that the chance of actually getting Intoronto unblocked, slim as they were, were not helped by another user pushing this accusation on his talk page. I do not think that the accusation was made in bad faith, though. Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC).
  

Note he indef blocked Intertoto only after being asked to take action in his talk page by another editor involved in the content dispute.Despite questions being asked about his being involved.He should have asked another admin to look into this dispute.202.138.106.1 (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Further it was fully summed up in his Rfa here :I was asked to weigh in on this. Based only on my own previous interactions with Qwrxian, I do not believe he is an appropriate candidate to be an administrator of WP at this time. I found that Qwrxian was more interested in policing Wikipedia than editing it. In his zeal to voluntary enforce WP guidelines, I found that the user came off as brash, simpleminded, and authoritarian. This is because the user appears to have a very narrow and rigid understanding of WP policies and guidelines. I'm afraid that if he was given the position, he may potentially abuse it. Wikipedia does not need more administrators, it needs better editors. This is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)202.138.106.1 (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you find a problem with Qwyrxian's conduct either tell him (if he's open to recall, which I'm not sure about) or file an RFC/U, but keep in mind that, as demonstrated here and at the article's talk page, no one will agree with you. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 09:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought of initially not to raise or get involved on this issue at ANI but at RfC. But I want to clear certain misinterpretation here, before I start the RfC.

After the revert and full protection of the article by Qwyrxian, I have raised that particular incident to number of editors, they have come out the response that Qwyrxian is right.

But I have't provided the following diffs at that time to them to get an over all picture of the Qwyrxian's involvement in the Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka related articles;

Qwyrxian has closed the discussion while the "Civil War" section is out(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) from the page as No-Consensus though Qwyrxian encouraged for mediation.

Qwyrxian has blocked Hillcountries though he/she encouraged for a talk page discussion while the "Category: Sinhalese people" is in(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) on the Prince Vijaya's page.

Again, Qwyrxian has reverted the controversial content out(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) and then protected the page.

But I dropped the issue pursuing further against Qwyrxian and agreed with other editors that his/her actions are right since "Qwyrxian may be an honest admin, but the coincidences made others to think he/she is biased or overly involved with his/her admin tools with pages on Sri Lanka and its Conflict."

And, "The above may be mere coincidences until someone could travel into someones' brain cells and study how things are recorded at that time and the intention and the motives behind."

But after the IndefBlock of Intoronto I am of the view that Qwyrxian acted as a Judge and a Jury concurrently on the situation and the individuals(Intoronto) involved.

I agree with IP: 202.138.106.1 that "...Despite questions being asked about his being involved. He should have asked another admin to look into this dispute."

Even User:Richwales is approached by email after the IndefBlock of Intoronto and Richwales has come out with the statement,"...I was asked (in private e-mail) to intervene in this situation. However, I am not going to do so, because I do not feel it would be constructive or helpful for me to get involved further at this time. If there are disagreements over whether Qwyrxian's admin actions here have been proper or not, I believe WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI would be the best place to discuss the matter."

If Richwales has agreed with Qwyrxian's Indefblock,he/she might have simply stated that Qwyrxian is right. So Richwales also not sure of the situation.

That is why we need a RfC not only for the remedy for Intoronto's Indefblock but Qwyrxian's involvement as an Admin in future on Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka related articles.

Again, Qwyrxian's might be a good admin elsewhere on Wikipedia but not with his/her involvement on number of Sri Lanka related articles which are more confused, complicated and sensitive even for a seasoned diplomat to handle.Sudar123 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sudar123, I don't think those things make me involved. I closed a discussion as no-consensus, and recommended further mediation. That was an administrative action, not me acting as a content editor. Second, I blocked a user for edit warring on a different page on a different topic about 8 months ago. How is that related to this issue? And the revert has been explicitly and directly explained as conforming to our policy on protecting pages. Seriously, could you please explain what I have done that violates WP:INVOLVED? Maybe it would help if you explained what you think that policy means, because maybe you're just misunderstanding that. That policy says, basically, that you can't use administrative tools to gain an advantage in a content decision. Is there some way in which I've tried to get the article to look in a certain way and then used my tools to enforce that way? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My guess is RichWales knew Qwyrxian was right, but was trying to guide you rather than tell you. You and the IP are simply wrong. What you describe as actions that make Qwyrxian involved are administrative actions which by the very clearly explanation in the policy do not make him involved. Further, Wikipedia does not work like the outside world. "Qwyrxian acted as a Judge and a Jury" is perfectly fine on Wikipedia. There is no jury because no one here can get the death penalty. Administrator actions can be reviewed after the fact for accuracy. In this case, the review shows that he acted appropriately, was not involved, and the block holds. WP:Involved is very often misused on Wikipedia because folks read the name of the policy instead of reading the policy itself. It doesn't say what a lot of folks think it does. More often than not, involved is used inappropriately for one primary reason: every admin is aware of this policy's existence and that it can be the end of the bit for us, so we're especially aware of when we are involved or not. We are experts in this policy and we make sure we steer far clear of it. The likely hood of us breaking the policy, because we are experts in it, is far less than the likely hood that you've misinterpreted it, because you are not an expert who is subject to it. The policy ain't all that hard. Administrative actions != involved. I'm passionate about this because I've personally been accused of being involved by two different people in the last 6 months who refused to read the policy. One of them is blocked, the other makes an embarrassment out of himself every time he speaks out. Try to be different, read the policy. If you have a problem with the block, WP:Involved isn't it. You need to figure out what was really wrong. Maybe you think it's too harsh, maybe unbalanced from the other user? I don't know. But this line of argument that you and the IP are holding will go no where because those of us experienced in the policy know the flaw in your reasoning and have tried to explain it to you.--v/r - TP 15:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I can only state my agreement with TParis that Qwyrxian is not involved. I'd bother citing all the policy reasons, but honestly, TParis and Qwyrxian themselves have already said it all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Qwyrxian's actions. - First, if dispute is there he should take some actions against a edit war. So he protected the page. Intoronto is a user who think as high profile user. He doesn't give reasons for his decisions ( for an example Vandalism) don't participate to discussion in talk page, but take actions think he is 100% correct. If some one gone through his edit history most of his reverts, edit are unethical. He don't care to give reasons. look it here. He has used edit warnings to prevent opposite people goes against his opinion. First, if he involved in a edit war , he should not give edit warning since he is just a party of the war. He is not in a position to judge the situation. Other thing is he should state his stand in talk page to convince others. If only no objections he can go with it. Otherwise Wikipedia has a process to proceed. And it is not the reporting the admin who take best actions to get the page on all agreed version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.170.32 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 January 2013‎

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.

Robert Agostinelli and User:Spacevezon, violation WP:NOPR

Hello, I see you semi-protected the Robert Agostinelli article without imposing any block or restrictions on the primary offender, User:Spacevezon, who is an employee of Bell Pottinger (worth a read given its extensive history with scrubbing Wikipedia bios on behalf of its clients) and he has now set about scrubbing all mention of his firm's role in the Robert Agostinelli article, as well as attempting to re-insert outlier sources discredited and removed by consensus. This is a paid editor and advocate in violation of Wikipedia policy WP:NOPR and I just wanted to write to you to remedy the situation as it is getting out of hand. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk • contribs)

Hi, 95.141.31.4. I have notified User:Spacevezon that you have opened this thread. I don't agree with you that he appears to be a paid editor (in fact he mostly edits articles about London bus routes); it looks like normal NPOV editing to me. His sources and posts seem reasonable and neutral to me, unlike your own. -- Dianna (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Expert editor DGG has confirmed at the Reliable Sources noticeboard that the Forbes source is a reliable one: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Robert Agostinelli. -- Dianna (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Forbes methodology just cites that they rely on recommendations from journalists, meaning it's subject to being influenced by PR efforts. That appears to be the case here since a PR firm Bell Pottinger is known to be employed, and appears to have successfully created confusion between the subject's net worth and the value of the fund he manages. There is still no evidence to suggest that the more reliable hard data shouldn't override this, particularly since (a) it's a huge outlier, and (b) the raw data sources are taken from actual filings and the numbers and details themselves are visible to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Forbes methodology bases their reports on the investigations (not recommendations) of their journalists, discloses what they do and do not take into account, and differentiates be tween the assets someone has and the assets their firm controls. It has two editors for the section who list themselves and take responsibility. See for their methods and bylines. They and the magazine, put their reputations behind it. It's as reliable as anything a magazine publishes. This of course does not mean they are right in any given case: even the best financial journalists make errors, and so do all other sources. That they give only a rough approximation in this case indicates to me that they are being honest in the presentation: they don't say more than they know. A less careful source would write out $1,000,000,000. Essentially no source is 100% reliable. It's not definitive, and any other reports should be used also. If challenged, as here, the technique is to say "According to Forbes, ...". Using it does not imply someone is a coi editor or not a coi editor; both would use it. It says nothing about an editors skill or carefulness: it's the first place people look, and unless there is a controversy, I would rarely look further. Any good source will give individual net worth as an approximation. because it is the most widely used source in the field. This is not a comment on the present matter at issue at ANI, which I may comment on when I've checked the situation & the diffs. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the history. The London Bus Routes editing was from months ago. He is not a regular editor and only picked back up again when required to scrub this page. The Robert Agostinelli page is the only one he now edits, save for adding punctuation here and there to the odd random article to make his history look legit. You think Bell Pottinger Digital Team doesn't know how to appear legit on Wikipedia? They've already been the subject of media articles about their activities here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Based on a report at WP:ANEW, I semi-protected the Agostinelli article, mainly based on my view that the editing by different IPs was inherently suspicious.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

@ 95.141.31.4: I did investigate, and have seen paid editing before; this isn't it. Your accusations are serious, and require you to present actual proof in the form of example edits where you demonstrate his behaviour is "scrubbing" articles or proof of paid editing. It looks to me more like a collection of IPs have been removing favourable content - sourced content - from the article. -- Dianna (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Go through the history of the article itself. There is a clear pattern of paid edits and scrubbing, some of which resulted in user accounts being terminated for doing so. They appear to have gotten more clever this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The very first edit that User:Spacevezon made to the piece was to scrub his own firm. That doesn't strike you as suspicious? Nor the fact that he's hunkered down on a bio belonging to one of his paid clients? http://www.pelhambellpottinger.co.uk/clients-and-transactions/financial-institutions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you persist in these accusations without offering any evidence (not a single diff, let alone a pattern of diffs), I will block you for personal attacks and close this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone just run an IP check on User:Spacevezon already to see if there's anything suspicious or if it resolves to anything linked in the past here on Wikipedia to Bell Pottinger? Seems to be the way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentication2864 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be more apt to run a check-user on User:Authentication2864, who has found his way to this discussion on his very first edit. -- Dianna (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh so no one has a right to register a Wikipedia username? Ah, okay then. There are several of us in the investment community monitoring this article as we have our own good reasons to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentication2864 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC) This might help in understanding the sudden mass interest in the article's subject since mid-December, Robert Agostinelli: http://www.generali.com/288451/Press-release-at-CONSOB-request-corrected.pdf . It's a case watched closely by the investment community involving the Italian SEC (CONSOB). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentication2864 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Come on now kids. Here I'll help the poor soul out on the suspicious diffs edits: Bell Pottinger scrubbing: [182] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Agostinelli&diff=531438962&oldid=531381639 Adding obscure gossip blog sources: [183] Reverting to questionable sources without using talk page: [184] [185] [186] [187] And all this within the last approx 24h with no edits on any other Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentication2864 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, a brand new account jumping in at ANI. Are you the same person as all the IPs, some of the IPs? Putting the obvious socking aside for the moment, the only diff worth anything above is the one citing to GossipExtra, which is almost undoubtedly an unreliable source. The rest is old hat and has already been rejected as evidence of nothing. As for the material cited to the Gossip website, it's been removed (I may have done that myself when I cleaned up the article a bit but didn't go back to check).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Authentication2864 for one week for abusing multiple accounts (there is a pending SPI report).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• A note about Spacevezon's edit history. They have 2,403 edits total, of which 785 are to article space. They have made 14 edits to the Agostinelli article and no edits to Rhône Group.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Doncram and NPA

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

I believe that a WP:NPA block is needed for Doncram, based on the following recent comments:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive243#request_admin_help_to_close_improper_AFD — Accusation of bad faith in starting an AFD: the nominator "fully knows this is a valid Wikipedia list-article topic"
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#User:Doncram is deciding who can and can't participate in an RFC on a WikiProject talk page — he says that someone else "has several times expressed hatred against me and fanned flames of contention involving other editors"
• I'm an idiotic non-person, and I'm "dedicated to disruption and hatred and so on".
• Accusations that someone else "has long expressed hatred and has harassed me for years. It is long term harassment, bullying, evil" and "urging on bully assistants"
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive778#Doncram_at_lists_of_various_churches — Various bits in this massive section of which that's a part. For example, I'm "extreme and unreasonable". Another editor and I have been behaving in ways that are "unduly aggressive and bullying in nature", and the other editor has written "truly horrible things...that are not forgiveable" that have "seemed calculated to dehumanize me, to treat me as a non-person".
• Elsewhere, he says that someone else is "assert[ing that] others are stupid or fools or naive or not-tough-enough-to-deal-with-tough-persons-like-yourself, or whatever".
• Just two days ago: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29, where my deletion of some recently-created implausible redirects is stated as being in bad faith: "The deleting editor is fully aware of the fact that the deletions performed did not conform to any speedy deletion criteria". I warned him on his talk page after this accusation of personal behavior: he's presented no evidence that I intended to violate deletion policy. If it weren't for this bit, I wouldn't have taken issue; there's nothing objectionable about the idea of someone filing a DRV about one of my deletions.
• In response to my warning, I'm told that I gave the warning "intentionally in bad faith". Over at the DRV, Doncram says that he doesn't know why my motivation is, but nevertheless he speculates that it's "driving me away from Ohio and Indiana NRHP-listed articles". Again, no evidence, and likewise no evidence that my removal of images from some Indiana bridge articles (the first time I can remember a WP:OWN violation being alleged) is a WP:OWN violation regarding Ohio articles.

I've heeded WP:CIVIL's instruction to "Consider ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue", and I'm only coming here to dispute resolution because "there is an ongoing problem [I] cannot resolve". We routinely sanction people for making accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, including baseless accusations that they're doing things in sneaky bad faith. We routinely sanction people for "insulting or disparaging an editor...regardless of the manner in which it is done", and that includes telling them that they're not even human. Someone who demonstrates a long-term pattern of WP:NPA violations is tendentious, especially when he knows that his editing drives off people and when his block log shows one block for disruptive editing (including personal attacks) and another for WP:NPA violations. Please stay on topic and discuss why you believe that Doncram should or should not be sanctioned; the last time this came up, the discussion (found in archive 778 linked above) petered out without resolution because people turned off onto other issues. Someone else please warn him about this thread; the IncidentArchive776 thread will show that he saw notification of an ANI thread by the thread-starter as harassment. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

From recent discussions, it seems that the consensus is that this noticeboard is suited towards addressing individual incidents, but not so much for discussion on a pattern of behavior. If you want to get the pattern of behavior addressed, you should consider filing an RFC/U or taking it to arbcom. Ryan Vesey 00:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what WP:WQA was for - before it was closed with the declaration that AN/I was the place for such things... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't have any perfect tool for dealing with longer-term problematic behaviour. RfC/U has had its fair share of criticism too. One of the points in AN/I's favour is that it has teeth. bobrayner (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No comment about this case, but I wish admins would take NPA more seriously and warn/block when users show a rude pattern of behavior. I almost left for good in the first month of editing because of someone's baseless accusation that I was vandalizing wikipedia because he didn't agree with my edits. FurrySings (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:WIAPA, Doncram's recent insistence that "80-100%" of Sitush's participation on two particular pages consisted of misrepresentation, attacks, etc. qualifies, as it wasn't supported by diffs (and isn't supported by reviewing the comments). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

keepalive ping --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Having been a target of Doncram's negativity (I've been repeatedly called "evil", "hateful", "nasty", "snarky" and a variety of other things) for some 4-1/2 years now -- and having interacted with him for a total of more than 5 years (as near as I can determine, we first met in late 2007, and the encounter was reasonably productive), I think that Wikipedia is long overdue for a discussion of the behaviors that are so upsetting to a significant (and growing) number of us. For a long time, I have contended that things would go substantially better with Doncram and the rest of us if he could somehow learn to refrain from personalizing his interactions with other users -- instead, focus on content. That's not the only issue between Doncram and the other users he spars with, but his persistent focus on personalities tends to poison his interactions. Unfortunately, I probably made matters worse between us when I pointed this out to Doncram -- telling him that he apparently became convinced that I was "out to get him" (not necessarily the words I used at the time) before I even realized that I had debated with the same person on multiple pages within a relatively short period. This period was July–August 2008, and the multiple discussions were at NRHP Wikiproject talk page, NRHP Wikiproject focused discussion page, and a featured list nomination, as well as a few other discussions in the same time period. Looking over these old pages, I notice that Doncram used my name five times in his post of 07:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC) on the featured-list nomination page, which was a reply to my review of the FL he had nominated. In retrospect, I see that as undue focus on a person rather than content. That same sort of pattern has repeated itself over time in his interactions with Nyttend, Sitush, and others who he has also accused of being "out to get him". --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've just noticed this thread. While doncram appears to have a way with words when it comes to emphasising personalisation by others, my big beef is that of misrepresentation. However, as noted in the most recent prior thread concerning doncram here, it seems that they are preparing a submission for ArbCom. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Unarchiving. Since I created this thread, Doncram's comments have continued in this same manner; see the "Mark a lot of pages for microformatting" section of WP:BOTR, where he calls for people to "attack you personally for gross ignorance" when talking with someone else. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Andy is plenty thick-skinned enough to ignore that quite bizarre equivalence, but it was sufficiently tortured in any case that it doesn't really count as a personal attack (to you, Sitush, Andy or anyone else it was directed at). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If this were an isolated incident, I wouldn't bother, but my point is that he's literally asking for personal attacks against someone else over a thoroughly minor issue — it's just another piece in a broad pattern of behavior. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to see it as simply playing the martyr again ("if yu were me then they'd be cricifying you and leaving your bones to bleach in the sun, oh woe is me" etc) and being generally pointy regarding trying to block a productive suggestion for the sake of it, none of which may be helpful but also none of which is really a bright-line incident. Were I completely uninvolved I may have blocked here on grounds of general long-term social competence, but I don't feel right doing that now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Water off a duck's back (though Doncram wasn't to know that), but still unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Meanwhile below... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

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 if this is the right place to report this, but I was looking over the history of the War in Afghanistan (1978–present) article when I noticed that it abruptly ended.[188] It appears that a user had done a copy and paste move from the Afghan civil war article.[189] Is there a way to fix this? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. 28bytes (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Administrator deleted article to make way to a manual restore; article's history lost in the middle

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.

---

1. I move Puerto Rico's Gag Law (notice the 's) to Puerto Rico Gag Law (no 's).
2. I improve the article and add some content to it.
3. User:Marine 69-71, an administrator, deletes Puerto Rico Gag Law (no 's).
4. User:Marine 69-71 manually restores Puerto Rico's Gag Law (notice the 's) through a copy/paste—the article's history is lost in the process because this is the redirect created on step 1.
5. User:Marine 69-71 creates a new Puerto Rico Gag Law (no 's) as a redirect to Puerto Rico's Gag Law (notice the 's).
6. User:Marine 69-71 posts the following on Talk:Puerto Rico's Gag Law:

Please do not rename an article without consulting it first in the article "talk page". That is the way we do things here in Wikipedia.

All my actions fall under WP:BEBOLD and WP:AGF.

Below is the confusing deletion and move log:

(Deletion log); 22:06 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) deleted page Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(G6: Deleted to make way for move)
(Move log); 22:06 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) moved page Puerto Rico Gag Law to Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(The proper name is "Puerto Rico's Gag Law" since there are other countries who had similar laws)
(Move log); 22:03 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Puerto Rico Gag Law to Talk:Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(The proper name is "Puerto Rico's Gag Law" since there are other countries who had similar laws)
(Move log); 22:02 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) moved page Puerto Rico Gag Law to Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(The proper name is "Puerto Rico's Gag Law" since there are other countries who had similar laws)
(Move log); 22:02 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) moved page Puerto Rico Gag Law to Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(The proper name is "Puerto Rico's Gag Law" since there are other countries who had similar laws)
(Deletion log); 22:00 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(G8: Talk page of a deleted page, making room for properly titled article)
(Deletion log); 21:59 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) deleted page Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(Redirect is being deleted because the proper name for the article is Puerto Rico's Gag Law and that is waht should be placed there)

User:Marine 69-71 abused his administrator's privileges.

I'm requesting an undeletion of the article up to where I updated it and a de-adminiship of User:Marine 69-71.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

x

Really? Why? Bold move was reverted and is a dispute to your edit. Now discuss it on the talkpage and find consensus for the article title change you desire. You can also use Wikipedia:Requested moves but your initial move had no discussion to begin with so I support Tony's move. Frankly....it cuts out a lot of drama....or was at least attempting to. Try a little AGF there yourself Ahnoneemoos.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahnoneemoos was right that the history of the page was actually gone, with nothing before the move back being visible in the view history section. It is however now visible again, for some reason (bug or restoration?). Ahnoneemoos's reaction above was perfectly understandable in light of the fact that their edits actually couldn't be seen anymore, so it was more than just a revert. However, as it's there now, both editors can enter discussion. CMD (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Tony should not have G6d the article to make way for the move unless a notification was given first. However, this is not a redirect issue (as stated on the talkpage by the OP). Its an issue with moving the article without discussion. Did either discuss first? Doesn't appear so. OK, we could go the extreme and de-syops Tony, but then a boomerang would be appropriate for the OP just as extreme. On the other hand we could just say both were not entirely in the right and not entirely in the wrong and move on.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue was that the page history was deleted, which is definitely an odd occurrence. While it'd be interesting to know what happened, it's not administrative anymore. You're right that normal dispute resolution can occur now. CMD (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing it but am I right that not only was no attempt made to properly ask the admin before bringing this here why the heck they deleted the page and effectively did a cut and paste move but they weren't even properly notified of this discussion asking for deadmining (a comment was left on the article talk page complaining and saying it was being taken to ANI but nothing on the admins talk page)? Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I made a mistake when I tried to retore the article to the way it was originally. My actions were not made in bad-faith, and I hope that someone could correct my mistake and post the article with it's history. The situation here is that User: Ahnoneemoos renamed the article without discussing it the issue in the articles "talk page". He renamed the article "Puerto Rico Gag Law", which in my opinion does not make any sense since there no such thing. I believe that the proper and correct title was the one in which it was created "Puerto Rico's Gag Law". When I tried to restore it, my computer messed up on me and hence the situation where the history was erased. I have told User: Ahnoneemoos that before he/she takes things into his/her own hands to first make an attempt in discussing things with other editors. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

POV-pushing, edit warring, spamming, personal attacks and uncivil behaviour

Rothbardanswer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Almost all of User:Rothbardanswer's edits involve either POV-pushing, edit warring, spamming, personal attacks or uncivil behaviour. His legitimate edits are outnumbered by the unproductive and negative ones. His account has already been blocked for violating Wikipedia guidelines, but his bad behaviour has resumed with a vengeance. He has been warned many times on his talk page but he deletes those warnings.Spylab (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Spylab, can you please provide some diffs? I checked the talk pages of Anarchism and Free market and didn't find anything considered a personal attack or uncivil behaviour. Maybe I looked at the wrong place... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm the only contributor using the talk page before using edits. Every edit I've made has been preceded by using the talk page and every edit I've made has made reference to a different author article and site. Still these editors are displaying bad faith, aren't engaging in discussion on the talk page, are editorialising, and displaying ownership of the page, and political POV pushing. Rothbardanswer (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Rothbardanswer just violated 3RR on Anarchism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Noticeboard report can be seen here. Finx (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• (ec x 3) Granted this seems to be a new user and we all have probably done something really stupid with a Wikipedia page for giggles at one point or another, but do you have an explanation for THIS ? Carrite (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

HAHAHA NO! Except to say I have absolutely NO memory of that whatsoever! This probably just can't fly on wikipedia because you'd have to take me at my word but that must have been one of the fam. The only thing I guess I could say is that that is entirely out of the character of all my other edits which are all cited contributions where I take care of phrasing. and also you won't find in my history any politically aggressive edits E.G. I've never gone on a Marxist page and started rephrasing things to fit my own political opinions with unsourced material. Like THIS !!! :) I've only ever tried to improve wikipedia pages that I know about. This seems to have hit a nerve because editors dislike free market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism but wikipedia isn't about politics. I think It's clear just from the names they warrant a place in the article. I don't think that violates neutrality at all. I'd like to stress again I was the only person using the talk page during that "edit war".

My political take on this is that this seems to be a POV warrior intent upon link-spamming libertarian material into the big-topic piece on anarchism. A topic ban may be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain earlier on the appropriate article's talk page, I may have strong opinions too, but I don't distort topics to promote them or push my views. Your edits to free-market anarchism were based on a profound misunderstanding of what "market anarchism" has traditionally meant throughout the world and I had only tried to provide an accurate description of the term, to replace a completely unhistorical description. Notice how 'anarcho-capitalist' views are still represented, in context. Finx (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The edits you made to "free market anarchism" were your own political philosophy. You've deleted cited material from multiple users and replaced it with a paragraph that is completely unsourced. The changes you made were to an article I didn't write which is reflected in the talk page where you badger multiple contributors for correctly editing content about a concept you personally dislike. The talk page on "free market anarchism" is now full of tirades where you talk about the orthodox meaning of anarchism in between asking questions that demonstrate you don't know economics (holding the door open is economic activity. Breathing isn't. but I shouldn't have to explain any of this. We aren't here to argue politics. I don't argue politics and go on socialist pages and yell at people about how politically and economically their beliefs are incompatible with freedom and then think that gives me licence to edit pages without any reference to the people and texts we're supposed to be describing with neutrality. Rothbardanswer (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to continue this here, because it is not the appropriate place to have this conversation. If you check the article's talk page I've stated clearly and at length why 'market anarchism' is primarily a socialist topic. Despite your accusations, I had never engaged you or anyone else in debating politics. The criticism was about poor wording, undue weight and context. Finx (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Finx I don't want you to take this as aggression but your edits are personal and malicious and I am going to report you for them when I have a bit more time on my hands. You don't seem to understand what constitutes POV pushing or you're deliberately saying one thing while doing another. I may very well have been drawn into an edit war but I was defending sourced material from what may be POV pushing or censorship but CERTAINLY is vandalism. If anyone knows the proper method of protect an articles validity I'd like to know also. Your edits are your own unsourced opinions on an article the subject of which you disliked so altered. I don't think you make constructive contributions, but you may be right, so I'll let the moderators handle it.Rothbardanswer (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "I am going to report you" -- please do so. This is not the first time you've thrown accusations at me or threatened to report me and my response hasn't changed. Please proceed. Finx (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't normally touch on anarchy-related articles, but I do watch some economics articles, and Rothbardanswer's edits there are problematic too; bit by bit the articles turn into a temple of Mises &c... for instance, Free market. bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Tellyuer1

Tellyuer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tellyuer1 has been edit-warring at Moshe Friedman. The editor has also spammed virtually every Wikipedia noticeboard concerning the article. Now Tellyuser1 is canvassing editors. Will somebody please put an end to this disruptive editing? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Am consistently trying to engage in dialogue on this very serious issue concerning Holocaust denial. Simply wish for sources to be accurate. Happy to stop as long as engaging in dialogue which Shabazz and 1 other editor refuse to do.

18:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellyuer1 (talk • contribs)

---

(Consolidating my report with the above. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC))

• Tellyuer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moshe Friedman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm too involved to take administrative action myself, so I'm filing a report here.

The actions that led to this report have all taken place in the past 24 hours, including the user's edit warring at Moshe Friedman, for which he has had a WP:ANEW report filed against him. He's then started canvassing other users' talk pages in an apparent campaigning/votestacking attempt to push his changes through the article.

I've tried to assume good faith and help this user, but the straw that broke the camel's back was this message at his user talk page. I'll let some stuff slide, but being accused of "supporting anti-semitism" (his words) counts as a personal attack in my book.

Additionally, the WP:ANEW report against him includes vague allegations by other users that Tellyuer1 may be involved in sockpuppetry.

I think it's time for an uninvolved admin to come in and address the situation—not just the edit warring, but the whole of his conduct. —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Not vague accusations, he had three socks and also used an IP[190] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tellyuer1. Amalthea 18:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Rather than using fancy terms simply do what is supposed to be done on wikipedia - accurately reflect information. I have all accurate information and editors refuse to review the actuality of what the sources say and article says. And yes its anti-semitism to say jews werent killed in the holocaust. NY Post isnt a valid source but some obscure vienna newsletter is? Tellyuer1 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• a review of the users edits would show that the editor is a Single Purpose account here with a mission to highlight Holocaust Deniers and then because Holocaust Deniers are bad, tar and feather them in every manner possible. A ban on editing any topics related to the Holocaust might avert the disruption if the user is actually interested in contributing to an encyclopedia. They seem to be very prolific and if the energy could be harnessed in a positive manner within the WP:NPOV requirements the encyclopedia might benefit greatly.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, rather than address my edits which are accurate, you are once again informed. Read the right great wrongs page - not what this is. Friedman all of my edits are well sourced and you are simply denying them for no reason at all. What can be the possible reasoning that an obscure newsletter with 10,000 claimed readers is a reliable source but NY post isnt. Factually all of my edits have been right - and with good sources. a mission to highlight Holocaust Deniers and then because Holocaust Deniers are bad, tar and feather them in every manner possible. Am simply seeking that whats on wiki is accurate as it should be and can be if readers read sources.Tellyuer1 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hello my old friend. Have you been "travelling" again? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This editor is now edit-warring against multiple editors at Neturei Karta. Because of the nature of the edits, it's difficult to see how many reversions theere are; I think it is so far six today. RolandR (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Am removing unsourced information. and adding good sources. everything have removed is unsourced. Tellyuer1 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Save yourself the trouble. People who are community banned don't get to edit Wikipedia, so all your edits will be reverted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked Tellyuer1 for one week based on the report at WP:ANEW. That, of course, can be increased if warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like Babasalichai (talk · contribs) to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation Bojhena Shey Bojhena

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.

---

Newly released "commercial" Bengali films has been a problematic area for a long time now where a bunch of registered and anonymous editors are adding absurd information currently.

Anyway, in this article Bojhena Shey Bojhena a user is adding copyrighted content from The Times of India. He has also removed the maintenance template but I reverted edits twice where I deleted the copyvio portion! --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed an entire section of copyvio from the article, if an admin can block now, ask questions later to avoid further damage it'd be appreciated. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Barsoomian's civility

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.

---

Barsoomian needs to be more civil.

• Responding to an editor on his talk page: You made your smarmy comment on Wrathful's page minutes after mine [...] I don't want, need and will not follow your advice or admonitions. And specifically, don't write on my Talk page ever again unless it's a required notification.
• In a discussion on WP:VPP: I have no idea why you felt the need to make these idiotic remarks [...]
• Believes that characterizing others' comments as "idiotic" is okay: That was a pretty mild response considering how how gratuitously insulting he was to me.
• Ownership of talk page: Well, if that's your attitude, then I'll clarify things: Never write here again for any reason.
• Responding to a user coaching Barsoomian to be less "BITEy" to another editor: Haven't you got anything better to do than breathe down my neck?
• Personal attack against that user: Changed the user's initial section heading from Less teeth, please to Pompous windbaggery

I'm involved in one of these (this one).

I bring this up here rather than trying to talk with Barsoomian myself because of the response I received previously, and the later response that Barsoomian gave to User:Jack Sebastian (we each tried to address the civility issue). Sancho 21:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Scrap that second one (and the third one likewise)--there is nothing wrong with this remark: it's an appropriate comment to an idiotic analogy which I'd see as an ad hominem also. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. I can disregard those. Maybe I was wrong about them, but I was acting based on what WP:CIVIL says: "If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind.", and "Someone may very well be an idiot. But telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them." Sancho 21:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sure--but if person A says "government sources aren't necessarily reliable" and person B says "that's like saying you should wear a tin-foil hat when you go outside", then person B can be told that their analogy is not just incorrect but also derogatory--it's close enough to saying "you're nuts". Drmies (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Your statement is incorrect and derogatory" would have been a much better way to respond, I think. Sancho 22:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• You are entitled to your opinion. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• For better or for worse, it's pretty much standard practice that editors are permitted to ask others not to post on their talk pages. The only one of the above that genuinely causes me concern is the last one (changing another editor's section heading), but it's an attack on the edit, not on the editor, so it's hard to describe it as a personal attack. I don't think you're going to get any administrative action just on the above, therefore, although clearly Barsoomian would benefit from some advice to play more nicely with others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• That would be good advice well taken. But for now, in these diffs, they're staying on the right side of 'comment on edits, not on editors'. Not nicely, but still. BTW, I agree that the changing of a heading is not kosher--"Less teeth" was appropriate and "pompous windbaggery" is an insult...but again, it's pointing at the comment, not the commentator, though it's awfully close. AT any rate, Demiurge is correct: no admin will take any kind of action on these diffs alone. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but I don't recall a single instance of collaborative or civility while editing with this user - and I know I am not the only one who shares this opinion. And I believe that while one can dick with their pages in most cases, refactoring the posts of others (altering, instead of removal) is especially odious. This appears to be a deeply-seating anger issue waiting for an outlet - any outlet. We lose enough new users as it is; why bite the new contributors while they are testing the waters? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, you don't have a score to settle with me, do you? Anyway, the "new user" you are so solicitous of has actually been editing for six years, as I told you earlier, so how you can still say he's a "new user" here I don't know, and despite your best attempts, we have had a productive discussion and may be working together on a new article. So you'll have to find another incident to nail me for. As for your comments on my talk page, 1) you made your post after I expressly asked you not to comment there further, 2) I did just remove them, though I admit for 19 minutes it was there under a more descriptive heading. Barsoomian (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't speak for other people, but as for me, I'll not block on these edits — but I will block without further warning (and advise anyone else to do likewise) for any future edits of this sort. After all, his block log is currently clean; it's not as if he's already in the middle of escalating WP:NPA blocks. I'll let him know this. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Responding to the specific points that have not been struck:

Regarding Sanchom's remark "I bring this up here rather than trying to talk with Barsoomian myself because of the response I received previously" -- I am astonished at this. I responded civilly, though I did not agree, and Sanchom never came back. I assumed the issue was settled. Drmies has now explained it more clearly than I did, so I hope that now it is settled.

• Responding to an editor on his talk page: You made your smarmy comment on Wrathful's page minutes after mine [...] I don't want, need and will not follow your advice or admonitions. And specifically, don't write on my Talk page ever again unless it's a required notification.

I believe on my own Talk page, I am allowed to tell people not to post. Am I wrong? Sebastian (the person it was directed at) has on his own talk page "If I have asked you to not post on my usertalk page, please respect that request and don't do it. If you do anyway, I'll simply delete it and seek your block."

• Ownership of talk page: Well, if that's your attitude, then I'll clarify things: Never write here again for any reason.

Same point; "my" talk page. Also, this was after I had told the IP editor this was addressed to who kept putting "tb" tags on my talk page every time he responded on a discussion page. (Which each generated an email alert.) I told him at first that this was unnecessary, as I was watching the discussion page, but he kept doing it. This was in response to his comment "this won't be a problem unless you ignore my valid arguments" which indicated he was likely to keep doing so, so I was more forceful.

(added) Earlier requests had been made and ignored: [191], [192]

• Responding to a user coaching Barsoomian to be less "BITEy" to another editor: Haven't you got anything better to do than breathe down my neck?

I have told Sebastian many times I don't want his advice on any issue. His "coaching" is simply a way for him to patronisingly criticise me. This specifically was Sebastian butting into a routine and uncontroversial exchange I had with another editor that was resolved amicably despite Sebastian's attempts to make it all about me rather than the substance of the edits. Also note that he characterises my remarks as "biting a new user", when the remarks (in response to repeated reverts by said user) aren't overly aggressive and the user in question has been editing since 2007 and, if not prolific, could not be called a newbie.

(added) see here for the (non)BITEy comment and the subsequent discussion, without any drama, and no need for a "coach". Barsoomian (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Personal attack against that user: Changed the user's initial section heading from Less teeth, please to Pompous windbaggery

Sebastian's initial heading Less teeth, please was patronising and implied that I was engaging in "biting" new users, which was completely false, and there was no "new user" involved in any case. And in mitigation 1) I thought better of it and deleted the whole section a few minutes later 2) this was in response to Sebastian's continuing to make personal remarks to me on my Talk page, after I had asked him not to post there again. At great length, and with great self importance -- thus "pompous windbaggery" describes it concisely. But, since I'm being charged with making a personal attack, please note that "pompous windbaggery" is a description of the text in the section, not of a person. Barsoomian (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bedtime for me, so no long response. I gave you that warning particularly because of this last section — windbaggery, for example, is produced by windbags, and more generally, statements like this about the text necessarily are statements about the one who made them. Additionally, many of your comments don't link to those comments or otherwise tell us how to find them; remember that WP:WIAPA prohibits such statements without evidence. Please provide links soon, unless you already did, in which case please show me that I overlooked them. Nyttend (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't provide new links at first since the text I refer to is on the same page as the link in the complaint. I've now added above some refs for "Ownership of talk page" and "Responding to a user coaching Barsoomian" if that helps. Anyway, since it seems that "pompous windbaggery" is a trigger for this, I will address that: First, it was on my own talk page and I deleted the words 19 minutes later. Do I get no credit for that? It could only have been seen by someone actively trolling through my history looking for something to take offence to. Also, is "windbaggery" really offensive? It's not complimentary, but come on. Definition:

Collins Dictionary: "(informal) lengthy talk or discussion with little or no interesting content". Now I know that tit for tat is no excuse, but have you seen what I was (briefly) describing as "windbaggery"? See here. For instance, Sebastian describes my edits as "nonsensical, unnecessary comment". Is that not equally, or more, offensive than describing his words as "windbaggery"? He goes on to attack me personally "You are not the smartest guy/gal/whatever in the room" (attacking both my intelligence and sexuality). I shrugged this off and deleted it, along with his various threats and misrepresentations of what I had said, but apparently such foolishness is worth opening an ANI. I am being sanctioned for deleting these insulting words with a dismissive comment that was visible only for minutes. Barsoomian (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to add that I think civility to other editors is hugely important, especially in not putting others off the project. I found this user's recent messages on my talk page to be uncivil and uncollegiate - it was the main part of what made me decide to take a bit of a wikibreak this month, so I don't have to feel attacked. Boleyn (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? I was uncivil to you? What specifically was "uncivil? I "put you off the project"? You don't seem to consider that your reverts of my edits and your subsequent actions did the same to me. That was the only thing I expressed in my comments. In retrospect I might have been oversensitive, but if you construed any of that as an "attack", I'm sorry. Barsoomian (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I can understand why Sancho came here, as Barsoomian's attitude to others has been problematic for a long time and it doesn't seem to have improved any in at least two years. My first interactions with Barsoomian were over his addition of copyvios to List of Primeval episodes in 2010. A discussion on the article's talk page lead to further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems where his tone was less than civil, at one stage comparing me to a troll and referring to other editors as "a bunch of self-appointed bureaucrats".[193] One of the edits I discovered today, while on a totally unrelated matter at Talk:Tron: Uprising, was an inappropriate change to one of my edits.[194] (God only knows what was in the zip file he added) It's very hard to collaborate with Barsoomian, his snide edit summaries,[195] and generally offensive behaviour towards others makes interaction with him highly undesirable. During "discussions" it very quickly gets to the point where nearly everything he says seems to be an attack, and I can see why Sancho took offence at the two struck-out items above. While Nyattend is correct in saying "it's not as if he's already in the middle of escalating WP:NPA blocks", this is certainly not the first time his actions have been raised at ANI or other places.[196][197] Despite this, his editing is generally constructive. If he'd just play nicely with others, and accept that we do things for a reason instead of complaining about the way we do things (as was the case here and here) he could be a real, and appreciated, asset to Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for reanimating all your grudges from 2010. I see you're a believer in "revenge is a dish best served cold". And "complaining about the way we do things" -- what he means is "disagreeing with me and engaging in debate". Even to complain about an obvious copy-paste error I made, again years ago, that no one noticed at the time. Even debates he prevailed in, yet still wants to beat me down for daring to challenge him. Barsoomian (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, "complaining about the way we do things" is demonstrated by the opening of this very, very recent post. Even though we addressed the issue of what constitutes a copyvio at Wikipedia way back in 2010, "The copyright cops will tell you that rewording a press release is copyvio -- it's not in the real world, but that's what the policies here add up to" is still "complaining about the way we do things" two years later. Accept things and move on. Don't continually complain about things that can't be changed. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, I actually SUPPORTED YOU in that case and said what the copyright policy is. Despite my thinking it's silly, I have upheld it. I've reverted edits that violated it -- repeatedly, in that same article, for some weeks now. ([198], [199], [200], [201], etc.) Complaints about my "civility" is what this is about. I didn't know that "complaining about things" was subject to sanctions, but if you want to complain that I don't Love Big Brother, you should start your own ANI issue. And it's pretty rich to tell me to "move on" when you come here to try to make a meaningless typo I made two years ago into a sinister act. Barsoomian (talk) 9:55 am, Today (UTC−5)

Hey all, let's all just settle down a bit. This isn't a requests for comment. Admins have already taken the action they're going to take (asking Barsoomian to be more civil). That's a good enough outcome from this, so let's not get things off to a bad start by just piling on. Barsoomian, please ignore this extra stuff that's been added if you can (it is from a long time ago). Everyone else, Barsoomian's been asked to be nicer, so let's give it a chance. Sancho 15:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Barsoomian, I know that you've previously stated that you neither want nor plan to follow any advice I offer you, but I thought I'd point out the 500 lb gorilla in our midst: Here are several editors - experienced and otherwise, old and new (and yes, a user who has been here for almost 6 years and added less than 120 edits is still considered 'new') - who are addressing precisely the same issues with the way that you conduct yourself in your interactions. I didn't initiate this noticeboard post, though your posts seem to indicate you you thought it was a vast conspiracy to do so; a user I have never met or interacted with did.

And this is key: we are all saying the same thing about your behavior and conduct. Instead of attacking and parsing out your complaints to each of the people complaining, listen to what we are all saying. You have the potential to be a good editor, but have some significant challenges when it comes to treating others with the respect you yourself demand. And this is the same sort of complaint that has brought you to AN/I repeatedly. We are asking you to cowboy up (and that is no challenge to your sexuality gender if you are female) and take responsibility for your interactions with the rest of us, so that we can focus instead on the good contributions you often make. Even though I am the one you called a "pompous windbag" (semantic gymnastics aside, that is precisely what you were doing), I can see you being a better editor, if you can but get past this unfortunate wart of a behavior. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, while your comments may be good intentioned, I will ask again to please just leave this topic alone now (and I'll close this). Sancho 04:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for input, and if it boomerangs that's fine

In scientific tests, 8 out of 10 editors involved in a talk page dispute decided to forget all about it after seeing a picture of this kitten.

I'll try to be short, sweet, and to the point.

I removed some tags on an article [202] then when they were replaced without using the talk page I re-moved them [203] and created a place for discussion [204].

Since then I've had a couple of administrators giving me medium-weight grief, during which I said on my talk page that they were being "tiresome twat[s]". Can we either tell Guy Macon and SummerPhD what edit warring and personal attacks are (e.g.:questioning competency is not a personal attack) or can we tell me why what I did was one of those things?

Oh, and can we also tell Macon that it's not cool to tell users to fuck off, as he did to me?

124.168.221.199 (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think a key problem with SummerPhD's comments on the talk page is that he seemed to answer the question he'd like to answer ("What does {{external links}} mean?") as opposed to the actual question ("Why is {{external links}} still relevant for this article?) I see Canoe1967 has actually fixed the problem in the article, so the tag is no longer relevant. I would at this juncture consider the dispute resolved and advise deep breaths and pictures of cute kittens all round. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure...kittens all around, but let us not forget that if you remove a tag, you need to provide and actual reasoning why you did so beyond "It isn't having an effect". Simply put, the tag was a challenge to the content and the removal without addressing the content issue was not the right move. I would love to discuss why someone would tell another to "f" off when being called a "tiresome "t".....but I am certain editors already get that.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Templated maintenance messages may be removed by any user when there is no supporting section on the talk page. So, zero support for Macon's consensus that I was edit warring? That is my main concern. And, while I do take your point Amad that I was being less than cordial in calling him a twat when he was stomping around my talk page... But for that Macon told me to fuck off while telling me to stop making personal attacks.' - 124.168.221.199 (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of templates, I should have thought that Guy Macons detailed explanation have covered that subject quite nicely. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, and even if I was, administrators don't use their tools on pages where they are involved. Nor have I called for a block. The behavior I describe below arguably merits a warning template, nothing more.

The issue is not, as 124.168.221.199 implies, whether he did something that would call for a block, such as WP:3RR. The question is whether, as I claim, proper behavior when a dispute arises over content that has been in place without complaint for months or years is BRD (You Boldly make the change, someone Reverts it, then you Discuss it with the original content in place) or whether, as 124.168.221.199 claims, proper behavior is BRRD (You Boldly make the change, someone Reverts it, you Revert the revert and only then Discuss it, having forced your changes onto the article). I would not have gone to ANI over such a minor issue, but now that it has gone to ANI, I really won't consider this to be resolved until the BRD vs. BRRD question is answered. If left unanswered it is certain to come up again.

The civility issue doesn't concern me, as long as the targets are experienced editors. I would be concerned if the insults and personal attacks are ever used against a new editor, because of our ongoing retention issues. I think a gentle warning to all involved (myself included) that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are policies that apply to all editors and all pages might be appropriate. It does give one pause when an IP editor with ten edits starts citing arbcom findings of fact. One might even suspect sockpupettry.

My exact words were "I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram." This was after 124.168.221.199 said that I was lazy, incompetent, tiresome twat (five times), condescending, head up arse, idiot, boring, dick, and having trouble with reading comprehension. (From Wictionary: TWAT: Noun (vulgar, slang) A vagina, pussy, vulva, clitoris.) given the fact that 124.168.221.199 filed this ANI and accused me of a PA over my reference to Arkell v. Pressdram, I think perhaps WP:BOOMERANG might apply. ---Guy Macon (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, great, so you're all clever when telling me to fuck off, great for you. Do you win some kind of prize? You are being lazy when you not only warn someone improperly, but when the page you pointed me at in your "detailed explanation" says pretty clearly "Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag". Since we're not all doing the kittens things here, can we start with that? The very essay I was pointed to says that my removal of the maintenance tag was fine. We can perhaps discuss Macon's reading comprehension problem (e.g. not understanding what edit warring is, what sock puppets are, or even the difference between an essay and a policy) later.

124.168.221.199 (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty essay. It may have been ok for you to remove the tags once because you had a belief. However, once the tag(s) were returned, you were never permitted to re-remove them, and that's from policy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

See, that was both polite and relevant, thank you Bwilkins. Link to said policy, please? And not the pea-soup of letters, thank you. (The reason I pointed out that essay was because it was the first thing pointed to me when telling me I was wrong... Is that somehow not coming across?) - 124.168.221.199 (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, first let's start by the hierarchy for a moment: a policy (set by the community) outranks a guideline (usually also set by community, but could be a subset) which really outranks an essay (sometimes written by only one editor). Guidelines and essays often amplify/clarify a policy. The essay on tagging and untagging amplifies basic editing concepts, especially related to problem articles. The policy on edit-warring states that "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions...an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". The tags are for this purpose considered to be content. You disagreed with the content of a page (its tags), so you removed them. It was reverted (as per be bold, revert, discuss). When you re-removed them, you were repeatedly restoring to you preferred version, as per policy. Note: the three revert bright line and edit-warring are related, but different - you can actually be edit-warring with a single edit (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually do understand the hierarchy, apologies if I didn't make that clear, I was suggesting that there were others in this discussion to whom it seemed quite vague. And is there a reason that you chose to remove "rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion" from the quote?

Back to the point at hand: I am sorry, but there's nothing there in the that I can't do what I did. And yes, I do understand that three reverts isn't an entitlement, but FFS, I made a section on the talk page explaining my single revert AND informed the user on their talk page of both the reversion and the discussion site, if I recall correctly. Rather than spending all this time schooling me, and with respect failing in doing so, perhaps we could re-visit what started all this: Ham-fisted warning for a single revert? I finally ask, given that the page on edit warring says "repeatedly", how can you claim a single edit can be edit warring? - 124.168.221.199 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a warning, it shouldn't be ham fisted, and it shouldn't be worried over or responded to argumentatively. Nor should it be held against the warned editor (unless they ignore it, and carry on reverting, of course). No one should be using bad language, even relatively mild bad language - many people have uncharacteristically used bad language occasionally, we don't make a big thing about it, perhaps we should, but we do discourage it.

If someone uses bad language it is a bad idea to respond in kind

Be aware that most warnings are also templates, which often can be ham fisted - and some of us have worked on them to make them less so. The alternative, however, is hand written warnings which often neglect a vital point, say something incorrect or are even less felicitous.

A BRR is not the end of the world, but it is to be avoided - it result in trouble more often than not.

From the descriptions above Guy gets a trout for incivility, IP get a boomerang shaped trout for the same and a herring for the original revert, plus a mackerel for not hearing that it is BRD with only one R.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

Trout accepted. I did violate WP:CIVIL, and I should not have done that, no matter what the provocation. "He did it first" is never a justification for incivility.

I believe that the BRD vs.BRRD issue and tag removal issues have now been clarified so that everyone is running from the same set or rules. I would like a clarification regarding the theory that there exists somewhere an Arbcom finding of fact that says you have "latitude" to freely violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA on your own talk page.

If and only if such "latitude" actually exists, I would like clarification about the implied corollary that those who you attack on your own talk page cannot be uncivil or engage in personal attacks when they reply. (Implied by filing a case at ANI complaining about someone doing that) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Original history

The {{toomanylinks}} template was added on 10 July 2011. Four days later, the same editor removed a link from that section. Perhaps that editor still thought that there were too many links but as they didn't start any talk or otherwise indicate which links were superfluous, we can't tell. Later, the template was moved from that section to the head of the article. As the template had then become considerably separated in time and space from the original concern and the original editor had also taken action himself, it seems to have been quite reasonable for 124.168.221.199 to have removed the template. It was therefore unhelpful for editors to force this template back onto the article without establishing whether it was still appropriate. Banner templates at the top of BLP articles should be used with restraint because this is a common complaint made through OTRS — that the templates seem derogatory. Warden (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP removed the template because, in their opinion, it didn't seem to be working, not because it wasn't valid. I restored it saying it was still an issue, with a template stating it may not have been their intention to remove the template without giving a good reason. It should have been clear that, if nothing else, I considered it an issue. At this point, the editor could have clarified that they had removed it because there was no issue. Instead, they restored the tag and reiterated that "It's clearly not having the desired effect" and, despite my edit summary, asserted that I must have ignored theirs. A third editor fixed the issue then removed the tag (and good for them). Whatever.

The personal attacks are an issue, mostly because the IP apparently does not see personal attacks as an issue. Edits contrary to their intent and standard templates were "made lazily and in haste". The IP has also asserted another editor's "incompetence". When another editor warned them to be civil, they decided to "be direct: You're a tiresome twat. (See, that was a personal attack.)" When warned for that personal attack, they asked for clarification of which personal attack they were being warned for (after all, how could they know that their "personal attack" was a personal attack, I suppose. This warning was also labeled a "repeated and useless warning". Unfortunately it does seem to have been useless in this case as the IP told us we were "being idiots" (but not saying it because, after all, they crossed it out "I won't stoop so low as to point out my opponent's long history of alcoholism"). They then called me a "A twat, or 'A person regarded as stupid or obnoxious.'" The other editor was told "you're being a grade-A arsehole here. F U CK OFF." and calling their discussion "self-serving bullshit" and advising "Don't be a dick. Being mildly clever in telling me to fuck off does not make you less of a dick." That the IP does not see a problem is clear enough: "I'd do exactly the same thing again. Probably including calling you a twat, because you're being one. Let me repeat that, as you appear to be having trouble with reading comprehension today: If, on some other article, exactly the same thing happens, I'll do exactly the same revert-and-make-talk-page-entry. So whatever warning you think you've given, whatever message that you are trying to impart, you've failed in doing so."

Yes, we are failing to get the message across: making personal attacks is not acceptable. A personal attacks that you call a "personal attack" is not acceptable. When warned about a self-identified personal attack, reiterating that personal attack is not acceptable. Saying that you would make the exact same personal attack again is not acceptable. The point is "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia." This is the message the IP doesn't hear. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to try to answer the questions 124.168.221.199 has asked in his last few edit summaries:

Q: "Since we're not all doing the kittens things here, can we start with that? The very essay I was pointed to says that my removal of the maintenance tag was fine."

A: The essay you were pointed to (Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems) lists the valid reasons for removing a tag. If you had given one of those valid reasons, then and only then does the essay say "your removal of the maintenance tag was fine". If at that point someone who disagrees with your reason reverted, at that point the two of you would have, together, followed the B and R of WP:BRD and both of you would have acted properly up to that point.

You did not, however, list one of the valid reasons for removing a tag. Instead, you removed it for invalid reason: "It's been there over a year". At that point, any editor is free to revert the removal on the basis of a tag having been removed by someone who does not appear to know what the valid reasons for removing the tag are. As before, the next step should have been D (discuss) and ideally you would, in that discussion, give us a valid reason for removing the tag. And indeed, I attempted to discuss exactly that with you[205] but instead of calmly discussing it you went into full attack mode.

Q: "I am sorry, but there's nothing there in the that I can't do what I did. given that the page on edit warring says "repeatedly", how can you claim a single edit can be edit warring?"

A: Wikipedia:Edit warring contains 2308 words, not just the 28 words in the first sentence. In particular, I would once again call to your attention the sentences "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." and "Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle." It's just that simple. Go ahead and be bold, making whatever edits you think are best, and if someone reverts one of them, discuss it without engaging in personal attacks. Don't re-revert.

At the time I gave you a warning about edit warring, you had every appearance of being a new editor (less than ten edits total) who simply did not know about Wikipedia:Edit warring. It is very common for such editors to revert again and again, not knowing that doing so is not allowed, and indeed, any request for a block because of such behavior will be rejected if the user was not warned. My decision to warn an apparent newbie in the early stages of edit warring was proper. What you should have done is to discuss it with me (are you seeing a pattern here?) in a calm and rational manner. Instead you went into full attack mode again.

If you want to become a productive part of the Wikipedia community, you need to calm down and start discussing things. Let's assume for the sake of argument that someone gives you a warning which is completely bogus. If that happens, just calmly talk it over instead of firing up the flamethrower. Treat other editors with respect and dignity even if you think they are wrong. It's that simple. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wahhabi

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

---

Please can the article on Wahhabi be protected from edits by non-autoconfirmed users. In the past few days it has been repeatedly edited by editors whose sole purpose for having an account on Wikipedia is to label it as "extremist"/"radical" and not "Sunni".

• 20:05, 5 January 2013 Dingdong85
• 19:28, 5 January 2013 Dingdong85
• 19:28, 5 January 2013 Hapytapy
• 00:21, 5 January 2013 Wikicrappy
• 23:16, 4 January 2013 Wikicrappy
• 09:08, 4 January 2013 Seektree
• 12:07, 3 January 2013 Seektree
• 21:48, 2 January 2013 Magnabug
• 05:51, 2 January 2013 Magnabug
• 02:31, 2 January 2013 124.190.233.226

--Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magnabug, which deals with the suspected sock=puppetry aspect of this.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest autoblock with a/c creation blocked for a week or so. In other words if CU agree that a based block can make this socker go away the article can be left. Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

Hoary got one and I got the others. It was pretty obvious they were either sock or meat puppets of each other. I was giving them time to see if they would make any edits that would tie them to an earlier group of sockpuppets. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Since this was closed last night, three new accounts have continued the same process. If I can give an analogy, if someone is stabbing me, the solution adopted so far has been to bandage my wounds, but to allow the person with the knife to carry on stabbing. Please can this article be protected. This person will just carry on creating new IDs to continue this until the article is protected.

• 08:40, 6 January 2013‎ Theone474 m . . (55,474 bytes) (-51)‎ . . (Undid revision 531589462 by Lerdthenerd (talk)- Wahabism is a sect unto its own, references have been clearly sighted.)
• 08:29, 6 January 2013‎ Theone474 ‎ m . . (55,474 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (Elaborating on the exact definition of wahhabism, it being a sect with Islam, part of the 73 known sects to date.) (undo)
• 08:17, 6 January 2013‎ Ebomobe ‎ m . . (55,473 bytes) (-52)‎ . . (Undid revision 531583411 by CambridgeBayWeather (talk)- Again you ignorant communist who thinks they know everything, wahabism is not sunni, its a sect on its own. ,)
• 01:29, 6 January 2013‎ Ebomobe ‎ m . . (55,473 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (Although they are extreme, radical would be more appropriate than extremist/ultra conservative to maintain an unbiased approach.)
• 00:23, 6 January 2013‎ ‎Samtheman78 ‎Samtheman78 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (55,475 bytes) (+125)‎ . . (Undid revision 531512656 by Lerdthenerd (talk)-The Wahabis are a sect unto their own, with extremist views. CLEAR references sighted you communists.)

--Toddy1 (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is another, it does not stop:

• 08:57, 6 January 2013‎ Dudbudfud‎ m . . (55,538 bytes) (+64)‎ . . (Wahabis themselves are extremist, the religion has many extreme, radical, and terrorist links.)

--Toddy1 (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Evidence is clear, I was first to notice the new ones, except the one blocked by Cambridge, I suspected ebomobe when he called Cambridge a communist, I've added him to the SPI, can you add the others--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Socks blocked. If this keeps up, I'd agree with semiprotection for some period of time, let's see if the sockmaster here is that determined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please also block User talk:Ebomobe. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magnabug has confirmed that he/she is also a sock.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, figured that one would've already been done as of the last SPI. Now blocked, in any case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Catperson12

The above named user has been warned and blocked previously (here) for unilaterally changing the legal description of towns in Virginia to cities. Particularly Warrenton, Virginia. He has found a new, slightly less destructive way to do it now, but still is not talking about it. diff Just wanted to get him on the radar again. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that diff was not at all vandalism, and you were incorrect to revert it as such. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I too am confused why you object to this specific edit — Warrenton is a town, as shown by the fifth page of this document; it's not an independent city. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I know it is a town. The standard layout on town's info boxes in Virginia is "Town of ####" So instead of just inserting city, like he was, he is now just downgrading the visibility of "town", unilaterally. He needs to discuss it before changing it. He appears to have some strong personal dislike for the word "town". Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@Nyytend - Slightly off topic: Are you sure about towns in Virginia not having taxation powers? I only ask because I'm fairly sure that towns here in New York do. [206] Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems to indicate that Warrenton can levy taxes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because the paragraph said "Like many incorporated towns in Virginia, the town of Warrenton has government and taxation separate from the county" — cities have separate governments, but towns are within counties rather than separate from them. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. If a town has a government, and the county has a government, are they not "separate" from each other? True, the town exists within the county (and the majority of cities in the US do as well, by the way), but the governments and the taxes are separate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Virginia is very much the exception with their independent cities. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Virginia has Counties that can contain Towns, and Cities which are not part of the Counties that enclose them, but no Cities that are part of a County. These Cities are known in law as "Independent Cities" because they are exactly that - they may be landlocked within a County, but they are completely separate from it. We're a little odd down here in the oldest part of European America :-) RossPatterson (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Towns can and do levy taxes in Virginia. Chief among them is real-estate (land) tax, but there are others as well. Leesburg, Virginia, an incorporated Town within and the seat of Loudoun County, Virginia has a page describing what residents are expected to pay. RossPatterson (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

519 edits, 518 mainspace, has never edited own talk page, 3 blocks. Another apparently good faith but totally non-communicative editor. Seems a shame to have to kick them to the good curb but not sure what other solutions exist. NE Ent 00:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

At least you get it. I wonder why I bothered looking up the archive if no-one was going to read it. If he sees his talk page, I disagree about him being a good faith editor. His earlier antics were persistent, even after both templated and written warnings. Would an admin consider sending him an email? Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

He was already blocked for a month for refusal to discuss anything. Looks like a trend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, but how did we know if they see their talk page? I know it's hard to imagine someone not noticing the big orange but it's happened before with other editors. I'm not seeing an "Email this user" link on their user page so I don't think anyone can email them. NE Ent 00:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I and others have attempted to engage Catperson12 back in September 2012, offering to discuss their intention behind these oft-reverted changes, to no avail. Reading through every one of their edits in the past, I believe Catperson12 to be intelligent enough to push a point, and perfectly capable of noticing a big orange sign advising them of new messages on their talk page. I can draw no other conclusion but that they do not wish to engage in discussion about this town vs. city issue. I agree with Gtwfan52 that Catperson12's current edits appear to be a stealth technique to advance the same agenda, whatever it is. RossPatterson (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, so here we are. An editor that will not discuss. We have no real policy that requires discussion. And this is that editor. One who has no record of any type of discussion whatsoever. Now what?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am incorrect. It seems they did make a single edit to a talkpage. I wonder if this attitude can be traced back to that edit. [207]--Amadscientist (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be this,[208] which sat unanswered for about 5 months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you....I dreaded trying to find it.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Use the "Namespace" dropdown to filter the results on User Contributions; i.e. Special:Contributions/Catperson12?namespace=1 NE Ent 14:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

User:8tsunami7

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

---

Please take a look at User:8tsunami7. -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hardly a report, DePiep. In any event, the editor is probably a puppet of User:Guinsberg. When I have a second, I'll file the report. In the meantime, I've protected the article the user has been editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, a bad report I made here. Thankx for taking care though. -DePiep (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've met so many bad users, I thought this one remark here could go without notice (as a sock would). But maybe it was not that clear. All fine, thanx for the action, and I'll be better (with diffs) next time. -DePiep (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Move of Anilingus article to Boners(Erectionmasters). Compromised account?

When I saw this, I couldn't make out what is going on with this user. And I still can't. I initially thought that this must be a vandalism account, but that's not the impression I've gotten from briefly looking over this user's edit history. So I wonder if the account has been WP:Compromised.

I first went to User talk:Boing! said Zebedee about it,[209] and then to User talk:AndyTheGrump,[210] because I wondered if I should try to talk this over with the user first. AndyTheGrump said "straight to ANI, I'd say. I'd guess a compromised account - so you'll not know who you are talking to." But since then, administrator J.delanoy has attempted to talk to the user. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked into this already, and talked about it with a checkuser (the abovementioned J.delanoy), who found nothing problematic in the records. Given that, and given that there's no ongoing vandalism, I'm personally going to wait for an answer to J's question before deciding to block, unless more bad edits happen. I'll be keeping an eye on his contribs. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think compromised, but given there's only about 500 edits, and that the user talk page history is colorful, not exactly a user in the greatest standing either. --Rschen7754 05:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The user has responded on my talk page about this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BROTHER. Since there are a number of other questionable edits in Intensity254's contibutions -- like the April 6 move of Tracy Morgan to Panda Bears(Movie Man) and from there to Tracy Jordan (Actor), and the April 8 replacement of 115K of text from List of Doctor Who serials with "Hi Peter" -- the editor should be aware that they are responsible for the edits made using their account, no matter what family member made them, and can be sanctioned for them. He or she should try to be more careful about staying logged in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

AsianGeographer

Hi all, am I crazy, or does AsianGeographer (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) seem like a sockpuppet? AG registered on 2 January and has made over 1000 edits in the four days since then with a maximum level of disruption. They also knew how to use categories and Hotcat from their third edit, and knew what "rv" (revert) meant by their seventeenth edit, just sixteen minutes after their first overall edit. Note that I've blocked this user for 31 hours for the aforementioned disruption and edit warring. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, apparently Hotcat was enabled by default for all registered users starting in November. But, the other points still stand. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, somewhat strange. I had been having an ongoing conversation with the editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed provinces of Indonesia, right up until he was blocked. Perfectly civil (perhaps a bit bludgeony, maybe, but AGF and all that). That said, I re-edited his comments and those from another user to fix their votes at AFD (from "oppose/support" to "keep/delete"). The WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments (again and again) is a classic new-user-at-AFD tactic. That sort of thing would seem to be either the work of a very (very) clever sock-puppet (intentionally making very public "rookie" mistakes to seem inexperienced) or a genuinely new user. 1000 edits in 4 days is insane. I have 5 times that many in 4 years. If nothing else, he should be strongly encouraged to slow the hell down. WP:NODEADLINE and whatnot. The block, I think, was justified to allow that message to be made clear and to prevent immidiate disruption. I'm not sure C-Us would be excited about a fishing expedition SPI. Stalwart111 10:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I ran into them - something about renaming a category. I'd say that the "speed" is all about their categorizations of articles - which with HotCat is a pretty quick process. As they have an interest in a particularly undeveloped area of the encyclopedia in some regards, categorization was likely very valid - although they ran into some issues with understanding how Wikipedia works (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Another thing that was strange was him knowing how to this. When I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed provinces of Indonesia, I accidentally stated that it failed WP:V (instead of WP:N). I, instead of thinking to strike it out, changed it after he had asked why it failed WP:V. Then he put it back with a strike through it and left this edit summary: "If you alter your text after other people have replied, then do that by striking." I wonder how he knew that. United States Man (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I recall using the abbreviation "rm" at the age of 13 or so on my dad's article (editing on IP), simply because I'd checked the history, seen someone else using it, and taken an educated guess at what it meant. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to add my two pennies in. I was trying to sort out this dispute "here". I contacted User:Merbabu "here" and was contacted by User:SatuSuro in turn. Both have stated that advice given on the edits he has made has been is ignored and accusations of attacking are made on a regular basis. My own interactions with him seem to indicate that he constantly believes he is being attacked by the two users above, that he is in the right and the other users are in the wrong. Sock-puppetry wasn't brought up by either of the users I talked to. Sorry if I'm telling you things you're already aware of. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a look thru this user edits and actions while its been a while since I've spent time looking at Indonesian topics there is something familiar about the editor but its been a good 18months 2years since that person last editted so CU would find nothing. The block looks fine to me the user posted that "he" was going to bed in the middle of the afternoon local id.time[211] Gnangarra 14:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've heard suspicions that the user may be User:Tobias Conradi, a known sockpuppeteer with a history of involvement in Indonesia-related articles. See, for instance, Talk:Jambi. Perhaps someone who knows Conradi's style better than me can check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The pattern of article creation looks similar to that of other Tobias Conradi socks in other areas, to my inexpert eye. bobrayner (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Points to Bobrayner for an accurate observation - see the result of this expedition back onto Wikipedia by Tobias Conradi at User:AsianGeographer - SatuSuro 14:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrat OhanaUnited - are they right, am I wrong?

OhanaUnited (Talk) just gave me a public warning on an article talk page, over a comment which was wholly irrelevant to the current discussion. This user is a WP:BUREAUCRAT so because of the formal nature of such a warning and the circumstances leading up to it, I feel it necessary to come here to ask:

• Are this warning and its placement appropriate and deserved?
• Has OhanaUnited behaved correctly?

OhanaUnited had posted this comment in a discussion, accusing one of the regular page editors (User:MilborneOne) of deliberate straw man tactics. This helped upset the editor as well as another.

I dropped a note real politely to say that some editors were upset, whether intended or otherwise, and that an apology might be appreciated.

OhanaUnited's inital response (17:56, 3 January 2013) was more abuse - this time aimed at me on my own talk page by accusing me of hypocrisy.

Nevertheless a couple of hours later the message seems to have sunk in, because OhanaUnited followed up my thought with the above "I didn't mean to" apologia (at 19:05, 3 January 2013. Meanwhile I had posted a Wikipedia:Forgive and forget type comment and tried to the real discussion on. Curiously, OhanaUnited posted their apologia _above_ that comment, making it look like my forgive and forget wording might be pointedly ignoring it, with only close inspection of the datestamps showing that it came after the event. Still, no real harm done.

Anyway, I soon found his insult there on my talk page. I do not feel it was valid (as I was making no judgement of intent, only commenting on the outcome of the guy's post as politely as I could), and their comment appeared to flagrantly breach WP:ETIQUETTE so I blanked it. The guy's user talk page says they don't watch(list) other user's talk pages, and somewhere (if only I could remember where) there is advice to the effect that if you abuse a user on their own talk page, you can't be surprised if they delete it with a dusty edit comment - so that was what I did: my edit summary on my own talk page just said, "dickhead".

OhanaUnited chose to push this back by warning me off, and repeating my rude word over the article discussion page too. Whatever the merits of my own behaviour, I find this a gratuitous, inappropriate and possibly disruptive escalation of an irrelevant matter: the discussion was in general well behaved and that warning should have gone on my user talk page or nowhere. Perhaps I am wrong to see it that way.

I feel bullied and harassed, the way this bureaucrat is now apparently following me around and escalating a personal gripe by threatening me publicly in an inappropriate place. I am happy to apologise, especially if that advice I recall does not actually exist and my momentary value judgement is after all unacceptable, but I feel this guy is riding me and I need to know whether the wider community thinks he is, and whether he is right to do so. So I don't feel able to let this rest. But I don't know any other bureaucrats well enough to ask them personally for a quick and informal intervention. Anyway, that's why I am asking here yet again. Have I done bad again? Has this bureaucrat let the side down? FYI, here's my list of contributions so you can check out my wider attitude. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OhanaUnited is not a bureaucrat. The very page you linked to, WP:BUREAUCRAT, tells you this. Additionally, this matter has nothing to do with the bureaucrat role, instead being focussed on civility. Your post here is, therefore, a little baffling. You may wish to refactor it to remove these inconsistencies. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Steelpillow - Your case isn't entirely without merit. I see MelborneOne's point of view that, obviously, if you are having a discussion on the validity of a source then it makes sense that someone with an opposing point of view would find items that demonstrate their point of view. I agree that OhanaUnited's argument against that is silly. I was just reading the Apteva topic ban on AN and I felt like folks on Wikipedia just do not like being disagreed with. However, there is hardly anything blockable that OhanaUnited has done. On the other hand, you escalated the situation by calling him a Dickhead. I wouldn't block over it alone, but you're certainly closer to that than he is. If I were you, I'd hit the brakes and try reengaging and explaining how you feel.--v/r - TP 14:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that this be closed with no action. I tend to agree with TP that some actions here were far from ideal, but there's no need for blocking or sanctions. The best thing to do would be to calm down and walk away for a little while. (I think the confusion was caused by OhanaUnited's status as a crat on another project?) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to explain, seeing you say that, I suppose got confused by OhanaUnited's Biography section on their user page. It says that this user is an admin and links to Wikipedia:ADMIN so I take that to be true. It also says that, "On March 18, 2008, he was promoted to become the 13th bureaucrat on WikiSpecies," but with no obvious link to explain this, so I guess I misunderstood. For "bureaucrat" in my comments above, please read "Admin".

I apologised personally for my bad language when I advised OhanaUnited of this discussion, and my post here records how I feel. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiSpecies is another Wikimedia Foundation project, separate from English Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sock stuffing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Simmons

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

---

Can an admin please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Simmons. While one should assume good faith, a large number of newly-created accounts have all weighed in to vote against deletion. I can hear, see and even smell a duck here, so would appreciate someone who knows what is the the appropriate action in these cases to take a look. Thanks. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Cavarrone and I have tagged the hell out of all of the SPAs. I'll go write up an SPI - if it returns the expected result, I figure we can just hat/strike/delete/whatever all of the sock !votes. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I semi-protected the AfD and hatted the SPAs.--v/r - TP 19:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

While you were busy doing that, I filed a now mostly pointless SPI, for anyone interested. Accursèd speedy admin action! — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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