Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User Jagged_85 and abuse of sources

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

---

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For those not aware of the background to this, Jagged_85 was previously the subject of an April 2010 RFC regarding his abuse of sources: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Summary. It was agreed that Jagged_85 had been making unacceptable edits, using references which did not support the claims made. As one of the outside views noted: "the user has misinterpreted the sources, provided extremely unreliable sources, and cherry picked the information in the sources". Jagged_85 essentially did not contest the case but used as his defence that he had been rushed and careless.

The conclusion of the RFC was that: Jagged_85 would stop abusing sources and would stop making such bad edits; Jagged_85 would help in the cleanup (to put this in perspective he is currently 253 in terms number of edits on Wikipedia, and has previously been much higher; a significant proportion of his edits have serious problems); and he was told to: "avoid any questionable, inappropriate and unreliable sources, and in particular, avoiding edits which add exceptional claims, unless these have received strong confirmation from several reliable sources". Finally, Jagged_85 was warned: "if such problematic behaviour were to occur again, further action will be taken against him. Such an action would be a request for some sort of ban."

No further action was taken; Jagged_85 has made only a marginal effort to help clear-up the mess left behind him, but he stopped editing the Muslim history related articles where he had caused so much damage, and everyone was essentially happy to assume good faith and let him get on with editing other parts of the encyclopedia.

I came to the problem after the original RFC, when I got quite heavily involved in trying to clean some of the extraordinary mess left in articles such as Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe and Avicenna. As such I was watching the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 page. I then saw that a couple of editors in Jagged_85's new chosen topic area, computer games, were concerned with his use of sources and editing style. When I looked into it further I was frankly horrified, as Jagged_85 was making exactly the same sort of exceptional claims regarding computer game X being the first to have 3D polygonal graphics that he used to make about Muslim scholars inventing various surgical instruments that had existed for centuries, or suggesting Muslim scholars came up with Newton's first law of motion before Newton did.

With the help of users bridies and Indrian, who are editors in the computer games area, I have been looking into this further over the course of about a week, and the further I dig, the worse it seems. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Computer_Games_Evidence, which is the page where we've been collecting the evidence.

The list of provably false claims made on that page is staggering. And we really weren't trying very hard to collect examples. Over the course of investigating I looked into one article, Gun Fight; almost every substantial edit Jagged made to that article is problematic, trying to make what is undoubtedly an important game sound even more groundbreaking that it was. He makes wild, exceptional claims about things which he doesn't seem to understand and which are certainly not supported by the references he gives. I even found one edit so bad that it was specifically rubbished by a computer website: 'Even today, Wikipedia, that bastion of poor research, triumphantly declares Silpheed was "notable for its early use of real-time 3D polygonal graphics." No, Wikipedia, it really was not.'

I am of course happy to hear other people's views, but my personal opinion is that, given the previous RFC (which specifically mentioned a ban if he did not mend his ways), and given the sheer amount of damage he has done to the encyclopedia, by making so many referenced, exceptional claims which are simply not supported by the reference (sometimes directly contradicted by the reference), it must be time to consider a community ban. My personal opinion is that it needs to be a permanent one; we are surely way beyond second chances now.--Merlinme (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wowser. So, after peddling anti-Western Muslim propaganda in math and science articles for years, he now does the same for Asian videogame manufacturers usually at the expense of Western ones? And using the exact same methods? Who'd have seen that one coming? 86.121.137.227 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support a community ban. His editing is still very problematic as shown by that evidence, and he shows no sign of accepting the assessment of the previous RfC/U. Fences&Windows 22:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that diff. In it, Jagged_85 accuses anyone exposing him of having a "very explicitly obvious Eurocentric agenda". It figures. 86.121.137.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Much of this constitutes outright lying in Wikipedia articles. With such a long history of it, this guy needs to be permanently banned.

Also, crap, I had no idea there was a Starglider 2! (I played the first game for a few years.) —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  23:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know why WP coddles those who intentionally misrepresent sources to push their POV. Should have been banned long ago. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps to attract new editors? "Hi, I'm Jagged 85. I've been rewriting world history on Wikipedia since 2005 (and so can you!)" 86.121.137.227 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's time to block Jagged 85. Looking at the first half of the Video Game evidence, I can't tell whether xe is just unable to properly read sources, or is somehow obsessed with pushing a POV (though I can't quite see what it is, because I don't know what all of those games have in common (is it the geographic source of the company)? Ultimately, it doesn't make a difference. Furthermore, the earlier massively bad editing on Muslim science issues caused very long term problems. People familiar with the whole story regularly had to stub or at least significantly trim articles because so much of them was based on Jagged 85's work; the problem then became that users not familiar with the problem objected to what they saw as removal of sourced info, and then on article after article people would have to explain what was wrong with Jagged 85's work, insist that no, it is not salvageable in any way, etc. The reason why Jagged 85's actions are so bad is that they resemble, on the surface, very good editing--adding well formatted, fairly believable information that appears to be directly supported by specific sources. This has to be stopped, and since it is now clear that it's not just a specific topic that's the source of the problems, the only solution is to remove Jagged 85 from Wikipedia. An indefinite block is certainly called for here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the video games evidence, I've removed the autopatrolled and reviewer rights as a bare minimum. Reading the 2010 RFC/U now. T. Canens (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The pattern that emerges from the latest survey is that he is pimping various non-Western video games and their manufacturers (by necessity, these are mostly Japanese) with fake claims of various "firsts", "best-selling" and the like. 86.121.137.227 (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• As noted above, I was involved in preparing this (though completely unaware of the original RfC until recently), but I support an indefinite (permanent) site ban for Jagged85. As others have noted, he acknowledged that he faced being banned if he continued this kind of editing and nevertheless he continued, in a different subject area. Even if these kinds of edits constituted a minority of his edits as he has claimed ("cherry-picking" being an accusation he has often levelled at his detractors), the absolute number nevertheless means that the limited wherewithal of our video game editors cannot keep up with them. Further, in at least certain sub-areas, I hold that Jagged85's bad edits are the norm rather than the exception. The page above illustrates the kind of edits for which he was previously taken to task: making extraordinary and spurious "factual" claims based usually on the direct misrepresentation of his sources (and sometimes by using a source which goes against wider research, perhaps even common knowledge in the case of the Space Invaders claim). I also put together a second page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Video Game Genres Evidence (which has largely not been copy edited by other users), detailing his edits in-depth across just a few video game genre articles. It shows wider edits which added lesser or more subjective historical commentary, but with equally direct misrepresentation of sources. There is also a wide tendency to add purely descriptive information to history articles/sections to imply historical significance (Jagged85 denies this) and to use material and sources out of context generally. It also shows plagiarism to be a prevalent issue with Jagged85's supported edits. bridies (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• And I am the other video game editor who has been looking into these issues. I first really began taking notice of Jagged 85 in January of this year when I noticed that a few of his edits seemed really out of whack based on my knowledge of video game history. I then began examining some of his edits over the previous year to video game articles and discovered a large number that needed to be reverted for accuracy. I then began following his editing progress on his user contribution page, which allowed me to catch a fair number of really bad edits within hours or days of their commission. This practice also led me to become aware of the original RFC against him in February 2012. I was quite disturbed at that time, because his MO on video game history articles appeared nearly identical. I contacted a respected video game editor known for his policy expertise and diplomacy about my concerns, but unfortunately it soon became apparent that this editor had recently left wikipedia permanently, as he has not been heard from since January. As I pondered what to do next (unilateral action not being palatable to me) I noted that Jagged's volume of video game history edits had declined by the end of March 2012 and that I no longer had the time to fact-check his contributions too closely. I therefore decided to keep an eye on him and try to catch particularly blatant looking problems, but not take further action. When Bridies first noticed the problem and decided independently to get involved on the original RFC talk page, I decided the time had come to take more comprehensive punitive action.

I can state from experience that while Jagged has made a small number of high quality edits to video game articles and a decent number of neutral edits, these are greatly outweighed by the distortions he has introduced. In fact, I did not realize how bad some of his abuses had become until gathering the evidence for this ANI posting because he was adding material so rapidly between January 2011 and March 2012 and adding specific bad claims across so many articles simultaneously that it would have taken weeks of work for a single editor to verify all of his edits individually. I do not know that he really has an agenda (though his pushing of Japanese games, sometimes at the expense of more well-known Western products -- a topic I chose not to delve into too deeply in the evidence I presented -- does give me pause), but he appears to be grossly incompetent both in his failure to understand the sources from which he draws his claims and in his lack of understanding of the historical and technological topics he attempts to engage with. I will not weigh in on what I think the appropriate level of punishment should be for his actions, but I firmly believe that his abuse of sources and distortion of fact has done great harm to wikipedia and must be stopped. Indrian (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• It appears that Jagged 85 also had a long-term interest in making fake claims about Japanese inventions, not just Muslim ones. For example List of Japanese inventions, which was almost entirely his writing, contained ridiculous claims like:

"p–n junction

A junction formed by combining P-type and N-type semiconductors together in very close contact. It was invented by Isamu Akasaki in 1989.[34]"

Akasaki invented/discovered some junctions used in LEDs, but by no means invented the p-n junction (and surely not in 1989). Another related and absurd claim made on that list was that Akasaki also invented GaN. GaN was first synthesized in 1932. Akasaki was three years old back then. What Akasaki's team discovered was that Mg-doped p-type GaN was useful for building bright LEDs. (Facts source: the introduction to Nitride Semiconductors and Devices by Hadis Morkoç.) Akasaki's contribution was described in Light-Emitting Diodes by E. Fred Schubert as "the first true p-type doping and p-type conductivity in GaN". That's quite a far cry from having invented the GaN substrate or the p-n junction, isn't it? 86.121.137.227 (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I honestly remain unsure as to whether he is really biased or it is just a combination of incompetence along with focus area. He likes to add information about Japanese topics, and in so-doing has on several occasions distorted Japanese accomplishments vis-a-vis Western accomplishments in video game history and elsewhere, but if he chose to focus on Western topics he would probably end up doing the same thing in reverse. I still think its primarily an inability to engage in proper research that leads him astray and that it is easy to see bias in his work because that is a more believable explanation in some ways than his apparently staggering levels of incompetence. After chasing so many of his edits though, I really think he is just that inept. That is no excuse, however, and I think the community has been extremely patient in giving him opportunities to figure out his problems. The fact that he continued his sloppy research techniques in a different subject area after the previous RFC is somewhat mind-boggling. Indrian (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, it's pretty difficult to read remarks like this and still not see any extreme bias. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Jagged 85 indefinitely. I'd usually wait for a response first, but given the history here, I don't think there's anything they could say that will change my mind. The evidence is clear that they have engaged in long term, systematic, and widespread source misrepresentation. They've been more than adequately warned for this precise conduct during the RFC/U, but yet have persisted in this behavior. Cleaning up after them has already cost massive amounts of volunteer time, and allowing them to continue to edit will only cause more time to be wasted on checking up and verifying their work, especially since a lot of the problems involve difficult-to-obtain sources. In short, it is very far from a net positive to allow them to continue to edit. T. Canens (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there's a pretty clear community consensus for a ban. For the record, although he is interested in Eastern subjects, I don't think he showed a particularly strong bias towards them in his computer edits. The connecting thread in his edits is hype; everything he writes about has to be the first, earliest, most significant, most influential example. I don't however accept the argument that it's just incompetence with sources on his part. His standard method was to find a source which said X was a Y, and then use that reference to claim X invented Y (or was the first Y, or introduced Y, or was a significant early example, etc. etc.) Jagged_85 did that hundreds or thousands of times, and I find it hard to believe he didn't know exactly what he was doing, especially when he apparently deliberately used references which were hard to check.

Claims to be first (or otherwise exceptional in some way) using bad references are what to look out for in any sock puppet discussions, which I suspect we may get. --Merlinme (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Community ban discussion

I've unarchived this because he has posted a very long unblock rationale on his talk page. The community needs to decide if Jagged 85 is only WP:BLOCKED, thus any admin may unblock him, or if he is WP:CBANned, in which case he may only be unblocked by a consensus of editors. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see a few supports for a ban above, I'd also reiterate/clarify my support for a community ban (and a global one, if at all possible). His unblock request is derisory: he's essentially repeated his accusations of "cherry-picking", of which there was none this time. As I noted above, I picked the first 3 genre articles on my list of successful GANs, went through them, and posted the bad edits I found. I also covered what I left out. I'm certain Jagged85 couldn't come up with much of a list of good edits made to those pages, certainly not edits involving more than purely descriptive commentary. The edits on the main list are only cherry picked in the sense they were chosen to show he's still been doing what he's explicitly not supposed to have been doing per the previous RfC. Dig deeper and largely all one finds is more of the same involving subjective commentary, as well as original synthesis, plagiarism, and redundancy. His statement on his talk page that "the vast majority (I'm certain at least more than 95%) of that information matches the sources very accurately" is completely spurious. Aside from straight-up misrepresentation accounting for more like 50% (if Jagged85 can guestimate, so can I), often his content "matches the sources very accurately" because it's plagiarised. And if one takes into account that much of his recent bad editing is taking verifiable statements and putting them into contexts where they have no business being, it's no exaggeration to say that 95% bad edits is a more accurate ratio. Also, regarding his complaint that no video game editor came to him about systematic issues: I went to his talk page to ask him just what he'd done to First-person shooter, only to find it full of references to that old RfC, which in turn had linked to about a dozen threads on his talk page regarding abuse of sources. He further made it abundantly clear here and here, as well as in his unblock request that he doesn't feel he's in the wrong with much of his editing. For example, told me: "I completely disagree with your stance that only the "important" or "popular" stuff should be included. Sorry, but I just can't agree with such a narrow, restrictive view of history." (I never used the word "popular" and demanded only verifiable claims of historical significance). With regards to the irrefutably bad misrepresentations, he just maintains that these errors are to be expected of an editor with such high numbers of edits. On the contrary, there is no way an experienced editor can reasonable be making these kind of "mistakes" even semi-regularly. Highly active though he is, there are still hundreds more who are more active, yet aren't making these kinds of prevalently terrible edits. bridies (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban+global ban. As a certifying user heavily involved in the first RFC/U and the Herculean task of cleaning up after it, I can confirm that the main issues which have led to this ANI and which the blocking admin has aptly summarized as "long term, systematic, and widespread source misrepresentation" have remained exactly the same as in the RFC/U two years ago. I strongly support a global ban from all Wikipedia projects for the reasons laid out at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Global ban for Jagged 85. The damage done already far transcends the English version, affecting other language versions through translations of Jagged 85's articles. In future, faulty material translated from other language versions may be introduced to the English WP if the user – who has shown a prodigious output through the years – is allowed to continue edit the Wikipedia in other languages. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban/global ban. This is a user who clearly doesn't get it, and who refuses to get it. The encyclopedia is, sadly, a better place without him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• In case it isn't obvious from my block, support community ban. T. Canens (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • And oppose the so-called "global ban" proposal for the reasons explained in my comment below. T. Canens (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support permanent site/global ban. If achievable, Jagged 85 should be banned from all projects as there is nothing more damaging to the encyclopedia than a civil editor who systematically adds a large amount of incorrect and misleading information to articles, much of it with plausible sources. When other editors have taken the time to track down and study the references, many examples of the problem have been found: "severe misuse of sources: misrepresenting what a source has asserted; reporting only one side from a source; quoting out of context; inventing claims using a source related to the topic but which does not verify the claim" (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Johnuniq (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community/global ban. If we keep this guy around, who knows what damage could arrive in the future? ZappaOMati 22:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Regrettably, I support an indefinite ban. Regardless of what proportion of Jagged's count these bad edits represent, the scope of the damage is extensive and is much more than should be tolerated from any editor, whatever their edit count and their good intentions. Considering that these same types of problems continue to arise after all these years and periodic, time-consuming discussions, it appears that Jagged just won't, or can't, address them sufficiently. Jagged has made many good edits and should be commended for them, but at a certain point it's just time to find another hobby.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support site-ban. Disruption this pervasive after more-than-fair warning is just unacceptable and should not be permitted. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• I had thought the indefinite block was for all intents and purposes already regarded as a site ban by the community, and in fact I was about to add the {{banned}} template to his userpage just yesterday - only opting against doing so when I saw that someone had already added {{blocked}} instead. We have given Jagged 85 numerous chances to reconsider his approach to editing Wikipedia, but the fundamental issues that have been present from the very beginning persist to this day. It is not just an issue of competence, but of honesty. An editor who cannot handle himself with integrity has no place on Wikipedia. As such, I have no choice but to fully support an indefinite global ban of Jagged 85 from all Wikimedia projects, as a means of making his edits under this or any other account name viable for immediate, unconditional removal without further discussion. Preventing this sort of abuse from recurring again is more important than retaining any positive contributions he's made over the years. I wish it were not so. Kurtis (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite global ban. Frankly this should have happened a long time ago. Enough is enough. Further, given the damning evidence, it is important that all of his edits that have not been totally rewritten by others are deleted as quickly as possible. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban but please note that our community alone cannot enact global bans.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Sure. As far as I know it can only be implemented at Steward requests/Global, but with a clear consensus we could mandate an admin requesting a global ban in the name of the English WP community. Even more, from what I take from WP:BAN only a global ban could make it possible for editors in other languages to remove translated flawed material from their project on sight without going through the lengthy and cumbersome process of talking through each and every removal with well-intending but uninformed users unaware of its provenience. From my own experience in the first clean-up two years ago I know that this is a very time-consuming and ungrateful process which involves a lot of misunderstandings between these two user groups. This is why it is so important to express support for a global ban or not here. Practically, it is the decision to remove Jagged 85's material from other projects or keep it there for years to come. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is entirely incorrect.

1. There's no such thing as a global ban right now. m:Global bans is a proposal that hasn't yet become policy.
2. Even were it a policy, Jagged 85 clearly does not qualify for a global ban. That proposed policy requires bans on at least two separate projects. Moreover, there must be actual crosswiki abuse; Jagged 85's misconduct seems to be localized to this wiki, though it may have effects elsewhere through the actions of other editors.
3. Moreover, any global ban will have pretty much zero effect, as Jagged 85 seems to be pretty much inactive in other projects.
4. A ban, global or local, does not affect the status of "Jagged 85 material" on any project in any manner. The "revert on sight" part of our banning policy applies only to edits made in violation of a ban (i.e., after the ban is imposed), not before the ban is imposed. A ban is not damnatio memoriae.
5. Our banning policy (including the "revert on sight" part) does not apply in other projects, and their ban policy may well be different from ours. Moreover, since the "Jagged 85 material" was likely introduced by another editor, a ban will have literally zero effect even if it applied to all edits by the banned user since there's no edit by Jagged 85 to revert on these projects.

We would sound incredibly arrogant were we to actually go to the stewards to ask for a global ban (1) for misconduct that is solely on this wiki, (2) entirely unsupported by any existing policy, (3) entirely unsupported by even the proposed global ban policy, and (4) that has zero practical effect. T. Canens (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Global bans are more than a proposal. Global bans have already been effected, they are a daily reality, see e.g. here. If you are prepared to leave the material out of fear of looking "arrogant", then we should consult Jimbo Wales personally who may rightfully fear more for Wikipedia's reputation, because the dimensions of the misuse are simply staggering. This is just the short list. The long list you will find [here]. Despite the clean-up, we are still talking about thousands of readers reading fabricated contents month and by month in the English WP alone. These distortions have already been noted by outside observers long ago. Ultimately, it simply boils down to the question: you are prepared to do something effective about this or you don't. You give the community the means to remove it or you don't. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a global lock, not a global ban. And it does not apply here either, because, first, Jagged 85 does not even have a global account for a steward to lock, and second, there is absolutely zero evidence of cross wiki abuse. Did you even look at Jagged 85's cross-wiki contributions? They have made almost no edits on other projects in the past several years.

Moreover, a global lock has absolutely zero effect on the acceptability of Jagged 85's old edits in any project. First, it is not a ban; second, bans do not apply to edits made before the ban; third, the "Jagged 85 material" on other projects are in the contributions of other editors and would be unaffected even if Jagged 85 were to be banned on those projects.

Your argument boils down to "we must do something about Jagged 85, a global ban (or lock) is something, therefore we must do a global ban (or lock)". That's fallacy, not logic. Of course I care for the project's reputation (and it's rather surprising that you would imply that I do not, especially since I am the one who blocked Jagged 85 in the first place), but what you are proposing is to make a request that is bound to be rejected, that will almost certainly cause a good amount of ill will toward this project among our sister projects ("Look, enwiki is trying to lord over the other projects again!"), and that, even if it were to succeed (an impossibility since, again, there is no global account for you to lock), would have zero effect. Count me out. T. Canens (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As I noted below, I support a global ban as far as it is feasible; however I've not yet seen anything which makes me think it is feasible. However that does not mean "do nothing". We could, for example, at least alert other Wikis that there is a problem, and to bear this in mind when looking at pages in their wiki which may include material from the English wiki. As I understand it this is a real and current problem. --Merlinme (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Other projects (esp. Commons, a common place of asylum), tend to ignore disruption by users on other projects (at least in my experience). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected. While I still support a global ban, it seems impossible because I see WP has not implemented the necessary guidelines for this yet. This means, given his proficiency in several languages, the user can continue to edit other language version, even after a community ban here. And I am certain, he will do exactly this. So for the entire WP project this community ban will change nothing. Effectively, we are exporting the problem only to another language version which will have to deal with it all over again and may rightfully ask one day why we did not more about it when we could. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't necessarily disrupt other Wikipedia languages, which are considered separate communities and projects for this purpose. However, if he does, the global bans policy may have to be speedily ratified in order to prevent more of this. But for now, we don't need a global ban.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support global site-ban. After wreaking havoc on history of science articles for years, he was given one last chance following the RfC/U, and has convincigly proved that he is unfit to edit an encyclopedia. The reasons, whether sheer incomptence or otherwise, are no longer relevant at this point. Time to go. Athenean (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. I've explained in some detail why when I originally brought the case. I have also been discussing with Jagged_85 on his Talk page since the original block, and I find it quite alarming how he apparently thinks an acceptable defence, after five years of adding misinformation to the encyclopedia, is that he "tried his best" with sources he admits he didn't understand. I also support a global ban, as far as it is actually feasible. --Merlinme (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban This needs to be explicit. A lot of problems have been caused by this editor over a long period of time and I see no chance that if he were to edit again he'd suddenly be able to use sources appropriately. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban - Jagged 85 has failed the Wikipedia community for the last time. Giving the damning evidence that this user has done, he has now exhausted all of our patience. With that said, it's game over and as they say, "enough is enough." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Jasper Deng presents an unpopular truth, but truth it is. If there is no evidence of disruption to projects other than en-WP, then a global ban is simply not an option. A siteban from en-WP is obviously the right call (some of this stuff is amazing, and people will be fixing the damage for years to come), but until we have a consensus that certain classes of wikicrime require global bans (something that I haven't seen proposed) we shouldn't be acting as if that's already in place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban —Ruud 19:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Those discussing a "global" ban: Please stop pretending that the English Wikipedia community has the authority to ban someone from participating in other Wikimedia projects. We don't. Jafeluv (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite community ban I have had experience with Jagged85 from earlier encouraging him to contribute to articles on the History of Science in Islam, to participating in attempts to resolve his disruptive editing on Islamic science. The reports that his misleading editing has continued in his more recent editing on computer games convinces me that a permanent ban is needed to protect Wikipedia from his continued misinterpretations of sources. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Shouldn't this be closed by now? --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 04:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Kwamikagami and Lake Michigan-Huron

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

---

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This issue came up last week, and just today scrolled off the board. [1] Unfortunately, i must bring it up again. Under contention were two issues:

• whether the concept of "Lake Michigan-Huron" (the system of the two lakes when considered together hydrologically) should have its own article or be a section of the Great Lakes article; and

• whether "Lake Michigan-Huron" was a "lake" as normally defined, for purposes of inclusion in lists of lakes, replacing Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, and how should it be described in the article (or section)

After a very confused beginning where discussion were located at multiple places, the content discussion settled down to Talk: Lake Michigan-Huron, including a merge discussion, and another merge discussion at Talk:Great Lakes. The discussion on the Lake M-H talk page was actually making good progress, with most editors agreeing that Lake M-H as a construct which was useful for purposes of hydrology, but was not a "lake" per se. There were still some differences of viewpoint about relative weight of these different aspects, but things were moving forward.

However, in the past few hours, Kwamikagami has made multiple edits to Lake Michigan-Huron, Great Lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron which have the effect of pushing the two-lake concept, which he was pushing quite vehemently before, at the expense of the two lakes each being considered individually as a lake. These edits were not only premature, they go totally against the emerging consensus, and as such I have reverted them.

This complaint is not about the content dispute, which can be settled on the article's talk page, but about the temerity of Kwamikagami editing against an obvious consensus which he will not recognize. His behavior from the beginning of this affair has been disruptive throughout, disrespectful of Wikipedia's process, disdainful of other editors, and, perhaps worst of all, intellectual dishonest -- he writes, for instance, that he is going to restore "the earlier consensus lead" to the article, when he fact what he does is to replace the current consensus lead with his earlier one in which his POV was prominent. I believe Kwamikagami's behavior deserves some kind of sanction, and it would seem most appropriate to be a topic ban from the entire area of Lake Michigan-Huron and related topics. Since it's not really his usual area of concentration anyway, this is a minimal sanction which will not greatly effect him, but will allow the process to continue without his disruptive interference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This is a content dispute, but since I got blocked when Ken made spurious charges a few days ago (for which I got an apology from the admin who didn't fact check), I figure I'd better explain myself here.

I reverted Ken's POV to the consensus lead at Lake Michigan–Huron, which everyone but him had accepted, and restored a source; I then added in suggested wording by two other editors on the talk page. I copy-edited the rather choppy summary at Great Lakes to follow, and I reverted Ken's deletions from the long-standing consensus at Lake Huron and Lake Michigan.

No-one is arguing that Lake MH should "replace Lake Michigan and Lake Huron". What we are arguing is that the scientific treatment of Michigan and Huron as one body of water should be given its due. There are all manner of suggestions on how to accomplish that without trampling on the usual conception of them as two lakes; the emerging consensus is coming along just fine without Ken forcing his POV on it, especially now that we have editors from the geo wikiprojects contributing.

Ken's idea of BOLD is that he makes a change, someone reverts, and he changes it back where he wants it; last time he did that over an obviously contested deletion, and it took an admin to restore the article. But if another editor does that he gets upset that they're violating BOLD: This just happened with another editor at the merge discussion. The edits I made today were the suggestions of other editors; Ken needs to learn that his opinion is not "consensus", no matter how strongly he believes it. — kwami (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As can be clearly seen from my statement above, I'm perfectly happy for whatever is left of the content dispute -- in truth, there's really no one except Kwamikagami anymore who opposes the view that "Lake Michigan-Huron" is a system of interest only for hydrological purposes -- to play out on the talk page. As I said, it's making good progress. My complaint is totally about the behavior of Kwamikagami in trying to force his own point of view on the articles through deceit and distraction.

The remainder of the discussion here shoudl focus on Kamikagami's behavior, because AN/I is not the place to thrash out content disputes, but it is the place to deal with disruptive behavior by editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Before I go off to sleep, I'll make a suggestion: topic ban both Kwamikagami and me from Lake Michigan-Huron. I'll be more than happy to have the monkey off my back, this whole incident has been a royal pain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what: I just took four days off, so you made your edits without us fighting. Why don't you try taking four days off, and see what kind of consensus emerges with my edits without us fighting? I can easily work with Jason, Alan, Dan, Pfly, RockMagnetist, and the rest who are making reasoned arguments for balancing the POVs involved. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand why the discussion was able to move forward so quickly, when it had been moving at a snail's pace before -- it was because you were not there for four days to hold it back. It also explains why, when you returned to editing, you felt the necessity to immediately revert to the old non-consensus article which was not supported by the sources. As for working with others - restoring your old lead and throwing in a single sentence suggested by another editor as a sop isn't collaboration, it's an attempt at cooption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has been going on in 7 places, including my report here on Kwamikagami about a week ago. Long story short, since then Kwamikagami has gone even further off the rails. I don't have the hours it would take to summarize. A few quick decoder notes:

• A combine vs. merge discussion (which I'm neutral on) was a tangent/ distraction.
• Kwamikagami's talk page no longer shows actual discussions. In my case they deleted the points I made and said I can no longer post there because I "have nothing intelligent to say". They also rewrote their comment which I was responding to (just rewrote, not using strike marks) to make it look like something else.

This is Kwamikagami ramming their fringe view vs. everybody and an immense preponderance and probably unanimity of sources. Started with warring to remove tags, and a clear 3RR violation which was overlooked. Now certainly disruptive editing, wp:civil violations, (now throwing extreme bogus insults against me) and longer term edit warring (while more recently avoiding 3RR violations) for a start. PLEASE do something! North8000 (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor - Yesterday and today, I looked over the substance of the dispute, and the ways in which the various involved editors have conducted themselves. It seems obvious to me that kwamikagami is pushing a fringe POV, and actively forum-shopping and otherwise gaming the rules in order to do so. Their attempt to drum up support on the Geology and Geography WikiProjects is especially glaring. I'd advise North8000 to relax a little; no-one is going to die if this dispute drags on a day or two longer. However, my own feeling is that (at the very least) kwami should receive a perpetual and wide-ranging topic ban, as they seem incapable of accepting the wider world's consensus that there are five Great Lakes. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(added later) BTW, on the forum shopping, Kwamikagami didn't just shop in those places, they started the same discussion over in those locations.North8000 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That was what I meant by forum-shopping: shopping around to find a forum in which the poster's view may be supported. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping? I notified the Wikiprojects that could be expected to be interested, and at the same time: It was simple notification because we needed more input. When there is a protracted dispute on a geography or geology topic, those projects should know about it; their knowledge may be able to resolve the problem. North8000 below is worried that we don't have enough eyes, and you criticize me for trying to get more? — kwami (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From my end the caps on "PLEASE" and the exclamation point relate more to desperation than urgency. But one note on the "urgency" topic, above it looks like Beyond My Ken is at the end of their rope. They have been perhaps the main person who has understood and did the work of fixing the mis-use of sources, and the needed changes in wording to conform with the sources. I also have some concern about the article losing it's "more eyes" and related participation due to desperation and being "ground down" by Kwamikagami's relentless tactics. I would suggest an indefinite topic ban on the involved articles Lake Michigan-Huron, Lake Michigan–Huron, List of lakes by area and List of lakes by volume. The Great Lakes article is potentially also involved but I think has so many eyes on it that it can be kept from harm's way with less pain and suffering. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The unfortunate decision of an admin to lift Kwami's most recent edit-warring block has emboldened Kwami to the point where he figures he can win his little edit war, whose purpose is to abuse wikipedia by promoting the non-existent "Lake Huron-Michigan". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The block was lifted because its rational was faulty: it was based on false allegations by Ken that the blocking admin didn't verify. The fact that Bugs would say that the lake is "non-existent", when we have multiple RS's for it, many gathered by uninvolved editors, and the consensus on the talk page is that it does exist, is astounding. What happened to the Bugs who could always be counted on to say something insightful at the ref desk? — kwami (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the block was lifted because you promised not to edit war, which was a lie on your part. And there is no valid source declaring that there is any such entity as "Lake Michigan-Huron". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you had been edit-warring with bots for days because at a time when the title Lake Michigan-Huron was not an article but a redirect to Great Lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron, you insisted that the title Lake Huron-Michigan should point to "Lake Michigan-Huron", thus creating a double-redirect which the bot came along and fixed. This can be clearly seen in the edit history of Lake Huron-Michigan [2] (a name, incidentally, which appears in no source in the article). You were unblocked, as Regentspark clearly explains below, not because there was anything wrong with the block, but because you gave Regentspark assurances that you would avoid editing the articles involved for 72 hours. (Of course, you technically violated that assurance when you, once again, changed the redirect on "Lake Huron-Michigan", but by then no double redirect was made since "Lake Michigan-Huron" had been recreated -- with the old POV lead, which I had to restore to the consensus non-POV lead.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Kwami, who did you get an apology from? It certainly wasn't me. I didn't object to RegentsPark unblocking, but that was because he seemed to have secured an agreement that you would not repeat the disruptive behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bushranger, whose accusations you linked to as the rational for your block. He had repeated Ken's accusations without verifying them. — kwami (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, fairy snuff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite true. I, personally, checked the edit history of the two redirects in question and saw repeated reverts of the bots apparently creating a double-redirect loop; BMK had nothing to do with it. Instead I (ironically, given things) assumed good faith that you were not edit-warring to recreate the article and then reverting the bot for the redirects to point to the restored-against-consensus article, which, the next morning, it was pointed out was what had been happening. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was the restored-WITH-consensus article: when we finally got a proper RfM, opinion was unanimous in keeping the article. That was the whole problem with Ken violating BOLD. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Further comment - The more I look at it, the more convinced I become that Lake Michigan-Huron is a POV fork of material that belongs primarily in Great lakes, and that attempts to assemble evidence to the contrary are an original synthesis in support of a fringe position. (Apologies for linking three policy articles in one sentence.) That is a content problem, and probably needs external scrutiny through RfC. Kwami's behaviour in defence of that position, though, is unambiguously disruptive, and I feel that timely administrative intervention would be a good thing. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We have a merge discussion, which has been unanimous in voting to keep the article, because it is clearly not fringe or a POV fork, but reflects the scientific view of the lakes. The only question is whether there is enough potential for development to warrant a separate article: if it were merged, the material would be placed in the Great Lakes article, and so the 'fringe' issue would be the same; without a merge, the section in the Great Lakes article is reduced to a summary with a main-article link, and so is not a fork, POV or otherwise.

Disruptive? What of the editors edit-warring over deleting an article when there are multiple objections to deletion, and which one editor characterized as a giant 'fuck you'? What of violating BOLD while quoting it, and of deleting summary material that has been stable at Lake Huron and Lake Michigan for years? Why is it that edit warring to impose a new POV is not disruptive, but that demanding we achieve consensus before changing what had been a stable article is disruptive?

If you'll look at the changes that spurred Ken's complaint today, you'll see that they are (1) reverting to a consensus established on the talk page (one which I did not write), (2) modifying that consensus with concerns expressed by other editors, and (3) reverting BOLD changes he made to stable articles. — kwami (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've pinged Regentspark to notify him of this thread. FWIW I think that reducing the block to time served was incredibly lenient and that this display of good faith has, as BMK intimates, backfired. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Or something hopeful that didn't work out. I too was more hopeful earlier in the process. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I've been watching this thread. Though I've often disagreed with kwami, both on content as well as on his methods (particularly on moving pages), he is an incredibly prolific editor who is often right and my unblock was partly to do with that (and also because kwami was right that he had ceased editing on this topic after the warning, but my offer came before I'd figured that out). While we could easily have here a case of a prolific content editor going off the rails, I'd rather assume that is not the case and rather not hasten things along. Assuming that all parties are acting in good faith, what we have here a content dispute, the facts of which appear to be ambiguous, and, even though the complaint is brought her by another prolific content editor who is also often right, I'm not sure we should be discussing this at ANI at all. Why doesn't someone just open an RfC on whether or not the 'single lake theory' needs a mention, where and how it should be mentioned, etc.? Once consensus is clear, it'll be much easier to see what's what. --regentspark (comment) 14:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is already clear from the several locations of discussion about the topic. The consensus does not support Kwami earlier today re-introducing his favorite viewpoint, that the two-lake hydrological system is "the largest freshwater lake in the world and the largest of the North American Great Lakes." Kwami's edit summary about consensus was wishful thinking or an outright fabrication: "restore consensus lead; fix MOS problems; restore ref". He is indeed "off the rails" on this topic. Better to keep him away from it and on other topics where his thinking is clear. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding only to Regentspark. I must emphatically say that IMHO that is NOT the core content issue. If it were, this would have been settled long ago. The core content issue is Kwami editing the articles to go much much much further than that. (and, regarding it being here, in a way that is very problematic in several ways.) North8000 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

On the content issue, and looking only at the references in the current version of Lake Michigan-Huron, I'd say that the hydrological fact is interesting and worthy of mention in the great lakes article, the two lake articles, and, perhaps, in the Lake Superior article. However, it doesn't make sense (to me) to have a separate article on the combined lake because, other than hydrologically, there is no Lake Michigan-Huron. I'm dubious, but uncertain, about the redirect as well. I only add this content note to make it clear that I think kwami is wrong in this particular instance but, perhaps because the discussion is so scattered, it is hard to see where the consensus on this is (the discussion Talk:Lake_Michigan–Huron#An_attempt_at_a_synthesis appears to be a step in that direction). It is much easier to address behavior when consensus is clearly established. --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As I think I've said a number of times, I have no really strong views about the article vs. section part of the discussion. Yes, I Boldly moved the contents of the article to the section of the Great Lakes, leaving a redirect, because that's what seemed to make most sense, but that got undone and I haven't fought for it -- if having a separate article helps calm the waters, that's prefectly fine with me. I'm much more concerned that the contents, whether in a section of an article, reflect what you have said above "other than hydrologically, there is no Lake Michigan-Huron" This, to me, is the important point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Gtwfan has repeated on the talk page a suggestion they had made earlier, but which has been generally overlooked because of the mishegas, and that is to re-title the article "Hydrology of Lakes Michigan and Huron". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be a WP:TITLECHANGES discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Process Request I apologize, (if this should be at AN because it involves close requests and move it there as appropriate), but RegentsPark mentioned yet another process, formal RfC, above. Currently, there is Talk:Great Lakes#Merge proposal which was begun in response to a merge that was then procedurally undone, partly because of Talk:Lake Michigan–Huron#Recheck. If a kindly and uninvolved person of standing (Admin or experienced editor) would at the appropriate time, whenever that is, agree to review and close both of these in the exercise of wisdom and judgment -- that, I think would be appreciated, and a moving of things forward. (Jump on in, the waters fine! ;) ). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As much as I would love to make the very same arguments in yet another place, I feel an RfC is really unnecessary. As can be seen from the discussion here and on the article's talk page, there is a general consensus already, all that is really needed is for particulars of balance and weight (and perhaps title) to be sorted out. If the disruptive behavior of Kwamikagami were removed from the process, I feel sure that those would be settled fairly quickly. Starting yet another process would simply be rewarding Kwamikagami for his disruption, giving him another bite at the apple. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We just need to judiciously close the process we have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I recently became aware of this debate. Because it sprawls over several talk pages, I was unaware that there was a merge discussion going on (also, the discussion was not at the standard location, i.e., the talk page of the destination article). So I started a new one using the standard procedure in Help:Merge. This is the only discussion related to Lake Michigan–Huron that is clear and focussed. There are 10 votes in opposition and none in favor. Indeed, I had to provide the rationale for a merge myself even though I oppose it. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

I propose that Kwamikagami is topic banned from articles including Lake Michigan-Huron, Great Lakes, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron - as well as any more deemed appropriate - for a period of, say, 3 months. GiantSnowman 15:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support I wish that there was another more graceful way but I think that we have learned from extensive experience in the last week that there is not. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - See my rationale above. I also suspect that the merge discussion that kwami refers to did not reach a terribly wide audience; I suggest that it should be re-opened. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and several came from forum shopping where Kwamikagami opened a new duplicate discussion there IMHO to convince them. But merge issue is really a sidebar. For example, I am strongly opposed to what Kwamikagami is attempting to do to the content of the articles but I'm near-neutral on the merge issue. North8000 (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to Talk:Great Lakes#Merge proposal, it has reached a wide audience (but is not closed). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - this has gone on far more than long enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - to make it formal. All my reasoning is above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban should not be simply for the articles involved, but their talk pages as well. A significant part of Kwamikagami's disruption has been his intransigence there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - As far as I can tell, if Kwami says he won't edit project pages for 72 hours, he doesn't; if he is given a 3R notice, he stops editing. If the editors involved think this has become such a trainwreck, or that Kwami has gotten too personally invested in the topic or whatever, why not just ask Kwami if he would be willing to step back for a while, or limit his talk page comments. Neotarf (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And Ken, who has been reverting the contributions of other editors, deleting sources, and imposing his POV in violation of BOLD despite quoting it? — kwami (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any topic ban or block proposal for Ken, and I have no idea if he would keep such a pledge if given. Neotarf (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There are plenty of reasonable voices that I'm sure could quickly reach consensus, were it not for three individuals - BeyondMyKen, North10000, and kwami. Their endlessly repetitive arguments make up about 90% of the material in several talk page sections. At least since the previous merge was reverted, they have contributed little to Lake Michigan–Huron except to keep rewording the lead to promote their viewpoints. Recently, DanHobley tried proposing a reasonable synthesis, and the same three editors quickly got into a dogfight that resulted in this ANI. I think that if these editors genuinely want to see this article improved, all three should voluntarily step away from it for a few weeks and let others work on it. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That a completely inaccurate/ mixed up description of my involvement in this. To start with a simple blatant one "keep rewording the lead to promote their viewpoints" I have done ZERO writing anywhere in the article for the entire 8 day length of this flap, and made only three edits on it in the 8 days, each reverting to something written by somebody else. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I was a bit careless in my wording there. You haven't edited the article, but the other two certainly have. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you like, I can stop responding to Ken or North8000. You're right, nothing is being accomplished there. The rest of you are providing well reasoned POVs, and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to come to a consensus. — kwami (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a content discussion, that's taking place on the article talk page, this is the discussion about your behavior, so something is very much being accomplished here. Might I note that almost none of your reponses here have been relevent to the point of whether you should be topic banned or not -- you're just attempting to distract others from that discussions with repetitions of stuff you've said over and over and over again, and which has nothing to do ith your explaining why you have behaved so very disruptively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there is now new blood from WikiProject Geology and perhaps others — people who have experience dealing with this type of content — why not leave it in their hands. Neotarf (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Uh, isn't this supposed to be ANI, with an A? I'm perfectly happy to work with reasonable editors such as DanHobley, Alanscottwalker, and RockMagnetist, who aren't trying to pretend that sources they don't like don't exist. I took a break for 4 days, and Ken is still at odds with the other editors; I suggest that Ken take a similar break, and see what the rest of us are able to accomplish. I've also suggested developing a consensus version in a sandbox where it wouldn't disrupt the public article. Or, as RockMagnetist proposed (similarly to Ken), the three of us who are squabbling could step away from it and see what the other editors are able to come up with (one editor even suggested that everyone stop but DanHobley, which would probably result in a fine article), but let's start with the habitual BOLD violator Ken. — kwami (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• And I'm perfectly happy to work with any editor who doesn't behave as atrociously as you have. Where I think you misunderstand things is that "working" doesn't mean "giving in to Kwamikagami's ideas", it means discussing, give and take, try something, adjust, discuss, try again and so on. You just keep reverting to the same damn version you liked a week ago, no matter what anyone says or does.

  One thing that Regentspark said above struck me quite strongly "I've often disagreed with kwami, both on content as well as on his methods (particularly on moving pages)" (emphasis added) Well, we've already seen one of your methods - using your admin powers against policy on a page move - get you desysopped, and I guess here we're seeing yet another one of your methods: grinding the oppposition down by constant repetition, including knowingly misrepresenting what actually happened over and over again, never changing your mind, never considering others opinions or thoughts, just bulldogging ahead hoping that everyone else will get tired of it and go away. Your WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is subtle, but very much in effect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. Perhaps our best editor, Dan, is dropping out because of interference from you. You said you'd be willing to accept a block on this, so why are you not willing to follow me in not interfering with what they are doing? — kwami (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. User is abusing wikipedia on this subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting to the versions written by Alan and Dan, which everyone but Ken and North agree are good, knowledgeable editors. That's hardly 'abuse'. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Regretfully. GregJackP Boomer! 21:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Not only is this abusing wikipedia the recent actions smack of abuse of WP:NOTTHERAPY. MarnetteD | Talk 22:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Abusive behavior towards other editors should not be condoned. Shrigley (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Reverting while this discussion was under way was what pushed me over the edge to supporting this proposal. --John (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

He did not revert to his own version, but to the new version of User:DanHobley, a geoscientist from WikiProject Geology who was not previously involved in the dispute. Neotarf (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant; you do not revert bold changes back into an article when the issue is under discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, looked to me like there was already a consensus that RockMagnetist, Alanscottwalker, and DanHobley were trusted to be NPOV. Kwami and BYK, not so much. They have already been through the B-R-R-R-R without much success at D. IMO a lot of that can be caused by editing outside the usual area of expertise, so when they hit a snag, they don't know what to do next. The next shift has come on duty, they should be able to have a go at it without interference from the first bunch who were unable to come to an agreement. Neotarf (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to think that Ken's edits are not neutral (from what I can see it has only been Kwami that has claimed that both he and Ken are not editing neutrally, an unusual claim). IRWolfie- (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at RockMagnetist's comment above about endlessly repetitive arguments, or just look at all the personal remarks here. Or look at DanHobley's comments when he dropped out. [3] Neotarf (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverting at all during this discussion would still qualify for a topic ban in my book, just to be clear. --John (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwami agreed to stop editing for 72 hours, and he did so. In the meantime, the editors who keep dragging him here, North8000 and Beyond My Ken, were put under no restriction whatsoever, and kept making POV edits. (Just to be clear, I don't agree with the content Kwami wanted to add either.) But Kwami was right about the article, they shouldn't have deleted it with no discussion. There is now a proper discussion and a unanimous vote to keep it. Neotarf (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So Kwami has stepped back, Beyond My Ken has left the building, and the real geoscientists have rewritten the article. Is there anything left to do here? Neotarf (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't nupedia. Just because someone who identifies as a geologist (I haven't checked any of the other editors) made the edit doesn't mean it can't be reverted or the rewrite is necessarily better. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Their credentials in RL don't matter. If they are with WikiProject Geology, then they have experience with this type of content. If they were not involved in the previous dispute, they have a better chance of reaching consensus. Also you might want to glance at the rewrite: one picture is worth a thousand words. Neotarf (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Their geology area of expertise is outside the area of dispute which is naming. The main benefit is that it is extra eyes involved / handling. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think that we have seen that Kwamikagami is and will almost certainly will be relentless on this topic and at these articles. One additional less-obvious item to reinforce my point: over the last 10 months they have have aggressively deleted even the smallest of changes of mine of the type that have now been widely accepted and implemented. They are also very wiki savvy in conducting this effort including knowing how to momentarily back off a bit at the right moments to avoid any corrective action from being taken. IMHO unless something is done they WILL be back hammering these articles into likenesses of their fringe view. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That maybe true (although you are suppose to provide diffs) but from my vantage point, had you both focused on the extensive sources on the topic and taken it to DR/N or TO (or some of the other notice boards), if there was specific wording or sources you could not agree on, much of that could or would have been obviated. (Just something to think about).Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I did focus on the extensive sources, and even on the specific ones that Kwamikagami promoted (but misused); they were the basis for my edits. I'm sorry that the following rant is placed by your post because it is really directed only 1% at your mild recent post and more at ineundos by a couple of others. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of getting inuendoed as if I were just exhibiting some type of dispute behavior! Here's a quick chronology. Over time other commenters at the article have all said the same thing. Also the article had sever problems regarding categorical statements of the fringe view regarding naming in the voice of Wikipedia as fact, complete mis-use of sources to make them appear to say the opposite of what they did etc.. So, instead of just saying "somebody ought to do something" I decided to be that "somebody" for the good of Wikipedia. So, on a low key basis, on and off over 10 months I tried to make a few small changes in line with overwhelming sourcing, and also the input at the page. Kwamikagami reverted them all. More recently (2-3 weeks ago) I did another burst of editing on 2 articles regarding this, (incidentally. ALL of my edits were towards where the articles are now) Kwamikagami reverted all of those edits. So then I took a policy based-approach, tagging the unsupported claims for sourcing. Kwamikagami deleted all of the tags. I restored them and Kwamikagami deleted them again. I provided thorough rationales, and Kwamikagami provided brief dismissive notes when reverting them. At one I provided 9 rationales for 9 edits and they deleted them all on one swoop with a comment to the effect of "I have reviewed them and decided that you are wrong on all of them" So, at this point, when Kwamikagami was at 2RR and I was at 1RR I took it to wp:ani on a policy basis (removal of the tags). Others got involved and carried the ball. For the next 8 days I did ZERO editing on the article except three times restoring text in different places to what someone else wrote. In discussions I have consistently taken the high road. Even when Kwamikagami was basically calling me stupid, (some which they since redacted, not struck) banned (and deleted my post) me from their talk page because I "have nothing intelligent to say" I took the high road. I did all of the above to try to help the goals of Wikipedia, I took the high road at each stage, and followed overwhelming consensus and sources at each stage. So, if anybody is going to toss any innuendos, you'd better go first look for something to back it up!!!! And, BTW, you won't find it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I would say you did many good and right things, (unfortunately the crappy part of AN/I is the one finger pointing at someone else and the rest pointing back at you school). And I have thanked you for them, and I do again. Again, from my vantage point, you both had valid points (and seemed to support some rather irrelevant or wrong points. and talk past each other) but, by your own admission, going into it two weeks ago, you knew there were disagreements with Kwami about substance, so mayhap, you should have tried to tackle that in a neutral forum? (You hopefully know what I refer to when I speak of a recent (what 18 months?) discussion where if the active parties had been more quickly disposed to all the wide array of DR, perhaps that would have been done sooner, with less strain.)) Now. I did not have to deal with Kwami, (and I never have dealt with him before) because of where I came into the discussion, so you could well be right that the Wiki needs protection. (Also, again IMO, your position was ill-served by what someone else did, which if I am not mistaken was triggered by the first trip to AN/I) Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It didn't really come back at me. But I'm concerned about even the few mistaken innuendos, as some might actually believe them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're so concerned about people believing inaccurate statements others make about you, may I suggest you take care not to make them about others? The tags, for example, which in several cases you conceded were inappropriate. (I saw them as being disruptive, since you tagged things as lacking sources when they were already sourced.) You continue to present it as if I were being disruptive in removing them.

However, once you decided to discuss things enough to show me that you actually did understand the hydrology (and it took, what, weeks? you refused at least twice), I realized that I was wrong in my estimation of you. I retract what I said about your ability—you clearly have the necessary comprehension, even if I still don't get what your point is—and if you point out where, I will be happy to strike out such comments as wrong and inappropriate. (Give the page and quote a few words so I can do a text search—I might miss something otherwise. Feel free to start a new section on my talk page for this.) — kwami (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kwami; you put a similar post at my talk page and I answered there. Curious on what your thoughts are on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response either place would be cool....trying to reassure myself that it's real. North8000 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Interim proposal

Both Beyond My Ken and Kwamikagami will stop participating in this AN/I and allow other editors to come to a decision without the distractions of their back and forth.

• Support as proposer. And I'll start right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this is unnecessary if you are aware of it; if you find yourself being drawn into a back and forth just disengage. kwami is required to respond here due to the topic ban proposal. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - give DanHobley a chance to improve the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Rock, did you read that as stop participating in the article? Since this ANI is about me, I need to stay engaged. Last time I didn't stay engaged in an ANI I got de-sysop'd over something I thought too trivial to worry about (enforcing the closing admin's decision in a move request), and was told it was my fault because I wasn't adequately engaged in the ANI. So no, if accusations are made about me, I will respond. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So, you think you've learned something? Responding will only prove you have wp:battleground mentality, and that will get you banned. Mwahahaha... Tijfo098 (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, don't do that. We don't need more sarcasm, we need less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sadly Dan was not given that [4].Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Farewell, cruel world!

I didn't think I would break my self-imposed exile so soon, but immediately after I posted the above, I went back to the article to find that Kwamikagami has reverted all of my carefully considered adjustments to DanHobley's compromise version, and thst was just the straw that broke this particular camel's back.

I give up.

Kwamikagami, my congratulations to you, you have beaten me into a mass of protoplasm with your subtle but brutal "methods", and I am going away to nurse my wounds. How happy you must be to have done your little part to make Wikipedia just a little less collaborative than it once was.

For your convenience, I include here a list of the articles I will no longer be watching, in which you can insert your unsupported viewpoint that "Lake Michigan-Huron" is anything other than a name for a system of hydrology. Then you can also do your part to help spread WP:FRINGE viewpoints on Wikipedia, making it that much less authoritative and useful to our readers:

• Extreme points of Canada
• Extreme points of North America
• Extreme points of the Americas
• Great Lakes
• Lake
• Lake Huron
• Lake Huron–Michigan
• Lake Michigan
• Lake Michigan-Huron
• Lake Superior
• Lake Victoria
• List of islands in lakes
• List of lakes by area
• List of lakes in Illinois
• List of lakes in Indiana
• List of lakes in Michigan
• List of lakes in Wisconsin

Well done, Kwamikagami! Vaya con dios. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I only reinstituted Dan's NPOV edits, and your interference drove him away from the article. If you are no longer here to mess with the reasonable editors, and as I am not editing their work either, then we should be good to go: Dan, Alan, Justin, Rock, etc. should be able to craft a clear, NPOV article. — kwami (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Any edit that asserts there is an entity called "Lake Michigan-Huron" is a violation of POV rules and hence is unreasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Context I am sorry but anyone looking at this should read what Ken's recent edits meant to DanHobley, who spent all day reading and writing. [5]. It's too bad that people can't be more deliberative. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Deliberative? On ANI, dude? You gamma editors should scurry back to your Geography Wikiproject. You clearly don't have the right stuff to play for the high stakes with the alpha boys of ANI! Look at that pathetic DanHobley. He thinks he's an expert huh? Works for a Ph.D. in this area? Reads sources, huh? Who cares? His sources are FRINGE POV by wp:consensus on ANI! Let him scurry back to writing his unreliable fringe sources in academic journals, which Wikipedia will gleefully ignore. That'll teach him to try and influence the people's encyclopedia! Tijfo098 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

F*ck yeah! You go! If it's not about personalities, get it the hell out of Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at my current Rand McNally atlas, it shows a "Lake Huron" and a "Lake Michigan". No "Lake Huron-Michigan" nor any "Lake Michigan-Huron". Why do you suppose they left that stuff out? Maybe because there's no such thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I also wonder why my 5th grade math manual or even CS101 didn't cover Krohn–Rhodes theory. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Mine did. But I was in a progressive school. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Tij: You are bad. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no such entity called "bad". To say otherwise is prohibited by the POV rules. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Consider bringing up the specifics of the issue at WP:FTN (in a more succinct form). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong venue, try WP:NPOV/N. Oh, wait, that has a backlog. Shit nobody cares about. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Supreme facepalm of destiny. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Someone tag this under the "I shit you not" category.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Is it truly necessary for this encyclopedia to have both an article on Lake Huron-Michigan and an article on Lake Michigan-Huron? The whole concept just seems like a geologica/geographic debate on the exact characteristics of the two Great Lakes from a researchers' perspective -- I happen to think that merger with the GL article might actually work, but if it doen't I think we can just pull out the most prevalent term (Huron-Michigan vs. Michigan-Huron and use that, rather than have two identical articles except for the names. Just my 2c... DrPhen (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not two articles, it's a WP:Redirect just FYI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a great demonstration as to how we might better guide a perplexed reader who, interested in that huge lake that wraps around Michigan, searches for Lake Huron-Michigan, somehow blissfully unaware that much of it is actually named Lake Michigan, and the other part named Lake Huron, each of which has an article now that links to the other, and both of which should and could easily point out the close hydrologic relationship they share. Otherwise, I think that we do this hypothetical perplexed reader a great disservice to reinforce the misperception that the rest of the world must think of them as a single lake, especially if the only purpose in so doing is to indulge the writer. Most of us are "in on" at least a few pretty obscure and fascinating bits of trivia, but not all of them really need an article. Steveozone (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In articles, readers are not told what to think; they are informed about what RS think and it is done in an article form, not scattered about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, everyone has gotten so hung up on the minutia of policy here talking about maybe 10 sources that talk about "Lake Michigan-Huron". There are literally millions of sources that talk about Lake Michigan and Lake Huron as separate lakes. Why? Because they are! They may be the same body of water, but they are separate lakes. Given the millions of sources (and no, I am not going to even try to name them. Only a fool would argue the point.) that say they are separate lakes, aren't we giving undue weight to the few sources that describe the body of water as "Lake Michigan-Huron"? I really doubt either NOAA or the Corps of Engineers intended for anyone to take their convenient assigning of coincidentally the same name for the combined body of water as any sort of a proposal that the two lakes should be considered as one for any reason other than the hydrological factors they were talking about. This debate is about the silliest thing I have ever seen. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

99+% of sources that mention the Sun don't tell us that it's a star – should we change that article too, to better match the popular account? It's not necessary to speak of it as a star just because the scientific understanding is that it is. As for 'lake' (which has no set definition), some people feel that a lake is a physical body of water, others not. If we failed to convey that in the article, that would be wrong, but I don't think that we do. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like an example of WP:GAME by Kwamikagami and nothing else.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 19:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Solution

Without comment on the merits here: Kwami, I've looked at closing this ANI with the goal of using the least amount of sanction (if any) needed to comply with the consensus, but this is no easy task. I can't see any admin being able to close this without a topic ban for three months, unless you provided a reason why it was no longer necessary. The consensus exists, and I am giving this neutral comment to try one last time to coax a solution out of you, the only person that can change the outcome. Otherwise, this needs closing, now, as it has degrading into something outside the scope of ANI. If you truly don't "get it" and can offer a better solution, you will leave the closing admin very little choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I did the first ANI on this about 10 days ago (this is #2) and will be only partially on Wiki tomorrow and then off the grid for 9 days. Just to explain any lack of participation by myself after tomorrow. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Besides the edit-warring, Kwami's talk arguments have generally been based on Wikipedia policies and supported by sources. That's something which cannot be said about his most passionate opponents in this discussion. The de minimis solution would be to prohibit Kwami from editing the article(s) but allow talk page participation. I have a feeling however that a number of his opponents simply follow him around, just so they can disagree with him. (And I'm not alone in this [6].) If you kick this up to ArbCom, I think more than one topic ban will be issued in the area, and possibly some interaction bans as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That miles-off comment shows that you have not reviewed the (extensive) history of this situation. Which is understandable because it is spread over 7 locations and probably 30,000 words. A good place to start to get up to speed is the extensive thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive768#User Kwamikagami reported - warring to remove citation-needed tags on assertions that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not lakes Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(Notice the complete BS in the title of that thread: there were no such assertions, and the tags (for page numbers where there already were page numbers, for sources where there already were sources, etc.) were little more than defacement of the article. — kwami (talk))

In that case it should go to ArbCom. ANI is ill-suited for coming up with solutions in complex problems. The "ZOMG I've never heard of Michigan-Huron DEEELEEETE ITT AND BAAAANNNN HIMMM" that make up more than half of the uninvolved/drive-by comments in this thread are also a good argument for that. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about what you just said and implied via your link, with no real basis. Kwamikagami is the cleverest person here, they know every wiki-warring trick in the book and you are falling for them, they know how to temporarily back off a bit at the right moment to avoid corrective action and then go back to what they were doing, they know how to subtly war their POV back into the article without you seeing it or thinking the opposite, they know how to lay low a bit and then later undo all of the balancing work that you have done on the article. The content issues are (temporarily) 95% solved, they are not currently the issue. North8000 (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm really addressing kwami here, and personal observations about how many Jedi mind tricks someone knows is a bit off topic and not completely appropriate. Let's just keep this simple. I put off closing as I wanted to hear kwami's final word in the issue. This doesn't prevent any other admin from closing, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

North8000's post above yours proves my point that he should be ibanned in relation with kwami. Rest assured, I've not fallen for any "mind tricks". I can read sources myself and evaluate them well enough. Kwami can be aggressive, but it takes two (or more) to edit war. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have NOT been edit warring. STOP the false accusations. And please leave this thread as Dennis requested, which I already did until you posted a false accusation. North8000 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis, as for consensus, the only admin that had voted the last time I looked was the nominator. This is ANI, after all, and the A's have stayed out of it.

If you want evidence that I can edit amicably with others, just take a look at Lake Michigan–Huron. There is a nice consensus developing there, starting with outside input at An attempt at a synthesis. I've made suggestions based on my concerns, at Hydrological POV, people have discussed them productively, with even North8000 on board, and it looks like we're close to finished. There are only a couple points that remain, with intelligent POVs on both sides, so that should be fine even if my suggestions are rejected. In fact, apart from North8000 making the occasional misguided edit (I'd hoped we'd both stay off the page, and let others handle it), I've had no disagreement with any regular editor apart from quibbling over copy editing, if you even want to characterize that as disagreement. Yes, the people who think the whole idea of Lake Michigan–Huron is a travesty against WP:TRUTH want me banned, but that's a content dispute that AFAICT has been resolved with the near unanimous rejection of the RfMerge. Ask the knowledgeable geo-project people now crafting the consensus whether my participation is disruptive.

The reason this is here in the first place was "the temerity of Kwamikagami editing against an obvious consensus". However, the obvious consensus, as shown in the RfM, is just the opposite of what Ken claimed, and he brought me here because he had to edit war, violating BOLD (which he cites), to get his way. Sanctions are supposed to stop problems, not punish. Since Ken left with his POV pushing (he had problems with the geo-project people too, causing one to quit in frustration until after Ken had left), there is no problem here. As for whether there may be one in the future, perhaps we could have an interaction restriction between North8000 and myself (and Ken, if he ever comes back), where we follow BOLD as if it were policy: if one of us reverts one of the others, we take it immediately to Talk and let others decide. As long as North8000 and I aren't trying to convince each other, which we know doesn't work, it appears that things are moving along fine. — kwami (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Inuendo trying to "use" me here forces me to respond. Please stop trying to imply this this is multi-person issue, especially involving me, including implying any equivalency or similarity of behaviors. For example, regarding the "misguided edit" baloney, the ONLY edit of mine that has been getting reverted, and ONLY by Kwamikagami is this [7] and near-identical twins of it (two places in the article). It is a graceful compromise tweak to correct an extreme mis-representation of the 3 sources involved which makes them appear to say the opposite of what they actually say overall. North8000 (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel Pfly misrepresented that source, you could bring it up on the talk page, as I have done. The new group of editors has demonstrated they'll listen to whatever you have to say. — kwami (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Reopening. Dennis, you DON'T get to substitute your own opinion for actual consensus, even if you wave WP:IAR around as an all-purpose Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card. Now would someone uninvolved close using the ACTUAL consensus. Calton | Talk 16:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I take exception with your reverting my close without providing a proper basis other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The original close is here [8]. You are trying to pigeonhole me as closing admin and prevent me from using my judgement without providing a policy based reason for your actions. I would instead recommend reverting it back, and take any concern you have to ArbCom, and let them decide if I have exceeded the authority of WP:IAR and would welcome anyone else to do the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've restored DennisBrown's close. Sometimes the no drama route is better and this is one of those times. Let it go. --regentspark (comment) 20:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Article CBT and Psychoanalyse. Again

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

---

I was blockt two times (1d, 7d) by two admins because I violated the 3RR. The dispute began with an table the user CartoonDiablo trys to push in the article. The 1st Discussion on DRN ended with no result. After a copple of weeks the Dispute stared again. CartoonDiablo added the table again, but now he found a user, Stillstanding who supported him. After some warring and some discussions. CartoonDiablo started another DRN. The result, as I understand it, was to replace the table by prose. CartoonDiablo added a textpassage but also added a picture of this table.

Futher the "prose" was bumbling and he added Informations you can't find in the source. CartoonDiablo found this information by original research. Because I try to prevent an editwar again I just add a NPOV-Box to the textpassage and try to discuss the alteration. But CartoonDiablo and Stillstanding stated an WAR again by revert the NPOV-Box out of the article. They don't discuss my critic on the talk page and start an "incident" After I reverted again, and remember I just insist to add this NPOV-Box, a Admin blockt me for 7d.

After that proceed, I have some questions:

1. Why it is prohibited to left a NPOV-Box at articles the NPOV is doubted? Why is it possible to delate the box by editwarring?
2. I read the DRN again. I can't found any advice it was part of the resulition to replace the table by a picutre. Why was this trick not ignored by the admin how enforce the 2rr?
3. Both "mediators" on DRN say about themself they are no experts on psychotherapy research. But I'am. They can't estimate the neutrality of the prose CartoonDiablo esthablished.
4. Why CartoonDiablo and Stillstanding doesn't have to repeat my critic of the textpassage they warred into the article? [9] Why is it possible my both disputants don't have to reply the my ciritc? The result of DRN was not both can add false information into the article. It was just to replace the table by "prose".
5. In the DRN I was not ask if I'm agree with the result. On the contrary, the DRN was closed because the same arguments were repeated. I can't even answer it. So it seems to me, the admins interpreted the result as following: three useres on DRN, no one got a clue of psychotherapy research, decided, CartoonDiablo can write whatever he wants.
6. Therefore I'm not agree with the DRN-Result. It seems to me CartoonDiablo violated the DRN result also by add the picture of the table. His answers weren't really helpfull to reply my critic abouve.

So after this lesson what en:wp think a dipute resolution is: what is the next step for me to do? The text is still deficient and exaggerate an single source. The users who warred this picture and the divicient text passage into and the NPOV-box out of the articel doesn't seems to be eager to have an expert discussion about this topic. [10] [11] The admins block me, and only me, if I try to add an simple POV-box. Is this your idea of how to establish neutral and informative articles?

And the main question is: What's next? What can I do now? --WSC ^® 16:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You can continue to try discussion, discuss it with the blocking admin, or consider filing an WP:RFC either about the issue or about the people.--v/r - TP 16:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting proposal: After the DRN fails and no admin wants to enforce the result (remove the table). Now I have to consult more instances of en:wp to ask more useres don't have a clue about the issue. --WSC ^® 16:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, your being an expert on the subject doesn't give you any special status or privileges with regards to the article. While that can be frustrating when dealing with Randys, please assume good faith and assume clue in other editors who genuinely want to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Wikipedia is for the most part written by non-experts, which is why we insist that material be properly sourced. Maybe it's a drag for an expert to have to convince non-experts, but that's how it works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the users interpretate the source wrong. As I repeatedly have shown. Of course you can always add a source, but thats useless if you not able to read the source well and interpretate the results correctley. Futher, in research areas where hourdreds of sources existing you can't pic out one single source and present it as the only one just because you like the findings or overstate it. Thats all terms you need expertise for. But it seems to me, en:wp is not interested in in-depth argumentations. DRN - one day discussed - some result no one cares about - no more questions allowed. There are similar tendencys on de.wp. But this proceed is really superficial. And the worst case is an editwar. POV, correct sources and such thins doesn't matter. The importent thing is, not to have 3 Reverts within 1 day, or whatever that 3RR means. --WSC ^® 17:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

3RR is about edtior actions. It is independent of article content (except in the limited cases such as copyright violation and contentious claims about living people). -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm? I don't want to talk about the 3RR anymore. It's ridiculus that two users always "win" against one user. That maks argumentation unnecessary. Thats why german WP don't use this foolish rule. I'd rathe talk about the DRN-result and why it's allowed to CartoonDiabolo to violate the hallow result (turn the table into a picture). And why a NPOV-box is so frightening suddenly a 2RR exist, I never heard about? And what the admins to be looking to do, to implant a discussion about the issu again? --WSC ^® 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to choose what gets talked about when you report at AN/I. Everyone's conduct in the matter is open to question - including yours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand it the result of the dispute resolution was both prose and an image. Thus far the only person who has had a problem with the content is Widescreen who at this point would need to appeal the DRN. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at it this morning and I agree with a lot of Widescreen's views here. The edit warring has masked a serious content issue which appears to be attempting to promote CBT by cherry picking evidence. Its now at the dispute resolution notice board, and its a content issue on three articles. But that is where it belongs not ANI ----Snowded ^TALK 04:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

1) DRN is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions. 2) Wasn't the DRN closed as "change to prose"? There may have been a misinterpretation over the consensus of the DRN case and the purpose of DRN. DRN closures can't be enforced, but DRN does offer a venue for establishing consensus.--SGCM (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The first DRN was closed as "The content in question should be rewritten in prose." Some background on the DRN: I brought up the proposal of changing the table to prose in the second DRN, based on the proposal by Noleander in the first DRN (including the recent one, there have been three DRN requests so far), or the use of an image as a possible compromise, to replace the inappropriately large table originally placed in the article. The image compromise was struck down, and most of the editors, including me, agreed that prose remained the best option. The discussion on the DRN may have been misconstrued. DRN is an informal noticeboard, consensus can be established but not enforced.--SGCM (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But it seems to me admins have take the result as serious as it was a court with judges or arbitrators. So the comment on my second 1week block by EdJohnston was: "Amazingly, this dispute has already been through WP:DRN which came up with a result, which WSC still won't accept." [12] So the admin EdJohnston prohibit futher alterations by overstate the DRN-result. Also the 1st admin, Crazycomputers (chris): arguing like that. His comment to my 1d block was: "Due to ongoing edit warring against consensus, Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours." [13]

The admins claimed a consensus which never exist. Now the article is still POV and it's prohibit to me to add a NPOV-box. Thats badly done work. --WSC ^® 08:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the administrators were at fault. The block was primarily for edit warring, not the content dispute. Edit warring should always be avoided, regardless of who's right or wrong.--SGCM (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard about a editwar you can do alone! It taks two useres at the minimum. But your admins blocked only one of them. Such a behavior inhibit agrumentation. Also the prohibit of adding a NPOV-box. Your admins act like bureaucrats and not for the advantage of the articles. --WSC ^® 16:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My closure of a 3RR report was mentioned above. At present, the reason why Widescreen has not been able to get his desired change made at either Psychoanalysis or Cognitive behavioral therapy is that the regular editors on those articles oppose his change. I assume he is not here to request that admins override the decision of the content editors. There is a process called WP:Dispute resolution. Widescreen has used some of the steps of that process, including WP:DRN, and each time he has not persuaded the others. Normally, plain content disputes are not entertained at ANI. My guess is that Widescreen won't accept the DRN result because he believes that his personal expertise allows him to know that the very large INSERM study is not a fair summary of the merits of the two therapies. Our policy allows you to criticize one reliable source by finding another source which disagrees, but you are not usually allowed to disqualify a source because of what you claim is your personal expertise (see Widescreen's #3). You are also not allowed to keep re-adding a POV tag to an article when nobody on the talk page agrees with you (Widescreen's #1). His edit-warring to re-add the POV tags was the occasion for his last 3RR block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ed Johnston: I'm getting angry. You talk about regular editors. Who is that? I've checkt that, here and I'm one of the top-ten editors in Article CBT for example. You never read the DRN result and you block me after 2reverts for 1 week because I try to add a NPOV-box. Don't you think thers somthing wrong with that.

You don't know anything about studies in pychotherapy research. So what's your contribution to this discussion? You set a unbalanced block and now you talk about such things like I try to disqualify a source. I can't believe that!

You did somthing wrong. Please accept that. --WSC ^® 19:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the top-ten editors in Article CBT for example - this gives you no special privileges on Wikipedia. I would strongly suggest you drop the stick and go edit other article for awhile, while enjoying a nice cup of tea to cool off, before a boomerang hits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, did anyone here read coherences? Or just the last contrib? The blocking admin gives as reason for the blocking that I'm not one of the "regular editors". So tell me again: Didn't it not count to be the top ten editors? No, the blocking admin, EdJohnston, has no idea of what the conflict goes about. Thats why he blockt the one he found was the one seems to be the weekest of all. By checking the contribs. Thats wat happend. --WSC ^® 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The only edit counter that is relevant here is "reverts per 24 hours". Your contributions to the article are more than welcome but that makes you neither own the article nor does it give you any special privileges or any enhanced credibility. And I'd be happy to learn that EdJohnston doesn't know anything about psychotherapy research because that leaves him unbiased in this matter. De728631 (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But I had only 2 Reverts within 24 Hours. And now? Why had my opponent "special privileges"? --WSC ^® 23:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record here. I checked through the material and the insertion of the table went to dispute resolution and the general agreement seems to have been that the table (created by CartoonDiablo) should not be there, but replaced by text. (see here and here). CartoonDiablo feels that the dispute resolution should not have been closed prematurely and its his right to raise the issue again (as is the case on Family Therapy). However when I removed it he immediately inserted the material again claiming that the "closed prematurely" argument. Ed was undoubtably right to block Widescreen as he allowed his frustration to get the better of common sense. But in my opinion the problem here is a CBT advocate pushing a self-created table that supports his/her particular position. The diagram itself is from an old study and its findings are controversial in the field anyway. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you, checking the case and have a look at the DRN-result. Not one admin was able to do that. I still don't understand how I was able to have an editwar by myself? It seems so, because I was the only one being blocked.

I'm curious about the next conficts in this field. Now WP had the luck one user, Snowded, was so attentive to read the hole conflict and had the expertise to understand it. But that don't seems to be a exception. Obstinate obey of stupid rules like 3RR, without have a look at the core of a conflict is useless. --WSC ^® 18:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to trust the system more. You could have raised an RfC on this to bring other editors in, Ultimately evidence will win out but you have to he patient (I learnt that the hard way on the Ayn Rand articles); WIkipedia is managed through moderating behaviour, not through content resolution and that is its strength and its frustration. Although you did provide references you just scattered them in long postings so it was easy for people to ignore them - or see you as edit warring. The dispute resolution boards came to the conclusion the picture should not be there so it was legitimate to remove it But when the edit warring started you lost it. I suggest a 2rr or 1rr limit, then you can raise the editors behaviour here with a clean slate. I've got a copy of House and Loewenthal's Against and For CBT and Critically Engaging CBT waiting for me at home. I know they challenge the way evidence has been collected and used in studies. So when I have that we can balance the text as well. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I know the german wp-system since 8.5 years. I always thouth it was unfair, superficial and controlled by admins doesn't care about the quality of articles. But en:wp is the increase of that. Bureaucratic to the bone. The DRN was a joke. It seems like the worst case is not a unbalanced article but a editwar. If I was a new author I would be up and away. And I'm sure a lot of newbys are deterred by such a proceed. But the stupidest thing is the 3RR. It's not possible to have editwar with yourself. It takes two users at the minimum. But this system pick one of them randomly and let the other triumph. A better way is to block both warriors. Doesn't matter how much. --WSC ^® 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

An even better way is not to put yourself in the position where you can be blocked. Its not necessary, it weakens your case and it is more likely to result in poor articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You might think having the speed limit at 55 (or 65, or whatever) is stupid, but "I don't like the law, you should change it" isn't going to make a judge rescind your speeding ticket. It doesn't matter what anyone else has done, just you, and if you're reverting to one version and multiple people are reverting to the other, maybe the problem isn't with them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I think Widescreen does have a case that his antagonist should also have been blocked for a period. In terms of the content issue I think he was correct (and editors at the dispute resolution board overwhelmingly agreed that the diagram should go and be replaced by text which is what happened). Even now and in the face of that consensus CartoonDiablo is still inserting his diagram on the grounds that he has reopened the DRP which he thinks was prematurely closed (for which read, did not agree with him) and trying to argue that the supper for CBT is similar to that for the link between lung cancer and smoking which is arrant nonsense. Removing the PoV tag inserted by Widescreen was provocative. OK the response is not to edit war, but frustrations of experts over dealing with subjects are well known here. While not tolerating edit warring we should not assume (especially on controversial subjects) that the regular editor (plural is questionable as there was only one other) is right. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to complete this. Cartoon Diablo is claiming that he replaced the table with am image, therefore the consensus does not apply. However to summarise comments the editors who looked at this at DRP say:

1. Dmitrij D Czarkoff "the table should be rewritten as prose" and "I fully concur with all the other participants in all three DRN cases that the table should not be present in the article in whatever format"
2. SGCM "prose is still the best option because it is more neutral while conveying the same information"
3. SGCM "the image suggestion was again struck down and most of the editors including me, agreed that prose remained the best option"
4. Kerfuffler "I can say for sure that the table is WP:OR'

Its very clear that we have a case here of an editor who cannot let go of something they have created. Three DRPs, continued slow edit warring. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The most amusing part of this is that the two edit warriors always win, because only one guy (WSC) is willing to revert them. Everyone else just talks, talks, talks... And the admins block, block, block... WSC. Epic win. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been no blocks of Widescreen since September 10. But there is a new edit war raging at Psychoanalysis between Snowded (not a party to the original dispute) and CartoonDiablo. Snowded has reverted three times and CartoonDiablo twice. Perhaps an admin who has not taken any previous action on this can look into the matter. It does not make much sense that people will continue to revert while the article is being discussed at ANI. Full protection might be considered, along with a warning to the current participants. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

See also a 3RR report at WP:AN3#User:Snowded reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: ). I will refrain from closing this one. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Protected and both edit-warriors warned. --John (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Guys, CartoonDiablo has taken this issue to dispute resolution across three articles on several occasions. The clear conclusion of that (check it out I did) is that the table/image should not be included. Despite that CartoonDiablo has reinserted the material against a clear consensus. See my summary above. I don't see any discussion of that here. I was previously uninvolved, but when I came across it I looked into the history; that is pretty clear in its conclusion that the table/image is not acceptable. I also put effort into summarising the position on his/her talk page. Its three articles involved, its been discussed several times but you have an editor who will not take no for an answer. I'm frankly surprised that those admins involved have not tracked back over the history before they make judgement calls. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Give the inability of ANI admins to tackle this in part because of the scattered evidence, it looks like a RfC/U on CartoonDiablo may be necessary. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like CartoonDiablo has managed to drive off the page all previous protesters, see Talk:Psychoanalysis#Checklist and Talk:Cognitive_behavioral_therapy/Archive_2#French_survey_table where User:Maunus first objected. (I had an essay about stuff like that this, but it was deleted for some reason...) Also, this piece of wiki-lawyering is extremely amusing, moreso after reading Wikipedia_talk:DRN#Premature closure of Family therapy? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_34#Cognitive_behavioral_therapy.2C_Psychoanalysis --WSC ^® 01:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WSC in this pedia when it is one editor against two the one will always be block first what you have to learn is that sometimes you must leave the article in its bad version while you argue your case on the talk page. The way you went about this with apparent rants on how bad en wiki is because I would not let you have your way is off-putting to many editors. It obscures you logical arguments behind a madman shouting his own version of truths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.142 (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I argued on talk page and give a coherent statement why this table/picture/prose is wrong. Everybody got a clue of psychotherapy resarch knows that. To block one author argued in this way because two others reverted his contributions is bureaucratic bullshit. Sry to say that so. At least with the explanation the admins gave: 1. I violated the DRN-result that wasn't tru. 2. There is a consensus, which never exist. 3. 2 reverts are justify a 1 week block, I'm not amused. In contempt of the disadvantage of me, the discussion seems to be on his way. Therefor I don't want to talk about this proceed anymore. Let's forget it. --WSC ^® 10:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Ongoing incivility by User:7mike5000

• Mike was indefinitely blocked Aug 2010 for "threatening off wiki action" by User:SarekOfVulcan. He was subsequently unblocked in Feb of 2011 after agreeing that he would be civil and that a block would be reapplied if he was unable to achieve this.[14]

• On Sept 6th [15] and Sept 17th of 2012 [16] he received further complaints of incivility.

• His replies are here [17] and here [18] and are not hopeful.

• As I was uninvolved in both these resent re-occurrences I have reapplied the block. Wondering if others have comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There are many other example of less than pleasant comments including: [19] and [20] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Does he do anything useful? If not, indef. Otherwise ANI/warn, ANI/warn, block/unblock, block/unblock, RtFU, ArmCom, ANI/warn, block/unblock, ANI/warn, ArbCom, ANI/warn, ANI/warn, maybe he retires. It looks like he has fans. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after looking and reading some of his talk page, I have no desire to see if he does anything "useful" and don't much care. Fully support the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Mike can be a bit rough around the edges if approached the wrong way or to the uninformed (who may just have distaste for his crude but often hilarious wit). However, this user has shown great improvements since the initial block and has worked closely with his mentor to become a very productive contributor. Over a year and a half after the initial block was lifted, it is time to relax these trigger-finger sanctions. That being said, Mike, you really gotta pick and choose who you use that awesome charm of yours with, because some people are unable to cope with the artistic choice of words. Keep it to your user/talk page and out of the drama-prone discussions - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You must be joking, surely. By what stretch of the imagination can the words 'hilarious wit', 'awesome charm' or 'artistic choice of words' be applied to sentences like 'please be a fat scumbag somewhere else' or 'oh yeah, and your a dick'? Support this block, Mike should know better, considering this comment. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 06:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I am not joking and I stand by what I said. The occasional lapses in temper are far outweighed by the contributions this user makes. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Really? How have you measured the effects of his "lapses in temper" on the innocent users who are the targets of it, or would-be editors who are scared off by it? If an otherwise productive editor stops contributing for a week because they're hurt or angered by the insults, how much does that offset User:7mike5000's contributions? If three editors with useful information to contribute refrain from posting it in an AfD for fear of being the next target of his attacks, what weight do you assign that? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Can you provide any evidence of even one user being scared off by Mike? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm torn, but reserving judgement. He is obviously being confrontational and unnecessarily rude, but I'm not a fan of civility blocks. The fat scumbag comment is a bit out of context, and refers to Psychonaut's user page reference, which points to [21]. Still incivil, but context does matter. That said, we will see if Mike takes a more conciliatory tone in an unblock request. Indef doesn't mean forever, although I think a fixed term block would be a better solution. This doesn't mean I have great hope long term, but I can't help but to prefer the liberal use of rope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Have emailed his mentor to see if he is willing to weight in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's me. Bugger. I got an email from James yesterday but have just now had a chance to look at this. Mike has been uncivil and a block is certainly justified. He does a lot of very good work but does have trouble curbing his sometimes quite acerbic tongue. I'll have a think and say more when I've had some sleep. James, I'd have preferred you to have left the blocking to another admin, given your shared history, but do understand your frustration. I'll get back. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In Doc's defense, he did bring it here for review and contacted the mentor, which is the proper response (or WP:AN) if there is any potential concern regarding involvement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support block I can see why the block was made; Mike reacts to any sort of challenge aggressively and is quick to shoot people down with uncivil language. Mike states that he doesn't want to have to walk on egg shells but yet expects other people to walk on egg shells around him to avoid his hostility. I think underneath all of this, Mike has a good side in that what drives his editing by his own words is to 'help' other people by providing useful content for our readers. It would be a shame to lose a valuable contributer such as Mike but if we do it will be his own fault. I think that before the block is removed that Mike has to agree to treat others as he would like to be treated himself and try harder with how he reacts to other users with regard to civility.--MrADHD | T@1k? 08:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• When someone points out that an image that one uploads infringes on copyright as was done here Sept 6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:7mike5000#File:West_nile_virus_rash.jpg_listed_for_deletion and you reply that they are a "dexter" we have a problem. Copyright infringement is a huge issue.
• Less than civil responses go back a long time. Here on July 4th he replies to concerns with "Acting like you run the show, and leaving annoying messages for people who actually make useful positive contributions as opposed to writing about kiddie's video games is also extremely bad form, as is dictating in the manner you have. Alleging somebody engaged in "vandalism" is also (drum roll goes here) extremely bad form. Ta Da" [22]
• Another July 2nd "Hello, maybe you should make a wee bit of effort in finding information on a subject instead of coming off like a know-it-all." [23] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Totally uncontroverial block. Shame on anyone who would consider ignoring such flagrant long-term hositility on grounds of productivity: we have masses of editors who edit productively who can behave civilly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Block Reading the user's talk page, I don't quite understand...one second he's a terrific contributor, the next second he's confrontational because someone reverted something he did or even, it seems, attempted to build upon something he did. He is extremely incivil as noted by all of the links posted above on this thread, and thus, I would support a short-term block (maybe a week). DB is right, I think, that it should be fixed, rather than indefinite. Go Phightins! (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I have blocked Mike's talk page access because of personal attacks. Putting aside that he's creating a mini-ANI on his own talk page, in the midst of his long diatribe is this sentence: "Heilmann is a liar, a plagiarist and grossly incompetent in writing medical content which he refers to as medicine content." Bear in mind that this was a cumulative civility block in the first instance. If another admin disagrees with my action, they can undo it without consulting with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  That should be effective in making this discussion a little more one sided. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  When you're already blocked for incivility, calling another editor an incompetent lying plagiarist loses you your talk page access. Every time. I'm hoping Mike will email me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support block: Sorry, I'm sick and tired of the premise that as long as some fans can claim that you're a productive editor, you get a free ride for incivility you'd likely never dare to use were you not safely ensconced behind a computer screen. Either we have civility and NPA rules or we do not. One would think that already being under fire and having been sanctioned for incivility, Mike would have figured he had best keep a civil tongue in his head. From the fellow who has openly admitted, however, that people who contribute a certain amount of edits should thereby win the right to be uncivil [24], I'm not exactly surprised. Ravenswing 18:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. Civility is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User ZarlanTheGreen

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

The affected articles are:

Broadsword (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → WQA/Broadsword (disambiguation)#August 2012 cleanup
User talk:Trofobi (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Broadsword (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → WP:DR noticebaord#Broadsword
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Edit war)

User ZarlanTheGreen disagreed with some (MOS:DAB-according) changes of "Broadsword (disambiguation)", starting 28 August 2012‎. On the talk page, he got sufficient answers to that but accused me of giving no answers, while actually he just refused to read the answers and especially refused to look in the article's history what changes he had done himself(!) and what changes others had done, but rather repeating on and on false accusations what he thought his/the changes had been. While repeatedly refusing to accept the MoS:DAB[25][26][27][28]..., he charged me with not following his own word-by-word interpretations of WP:BRD. Instead of working together on solutions, he accused me of "trolling"+[29] and opened a case against me on WP:WQA, where he got many more answers, but none of them supporting his views. My request to remove the "trolling" PA was answered by only more PAs. When WQA was closed on 15 Sep 2012, Zarlan opened a WP:DR case on the same questions, making further personal attacks there and refusing to remove them even after being asked so by the volunteer (Guy Macon). Current climax: Now, as it turns out that WP:DR, too, doesn't fulfill his hopes, ZarlanTG now starts editing the Manual of Style/DAB to his personal favour [30][31] and reverting other users there.

Additionally ZarlanTheGreen is often mixing up formats like [[ {{ == etc. not caring about the mess he leaves,[32] even if kindly asked to.[33] (As I am not a native English speaker I hope to have chosen appropriate words, if not pls let me know!) --Trofobi (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIR dangerouspanda 10:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You hardly make it clear who you consider to be lacking in competence, in what way, or what should be done about it. Also, I would like to point out that WP:CIR is an essay, which is to say the advice/opinion of some editors ...and it is not uncontroversial, as the page itself points out ...as well as stating that if one links to the page to point out incompetence in an editor, one has not understood the point of the essay.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's far from clear what administrator intervention is required. The DR process seems to be progressing. Comments on user behaviour are not necessarily personal attacks, and as for syntax errors on your talk page, I think that you can simply fix, delete or archive that section, surely? While Zarlan does not seem to have conducted himself impeccably, I see no ongoing problem here. Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC).

Nice to have learned a lesson in what user behaviour is supported by admins. --Trofobi (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to be shown what part of the MOS:DAB that is relevant or in what way, aside from the order of entries (though whether that interpretation is accurate is being argued), and I have already pointed out that I never refused Guy Macon's request, but rather explicitly pointed out that I would comply if he insisted despite the misgivings I noted. As to editing the MOS:DAB to my personal favours... that is a personal attack, a misscharacterization of events, and an assumption of bad faith. I merely reverted an addition to the page, which added something not previously present, with which I disagreed. The person that tried to add it has the WP:BURDEN of motivating the addition, and according to WP:BRD, must proceed discuss to be able to get it in. He/she may do so, and may be successful in doing so. That is yet to be seen. I could say that the person added that bit, because he/she wanted to edit the MOS:DAB to his/her favours, as its present form didn't suit their arguments concerning the Broadsword DAB page ...but that would be assuming bad faith, which is improper and unnecessary: it may have been done in good faith and it doesn't really matter either way. As to the rest, I feel no need to say anything.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this current edit war [34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42] have to be reported at WP:AN3, or can it be dealt with here? --Trofobi (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that, that was a bit edit war (or on the brink of it, at least), with part of the fault being on my side, as I myself have noted. The editing has died down, however, and attempts at discussion has started, so dealing with it as an edit war would be inappropriate and unnecessary. There is no need to deal with a war that is already over, that would be to unnecessarily inflame matters. I may consider a DR if discussion doesn't happen, but I see no reason for anything beyond that. I must say that this whole thing has been quite a learning experience. I have learned more about the MOS:DAB, BRD and some other guidelines and policies, as necessary, in the process of this. Generally nothing that goes against what I propose, though with some good pointers, that shall make me less inclined to revert to reverts as often in future and make things a bit less messy and edit war-y, which is good.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

...Especially as that discussion is now completed.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-determination

It is clear that discussions about the Falkland Islands at Talk:Self-determination are spiralling out of control, despite the attempts of various parties to intervene. (See WP:RSN#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN and WP:DRN#Self-determination.) Heated discussion about sources and continued edit-warring are ongoing and I have now had to warn one of the editors involved for posting an uncivil message. For the record their reply is here. I fear this is heading for Arbitration unless things cool down and am requesting more eyes on this page. Ben MacDui 12:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the edit-warring and signs of tendentiousness in the edits, I would suggest a block against at least Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs), who I believe has been the most stubborn and the most overtly tendentious of the lot; not quite sure yet about those on the other side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree as a careful analysis of all of Gaba's contributions for the entire year seemed to be directed overwhelmingly at Wee's edits in the Falkland articles with Gaba being the aggressor in this case. Please see: [[43]]Mugginsx (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note the past conflict I've had with FPaS and from my knowledge this is the second occasion has proposed sanctions against me. My edits are sourced to reliable sources, giving due weight and the others aren't. I have addressed problems in the article, I've followed WP:DR steps and I've remained civil. I have very little faith in WP:ANI as too often I see posts like the above looking to settle old scores. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Any objection to Gaba p's edits is labelled by him as WP:OR and WP:SYN, as far as he's concerned that is sufficient for any discussion. In this case, insisting on using a source that made a demonstrably false claim. [44]

I point out that his edit is misleading, thats also WP:OR and WP:SYN. [45]

I point out an edit is contrary to WP:WEIGHT, thats also WP:OR and WP:SYN. [46]

I raised the matter in talk [47], I started the DRN [48], I started the RSN discussion [49]. On every occasion I have given a reasoned response to proposals, if Gaba p disagrees - its [[WP:OR], its WP:SYN, its a lie [50], its wikilawyering but he never actually discusses with an aim to reaching agreement. His approach is confrontational and antagonistic to anyone who disagrees [51],[52]. He has previously been warned about WP:CIVIL [53] and that he faced a block if he continued. Whilst its just been warnings from several admins but no action he has simply got bolder. User:Langus-TxT who in a RFC at Falkland Islands was warned for POV editing has previously backed up Gaba p in a WP:TAG team to try and force POV changes into articles. User:Langus-TxT did exactly the same with the now indefinitely blocked editor User:Alex79818 who stalked me in real life forcing a change of user name. When User:Gaba p started editing both User:Nick-D and User:JamesBWatson considered there was sufficient reason to consider User:Gaba p yet another sock puppet of the prolific sock puppeteer User:Alex79818. He was only unblocked after providing ID identification and I privately disclosed Alex's real life ID to James (I knew it from the stalking). After being the object of abuse from Gaba and Alex I remain convinced they're one and the same - the edit patterns are identical. And the edit patterns have the hallmark of a sleeper account, registered in 2009 [54] but no edits between 2010 and 2012 [55] and restarting editing immediately after another obvious sock was blocked. WP:DUCK.

You would find it difficult to find a posting where I have been uncivil, despite repeated provocation and I really don't think any editor should have to put up with this level of abuse. He's followed me all over wikipedia with the same attitude, I move on to improve another article and there he is. He'll make a whole host of allegations to muddy the waters and avoid sanctions again. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

First: I have no idea why Muginsx is attacking me so ferociously, he came out of nowhere a couple of weeks ago to threaten me in my talk page while as far as I can remember we had never crossed paths.

Wee was told by two other editors in addition to me and Langus in the RS/N that he was in fact engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN in his attempts at removing a properly sourced sentence from an article. The sources I used are the ones directly recommended by those two editors at RS/N.

Yesterday Wee reverted 3 times and edit agreed upon by 3 different editors[56] (Langus, Churn and Change and myself)

A source which we were advised not to use by editors in the same RS/N discussion had to be removed on 3 occasions because Wee kept introducing it back to the article with every rv he made.

I tried several times to come to an agreement with Wee but he is hell-bent on keeping a properly sourced sentence out of WP and there is no middle ground: no matter what sources I or other editors present, he will immediately embark in a crusade to discredit it ("it's an Argentinian source", "it's ambiguous in its claims", "its contradicted by other sources") all based on his own WP:OR.

Wee had me blocked earlier this year accused of being a sock puppet. To this day Wee keeps accusing me of being the same person as Axel after I revealed my true identity to a WP administrator who ended up lifting the life-ban that had been imposed to my account. What else can I possibly do?? I've created two scientific articles about a topic that was missing from WP (Thin disk and Thick disk) and have two more in the same area in the making[57] Nothing will convince him that me and Axel are not the same person and he will keep attacking me on that grounds.

Let me try to put this as simple as I can. This is the sentence Wee is determined to keep out of WP and which sparkled this whole mess:

"Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British."

The first source was advised to both of us to be used at the RS/N discussion (anybody can go and check this). The second source says verbatim: "The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833.". Wee contests this source saying that "The comment here is just moving the goalposts"[58]. The third one is an article by an author who was also recommended at the RS/N as a trusted source[59]

My addition of this statement backed by those sources to the article was reverted 3 times by Wee yesterday. He routinely behaves as if he WP:OWNED several articles and as if his was the last word on the matter: I don't agree so it doesn't get consensus.

He will accuse me and Langus of WP:TAG teaming because we both agree that the sentence should be present in WP as does a third editor (Churn and Change), who recommended that much at the RS/N.

Wee accuses me of "getting bolder" when it was him who breached the 3RR yesterday by constantly reverting an edit agreed upon by 3 different editors.

"He's followed me all over wikipedia with the same attitude, I move on to improve another article and there he is", this is just a petty and untrue accusation. Several articles are related through the Falklands issue and Wee edits in all of them. Please take a look at my history[60] where you will find that 99% of my exchanges with Wee have taken place solely at the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article. Aside from that one I have only collaborated in this one (Self-determination) and made two comments in the talk page of the Arana-Southern Treaty article long ago. That is all. Does this really count as me following Wee "all over wikipedia"?? Gaba p (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The opposite is true insofar as the "following all over Wikipedia" and Gaba's contributions provide the proof as I pointed out above. Gaba would like everyone to feel he is being persecuted when in fact he has been the persecutor and has has the help of User:Langus-TxT to help him at every opportunity - an editor that he knows full well also has a previous history with Wee and a careful review of his contributions [[61]] as well as his talk page remarks on the Falkland articles and his personal talk page and most recently here: [[62]] where he inserts himself into remarks that did not concern him, indicates a clear pattern as a tag-team participant with Gaba, at least to this veteran editor. Mugginsx (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mugginsx I have no desire of anyone feeling that I'm being persecuted, it's you and Wee who are accusing me of persecuting him. As I said before, if one edits in almost any article related to the Falklands issue (as I have in only two of them) one is bound to come across Wee since he edits in virtually all of them (I restrain from saying literally because I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure it would be hard for anyone to come up with an article in WP about the Falklands that Wee isn't involved in)

Also, I find it funny to say the least how you are currently accusing Langus of not being involved in this current episode[63] and yet here you are. You, who I have never crossed paths before as far as I can remember prior to your out-of-nowhere attack in my talk page[64] (please point me to where we have if I'm mistaken), are right now defending Wee in a matter you were not involved in, in any of its ramifications (ie: the Self-determination article which you didn't edit, RS/N, DR/N, Ben MacDui's talk page[65], etc...) I have no problem with you defending Wee but, wouldn't you say you're being a tad hypocritical? Gaba p (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gaba doesn't collaborate, he accuses someone of WP:OR and WP:SYN constantly and does not enter a discussion to find consensus, this is his mechanism to ignore any occasion when someone raises a quite reasonable point in talk. He accuses editors of lying rather than entering a discussion to find consensus. I am not proposing to discuss content at WP:ANI, which is about user behaviour, but there was a good reason given for reverting him and his dismissal as WP:OR and WP:SYN is not a reasonable response. I did not break WP:3RR, I gave an informative summary why I was reverting you and I raised it at WP:RSN, which is the latest place chosen to move the discussion. Unfortunately an editor at RSN forgot WP:BEANS and has given User:Gaba p another idea for disruptive and tendentious editing.

I end up in the classic dilemna faced by many productive editors at wikipedia who cares about WP:NPOV, when faced by an editor who won't discuss an edit in talk, who insists on bulldozing material into an article pushing a nationalist agenda of asking myself whether I should revert or not. If you examine User:Gaba p and User:Langus-TxT's edits they're not about improving wikipedia, they're about forcing what they refer to as the Argentine POV into articles. They're just getting more sophisticated about how they go about it.

You won't find me being uncivil to either and the last time this came up at an RFC an editor commented that my edits were fair and meticulously sourced [66], whilst Langus reverted cited edits without any real rationale. I've been hounded for a year. Virtually every edit I make is being reverted by these two, I have to take every edit round the boards to get 3rd party input. Really its beyond a joke. I can almost predict what will happen here, there'll be a load of tendentious arguments obscuring the real issues, Langus and Gaba will make a lot of unsubstantiated allegations against me and in the end nothing will happen. They'll continue doing makin life unpleasant here until I quit. Its exactly situations like this that is why wikipedia is losing productive content editors. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wee, it is you who doesn't care about consensus. As I have pointed out already you reverted 3 times and edit that was agreed upon by 3 editors because you didn't agree with it.

You keep accusing me of being tendentious while it is you who is trying to keep a thoroughly sourced sentence out of WP by any means necessary. How am I bulldozing an edit that was agreed upon by at least 3 editors Wee? I'd say that it's actually you who are bulldozing said sentence out of WP, based (as was told to you not only by Langus and I but by two other editors at RS/N[67]) in your WP:OR and WP:SYN.

"Virtually every edit I make is being reverted by these two", Wee you know very well the opposite is actually true. In fact, it's the whole reason we are here now: because you reverted 3 times an edit agreed by 3 editors.

I have no desire of Wee being blocked (and of course no desire of being blocked myself), I just need Wee to stop acting like he WP:OWNED those articles he is involved in and accept that every once in a while other editors can and will make contributions to them and, though he may not personally agree with such edits, that is not a valid reason to remove them. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you two now please stop continuing your fight on this page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As Wee has just said above, this is why good editors get tired and just give up on Wikipedia. I can say as a careful observer on the article edit history and the article talk pages that Gaba has been the obstructionist in this case and it seems that sadly, he just will say anthing it seems to keep an argument going. It seems that Wikipedia is just a "game" for him. I do not say that lightly. His language and his edits, especially on the Self-determination article, but elsewhere also, seem to indicate that he is not at all interested in the furtherance or the quality of the article, but to just continue the reverts and not discuss substance. I wanted to edit on the article but could see what was happening. It discourages other editor when they see this. It is really too bad, but something needs to be done to convince Gaba that Wikipedia is not a video game- the prime directive to outmaneuver and frustrate ones' opponent. I have been here on Wikipedia for some time and if there is one thing I have learned early (as most editors do) it is to differentiate the well-intentioned editors from the others. If proof is needed then it is here and in the article pages I have mentioned. Mugginsx (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mugginsx, your recent vicious attacks at me have me baffled. You are the first editor to accuse me of more wrong-doing that Wee (and that is an amazing feat) What can I say in my defense if you have already uncovered the truth? Clearly this is a game to me, that's why I've put in so many hours trying to improve an article with a sentence that keeps getting reverted by Wee. Surely that's why I fought tooth and nail for over a month to have my account back when I was wrongly accused of being a sock-puppet to the point that I gave away my right to anonymity[68]. Right? One would say that an editor that takes WP as a game would have just let that account die and made another one. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a kid who thinks WP is a video-game. Cheers man.

Fut.Perf. yes, understood. I will only write here again if my input is requested. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not been told I cannot edit here so I will answer as best I can. I wanted to contribute on that Falkslands related article. I took some time to research with the idea of inserting a constructive paragraph into Self-determination, which perhaps would also go into the sister article. What I saw there were two editors, both of whom have past beefs with editor Wee, tag-teaming him on purpose. How do I know this? Because I have been here a long time and because it is obvious to anyone who looks. I tried to approach you on this and you sent what I took to be a vicious email back to me. That matter has been resolved by an administrator and I will mention no further. The reverts of Wees work were discussed openly and honestly by one editor only, namely Wee. He presented argument with links which I looked up myself and found to be valid in my opinion. They were said to be false links or not good enough or one sided or pro-British or WP:OR anything that you and your team member could think of and the variety of your answers and the complete failure to have a civil conversation about the same edit showed to me that you were not sincere. I found those links with no trouble. Why couldn't you? No, there was something else going on there and perhaps it is really over this perceive injustice you mention, I do not know. You mention that Wee worked on many of the articles, so far as I know that is nothing wrong or new at Wikipedia and generally shows a real interest and knowledge in the subject. When working with other good faith editors, it usually makes for excellent articles. Anyway, when I said it looked like you were "Playing games" that is because that, to my mind, is exactly what was and still is happening, only now here on this board. I don't wish you ill will but I do not think you and your friend have been acting in good faith, as a matter of act, I know it. You seem like a very angry editor as does your friend and especially angry at Wee and as you just need to be prepared that other editors have other points of view on an article and if they are well-sourced, which this one was, and do not violate real wiki guidelines, then you have to let them in. Mugginsx (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It was earlier suggested by Administrator User:Ben MacDui that some links be provided here which serve to prove the accusations made by Wee, myself, and another editor. Here are some that I found:

See [69], [70], [71]. [72], [73],[74], [75], [76]. All examples of the same tendentious editing by User:Gaba p. His constantly treats present historical events as just a British claim. Referring to the talk page Wee shows that sources of all nationalities confirm the same series of events, original eye witness accounts of all nationalities agree. He has never produced a source to back this up see WP:DRN#Self-determination, when asked his response is to accuse Wee of WP:OR and WP:SYN and not answer.

[77] An example of a typical response to attempting to engage Gaba in a reasonable discussion. In one response Gaba accuses Wee of using talk page discussions to maintain the status quo, editing because of a dislike of Argentina, claiming all Wee's sources are "pro-British", instead of looking at the sources Wee provides, he simply accuses Wee of deciding what is fact and what is a lie. Mugginsx (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(Ignoring groundless accusations from an editor I've just have met, and to whom I am suspicious as he claims to know very well my activities in WP)

These edit wars stem from the inability (or unwillingness) of Wee Curry Monster to correctly interpret the advice of knowledgeable editors, together with his "not-give-an-inch" behavior and WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT attitude when he believes he's right (possibly always).

In this particular case, two times uninvolved editors have told WCM to attribute the statements and not incur in original research: this NPOVN thread three months ago, and this recent one at WP:RSN. But, as you can see from the comments in both threads, he just isn't prepared to accept he's wrong.

In the last three reverts by WCM to the article, you can see he's pushing in the source Key to an Enigma, by Oliveri López. If you took the time to read through the last NPOVN thread, you should know that Lopez was recommended to be avoided, but that instead Risman could and should[78][79][80] be used. Attitudes like these are the ones that cause an edit war.

Also note that WCM did broke the 3RR rule: [81][82][83][84]
And he nearly did so again yesterday: [85][86][87]

An example of WCM fighting till the end an edit backed by the majority can be found here (please note the reactions at subsection Enough when WCM accuses of TAG-TEAMING). This Thatcher issue led to a Mediation Cabal case which, despite the remarkable well-played role of the mediator, ended up in nothing. If you read the article now, the "Leaders" section of the infobox is missing.

Another example of his intransigence: an administrator tells him to be careful with accusations of vandalism, and he merely dismisses his advice.

Finally, I'd like to point out that insinuations of socket-puppetry in discussions like this are completely unacceptable. I've been victim of this harassment by WCM for a year or so, till he finally seemed to stop after a discussion at Wikiquette Assistance (do note how he ends up fighting the volunteer).
Or maybe it was just a coincidence, I don't really know given how he refused to acknowledge the opinions there. --Langus (t) 03:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - I point out sources are in agreement [88], [89] contentious argument but no reply and simply asserting its a British Claim. Repeat and you have entire talk page discussion. And as Mugginsx shows above the pair of them edit war their own WP:OR and WP:SYN into the article whilst accusing others of the same.

The "thoroughly sourced sentence" is sourced but the language in the source is ambiguous and its being used out of context. Its a classic example of abusing sources to make a point the original author didn't intend to make and they ignore the comment on p.300 in the same source that contradicts it. Relevant quotes are at WP:DRN as well as my attempt to discuss it before they chose to edit war it into the article.

His claim that I broke 3RR is untrue the first edit linked to above is a correction to an untrue statement introduced by Langus. I don't edit war, I tried to follow WP:BRD but that was frustrated by WP:TAG from these two to force a change into the article. I truly believe they were trying to get me to break 3RR to get me blocked.

As regards the NPOVN discussion, I still remain unconvinced. The source they wanted to use made a claim attributing a statement to another author. That author made a completely different statement in line with all of the other sources. WP:COMMON still seems to suggest that is sufficient cause for a discussion about its reliability - but you can't discuss with two editors who constantly accuse of WP:OR and WP:SYN rather than address a concern you raise.

The Medcab case he refers to as an example of my intransigence, I made a post in talk, waited for 2 weeks for a response, having not got one made a WP:BOLD edit, that was reverted out of hand, the editor then posted at WT:MILHIST canvassing other editors to follow him. It was I who started the Medcab and read it, I make comments about content the protagonist in that case makes a lot of allegations but no comment on content. How is it intransigent to follow WP:DR and remains WP:CIVIL?

I did disagree with User:Dennis Brown we had an extensive discussion on his talk page, we agree to disagree. However, given the conversation remained civil neither of us bear any grudge about it. Please ask him - and btw this is the second time Langus has tried to make more of our discussion than it was, we all disagree from time to time but a frank (but civil) exchange of views is healthy.

As regards the comments about sock puppets. Falklands articles have been plagued by a prolific sock puppeteer. The profile of many of these is an account registered between 2007 and 2009 that doesn't edit for years, then embarks on edit wars to insert the Argentine POV. Langus' editing and Gaba p's editing fit the same profile.

Like I said I expected a load of frivolous allegations to obscure the central issue, which is that Langus and Gaba will edit war to force what they describe as the Argentine POV into articles and what they refer to as the truth from the Argentine perspective into articles. They've followed me to multiple articles and have plagued my edits. Enough is enough. They can't accept that NPOV is about presenting the weight of opinion in the literature and the British and Argentine positions from a neutral perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has now become a mirror image of the edit summaries and talk pages of the articles mentioned here. Wee and I provide links and Gaba and Langus still refuse to discuss CONTENT. Now instead Gaba, is accusing me of having some "special knowledge of his activities", (who does he think I am, Jimbo Wales assistant?. ) Langus, (his relentless assistant), also with the underlying motive of revenge for WeeCurryMonster, have also continued to use and pervert the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia to obstruct and frustrate this discussion just as they both did on the Wikipedia article detailed here - using misrepresentations, Wikipedia:Tag team and innuendo. I repeat the obvious intention is to frustrate and pervert the well-intended process here and ultimately to make a fool of the all of the editors and administrators who volunteer their time trying to work toward an honest solution. The proof has been abundantly provided here. There are volumes more at the article(s) talk page.

Langus even had the audacity to interject snide comments on another page into a finished discussion that I had with an administrator over something that did not in anyway concern him! It was not until the administrator came back to comment, that he slithered away and has now finally come here to turn and twist the truth in the same way and manner he thinks he is so skilled at - under the apparent delusion that he is cleverer and smarter that everyone here, including the administrators! Langus, for your information it was Gaba who was the first one to bring up the sockpuppetry accusations not anyone else. Just another intentional misrepresentation. Langus, instead of being clever here, your are sadly acting like the most common form of a Wikipedia troublemarker. Unfortunately, we have more then our share of those and do not need anymore. This is turning into one of the worst examples of editors’ misconduct I have ever personally seen on Wikipedia and to allow them to get away with it is to laugh in the face of every well-intentioned volunteer and administrator here and at Wikipedia as a whole. The proof is abundantly clear and I think it is time to shut this sham of a discussion down and sanction these two editors Gaba and Langus to send a message that Wikipedia editors and administrators are tired of Wikipedia:Tag teameditors who waste everyone's time and make serious and productive editors want to give up and leave Wikipedia. In my opinion, further discussion is pointless but a sanction on these two editors made just work and avoid further escalation and further waste of everyone's time. In my experience, it is the only things that does work.

• I respectfully move to close this discussion with a request for sanctions against especially User:Langus-TxT who does not even respect the decision of administrators, [[90]] for obvious Tag Teaming and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and User:Gaba p who has spent one year obstructing and reverting Wee's Reliable Sources [[91]] even after they were verified at [[92]] and not acting in good faith. This will hopefully put a stop to abuse and finally to allow the the hard-working and serious editors and the administrators here to go back to the usually joyful work of creating and/or improving Wikipedia articles and working with good faith editors. Mugginsx (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  For heaven's sake, Muggins, can you please stop fiddling with your own postings for ours on end? You've now edited your own posting like, how many times, twenty? What I'm seeing here is walls of text, and maybe you should start asking yourself whether the fact that this thread has been drawing next to no outside participation from uninvolved editors might be related to your own behaviour here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been busy adding links to my last paragraph to show the abuse links which did unfortunately take some more doing then I expected. I have not re-factored any previous paragraphs. I will certain defer to your request. The walls of text, I am not sure what you mean. I was requested by an administrator to add Links and I complied. Sorry, if it caused any problems. I like to be exact and may have been overenthusiastic in that pursuit. Apologies Mugginsx (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Francis Bacon (artist)

User:Jon C. is continuously removing well cited content in favour of his own original research. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like both of you are edit-warring in the article starting on September 18 with your adding/changing content to the article. You said you were "restoring cited content", but I don't know what you mean by that. Jon refers to a talk page consensus, but I'm not sure what he's referring to as the talk page hasn't been edited since July. One of you should open a discussion on the talk page. I almost locked the article based on its recent history - and another admin is welcome to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I was restoring cited content, as my description had six references. This was removed by Jon C in favour of his own uncited description.

There's no right way to describe Bacon. You have to figure it out on the talk page. If you know about Bacon, and I assume you do, you'll know "Irish-born British" is not wrong, neither is what you said "described as both Irish and British", neither is saying that Dublin was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at the time etc etc. Talk pages are there to figure things like this out. Have look through the previous discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

But would we describe an English painter as "English-born British"? "Irish-born British" implies he was a Briton who just happened to have been born in Ireland. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well he pretty much was. There is more than one "previous discussion", and the 120K+ Archive 1 consists of little else. It is not a very helpful suggestion to ask for more discussion there. There may be no precise definition or formulation that has reached clear consensus, but early arguments just to describe him as "Irish" are rejected. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked 89.100.207.51 for 2 weeks because of repeated removal of the material at the top of the talk page identifying the ISP, how to respond to vandalism, and the recently added abuse template. This address has a long list of blocks, the most recent being in August for one week. If another admin disagrees with the block, feel free to adjust or unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The page as it stands now is a stable version that was previously agreed upon by a discussion on the article's talk page. I am not, as Bbb23 has suggested, adding or removing anything, merely reverting to this stable version and imploring the IP, per BRD, to open a new discussion rather than edit-warring. As soon as that new discussion has been opened I'll participate, but I'm not going to let him just steamroller his own version through. — Jon C.^ॐ 19:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Persistent incivility, personal attacks, violations of talk page guidelines by Fowler&fowler

Re: Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Fowler&fowler has been persistently violating talk page guidelines, with uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Repeated request to Fowler&fowler to stop uncivil behavior have so far failed.

[A]. On September 20th, I made specific suggestions to improve the article Caste on its talk page: Ex1 - per talk page and RfC guidelines. My suggestions were:

1. Summarize all sides of significant and mainstream scholarly literature. [...delete rest for brevity...]

2. Casual use of word caste by any published source, once or twice, is an unacceptable basis to include that source in this article. [...delete rest for brevity...]

3. We will consider the following as adequate basis to consider including a mention or summary in this article: multiple secondary sources discuss caste in a country / region / culture, and one or more reliable tertiary source include this mention.

4. Substantive discussion of caste in a society by multiple secondary sources, in sociology/anthropology/cultural and similar scholarly fields, suggest such sources will be considered for inclusion in this article. [...delete rest for brevity...]

5. Scholarly published secondary and tertiary literature from around the world, on caste, are acceptable and welcome.

Fowler&fowler’s replied with a personal attack, which took the following form: ‘As Fifelfoo has said, you don’t have competence to write this article.’ See Ex2. A review of the discussion proves, Fifelfoo criticized the article, but did not attack any wikipedia user with those words. See this comments section. Fowler&fowler misquoted and misrepresented another wiki user, to launch a personal attack.

Mitigating factors: In fairness to Fowler&fowler, I note that this September 21 morning, after I noted that I will seek wikipedia admin help to address the personal attack on September 20, Fowler&fowler voluntarily acknowledged and struck out the personal attack he made a day ago Ex7. Similarly, in fairness, along with personal attacks, Fowler&fowler has also welcomed my contributions and made constructive proposals recently with suggestions such as

‘user:ApostleVonColorado should rewrite 3. and 4.’ - Fowler&fowler, 20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

See Ex8. I assume from this that Fowler&fowler is capable of respecting and welcoming constructive contributions from other wiki users such as me. These mitigating corrective actions and constructive suggestions are offset by the unrelenting, counter-productive attacks and uncivil behavior from Fowler&fowler. See below.

[B]. The uncivil behavior by Fowler&fowler is not limited to one instance. It is repetitive and persistent. See for example Ex3 with this cleaner version where he impersonated me, and see Ex4, as two examples. Fowler&fowler persistent attacks and violation of talk page guidelines are of concern because this triggers counter-productive responses from other users. I am concerned because both talk page guidelines and RfC guidelines remind us that our goal should be to improve the article, discuss suggestions for the article, build consensus, assume good faith and welcome input from all users to help improve the article. Systematic abuse of talk page guidelines discourages me and other potential users from participating with constructive contributions.

[C]. The attacks by Fowler&fowler are not limited to one user. On September 17th, Fowler&fowler attacked a new wiki User:Hoshigaki, someone who has been contributing well researched, constructive, through and a detailed response to an RfC, currently in progress on Talk:Caste. Fowler&fowler wrote,

‘Hoshigaki, You are doing this again. I have serious concerns about your level of competence in the English language. I feel your comprehension skills are poor at best.’

See Ex5. Once again, such personal attacks are an unacceptable behavior.

[D] The incivility and violations of talk page guidelines are not limited to talk page of one article, Talk:Caste. It extends to Talk:India. For example, Fowler&fowler had used the talk page of India as a forum with comments, irrelevant to improving the article, such as,

‘[...]....casts its one vote, half to Mrt3366 and other half to RegentsPark as the next President of Wikipedia. Let's throw that Jimbo guy out. I will now be going down to the bar to order a Vodka Martini.’ - Fowler&fowler, 14:30, 6 September 2012

See Ex6. That is an irrelevant, frivolous and disruptive forum-like comment on an article's talk page.

[E]. In summary, Fowler&fowler has persistently violated the following talk page guidelines:

1. Personal attacks
2. Misrepresenting another user
3. Impersonating me and creating a section ‘Comment by ApostleVonColorado’ without my permission or knowledge
4. Using the talk page as forum

I request an appropriate review of the facts, followed by appropriate action to address unacceptable behavior by user Fowler&fowler.

Please note that this request is about a user conduct. It is not a commentary, nor is it a content dispute about the article Caste or any other. Others and I have already acknowledged and agreed that the article needs rework, has serious flaws, some sections need to be removed, some rewritten and that the article can be significantly improved. Polite and article-focussed discussion, not personal attacks, is a way to rapidly improving the article. Above all, any wikipedia article regardless of how good or poorly written it is, gives no one the right to be uncivil and to repeatedly personally attack other wikipedia users. No one has the right to harass and attack others regardless of whether they are a new user or have many years of experience on wikipedia. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't finished looking over all of this, but as a note to the humor-impaired; Example 6 is what's known as a joke. It plays upon the tropes of hyperbole and facetiousness. I'll finish looking over this, but it seems obvious to me that was meant as a deliberately hyperbolic comment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler has been doing his level best to handle a group of tendentious filibusterers, of which you are one. In particular, dealing with your insistent TLDR essays is an absolute frustration, and not just for him. I've very nearly blown up on a couple of occasions when discussing things with you and the others on article talk pages, so it is no surprise to me if someone else actually has done so. As long as you continue in your ways, I think that you'll have to roll with the consequences - it is not a one-way street. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I'm finished with this. ApostleVonColorado, a couple of your examples above aren't the best from Fowler&fowler, but I'm not so much inclined to sanction him for saying them as much as express amazement at how long it took to get to that point. I'm thinking now about instituting a topic ban for you under the discretionary sanctions in place, I'll come back to this in a couple hours so I don't make a knee-jerk decision. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not the first time that Fowler has breached civility on Wikipedia, there were more than two editors who were discussing on the talk page but I am sure there are more than two editors who felt that Fowler had crossed the limits. It is not at all surprising to see Sitush making such a comment but what is more surprising is The Blade of the Northern Lights saying a couple of your examples above aren't the best from Fowler&fowler, but I'm not so much inclined to sanction him for saying them --sarvajna (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is my comment "not at all surprising"? - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, like The Blade said, the examples don't show me in a good light. Example 6 was indeed a joke. I was mimicking the states' roll call at the Democratic National Convention. Example 2 is not entirely accurate. I myself realized that my response was too hot-headed and before anyone replied to my post, changed it in this post. I still seem to remember that Fifelfoo had used the word "competence," but when I went back to look at his statement, I couldn't find it. In any case, he had made a pretty damning evaluation of AVC's contributions to the Caste article. As for Hoshigaki, here is the deal. Two new users appeared in the RfC. They had joined WP a few days earlier. Predictably they both opposed me. They are Hoshigaki (talk · contribs) and OrangesRYellow (talk · contribs). Hoshigaki in particular, kept misinterpreting my words, "India is central to the topic of Caste" to mean "Caste is central to the topic of India," he also kept misinterpreting the adjective "central" to mean "unique." So, he repeatedly replied "Cast is not unique to India or Hinduism" or "Caste is not the central social topic in India today." When this happened the third or the fourth time, I became frustrated and replied in the post AVC has cited above. The problem as I see it is simple. The major tertiary sources are unanimous in stating that India is central to any discussion of caste. The major tertiary sources spend 75 to 100% of their content discussing India. Yet we have a Wikipedia article which (especially after AVC's edits in Feb and March this year) spends 80% of its content discussing caste in Europe, Latin America, Africa, East Asia, .... It has sections, "Caste in Finland, " "Caste in Sweden," "Caste in England," "Caste in Ireland," ... Although AVC is always polite, and never fails to cite WP policy on polite behavior, he nonetheless subtly subverts the RfC process by writing vague, general, essay-length responses, which are difficult to respond to. He produced some tertiary sources of his own to support the extra-India emphasis in the article. The first one had a general sounding abstract. The abstract was all that was available on the web (unless of course you had access or subscription). I managed to get the pdf of the article. It was written by the Indian sociologist Veena Das. Despite its general abstract, it turned out to be entirely about India. I suspected then (and still do) that AVC looked at the abstract and thought it would support his POV, but didn't read the rest of the article. When I said so to him, he became upset. But the question still remains: if your first tertiary source is entirely about India, how are you writing an article 80% of which is not about India? The more long-term background to the Caste or caste-related articles is that it has been the stomping ground of nationalists. In fact it no coincidence that the second most prolific contributor to Caste system in India and Caste articles (after AVC) is none other than Hkelkar (talk · contribs) the notorious Hindu nationalist sock master. One of the favorite tacks of the nationalists when editing articles about India's perceived social ills (not just Caste, but also Bride burning, Dowry etc. is to universalize them; in other words, to have little sections on Pakistan, Nepal, .... and to mention India casually as just one among the crowd. Whether this is AVC's motivation or not, his edits have certainly served that purpose. He had made similar edits to Culture of India, where "caste" etc have been swept under "Perceptions of India." Anyway, I have to take our cat to the vet. So this all I have to say. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

PS. I've got to get this in too: most of the abstract discussion of caste has taken place historically around the paradigmatic example of Hindu India. All the great theorists of Caste, Max Weber, Emile Senart (Les Castes dans L'Inde, 1894), Célestin Bouglé (1927), Georges Dumézil, G. S. Ghurye, Edmund Leach, M. N. Srinivas, F. G. Bailey, Louis Dumont, J. C. Heesterman, Ronald Inden, Stanley Tambiah, McKim Marriott, R. S. Khare, Veena Das, Jonathan Parry, Andre Beteille, T. N. Madan, Richard Burghart, and others have theorized in the context of Hinduism and India. Even the one anthropologist, Gerald Berreman, who during the 50s, 60s, and early 70s advocated the comparative approach to caste, for which he has been cited a dozen times in the Caste article, has spent most of his lifetime working on India. It is that sort of history this article is flying in the face of. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And it is interesting that sarvajna has been contributing both to the discussion there and here, given their past support for such notorious characters as MangoWong (talk · contribs), Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) and Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs), all of whom have favoured a revisionist, nationalist Hindutva depiction of Indian society and history. Sarvajna does more good than those people, but the presence actually reinforces Fowler's analysis. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(multi ec) As Sitush says, Fowler has been dealing more or less single handedly with long tendentious posts on the article in question and, in my opinion, has been doing this patently and above and beyond the call of duty. If he's blown up a couple of times, it is worth looking at the many other times that he hasn't blown up and to look at his willingness to compromise, even when he doesn't necessarily agree with the outcome. AVC would be better served if he/she took a good, long hard at his own editing style, one that is exemplified by the long and tedious complaint above. Topic banning AVC would be an ideal way to implement the discretionary sanctions recently placed on India related articles. --regentspark (comment) 19:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I think a 6 month ban on AVC from Caste and the associated discussions would be perfect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That would probably require extension to related articles, eg: Caste in India. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That, in my view, would be a good resolution, but then I'm not exactly a disinterested party. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's too much stuff for me to look at in detail, but AVC's support of User:Hoshigaki clearly put him in the (in)famous guy's enablers camp. Although AVC himself is quite polite, the good cop/bad cop routine can wear down many good people. So AVC & friends need to give the area a break. Or be given one. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, anything we apply to AVC should also be applied to Hoshigaki; barring objections, I'll implement them tomorrow. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Hoshigaki at all, but as far as the rest of the discussion goes, while the major problem is at Caste, it is not restricted to the article, but rather to the topic, so any discretionary sanctions will need to cover the topic area and not just the one article in question. This is covered by both the community imposed sanctions (WP:GS/Caste) and the India related arbcom sanctions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Blade of Northern Lights - What is my crime? Look at my contribution history (or talk to Fiflefoo) and you will find I have only brought scholarly sources to the discussion which weaken Fowler's centrality argument. Fowler was deliberately attacking my English skills because reliable sources brought by me clearly indicated that centrality of caste to India can be intrepeted either way. Exact quote provided by me:

From another source cited by Fowler (Berreman, Gerald D. (2008), Caste, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences):

Among social scientists, and especially among those who have worked in India, there are basically two views: (1) that the caste system is to be defined in terms of its Hindu attributes and rationale and, therefore, is unique to India or at least to south Asia; (2) that the caste system is to be defined in terms of structural features which are found not only in Hindu India but in a number of other societies as well. Those who hold the latter view find caste groups in such widely scattered areas as the Arabian Peninsula, Polynesia, north Africa, east Africa, Guatemala, Japan, aboriginal North America, and the contemporary United States. Either of these positions is tenable; which is preferable depends upon one’s interests and purposes.

Anyway if you decide to ban me for 6 months, go ahead, I have no interest in editing Wikipedia if this is how it works. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hoshigaki, Please don't cite incorrectly. The Berreman article is from the 1968 edition of that encyclopedia. I have said both in my list (see reference 16) and at least once in conversation with you that that reference has been superseded by the 2008 edition of the encyclopedia in which the article on "Caste" is written by someone else and devotes 80% of its content to India. Berreman represented a trend current in the 1950s and 60s; even then it was a minority opinion. It has long been discarded by anthropologists. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I give up. My crime is to have gone through all accessible sources presented by Fowler in support of his argument (such as the above source) and pointed out internal contradictions in them. When I succeeded with that, Fowler now wants to discard the source. He or she originally used this source as one from 2008 (and thus acceptable since it was from within the last 25 years - a time limit set by Fowler himself unilaterally). This is deceitful behavior. I have never seen such treachery. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well please read the article "caste" in the 2008 edition (my reference 7) How much space does it devote to India? And how much to other countries? And the first of those is just caste practices of the Indian indentured laborer immigrants in the West Indies. Here is what it says about Berreman (the author of the 1968 article): "... purely on the grounds of universal practices of discrimination based on ascription, scholars such as Gerald Berreman (1960; 1972) have attempted to compare American blacks to untouchable castes in India. However, the black-white dichotomous system in the United States differs from the fourfold caste system in India in that it is ordained not by religious considerations, but by economic and social ones (Cox 1948)." Anyway, I have to go to bed now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have never seen such treachery, perhaps a perusal of Idi Amin, Ne Win, or Than Shwe will give you some perspective. I'm only saying what the most beneficial solution is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, never met them. I guess I am lucky to be surrounded by very civilized people. And I don't want to change that. Go ahead block or ban me if you think that is in the greater good per your common sense. And don't expect a reply from me. Hoshigaki (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

He or she originally used this source as one from 2008 (and thus acceptable since it was from within the last 25 years - a time limit set by Fowler himself unilaterally). I just noticed this. It is patently false. I have never said that the Berreman article was written in 2008. I say explicitly in reference 16 in the list that it is "dated" and from 1968 and has been superseded by the 2008 edition (which is reference 7 in my list). The 2008 edition is not only not written by Berreman, but also disagrees with him as the quote above showed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler is doing an excellent job here by deviating the whole topic, this is not a page to discuss the contents. Unfortunately Hoshigaki has fallen into the trap. What are the others like Sitush and RP doing? They are just blindly backing Fowler and infact proposing a topic ban on AVC. What was the crime? Did he break any policy? Was he warned before imposing sanctions on him? It would be blatant misuse of the administrative tools to impose a ban without a proper reason. The only reason I see is that he pointed out the uncivil behavior of an experienced editor. Sitush, stop being dishonest I don’t even know who MangoWong or Zuggernaut are, I only know Yogesh Khandke and have you tried to inform Yogesh and others that you are unnecessarily dragging them into this? --sarvajna (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mr Fowler&fowler has left no stone unturned to get me blocked. Fowler has put forward two arbitrary and — I must say — incongruous "protocols" on Talk:India, Talk:caste. I told others we should not make it any more complicated and time-consuming than it already is.

  Now as it seems (I may be wrong though), it's one of fowler's many fortes (e.g. stonewalling, creating confusion, obfuscating, needlessly complicating things). That is what he has done in WP:DRN (which failed as you may know), Talk:India (see archive no 37 if you missed some), at least one RfC and whatever article or page he has edited lately. If he is not a quintessential example of an inveterate filibusterer, then I don't know what filibustering is. Yet, he has the nerve to claim I am having hard time growing up that as though he knows my age. He randomly calls people's dissenting opinions "Hindu nationalist garbage", "upper caste POV", "nonsense", etc. He acts like he owns wikipedia articles e.g. India. Just see my talk page. He first and then Sitush, threatened me on my talk page, "you will soon be gone, whether forcibly or voluntarily." (because I am supposedly continuing combative high jinks) isn't that a gross violation of WP:TALKNO?? He obliquely discouraged me from editing India, Caste where he supposedly has his rule. When I tried to bring our wiki-interaction to normalcy, he called me "an obsessively tendentious editor". There is more, I don't have time and the patience to explain every facet of his problematic character. This editor is utterly disruptive. He has this innate knack of turning any discussion in a stale quagmire. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved ordinary editor who only came across the Talk:Caste discussion (or the users under discussion) today, I agree with Regentspark that Fowler&Fowler has taken an exemplary approach of keeping focused on article improvement, only blowing up with a somewhat ill-advised tone after a long period of remarkably patronising treatment from AVC among others. AVC's behaviour should be of greater concern. AVC seems to respond to content disagreement by telling the other user to be civil, follow talkpage guidelines, etc. I stumbled across AVC via this discussion from February in which AVC reacts to respectfully-expressed content disagreement by warning the new user not to make personal comments, to stay on topic etc., citing policies in an unconstructive, patronising and intimidating way. The recent & ongoing Talk:Caste discussion shows a lot of the same pattern. It, and the encyclopedia as a whole, would be best served if a strong message is sent to AVC to alter this behaviour. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, even I am ready to share some of the blame for the mess that was created (mostly by Fowler's obduracy), in stark contrast to the behavior of Fowler, AVC's conduct has been exemplary. He is a fair and reasonable guy. Don't pin it onto him. His comments here were very, very reasonable. Fowler has experience and it gives him a leverage over other less-experienced editors but that leverage is getting abused can't you see?

  Fowler being an experienced editor, doesn't bother to assume good faith, he demeans opponents while berating their views at the time of a discord. He abused his rollback rights in a content dispute and then instead of admitting his faults, he snubs the privilege itself by saying, "Please remove it. I'm unlikely to go about cleaning spam etc anyway". That's no concern to you? I am flabbergasted. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• AVC made major changes to the Caste article between mid February and early March this year, doubling the size of article. In the six months since, he has walled out other contributions by politely reverting them and answering on the talk page in essay-length vague generalities. If you disagree find one significant contribution made by someone else in the last six months. The end result, regardless, is that we have an article Caste, the WP flagship article on all caste-related content that devotes 80% of its content to Caste outside South Asia. I believe a topic ban for AVC is the only solution to this impasse. Not only has he made the Wikipedia article on Caste singular in such overwhelming bias among all major tertiary sources, but he has also kept others out for six months, effectively topic banning them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Let me dispel few of the myths being propagated here. AVC's edits have improved the Caste article greatly. This is how the article looked before AVC started editing. The article is much better written and referenced now. AVC's edits did not cause the article to exceed article size limits particularly for a complex concept like caste. The article is double in size now, so? AVC did not stop anyone from editing the article. In fact, he partially accepted Fowler's changes and completely accepted others.[93] AVC's essay length responses are quite easy to read and he has shortened them after repeated personal attacks. To say that he has effectively topic banned other editors would be a hyperbole, if not a blatant lie. Let anyone asserting that AVC has stopped them from editing on Caste come out with diffs to their edits, which were otherwise uncontroversial, but were not allowed into the article with "walls of text". Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• This, the new version is better than this, the old? Which major tertiary source is closer both in content and emphasis of content to the new version than the old? And what is this edit? Has any scholarly source called Andre Beteille's widely-used definition of caste, quoted verbatim in the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, a "Tanjore village-focused study?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• The balance of the article is currently being discussed at the talk page and there is, IMO, a consensus that India needs to be better represented in the article. Other than this, the newer version is much better than the old. Just look at the referencing. The edit you refer to is controversial and started the discussion on talk page. So, it cannot be included as an attempted obfuscation by AVC. Again, there is little evidence to support a ludicrous topic ban for the editor who contributed so much to the article. That is all my I am trying to say, AVC is free to defend his comment on Andre Beteille. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid AVC and I have agreed on nothing. Piotrus (a professional sociologist) made a proposal regarding distribution of article space. It said: 45% to definitions, paradigms, review of literature; 30% to Hinduism within India (the spawning ground of caste), 10% to Caste-like stratification found among Hindu converts to Islam and Christianity in South Asia; to Sikhs and Buddhists, and 15% to Caste-like stratification outside South Asia. AVC has never agreed to it. Instead he has himself made new vague and general proposals, mainly to deflect the argument, as in attempting to rope in Piotrus by citing the latter's FAs, all the while remaining resistant to expanding the India section, by again appealing vaguely to Piotrus's articles. There are other major disagreements. The 45% related to definitions, paradigms, and review of literature is founded on and rests on the model of India. All the great theorists of caste I have listed above, have theorized around that paradigmatic model. That section cannot be littered with irrelevant examples of caste in Finland and Sweden. No theorist of caste has made Sweden or Finland their lifework. AVC has not even remotely agreed to that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you compare the older version of article before AVC started improving and after AVC made substantial changes? All that said I still feel that there is nothing much to discuss about AVC's behavior but there are serious concerns about Fowler's behavior. Being uncivil is a kind of his trademark. --sarvajna (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are exactly what I have compared. Find me one major tertiary source, I repeat, that is closer in emphasis of content to the new present version than the old version. AVC's edits have made Wikipedia stands out like a cuckoo-bird among the wise owls. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler I think I was not clear, let me try to make it more clear. I am not saying that the newer version is bad, you keep saying that the article was previously edited by a Hindu Nationalist POV pusher This is one of your style of labeling anyone who oppose your edits as Hindu Nationalist, POV pusher Now did AVC make the article more worse when compared to the other editor's version? --sarvajna (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not going anywhere, Fowler has made his position quite clear; the only counter argument being presented here is that Fowler is incivil etc, and RP has addressed that above. This is getting increasingly tendentious as you appear to either not listen to or comprehend the arguments being presented, both of which are problematic; this isn't the first time either (and Sitush was right in calling you out earlier), you keep parroting this theory of "explain it to me" to a level that's beyond belief. —SpacemanSpiff 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel any need to reply to your comment, I have already replied to Sitush Only if you have cared to read it --sarvajna (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention I don't think Fowler has given any clarification about his uncivil behavior --sarvajna (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the diff to the comment where all the four of us (F&F, AVC, Mrt and me) agreed to reduce the section on Europe. In fact, my impression of the discussion was that all of us had a consensus on giving India more prominence in the article and reducing other sections to "caste in continent" rather than "caste in country", even if there was a disagreement on the means of doing so.[94] I do not agree with exact percentages to the sections either. I'll give a detailed reply with objections and suggestions on the talk page later (apologies for delaying this, I am hard pressed for time). Speculating on AVC's intentions ("attempting to rope in Piotrus by citing the latter's FAs" etc.) is pointless. Asking for a topic ban for the same is equally so. As for the tertiary sources, everyone agrees that India is the paradigmatic example of caste. Although the centrality might still be disputed (see this summary). I will try to provide diffs to my claims of consensus though it might be easier for others involved to substantiate my claims in their comments here. Finally, discussing content here diverts from the main issues: 1) Incivility by Fowler&fowler 2) Obfuscation(?) by AVC. I have not commented on 1 and 2 is simply absurd. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@CK. You have exaggerated, I'm afraid. You quoted only part of a now-closed discussion, the early part. You forgot to add, that after Ninthbout's post, I wrote:

 :::I more or less agree with you. However, if the content here belongs to Social stratification in East Asia and Social stratification in Europe, then why has it been added to Caste (and not to Social Stratification)? One of my motivations for recommending the creation of the Caste in Europe and Caste in East Asia articles is that in the inevitable AfD discussions that will follow, we are more likely to get a wider community resolution of this conundrum than in an RfC (or DR) here. This article, though important, has been languishing by itself for some time now, and that explains why individual editors have been able to slant it in this fashion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

@Sarvagna: There are similarities between the transformations wrought in the article by banned Hindu-nationalist editor User:Hkelkar and his socks user:Shiva's Trident, and user:Rumpelstiltskin223 in 2006–2007 and that wrought by AVC in February-March 2012. (And I'm by no means suggesting that one is the other.) At the end of July 2006, just before Hkelkar and his socks edited the article, here is what it looked like. Notice the relative weight; notice India's mention in the first sentence. Here is the wild article it became in late January 2007 as a result of the work of user:Hkelkar and his socks. Notice the de-emphasis on India and Hinduism. Similarly, the article before AVC edited it looked like this. Notice the emphasis on India and limited emphasis on the rest of the world. Notice also the the wild version it became after AVC was done with it. In each transformation, the relative article space devoted to other countries has increased wildly. Yes, the old version of January 2012 is much better in terms of balance and emphasis than the new version. It needs a few citations, but that can be easily fixed in a few hours at most. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

PS I'm now done with this. AVC's defenders, the same people who have sided with him in the tortuous RfC, are presenting the same tired incorrect arguments. I see nothing new from them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It is sad that this discussion became focussed on content, not conduct. I find it offensive that I am being casually compared to socks from past, who admins can trace and check IP addresses of, and confirm I have nothing to do with old edits (and which will also show I am not from India).

The version Fowler&fowler cites from 2007 has 30 citations (poor quality), while the current article has over 160 (peer reviewed journals, books etc.). There is simply no comparison between the old 2007 version and version I updated to earlier this year. Caste and Caste system in India are two articles of many on caste topic on wikipedia. Other encyclopedia have just one article. My attempt to distinguish these two articles, according to wiki's summary style guidelines, done in good faith, incomplete and flawed as they may, do not justify accusations above. I include this for record.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not 2007. It is the version of early Feb 2012 (before you made any edits) that I compared your August 2012 version with. Like I said, the Feb version needed citations, but it is much closer in emphasis and balance to the consensus version in the modern tertiary sources than yours. By drastically biasing the article, you have done Wikipedia a great disservice, even though, I grant you, you have been overtly polite in your interactions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's use of rollback

Apparently he used it in the recent content dispute [95]. He should be warned not to use it that way. I haven't investigated Fowler&fowler use of the right further back. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I used it because Hoshigaki had been told that the references were the correct ones and there had been a week long discussion on it just before Hoshigaki appeared on WP ten days ago. He chose nonetheless to make the edits in an FA which has a long tradition of discussing changes on the talk page first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the archives by searching for Fowler and rollback. The first link I found shows Fowler has misused rollback in the past. I did not explore further links. This ist he link I found: [96] Hoshigaki (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If anyone bothers to look at the history (and search the cites source), they will find that the source Fowler was referring to indeed did not support the content it was cited against. That's why I added a new, more accurate source in its place. It turned out that the source was cited at the wrong place. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed a blatant misuse of rollback, and I would support removal of the rights, especially in view of the previous incident. Rollback is for vandalism/spam only, and for curbing "widespread disruption", none of which apply here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Please remove it. I'm unlikely to go about cleaning spam etc anyway. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: I oppose the decision of removal of rollback rights here. A friendly note/alert (about how and when rollback should be used etc) should be fine here for now (though this is my first post in this thread, yes, I have read the whole thread before commenting (as an ANI stalker))--Tito Dutta ✉ 15:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree with Tito, a friendly note will do. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Although I do not agree with Fowlers behavior this proposal looks silly --sarvajna (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted abuse

Sitush's calling me notorious is another example of the standards of civility maintained by him and Fowler. I assure you all that this is not the most extreme example. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Notorious" is not an insult, in and of itself. dangerouspanda 08:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Yogesh Khandke that is not the most extreme example. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrt3366, you're skating on remarkably thin ice; either back that up or don't push your luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolution

OK, this has gone on for quite long enough. This is what's going to happen here;

1. ApostleVonColorado (talk · contribs), Hoshigaki (talk · contribs), and CorrectKnowledge (talk · contribs) are all banned for 6 months from all articles and discussions under WP:GS/Caste, broadly construed.
2. Mrt3366 (talk · contribs) and Sarvajna are warned that continuing the same editing patterns will quickly lead to either the same or, quite possibly, a block; Sarvajna in particular is on very, very thin ice.
3. Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) should read over WP:ROLLBACK, there's no need to revoke rollback at this time.
4. All editors are reminded that the area is covered under discretionary sanctions.

I will notify individual editors; should editors have a problem with their sanctions, start a new thread below following the appeals process laid out at WP:AE. Any other admin can feel free to either object or close this up now as they see fit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights: you are warning me for my editing pattern!! This makes me laugh, I have not edited anything on those articles at all. I am sure you have not checked my contributions at all. This cannot be a resolution at all what so ever. The only thing I can conclude from your resolution is Fowler does nothing wrong I am ready to provide evidence of his uncivil behavior few admins are here to back him.--sarvajna (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Special:ReadMind doesn't exist, as evidenced by your comment. I reviewed everyone's behavior, and yours is indicative of a Hindutva POV warrior. I have no particular affiliation with Fowler&fowler, only a desire to improve Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you have reviewed, which of my behavior was a indicative of a Hindutva POV warrior? Your comment can be helpful in improving my own behavior. I really don't believe when you say I have no particular affiliation with Fowler&fowler You have hardly cared about the comments provided by other editors above. Also do you still want me to provide the evidence of Fowler's uncivil behavior? As you have not said anything about that.--sarvajna (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Cal Rein

• Cal Rein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Powerstorm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Eyephoto08 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Webmaster7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

There is some mess of WP:OTRS and WP:BLP concerns here. The three accounts above are almost certainly some sort of WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT situation. There are apparently OTRS tickets involved (see talkpage) and this AIV report...I'm logging off but this probably needs some eyes to figure out whether it's a page that should be deleted or to levy blocks as appropriate. — Scientizzle 18:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've fully locked the article (for 3 days) and restored it to the 5/28/12 version by Graeme Bartlett (when he applied move protection). More work may need to be done, but the history is so awful, it's hard to sort out. Webmaster was blocked a long time ago. Powerstorm and Eyephoto08 should probably also be blocked but I haven't done so. I have no access to OTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Might want to raise an SPI. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC).

OTRS has been alerted to this matter through several tickets, and for the record, they are #2012091310000927 (handled by The Rambling Man, also see his talk page) and OTRS#2011102310000747 (which I handled). As you're aware, OTRS correspondence is confidential, but in this case reading the e-mails is no prerequisite to understanding the matter.

Furthermore, there is a RfD on Commons, which was speedily closed on my request. Lastly, I've warned Powerstorm against disruptive activity on his/her talk page.

1. Powerstorm is a one trick pony account almost exclusively dedicated to wreaking havoc on the Cal Rein article by removing substantial parts of it,[97], replacing the page with nonsense content[98] or outright blanking it[99] as can bee seen on the user's contribution page.
2. Additionally, the user has attempted to have the article speedily removed, then marked it for deletion (though without making an AfD request) when that was refused.[100]
3. In the course of these "edits", the user has claimed or admitted to have previously been known as User:Webmaster7, an indefinitely blocked account that was also making disruptive edits to the same article. (Same link as above)
4. Also, the user has tried to have an image with a valid license deleted (by, amongst other actions) removing the OTRS ticket tag from the image page. There, too, the user claims to have been known as Webmaster7. As mentioned above, I had the request closed immediately.

Consequently, I request the user be indefinitely blocked (again).

The activities by User:Eyephoto08, which were new to me until this ANI, also seem to be of the same disruptive nature as Powerstorm's, and I suspect we're dealing with sockpuppets. Furthermore, I suspect this is a case of cyberstalking.

Lastly, as to the question of Cal Rein/Carlo Giardina: The actor used the name Giardina for a very short period, while all his major work has been done as Cal Rein. There is no indication whatsoever that he plans to use the name Giardina in his future endeavours. IMDb lists him as "Cal Rein".[101] Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 20:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Asav, has it been established whether Powerstorm is or isn't Cal Rein, as he claims?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't answer that. I'm an OTRS guy, I don't have checkuser tools. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would willingly admit to being a permamently blocked user. (Addendum: I have absolutely no reason to assume that this user is indeed Cal Rein, again, I suspect a cyberstalker.) Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 21:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I just blocked Powerstorm for one week for admitting abusing multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• I have created a SPI report.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Powerstorm and Eyephoto have now been indeffed by User:Berean Hunter based on the SPI report. Berean made a good catch finding Eyephoto also admitting to using multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Elliott Miles McKinley

Regarding: Elliott Miles McKinley, I was attempting a review and saw irregularities that need an Administrator review. This may be all above board, but it is not clear to me what has happened. There was a deletion discussion that is closed as delete then the same deletion discussion listed as keep on the article. Then some moves and relisting as a new article. Please see discussion at: Talk:Elliott Miles McKinley. This should be handled by administrators. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I came across it too and asked for admin help. There was only one discussion and that was to delete. The article was re-created. I asked an admin to see the deleted version and compare with the new version before I put it up for CSD. I'm running out of admins that will help. I see this about once every three days and I guess people are getting tired of my requests. Bgwhite (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There aren't any deleted versions of the article. The whole history of the article is visible to everyone. It was deleted in July 2011 as the result of this discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliott Miles McKinley. It was then userfied by Timotheus Canens on 18 Sept 2012. Then on 21 September Timotheus Canens history merged the article and moved it back into the article space. This was the version that was deleted. GB fan 22:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It was recreated as a result of a deletion review dated september 6th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.147.168 (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_September_6#Elliott_Miles_McKinley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.147.168 (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash

User talk:Sakimonk turned the discussion personal and began to personally attack me on Talk:Wahhabi he then proceeded to join discussions im involved in Talk:Al-Ahbash and he also began to edit the article Al-Ahbash..is this not wikihounding can an admin step in here? Baboon43 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Providing diffs would be helpful. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

this [102] [103] [104] & [105] Baboon43 (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe Baboon43 is turning the tables on me. The reality is that Wahhabi has been heavily under attack by editors with a sectarian agenda for the past several months by various sockpuppeteers generally called "WikitruthsX", "Theone", "Thetruththeone", organometalic etc. I myself along with User:Pass a Method, User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Mark Arsten to mention a few have persistently been dealing with this problem (the trend was that there would be a message similar to the one posted by Baboon43 [106] [107] claiming "wahhabi" to be the root of terrorism, heretics etc. with no empirical evidence whatsoever, simply wild accusations in the exact same fashion before the page would be littered frantically wiping out blocks of text and so on, hence why I was alarmed yet again). I simply got fed up with yet another person launching a personally driven / faith based / sectarian argument against the Wahhabi movement whilst providing absolutely no verifiable, peer reviewed sources. I admit anger got the best of me since I was being accused of "pushing an agenda" I decided to scan through this fellow's edits and found out that he in fact clearly is pushing an agenda since he was persistently rev-warring over the Ahbash page with McKhan (who by the way had entirely sourced edits from Oxford univeristy Press and Oxford academic professors and so on) as opposed to a blissful representation of the Habashi sect / group / movement whatever you wish to call it founded in the 1980's. I am NOT a wahhabi however I strongly believe in giving everyone a fair, non-biased representation on Wikipedia which apparently is meant to be an entirely academic source not a space for everyone to advertise their group, product, brand etc. I was simply trying to explain to Mr Baboon43 that not everything in the real world works in black and white, most things have good and bad. I clearly stated he is welcome to add any content he wishes so long as it meets the criteria necessary.

Let me provide some differentials;

Here is Baboon43 accusing me of having an agenda after I posted an article written by the Tunisian president, whom he attacked as being a "wahhabi scholar" (lol), and in return I (yes I admit) became quite angry and responded that he in fact had the "agenda" and went on to clearly state any edits are welcome so long as they are verifiable and not based on hatred / sectarianism / extremism / faith based etc. [108]

During my scanning of his user contributions to investigate as to whether he was involved in any rev-wars / arguments / pushing false information etc. I discovered his persistent attack on User:McKhan, whom provided an excellently sourced number of edits which were being persistently wiped out by Baboon.

Please I implore you to have a look at the two versions, I personally went out of my way to please Baboon to stop him from rev-warring by making a composite article of the two versions, but alas to no avail. Baboon's rev warring to which I corrected, only to be accused of "personally hounding him" (a bizarre accusation since this is one instance of clear commotion that I simply wished to set aright) [109] reverting once [110] twice [111] reverting thrice

and so on, I am clearly not hounding him because this is one instance and in fact I am concerned for the quality of the article since information being CLEARLY CENSORED is directly from academic, non biased sources as opposed to the version Baboon wishes which is heavily skewed in favour of the group being detailed as opposed to being neutral (honestly have a look at the information he is removing [112] there is absolutely no justifiable basis for this), I say the truth is Baboon43 not only violates WP:NPOV guidelines he is also clearly rev-warring on that page.Sakimonk ^talk 23:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe sakimonk has joined discussion only to inflame the situation by choosing sides. seeing that he admits he was angry over a discussion on another talk page..the user mckhan whom he accuses me of reverting has been blocked for a month very recently and has failed to get consensus also im not the only one that reverts his edits..sakimonks personal attacks and hounding warrants a block. Baboon43 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

For those that haven't seen it, this article has been discussed here before. Sakimonk, you said "...during my scanning of his user contributions to investigate as to whether he was involved in any rev-wars...", where you then purposely took up the other side of the dispute after looking through his contribs for any disputes...that is wikihounding. "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." Following someone's contribs may be used for correcting unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy but I don't see anything unambiguous here, otherwise someone watching the two AN/I discussions, three related sockpuppet investigations, half a dozen 3RR reports and the multiple discussions on the article's talk page would have made some mention of it. - SudoGhost 00:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can argue about wikihounding even if he did follow the user to one article with bad intent. In addition, it seems that Sakimonk genuinely did feel that Baboon43 was inserting wrong information, and was acting in good faith to prevent that from continuing. (I'm not making a judgement on the content here.) —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  00:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sakimonk admitted to going through Baboon43's contribs for the sole purpose of looking for disputes, and then jumped into a dispute solely because Baboon43 was involved. That is the definition of wikihounding. If it were an issue of looking through contribs for unambiguous policy violations then that would be completely different but that isn't the case here. Thinking another editor is "wrong" is not an exception to wikihounding, otherwise the policy on wikihounding might as well not exist. Most disputes generally involve someone thinking another editor is inserting wrong information. - SudoGhost 00:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Sakimonk admitted to going through Baboon43's contribs for the sole purpose of looking for disputes" this is a fabrication, I was looking through user contribs as I am entitled to simply to find out if the user was a previous offender. I "jumped in" because I mistakenly thought Baboon43 was rev-warring with McKhan who's edits appeared to be quite well sourced. I didn't realise there was a previous controversy. Perhaps read through my explanation of the events again because I don't recall saying anything of the sort.Sakimonk ^talk 00:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And you'll notice that the description of wikihounding uses the word “multiple”, etc. Wikihounding is a pattern of behavior, not a single incident. It's erroneous to accuse someone of hounding because they followed one thread.

BTW, looking through McKhan's talk page, it's clear this war has been going on for more than seven years. I suggest that anyone taking action here should spend more than a couple of minutes trying to understand it first. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  00:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure what you mean by I inserted wrong information when i have yet to edit the article which sakimonk seems to think ill be a future vandal. Baboon43 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Listen, I am very happy to completely drop the issue if it is such a problem, I simply can't understand the reason why McKhan's edits are being censored since they, on the face of it, appear quite verifiable. This has nothing to do with a personal disagreement with Mr Baboon43, I couldn't care less for the fellow - I simply assumed he was threatening to vandalise the page wahhabi and checked his edits to see if he was a vandal, came across him reverting 13,000 or so characters and immediately thought it was ill intent since the information being censored appears to be quite verifiable. That is all. :) Sakimonk ^talk 00:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Ahbash should be thoroughly vetted by someone who has the time, I am no longer interested in engaging in edits since it appears my editing rights are threatened due to a previous run in with the chief instigator on that page *sigh*. Sakimonk ^talk 00:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have decided to retire from Wikipedia, I have tried my utmost to rectify Islamic articles on Wikipedia and I believe I have done as much as I possibly can however I find that editing on wikipedia is giving me a lot of stress and I am constantly checking my watchlist and receiving emails with notifications from other users and having pontless drawn out conversations on the global encyclopedia around the clock. It's a stress factor and distraction I can do without during my studies at University - I guess this is expected. May Allah guide me and you all to the straight path and keep us firm upon it. May Allah forgive me for any of my mistakes and I apologise for any rudeness or misunderstanding, all goodness is from Allah and anything bad is from either me or shaytan. Jazakum Allahu khair. Sakimonk ^talk 03:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Campaign to eliminate American English

Virtually all of User:82.153.125.210's edits are for the purpose of eliminating American English from articles. He/she was warned on his/her talk page, and chose to remove the warning from the talk page and continue the campaign. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• EatsShootsAndLeaves (dangerous panda) added a template about MOS, I left a more specific note backing it up. This should help them to understand why their actions are disruptive. I also left then an ANI notification (see top of page in red) which is required when you report someone here. Try to remember to notify, please, regardless if they are an IP or registered user. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Notification was left four minutes after this thread was created. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

User:Bali ultimate reverted an edit of mine, claiming - without a shred of evidence or proof (for which there exists none) - that I am an "activist" on behalf of a certain group of people. The edit I inserted was simply an allegation that a bunch of sheep were eating dozens of trees in a night, to an article on conspiracy theories in a conflict.

The edit summary states: "there is nothing conspiratorial about settlers disruipting the olive harvets. that happens. removes deceptive claim made by settler activist."

While the first part of the edit summary deals with a content dispute over whether sheep can really eat dozens of trees in one night, the second part (the part that I bolded) is a direct personal attack on myself, without any proof, and I find it to be highly offensive. The editor, Bali Ultimate, has been around for a while and should know better, and he was even blocked as early as June for 10 days (although for a separate reason, he disrupted an ArbCom case).

While searching the archives, I found another example of Bali launching a personal attack for which he can't back up evidence, where at this AE case he accuses (as a fact) certain editors of coordinating Wikipedia activity offline. Specifically, Bali wrote "Strategic reverting, coordinated by email, to put the other "side" in the soup for naughty, naughty "reverts" has been taken to an art form in this topic area (by one "side" far more persistently than the other)."

I find these personal attacks, which Bali writes as definitive facts without zero proof (and I know, for one, that I'm not a "settler activist"), highly offensive and troubling to encounter.

--Activism1234 21:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You might want to explain why being called a "settler activist" might be considered a personal attack - I see it as a mistaken (based on your explanation) assumption that you're part of a group based on the type of edits being made. Perhaps you could point me to where you tried to discuss the meaning of the phrase with Bali directly so I can have a look? dangerouspanda 21:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a defamation of my name. Now, I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, I'm actually an activist (who knows, maybe I'm paid too!) who should be constantly monitored, and the fact that I'm an activist may even suffice to revert some of my edits, and can be used in edit summaries. It's insulting to me - I'm being labelled as someone that I'm not. I'm an editor, I'm not an activist for anyone, and that claim has no proof whatsoever. --Activism1234 22:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The phrase is a phrase that labels me as an activist for settlers. I'm not an activist for anyone - period. If I was called an activist for movie directors, I'd reject that too as a false labelling of my name and defamation without any actual evidence that I am said activist. Even if my edits appear to support a particular POV, say movie directors, would that make me an activist?? Of course not. Bali can't prove that, and will never be able to, because I'm not. --Activism1234 22:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

But why is it "defamation of your name"? Your userid says "Activism" and does not identify you directly as a person. Being misidentified as being part of a group? Really? dangerouspanda 22:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

My name as an editor, not my userid. Yes, my userid says "Activism" - does that make me an activist?? I'm expressing my goal of being an active editor, not of being an "activist," for which no evidence exists. Again, we also have that claim by Bali that there's a group of editors who engage in off-Wikipedia activities to coordinate their edits, a claim he stated as a fact, without any evidence. Then there are further attacks on me below. --Activism1234 22:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes that was me. I believe your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to make Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general look bad, and to support a particular faction within Israel's political discourse (in shorthand, I'll call it the settler movement). My evidence is your editing behavior here, which I've looked off and on for a few months. (You popped up on my watchlist when I checked in today on a really awful hit piece I helped fix a while ago). Your antics at Maureen Dowd recently may also be of interest. Do I care about your beliefs, what's in your heart? No. But the way you act on them here, to skew content on one of the most highly trafficked websites there is, does concern me. It should concern more people. I understand it won't.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Another attack on me... I'm trying to fathom how some articles I created and made substantial contributions to, like 2012 Nigeria floods, Mostafa Hussein Kamel, Nagwa Khalil, Momtaz al-Saeed, Shaanxi bus-tanker crash, August 2012 Caracas prison riot, Marikana miners' strike, Menachem Cohen (scholar), Hisham Zazou, or Deeper Life Church shooting, none of which have anything to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict, can possibly be evidence that my "sole purpose on Wikipedia is to make Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general look bad." So yes, here's another personal attack for me that labels me as someone that I am not.

I edit based on RS outlets, if there's a specific problem with an edit of mine, feel free to discuss it with me on the article. For example, I'd be happy to discuss the content-specific aspect of this edit on that article, but the personal attack was just incendiary. Simply put - it's false. You made a gross assumption and believed it as a fact, and then defamed me as such. --Activism1234 22:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you find the label "activist" to be offensive maybe you should have chosen another username?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my userid says "Activism" - does that make me an activist?? I'm expressing my goal of being an active editor, not of being an "activist," for which no evidence exists. Why am I labelled as a particular type of activist? As I showed above, Bali has attacked me further, claiming that I have only one sole purpose on Wikipedia, which I punctured by demonstrating a variety of articles I've created or significantly expanded and worked on which aren't even related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yet Bali singles me out as a "settler activist." --Activism1234 22:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that if a user with the name "activism" makes edits that can be seen as tendentious or motivated by a political stance it is unreasonable to expect that others don't call you out on it. If you don't want to be called "settler activist" then 1. change your username and 2. be sure to edit in ways that do not seem biased in favor of settlers.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Settler activist" is not an insult. If you make edits that appear to have some specific POV, don't be surprised if someone mistakes you for having a POV. The title itself is not an insult, so it cannot violate NPA dangerouspanda 22:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

He's publicly labelling me as an activist. Not even just "reverting a POV," but going the step to say I'm an activist in real life for them. That's something he can't corroborate. --Activism1234 22:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, so what. Being an activist of any type is not an insulting term dangerouspanda 22:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"going the step to say I'm an activist in real life...". Your Wikipedia editing is part of your 'real life'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's just note that your edit, Activism1234, with the edit summary " add, sheep don't eat dozens of trees overnight (edited with ProveIt))" was blatant original research. There was absolutely nothing in the source you cited that characterised the event as a conspiracy theory. If you intend to make inventive edits like that, you really don't belong in this project, understood? --JN466 22:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite. And by the way, the implication is not that the sheep ate trees whole, bark, trunk and all overnight. It's a pissed off farmer complaining that the sheep ate the... wait for it... the fruit, presumably all the fruit they could get to (olive and other orchard trees are pruned to stay low). Did that really happen? Don't know. Does "Activism" who abhors being called an "activist" know the reality of what happened? No. All we have is a probably badly translated article from Maan (which doesn't say what he claimed it said). Did Maan news agency write what he claimed they wrote? No. Straight down the rabbit hole, we all go. Blech.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Activism1234 needs to be warned for WP:OR insertions. And putting "activism" in his user name skirts what's acceptable WP:BAIT, given his POV pushing unsupported by sources which may caused by WP:COMPETENCE or WP:ACTIVISM issues. In any case, Activism1234 is a disruptive user name, and should receive a WP:UAA block in light of his editing. To put it more bluntly if someone registers User:POVPushing1234, does some WP:POVPUSHing and then runs screaming to ANI that he is being "discriminated" because of his user name when people object to his editing, we should oblige with WP:BOOMERANG. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm curious why someone with a user name like Activism1234 is so badly disconcerted by being called an "activist?" (For one thing, there are a couple areas in which I'm an activist, and proud to be so.) Even given the dubious premise that the word "activist" has been smeared as pejorative in the same way "liberal" has been in this country, one would think that someone who felt that the word was pejorative wouldn't use a similar construction as a user name. I strongly disagree that his user name is "disruptive" - perhaps Tijfo098 could explain that startling assertion to us? - but I do agree that he protesteth too much. Ravenswing 08:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, if it's a personal attack to be called something that's semantically extremely related to (and possibly implied by) his user name, then his user name must also be unacceptable. I doubt that User:CockSucking would be allowed to edit, for instance. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat and personal attack

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

---

Jp112015 (talk · contribs) sent me a Wikilove message containing a personal attack and clear-cut legal threat due to a content dispute on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 14). Per WP:LEGAL, I believe this constitutes a block. Davejohnsan (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The user was Jp112015 (talk · contribs), by the way, and a pretty clear-cut WP:NLT vio to me. I almost logged into my admin account to take care of it too dangerouspanda 22:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response. Davejohnsan (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Johncheverly

Hi. Johncheverly (talk · contribs) has been causing problems. His attitude is quite incivil. On Abraham Lincoln cultural depictions, he added text which violates the WP:MOS and is a direct copyright violation. He also insulted IllaZilla (talk · contribs) by calling him a punk. What is the best solution to help solve this problem? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The best solution would be for Johncheverly to conduct his account in a much more collegial manner. I'm thinking it is likely that we may have to opt for a second best solution. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

EIther IllaZilla has many fans using the same vocabulary ("See "Illa made me do it" in edit summaries) or JohnCheverly has now logged out and is continuing the campaign of harassment through 173.76.119.10 (talk · contribs). And based on the IP's edit history, I'm voting for a single purpose troll account on the part of John. I know that's not very AGF of me. Sorry. Millahnna (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I take it back. IP doesn't look like John. Illa does get a lot of fans some days, I know from interacting with him (her?) at the film project. Must just be one of those days. Millahnna (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, JohnCheverly also sent a possibly harassing email to the Wikimedia Foundation and myself. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What specifically did this "harrassing" email say? Go Phightins! (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but Johncheverly's email said "I am writing to report attempted bullying by the aforementioned user over constructive criticism and comments I attempted to make about the Abraham Lincoln subtext in John Frankenheimer's 1962 film version of "The Manchurian Candidate." I am a 49 year old man and do not have to make smug remarks off a creep hiding behind a pseudonym." Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is a clear violation of our no personal attacks and harassment policies. Just to clarify, IllaZilla is a well-respected editor and if you check Johncheverly's contributions here and the notifications on his talk page, he was warned about a possible copyright violations and also his civility issues. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I invited Johncheverly to join this discussion to explain himself about an hour ago, so we'll see if he does. If not, I would stipulate to that being a personal attack per WP:NPA and support sanctions of some kind. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, here are some more differences of Johncheverly's incivility: [113], [114], [115]. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

For those outbursts alone, I would have supported some kind of sanctions. I understand that this can be frustrating, but WP:STAYCOOL needs to be adhered to. Granted, those edits were made in July, so I will assume that he's moved on by now. I would say we give JC until tomorrow (or depending on where you are, I suppose later today), but at the moment I would support a block for a week or two. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Question when was this email sent? Go Phightins! (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It was today. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

All right, in that case, I would say forget explanation, administrative action probably needs to be taken. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to my comments about the threatening email towards me and the WMF, the "aforementioned user" Johncheverly is referring to in the email is IllaZilla. Also, Johncheverly posted a personal attack directed towards IllaZilla on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, but it was promptly removed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to this dude's anger, which has been covered well enough, we also have:

• spamming the same crap across several pages: [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121]

• pointy editing: [122]

• obvious competency issues: [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128]

Maybe a mentor would help… maybe not. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  04:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, Sjones23. I mentioned to Johncheverly in my last post on my talk page that I was going to report him, but I didn't get to do it right away due to real-life business. I'm sure I'm going to repeat some things others have already brought up, but here's my side of the story:

Johncheverly popped up at WT:FILMS making what I saw as off-topic comments [129] [130]. I went to his talk page to explain why I'd removed them, but first I checked his contribs and immediately saw a lot of problems: His edit summaries & section headers nearly all consist of all-caps yelling, incivility, insults, or some combination thereof. Here are some of the greatest hits:

• "I just woke up and I read your smug, self-satisfied, and unwated comments on my talk page. I detest you like a cancer, you f****** a******."
• "PISSFUCKINGPOOR!!! you make the whole Regiment's service and sacrifice a complete mockery with your lousy sting article, bud!!! Do some fucking research."
• "PISS POOR. IS THAT ALL YOU CAN THINK OF???"

Granted these were from June/July, but Johncheverly had been inactive since then and seemed to be on the same course now that he was back. So I left what I believe was a very polite message on his talk page asking him not to type in all-caps (since it comes off as yelling), to tone down the offensive attitude of his comments, and instructing him on how to properly sign his posts (since he seems to have trouble with that). I decided to keep an eye on him to see if his behavior would change. He went to Talk:Abraham Lincoln and proposed what I read as original research, so I responded and pointed him to the relevant policies. He reacted with:

• "LINCOLN SUBTEXT PROOF FOR DOUBTING KNOW-IT-ALLS. IS THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU DOUBTING DUDE???"
• i put up, now you shut up. IS THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU DOUBTING DUDE???"
• "just letting illazilla know i think he is a punk. If you don't really care, then you need to shut your big mouth in the first place. And you need to grow a spine and use your real name, otherwise you're just another punk."
• "MAJOR EDIT TO LINCOLN IN POP CULTURE PAGE DUE TO LOUDMOUTH ILLA-ZILLA."

He posted the same block of several paragraphs copy/pasted from another website to 5 different talk pages, including mine: [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136]. He copied the same block of text, including bare external links and entire paragraphs lifted straight from another website, to Abraham Lincoln cultural depictions. Since this is a copyright violation, I reverted and gave him a warning using {{Uw-copyright-new}}. Now he's accusing the rest of us of being "a handful of geeky despots".

If Johncheverly is indeed a 49-year old man, I have to wonder if this is how he interacts with people in real life. I certainly want nothing more to do with him. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked - Good faith isn't a suicide pact. Between serial copyright/flooding issues and clueless editing, plus edits that are primarily hit and run commentaries that aren't helpful, all I can see is a worsening pattern of disruption, and other concerns that are probably self-evident, and it does go back a bit. I've tried, but I can't find a reason to not block, and this bizarre behavior is such that I can't determine a period that would "fix" the problem, so I have indef'ed him and will leave it to the good judgement of another admin to determine when sufficient clue has been demonstrated. He isn't here to build an encyclopedia, and other than criticize and generally throw rocks, I'm not sure what he is here for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

FAC Sheriff Hill

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

---

Good evening

I am not a new reviewer but I am have never made a post here, so I hope this is the correct place.

I offered Sheriff Hill to FAC for a second time several weeks ago. This was the first article I edited here and a is labour of love on my part. The first review rather died, with barely a handful of comments, and the second attempt was doing likewise. Four days ago I got a response to a two month old GA nomination for Carr Hill. The review is available here. The review was a little tetchy, and a few comments were borderline argumentative, but sound overall, save one point of disagreement. That disagreement was raised at WP:GAN and the matter was clarified and closed so far as I was concerned.

In the last 48 hours, I was pleased to see that my FAC of Sheriff Hill was getting a lot of comments. user:Casliber offered some comments, followed by user:hamiltonstone and then user:Malleus Fatuorum; the reviewer of Carr Hill. In light of this activity, I rushed home and spent several hours trying to address the comments raised. I left a message advising that I was working at the issues raised and that I would continue tomorrow. I did continue 'tomorrow' (21 September) and asked a few work colleagues to proof read the article to check for errors. I then posted a comment at around 10.30am yesterday stating that I had addressed the issues raised.

I received a response, as you can see, at 14.40 yesterday. Some comments were raised and more vague suggestions for improvements were offered. Contrary to any sort of polite conduct, I was referred to as "as estate agent" (please read the review for context and clarification) but I still responded to the comments and made further edits to the article, and offered these to Malleus. This was the response:

"Then we'll have to agree to differ and my oppose will stand." Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In spite of what was a very short comment, I then spent two hours adding a public services section and asked again for more recommendations. I was told to add material that other reviewers had taken out as it made the article sound promotional(!)

By this point I was extremely annoyed but was considering how best to proceed. I posted a message back to Malleus, in terms which matched the unacceptably rude terms he had addressed me in the last 12 hours, and was pending a response when I headed to his talk page and found the following discussion:

Link to talk page; collapsed huge copy/paste.

"Hi Malleus Just wanted to post a couple of little things now that the GA review on this one has now closed (and I figured here is better than a completed review page). Firstly, and contrary to your closing comment, I actually don't think you were being especially harsh. As it happens, I much prefer thorough GA reviews, because no-one but me ever adds a thing to my obscure, Gateshead-y articles so a fresh pair of eyes is always welcome because I tend not to pick up silly errors that I make. And I agree that the article is better for it, especially now that I have a reliable source for climate data. Additionally, I would eventually like to get at least one of these articles through WP:FAC, so a comprehensive GA review helps a lot. Secondly, as regards our disagreement re:WP:UKCITIES. As you said, for the purposes of the review now concluded, the point was moot, but your reading of the guideline is genuinely new to me and isn't one I would have even considered to be honest. This is important to me as I tend to concentrate my wiki-efforts on articles like Carr Hill and I would like to know whether you are right to prevent my having the same discussion again in future. I am not a 'wiki-expert' – I concentrate mainly on editing and offering the occasional review – so I have no idea how I might be able to clarify this point, and wonder if you have any suggestions? Thanks again... Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I always tend to look at well-developed articles like Carr Hill – and it was well-developed – with an eye to FAC, otherwise GAN just becomes a rubber stamp, which I don't think is very productive. I also prefer to fix the easy things myself rather than clutter up the review, as you may have noticed. So far as our differing interpretations of WP:UKCITIES is concerned, I'm certainly not in any way trying to prevent you from having a similar discussion in the future; my comment was localised to this specific review. I'm not sure there's any general answer to your question though, maybe it's horses for courses, but has it never struck you as odd that an article such as Montpelier, Brighton has extensive coverage of church buildings without ever mentioning the religions of its residents? For me, that's a clear breach of GA criterion 3a, but no doubt other reviewers will have their own interpretations. So basically I have no right to stop you having whatever discussion you wish wherever you wish. If you go on to FAC though the rules change, and you have to satisfy all the reviewers, not just one old curmudgeon like me, which is quite a different game. Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Actually, it occurs to me that I may have misinterpreted your "... I would like to know whether you are right to prevent my having the same discussion again in future", when what you really meant was "I would like to know whether you are right, to prevent my having the same discussion again in future". If that's so, a good place to kick off the discussion would be WT:GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC) The reason why it has never struck me as odd because I have never considered it a requirement of WP:GAN. The failure to include that information in my view would certainly preclude success at FAC (something I tend to know a lot about, annoyingly) but my reading of 'broad' precludes 'comprehensive'. As you say; perhaps it is horses for courses? I am going to raise the issue at WT:GAN, simply to ensure that I don't end up crossing swords with a future reviewer– if it should be in, I'll include it in future articles– and also as I have dipped my hand into reviewing over the summer and it would help me provide better reviews I think. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC) GAN's "broadness" criteria obviously isn't well-defined, for obvious reasons. Should be an interesting discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 19 September 2012 If I know an editor's keen, I'll try to give a article a big a shove as possible towards FAC....aaaah and I've now seen Sherriff Hill. I am reminded of a scene in Green Wing where they decide to do an operation in Geordie....but my accent would be atrocious I think...apart from "alreet" and "howay then".....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I did try to give a big shove; maybe the issue is whether I shoved too hard with this particular article. Reviewing, especially GA reviewing, is a pretty lonely and thankless place by and large, but all we can do is the best we can do, and I did the best I could. If that's not considered good enough then so be it. Malleus Fatuorum 05:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Well all I can say is that Sherriff Hill FAC will be mmarginally less lonely. I've left Meetthefeebles some stuff to do. I'd be intrigued to see what else you come up afterwards with as I do like reviewing villages and towns but not hugely familiar with it like plants, mushrooms and birds...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I hadn't realised that Sherriff Hill was at FAC. I seem to make almost as many enemies there as I did at WT:RFA; I expect that'll be the topic of my next arbitration case. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Ooh err, I hadn't realised until I read this and I've been up there weilding my pruning shears after it popped up on my watchlist. :-( J3Mrs (talk) I expect I'll be doing a bit of pruning too. I notice immediately that there's nothing on climate ...". Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC) and I see you're not the only one with the pruning shears out. Hamiltonstone's been having a good go at it as well. On the face of it this nomination looks to have been a little premature. Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC) And no Public services. It does need a really good copyedit — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3Mrs (talk • contribs) It does. I'm a bit disappointed that nothing seems to have been learned from the Carr Hill GAN. To be brutally honest I wouldn't have passed Sherrifs Hill as a GA, so I've had to oppose its promotion. Maybe the work required can be done within whatever time remains at FAC, but it's getting towards the bottom of the queue now, so I'm dubious. Basically, it ought not to have been nominated in that state. I actually think that Carr Hill would stand a better chance at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC) To cut the editor a bit of slack, I was "precious" about my prose until I learned it was better to be precise but I was lucky in that it was frequently improved by an expert, and though I'm still incredibly sloppy, I do try to keep a simple past tense and use as few words as possible. I'm working on another of my "masterpieces". The important thing is learning the lesson not carrying on regardless. J3Mrs (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I'm lucky I guess, in that I've always found writing easy; maybe a consequence of having read so voraciously as a kid. But the problem with Sheriff Hill isn't just the prose, there's far too much detail on stuff that just doesn't matter at all, unless you're writing a tourist guide I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've been there too! I've removed some things that were plain wrong too, about the turnpike and the colliery. (see edit summaries) I tried to copyedit it before but some just got re-added in a different way.J3Mrs (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Wow. Have just read this. Wow. Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)" I now know that I have wasted my time. I know that the comments left were completely disingenuous and that several editors had commented outside the review in contradiction to the comments left. Frankly, I question whether or not the review had any chance once these people started collaborating.

I am disgusted by what has transpired, and request an adjudication please.Meetthefeebles (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Administrators are not adjudicators. What are you asking them to do? Block me? Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh dear, alright then some points. I am sorry that the experience has gone a bit pear-shaped currently and hopefully we can get it back on track. This happens sometimes. Ultimately it is up to the delegates to decide whether any remaining Opposes have are actionable and/or objective. Articles have been passed with outstanding opposes if this has been the case in the past. I can see how this has come about and will have a look at what Malleus has said as well. Writing these does come easier after a while. Quite often when writing one can lose distance and not see obvious fixes. One of the best pages I read since editing wikipedia is User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. I will see what we can do to get a resolution here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at the article in question, but there is nothing to be done here. Administrators do not judge content. I would suggest that you work within the system and if nothing can be done and the nom does not pass, that you seek out people known to be good at prose and ask one of them to work with you, not only to explain what needs to be done, but also why. I suggest you, first of all, wait for what Casliber has to say and be guided by it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 The only thing I'd like to point out is that the FAC was submitted about a month before the GAN was completed, so MTF couldn't have known about the section weighting issues at that time. Of course, there has been an opportunity to apply those comments to the FAC in the last few days. Outside of that, there's nothing actionable here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know when you are the one that did most of the work, and it is a labor of love, it is easy to wear your emotions on your sleeve, and I think you may be here. If they are talking about it, it means they think it is worthwhile, even if not yet ready. It isn't easy to accept blunt criticism, but it will be a much better article if you find a way to. Since I don't see personal attacks or even incivility (as we define it here), and only see blunt, informed and good faith criticism, I can't see anything that needs action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't the result of the review, which frankly I would withdraw if I could. It is the duplicitousness of the reviewers. That is the issue. Meetthefeebles (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's really any duplicity here, since you were the one who started that conversation in the first place. There was no reason to think you wouldn't see it, and it's not as though it were being hidden from you in any way. I'm sure you would've been more than welcome to chime in at any time, and still would be. I think everyone is just frankly discussing how to improve the article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ha, ha, having the "Health" section of a neighborhood leading with a "Main article: Sheriff Hill Lunatic Asylum" is cute. FA material fosho. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for a constructive comment. Meetthefeebles (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@Casliber: "I can see how this has come about and will have a look at what Malleus has said as well". Yeah, obviously whenever there's one of these daft reports it's bound to be my fault. Jesus fucking Christ! Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@MF - meaning I will try to engage/fix things. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

65.191.181.27

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

---

Repeated addition of inappropriate list entries of individuals in violation of WP:MOSLIST, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:Source list on List of CNN anchors. Continued after level 4 warning and repeated attempts to communicate on article talk page and user's talk page. After level 4 warning given, rather than going beyond the level 4, the same edits were made under the username User talk:Cameronperkins. This page history shows connection between accounts for User:Wwilloughby, User talk:Perkins FC2, and IP 65.191.181.27, editing the other editor's sandboxes. User talk:Cameronperkins has repeatedly created articles violating copyright about subjects related to CNN. History of this page [137] indicates subject may also be editing as User:Wwilloughby, with Wwilloughby also editing sandbox pages of Perkins FC2. Cindy(talk to me) 07:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Legal threat here: [138] by User:Dave of Maryland: "The situation is grave. I will present this to the community on Monday. In two days. The presentation is nearly done. I will most strongly urge immediate legal action. The community has 30 years case law experience. I do not think Wikipedia will present much problem." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Indef, and ask which zodiac sign he was born under. My money's on Zippy, the Pinhead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• I indeffed the editor based on the legal threat. He can retract it and request an unblock if he wishes. The editor is clearly not at Wikipedia to do anything but promote a pro-astrology agenda, anyway, having made precisely one article edit (out of 109 edits total) since creating an account in 2009.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I note he's created a page (not an actual nomination) at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Project Hindsight, although Project Hindsight doesn't exist. -- AussieLegend (✉) 17:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I think he's complaining about an article that was already deleted. Obviously doesn't know and/or care how requests for deletion and un-deletion work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

He had made an edit to the closed discussion (which I reverted some time ago). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:YasBot editing without approval

Just noting that YasBot (operator پسر یاس), a interwiki bot, has been editing without approval for a month or so now. They have correctly filed a BRfA today after receiving a note about the bot policy, but have failed to stop their bot. Noom (t) 18:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked it as it's still editing without approval. Secretlondon (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

IP editor ignoring results of RfC to restore disputed content

An IP editor, 75.72.35.253 (talk) is restoring content to Long War Journal after an RfC [139] came to a consensus to remove the content in question. The IP then restored the deleted material, [140] [141] stating on the talk page "I'm afraid the opinions expressed here are inaccurate and the content in my edit was quite reliable and neutral." See also his edit summary of "I'll compromise only a little. See talk page". [142]

I reverted his addition of the material, and left explanations of his need to obtain consensus on the edit summary [143], the talkpage [144], and his talkpage [145]. He then added the material back. [146] [147]

If we could block the IP, or take other action to stop this, it would be helpful. GregJackP Boomer! 18:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the issue at all. I have not violated any policy and added reliable information. I have informed people about my edits and I wish they would understand where I am coming from and that I have not violated any policy. Bill Roggio is a controversial figure and it needs to be known. I did follow the synthesis policy, as I mentioned in the talk page, and am quite neutral. Bill Roggio is not at times a reliable resource, as his articles have shown, and this needs to be known.18:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.35.253 (talk)

The RfC was unanimous to remove the material. GregJackP Boomer! 19:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I started a new RfC section at the bottom. I tried to put it there earlier, but my edit wound up on the previous RfC section I don't know if my computer caused it or if it was a technical error on the website.75.72.35.253 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, then you can revert the material, and if the new RfC has a consensus to add it, you can. Until then, you can not put material back in the article after it was removed per the consensus of the RfC. GregJackP Boomer! 19:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I firmly reject a bias consensus that needs to be reviewed altogether. I'm not suggesting they are fans of Roggio, but if they are I recommend they understand neutrality. Sources need to be reliable and made the edits to firmly point out that he is not too reliable on reports of terrorists deaths and that this needs to be pointed out. I pointed out "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." The topics are related because they discussed the terrorists fate Claiming he was "quoted as well as criticized" also doesn't exactly say all my sources in that one section I edited criticized him, which is what the previous RfC was implying, if you read the talk page for yourself.75.72.35.253 (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)