Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive785

Wasiahmad3

Wasiahmad3 (talk · contribs), who has been notified, has only made edits to Wikipedia space to promote an organization. Block/warn? Biosthmors (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've warned them for promotion, with no prejudice against further action. —Rutebega (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989

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

---

Fry1989's unblock conditions state that he must not comment on individual editors. "contradicting yourself", "you're blind", "you imply ... a dishonest stretch", "your question is completely facetious", [DrKiernan's comments are] "the most preposterous thing I have ever seen" and an admission that he holds me in contempt are all essentially comments on an editor. Instead of trying to wriggle out of his civility restrictions by saying these are comments on arguments rather than people,[1] shouldn't he be making an effort to avoid any comment that can be construed or misread as a breach? If these are not breaches, may I suggest an extension of the remaining unblock condition for a further 6 months? I am not aware of any breaches of the two expired unblock conditions (on edit summaries and reverts) and so assume that these conditions have been met. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Clear break of the civility restriction, and then flat-out lying when confronted with it. Re-block and extend WP:OFFER (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Concur.  Sandstein  13:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree (sigh). The first diff says a source is contradicting you. The second one is subjective and certainly battleground mentality but I think it falls short of a personal attack. "You must think Emma Stone is hot, unless your blind." It's more of a "how could you miss that" rather than "your an idiot." Third one, I think you're being dishonest by using ellipsis instead of the comma. It changes the context completely. Four diff, he is talking about your question and not you. Fifth diff, same opinion as fourth. Last diff, big whoop. I hold several people in contempt.

  All that said, he's displaying a battleground mentality that is clearly against the spirit of the unblock conditions and I'd support a block.--v/r - TP 13:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to talk about lying (simply pointing out a fact here), I have never actually called anybody "blind" (read the link), or any sort of attack that has been interpreted as such. I already acknowledged to another user how my words could be seen in that manner of being attacks, but that was not my intent. Yes I commented on other users, but in the context of replying to their replies in what is a very difficult and heated discussion. Anyhow, I'm not gonna keep fighting an uphill battle, do as you wish. Block me for a while, don't block me for a while, make me stay away from certain things, it doesn't matter at this point cause I give up. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The WP:DGAF to ANI approach, eh? You'd be better off just apologizing and offering to try harder. I already made your arguments for you.--v/r - TP 14:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No it's not the DGAF approach, it's a capitulation because I've tried very hard to follow my restrictions, and while yes I break them some times it's not intentional. I'm sorry, is that what you want to hear? That I'm sorry for insulting people when that wasn't my intent? I have a flair for hyperbole, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to attack everyone at sight. Yes I'm sorry that I broke the spirit of my restrictions, and I said block me or don't, cause it's hardly my choice, but I have no interest in fighting this AN/I because there's no point. I made a mistake and should have been more restrained, what happens because of that is my fault. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as you acknowledge (which you just did), redact, and try to stifle the hyperbole a bit (I do it too, so don't think you're alone) then I think we can shake hands and move on. Can't we, Dr Kiernan?--v/r - TP 15:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But I do think it wise to extend the remaining unblock condition for a further period because the other two unblock conditions appear to have worked, and so I feel it likely that the third condition might work if it is given more time. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I was heavily involved in the unblock conditions. Fry1989 has significant control problems, as he himself acknowledges here and has acknowledged in the past. His latest comments may or may not be a breach of civility, but they do more than violate the "spirit" of the civility condition. As Dr.Kiernan pointed out in the beginining, they breach the second bullet point of the civility condition, "commenting on individual editors". I agree with Dr.Kiernan that the remaining block condition should be extended; that certainly beats an indefinite block, which is what a violation of the condition provides.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That seems fair and reasonable.--v/r - TP 15:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair, yes. However, Fry cannot expect this to happen again. This is not a 3-strikes situation. Reset the 6 months. The NEXT one is it; period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, Bwilkins, but a lot of discussion and effort went into these condtions by User:Amatulic (the lion's share), Fry, me, and by Dr.Kiernan, who, as I recall, was the most aggrieved by some of Fry's conduct. As Dr.Kiernan says above, progress has been made, and the principal goal should be to foster improvement. My sense - then and now - is that Fry is an honest person who sincerely wants to improve his conduct. Strictly speaking, a lapse should result in an indefinite block, but if being a bit more flexible resolves the problem and retains a useful editor, I think we should be open to that. I'm waiting to hear what Fry has to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we're arguing the same point here ... aren't we? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think so, but if you do, I'm good. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was I asked a direct question? I'm doing a training thing today so I'm in and out. Now this is obviously not the only reason I'm here today, I have troubles with other users at time too, but DrKiernan is the elephant in my situation. He and I are like cats and dogs, and I've made it no secret I don't want to be involved with him, and I've put in every effort recently to avoid it. I don't watch his talk page and I don't edit things he's active on. He however followed me on to that discussion uninvited by myself or the others involved. He has also followed me around on other things I'm involved with, and on Commons. I suggested some time ago an interaction ban between the two of us and that was called premature. Now is any of this an excuse for things I have said? Absolutely not, but it is the reality that he and I can not work together collegially, and I hold resentment about it because every time we do interact, our butting heads blows up and then I have to deal with this. It's happened three times, and I'm as tired of it as anybody else. This is not an attempt to skew the issue and change the subject, it is a part of this problem that we don't get along, and I've put in all my effort to avoid him. Can he say the same? I said what I said, it was wrong, it broke the spirit of my restrictions, I take accountability for it, but it never would have gotten that far if he and I didn't fight every time we encounter each other. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

All in all, Fry, I don't think your comments are helpful. I haven't looked at the recent history, so I can't comment on DrKiernan's involvement, but what you call following you around may simply be that some of your interests intersect, and there's no reason that DrKiernan should not be able to express their opinion on a particular topic if they do it in a reasonable manner. More important, if you know that you have problems interacting with DrKiernan, then you should either pay more attention when you do so you don't violate your unblock conditions or you should walk away from it if you can't behave. Despite your disclaimer, I think you're looking at this a bit backwards.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Re TParis, unless I'm missing something, personal attacks don't come in to it. The unblock conditions say they must not comment on individual editor except in appropriate noticeboards. It doesn't say anything about personal attacks. I presume this condition, while harsh, was imposed because the community or whoever no longer trusts them to comment on editors and/or to avoid disputes oer what sort of comments on editors are acceptable. In other words, if any of these are comments on editors, it doesn't matter if they →are positive, innocous, borderline personal attacks or clear cut personal attacks they're clearly a violation. Now if the comments are genuinely positive and didn't cause any offene to the editors cncerned, it would be foolish to block them. But if and editor does disagree with comments on them, it would seem we have a problem. I haven't looked at the comments so can't say whether the comments are bad. Nil Einne (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

My summary of the diffs is that they were not talking about Dr. K but about their comments; with the exception of diff 2 maybe. However, what I see is discussion. Unless you consider "your source contradicts you" to be about a person and not the source then I don't think the letter of the sanction is violated. Which is why I said the spirit of it was. Context helps with the diffs provided, and in the case of the third diff, an ellipsis is used instead of a comma which doesn't make sense to me other than to change the context. The comma takes less characters and is actually in the diff. It splits the sentence. If you disagree, that's fine, it's just my take and my take has seemed to lead us down the path to deescalation.--v/r - TP 23:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(@Bbb23) Unhelpful? Maybe, and it wouldn't be the first time my outlook has been wrong, but I am simply stating how I feel. If there's one indisputable fact here, it's that he and I don't play nice together. You can blame the reasons for that on one of us or both, but it remains a fact. I have said before many times that I want him to "leave me alone" (infact I have quite loudly exclaimed it on my talk page), I asked for an interaction ban (that was not even given consideration), and I've put in my due effort to avoid him. But somehow, DrKiernan seems to quite frequently "drop by" on pages I'm involved with where he has had absolutely no previous involvement and was not invited by anybody. Recently it has been happening on Commons as well, where DrKiernan is rarely active. You'll forgive me if I doubt the serendipity of it. I accept what I said and that it was inappropriate, but unless you have had as frequent and negative of interactions with a signle user as I have had with DrKiernan, please don't be so quick to reject the notion as me overreacting. As for the suggestion that I should unilaterally "move on" if he comes into something I'm involved in, surely you understand the implications of that, giving him to power to just impose himself on anything I'm working on forcing me to leave. I don't like that suggestion, and I don't think any other user who feels like their being followed around would like it either. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry, in my view and in the view of some others (perhaps not TP), you have violated the civility conditions of your unblock. Some of the diffs DrKiernan set forth are weaker than others, but there's enough there to constitute more than one violation. Thus, even if you could demonstrate that DrKiernan is hounding you (that's essentially what you're claiming), it wouldn't do you a bit of good if we hold you to your conditions. As TP said (implied?) earlier, you should be focused on finding a way to continue editing here. Shifting the focus to DrKiernan won't help you. If you feel so strongly that DrKiernan is hounding you, then separately you should be asking for some sort of sanctions, an interaction ban or whatever you believe is appropriate. Now is not the time to be doing that unless you are simply so frustrated that you don't care, but most of us know that allowing present frustration to interfere with our long-term desire to edit here is generally self-defeating. Venting may provide some satisfaction, but it's transient and yet you're stuck with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't really know the background of Fry1989's restrictions on editing, but what I have witnessed at talk:union badge of Norway and Sweden strikes me as obviously disruptive behavior. Fry has been debating rather ferociously about an article title which is based primarily on personal opinion, not what sources actually say. I can't say I've seen outright personal attacks, but there's plenty of civility gray zones, and above all a tendency of completely disregarding other editor's arguments in favor of home-brewed theories and interpretations. You can see the result for yourself at the article talkpage, but the latest of Fry's edits is very indicative of highly belligerent form of interaction.[2] Peter ^Isotalo 23:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Attacks on the validity of my points by calling them "home-brewed theories" (alongside other names I've had to endure) like I'm some conspiracy crackpot is why I'm here in the first place, and I greatly resent your use of the term. Instead of people being willing to discuss my sources and points, they accused me of making things up, and saying that "this word was never use now or ever!" even though I have a very clear sources saying the opposite. It is the shear frustration from being ganged up on like that which causes my ferocity. You don't have to condone the way I carry on my arguments on that page (something I have not attempted to do here in my own defence), but don't pretend I do it just because that's "how I am". It takes a lot to cause me to be so angry and negative. There's plenty of examples of me carrying on arguments in a civil, even cheerful, manner. I have the ability to be very pleasant, polite, and helpful, but when people start accusing me of lying and making things up, that's when my effort to be friendly goes out the door. As for my last edit you linked, no where is there a rule I have to agree with someone. That was completely civil, I said "you can think what you want, but I'm gonna think what I want". Tell me how that is belligerent to "agree to disagree", which is essentially what I said? Fry1989 ^eh? 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry, I am very close to getting you a slap on the wrist and a gentle shove to be on your way instead of an indefinite block. For Pete's sake, don't screw it up.--v/r - TP 00:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made it clear I have no interest in continuing on that page any longer. I said that they can think what they want, and I'll stick to what I think, essentially "agree to disagree", and I've stated on my talk page that I will no longer be engaging on that article's talk page. But calling my sources and points "home-brewed theories" was out of order. Decide what you want to do about me, and I'll accept and deal with it accordingly, but if you're worried of me screwing it up by continuing to an unreceptive crowd, you'll be happy to know that will not take place. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Restrictions are put into place to improve Wikipedia, not be tripwire sanctions used in content disputes. As TP has already elucidated, the diffs presented are very ticky tacky to be indeffing an editor over. Looking at the history, it appears Fry was editing the article and talk page long before DrK, and DrK raised the restriction two weeks ago on the talk page and yet continued to engage Fry. The issue isn't really Fry's incivility but their tendentious editing, but as there was no support for his position all that was required was to let them have the last word, but since DrK was "fed up" instead a motley collection of diffs has been presented to indef Fry over not very much. Let's just agree it's time for Fry to move on from that issue and be done with this. NE Ent 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I agree with the above. The dispute seemed mostly on topic, and appears to have burnt itself out, somewhat. I apologise if I am interjecting inappropriately. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. The dispute was technically on topic, but it also involved Fry being "angry and negative" about people simply disagreeing. I'm not pushing for a indefinite ban, but I consider the behavior surrounding union badge of Norway and Sweden disruptive enough to deserve a warning.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

indeed. A more severe sanction would appear counterproductive, and would demotivate an otherwise productive editor with a good editorial history on a relatively specialised topic. Irondome (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where we are. We almost got to a point of agreeing that there would be no block but there would be a 6-month extension of the civility condition(s). However, Fry did not voluntarily agree to that, and it's not clear to me there's a consensus for it. I believe there was a consensus that Fry violated the unblock conditions (DrK, me, BWilkins, Sandstein, TP (spirit)), but not necessarily a consensus as to the remedy. I believe the only editor who disagrees is NE. The two editors who commented after NE follow up on his characterization of Fry's behavior as "tendentious editing", but although they appear to agree that a block is unwarranted (one wants a warning, one doesn't), they do not really address the issue of the violation. I should point out that a consensus isn't required to block Fry, but given the lengthy discussion, I'm not sure that any admin wants to take that step without a consensus. I know I don't at this juncture, although I am not happy with some of Fry's responses.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry if I didnt make myself clear. I meant I agreed with the mildest sanction available, if that is the consensus. Irondome (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • My feelings lean toward the lowest possible sanction that ensures this does not happen again. Fry says he has a "flair for hyperbole" and that needs to be controlled by him (as I said to him, I deal with it too, personally). If a block is the lowest remedy, then so be it, I'll support it if that's the case. If an extension of the conditions and a stern warning and commitment to control himself, that would be preference. I trust you, as you have all of the history behind you, to make a good decision. I'm not sure how involved you are, but if your only involvement is the previous block then I'm fine with you taking action.--v/r - TP 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As suggested, and to make my side clear, I'll reiterate that I accept I have broken the spirit of my restrictions before their expiration, and that it wasn't acceptable. My intent and the way things can be seen by others are two separate things, and I need to hold a tighter tongue. As for a remedy, I have no objection to an extension of the restrictions I agreed to, because outside of this incident they have assisted me greatly. If a temporary block is decided on, I'll deal with it, and if not I'll be thankful. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The unblock conditions, while well-intentioned, have turned out, in practice, to be problematic; I've suggested modifications on their talk page. NE Ent 20:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have read, understand, and have no objection. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Before Fry's latest posts and NE's suggested revisions, I proposed a resolution at Fry's talk page. We now have two discussions going on, one there and one here. Based on Fry's response above after TP's post, I believe that we could have finished this as it pretty much did everything I asked him to do on his talk page. However, partly based on my bias for simplicity and partly because I don't agree with NE's suggested revisions (at this point I'm not going to go into why), I have advised Fry (on his talk page) that I prefer NOT to implement any of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with NE's suggestions. My primary concern is that in the course of discussion with another user, two way communication requires the use of 2nd person language and I am concerned that such use is considered "talking about someone." As long as we're clear that talking to someone and talking about someone's comments is not the same as talking about someone, then I think we can continue with the current wording.--v/r - TP 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    • While I'm waiting to close this, I thought I'd respond to your comment, with which I agree, with a simplistic example of a hypothetical Fry communication: Acceptable: "I don't agree with John Doe's changes to the article because the source is unreliable." Unacceptable: "John Doe's changes to the article are dumb because the source is unreliable."--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
      • The second one is the gray area that concerns me. It's saying the changes are dumb. I might be over-analyzing and the 2nd one certainly violates the spirit of the rule, but I'd say the existing rules cover "John Doe is dumb because the source is unreliable."--v/r - TP 00:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I intentionally phrased the unaccceptable example the way I did (as opposed to "John Doe is dumb", which I think is clear-cut) for two reasons. First, I wanted to err on the side of avoiding problems for Fry in the future. The unacceptable example is gray, and I didn't want to get into an endless battle later on wikilawyering such a phrase to death. Second, I think editors generally should avoid the second example. It's true that you're not calling the editor dumb, you're calling their actions dumb, and one can be smart and still do something dumb, but saying something someone does is dumb is often a politically correct proxy for calling them dumb. Moreover, it's simply not necessary. There's no reason why everyone can't convey their point using the acceptable example.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
          • That's fine with me, but let's make sure that Fry understands that's what is intended then.--v/r - TP 02:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Agreed. I'm fairly certain Fry is paying attention to all the comments, but depending on the outcome, which is now less clear, we can make sure he understands. --Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
      • In John Doe's changes to the article are dumb John Doe's is a possessive determiner modifying the noun "changes"; thus the crux of the sentence is changes are dumb which is assuredly not referring to another contributor. Which just goes to show how, agreements that seem reasonable when agreed to often, in practice, become difficult to implement when the penalty is so all or nothing. NE Ent 03:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Remedy. I've revised the unblock conditions, the effect of which is to extend the civility conditions an additional 6 months from their current expiration date. I'll leave this thread open in case someone notices a mistake. I've also asked Fry to look at them. Assuming there's no error, this discusion will be closed (with thanks for everyone's help).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  Apologies - I'm overseas and have limited time to access Wikipedia. As one of the authors of the civility restrictions, I agree that their interpretation (while seeming clear at the time) have become problematic. I believe that further exploration of clarifying the restrictions should be explored as NE Ent has done. The restrictions weren't intended as a hair-trigger re-block mechanism. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  At this point, I'd still like to close this incident with the revised conditions. They don't involve a block, and they put to rest this incident and this thread. In addition, there's no reason why the conditions can't be revised again based on NE's suggestions - or anyone else's - to make them clearer and/or fairer. That said, based on your comment, I'm not closing this now. I want to see if there's agreement on closing first. I will be going off-wiki soon, so I probably won't be around until late afternoon tomorrow (American Pacific time). It seems dubious to me that there will be agreeement to close this before I go off-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Restoring from archives.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion was archived due to inactivity. Unfortunately, it left Fry in limbo as I'd revised their unblock conditions, which are still outstanding. I am going to close this now as resolved based on the revised unblock conditions. Per TP's comment above, I will let Fry know of the closure and make sure he "understands that's what is intended". If Amatulic or NE wants to re-raise the issue of revising the conditions further, they are welcome to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Civility and user DCB4W

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

---

DCB4W Removes "systemic bias" tag without consensus. Behaves "bossy" threatens to others in ultimatum form ("I'll check back in 48 hours before I remove the tag again"). Please take measures. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Provide citations that prove systematic bias or quit restoring the tag. If you think it's an English problem, find Russian sources that paint a different picture and prove it. Your personal expertise is not going to prove anything here.--v/r - TP 22:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Asking for a citation in the situation of systemic bias shows deep misunderstanding of the systemic bias issue. Please familiarize yourself with the essence of it and with the ways to counter it. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore if you have looked carefully, you would have spotted the "Second and most important. The Spanish and Russian articles about the subject ( the actual involving parties ) have no such negative flavour about soviet involvement. Only the English has it. What other reference do you really need as the poof? Both Spanish and Russian pages have plenty of references. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Taking the personality of TP, I believe it would be better if some other admin who is not an american jingoist would look into the issue 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Pre-striking" a personal attack doesn't make it not a personal attack. You've had final warnings for personal attacks (and played the "jingoism" card [3]) before [4] - one more comment like that and you will be blocked. "Countering systemic bias" does not equal "pushing WP:POV from the other side". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. Go to the user page and see it yourself. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The word "Jingo" nor any variation of it are not on the linked userpage. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Now look at the photo. They do look like a right candidate to counter systemic bias, don't they? Though maybe you are right, maybe the word has more negative meaning in it than i thought. I'd appreciate if you could enrich my vocabulary with the correct one. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Some would call that statement a bigoted one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Some would get a nice reddish final warning from The Bushranger, won't they? Or does The Bushranger manipulate the rules however it pleases them in a certain situation? 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Well, if some people are making personal attacks, boomeranging on AN/I, and misinterpreting rules, then those people truly deserve warnings before they get themselves blocked. Hint hint, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh i forgot! those are only the other people who misinterpret rules! I see... May you please leave me without your comments? I've already got your threats point. You don't have to repeat it. Really. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as you were already on your final warning for personal attacks, I was pointing out that you were the bigoted one with that statement, and instead of a "nice reddish final warning" you could easily have, instead of my comment being made there, been immediately blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Countering systemic bias" does not equal "pushing WP:POV from the other side".

Yeah, right. The fact that the Spanish and Russian pages about the subject do not have the strong negative flavour really doesn't indicate the systemic bias issue. It's just my POV. Sure. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, possibly, the Spanish and Russian pages are the ones that are not neutral? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, most likely. Taking that the article uses subjective assessments, rather than facts, it is very likely that it is NPOV and has no bias at all!

After all censorship and brainwashing exists only in the other countries, not in my beloved one, right? 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. And if you have spotted the stricken "who is not an american jingoist" what has forced you to step in and try to resolve the issue? The fact that it was stricken? But you have said yourself that it doesn't count. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I said that it did count. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a nice warning you have put on my page, The Bushranger, thank you! I wonder will DCB4W get the same treatment for clearly bulling others? 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If there was any bullying to warn about, I would. This isn't bullying. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? Let me cite Wikipedia:Civility for you: "Try not to get too intense. Other people can misread your passion as aggression. Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully. Talking in ultimatum form and removing a tag, which clearly says Please do not remove this message until the issue is resolved. is not a bulling at all! It's pinnacle of civility and rule abidance! 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Quoting the tag: "Please do not remove this message until the issue is resolved.". If there is no issue to resolve, there is no prohibition to removing the tag. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus that was reached on the talk page. Please cite it to me. Or simply ignoring the inconvenient parts of reality, and pretending like there is no issue at all ( your style ) is the right way to go? "The neutrality of this article is not questioned on the basis of systemic bias at all! There is no discussion at the talk page at all, no. Not even a word about it. hmm... this tag must have been putted here wrong. I shall go bold about it!" 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) This IP really needs to calm down and stop making personal attacks, or they will certainly find a block n' boomerang heading their way. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your threats are really important. thank you! 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I do so love when people complain about bullying and behaving "bossy," using bossy, bullying tones to do so. I'm heartily in favor of this boomeranging IP being sat down for a nice block. Ravenswing 23:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak in ultimatum tone to others. I do not threat to others. I do not remove tag which clearly says "Do not remove". 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't intend that as an ultimatum at all. I just didn't want to get into a reversion war and I figured that two days would give other editors plenty of time to come up with sources in support of the tag. (I don't speak Spanish or Russian, so I couldn't go looking at the corresponding articles myself.) I was actually giving some thought to asking for a third opinion, which still might not be a bad idea. (Arguably, I was the third opinion, since the dispute started between the IP address and Grandiose. As best I can tell, Grandiose and Kevin Murray actually attempted to address some of the IP's concerns more than a month ago.) DCB4W (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the IP claims that DCB4W violated WP: CIV, when he nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, he was acting correctly in favor of WP: BRD. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah being bold is clearly applicable to something which says "Do not remove" on it! Screw it! Just be bold and remove. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Quoting the tag: "Please do not remove this message until the issue is resolved.". If there is no issue to resolve, there is no prohibition to removing the tag. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus that was reached on the talk page. Please cite it to me. Or simply ignoring the inconvenient parts of reality, and pretending like there is no issue at all ( your style ) is the right way to go? "The neutrality of this article is not questioned on the basis of systemic bias at all! There is no discussion at the talk page at all, no. Not even a word about it. hmm... this tag must have been putted here wrong. I shall go bold about it!" 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There's discussion. The only people claiming bias are you, and a SPA that has made no other edits ever. The GA rereviewer only "failed" it on neutrality based on the tag - everyone else there believes there is no issue; the only one claiming this issue is you. WP:CONSENSUS does not mean "unanimous opinion", nor does it mean "what I want". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to block IP

Proposal - just block the IP and be done with it. There is a limit to patience and understanding, and s/he clearly doesn't want to discuss this. GregJackP Boomer! 00:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"clearly" I am the one who does not want to discuss. Just goes bold and removes something which says "do not remove" on it without seeking a consensus at the talk page. It is absolutely clear indeed! 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Just went to your page and noticed the "This user assumes good faith." userbox. Are you serious? 84.52.101.196 (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support The IP clearly and delibratley violated WP: NPA and is obviously WP: NOTHERE. Time for him/her to sit out for a while and learn the basic principles of our site. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support he/she shares the views we all don't like. Let's find some false accusation to have a formal excuse to get rid of the bastard. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support - per the IP's behavior on the discussion above, clearly a POV-pushing SPA with no tolerance for the views of others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support block since the IP doesn't seem to understand how the neutral point of view is achieved on Wikipedia. He has yet to present a single source for alternate viewpoints, and just rails against everyone (both sources and editors) who disagree with him. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Anybody can see the discussion isn't going anywhere; classic WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Hopefully he'll read up on WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT while he's blocked. —Rutebega (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. In addition to all of the above, this indicates clearly that this editor is here on a mission and is not here to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• IP blocked. The unacceptable behavior is self-evident and there's no reason to waste too much of our time dealing with this. Swarm ^X 04:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Marteau

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

---

Although its some time ago, this WP:NPA comment is visible. [5] It should be removed and User:Marteau should have consequences. Tagremover (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If I am to be censured for calling Tagremover "insufferable" so be it. "Insufferable" means "intolerable"... I could in fact no longer tolerate his behavior and I did in fact quit editing the article because of him, and I will in fact not edit any article with which he is involved. Marteau (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Daan0001 and edits to closed AfD

This user has twice inserted comments into the closed discussion notes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunday: diff1, diff2, the second time after being asked to desist: [6] and with an edit summary of "How dare u undo my comment ???)". AllyD (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

They were on my radar from WP:REFUND - their actions caused a salting of Gunday, and now also their attempt to circumvent that Salt. Brief block for disruption for the continual recreation AND disrupting the closed AFD (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Watchingeveryevent

WP:DFTT. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Admins, I need your help with this user. He is extremely rude, and I say so as he removes content from articles without a reason, snubs others' welcome, place rude message on his own talk page, then talk rudely to me on my talk page. Thanks for your help. :) Arctic Kangaroo 09:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC) BECAUSE YOU WONT LEAVE ME ALONE. I AM ALLOWED TO REMOVE YOUR MESSAGES FROM MY PAGE. I AM NOT BEING RUDE I JUST WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE FROM YOU. YOU KEEP MESSAGING ME THEN RE CREATING YOUR DELETED MESSAGES. I WANT TO LEARN HOW TO DO THIS WITHOUT YOUR HARASSMENT. i have never ever removed content from articles, that is a complete lie PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE Watchingeveryevent (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Admins, please check his conribs and talk page to verify what he says. Thanks a lot. Arctic Kangaroo 10:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC) PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE. STOP HARRASSING ME, STOP REPORTING ME, STOP MAKING FAKE OFFERS TO HELP, PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE FOR GODS SAKE I CANT DEAL WITH HIM. Watchingeveryevent (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC) I have offered to explain his mistakes to him, but he snubbed my offer, saying that I was "unsincere". Arctic Kangaroo 10:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC) No amount of being polite could have done anything. He's a troll, and he's been blocked forever. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC) However, I should clarify that he Watching did not remove content from any articles. He only removed content from his own talk page, which is perfectly permitted. It is quite poor form to revert war with an editor in his own userspace. It would not have made any difference in this case, as he was here to cause trouble, but please don't do it in the future. If you think an editor is creating a problem on in their own userspace, bring it here. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Wrong. edit. Not an article, but not his own talk page either. Doc talk 10:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Yep, I was wrong. Thanks for pointing it out, Doc. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Well, my mistake. I was trying to say he removed a barnstar which he did not award from another user's talk page. Also, another user has told me not to restore deleted content on others' talk. So, later part I gave up to remove his talk page stuff. But the explanation part, I was just trying to give him a chance to change, before I concluded him as a troll. Arctic Kangaroo 10:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC) General procedure is that if users remove content from their talk page, they are assumed to have read and understood what was said. So if you put increasingly escalating {{uw-vandalism}} warnings on his talk page, and he deletes them, just go to WP:AIV with the diffs and if he gets blocked, he can't say he didn't get fair warning. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC) He wasn't even given a chance, and now he can't even contest the block. All he wanted was for three users to stop posting on his talkpage. He didn't want help from this Arctic Kangaro, but AK wouldn't leave him alone. When AK was told not to offer his help, he came here out of spite. Good job, another potential editor lost. Rubbish like this is why I stopped contributing here. 92.20.50.154 (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC) A belligerent editor opens an account and is already familiar with ANI and Wikipedia Review. That's not a potential editor - it's a troll. Some of the evidence is only visible to administrators, so you can't be blamed for not seeing it. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC) User:Marteau: Please could someone check if Watchingeveryevent is a sockpuppet of User:Marteau? Tagremover (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Ah, so that is what it is? Because he knew about wikipedia review? That explains why you took the unilateral actions of deleting both his user page and talk page, as well as imposing an indefinite block and removing his ability to contest the block. It isn't about beligerence at all, it's because he knew how things worked here. Sad. I genuinely believe that given the chances he/she would have been a good editor, that is why things like mentorship exist. As for knowing about ani, it isn't that hard. This isn't some sort of hidden page that only a select few have access to. The way I see it is this; the user wasn't familiar with how we deal with things here, so he reacted badly to a welcome message. Then, another group of users decided to pile onto them, posting repeated warnings, then reposting them despite being asked not to do so. It seems that the same group of users were also deleting his messages to other users explaining why he was being so beligerant, including one here the user says they are willing to be helped, but not by Arctic Kangaroo, which is not what I would call unreasonable given that Arctic Kangaroo and his group of friends refused to leave them alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.50.154 (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC) So he "knew how things worked here", or "wasn't familiar with how we deal with things here". Which is it? Doc talk 11:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Why is this 'new' IP commenting on behalf of this blocked user...? GiantSnowman 11:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC) (ec) I see a lot of new users from hanging out on the AFC Helpdesk. Some add unsourced content to articles, some add articles that are speedy deleted in good faith, many forget to sign their posts. Pretty much none of them have ever referred to "ani" in their first edit, with a demonstration they understand what it is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC) I don't know what to say: [7] This reaction to a welcome? Tagremover (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC) I'm not commenting "on behalf" of anyone, I'm just trying to come to terms with why this situation devolved so rapidly. I wasn't aware that IP's were forbidden from contributing here? Or are you trying to suggest some sort of ulterior motive? My comment about Wikipedia review was meant to state that he/she probably had some sort of idea about how attitudes work here, which has been proven absolutely right, sadly. I like the way the original point of my last message was ignored. Or don't you see it as strange that a user who refused help from an editor has now been dragged here for being distruptive by the very same editor he/she clearly had an issue with? And don't you find it even slightly off that the very message asking for help was deleted by an involved outside user? Or are you more interested in playing semantics? As for the reaction to the welcome message, it was wrong and probably should have bee dealt with, but not like this. 92.20.50.154 (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC) I agree with what Tagremover said. The user even blanked a barnstar on Tagremover's talk page. What I did was to offer guidance to him out of goodwill. But he just snubbed my offer rudely, just because we deleted his posts which were rude and unconstructive. So, I want to help him be a better Wikipedian, but I could not, what you want me to do? Arctic Kangaroo 11:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC) What should you have done? Try leaving them alone like they asked, that's usually a good start, then try not allowing messages that could have vindicated them to be deleted from your talk page. He/she did not want your help. At that juncture, you COULD have advised him about how to contact uninvolved editors, but instead you chose to take it personally and spite him by taking him here. As for "rudely", would that be like launching an edit war on his/her own talk page? 92.20.50.154 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Austin Dabney

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

---

This is all so bizarre. User:Nyttend replaced a quote with a paraphrasing that changes the meaning. I reverted it, but was in turn reverted. I pointed out to no avail that the word "patriot" is not equivalent to "Georgian solder".

Nyttend also stated that I violated a copyright in using the quote in the first place, but won't explain just how (see Talk:Austin Dabney#Accuracy). These aren't even the source writer's words, but the reporting of another person's utterance. I offered to let Nyttend rephrase it as long as it didn't distort the meaning. Nyttend declined, citing a lack of access to the source (highbeam sub. required), though this somehow didn't prevent the initial paraphrasing. Nyttend has held up my DYK over this issue.

Nyttend also complained of overcitation. Now this I may be guilty of. However, Nyttend claims that a citation attached to the last sentence of a paragraph covers the whole paragraph, which I've never heard of before.

Finally, Nyttend claimed I am violating WP:CIVIL because I called the paraphrasing "sloppy", and has threatened to bring my "repeated 'commenting on the contributor, not on the content' ... to light". I suppose that refers to my characterizing Nyttend's conduct in this matter as "so odd and hostile". Well, I stand by my opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As I repeatedly told Clarityfiend, we have no business using nonfree quotes gratuitously; he's using it as part of the text, rather than as a subject of commentary or as a method of highlighting someone else's specific words, and as such it is easily replaceable with a paraphrase. This applies regardless of whose words they are. This is precisely the same situation as a nonfree image being used for decoration, but Clarityfiend repeatedly refuses to rewrite it, despite the fact that nonfree use is a violation of copyright law; I can't be clearer, but he insists that I'm not explaining. As I've noted already, he has access to the source, and I don't, as the citation links to the abstract of an offline source, and he's citing the full source; he's the only one who can judge the context, and yet I get told that I'm writing "sloppily" because I misunderstood a context that's not available and am simply paraphrasing the source that he included. He also objects that I've changed something like "text text<ref name=a>cite</ref> text text<ref name=a /> text text.<ref name=a />" to "text text text text text text<ref name=a>cite</ref>". If the text hadn't needed to be edited to remove the gratuitous nonfree content, I would have noted the problem without doing anything; see my comments and those of others who reference me here, precisely the same situation, in which I didn't do this because the page had no copyright issues. Finally, he deletes a citation from the end of a paragraph and objects that I restore it, saying that I'm inconsistent and refusing to listen to my response that text needs to be cited. It's a basic principle of writing with citations; I don't understand why he thinks it's such a big deal that it justifies incivility and needs an administrator to lay down the law on me. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, first of all, I don't see any patent wrongdoings on Nyttend's part as an administrator or an editor. Therefore administrator intervention is simply not needed; you should pursue dispute resolution as usual if it's necessary. That said, though, I personally don't see the reason for Nyttend's insistence on making this change. "...we have no business using nonfree quotes gratuitously...", that seems like a bit of an exaggeration. The quote wasn't being used in violation of our non-free content (or any other) policy. Swarm ^X 05:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Am I in the wrong forum? Well then, point me to the right one please. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    • This is the link you are looking for. Blackmane (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Xkcdreader / Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness

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

---

Given the hostility of this WP:SPA, his refusal to listen to advice, and his constant disruption of the talk page at Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness where he tried to introduce what was essentially the same proposal five times, I would request admin intervention and possible sanctions. I appreciate I may have shown my frustration at his disruption a little too vocally on a couple of occasions, but I've just tried to offer an olive branch on his talk page to be met with extreme hostility and an affirmation that only he knows how we should act on a talk page and that discussions should be undertaken in the manner that he sees fit. He seems to think that WP:IAR means that he can do what the hell he likes. He needs to be put back in his box for a while. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As much as I'm tempted to indef, what with it plainly being a lulz-only account, this is being dealt with on talk already. Stop rising to it; consensus is currently against the inclusion of the material in question, and it'll likely remain that way, so the only disruption is some walls of text on a talk page that you don't have to read. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The guy shouldn't be blocked for trying to improve an article - however nieve he is about talk page methods. And to be quite frank all of the 4 main users involved (being Rob, Scjessey, myself and Xkcdreader) have flared up and not been WP:CIVIL at times. As for consensus, there is no clear consensus either way at the moment - but I'm not gonna go into that here. douts (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Reluctantly, in his defence, I don't think he is a lulz-only account. He's new here, and his is a WP:SPA, but the issue is really down to the fact that he is trying to steamroller a change to an article, and causing mass disruption along the way, and refusing to listen to advice of other editors and trying to get Wikipedians to act according to his rules on the talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well that was nice :). Rob is right, this is not a lulz account. WP:SPA is accurate though, I have yet to go look elsewhere to contribute due to this miserable experience. I just care about presentation and making things easier to read. Chris Cunningham would be wrong to say "consensus is against inclusion." Currently NO consensus exists either way. That is why there is still an issue. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not happy with the user that filed this complaint (do I need to put something on his talk page?) He has self admittedly closed discussions, prematurely, on multiple occasions, to pretend a compromise has been reached. My proposal was not the same, and there were multiple different reasons for it to be re-proposed. The first time it underwent a substantial rewrite, to the point where many users original criticisms were addressed. (This claim is not inherently obvious due to me inline editing the proposal as people offered suggestions. I learned why this is a bad idea, and ceased doing so. I still have no problem amending changes to the end of them. If this behavior is unacceptable please let me know. You would need to dig through the mess I caused on the talk page to vindicate my claim, but I hope you can trust that I am being honest with you.) The second time it was apparent that part1 was nearing consensus, and votes needed to be taken individually. I recombined the content and I proposed a final draft. Part 1 reached consensus, Part 2 did not. I re-proposed just part two as its own debate and the user came in, argued, and had the discussion closed after part1 was implemented, by claiming that by "allowing me to contribute part 1, we had reached a compromise, and discussion of part 2 was no longer allowed." I am unsure whether this was simply accidental misinterpretation of the situation, or willful malicious deceit. There was no consensus on the second half of my proposal, and it IS at the moment still under heavy debate. The aforementioned user continually misrepresents what happened, and claims a compromise was reached. He uses this lie to close discussions. He is in a sense intolerable and multiple users are voicing their frustration with him as well. I am not sure who, but one of us lacks Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE#Use_common_sense, possibly both. If our conduct comes under review, his should be met with stricter scrutiny considering he is an established editor, whereas I completely admit, I am learning as I go. His behavior towards me and my contributions is completely inappropriate and unbecoming of an established editor. I have tried AS HARD AS POSSIBLE to meet everyone half way. This user has not budged an inch from his initial position. He publicly admits he is unwilling to compromise, and pretends that prior consensus over part 1 is his compromise. He has explicitly stated he will not help in any way, but only continue to argue his position. I repeat for clarity, (I know there is a rule about this somewhere, I cant find it) he refused to attempt compromise, AND refuses to help make the content more appropriate in his eyes AND refuses to even attempt cooperation. There has not been WP:CIVILITY since the minute this began, nor any "olive branch" of consideration for other peoples views. This editor lacks empathy. His (from my perspective) snide olive branch on my talk page personally feels like him trying to prevent my side from being presented in a clear manner. He even misrepresents what I did. I amended something to the end, (an addendum) and he refers to it as a revision. I did not go back and change the previous content, except minor formatting issues and such. He thinks if he can disrupt the proceedings, my ideas will go away. You can't kill an idea. As I said earlier, he closes discussions before people are allowed to speak, to make him look in the right. I understand the way I go about it is unconventional in some senses, but I don't think this user is in a place to prevent people from trying NEW THINGS (BE:BOLD.) Clearly the old ways are not working, or the i|I situation would have never occurred. He seems to think he owns the Star Trek Into Darkness page, and is doing everything in his power to prevent content which he finds irrelevant and WP:UNDUE from being discussed. To quote two rules I learned about due to this fiasco: WP:BURO "A procedural error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it" and WP:Content_removal#Reasons "If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal." These two rules seem to directly conflict with WP:BRD so we are left at an impasse. That will probably require admin input. Support for the current proposal seems to be split very evenly, and as the rules are currently being enforced, the benefit goes to the people excluding content, not those creating it. Personally I find this to be broken policy, and one of Wikipedias weaknesses. A small, but vocal minority of people, can prevent Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE#Use_common_sense decisions, such as capitalizing the I in the Star Trek title. It took BE:BOLD admin action just to overrule this user and his small cabal of users who think the rules must be enforced in the most strict sense. They think if every i is not crossed and every t is not dotted (that was a joke) content is unfit to be included. This user seems to believe only established editors have new and novel ideas. I thought the purpose of wikipedia was to work together, to write content, edit content, and polish content, not prevent it. The user that filed this complaint prevents Wikipedia from functioning even at its most basic level, even if he is an "established editor" (Who determines if you are established. Is that some kind of official title? Is there an award ceremony? Is levity not appropriate right now?) It takes 40 thousand words and an admin to change a single letter. My proposal is 5 sentences, so it will take eons if we can accurately extrapolate the rate of change. This user seems to think that if you have not been here for long, you must listen to those that have. I find this mindset would only preserve the current status quo, which appears to be gridlock. Something should be done to prevent this user from blocking new but imperfect contributions from being implemented and something should also be done to prevent his disrupting the editing process by closing in progress discussions. If admin intervention is necessary it should be against the same person who insisted the Manual of Style takes precedent over actual rules. (You should reprimand me in some way too, that is more than deserving at this point.) His drive to enforce all rules, and use technicalities to prevent imperfect content is poison to this project. Please cage him, so the rest of us can talk, and I will work hard to be less disruptive as the rest of us work on cooperating with the willing to arrive at compromise. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully admit, I save my posts too much, and probably fuck up the talk page by causing edit conflicts. I am trying to get in the habit of previewing and not saving, and other users can attest to this desire to improve my contribution process. (I also believe, I may be mistaken, that it is ok to be hostile on my own talk page, especially after I have asked someone to leave me alone, just not on public ones. I invite you to read my talk page. Correct me if I am wrong.) Xkcdreader (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, if we have become a society where no one (even admins) are willing to read walls of text, and instead prefer Newspeak to actual discussion, this entire conversation is pointless. What is going on here can not be summed up in one or two sentences. (Sorry again for the poor 'save page etiquette' Old habits die hard, and reflexes are hard to control. I swear, I'm working on it.) Xkcdreader (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)'

@Chris - Are you the admin dealing with this? I find your pejorative "lulz-only account" and "walls of text" statements make you an impartial judge, and biased against me. Can I request the eyes of more admins who are actually willing to take more than ten seconds to look at this, read what has been said, and then come to conclusions? Ironically, this mess, in my opinion, is caused by people commenting without reading. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

To address the accusation levelled at me above, I admit I did close a discussion once[8] in the mistaken belief that the matter had been put to bed not 24 hours earlier. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok so if you stop referring to a compromise which did not ever ever ever exist, I think the hostility is over. My issue with you is continually misrepresenting what happened. This includes that you start calling my revision an addition/addendum, which is what it actually is. I added a clause stating this, so as not to be misleading. Transparency is important. Please stop using misleading words to lead the court of public opinion against me. I have ALWAYS been acting in good faith, it doesn't feel as if you have been. I'm trying here. You don't appear to be. That is not how cooperation and compromise work. You don't automatically win because you are an established editor. As long as you're not misrepresenting what is going on, my beef with you is purely your stubbornness to enforce WP:UNDUE over WP:IAR. The article is empty, and you would prefer no content to some content. It makes no sense. This is simple, clear cut, IAR. The UNDUE rule is preventing otherwise valid content from being contributed, edited, and fixed. WP:SYNTHESIS is allegedly still an ongoing issue, I am not sure we have even locked down if it is occurring. Personally, I think I fixed it. The burden of proof to prove WP:SYNTHESIS is on you. I have addressed why you are wrong about WP:SUBJECT countless times, and your fingers are in your ears. WP:SELFREF is a guideline, a suggest, not a rule, and CLEAR CUT another case of WP:IAR because this is such an odd situation. It is blocking a clear assertion that is not attempting to be self referential just to be cute. There is a REASON to use the self referential material, to create context for the quote. You refuse to acknowledge that removing the SELFREF, changes the meaning of the sentence. The integrity of the content should not take second place to rules. That is why IAR exists. Not because I want my way. Take the time to READ my proposal, investigate the sentence, check the sources, AND then oppose it. Opposing it without reading it, is why we are on this admin page in the first place. To use this quote one last time ""And to be honest, who the f*ck wants to read your thesis and summary of all the guidelines of Wikipedia? HOW is that helpful? PLEASE... GIVE IT A REST!!!" by Rob Sinden." It was helpful because it explained why you are wrong. Your continual stubbornness, refusal to cooperate, and belief that you are automatically right without proving your claims is what is keeping this mess going. Stop acting like you know everything, and you are above compromise, just because you have been here longer. I am offering you TWO olive branches. Either help make the contribution better, or step aside and let it be included. If you can't accept one of those two options, we have a larger issue, and this will need to be escalated higher. I am glad you are being honest here, representing my character correctly, and defending me against rash admin decisions. It's appreciated. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would support a 1-month topic ban for the two or three most prolific commenters on that talk page. The encyclopedia is in dire need of people to fix broken and unreferenced articles, not screw around arguing about a Star Trek movie title ad infinitum. 28bytes (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be difficult to justify. There is a big difference between being disruptive, and trying to counter that disruption with the interests of Wikipedia at heart. Also note the length of contribution. Note that Xkcdreader has jumped to first place after just seven days' involvement, where I have been contributing on that talk page for over a year. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@28bytes. This isn't about star trek anymore. It hasn't been for a long time. It is about principle (fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.) This is about a couple stubborn users being able to a) cause gridlock b) cause delays that prevent contributions c) silence discussions. I am being stubborn here because if you let him win Wikipedia loses. I'm not giving up until I prove my point. If any madman ever comes over all the text I have typed, and reads it, it will be plain as day that I am trying to FIX the broken practices that CAUSED the i|I debate. This is about preferring nothing and arguing over contributing and editing. It's about preferring divided consensus and inaction to action and editing. Like I said, it's about principle. Also, my edit count should not be used against me without context. I am terrible about accented pressing save out of habit. 400 edits does not mean I contributed 400 comments. Not even close. Xkcdreader (talk)

There is a second issue afoot, that DOES need admin action. (This was in my wall of text above, it probably belongs down here) WP:BURO "A procedural error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it" and WP:Content_removal#Reasons "If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal." These two rules seem to directly conflict with WP:BRD so we are left at an impasse. When I boldly added my contribution it was WRONGLY reverted. In my mind, this is the BIGGEST thing being misrepresented here. I went boldly. It was removed by people who wouldn't help make it better. It should still be on the star trek page, RIGHT NOW. The debate should be over whether it is removed or rewritten, NOT if it is appropriate to add. Rob Sinden and Scjessey somehow managed to flip the process. "Support" should indicate removing the content and "oppose" should stand for allowing it to stay. This was the same tactic THEY used to keep i|I going for so long. MY "argument" is, that without consensus the content should stand, and not be removed. They should be the ones dissecting my work and trying to get it removed. Not the other way around. This is what I am talking about when I say "principles." From my view these two are cheating the system to get their way. By default wikipedia should favor inclusion unless they can prove why it substantially hurts the article. UNDUE weight is such a minor issue, I cant believe they can use it as a roadblock. My contribution isn't even that bold, I already have nearly half of people agreeing with me. Please AdviseXkcdreader (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Per "I'm not giving up until I prove my point" and my previous warning, I have blocked Xkcdreader indefinitely. Anyone who can convince them to contribute productively to the encyclopedia is welcome to reduce/unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm not quick to jump on a blocking bandwagon, I think it's necessary. Outside debates on the main talk page, I have also discussed with him, in detail, the actions I thought he should take, but to no avail. However, I'd prefer it if we could get an otherwise uninvolved admin to substantiate the block, for procedural protection if nothing else. Xkcdreader: I already discussed the reason for the original reversion, and it came under BRD. You even said it was a bold addition, and you therefore fail to grasp the theory behind BRD, and Wikipedia policy. The content was controversial, yes, but it was also bold (and wrongly so). Similar, although not the same, text had been added and removed before under non-consensus BRD by a different user. You correctly began processes to get feedback on a proposed addition, but when only one part of your proposition went through, you boldly added the second half. Lack of consensus led to it not being added the first time around, and the BRD cycle dealt with your addition. Since then, you failed to heed my advice to step down, despite on multiple occasions being offered alternatives designed to further your cause. For the above reasons, I support blocking for the time being. He has repeated multiple times that he remains an SPA because of his experience contributing to the Star Trek Into Darkness discussions, but has failed to understand the actions he could have taken to limit hostility, and allow for a more productive atmosphere. drewmunn talk 13:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the action is justified in this case, since he didn't acquiesce to filing an RFC or a DR case. I think the block should be endorsed by Chris or another uninvolved admin though if it is to stand. Betty Logan (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a good thing if someone else could take ownership of this block. I considered unblocking per WP:INVOLVED, but xkcdreader's I may have exaggerated when I said "I won't give up." was not encouraging. "May have"????? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take ownership of it. More specifically, I've unblocked him with the condition that he leave the Star Trek debate, and will reblock if he's not willing to accept that condition. 28bytes (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I don't see the unblock. Caching? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't take the first time for some reason. 28bytes (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:KissCam and pointless redirects

I'm looking through the contributions of relatively-new user KissCam (talk · contribs) and I see that a majority of them are what appear to be pointless redirects to and/or unlikely search terms/typos for Christen Press. I was actually about to log off, but perhaps someone can figure out what's going on, as well as determine if this user's edits to that and related articles such as this are truly constructive. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I Nuked a bunch of bizarre ones, leaving one possible one. I'll further engage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm confused, what's particularly unconstructive about that diff, Book Antiqua? I appreciate that a player number of infinity is rather odd, but... Regardless of that, I've corrected the squad number. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Airlineroute.net

There has recently been an ongoing discussion on whether or not http://www.airlineroute.net should be used as a reliable source for listing new destinations/services for an airline. We are trying to reach to a consensus on whether or not we should use that as a source and the discussion has gone stale or lot of editors are having different opinions about. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to put it or we should continue discussing? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to offer any guidance, as you haven't actually provided a link to the discussion in question, but WP:RSN is probably the correct venue for this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link to the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Airlineroute.net.2FRoutesonline.com. Sorry! However, I have already posted this at WP:RSN in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_107#airlineroute.net) but didn't get a clear response. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm fairly sure this isn't an incident needing administrative attention, at the very most, maybe it's an RfC? Village Pump is probably best though. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A refusal to get WP:REDLINK

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

---

RichardMills65 (talk · contribs) has been active recently in a particular pattern, removing redlinks from articles, and adding references. The references are somewhat problematic in themselves, and have been reverted by a few users. But it's the redlink removal that's the issue. Several users have posted on his page on this issue, including myself, and yet the pattern continues. Skipping from article to article, without apparent pattern, the user removes redlinks, sometimes purging an article outright, sometimes only removing a few. There's no apparent method to his approach, and people have been reverting him (and hence posting notifications on his page) for removing valid links. An excerpt from a post to his page with some examples of my concerns are here:

Here you deleted a ship link. These are valid links, given that naval ships are continued article worthy, an article will one day be written. And again here. As a Member of Parliament the subject will one day have an article, one just hasn't been written yet. Here you deleted another one, which left a mangled mess of wiki formatting, and here is another example of this. Here you delete a perfectly valid blue link for some reason. And here you actually add a couple of links that are textbook cases of WP:OVERLINKING.

A look at his contributions will show the issue some more. Sometimes he takes out the one or the few redlinks in an article, in others he takes out a single one, leaving others that if the one redlinked article he removed was non-notable, surely the others should go too. There seems to be no reasoned approach to gauging the viability of these links and making a decision as to whether they should be retained or removed, and the number of times I've caught him on articles where I know there is notability for the subject in question, just that no article is written, leads me to think he's not paying attention to this. I've notified about ship articles, and one of his next edits was to remove one from an article. He no longer engages on his talk page, I'd like further input, as now a number of editors are having to revert and notify him, for no change in his behaviour. Benea (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• I looked at all the diffs you supplied on the user's talk page, and I agree with your analysis. This has been pointed out to RichardMills often enough and it should stop. As far as I'm concerned, this is disruptive enough to warrant rollback and a block if it continues. It's a bit odd--RichardMills responded positively to earlier messages, but there's nothing in response to the many messages about redlinks. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • He's back at it, again the same slapdash approach, removing in this case a red link from an article, but not the infobox. I had hoped his response to previous posts would mean he might modify his behaviour, but he seems to be going it alone now despite the warnings. Benea (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• I endorse Benea's analysis. The user appears to be actively deleting perfectly valid redlinks (i.e., those whose subjects are clearly notable) at this very moment, despite the numerous messages left on his talk page explaining why this is inappropriate and asking him to stop, and despite notification about this ANI thread. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre. Why remove the first redlink, but not the second? I'm in agreement with Drmies here, and will block if Richard does it again without stopping to discuss. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have now blocked him for a day for this edit. He went on removing a redlink after Chris had warned him about a possible block. De728631 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

His other edits seem problematic as well—for example, he's adding citations to sources which don't actually support the claim in question. I just raised this issue with him though it would be great if others could help review (and revert if necessary) his recent reference-related edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed this as well. His edit here to add a reference to British band Redwood (band) was actually the website http://www.theredwood.com/ which is for a Canadian women's shelter. His edits need careful scrutiny as this is more disruptive than it first appeared. Benea (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's bad. Is he perhaps Googling the topics and mindlessly adding references to the first page which comes up? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

See also this edit where he added a reference to Google Books, citing this book while there's a big disclaimer that it is primarily made up of Wikipedia content. So apparently he doesn't even check his sources. Has this behaviour come up only recently or is it a long-term pattern? If it was rather new I'd actually consider a compromised account. De728631 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard says he's a high school teacher, so it's a definite possibility that his account has been compromised. It would also explain his total lack of response and communication recently. Manxruler (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that way. Mindless would be the way to describe his current editing pattern. He's doing two things and he's doing them badly, to the extent that it's a net loss to the project in having to clear up after him. If when he comes back from the block he actually takes time to engage, I hope he will put more thought into his edits. At the moment he's making them very quickly, and without reference to other users' input. Benea (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Graeme Bartlett to look into this, too, since I'd like to have a second opinion about the possibility of the account being compromised. De728631 (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have shown up now and will have a look.

Based on edit summary use, it looks to be the same person, but the lack of response to talk page messages is uncharacteristic. Also the low quality references looks uncharacteristic. Perhaps it is someone pretending to be a teacher. Earlier there were summaries like ‎"deleted wiki link" but now is not bothering to say what is happening. But I think a block will attract attention, but I would encourage a meaningful discussion on the user talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's wait and see if yesterday's one-day block shows any effect of getting Richard back into communication. De728631 (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It has in fact worked. On his user talk page, Richard has now apologised for the inconvenience he caused and has promised to edit more carefully in the future. De728631 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Good, the account is not compromised and the block has expired, so I suppose this can be closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Battleground tactics and gaming by User:Guerrilla of the Renmin

Seven months ago, Guerrilla of the Renmin (talk · contribs) (GotR on talkpages) changed a header in Scarborough Shoal from "Claims by China and Taiwan" to "Chinese claims". I reverted this. GotR then posted in talk and made the edit again, which myself and another editor responded to, and I reverted back to "Claims by China and Taiwan" again. GotR never responded to either post, or otherwise used the talkpage after this.

On 20 January GotR made an edit to the article, with the edit summary "RV edits that could give the impression of being the same government". This "RV" included changing the header to the one they wanted. After an IP changed the header to something else, I reverted back to the stable version on 28 January. After this, GotR made another edit, with the non-descriptive edit summary "Reverted to revision 535088632 by Tarheel95. (TW)", which included the header change. On 4 February I made an edit, restoring the original header (along with the noting in the infobox of China's control of the shoal, which is a separate bit of content arose after another editor noted this control on the talkpage in a post that hasn't been contended). GotR follows this with an edit made with no edit summary, marked as a minor edit, in which they again put in their desired header. When I reverted this 'minor edit', GotR reverted this with the edit summary "Reverted 1 edit by Chipmunkdavis (talk): CMD, your behaviour is outright WP:OWNERSHIP, as I've already made enough concessions, almost enough to seem like a wuss. (TW)". In my response, I said "If you think I own the page take it elsewhere. You're trying to force in your pet title (including with a claim of reversion, after months) while claiming you're making concessions (which is at any rate irrelevant) and accusing others of ownership." Their response was to say "I shouldn't have to point the paragraph beginning with "in 1935" is more concise in my revision, yet you dastardly RV away because it is not how *you* have always liked it". (During the writing of this report, I accidentally clicked the rollback button on their last edit in the article history, which I then rolled back, which is why there are two rollbacks at the top of the article history. Apologies.)

Their last edit completely ignores the header change and accuses me of reverting away because it's not how I have always liked it, which is despite the fact that I explained my position on both the talkpage and in edit summaries, and seems rather WP:POT from someone complaining about how they've had to make concessions. In the meantime they've tried to game the system, using misleading claims of reversions and other unhelpful edit summaries to put in their preferred changes, marked edits as minor when they're clearly not (and this is in no way a new user who doesn't know our guidelines), and responded the reversion of these by accusing me of ownership. This is actually a rather mild incident in the history of a user who has previously directly called another editor "vermin" and has used their userpage to launch their own (quite long) personal attack against me. It is however a good indication that this user is still greatly emotionally invested in the kind of issues which compelled them to launch such blatant personal attacks at earlier points (which I let slide at the time, and I believe others did too, and I'm not aware of any prior reports on this user). That they say they feel like they are going to be seen "like a wuss" in this latest exchange highlights this continued emotional investment, and that they discuss giving concessions shows a rather battleground-minded mentality rather than a consensus-minded one. I'm not allowed to discuss this with the user on their talkpage, as I'm on a list of banned users (despite not having ever actually posted on their talkpage before). GotR has been entangled in this China/Taiwan from almost the beginning of their editing history (their first post on the topic included an allegation of "possibly wilfully deceitful", and as shown above it only went downhill from there), and clearly needs to be separated from it. However, they do a lot of work elsewhere, and I reckon they can be productive away from this area, which seems to push too many of their buttons. CMD (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Ah, the turncoat", is it (quoting Adm. Gerard DuGalle)? Shall I display the definition of 'concession' or will you tacitly admit forthright that I have made far more of them then you ever were capable of making? Shall I point out that I have deferred to Readin's judgment on naming issues frequently? Need I mention the change of my AWB settings after complaints (not unmerited) by these two? Ought it to go without saying that I removed my tirade against CMD just hours after it was posted and that you have my word that I shall never go to such lengths on my user page again? The list goes on, but now is the work-week, not Friday night when I may have more time to produce evidence. Also, every piece of evidence CMD provides that is not related to the Scarlborough Shoal is old. Seriously old. If there are significantly more editors with this "if it rains today, it most certainly will tomorrow" mindset on this site, I fear for the future of the Project.

Focusing on Scarlborough Shoal, "my last edit" moved away from using 'Chinese claims' in the header and shifted to a metonymic style which is very commonplace in press reports? The "wuss" remark was made because if I had made amends without any second thoughts whatsoever, I would be totally discarding my principles. I am willing to shift attention away from that page provided no reverts are made to the text below the section headers.

Turning matters away from myself, I begin with CMD's sloppy reverts, which have no regard for anything other than the header, are self-evident in their demonstration of article ownership. Then, of course, there's his total refusal, outside of matters dating to or before the KMT retreat to Taipei and China's seat at the UN, to back any naming configuration other than what has been demonstrated to be the highly politically charged "Taiwan is definitely not a part of China". GotR ^Talk 04:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi CMD. I don't know anything about the incident you mention, but I'd like to say that GotR is an extremely valuable wikipedia contributor (just check out his contributions!), and that I have collaborated with him successfully many times and it's always been an enjoyable experience to work with him. I hope the 2 of you can work this out. Cheers, Azylber (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Before anyone attempts to assail Azylber as being "ignorant", I should emphasise again that I am willing to make amends to those who do not simply perform wholesale, not justified-item-by-item, reverts. GotR ^Talk 04:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really worried if anyone thinks I'm ignorant on this issue, and in fact I started by stating my own ignorance. The only thing that I am worried about, is when I see a valuable contributor like you, being accused of pretty serious stuff. Hence my intervention. Azylber (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

@GotR: I'm capable of engaging in discussion, and I also don't think it'll help you here to open with yet another personal attack (and again I note consensus isn't about a balance of concessions). You can mention what you want, but unless you explain how it's relevant, which you haven't, it doesn't mean much, especially as it doesn't address many of the issues I posted above (and yes your last edit didn't put back Chinese claims in, but it was still a totally new header which you again didn't discuss on talk despite opposition. In addition, arguing it should be used based on commonness of press reports is quite poor considering that China and Taiwan are far more common). You removed your tirade because after making it you went and pointed it out to me on another talkpage, after which I noted it was simply a personal attack. That you removed it with "point made" after this doesn't sell good intentions. It has been explained to you, many times, that in the vast majority of the English speaking world speaking of Taiwan as separate from China is simply common practice, and isn't remotely political. It's impressive that after all this time you still don't seem to understand that.

@Azylber: They may well be valuable, as noted I'm not familiar with many of their edits. However, it seems that in this topic area in particular there's a lot of disruptive behaviour, well illustrated in that at the very beginning of their reply above they decide to engage in another attack, alleging that I can't make concessions. CMD (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That you fail to acknowledge my numerous other retreats from pure ideology is in itself a statement, even understatement, of your Texas sharpshooter/cherry-picking approach to discussion. That you continue to deny (without diffs) the extent of your obstructionism is troubling. It has been explained to you, CMD, many times, that a one-size-fits-all approach to naming, or anything for that matter, is self-destructive, and that whatever the hell the main articles on the two states officially known as the PRC and the ROC are titled is no licence (in particular I quote Nil Einne) to wage unrelenting name-changing campaigns, even blissfully neglecting any subtleties or details in the process, is far more disruptive than anything I have done. In case anyone has not noticed, I almost solely use common names in text (infoboxes do not count), so the claim I somehow ignore common names all the time is false. GotR ^Talk 05:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

N.B. Just to note I'm aware I was mentioned here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned any retreats from ideology either way. As for any denial I have to make over supposed obstructionism, I haven't seen any diffs showing any obstructive behaviour, and I'm unsure of what exactly I'm obstructing. If I have been on a unrelenting name-changing campaign, I've done a pretty poor job of it (one would suspect if I was on such a campaign, I'd at least try to rename prominent articles like Economy of the People's Republic of China, especially in light that its counterpart is Economy of Taiwan, but I haven't). As for your claim to "almost solely use common names in text", you've been on a streak of article creation, where you use "People's Republic of China" in the article text. Are you going to address the issues I mentioned in my opening post, or just continue to write about me? CMD (talk)

I've already addressed the opening post pretty thoroughly, and I only use "People's Republic of China" for locations in municipal districts and a few subdistricts, so yet again you misrepresent my work and my words. If you don't believe this, I suggest you go through all 100 of my creations in the last 6 weeks; we will see who that you are totally ignorant of common sense notions such as the Law of large numbers. I won't provide diffs unless someone else asks for them, but we can begin with that CFD renaming of Category:Islands of Fujian, Republic of China along with other move de-Sinification move requests you have participated in; the list goes on. GotR ^Talk 18:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There's been no address of the misuse of the minor edit option, the putting of changes back in months later under the summary of a revert, and the doing all of this despite two users arguing against on the talkpage. As for misrepresentation of work and words, I simply looked at the most recent contributions you made. You shouldn't expect others to go through 100 independent articles. I see you've made yet another attack on me, again unhelpful. CMD (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

1) I am fairly whimsical on whether to check the minor edit option, and it is up to reviewing users to examine the diffs in the first place. This is a non-issue. 2) Because it still quirks me to prefer a header with questionable NPOV over one with unquestionable NPOV and greater brevity. As to the "two user arguing against on the talkpage", perhaps I have not made myself clear that I will defer only to the judgment of Readin, Shrigley, Jiang, and other users with similar centrist views.

"I simply looked at the most recent contributions you made"—just as ridiculous as sampling five Americans and claiming they are representative the US. GotR ^Talk 02:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a page outlining the use of minor edits, ignoring it is not a non-issue. As for only ignoring the talkpage posts outside of a few select users, that's bad practice, and completely against standard WP:dispute resolution procedures. The difference between the five americans and this situation is I didn't take a random sample, I took the most recent edits, made during this discussion. If you're not willing to provide diffs, that's no-one else's problem. CMD (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"The difference between the Five Americans and this situation is I didn't take a random sample"—No, there is no real difference between the Five Americans as the sample size is similarly small and, besides, you just undertook convenience sampling; I've hardly met anyone who has come up with excuses for their irrationality as stupid as yours. And looking at the last 35 of my creations, only 7 (Xieji, Henan, Huilong, Dazu District, Huilong, Liangping County, Huilong, Nanchong, Huilong, Suining, Huilong, Zigong and Huilong Township, Ziyang) do not use the common name at all. One-fifth is quite underwhelming. GotR ^Talk 16:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Another attack? Looking at the most recent contributions isn't taking a sample, it's making observations on the most recent contributions. That's all I did, and all I claimed to do. Anyway, if you feel that this equates to "almost solely", that's up to you. Thanks for the figures and links though, very helpful. CMD (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you two noticed that other then some brief comments from Azylber early on and a quick note from me, there have been no other contributions to this thread? Usually that's a sign the discussion doesn't belong at ANI since no administrative action is likely to be forthcoming so it's best to either drop it or take it somewhere else. And I say this barely having read the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(Chuckles). That was obvious from the very start. Especially when we all know that sometimes this forum is used to lynch-mob certain editors; even though I harbour acrimonious sentiment towards some, taking them to AN/I is far below me and, moreover, not productive. Only when the majority of a user's recent editing energies is spent on disruption (wilful or no), and applies to neither me nor CMD, is utilising this forum worth the potential subsequent drama. GotR ^Talk 01:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I would appreciate it if you would advise me where to take this if AN/I is not the right location. As it stands, GotR has edit warred in a new edit to an article, and in this AN/I has basically said that they don't really care for the correct use of minor, hasn't acknowledged the poor use of edit summaries, has stated that they're only going to listen to a few select users and ignore all others (including in the instance mentioned an editor who I don't recall seeing at any of the naming discussions), a position which includes ignoring the talkpage if these select users haven't posted on it, and has made a couple more personal attacks. CMD (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of extremism

I would like to report acts of incivility which are not bordering on an incident. After reviewing the various methods of dispute resolution and arbitration, I have come to the conclusion that this specific conflict does not fall into any other category. I don't think I can take this to RfC because it isn't solely about user conduct, but rather both conduct and content. I already tried to get a third opinion with the helpful user GorgeCustersSabre and his attempts at mediation have been ignored. I don't think it belongs at the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee] because that page insinuates that it is only for conflicts which the community has previously been unable to solve, and this situation hasn't escalated to that level yet. The dispute resolution noticeboard appears to be for disputes which are purely content related. The Mediation Committee also appears to be for disputes which are purely content related, and as a last resort, but this isn't a last resort as I feel this problem can be solved without oversight.

For the past six years or so, the page on Barelvi, which is a religious movement in South Asia, has been a battleground both between detractors who wish to defame this group (mostly through petty vandalism) and supporters who wish to remove any sources which indicate controversy or criticism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor who is a follower of a religious movement editing that movement's page, so long as they edit objectively. This has not been the case with all editors, something which I and others have tried to rectify - for six years. I have recently been subjected to a number of personal attacks due to my edits on this article, and the users who have attacked me personally:

1. Have continued attacking me on other pages, and

2. All have a history of being blocked for either vandalism or uncivil behavior

The content dispute itself isn't that major and wouldn't warrant being brought here on its own, but the antagonistic nature of some comments directed at me has caused me to feel uncomfortable continuing discussion with these editors directly. I would like to notify the administrators of this and request some form of outside intervention, either through warning the editors involved (even myself, if I am found to have conducted myself inappropriately) or another effective means of solving this issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu's explanation

That Barelvi Article was having a consensus version for more than a year see [[9]] and there were minor edits.Neutral editors were keeping and maintaining the Article Objective see the history and version. So I request neutral editors to maintain consensus version.

1.This is high time that Wikipedia should frame a policy to check and examine the role of various editors who have acted in a manner which is fit to be called a WikiJehadi.

2.The case of mezzo mezzo is that he stopped Non Wahabi or general Muslim wikipedians to add the heading, Wahabi Terrorism relations in Wahabi Page where as he is recently involved in an attempt to insert the Just opposite matter in Barelvi Page.It may be noted that Al Qaeda Osama bin Laden including Lashkar and Taliban all have same ideology i.e Wahabism or so called Salafism.A pervert ideology which is responsible to kill lacs of innocents in the world.

So my indirect attribution on a Wahabi as Jehadi are not baseless.

3.The Barelvi Ahle Sunnah ideology is only power which is countering openly and organizing protest against the Terrorism in South Asia and in other parts of the world which is disliked to these People.In the Whole world Sufism or Barelvi are the main victims of these terrorist.Here it is very important to bar Wahabi or Wahabi sympathizer to edit the pages against which their ideals are waging a so called Jehad.

4.The Wahabi authors have always tried their level best to insert their personal opinions and to reduce the importance of all Non Wahabi Pages on wikipedia,in this connection mezzomezo has done his level best in the past to suggest many pages from Barelvi page for Deletion.

5.He has history of engaging in

(a)Bitter debates and in (b)Edit wars with Non Wahabi editors

6.Ultimate agenda of these editors is to save pages of Terrorist ideology and defame his opponents. Msoamu (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo's explanation

Barelvi article

• On January 27th at Talk:Barelvi, I expressed my view that User:Baboon43's affiliation with the Barelvi movement was compromising his objectivity; I based this view on dealing with the article for six years and seeing this before, and my familiarity with English-language discussion boards for this movement on the Internet. My comments seem to have upset him, as he reacted here by accusing me of being a member of a rival religious movement in the region and described my assumptions as ridiculous. I assured Baboon43 that I am not a member of any religious or political movement - though even if I was, that doesn't restrict me from editing the article in and of itself, nor does Baboon43's membership in the Barelvi movement restrict him from editing in and of itself. I also reiterated my view regarding the content dispute; mainly, that Baboon43 is painting all rival religious movements in the region (Deobandi, Ahl al-Hadith and Salafi) as being the same, and calling them Wahhabis, a term for Muslim extremists. This conflicts with established consensuses on all these articles; they are separate movements, even if they (and the Barelvis) agree on some points due to them all being Muslim movements. Baboon43 expressed his feelings that my accusations of POV signaled my own POV, that I was trying to assert ownership of the article and that I was accusing him of "hating" other religious groups. I was upset as I felt he was changing the focus of the discussion, and was claiming (what I still uphold are conspiracy theories) that all Muslims who are not Barelvi are united in trying to harm the Barelvi movement, causing me to answer that he can't simply reject established scholarly consensus across several articles in favor of conspiracy theories about entire countries trying to sabatoge his movement. He once again accused me of belonging to some rival group, of hating Barelvis and of edit warring, which was not my intent. GorgeCustersSabre made a sincere attempt to mediate the situation after I requested him informally to arbitrate, as he had earlier expressed legitimate concern about edits, including my own.
• On January 28th, I attempted to pull the discussion on Talk:Barelvi back to the content instead of the conduct and requested a review of my own disputed edits. Later, there was a rush of IP addressed vandalizing the article in ways which were insulting to the Barelvi movement, followed by a series of deletions and rewrites by another IP address from the exact opposite perspective. On February 2nd, I requested that the page be protected due to the spat of edits, but I failed to go to a proper board for such a request; a mistake on my part, in retrospect.
• On February 4th, User:Msoamu - with whom I had fallen into conflict years ago - entered the discussion, calling me a Wahhabi (technically a slur, as it means a Muslim extremist rather than a self-identifying group) and accusing me of:

Engaging in a history of edit wars on the page,

Trying "hundreds of times to vandalize this page,"

Trying "to show this Moderate movement in Bad light from various angles,"

That I "must has received many warnings in the past" (I haven't received any),

I edited the article according to some hidden agenda,

I consider Barelvis to be heretics, and

Called me a Jehadist, an accusation which could have serious implications for my personal and professional life. This accusation in particular could hurt my own self and my family, as my IP address could be associated with violent fundamentalism, and I have no connections to that whatsoever.

• Msoamu reverted edits GorgeCustersSabre, about which GorgeCustersSabre inquired on the talk page. Msoamu's answer was to again simply accuse me of vandalism, edit warring and breaking some imaginary consensus. He never actually gave any reasons why my edits or the sources I added were inappripriate.
• Msoamu accused me of having a history of vandalism, edit warring and insinuated that I should not be allowed to edit the Barelvi page because I am not a follower of the movement.
• Finally, I just expressed my desire for arbitration, for which Baboon43 seemed to mock me.
• It is worth noting that User:Saqibsandhu, whom I don't know and have never had contact with, did defend my disputed edits as sound and well referenced and called for an end to the personal attacks.

Wahhabi article

• Concerned about Baboon43's intentions and his history of being blocked for disruption, I went to the Wahhabi article as he had been challenging the scholarly consensus on that group over on Talk:Barelvi. As I expected, I found him there expressing more opinions which I disagreed with from an editorial standpoint. On February 2nd, Baboon43 posted a comment which seemed to insinuate that all prominent persons from Saudi Arabia must be members of the Wahhabi movement. On February 4th, I again expressed my belief that Baboon43 was promoting conspiracy theories, and that I found (and still do find) his comments to border on racism; how can we say that all famous people from a country of 25 million are members of an extremist religious movement? It's like saying that all famous Cubans are communists, it's not an appropriate statement to make. Baboon43's reaction was to accuse me of being a Wahhabi and of not having knowledge on the subject. Again, even if I were a Wahhabi - and I told him before this that I am NOT a part of any movement, but even if I were - I would still be allowed to edit articles. Likewise, even if I have no knowledge of the issue, I can contribute to articles. The constant accusations of being a religious extremist, however, are very problematic. I informed Baboon43 that I wanted arbitration, and he responded by more or less mocking me for it.

Further discussions

The accusations of being a Jihadist can potentially threaten the safety of my family and the stability of of personal and professional life. It sullies my image as a Wikipedia contributor and will really endanger my family if my IP address or details of my identity are ever known. Above all thing, I would like this issue addressed; not only do I feel the slander should be removed, but I would also like to know if that edit can even be removed from the article's history.

In addition to User:GorgeCustersSabre, I would also like to call User:MatthewVanitas as a witness to this, as he helped working out some of the POV issues on the Barelvi article six years ago, and thus knows how far back these issues go. In the name of fairness, User:Shabiha has also monitored this page for years; as a Barelvi editor who has also criticized my edits in the past, perhaps he can provide another point of view on this dispute. Lastly, this User:Saqibsandhu person seems concerned and perhaps can provide some insight. I will inform Baboon43 and Msoamu about this incident report. I look forward to a resolution to all this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Having looked at just the evidence of racial speculation, that is totally unacceptable and there should be sanctions for that alone - I cannot see where they directly called you a Jihadist, but then I don't know enough about the Islamic religion/culture to determine which of these other speculations is essentially calling you a Jihadist. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Accusing somebody of being an "online Salafi Jihadist" is very uncivilised.I would like to request User:Msoamu to stop personal attacks and calling others extremists and please bring solid and neutral references like User:MezzoMezzo did if you want to contribute on page.Revert war and personal attack is not a good policy if you have any objection on edits by Mezzo Mezzo bring it on talk page and discuss it with fellow editors. Recently when User:GorgeCustersSabre and User:MatthewVanitas challenged my edit about Shrine worshipping we solved the matter on talk page( even though still I can provide lots of 3rd party references to prove my self right but they kept my edit also and added a neutral statement that "opponents call it shrine worshipng". we have to make this article more balanced not a battle ground to push your POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talk • contribs) 09:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• User:Lukeno94: Msoamu called me a Jihadist here when he said: "I appeal and invite neutral authors to come forward and Save this Page from Online Salafi Jehadist like mezzo mezzo." It's the last paragraph of his edit. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear friends, MezzoMezzo is right that he has been subjected to severe and unfair personal attack. I have not always agreed with MezzoMezzo's edits, including a few reversions of my own edits, but he tries hard to be objective and he always explains why he is making the edits. That's the right way of going about things on Wikipedia. I commend him. Differences can be sorted collegially on talk pages. Accusations of extremism against him are unwarranted and ruin the good will we are all trying to create.Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The SaquibSandhu is not neutral and is supporter of Wahabism. His edits reflects his dis likeness to Barelvi movement.As mezzo mezzo has alleged that Article was having any POV,let it should be examined by User:GorgeCustersSabre or by any other neutral editor.This false and baseless allegation does not give right to him to insert his own POV.Msoamu (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Protip: Don't insult the person who AN/Ied you at AN/I, or make allegations about their beliefs. Perfect way to lose your case immediately. Also, can you provide evidence in your defence about him pushing his POV? Also, please tell me what "SaquibSandhu" means? Is this an insult or derogatory name, or what exactly, as I see no user listed here with that name? Lukeno94 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like it might be a name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

mezzo how can you complain about personal attacks when you are behind it..not only do you personally attack others but you turn the discussion personal when you disagree with editors..you have gone out of your way to confront me in multiple pages..you even said you would add relevant articles on your watch list…wahabi is not a term for muslim extremists if you go to the Wahhabi article its simply a movement..i never claimed all muslims who are not barelvi are united in harming barelvi movement…i never said all famous ppl are wahabi stop making things up..mezzo called me a racist for stating the fact that saudi arabias royal family are wahabis as clearly written in historical references see Emirate of Diriyah..mezzo disagreed with my comments on Talk:Barelvi so he quickly entered into discussion by lookng at my contributions at Talk:Wahhabi his excuse was that i have a history of 2 blocks last year therefore he has the right to hound me..he then began personal insults calling me racist [10]..admins need to sanction mezzo for his hounding and personal attacks on myself Baboon43 (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Baboon43: Wahhabi is a Muslim extremist movement; you calling me that is an insult and is clearly meant as one. I will not discuss that topic further than that; attempts to deny it are silly enough to warrant being ignored. As for Al-Waleed bin Talal, then this is a content issue but it's still racist. You're saying all members of the House of Saud are also members of an extremist religious movement? Again, can I now say that anyone from the family of Hugo Chavez believes in authoritarianism? This is also different from your previous statement where you seem to implicate any Saudi involvement in projects equals Wahhabi involvement. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it came off.

Anyway, I'm still more concerned about your conduct than the content. The content issue could be sorted out if it weren't for your conduct which makes me uncomfortable in dealing with you outside of a controlled environment like this. As for my own conduct then let's allow outside mediators to look at it and comment here. I called your comment bordering on racism. I didn't say it's full on 100% racism, and I didn't say anything about your personally. The link in the previous sentence to my edit is proof of that. And as for following you then of course I watched those pages. You have a history of vandalism proven by your block log and your standoffish nature was a cause for concern. If you or anyone else can show me explicitly in Wikipedia guidelines that my behavior was incorrect then of course I will stop, but to my knowledge I haven't broken any rules; you've broken a number already. That's ok as all editors make mistakes but the big problem is that you seem completely unwilling to engage with me personally in a civil manner, hence my seeking of outside intervention. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu: Which allegations are false? You called me a jihadist here. I work for a reputable institution and if such allegations were ever to be tied to my identity, it could have ramifications at work; nobody wants to be associated with that, nor do governments in the civilized world tolerate such people. Thus, your comment runs the risk of putting both me and my family in danger. And without reason! I disagreed with your editing as I found it disruptive; where do you get off accusing me of religious fundamentalism? The content about which we were disputing wasn't even related to politics! Now you sit here insulting another editor who didn't even get involved other than to comment in opposition to your behavior, calling him a Wahhabi supporter too. How you do even know that? The person whose name you mentioned hasn't given his own opinions in any discussion or even engaed in comprehensive edits, he just disagreed with you. The whole world is full of Wahhabis now unless they all bend to your viewpoint?

And how can you claim that you want neutral editors like GorgeCustersSabre to monitor the article when every single edit he's made to the article has been reverted by yourself without discussion or explanation? It almost seems like you're just trolling now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

wahabi saudi clerics have denounced terrorism so no your wrong..wahabism is a movement out of saudi arabia and is not synonym to extremism..why don't you look at your own personal attacks calling me barelvi? its time you take your own advice by halting uncivil behaviour..then maybe after that you can direct other editors about civility. Baboon43 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Msaamu: How do you know that I am Wahabbi ?? this is again a personal attack from you. You were removing a referenced material and I was asking you to discuss it on talk page is that make me Wahabi ?? There are lots of people every where in world who disagree with barelvi movement means they all are Wahabi? And about my neutrality you can see on talk page the stuff I provided there was from a third party not from Pro Barelvi or wahabi site and even after that when GorgeCustersSabre tried to make the wording neutral did I stopped ?? see the talk page. Please do some "Real contribution" instead of personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem ready to discuss content in a civil manner, Baboon43. Will we be able to do this without name calling?

Calling someone a Barelvi, by the way, is not a personal attack. There is a tremendous difference between ascribing someone to that movement and calling them a Wahhabi. I think everyone else here will agree. Are we ready to move on? (For admins viewing this, I still don't consider the issue with Msoamu finished at all - I would still like my personal concerns addressed, as well as his further personal attacks on others right here on this noticeboard, if possible.) MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Unless any of you have publicly stated what your religious views are, I don't think it's appropriate to claim anyone is part of ANY religious movement, regardless of what type. Obviously, naming someone an extremist (via associating them with an extremist group) is worse, but avoiding that kind of conversation entirely would be the most sensible policy. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I attributed a terminology Online Jehadist to Wahabi Supporters who don't want others to know the real face of their movements.The Wahabi Terrorism relationship is regularly removed by MR.MEZZO MEZZO on the pretext of one and another.See [[11]]

Must See that how Saqibsandhu has just removed [[12]] a Terror word from the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan a Banned terrorist organization of Pakistan.What more evidence one needs ? If not original terrorist, their supporters are here to defend them any how.This is what i tried to show to all neutral editors.

wahabi is a belief its not about being extreme or not..all wahabis are not extremists..wahabis are anti innovation in religion, hostile to sufi groups, some also protect saudi government from criticism..& they follow abdulwahab and mostly ibn taymiyah..there is wahabi sufis...groups like the muslim brotherhood have a mixture of sufi wahabi beliefs as well...saudi arabia was founded on the tenets of wahabism..usually western media mentions wahabis in bad llight but its not always the case..ISNA Americas largest islamic association is influenced by wahabism so how can they be extremist?…every movement has good and bad its not black and white..as far as the name calling question the ball is in your court. Baboon43 (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

User:KissCam and pointless redirects

I'm looking through the contributions of relatively-new user KissCam (talk · contribs) and I see that a majority of them are what appear to be pointless redirects to and/or unlikely search terms/typos for Christen Press. I was actually about to log off, but perhaps someone can figure out what's going on, as well as determine if this user's edits to that and related articles such as this are truly constructive. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I Nuked a bunch of bizarre ones, leaving one possible one. I'll further engage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm confused, what's particularly unconstructive about that diff, Book Antiqua? I appreciate that a player number of infinity is rather odd, but... Regardless of that, I've corrected the squad number. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Qaher-313

I don't know if this is the right forum to address this, apologies if it isn't, but Qaher-313 has become the target of some seriously anti-semitic and homophobic vandalism from 2 different IP editors over the past few hours. [13], [14], [15], [16]. I don't know if page protection is warranted, but because of the content of these edits, I thought it was worth at least having some admins take a look. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for a couple of days. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Both those IPs are static according to the "Geolocate" links and I don't personally see why either of them should get to edit Wikipedia at all. 99.190.148.190 has been given a 31-hour block (not enough, IMO), and I have now given 109.165.175.64 a one-more-and-you're-out warning. I'll try to keep an eye on both. Thank you, Dawn. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC).
  • Also revdel'd the edits in question as they are severe BLP violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Airlineroute.net

There has recently been an ongoing discussion on whether or not http://www.airlineroute.net should be used as a reliable source for listing new destinations/services for an airline. We are trying to reach to a consensus on whether or not we should use that as a source and the discussion has gone stale or lot of editors are having different opinions about. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to put it or we should continue discussing? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to offer any guidance, as you haven't actually provided a link to the discussion in question, but WP:RSN is probably the correct venue for this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link to the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Airlineroute.net.2FRoutesonline.com. Sorry! However, I have already posted this at WP:RSN in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_107#airlineroute.net) but didn't get a clear response. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm fairly sure this isn't an incident needing administrative attention, at the very most, maybe it's an RfC? Village Pump is probably best though. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Block Carpetmuncherrug

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

---

Please indefinitely block Carpetmuncherrug (talk · contribs). The name is a euphemism for a sex act (username block), and he has vandalized. I would do it myself, but I found out about it through something staff-related. Superm401 - Talk 23:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support block. This is a no-brainer. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Done Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:AuggiePaoli

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

---

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

Legal and IRL threats at User:Malik Shabazz's page due to the repeated speedy of an article the editor in question tried and failed to get past AFC. See [17] and [18] §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

RockFanUK (talk · contribs) looks like an obvious sockpuppet to me, and should probably be blocked or at least investigated. As for Auggie, if he's acquitted of socking, he should be blocked for legal threats. —Rutebega (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Requesting aid from an Administrator to keep an eye in a RfC

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

---

There is an open RfC for Juan Manuel de Rosas (see here). I'd like to make the following requests:

1. That an administrator keep an eye on the discussion as to prevent abusive behavior from any user.
2. That an administrator should warn User:MarshalN20 that he is not allowed to remove nor to change someone else's comment.[19][20]

I'd be very glad if someone would be willing to help. --Lecen (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Lecen is associating my username with a personal userpage that has nothing to do with me.

More directly, Lecen is trying ot associate me with the user page of Cambalachero ([21]), but the page's history demonsrates I have not edited it once ([22]).

Lecen's actions constitute an abuse of my username, clearly breaking Wikiquette, and I request that administrators please uphold my position and warn Lecen from inappropriately using the name's of other users in pages that have nothing to do with them.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

MarshalN20 sided with Cambalachero in the article's talk page, in the third opinion discussion, in the dispute resolution noticeboard, in the mediation process and now in the RfC. He is directly involved as part of the "other side" in the dispute. For obvious reasons, that's why I placed his name there. --Lecen (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

He didn't necessarily have to refactor the comment, but attributing him to an argument against his will constitutes a straw man argument, and trying to keep him from removing his name is not helping the encyclopedia. I recommend you let it go. —Rutebega (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As you can see in here he is still taking an active part in the dispute. I could remove his name if he dropped out of the discussion. But he hasn't. --Lecen (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You're not getting the point. As Rutebega mentions, you are "attributing [me] to an argument against [my] will". Cambalachero is a human being separate from me, with separate personal opinions. You cannot hold me liable for his statements. I have my own personal opinions, distinct from Cambalachero's POV. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Marshall, if you don't like the characterization, you should post a comment yourself rather than editing others' comments. Please stop.

Lecen, this seems to be equally problematic, please stop. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Editing others' comments is only allowed in extreme cases. I agree with Toddst that the best thing to do would be to leave a comment under his explaining why you object to his characterization. See WP:TPO for the relevant guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Toddst1. Another editor warned me (see here) that we are not allowed to remove or change others' comments even if we have strong reasons (I wasn't aware until then). To avoid further conflicts, that's why I came here. --Lecen (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Talk:Progressive utilization theory

User:Abhidevananda has written a lengthy section in Talk:Progressive utilization theory#RFCs or just another attack suggesting that my opening of an Rfc on that talk page was done in bad faith. My preference is to have an administrator close that thread (as it is not entirely relevant to the article) and suggest a more appropriate forum to Abhidevananda in which his or her grievances toward me can be addressed. (I guess a review with brief comment on whether or not things seem to be in order with the Rfc would be welcome, too.) Thanks! Location (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC) edited 19:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Wikipedia:Mediation. Anyway, the issue here in brief: for last 2 months so we are trying to solve content dispute. Few users think the article is full of primary sources and is more a manifesto than an encyclopedic entry, other group of editors think these sources are required in this article.
The article has been fully protected twice, first time for 1 week, second time for 1 month. We are trying to reach a consensus before 18 February (that day 1 month full protection will end). Changing header to just "Progressive utilization theory --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Titodutta, I opened this thread in regards to Abhidevananda's allegations of bad faith editing and canvassing on my part. The content dispute is a separate issue that can be addressed there or in a different forum or ANI thread. Location (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Civil pov-pushing, editwarring, misuse of sources, and lengthy talkpage diatribes should be called out for what they are. I would invite uninvolved editors to look at the recent history of the article and decide for themselves whether it's better to have Abhidevananda's version, or the version supported by a bunch of uninvolved editors who commented following the last NPOV noticeboard thread... since the wrong version is protected this time, nothing need change at the end of protection until some other editor is bold enough to try removing unsourced or fringey content, which will be immediately followed by a revert. bobrayner (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Abhidevananda and their 2 allies at the article are acting in good faith, do not understand how Wikipedia works, and sincerely feel persecuted. They are also defending a version which (unbeknownst to them) in violation of a range of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and a 100 miles away from being an encyclopedic article. They have also managed to stop efforts to fix the article. What is needed is for a few more people to tell Abhidevananda this, and then to unlock the article while a few more persons familiar with wikipedia guidelines and policies and enclyclopedic articles visit there for a few weeks and help fix it. North8000 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two WP:FT/N discussions on PROUT and its creator here and here. Almost every article related to Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar is stuffed full of primary-sourced material, with notability problems left and right; and this template evinces an intent to create two or three times more articles than already exist. At the moment the major evidence for Sarkar's notability is the Ananda Marga organization, which has had some political involvement, and a PROUT economist at SMU who made a prediction which got him on the NYT bestseller list and the earned him an Ignobel. Bringing this balloon back to earth is heavily inhibited by a group of crusading SPAs who don't really seem to have a grip on what this project is about. It would be useful to have one of these people working from secondary sources (because the proliferation of Sarkar works tends to mask everything else) but if they can't learn to play by the rules, we are going to have to cut drastically. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I made an attempt to talk to User:Cornelius383 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda Vacanamrtam after about a dozen similar AfD's were tagged with the same comment from him and User:Abhidevananda. The comments were very critical of the community, censorship & conspiracy directed, and not relating to the actual AfD, the article, or the problems other editors have cited over policy concerns. Incivility has been noted by a few editors such as User:Garamond Lethe at User:Abhidevananda#Time to turn it down a notch. I have to agree with User:North8000's comment about them likely feeling extremely persecuted and not being aware of the consequences of their actions and how wiki-policy works. On the other hand, there are AfD's from last week where editors tried to explain to them the process and I've seen no sign or attempt from either editor to show a willingness to look at the policies. As noted at the SPI, I find the possibility of WP:MEATPUPPETRY worrying. Mentorship and talking has already been offered. Unless this is some sort of new tactic I don't foresee having a time-effective third offer to explain things be a meaningful option that will likely net any result. Mkdw^talk 11:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have just made another try at explaining to Abhidevananda what might be more efficient methods of making defendable articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC) .

I am beginning to believe that some sort of action needs to be taken. For example, anyone attempting to resolve the dispute in PROUT is met with wall-of-text replies claiming bad faith in any number of ways (e.g. [23]). What are our options? Location (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The most effective action will be to find consensus on the minor articles. Once they are dealt of, the RfC on the remaining major ones can reach conclusion. I would urge those who think the whole overall subject nonsense to not try to eliminate everything, or almost everything. AfD can, after all, carry out an enforceable redirect or merge, but this requires there remaining some sort of main article. This has not yet spread into other subjects, as some causes have, so the disruption is limited. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There are, unfortunately, several more book articles that I expect to nominate for deletion (although I'm going to turn down the rate so as to give the folks at AfD a bit of a rest). Once those are nominated I'll be looking at the rest of the peripheral articles. However, I would be opposed to trying to delete the Sarkar bio article, PROUT or Ananda Marga. All three of those articles have massive issues, but they're all notable and fixable. GaramondLethe 07:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The advocates there are very hard to talk to. Efforts to make the article Wikipedian are taken as attacks against "the cause". North8000 (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the criteria for speedy deletion, G11, is "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Though there is no point in doing it at CSD, because there would be opposition, it is a reasonable basis for AfD also: to delete an unfixable article and start over. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The question at AfD would be whether to replace the problematic article with a different version, right? We have one ready to go on the talk page at PROUT. I'll try to hurry along my evaluation of the rest of the minor articles, but I could see the AfD process on those stretching out for weeks. There's no hurry, of course, but others might not want to wait for that process to finish. GaramondLethe 17:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wonchop

Earlier this evening I opened up a thread at WP:DRN concerning the behavior of Wonchop (talk · contribs) (see WP:DRN#User talk:Wonchop until it inevitably is archived) in regards to how he has ignored any attempt at communication over the past several years (he has only ever made five edits to the user talk space, three of which were arguing with me). I have been attempting to talk to him over edits on pages we both regularly edit concerning reliable sources, using Wikipedia's internal styles and translations, and discussing his unexplained reverts of some of my edits on another page. Other than the one time he responded to me on his talk page, this has been the only response.

I'm honestly not sure how to proceed anymore. He's ignored all attempts at communication until I brought it to a project page where he saw fit to rattle off things he was pissed off about, which I've attempted to explain, but his response at DRN shows he's not going to give a shit. Apparently this is not a DRN issue (I didn't realize "dispute" was limited to content and not interpersonal), and I don't want to go through RFC/U to lead to an eventual RFAR or ban because his contributions are fine save for the refusal to go by the internal styles despite (my) requests that he do so.

What should be done?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just not that talkative, okay? To me, the talk section is more or less just a bit where I get told stuff like 'oh your link was to a disambiguation page' or 'orphaned images' or some other stuff about edits I apparently shouldn't have made, where I'm more or less 'k then' and go about my business. Just accept that and move on. You're starting to come across like an obsessive stalker.Wonchop (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We typically encourage editors to avoid those with whom they can't see eye to eye most of the time. You'd probably be best simply breaking off direct communication and taking any future concerns directly to the talk pages of affected articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a two part issue. I've interacted with Wonchop in the past, and while I do wish he would communicate more, he typically drops it if you push the issue much, so it's never been much of an issue. Conversely, I've seen Ryulong come down really hard on various users on "not-so-serious" issues, so it's no wonder a relatively quiet user like Wonchop would rather not engage him as well.

I don't think either side is bad enough to warrant any sort of action or anything. Wonchop, if you're going to push against Ryulong on certain things, you really need to be prepared to discuss things with him. Ryulong, you could really help the process by being a little more approachable. If Wonchop isn't pushing that hard against Ryulong (Like with how Wonchop interacts with me) then no action is necessary. If you guys can't handle this, then it'd probably be best to follow Thumperward's advice above. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't do much when Wonchop and I are the only editors on a page. I've asked such minor things of him to do in his future edits, but he constantly ignores the request and continues to edit in the way I asked him not to. For example, in December, I posted this message in regards to the edits seen in this diff. A week later, he performs a similar edit and I admittedly get exasperated and leave him another message kindly requesting he take note of the translations in use on Wikipedia. I don't know why he ignored me the first time around, and the fact that he's been ignoring this simple request since at then December is the root of my problem. Wonchop is a great editor but I should not have to clean up after him so pages match house style just because he disagrees with the existing translations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouting at someone for making a good-faith mistake is bad form. I can't see anything particularly bad in either diff - yes, they don't use the best grammar in the world, and yes, they may be incorrect in a couple of places, but fix them and don't make this much fuss over them. Typing an all-caps or mostly-caps edit summary won't help anyone, and you've done it time and time again.[24][25] Make the changes, notify him of his mistakes politely, then move on. If you work together, even without talking to each other directly, you will both be much happier. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Those impolite actions you refer to have only happened after months of polite requests to make the changes. Every message on his talk page is more civil than I am in the edit summaries, but he simply will not comply over this issue.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• I understand your frustration, but there's no excuse for using shouty, quasi-aggressive edit summaries. Certainly not to an individual whom I'm pretty sure is acting in good faith. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Lukeno94's very sensible comments. Ryulong: what administrator action are you seeking? While it may appear that a small minority of Wonchop's edits may possibly be construed as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, I cannot see any reasons for administrator action here.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That's where I'm at too. Nothing has escalated far enough to warrant any Admin action, which is why all I really could say was my "Wonchop, you need to discuss when you outright challenge Ryulong's edits, and Ryulong, you need to be more approachable, regardless of how upsetting you find other's actions" type comment. I can't really see anything coming from this discussion other than if, in the future, things escalate to breaking WP:3RR or Incivility/WP:NPA rules, then I guess this discussion could show that both editors were in fact previously aware and warned about their behavior... Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attack by User:STSC

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

---

User:STSC made a personal attack "As you may notice, the same old bully boys and hooligans are still active there!"[26] (emphasis added) Also please notice this user's tendentious edit to an article under discretionary sanctions.[27]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Since these edits were made on my talk page, i would like to say a few things. I believe the remark should be taken in the spirit and the context it was given. I was congratulating STSC on being directly quoted by Foreign Policy magazine in one of their articles. That quote was made in 2010, and is irrelevant now. I think it was a huge deal to be quoted in such a prestigious magazine, and in no way felt like STSC was attacking anyone. I have been at the receiving end of a lot of personal attacks, so i have some experience on how that feels like. This is an example.

Also, i have had no contact with STSC or Phoenix7777 before this. It seems to me, i may be wrong, that the latter went through the contributions of the former, looking for literally anything that might be objectionable, (which i am pretty sure is not the proper way to behave) and in this case, completely ignored the context of the conversation. Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

User:STSC edited quite recently to Senkaku Islands articles, and the user's all of the edits to the articles were reverted. "the same old bully boys and hooligans are still active there!" shows current personal attack to the relevant users.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Nickst

User:Nickst has been edit warring over a CSD template on "his" page, for which an ANEW thread has already been started. Having been unsuccessful at an AfD of an article he created after it was deleted in a deletion discussion, he seems to have started a WP:POINTY rival AfD, apparently connecting my comments at the AfD with the fact I edited the Czech Footballer of the Year article yesterday in order to select this particular article. He has used this "rival AfD" to use arguments against "his" IFFHS article, against this other one. He has subsequently targeted the three users !voting keep at the Czech Footballer of the Year AfD [28] [29] [30] and WP:Canvassing them to try to support his position in the original AfD. I feel the behaviour of this user is very disruptive and he is trying to game the system, subsequently wasting the time of other Wikipedians. C679 20:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Cloudz679 try to speedy delete article with 11 interwikies and many reliable secondary sources. Hidden vandalism because it is WP:PERSONAL. My is meaning that I am the main contributor. I invite all for discussion of these aricles from Category:Association football trophies and awards and template {{National Footballer of the Year}}. We need to keep them all or delete all. No logic to delete only one which was updated and sourced by me. NickSt (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Nick, as you have been told multiple times, you need to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your "all-or-nothing" mentality shows that you comprehensively fail to understand how notability works. GiantSnowman 21:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Giant, give me the reason why IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper is not notable award, but Czech Footballer of the Year is notable. NickSt (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been explained multiple times across both AfDs - I genuinely despair. I am about to lose my rag so pretty much logging off for the night. Please, drop the stick and move on to something more productive. GiantSnowman 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid argument in this case. I suggest the Giant Snowman actually read and comprehend the essay rather than assuming its contents. Sepsis II (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Note - I am INVOLVED as I !voted 'delete' at this AfD on an article Nick created and have been engaging with him all day on the matter - however I still want to state that I believe his editing is concerning, he seems to harrass anyone who dares suggest an article he created (or as he describes it, "my article", violating OWNership) is non-notable, and I agree that this AfD is POINTy. GiantSnowman 21:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Also involved (as one of those canvassed), but endorse what has been stated by GiantSnowman and Cloudz679. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I'm involved too as I'm one of those who was "canvassed". For my part though I was asked by NickSt (an editor with whom I have hitherto had no dealings) to give my opinion on the AfD for IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper with NickSt not pushing me specifically to vote in any particular way. I ignored the request as I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the matter and nothing more was said. As far as I'm concerned my involvement was something and nothing and NickSt's comment on my talk page didn't bother me in the slightest. I have no involvement in any other part of this and so can't comment on other issues surrounding this incident. Cheers. Keresaspa (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have closed the Czech Footballer of the Year AfD as "keep per WP:POINT". If I see one more disruptive edit from Nickst, I will happily block for that disruption / the edit-warring / removing CSD tags on an article Nickst had created. I suggest Nickst reads up on what vandalism and personal attacks actually are, since nominating an article at AfD is neither. I note that Nickst ignored the consensus at the DRV that " once you have something worthwhile you can bring the draft back to DRV for review." Bencherlite^Talk 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Disruptive edit? Block? Czech Footballer of the Year is notable award but IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper is no? Ok! I don't understand WP:GNG in such case. I am leaving the project due to deletion of the IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper, article with 11 interwikies and many reliable secondary sources. Good luck to write about sports awards without me. NickSt (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You can have a thousand secondary sources and still not have any notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Déjà vu. C679 21:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Real Housewives of something or other

24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey&action=history

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The editor Jac16888 Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. is on a rampage destroying years-worth of work that has been done on ALL of The Real Housewives Pages. I could use a little HELP please. I nicely begged that the matter go to talk and consensus, but I was met with an edit-war deletion of my undoing work and the comment, "rubbish". HELP PLEASE. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You should start a new section when creating a topic here. I've taken the liberty of doing this for you so this topic is not confused with the above conversation. This whole debacle doesn't belong on AN/I. It is a run-of-the-mill content dispute and a basic slow moving edit war. You communicated with the user you're in a dispute with once. No attempts at a discussion were made on any of the article talk pages or anywhere else as far as I can tell. "Begging" or asking someone nicely via an edit summary is not an attempt at dispute resolution. If you can navigate to AN/I and plead for help, you can certainly open up a discussion on the relevant talk page yourself. If and when that doesn't work, take the next step and ask for a third party opinion. If and when that doesn't work, go through the next step. Administrators step in when there are behavioral issues, not a petty fight over some unsourced quotes. Incidentally, the quotes probably should be removed because they are unsourced and every one of those articles looks like a fan's webpage. Random, out of context quotes don't add anything substantial to those articles. It may be years worth of work but it's unencyclopaedic and likely remained around for years because most editors don't want to get involved with those kinds of pages for this very reason. Pinkadelica^♣ 07:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you and sorry if I put this in the wrong place. Yes-I would like a third-party discussion. I do not know exactly where to find it. Finding the appropriate page to talk about this matter is confusing as well because it involves a few editors and several different topics, The Real Housewives of New York, "..."New Jersey, Atlanta...24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Also-yes, they appear to be random quotes, but they are not that they are more like title-cards or slogans. The term "quote" is being used somewhat incorrectly here. The,(what appears to be random unsourced quotes) have been removed, and disputed previously and after a consensus was reached and an understanding about the value of the material was hashed-out, they were allowed to stay. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Without going into what I think is material of debatable encyclopedic value, you can ask for help from a third opinion or take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Blackmane (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've weighed in on the content dispute—the IP here is 100% correct, and those quotations need to be removed per WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I've opened a section on the talk page, so that hopefully we can make the other editors see the problem before I revert and re-remove them. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for attention to the problem. Of course I disagree that they are quotations. Before I try to explain this any further I'm going to try and locate the discussion. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

THANK-YOU-but what I really think we need is the DRN24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC) But in the meantime the TALK page is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey#Signature.2FTitle-Card_Quotations24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, Qwyrxian the IP is the one restoring the quotes. Secondly anybody who legimitately believes these quotes belong on Wikipedia does not belong here themselves--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Also while I'm here I'd like to point this rather epic essay the OP is also edit-warring over [31]--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? What I'm warring-over id wholesale deletion of encyclopaedic information by editors who act more like bots than English-speaking humans.24.0.133.234 (talk) May I point-out that since this topic has been moved to the talk page that the other editor User:Jac16888 has DELETED it TWICE already!(on the talk page)---no need for that at all and it of course makes the discussion harder to maintain.24.0.133.234 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Copy and pasting several blocks of discussion in their entirety, not including any formatting except your own is not helpful - a link is more than sufficient, and you have yet to give any legimimate explanation as to why exactly this content is remotely encyclopedic--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm now involved in the content dispute, but if 24.0.133.234 is edit warring across multiple pages, in both cases to include material that is clearly not encyclopedic, another admin may want to consider a block. In particular, I recommend perusal of the IP's talk page, as he seems to be calling editors who remove information from Wikipedia as "bot-like" and calling this a "war", without realizing that, in fact, simply because something is true does not mean it belongs in an encyclopdia. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note pages involved also include:The Real Housewives of New York City, The Real Housewives of Orange County, The Real Housewives of Miami, The Real Housewives of D.C. and The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that you are referring to me since I have made those statements. Thank-you for giving this matter your attention, but your reasoning as to why I think the deleted material should be on Wikipedia is incorrect. I was not the first person to call this a war. I have posted the reasons why the info. belongs on Wikipedia repeatedly. One-it has been deleted and restored by admim. before. Two-Wikipedia is the ONLY place where a researcher could obtain easy-access to the signature quotes. And media, journalists, blogs...HAVE used Wikipedia to obtain the info. for years. Just because there is a comprehension problem does not mean that more Wiki-obsessed editors can rule the day does it?24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Two points really, what is the encyclopedic significance of these quotes and more importantly, where are they sourced from. Lack of encyclopedic significance and sourcing can only lead to the removal of this material. The quotes are unencyclopedic rubbish from a crappy reality tv show. Whether other people come to get information from Wikipedia is not justification to include unencyclopedic rubbish. Oh, and I've split the section below, less confusing that way. Blackmane (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Blackmane for the split, really confusing trying to work out what was going on, with this IP editor's walls of (often incoherent) text, edited together with sigs in the middle, hard to follow really. Oh and I totally support your stance and reasoning on the above. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Foulksrath Castle

(edit conflict)***Oh dear, this really does require ADMIN attention, due to WP:OWN, IDHT, BATTLEGROUND, SOCK oh and EDITWAR behaviour. Please deal with this person before it gets (more) out of hand.
Paul hopkins777 (talk · contribs)
24.0.133.234 (talk · contribs · count)
Basically the user identifies as the owner of Foulksrath Castle which thus allows them to write about it in whatever way they see fit and remove other editors stuff if they disagree with it,[32] all the while totally ignoring WP policy and other editors' attempts to reason with them.
So they have now stopped logging in, apparently, and continue to make the same mass insertion of non-encyclopaedic gibberish into their article, Foulksrath Castle revision history, which, at the last count stands at seven reinsertions of said material since it was originally published on the 2nd February (3 in the last 12 hours). Depsite other editors courteous requests to respect Wiki policy [33], the person in question seems to have a short fuse and a bit of a temper.[34] And this does not even scratch the surface of what's going on at the "Real Housewives of whatever" articles, pure chaos and confusion from what I can make out.
Please do something before the editor/IP in question starts badghering me on my TP as I was the last one to revert this nonsense at the castle article. Notified here and here. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• To clarify my previous post, it's looking more like a meatpuppet, the IP posting to Ariconte's TP (who xe takes to be Paul Hopkins) traces back to Ireland,[35], whereas the IP 24.0.133.234 (talk · contribs · count) traces to New Jersey. I just don't buy the "I was traipsing around and saw the dispute argument" [36] and comments like "in other words-I myself did not read every single word of an almost epic poem/just skimmed it to get the gist" seem very fishy to me. If the IP didn't read it how does one know its' almost epic?? For info. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The 24 IP seems to edit articles on tv series, so I've no idea how he got to Foulksrath castle, but I think once he got there, he decided to have a little edit war. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur (after a good night's sleep), it just seemed strange that the 24 Ip just appeared, as if by magic, and insisted on reinstating the massive swathes of totally unencyclopaedic text to the castle article, just after Paul hopkins777 desisted. Obviously they feel very strongly about combatting the "imbecilic power-mad, control-freaks" with their deletionist agendas, intent on ruining Wikipedia ;-) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• As a starter for ten, I've fully protected Foulksraith Castle for a week. If the owner wants text adding, he will need to discuss it on the article talk page and reach a consensus with the various editors reverting him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Good job, Elen. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear! I know you are but what am I? I am merely outing some of the people here and they are the ones doing the accusing. And threatening to silence me. Nice try. Re-directing the topic to this castle business? really? FYI I have already explained my involvement in that topic and i have no agenda except to preserve rampant deletion of valuable information and the ruination of Wikipedia by deleting encyclopaedic-worthy info. by bots and people who apparently have no concern for content whatsoever .24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC) The housewives topic has been moved to dispute.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC) And NO I am not identified as the owner of that castle ha ha I wish although it apparently does not have any bathrooms upstairs but who else would know that since the info. was removed? I saw that the owner had posted quite a bit of GOOD info. and it was destroyed. The owner plainly stated that they were the owner and that they intended on helping Wikipedia by adding more info. I attempted to add some references and sources so that the info. could stay24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Guess some people here are looking pretty foolish? Since the wrongness is evident to anyone who is a master of the English language, I guess its about time for someone to come-along and hide THIS discussion ay? Or would anyone care to just admit they are wrong, wrong, and completely wrong? OH-and yes, lets try to intimidate, bully and threaten the editor who is only trying to uphold some content standards on Wikipedia and keep it from being destroyed from within by imbecilic power-mad, control-freaks who obviously do have the agenda of using Wikipedia for their own agendas whatever that may be and I suspect it has something to do with practicing the English language by mascarade-ing as someone who understands English. Am I close? 24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

24.0.133.234, you may have thought you were "trying to uphold some content standards on Wikipedia", but your blind edit-warring restored a huge chunk of copyvio to the article three times. See Talk:Foulksrath Castle#Copyright issue. - Voceditenore (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

RidjalA

Ever since I stepped into the article La Luz del Mundo[37][38] editor RidjalA has not ceased to make personal attacks against me.[39] The user initiated a sockpuppet investigation against me and 2 other editors (without notifying us),[40] and despite the fact that there was no evidence RidjalA continued to make the same accusations to discredit both editors. Yet till this day, the user continues to accuse Fordx12 and me of working for the religious organization without any proof whatsoever.[41] He accuses both editors of wanting to turn the article into a "promotional page",[42] despite the fact that I have expanded the Controversy section. The user has also tried to suppress my opinion on the talk page.[43] The editor has also tried to eliminate an article I created (El Occidental) in order to validate claims against the religious institution.[44] The user has frequently tried to impose his own particular point of view on the article.[45] The user has deliberately included copyrighted material and has refused to rephrase it or allow it to be removed.[46] The user has also deliberately made false attributions to sources in order to keep church leadership "on check".[47]

The article talk page is filled with attacks from RidjalA to both Fordx12 and me. One notable example is the user's accusations that both "editors are being compensated somehow (spiritually and/or financially) by higher-ranking associates" of the church.[48] In this occasion several editors intervened and warned RidjalA of his behavior, but the user continues to make the exact same accusations.[49][50] -- Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, this is becoming ridiculous. Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore have for the past year tried to silence my POV for refusing to follow through with their Ministry of Truth ploy of deleting the controversy section. Fordx12 is admittedly a member of the church (although Ajaxfiore to date refuses to answer whether he is associated with the church), and both these volunteers are very tag-teamish in their opinions against anyone whose POV differs from theirs. When they become frustrated, they begin to launch attacks at me to try and get me blocked (this is the 4th noticeboard I've been dragged into because of these guys).

Ajaxfiore, please be more honest. Since you've stepped into the picture you've been attempting to delete the entire controversy section. When you realized that that didn't work out, you began to "expand" by introducing data that dismissed the claims of abused victims like including minute details that one of the victims' stab wounds were not life-threatening; or that the victim orchestrated an attack on himself to validate his claims; or going as far to try and discredit the author on numerous occasions; you've also made repeated blatant attempts to remove perfectly sourced data that is backed up by the L.A. Times.

There is an ongoing dispute resolution here where there are more details and diffs. Best, RidjalA (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• • After well over a half hour of looking into this one, my initial impression is that this may be a case for WP:BOOMERANG. I will note that I had never heard of this church, or any of these editors previously and am utterly uninvolved - I have rarely edited on religious topics. That said, the attempt to make what looks like an effort to "scrub" the article strikes me as highly suspicious, and the attendant material regarding what appear to be strained attempts to discredit a book and author used as a source also look agenda-driven. The forum shopping (the case is currently still open at the Dispute resolution noticeboard) also does not sit well with me. Ajaxfiore's recent block for edit warring on the article (really, was it THAT urgent to revert?) also gives me pause, per his Talk page. I'd say warnings and/or sanctions, if any, may well go the other way. I look forward to seeing what other members of the editing community make of this ANI case being brought here at this time. Jusdafax 08:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• I am well aware of my actions, and that in several cases I have acted incorrectly. I have been blocked for violating 3RR (RidjalA frequently does this).[51] In my defense, I had misunderstood Wiki policies and confused vandalism and disruptive editing, not to mention the user WikiNuevo made personal attacks against me (which bothered me). I have never attempted to remove the controversy section and I have not removed data from the Los Angeles Times (in fact I rewrote that section to conform to the Los Angeles Times). Regarding the "forum shopping", I inquired about opening a case here from the DRN volunteer and was told that there could be "two separate discussions at DRN and ANI at the same time of both comply with [Wiki policies]" (I did not open the case at DRN).[52] I have also never "dragged" RidjalA to any noticeboard, except for this time. -- Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• The reason I have brought Jorge Erdely's credibility into question is because RidjalA includes chunks of text from the author without paraphrasing (copyvio) and makes outright false attributions to the source. Furthermore, long ago (before I edited the article) it was concluded that Jorge Erdely's website was "as credible as a blog" because it seemed to be put up to "debunk various religions".[53] RidjalA does not mention that I have also replaced other sources from the article, including a PhD dissertation RidjalA complained so much about.[54] RidjalA complained the theses was being used to "downplay" Jorge Erdely.[55] In this case RidjalA was reprimanded for not being "forthcoming and transparent",[56][57] he then removed the post from the noticeboard.[58] He was then warned by an editor of his actions.[59] --- Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Furthermore, I did not add the part about Padilla orchestrating the attack on himself (which provides the POV of the church). As for the other matter, here is what I wrote: "According to Mexican newspaper El Norte, the shallow wounds did not put his life in danger, although he could have died from blood loss." Compare that to RidjalA's contributions.[60] --- Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I was notified via my talkpage about this. The content dispute is dealing with content, I am more than happy with how WP:DRN responded in the past, and have read up on other disputes there. I have full confidence in their ability to decide on those matters. A past DRN discussion is what lead to the current version of the article. Vast swaths of content were deleted, then a DRN discussion started and opinions were exchanged, and things calmed down. You may read such an event here [61] (Last Diff of that is here [62]). The DRN was opened up by RidjalA. Was there a rule violation here?

Since someone mentioned "scrubing" I really fail to see how multiple outside opinions that resulted from that DRN would have missed such an act. Furthermore I find it worrisome that an RfC can be considered breaking the rules, especially when all the editors minus RidjalA on that RfC seem to agree that the author and the unpublished book in question are unreliable and shouldn't be used(Last diff here [63]). I would like clarification, is that a violation of some wiki policy? Am I not to improve articles by scrutinizing sources, finding new ones, removing unreliable ones, and editing content to reflect that and to insure WP:NPOV? If I am mistaken here, please explain it to me.

The removal of the controversy section was suggested by Noleander which then opened up an RfC [64] and then mentioned why he/she didn't want a controversy section [65]. All but two editors, RidjalA and another, agreed that the Controversy section should be merged or otherwise changed into something other than a controversy section(Last Diff here [66]). Was Noleander "scrubbing"?

The issue here isn't content, it's Personal attacks by RidjalA. Another editor told RidjalA to stop his attacks or he'd be reported to ANI, that editor was Maunus and his diff is here [67] a few other editors sided with his assessment, their last Diff (Not including Ajaxfiore's and my own responses) can be found here [68] last diff on the the thread is here [69]. Since then, RidjalA has continued to do the same. See the following diffs [70][71]. These aren't the first times either, These accusations existed before. Audacity recomended that such accusations were to stop [72] and after RidjalA ignored that, he mentioned it again here [73]. That second warning was a result of a complaint from me which is located here with proper diffs of their own [74]. I have told RidjalA over the past months to stop lumping me with Ajaxfiore, to stop accusing me of being part of some Mexican government conspiracy with the church in question. None of that worked.

What am I to do to get him to stop it?

I personally decided to concentrate on content, thus my opening of a discussion in WP:DRN so that we could avoid an edit war. But if that was wrong of me to do, I am more than willing to request it to be closed and continue editing. I cannot control nor predict Ajaxfiore's actions, I am sorry, I just can't. I did not expect this discussion to exist, all I want and wanted is to move forward. I'd be happy just working at WP:DRN on the matter for now. Should these other editors be notified? Fordx12 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In response to Jusdafax, the only evidence of "scrubbing" is the case of RobertRosen, who is currently blocked and removed large amounts of sourced information (including information from the controversy section) from the article.[75] In this case, RidjalA not only endorsed RobertRosen's actions,[76][77] but lied saying that RobertRosen was a "stellar admin" and threatened to ban any editor who added "useless information" to the page.[78] As for the removed information from the controversy sections, he was making "concessions".[79] Ajaxfiore (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

tariqabjotu

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

---

Credible case of admin abuse in respect of consensus required for posting at ITN/C [80]. User has failed to explain or justify actions despite being challenged almost immediately and by multiple users as to the legitimacy of the decision. ﬥ (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC).

What does a decision at ITN have to do with admin powers? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:In the news is fully protected. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that strength of arguments factors into consensus. It's not just a vote. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to the comments I made in that thread pointing out the existence of this referral where I considered the strength of each argument. "The posted blurb is not true" is a particularly strong argument. ﬥ (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that your statement is false. The blurb is "Dell announces it will go private in a $24.4 billion leveraged buyout.". What's incorrect there? --IP98 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• As a "regular" of ITN/C I'd like to strongly defend tariqabjotu. The timely nature of ITN means that we don't have the time to form the level of consensus that you see elsewhere on Wikipedia (a consensus that is often formed more by attrition than agreement). Admins on ITN often have to make judgement calls, and I think this one, where there was a fairly even split in terms of numbers of posters, falls into the degree of latitude that should be afforded to admins on ITN.

It has previously been commented that the posting rate of ITN has been too slow, and that there has been times when ready items have taken too long to be posted to the Main Page. Bringing proceedings against an admin for posting this item, which ultimately just means that the main page no longer mentions a news story from 31 January, seems counterproductive. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• As another "regular" at ITN, I would also like to strongly defend tariqabjotu, for all the reasons stated by LukeSurl above. In a cluocracy I don't see any abuse of power in making a decision on a 50/50 !vote. I've certainly been on the oppose side of such 50/50 splits in the past, but can't imagine how that could possibly warrant an AN/I. Personally I would like to thank Tariq for consistently participating and supporting the ITN process, which at times can become quite nasty. --IP98 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Also note that there's a big different between "admin abuse" and an admin making a questionable reading of consensus. Let's dial down the rhetoric a bit. Besides, he hasn't edited since posting it, so it would be best to wait until he returns and discuss the matter with him then if you have an issue with it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• I must agree that while the decisions at issue here might be questionable, calling it "abuse" is inappropriate. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I'm another ITN regular. Tariqabjotu is excellent at making these tricky edge calls. I opposed the posting in question, but I have no criticism of Tariq's decision-making in deciding to post it. It was a reasonable case, well-made and credibly supported. To describe this as 'abuse' is wild hyperbole. I have no idea who ﬥ is, but I'd advise them to gain more experience, moderate their language, and choose a signature which has Latin characters in it. I also think that Kiril Simeonovski was way off-base in questioning whether Tariq should have admin rights. Nothing in any of the approval calls Tariq has made recently provides a reasonable basis for this. I remain baffled and mildly horrified at the vehemence with which people demand that ITN posts be pulled, or that the admins making them be stripped of their rights. No-one dies because of this stuff. We could all put the internet down and walk away, and it would be fine. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Get over it by no means an abuse of any admin capability. Arguably a strange way to assess consensus but absolutely nothing to do with AN/I. ITN tends to polarise, and has done so quite a bit lately, even to the extent of a lot of heat over Monopoly tokens. This decision, while not necessarily palatable to a few, is just another blip at ITN, it's not earth-shattering. Let's move on folks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• User has failed to explain or justify actions despite being challenged almost immediately and by multiple users as to the legitimacy of the decision. Yes, because I was asleep. And I think it's incredibly easy to infer my time zone from my user page (despite not having updated my time zone in the clock on the top-right corner that most people don't even notice). -- tariqabjotu 18:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Trolling, Edit Warring, Vandalism

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

---

User:72.215.153.100 has been vandalizing (they are a school IP), has been warned many times recently, and has been edit warring at By the Grace of God to read edits they call "constructive". Then, they trolled saying it was constructive and they would report a user who warned them here. Vacation9 19:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Paid editing at Michael Milken

Over at Michael Milken (one of the big-name financial crooks of the 1980s), we have some paid editing by LarryWeisenberg (talk · contribs). This editor writes "My name is Larry Weisenberg, and I am a representative for Michael Milken." His edits generally try to de-emphasize Mr. Milken's criminal record (he did Federal prison time, and now he's out). The current issue started when an anon put "ex-con" in the lede paragraph, and it was removed at "Revision as of 17:35, 23 December 2012 LarryWeisenberg (Removing derisive term that brings negative POV to the article.)" [81]. I suggested using "convicted criminal" instead. Weisenberg didn't like that. So that's out, but I put his Federal prisoner number in the infobox (which is just a bio infobox, not a criminal infobox). Weisenberg didn't like that either. The general trend of these edits seems to be to keep any mention of the criminal history out of the snippet Google displays on searches, and to add various minor items that make Milken look good.

WP:NOPAY would seem to apply. --John Nagle (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Who is this guy to dictate how the article should look? Seems like owning to me by the way he disagrees with you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You "put his Federal prisoner number in the infobox"? Why would you do that? That is not appropriate for a biography, even if a person were to be notable for being a criminal. I think there's more than one issue here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

His federal prison number isn't of any use outside the federal prison system. Britmax (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, removed federal prisoner number, put back "convicted criminal", which is what he's notable for. --John Nagle (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Many many people have been convicted of crimes at various times in their lives. If those convictions are relevant to that person's notability, we include them in their article. Milken's convictions clearly are relevant and are discussed in the body of the article. Putting things like Federal prisoner number or convictions in the infobox are inappropriate, violate our WP:NPOV policy, and suggest that you are editing with an agenda. Whatever crime a person has been convicted of, please try to remain neutral when editing their biography. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems a little unfair to have "convicted criminal" be the very first way an article defines him. That doesn't actually tell us what he did for a living. Strangesad (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's ok, I've fixed it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move forward on that same vein and remove any indication of player/jersey numbers for hockey, soccer, football, baseball and all other sports? Wayne Gretszky look out. I don't see how a number he wore is a problem. Are negative items not allowed. There are some nice things about him in the article. If he is notable for more than his prison conviction, is there a COI in promoting the person's new interests? Makes me wonder if the article should just be removed as not notable. Do we mention every convict or would that be a violation of WP:BLP. Look at the follow up stalking in article Karla Homolka after she was released broadcasting her trail. Nobody is complaining there. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. There is no prisoner number in the infobox of Karla Homolka, and if there was, I would remove it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Any user who admits to being a paid editor should have some setting changed on their account to prohibit editing articles from then on. We need to force these people to only use the talk pages. DreamGuy (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That might make sense if there was a policy that said "paid editing is not allowed". There isn't. And there never will be, now that paid editors and PR professionals have established a firm foothold, thanks to the concerted efforts of some Wikipedians. And more and more people seem to be leveraging their status on Wikipedia into paid "consulting" work. The writing has been on the wall for years, but in the last 18 months things have taken a major turn for the worse. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there is no way "convicted criminal" should appear in the infobox as what a person is known for, it's rude, skirts our BLP policy, and if the guy is best known for being a criminal, the article speaks for itself. Second, I am becoming increasingly concerned at the actions of admins who believe that paid editing should be banned, and act towards non-admins as if paid editing was banned. That is substituting personal judgment for the community's, as the community has not seen fit to ban paid or COI editing. That is a problem as an admin acts as part of the enforcement arm of the community, to the extent there is one.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If they did see fit to do so we would have to ban a few of the Foundation employees as well as the Dear Leader himself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you should be more concerned about the type of editors who insist on tagging every living person ever convicted of a crime as an "ex-con" or "criminal" in the first sentence of their bio than someone making a dime off removing that kind of material.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What Milken is notable for is his participation in the junk bonds scandal. He should be describe neutrally, and his conviction, sentencing and jail time should also be in the lead with equal dryness.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no great sympathy for Miliken, and cringe whenever he makes his annual trips to broadcast booths during baseball season to plug his foundation (which I see as primarily an attempt to rehabilitate his name), but he was notable before the junk bond scandal for basically having invented the junk bond market, and then for the conviction and incredibly large amount of money he had to pay in connection with it. All of that is proper to be in the lede, as long as it is, as lgr says above, neutrally described. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I largely agree with BMK. Milken is a more complicated personality than merely a convicted criminal. However, all this is best discussed on the talk page of the article rather than here. My suggestion is that we let LarryWeisenberg know that, as someone with a clear conflict of interest, he should confine himself to making suggestions, as specific as he prefers, on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. That should take care of the COI. --regentspark (comment) 23:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

However, very few people come here to edit by making suggestions on talk pages. While it isn't an unreasonable suggestion, it may not be reasonable to expect that someone will so confine himself. It's also not an offense against our "rules"; we cannot require him not to edit directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

while I agree that very few people come here only to make suggestions on talk pages, paid editors do have a COI and our wp:coi guideline actively discourages direct editing by editors with a conflict of interest. A useful guideline IMO because it makes paid editing and COI editing less combative. --regentspark (comment) 03:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Others have already pointed this out, but let's make sure there is no confusion about it. Milkin isn't notable for being a convicted criminal. He was very involved with junk bonds, but it is highly misleading to say he was part of the junk bonk scandal. The article should not avoid saying he was convicted, but it should be balanced, with discussion of his contributions as well.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Miliken was very much involved in the junkl bond scandal, and did serve time and paid a humongous fine for it. It's hardly a trvial part of his biography and needs to be dealt with, but in a neutral manner. Leaving it out does not serve the interests of our readers and makes the encycylopedia that much less valuable. The question is not whether it should be in, but how much WP:WEIGHT it should be given. Labelling him a "convicted criminal" in the infobox is too much, but the lede should include it, as it was a significant event both in his life and in the history of stocks and bonds trading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a "behaviorial guideline" that says paid editing is prohibited, WP:NOPAY. What is the status of WP:NOPAY from an enforcement point of view? Are editors blocked for that? I'd thought they were; we had a big flap over this a few months ago on another topic. --John Nagle (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOPAY does not say that paid editing is prohibited. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a guideline. It is not actionable. People can be pointed to it, but admins who block or warn for it are off base.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The junk bonk scandal? That would be interesting...! Britmax (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to throw another voice of agreement in here - the criminal conviction is a secondary feature of the thing he was notable for, and defining him primarily as a criminal is definitely showing a slant! We have a lot of articles that tend to creep this way over time (see eg/ the discussion on Talk:Robert Tappan Morris); I wonder if there's any efficient way we could start digging out some of these long-running BLP issues? Andrew Gray (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me started. This was an outrageous edit for someone supposedly interested in compromise, and if it's indicative of John Nagle's typical attitude towards BLPs then he shouldn't be editing anywhere near them. Couple that with an apparently large misunderstanding of what precisely our rules on COI and paid editing are (I note a trouting from Dear Leader over this wholesale reverting of sourced content, for instance, because of the identity of the responsible editor) and we have a problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is about self-promotion and whitewashing. We have here a convicted criminal, one responsible for "the biggest fraud case in the history of the securities industry"[82] who pays someone to edit Wikipedia to make themselves look good. There's no question about this; the editor involved admits it. Does Wikipedia want to support such efforts? John Nagle (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, this isn't an "either with us or against us" situation just because you say so. Over the years a huge amount of drama has been caused by people taking an ostensibly good idea (a particularly relevant example is pushing back against the promotion of pseudoscience) and going at it so single-mindedly that they cause more trouble than they prevent. Here, you're editing a BLP to skew it egregiously towards the opinion you want the reader to form of the subject (that he is a career criminal, above and beyond any other detail of his life) and that is most certainly something that bears further investigation regardless of any alleged problematic editing on behalf of the editor you initially reported. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A few months back, Wikipedia seemed to be taken a much harder line on paid editing. Wikimedia UK chair Roger Bamkin lost his job for paid editing.[83] What changed? Is paid editing OK now? --John Nagle (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Roger Bamkin did not lose his "job", he resigned a volunteer position. In fact, he kept the job which had placed him in a conflict of interest as a trustee of Wikimedia UK. He continues to edit here, continues to participate in WMUK (although not as a trustee), and continues to run his business. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest someone close this, as this article now has more eyes and it appears no acmin action will ooccur as a result of this report.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree, Lgr. By the way, I have added the Wikiproject Criminal Biography template to the article's talk page so that that WikiProject may be included in this discussion. I also submit that we take a look at Nagle's question, which I find of great merit. For the record, I have grave doubts that paid editing is good for this project in any way. Jusdafax 07:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • And what about countering paid editing by mass-reverting any edits assumed to be from paid accounts, even where those edits are to remove egregious BLP violations? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Wow. I go away for a few days, and the Michael Milken article has gone through a whitewash, rinse, and dry cycle.[84] The "infobox criminal" has disappeared. Details of the criminal activity have been removed to de-emphasize his crimes. Paid editing works! John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
      • • I made a couple of changes and brought the criminal stuff back in. I agree that the article shouldn't downplay what he is probably best known for (would most of us have heard of Milken if he were merely the inventor of high-yield bonds?) but that needs to be balanced against the other stuff that he is now known for. --regentspark (comment) 19:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying of this discussion. You all know my bias - I am a representative of Mike Milken. Up until December, the lead paragraphs of Milken's biography displayed what most would consider a fairly balanced approach to his career. Here was the lead: "Michael Robert Milken (born July 4, 1946) is an American business magnate, financier, and philanthropist noted for his role in the development of the market for high-yield bonds (also called "junk bonds") during the 1970s and 1980s, for his 1990 guilty plea to felony charges for violating US securities laws, and for his funding of medical research." Pretty straight forward - the good, the bad and the ugly. The lead was followed by an entire paragraph factually delving into the specifics of Milken's legal problems. It then provided two different arguments about Milken's financial influence, followed by a paragraph citing Milken's philanthropical impact.

Over the past two months, the editing of this article seems to have spun out of control and quickly devolved to include a strong negative POV and inaccuracies. Statements such as "Since his release from prison, Milken has funded medical research" are simply false. Accurately, Milken began funding medical research in the 1970s and co-founded the Milken Family Foundation to fund education and medical research in 1982 - years before his legal troubles. Secondly, as it now reads, the lead paragraph could have been written in 1992 - it completely ignores everything Milken has done over the past 20 years. Regardless of your OPINION, this profile should reflect Milken's entire career and be balanced and accurate. Some people may not like it, but Milken has made substantial contributions to society over the last 40 years, much of it documented. He has had an outsized impact on speeding medical research, honoring outstanding public school teachers, and promoting expanded access to capital through the Milken Institute. You can't just ignore these accomplishments. All Wikipedia can do is provide a balanced account - it's all part of the whole profile of Mike Milken.

There can be no doubt - Milken is a controversial figure. But some editors have aggressively sought to bend the focus of this profile with their own negative POV. He has tried to shut down debate and stop my ability to edit this article, even when I have complied with Wiki guidelines. Everyone can read his comments - his "unstated" agenda cannot be more clear. I have been totally upfront, and am not out to whitewash anything. However, when I see insulting, inaccurate, biased or incomplete additions, I have no alternative but to point them out and make changes. As noted above, there was a time in the not-so-distant past when this profile was pretty darn accurate. But as it reads now, it is not accurate, it is not neutral, and doesn't seem worthy of an encyclopedic entry.

Finally, I'd like to propose a solution. If you examine the revision dated 21:36, 3 December 2012, I believe you will find an edition that is fairly accurate, neutral and unbiased (trust me, there are many points I could argue, and I'm not in love with listing his prisoner status from 20 years ago). But it was a revision that was created by consensus, and one in which the basic format of the first several paragraphs had stood the test of some period of time. I suggest we revert to that entry.LarryWeisenberg (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

One correction: Above I refer to an editor but did not specify who he was, and I suppose I probably should have. I was referring to John Nagle (talk · contribs). It should have stated that "one editor" and identified Mr. Nagle. Thank you. LarryWeisenberg (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Uncontroversial delete/move

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

---

Apparently, there has been some miscommunication by editors.

Ke$ha came out with an EP titled "Deconstructed". Someone made a page for it and called it Deconstructed (EP), but as you can see, it was coded to redirect to Warrior and some section that does not exist. What makes this furthermore confusing is the fact that there is another page titled Deconstructed (Kesha EP) which is the actual EP's page.

I need help to do this task, but can we:

• Delete Deconstructed (EP) and
• Move Deconstructed (Kesha EP) →‎ Deconstructed (EP) please? Srsrox (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. In the future this can probably be handled by tagging the redirect with {{db-g6}} and leaving an edit summary that explains what move you wish to make. If that doesn't work, then the WP:AN is probably a more appropriate noticeboard; AN is usually better suited for routine requests and uncontroversial stuff. --Jayron32 00:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Demiurge1000

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

---

Sorry for not having a more descriptive title, but here goes:

Quite a ways back, Demiurge began edit warring (proof here: http://puu.sh/1YYh6 ) on a talkpage removing a comment by John F. Lewis regarding adoption. This was a perfectly valid comment by John that had already been discussed with other users first. Demiurge feels the need to unilaterally, without discussion, revert his comment citing "childprotect" because the users mother was 'involved'. The users mother was involved in this issue, but has no control over John F. Lewis. Also, since the post didn't involve any private (or remotely private) information, CHILDPROTECT doesn't apply to the edit at all. Demiurge thereafter proceeded to get an AN/I thread off track to the point of it being closed as 'ArbCom involved' when ArbCom was not remotely involved in John F. Lewis' adoption program or the adoption of this specific user at all. John and I let it go.

Earlier today, Demiurge made a pretty large refraction (diff) on a comment by John F. Lewis at a RfA. This completely changed the meaning of the message John was trying to send. I asked Demiurge about it over IRC, was told "it's an RfA" and then when I pushed for an explanation of the refactoring got no response, as is shown here: http://puu.sh/1Z1Gx . Then, me and John, along with User:addshore proceeded to ask Demiurge about it on their talkpage, after which Demiurge proceeded to call us "jokers" and remove it multiple times without rectifying the issue.

Demiurge should be made to explain their refactoring and removal of comments, and should be warned that continuing to not collaborate and explain when asked will result in further issues. Everyone makes mistakes, but repeated violations of WP:REFACTOR and not explaining when asked is unacceptable in my mind. All users will be notified shortly after this post. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, all of you, please just drop it. This is getting ridiculous. I am willing to start handing out blocks if this continues. --Rschen7754 23:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. However, are you OK with me replying to this fine fellow's account of my actions here, just this once? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify this statement, the underlying issue has long been resolved; I see no reason why all of you keep revert warring to get in your final say about it or remove someone else's final say. This is starting to become disruptive, and needs to stop. Demiurge1000, this includes you. --Rschen7754 23:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Noted, and thank you for your patient involvement. However, I have not been disruptive, and I reserve the right to remove nonsense from my talkpage, except as required by policy. And yes, I think we're done here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply: Tell me how asking for an explanation of why you broke the rules is nonsense? gwickwire^talk_edits 23:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The underlying issue has not been resolved. The underlying issue is that Demiurge has on (by my count) at least 2-3 occasions failed to explain themselves when asked, even after given multiple chances. This is a collaborative project. If Demiurge won't explain themselves, and continues reverting, it's disruptive. Also, this has just come to my attention, but Demiurge also failed to discuss (at first, not sure how it played out now) at Suicide of Amanda Todd, removing a valid category before discussion was finished. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry at Japanese articles

Following the indefinite blocking of JoshuSasori for threats and disruption, a number of articles they frequented on Japanese subjects have been targeted by anonymous edits. This has been especially disruptive at Tales of Moonlight and Rain where various anon accounts have proceeded to edit war.[85][86][87][88][89] A fuller list of socks and articles affected is at the SPI. For the time being, I request semi-protection for Tales of Moonlight and Rain and duck-blocks for the IPs, as well as further investigation as to the extent of the problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The most recent sock is 124.85.41.57 (talk · contribs · count).--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the IPs are really serious problems and they appear to be from Tokyo, Japan. I think JoshuSasori is using IPs to deliberately avoid scrutiny. Also, Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has semi-protected Tales of Moonlight and Rain. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Anon has presented some interesting evidence that he/she is not JoshuSasori here. Apparently the number of articles the user edited before JS was blocked comes to four, although one of them (the only one he/she mentioned until now, even when prompted) was an instance in which JS weirdly voted against his usual tendency to use English.[90] Additionally, one of the other three has the anon coming to the article 12 hours before JS was blocked (and sometime after he was told he was being blocked).[91][92][93] (Full disclosure, though, I also came to that article not long before JS's block, as did a few others, as the subject had passed on a few days earlier.) Additionally, I don't think JS lives in Japan: I had several heated debates with him during a timeframe we were both actively editing, at a time when I should have been asleep. I did this because he trolled me into it, but I can't imagine he chose to hold shouting matches with me at 3 a.m. Lastly, the Anon has requested a CheckUser to prove his/her innocence.[94] Therefore, I am beginning to waver on this Anon being a sock of the blocked JoshuSasori; rather, I think he/she is just a particularly disruptive Anon user. We'll see if he/she follows me to other articles now that Tales of Moonlight and Rain has been protected... elvenscout742 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the behavioral evidence that this is Joshu trying to evade his block. He's doing the same things in the same way, and Joshu has hopped around to several IPs. That doesn't mean he's the only one ever to have used that particular IP.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I followed Cuchullain's lead and collapsed the Anon's votes (in some cases probably double votes) to five more RMs he/she had followed me to. (Whether or not this is the same person as JoshuSasori, he/she is clearly harassing me in the same way as the latter was.) I was reverted all five times based on the assertion that "I'm not JoshuSasori's sockpuppet" with no further evidence provided.[95][96][97][98][99] It's worth noting that the Anon knew what I was doing and immediately reverted me, but did not revert Cuchullain for doing the exact same thing, which indicates that this is something personal against me. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, this latest IP followed me to the article Outrage Beyond and referred to the way I formatted a citation as an "error", behaviour not untypical of pre-block JoshuSasori.[100][101] elvenscout742 (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Intimidatory and threatening behaviour?

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

---

I recently started to develop the content of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) article, and created a new article about the similar organisation WELMEC.

Within a few minutes of my first edits to the OIML article, an editor arrived and started fixing my mistakes. There is no problem with that. However, a few hours later, the same editor came along and replaced almost the entire article, en-masse, with a massive re-write.

That might not have been a problem either, if the replacement had been good quality prose, but it wasn't, it was largely the addition of unstructured content consisting mainly of long bulleted and numbered lists of unexplained factoids, veiled in impenetrable language, and mostly gleaned from the organization's own website.

I therefore restored the original content, and started a discussion on the development of the article on the article's talkpage Talk:International Organization of Legal Metrology. Within another few hours, that editor had again replaced the article with the unstructured and undiscussed content, and added this statement to the discussion page:

"I have reinstated the text. I am happy to rework this article, but first lets find alternative or additional citations - since you brought the subject up, will you please find some alternative citations and we can work from there. Until and unless you can do so, the current text should stay."

I again restored the previous content, with an explanation on the article's talkpage and an invitation to discuss further before making such major changes again. Again, and within minutes, the editor had replaced that content, and again made an arrogant talkpage statement:

'I do not need to discuss the so called "huge changes". If you can find citations that will be appropriate, I will discuss, but until you can find suitable material, discussion is senseless.'

However, and the reason for my complaint here, he also added, what I believe to be an intimidatory and threatening accusation of vandalism on my part, to my personal talkpage. This is what he wrote

"You have twice reverted text that I added to the article International Organization of Legal Metrology. May I draw your attention to the following on the page Wikipedia:Vandalism:... I regard your explanations for removal of a significant part of the test as being frivilous, as will I suspect any administrator. If you revert again, I will lodge a formal complaint for vandalism."

Are such intimidation and threats acceptable on Wikipedia? I don't think so.

Bill le Conquérant (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither of you has been vandalising the article; however, you're both involved in an edit war over a content dispute, which is just as much not-ok as vandalism. Allow me to point out for both your benefit that no one "owns" the article and has the right to unilaterally declare what its content should be. This matter would be much better dealt with at the dispute resolution noticeboard, where volunteers can help the two of you hash out the content issues. I suggest you both head over there and start discussing the actual content matters. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I ignore the threat then, and restore the article to its pre-big-modification condition, pending the outcome or any discussion? Bill le Conquérant (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No, because as I just pointed out, you're both involved in an edit war, which is against our rules. What you can do is begin a discussion on DRN and not pursue the edit war while the volunteers at DRN help both of you figure out what the article should look like. If either of you continues reverting each other, instead of or during that thread, you'll be continuing the edit war and continuing to break our rules. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be fairer then for someone else (you?) to put the article back to how it was before the disputed addition was made then? I thought the idea was to reach agreement for the addition, not reach agreement to remove disputed additions. Bill le Conquérant (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If one were to revert the page to that version, one would be at risk that it might end up being The wrong version which has dire consequences for everyone involved (I advice reading that link). While the page may be describing the issue in a humorous tone the gist is the same - you will end up reverting each other over and over for some temporal "this is the correct page" goal that will have no means or purpose since neither of you will be working towards solving the actual issue. Instead of restoring a specific version just discuss with the other editor or find assistance such as Fluffernutter suggested above. Rome wasn't build in a single day either so having a few bricks out of place for a couple of days isn't going to cause any harm. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, administrators will not return an article to any state when acting in an administrative capacity, per This page. If it comes down to using our administrator tools to, say, protect an article, we leave it in whatever state it is in. Also, you aren't going to get any broad endorsement of your particular version of the article here at the admin boards, because when an administrator comments in this venue, their usually wearing their "administrator hat" and they will not step into the middle of a dispute to take sides, even if they really know that one side has a clearly better version of the article. That is something that's very ingrained in the role of an administrator: Admins don't make content decisions (as administrators, when wearing their admin hats), they use their tools to stop behavioral disruption. Now, if you raise this issue in another venue, people (some of whom may be admins, but will not be acting in an admin capacity) will clearly give their opinion on which version of the article they prefer. Once you have established a clear consensus to proceed with your version, by receiving lots of outside endorsement, you can go forward from there. But you're not going to get that endorsement here. I'm pretty sure you'll get much more satisfactory results if you invite outside comment via a WP:DR process, perhaps WP:RFC. --Jayron32 20:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I though that leaving the disputed new version in place was condoning and even rewarding the unnecessarily intimidatory behaviour of he who put it there. Anyway, I've now raised it at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thanks for the advice. Bill le Conquérant (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Johnjjjames

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

---

• Johnjjjames (talk · contribs)

Blocked user making legal threats at own talk page. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Appears to have been rectified [102]. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

24 hours??? Where did he retract and disavow the legal threat? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Unmarked as resolved. There's an outstanding legal threat that has not been retracted. That deserves an indef block until such action is deemed to have been retracted. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's indef now, and I've removed the confusing "temporary" notices and just left the indef one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Wikishagnik

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

---

Wikishagnik (talk · contribs) put a proposed deletion tag in America's Next Top Model: All-Stars article and you can see the tagged proposed deletion link: [103] that shouldn't take goal on discouraging edits. But for now, I don't trust anything on this internationally notable series and encouraging on prose for saving this article. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you need admins to do? --Jayron32 07:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Jayron, this editor has sabotaging the article and it is really a notable show. Google search stats over 25 million results: [104], that makes notable enough. This editor has had enough on need to say being the notability of the show. ApprenticeFan ^work 07:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, he's edited the article once, and started a discussion on the article talk page. I'd hardly call that disruptive. He added a PROD, it was removed, he started a discussion to explain his position. So far everything is working as it is supposed to. Have I missed any actions he has taken in regards to that article? --Jayron32 07:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

ApprenticeFan, if Wikishagnik really thinks the article should be deleted, their next step is to take it to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. That would be ill-advised. The article has very little chance at all of being deleted. --Shirt58 (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

ApprenticeFan, even if the PROD was misguided, your combative stance both here and on the article's talk page isn't the way to go about things. I don't see any administrative action required here. Also, you are required to notify people who you mention at AN/I, which you have failed to do. I have done it for you, please remember that in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Wikishagnik's edits was a totally bad faith and I agree with Shirt58 and The Bushranger. That makes more notable. ApprenticeFan ^work 07:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Talk:Continuation War

Talk:Continuation War has turned into a total chaos with copyedits moving text from one place to another, text being deleted by people who didn't originally write it, doubtful attributions to bits of text, massive loads of text, much of which has nothing to do with the discussion, and so on. Leading me to believe that someone is deliberately trying to sabotage the consensus discussion regarding what the infobox should say about the outcome of the war. The most active participants in the discussion are Paavo273 who has provided the most useful and serious contributions to the discussion, and YMB29 who apparently is willing to do anything to get his way in the discussion, and also has a long history of edit warring on pages relating to the Soviet Union. To such an extent that he has previously had editing restrictions on all pages even broadly relating to the Soviet Union levied against him. So could an administrator who hasn't been involved in the discussion, and hasn't previously tried to mediate between YMB29 and others, please take a look at it? Thomas.W (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment: Based on his/her behaviour not only on Continuation War and its talkpage but also on other pages where he/she is active I would go as far as labelling User:YMB29's behaviour as WP:NOTHERE, because he/she clearly shows that he/she is not interested in cooperating with other editors or achieving consensus, only in pushing his/her often non-NPOV views. Thomas.W (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if anyone looks at the article's talk page or the evidence below, it will be obvious who is really guilty of WP:NOTHERE. -YMB29 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

mutual bickering
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Paavo273 is actually the one posting long text from other talk pages.[105] Look at how much edits he has made to the talk page in the last few hours.[106] I guess this is done to confuse others. A similar method was used by a sock master in the past, who was pushing the same POV (see here[107] for example). All of this started after I posted sources, which Paavo273 and Thomas.W did not like.[108] Paavo273 referred to the sources as "Soviet Stalinist revisionist history of the war."[109] Thomas.W also did not like what the sources stated and said that my research to find reliable sources for the result of the war was "a total waste of time."[110] -YMB29 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Why don't you just sit back and wait for an administrator to take a look at what has happened, including looking at the edit history of the page, before trying to shift the blame one way or another? And before trying to rewrite history. Thomas.W (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC) I am not rewriting anything. It is all there. -YMB29 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC) All the problems began when Paavo273 and Thomas.W started edit warring,[111][112][113][114][115] reverting a result that had consensus and was in the article for over three years. Other users who have edited the article for a long time can confirm this (see [116]). I limited myself to two reverts and then asked an admin to take a look,[117] after which he protected the article.[118] Thomas.W in particular has been very rude. He has called my request to not revert the result until there is a new consensus "BS" ("And "establish a new consensus" is just BS since there is no consensus..."[119]) and insulted me by saying: "you're either simply a bit below par from the neck up or just following the instructions given to you by your handlers..."[120]. -YMB29 (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Based on the buffaloing that has originated from YMB29 on the talk page, this is not far-fetched. The real issue is YMB29 doesn't seem to read or at least internalize what is written by others. Paavo273 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC) But based on his article edits and his writing in the actual article, YMB29 operates at a very high level when he wants to. For example, when I contributed a carefully researched and edited piece to the article the other day, he found a couple minor mechanical errors, which I thanked him for. (And I'm a former college-preparatory writing and research instructor.) Paavo273 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I'm not going to discuss the matter with you here, or anywhere else, because it is a total waste of time and effort. But for the benefit of whichever administrator might get involved in this I want to point out that the alleged consensus you're constantly referring to apparently doesn't exist, since you, in spite of being asked to do so multiple times, haven't been able to tell anyone where it is. Thomas.W (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC) I have provided links to you, which you ignored. I am not the only one who told you this (see [121]). -YMB29 (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC) No, YMB29 has provided no links of any kind, and the one here is not to any consensus. Paavo273 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I did, see here[122]. -YMB29 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC) A) None of the links you provided had anything to do with the discussion that is going on. B) The diff you provided has nothing to do with it either. So why don't you relax, lean back and wait for an administrator to take a look at it? Thomas.W (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Ok, I think it will be clear to any admin who is really causing trouble. -YMB29 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC) I sure hope it will be clear. I don't even know what a lot of these allegations mean. What is clear from the last week's talk is that YMB29 makes a lot of accusations--e.g., OR, synthesis, existing consensus--without any particularity or specificity--and then moves on to another accusation when the last accusation doesn't stick. I've also made several suggestions how to find a solution, but each one is shot down. Paavo273 (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Paavo273 is now accusing me of writing a Soviet version of history and he is claiming that Wikipedia "has been *Sovietized* to the extent that WP becomes a major vehicle of Soviet Communist propaganda..."[123]. This is becoming comical... He is following a similar pattern as a banned sock Boris Novikov - constantly creating new sections on the talk page with long headings and complaining about the false Soviet version of history.[124][125] -YMB29 (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC) * The nonsensical OR tag to which I referred was placed on a direct quote from the source I cited. (On the talk page, YMB29 also called my direct quote WP:synthesis.) YMB29 decided he liked some other quote from the source I cited and decided to pretend the quote I used did not exist. In fact, I think he placed the OR tag without even looking at the page I cited. Because my quote is there in black and white. * The quote about Sovietization was to point out the situational irony. Full quote is on the talk page. Paavo273 (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC) * No evidence has ever been provided of a consensus. The link YMB29 provides here sure is not to one. And all he/she has ever made on the talk page is non-specific references. Paavo273 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC) * The sources *ARE* bizarre. I've never read or heard until today of a Finnish surrender (and I'm ethnic Finnish), and there's certainly no mention in the article. Paavo273 (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC) * One thing I hope the admin. who looks at this can clear up: Is the infobox supposed to be a separate research area? I've been saying on the talk page and getting no response that I think the infobox result should summarize what the article says. Instead YMB29 on his own initiative came up with a whole bunch of new sources, unilaterally decided he had a "consensus of sources," and reverted on that basis. Thanks for your trouble. Paavo273 (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC) *One other thing: Is there any rule against making multiple, habitual non-specific false allegations of WP rule violations against another user's edits? Paavo273 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC) *A quote from YMB29 early on in the discussion in response to another user: "You still lack knowledge about this topic. It looks like you are only here to annoy me. -YMB29 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC) posted by Paavo273 (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I provided sources to prove my point and you call them bizarre or communist propaganda (none of the sources are Soviet or Russian). Clearly, you don't understand WP:IJDLI. All you are doing is making disruptive edits to the talk page, ignoring reliable sources, giving your personal opinion without any sources, and making funny accusation (like "Sovietization of Wikipedia"). Boris Novikov was doing the same thing... -YMB29 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC) There you go again, insinuating that Paavo273 is somebody's sockpuppet, just like you have done many times before (even insinuating that Paavo273 and myself are one and the same, even though were half a world apart). If you have any reliable evidence for sock puppetry then report it at WP:SPI, otherwise just stop it. Because all you manage to do is make yourself look ridiculous. Thomas.W (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I have not said that you two are one... Why are you making untrue statements? I only pointed out that Paavo273 is behaving in a similar way as Boris Novikov did. -YMB29 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Also, Paavo273 is now canvassing other users[126][127], to take action against the "Sovietization of WP"... -YMB29 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC) That is IMHO not canvassing as described at WP:CAN. He's just asking for advice on how to solve the current stalemate in the discussion. And keep your fingers off my posts. I added a bullet at the start of my previous post in order to make it noticeable among the masses of unstructured text that you're adding here, and you have no right to remove it. Thomas.W (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC) So he is just asking for advice when he mentions that he is fighting the Sovietization of Wikipedia... -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Yes. He's entitled to fight whatever he wants on WP as long as he abides by the rules. All of them. And I haven't seen him breaking a single one on Talk:Continuation War. Thomas.W (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC) 'Didn't use the word *fighting*. I said *lament* which means mourn or grieve. I *asked* only for help how to proceed, not even for input in the discussion. (In the interest of full disclosure, I *did* ask Wanderer602 for his opinion about a week ago, but I don't think WP:CAN would apply to that because he is an active participant. Also, you and he were having a parallel discussion over in your Rfc, which YMB29 accused me of causing by bringing the whole subject up.) Paavo273 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC) All I can find in Archive 11, YMB29's link #82, is the same sort of badgering of whoever would dare challenge the Kremlin crowd, in this case poor Wanderer602, YMB29's current and former counterpart in mediation. If there's any agreement of any kind, not to mention consensus, other than among the Kremlin/Soviet group themselves, could YMB29 please point it out to me. Paavo273 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC) What are you talking about? If you were just asking for advice, you would not have mentioned the "Sovietization of WP"... -YMB29 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Since when is it up to you to decide what he can and cannot mention in posts on the talkpages of other users? You're at least as ideology driven as he is, and since you're allowed to be here, and promote your agenda, why shouldn't he be? The difference between you and him, apart from being found at different ends of the Cold War ideological scale, is that he is honest about it, while you're not. Thomas.W (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I guess it is good that he honestly is pushing his POV... However, there are rules against this here that you and he should know. He can post whatever he wants, but don't pretend like he was just asking for advice... -YMB29 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC) The pot calling the kettle black. Unlike you Paavo273 has not been pushing his agenda, instead being very neutral and balanced. And abiding by WP:NPOV. So stop accusing everyone else of breaking the rules, because your totally baseless accusations don't fool anyone, they just make you look desperate. Thomas.W (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC) So now you say that Paavo273 has not been pushing his agenda? You just complemented him for being honest about it... For you, ignoring what reliable sources say (and calling them communist propaganda), disrespecting consensus, edit warring, and seeking to battle "the Sovietization of Wikipedia" is "being very neutral and balanced"? -YMB29 (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC) No I did not. I complimented him for being honest about having a certain opinion. An having an opinion is not automatically the same as pushing it. Thomas.W (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Reread what you wrote carefully. -YMB29 (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Oh, I know perfectly well what I wrote. Unfortunately your lack of knowledge in the English language often makes you misinterpret/misunderstand what others write. The few times that you even bother to read what others write. Thomas.W (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I found this thread by accident. Paavo273 reverted my edit [128], and he seems to refuse to self-revert despite my exhaustive explanations on the article's talk page, and despite my repeated requests there. A brief look at the article's history demonstrates that he did the same revert at least 5 times [129] (altered the stable version), [130], [131], [132], [133] during last two weeks. The last revert was made with a totally misleading edit summary: I do not have to achieve consensus when I restore a stable version. In contrast, the burden is on Paavo273.
In addition, I agree that addressing to a user, who is known to be interested in the Baltic related issues and who seems to share, at least partially, Paavo273's views, can be considered as soft version of canvassing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• And threatening an opponent with sanctions ([134] and [135]) while at the same time refusing to answer a direct question from him asking you if you are an administrator ([136]), even though the fact that you answered the rest of that post proves that you have read it, can be seen as bordering on you posing as an administrator. Thomas.W (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is protected now again, but I don't see how that will solve the problem; it did not resolve it the last time...
Paavo273 and Thomas.W have to learn to not edit war to insert the result they want. They can't disrespect the previous consensus and ignore what reliable sources say. -YMB29 (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is getting boring. You are once again falsely accusing me of edit warring, which anyone who looks at the page history can see is not true, and once again falsely claiming that there is a previous consensus supporting your view, when in fact there is none. Who do you think you're fooling? Thomas.W (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thomas, firstly, I didn't threaten my opponent with sanctions, I've just pointed at the obvious fact that his behaviour may inflict sanctions on him. I didn't say I was going to request for any sanctions.

Regarding the question if I am an admin, please, keep in mind that I am editing this article, so the question if I am an admin or not is irrelevant: only uninvolved admins can take any administrative actions in that case. An admin who edits some article has exactly the same rights as other users working with this article.

Finally, Paavo273 made some edits per WP:BOLD. The idea that Continuation war was not a Soviet victory is a bold claim, so it needs in solid evidences. It is not surprising that these changes were reverted per WP:BRD. The next step is to discuss the issue on the talk page. Instead, you both started a revert war, and you declare that consensus is needed to restore a stable version that stayed for years (I just randomly picked several old versions: beginning of 2013, 2011, 2010). I strongly believe you simply do not understand our policy. Now, when the policy has been explained to both of you I expect you to stop that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Our policy"? Since when do you speak for anyone other than yourself? If you are referring to WP policy, which is the only policy that exists here, you should describe it as "WP policy", not "our policy" since you're not in a position to speak for WP, even though you seem to try to give that impression. Thomas.W (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop the bickering. Yes, it's "our" policy – it is mine, it is yours, and it is also Paul Siebert's, because we are all Wikipedians, for better or worse, so we all have the right to call it "ours". Now please either say something constructive on the topic, or say nothing at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Joefaust violating topic ban

Back at the end of 2011 User:Joefaust was given a topic ban against editing anything about hang gliding (see here). User:Ironholds gave him a one month block in August last year for violations (see talk page notice). In passing I checked his contributions today, and found a edit made last month to The Lawrence Welk Show, which, as you might guess, introduced handgliding-related material in this edit. While the level of activity is low, it's also obvious he isn't going to learn, and some of the damage he did back in August has yet to be cleaned up. Mangoe (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually his ban was "Joefaust is indefinitely topic banned from paragliding and hang gliding-related pages. " Lawrence Welk isn't a paragliding or hang gliding related page." His contribution is neutral, but it sure looks he's gaming that restriction.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if he sticks hang gliding info into it, it thus becomes a hang gliding-related page. Anyway, some of the material he inserted in August has some of the same problems as brought all this on, e.g. he's claiming that Louis Pierre Mouillard did some successful hang gliding, when other sources besides the one he chose say that his success was quite limited. I'm not going to press this to the bitter end, but it seems to me that if his editing is going to consist of putting references to hang gliding in otherwise uninvolved articles, he's going to have to be monitored. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It would have been much easier if the original topic ban was phrased "is banned from making any edits relating to the topic of...", but I agree that this is most definitely a violation of the spirit of the topic ban and, so, I am inclined to impose a longish block, but would rather see if any other admin disagrees. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• The addition is not "neutral"--"where the editor wrote without any apology..." is not neutral, though how it's a promotion of hang gliding is debatable. The mention is trivial anyway and was rightly removed. Now, I don't believe that one single mention turns the page into a "hang gliding-related page"--Green children of Woolpit is not a UFO-related page, or a royalty-related page (it mentions a king). Moreover, "gaming the system" sounds great, but it's not the same thing as "testing the limits", which is what we probably have here. If this continues, that's a different matter. Note that I was one of the early supporters of the topic ban, having duked it out on Paragliding before, though less with Joefaust than with others. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I was also involved in the original topic ban, and am surprised that we didn't phrase it per the standard "broadly construed" meaning. Perhaps we should change that now. It's not really a "topic ban" if it's linked to a set of pages rather than a, well, topic. I would say it should read something like "JoeFaust is indefinitely banned from all edits related to hangliding or parasailing, broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia". Qwyrxian (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• I generally support blocks for actions violating the spirit (if not the letter) of a topic ban as the editor in question always knows exactly what they're doing. At very least I think we should re-phrase the topic ban as outlined above. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• I take a hard line on this sort of testing or gaming or whatever you want to call it. I agree with those who are observing that this editor knows exactly what they are doing and is in willful violation of their existing topic ban. I am in favor of rewording the topic ban to make it clear, and issuing an indefinite "conditional" block to prevent further fooling around. When the editor agrees that they understand what they have done is a violation of community sanctions, and that they will desist in those violations, then unblock. This should not have to come back here for still further discussion. Jusdafax 16:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support amending the topic ban to clarify that it relates to "hang gliding or paragliding, broadly construed". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

HIDECCHI001

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

---

HIDECCHI001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been asked several times on his talk page, over several months, to use edit summaries and to refrain from editing wikilinks just to avoid a redirect (per WP:NOTBROKEN). As far as I can see from his talk page, he has never responded to these requests and he still never uses edit summaries and makes large numbers of edits that do nothing but link around redirects, e.g. [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] in the last two days alone. There has also been at least one removal of a legitimate-looking redlink [144].

Note that there are also constructive edits (e.g., [145] [146]) so I'm satisfied that the editor is acting in good faith but the persistent failure to respond or modify behaviour is a concern. Dricherby (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have also encountered this persons edits many many times (about icons and linking you tube). For the most part they are positive in nature based on redirects and typos. However and a big howsoever the user does not respond in any manner whats so ever be it by talking or changing edit habits to concerns raised (however Idont see you tube spammed anymore - so some sort of acknowledgment there I guess). No need for a block - just some sort of acknowledgment of concerns raised and what they plan to do next about those concerns . We have to be fair here - look at his talk page - Not much of a welcome did he receive - I would also be inclined to ignore all after all the bites (I am guilty of bites here as-well).Moxy (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In my view, a concerted effort should be made to communicate with the user before any action is taken (not that nobody's tried before). The fact that they've made all of two edits each to User talk and Wikipedia talk each, this is almost certainly a communication issue. It is possible that the user does not understand English, based on their userpage, so if anyone has decent Japanese.... If they fail to respond, then a short WP:COMPETENCE block is probably necessary. —Rutebega (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Two thoughts: (1) There is no actual requirement to use edit summaries, so if an editor doesn't use them that's up to them. (2) WP:NOTBROKEN is a guideline and is not policy, and an editor cannot be forced to follow it. (In fact, judging by the number of times I see people editing a Wikilink to bypass a redirect, I'd say that part of it is controversial). So, as there are no policy breaches reported here, I see no need for admin action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  PS: Looking at the editor's talk page, I see a mass of bitey warnings, and I'm not at all surprised that you're not getting the responses you want - I don't see a single one of you extending a friendly and helpful hand to a new editor here! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  I didn't notice until I went back to their talk page, but the user was also not notified about this discussion. I'll try to take care of that after I post this. —Rutebega (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I had actually notified him (in the section Bypassing redirects) but I should probably have done so in a separate section, as you did. Dricherby (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Its clear that the editor has no plans on talking to anyone - Perhaps Rutebega was right in that a WP:COMPETENCE block is probably necessary. What are we to do if editros refuse to engage with others.Moxy (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What, a block for not having done anything wrong? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the pillars is "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner". This user is failing to interact and is being disrespectful and incivil by not discussing the concerns that other users have repeatedly raised on his talk page. He is also making edits that are at least slightly controversial (several editors have explicitly disagreed with them) and ignoring all attempts to discuss them. There are many of guidelines and essays and, I think, even policies that advocate not doing what this user is doing. WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:CIVIL and WP:COMPETENCE have already been mentioned. WP:CONSENSUS says that "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) – either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the article talk page." WP:EP says "Try to use an appropriate edit summary"; WP:FIES says "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit" (boldface, in the original, even). WP:ETIQ says that, "If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate." WP:NOTHERE includes "Extreme lack of interest in working... in a cooperative manner" and "extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns" as signs of a user who is not here to build the encyclopaedia. So I wouldn't say that he's done nothing wrong. Dricherby (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a fair point that edit summaries and WP:NOTBROKEN are just guidelines and I'll try to be less bitey next time. However, while nobody extended a welcoming hand to the new editor, he's now been around for 18 months and has made over two thousand edits in the last three months alone. I would contend that he probably does understand English to a reasonable degree. First, I can't see any motivation for putting in so much time to an encyclopaedia in a langauge one doesn't speak. Second, this edit [147] requires an understanding that, in that particular context, the phrase "Republic of China" refers to a period in the government of mainland China, rather than the territory now normally called Taiwan: that suggests a decent level of comprehension, to me. Dricherby (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(third notice) - I have left the editor a last note to join us - Lets hope.Moxy (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not sure I understand this - if the editor hasn't done anything wrong, what are people demanding an answer for? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Its pretty simple and clear cut - people are trying to talk to him to no avail. Ignoring others is a problem - we have basic conduct expectations here. We have this basic expectation even from young children let alone adult editors here.Moxy (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Why should he be obliged to respond to you when he hasn't done anything wrong? He doesn't have to join in chat if he doesn't want to, and he's perfectly entitled to completely ignore inappropriate warnings (for example, warnings relating to edit summaries). While he isn't doing anything wrong, can't you just leave the poor guy alone instead of hounding him like this? If you can show some repeated genuine policy breaches by this editor and a refusal to stop, then there might be some admin action applicable here - but at the moment I don't see where anyone has shown that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)WP:NOTBROKEN is not a policy, but when users go around piping huge numbers of links just to avoid redirects it is a little disruptive. I've seen RMs where a rationale for not moving the page over its own redirect was a relative lack of incoming links that used that redirect, but on further investing most of the direct links were actually piped. That's just one reason why it's disruptive to have users who go around piping links in their free time. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

So if piped links are such a problem, why do we have them? Surely they're either good and we can use them, or they're bad and we can't? I don't see why they're especially bad when this particular editor uses them and when it's done "in their free time" - don't we all work here in our free time? As for incoming links, that RM rationale is not relevant here - RM reviewers should be more careful. Also, I can see two sides of the "incoming links" issue, and it's not unambiguously obvious whether it's better to have the links appearing incoming at the redirect or appearing incoming at the target. But all this is moot anyway - there is no prohibition on piping links to bypass redirects, and until there is, or until someone identifies some actual policy breaches, there is no admin action needed to stop it. If you want to make it a policy to ban piped links, you need to take it elsewhere. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Without piped links, it would be impossible to wikilink the words "the president" in an article about the USA, since there is no such article and a redirect to President of the United States would be inappropriate. Dricherby (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I will NOT revise indirect links. HIDECCHI001 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal Attack by User:Peacemaker67

Here is what he was say to me: "fuck off you pissant little cretin". And he threat that he will revert all my changes as sort of personal vendetta: "I will track down every edit you do and revert them. That's just the kind of guy I am". 177.47.116.74 (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

lol. From the self-confessed sockmaster User:Oldhouse2012... Good luck sunshine. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So? You still have no right to insult me like this. 177.47.116.74 (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't help but notice, in the diffs the ip editor provided, they addressed Peacemaker67 by saying You are totally pathetic, you pity little man. and then came here to report a personal attack. Nice :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Can hand it out, but can't take it. Sensitive soul. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not point. My personal attack was in limits of civil behavior. He used words "fuck" and "cretin". That is big personal attack. You can punish us both for insults, no? 177.47.116.74 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"My personal attack": this says it all. You do not have to use obscenities or expletives for it not to be personal. The rule is NO PERSONAL ATTACKS regardless. Both of you are outside the limits of civil behaviour here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

First, we do not punish; that's not the purpose of blocks. I'm almost prepared to ignore the NPA by Peacemaker: the IP is a blocked editor who is evading a valid block, and is therefore trolling Wikipedia. They themselves appear to have initiated the NPA-fest. Since they should not be editing Wikipedia whatsoever, their edits could be considered to not exist. That said, someone else's incivility may explain your incivility, but it can never excuse them. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you at lest warn Peacemaker67 or block him for one day or something? That is just symbolic punishment, but suitable for what he was saying. 177.47.116.74 (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Then I offer no excuse, tender Oldhouse2012's NPA (and significant disruption to WP over the last few months) as my explanation, and apologise for my ill-considered retort. I will strike out the NPA on my talk page. I would apologise on Oldhouse2012's talk page, but it changes every few minutes, so I wouldn't know where to put it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I still think that you should be blocked for a day, just to be sure that you will not repeat this ever again. Today you insult me, tomorrow you will insult others and then you will go to street to beat innocent people. You will never learn without symbolic punishment. 177.47.116.74 (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the loudly quacking block evasion and the equally obvious trolling above, the IP has been blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Peacemaker67, you have lived up to your moniker by apologizing and striking, here. Very well done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Site ban proposal for User:Oldhouse2012

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

---

Oldhouse2012 (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked for WP:SOCK as per this SPI report. It's obvious, as per the above, that Oldhouse2012 fails to understand that they may not edit Wikipedia, and that they are evading a valid block due to their further edits post-block. Indeed, it's clear that their intent is to "stir up shit" by re-immersing themself back into the same issues/problems that they have always been involved in. The kerfluffle above shows another editor being provoked into NPA's - actions that would not have occurred if Oldhouse's socks were merely reverted on-sight.

Accoordingly, I propose an indef site-ban from the English Wikipedia for User:Oldhouse2012, with no chance of review for a minimum of 6 months. This de facto ban will hopefully reduce friction on the project, and is therefore preventative in nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support: the above pushing to punish another editor, despite the comment "First, we do not punish", show that this editor does not actually listen to what is being told to them in the plainest terms possible. A site ban may be the only way of actually getting the message through, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support, especially considering (what with the, "I still think you should block him," comments) that this looks remarkably like an attempt at retaliation against Peacemaker67 for his work on the SPI case. Since Oldhouse2012 has expressed a clear intent to continue evading the block, a site ban seems like an appropriate step, if only to make stamping out his future incarnations a quicker process. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support based on his clear intent to continue to sock, as demonstrated by his words and deeds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - has threatened to evade blocks, so a ban will make it easier to deal with them in future. GiantSnowman 14:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - obviously, yes, for the socky trolly stuff. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per Dennis. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Somebody set him up the bomb Blackmane (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Sockpuppetry makes this an easy call. This pattern of disruption cannot be tolerated and he has exhausted the community's patience. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per Dennis. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• This proposal doesn't make sense; de facto means "indef blocked and no admin will unblock," and we can't impose a definite time limit on an"indefinite" ban. NE Ent 12:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• OK, so what is it then? In 3 hrs 30mins we had ten ayes and no nay's. 18 hours later same same. What constitutes a quorum here? You all know what I think (ie terminate with extreme prejudice). There is still a huge amount of cleaning up to do behind this character, let alone the Whac-a-mole we'll be doing for however long it takes for him to get the message (which clearly isn't getting through). WP isn't benefiting from the presence of our friend, so let's mark time in his in-tray, hey? Waddayareckon? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• The editor is already indef blocked; there's nothing stopping anyone from beginning a clean up. It's appropriate to let the earth rotate at least once before determining consensus on a non-urgent matter allow a large cross-section of the worldwide Wikipedia community to comment. NE Ent 12:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

*Okazay... As you would be aware if you had bothered to look, your supposedly "indef blocked" editor has made numerous edits in the last 18 hours using IP socks, as you would naturally expect given he/she IP-hops all over the globe to evade the all-powerful "block". It would be nice to be able to freely revert his/her crap without having to cover my arse on every single revert, but never mind, I'll just get a kitchen sink and put my plates of meat up. You crack on son. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Whatever you call it, ban or indef, we just need to make this obnoxious socking stop by all means. Bwilkins is in the right of it; if the terminology behind the action needs to be tweaked, just do it. Jusdafax 18:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose a de facto ban because the user is already de facto banned and the usage of the term de facto in the ban proposal is de facto stupid. I'm neutral on a de jure ban though. There's no evidence that bans actually reduce socking, but if it warms your cockles to formally ban someone, I have no moral problems with it. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm...maybe I meant "de jure" not "de facto", but either way, "de bullshit" has to stop :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - it couldn't be any more evident that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Range block for Rovers Forever

Rovers Forever (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts - yet he continues to sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rovers Forever. Today he has been exclusively using '178.167.254.xxx' - is a range block possible based on this? GiantSnowman 20:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Still at it...think we've had half-a-dozen IPs in less than an hour? GiantSnowman 22:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Done--v/r - TP 22:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks - I'll learn to do them one day...! GiantSnowman 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking at this guy's socks's, I don't think this is proper use of one's talkpage while blocked. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Good spot, I've reverted (after it crashed my browser half-a-dozen times!). GiantSnowman 23:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

And I have disabled his talk page access to prevent this sort of nonsense from happening again. De728631 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Backlog of protected edit requests

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests has a backlog again. Could someone with template editing skills take a look, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Rochdale sex trafficking gang

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

---

Resolved

 – by block as noted below; but helpful editors of all classes should helpfully add this article to their watchlists for the inevitable similar nonsense that is soon to follow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demiurge1000 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl has three times[148][149][150] added an EL to this article, it is obviously inappropriate. I explained to him on his talk[151] that "kafircrusaders.wordpress.com Muslim Paedo Epidemic Map" is not a suitable source for anything. I would appreciate an admin taking the time to explain to him why it is not. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked by SarekOfVulcan. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Leighperson and "punctuation errors"

Leighperson (talk · contribs) has, for his/her fairly short editing history, been "fixing" what Leighperson describes as "punctuation errors", despite them not actually being errors. In particular, Leighperson appears to remove all m-dashes and n-dashes from articles as "punctuation errors" (e.g. [152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159]), despite being requested not to do so.[160] As Leighperson does not appear to be responding to his Talk: page, and continues to edit in this way, I've brought the issue here for discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not that they are errors as such but the dashes are ugly and what purpose do they serve? The sentence I looked at is the same without them. Britmax (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Dashes are ugly" is way into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory and not any good reason to replace correct punctuation with something erroneous. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of commas and dashes is often a stylistic preference, but they do allow writers to indicate different levels of parenthesis and separation of list clauses; as does the much-neglected semi-colon - even if some think anything more than a comma is ugly. Unless there is a MOS requirement, we should not change styles to suit our personal preferences - and we should definitely not label such changes "punctuation errors". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

They are all pretty much interchangeable, but help to introduce subtle differences when used consistently throughout a written work. In the spirit of WP:RETAIN, grammatically correct punctuation shouldn't be altered for the sole purpose of changing the punctuation. Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Many editors overuse dashes, and quite a few of Leighperson's edits are real improvements. But I see him/her also removing quite a lot of dashes in quotations, and also removing carefully inserted ellipses in quotations, in Ian Fleming (a featured article), presumably not understanding their function. Those edits are seriously erroneous. It's worrying that they don't respond on their talk. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC).

SchroCat, Boing! said Zebedee, Betty Logan, and Bishonen have all made good points. So, what to do? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The editor has continued to edit in the same vein (with only one edit) since this thread was opened. I've put a more clear comment on their talk page, urging them to come here before they edit again. - SchroCat (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In the event that the last message doesn't sink in, a final warning should be issued, as at that point the introduction of errors can be assumed to be deliberate. If the disruptive edits continue after the warning, then a competence block is in order. Beware of bricks, though. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat, Betty Logan, et al. Further the user's latest edit that SchroCat links to does not remove a puncutation error and in fact worsens an already unwieldy sentence. - Fantr (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately he hasn't returned to editing just yet. - SchroCat (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandal with (possibly massive) sockpuppet collection

I'm having an issue with an editor persistently re-adding incorrect and fictitious information to articles. I first became aware of the disruptive behaviour a couple of months back at So You Think You Can Dance. At first I took the additions to be simple good-faith mistakes of adding content which simply incorrect (or even that the information was correct and I simply was unable to locate an appropriate source, though I have since been able to discount this), but after watching the continued behaviour of the editor (adding the content back in from seven different accounts and making no effort at discussion) I no longer believe this to be a case of simple overzealousness. Rather this seems to be some sort of bizarre vandalism (though I can't fathom the motive) and likely not contained to that single article -- though it is conceivable they are simply oblivious or unconcerned with WP:Verifiability and WP:Consensus and the Wikipedia process in general. Regardless, after four attempts to communicate with them on the talk pages of the various socks and IP's they operate from over the last two months -- all with no response -- my patience is up with their disruptive editing and I think it's time an admin becomes involved. The various socks and IPs I have observed the user employing include:

User:Victor0209
User:Haodilolo
User:61.165.184.26
User:114.95.208.255
User:118.88.154.224
User:183.71.176.252
User:183.71.154.51

Because the above were all used to re-introduce a nearly identical edit to So You Think You Can Dance, I can say with some certainty that these are the same person for sure, but I highly doubt, given the user's willingness to create a sock to force edits on a single article, that this the full extent of their vandalism and in fact I've been able to locate similar goings-on for other articles which I am not typically involved with, mostly for reality shows with an international franchise (for example, various articles for the The X-Factor and Dancing With the Stars franchises). Of course, because the editor seems to change their account with each new edit and to have a non-static IP, I can't confirm any of this with certainty, but by tracing back some of the contributions of the above accounts, I have observed similar behaviour on those articles (most notably, a constant stream of edits by new users with only a handful of edits each). It is also notable that some of these articles have cross-over with the contributions of a well known sockmaster, User:TVFAN24, who was banned some months ago for prolific sockpuppetry and constantly disruptive/uncooperative editing, but I haven't been able to create a solid link just yet. Thanks in advance to anyone who can look into this matter. The sad fact of the matter is, given this user's apparent ability to change IPs on a whim, I'm not sure what all can be done, short of protecting the pages they are operating on and squashing the socks as they appear, but I figured someone should be aware of this person, if only to add these socks to the list (as I'm sure they're already known to admins under some name or another). Please note that I will also be adding a report on this user's activities to the sockpuppet investigation forum.Snow (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Update: After two months of searching, I've ironically finally turned up a source which confirms the content the above user wished to add, so it would seem that, at least insofar as So You Think You Can Dance is concerned, the changes were good faith. All the same, the editor's use of sockpuppets and lack of discussion while continually reverting are real issues, though I dare say that I'd not have posted this notice if I had found that source just a little sooner. Given that the page no longer seems to need protection I don't think admin involvement will be necessary, beyond addressing the sockpuppet issue and that issue can be addressed by the sockpuppet investigation forum. It's still possible that this user is responsible for other disruptive editing, but until the socks can be sorted out, I am withdrawing my request for action here. Snow (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Proposal Protect the article, block the socks as they appear and get a checkuser on the case as soon as possible. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:LeaderforEarth1

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

---

I'm pretty sure LeaderforEarth1 (talk · contribs) isn't here for the betterment of the 'pedia. Their contribs to main space and article talk pages are bad enough ([161] and [162] for example), but this message on a users talk is a little much. Should any actions be taken at this time or just give them time and rope? Heiro 01:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Block Diffs clearly show this is a WP: SPA that has no goals of building an encyclopedia, but to add in unsourced WP: SPAM that blatantly violates WP: CRYSTAL and WP: NPOV. WP:PROMO/WP:HOAX accounts like this almost never amount to much good. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Couldn't be a more textbook example of WP:NOTHERE. There was no point in letting him run loose any longer. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

More like WP:TRIPPING  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Himesh84

Himesh84 and myself have been involved in a number of disputes over the last 8 months the most recent of which was over my placement of a number tags on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. The dispute has been discussed at length on the article's talk page. Three DRN threads were also opened (October 2012, January 2013, January 2013) but all were closed early. About three weeks ago an admin, Qwyrxian, joined in the discussion and offered his opinion and advice on how to resolve the dispute. In Qwyrxian's opinion the factual accuracy and lack of references were justified and self-evident. Qwyrxian asked me to justify the neutrality tag. The other tags were unnecessary. Qwyrxian then reverted WelupillaisOb's (a sockpuppet of Himesh84) removal of the tag.

Himesh84 ignored this and reverted Qwyrxian's edit, removing all the tags. A few days ago I a started a separate section on the talk page to justify the neutrality tag and re-inserted the neutrality and the factual accuracy tag. Himesh84 once again removed the tags stating was needed to add tags (this is a deliberate misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works).

In his relatively short time on Wikipedia Himesh84 has been involved in a number of disputes. The main reason for this is his unwillingness to abide by the core policies on content (neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research). He has also shown an inability accept he is wrong, choosing instead to prolong the dispute in the hope that other editors will give up or lose interest - see protracted discussions here, here and here. In November 2012 he refused to accept the outcome of a DRN mediation, created two POV forks which were speedily deleted (here and here) and ended up being blocked. He has also shown that he is prepared to use underhand tactics such as using sockpuppets and lying to admins in order to get his own way.

I am aware that I should probably take this to DRN but given how the three DRNs on the latest dispute ended and how Himesh84 reacts to DRN's I ask for admin intervention.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There is something non-ideal with Himesh84's edits, but I don't know that we're at a point requiring administrative intervention (i.e., a block). Himesh84 seems to always want to jump to dispute resolution--as in, one person reverts him, and he thinks it's time to go to DRN. But I kind of understand that attitude, because he was previously scolded for edit warring without using dispute resolution. Having said all that, I haven't looked into the sockpuppetry and other problems that Obi2canibe raises. It would be great if someone could look into the details; I'm off for the day. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disappointing on case you bring the issue here. At least read what is in the talk page before disturbing to Administrators.

If DRN was closed too early it is not my fault. You either needed to participated on time ( on 2 occasions) like other people did or report 2 users who closed the 2 DRNs too early clarifying your busy lifestyles. But not me. Anyway you could open new DRN when you visited Wikipedia rather finding reasons to skip DRNs and justifying the skip.

You didn't justified neutrality tag. You explain your stand on neutrality tag and inserted two tags (both neutrality and factual errors (why?)). factual errors (if any) are not self evident. They needed to be shown. But two major concerns(start point of the conflict,no mentioned about Tamil presence on the island prior to the 13th century) you stated without any references are referred in the article.

• see the reference number 1 for start point of the conflict.
• Tamil present before 13th century - Tamils came during kingdom of Rajarata era had mixed with the Sinhalese community. Era of Kingdom of rajarata is 537BC to 1215

You have not been able to justify rest of the incidents you mentioned has any effect to Tamils to resorting to militancy. You have mentioned Ceylon Citizenship Act; Colonization; Standardization . But I am 100% sure you didn't know anything about these things. CC act only affected to Indian Tamils ( 4th largest ethnic group in SL) not to Sri Lankan Tamils. If it is not affected on SLT how it is a reason for them to resorting to militancy? You needed to explain this since I feel it crazy and silly reason. Also I have proved how Tamils get advantages from standardization using 2011 official cutoff marks. Colonisation - This is some selfish mentality from SL Tamils. They can live anywhere in Sri Lanka ( 30% of urban Colombo population are SLTamils came from Jaffna) but object same right for other ethnic groups and saying a reason to wear arms. Anyway I added those information to the article since many Tamils (including you) saying it is an reason - find it in Traditional homelands claim by Tamils section.

WelupillaisOb is not a sockpuppet. It is an alternative account ( I am not the only one who using different account on public networks).

Earlier I was blocked for sock-puppet case. Not for forking or anything else. It is over but still I refuse the sock puppet charges. WP admin did early conclusions and went on with it after the heated discussions. Also about lying it was angry respond to my block reason specified by admin. I just gave an example to show that the admin was wrong. That's all. Everyone except Obi2canibe understood that.

Still I think I am correct on past disputes. You trying to use Wikipedia to promote propaganda. You not allow to include criticism against what favor on you (UNSG) and include any criticism on what not favor to you (LLRC). I have state my opinion in | here. Still no one clarified what are the specific policies for two structures for competitive reports. Himesh84 (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

About edit waring, here are best examples about my friend's behavior.

He removed citation required tags without providing facts | 1. |2. References for native, relationship between Tamils lived in Rajarata with present ethnic group called as 'Sri Lankan Tamils' was raised in |talk page.

This is the only relative answer by him but it doesn't answer the raised concerns.

> This is a good article. It has 168 in line citations. And yet you place these tags?

In all other answers he has questioned the users behavior rather answering to the questions but continuing with reverting the article.

> This and your other behviour over the last week has shown your true character - childish and unimaginative. Please grow up

> You still haven't learned Himesh84. Wikipedia has no place for your games. Please edit using your registered account rather than dynamic IP addresses.

Still do administrators things above answers by obi2canibet could make consensus for his changes and above answers can save him not involved in edit waring without making constructive comments for repetitive reverts he made ?

Here is confession of another edit waring. He had been edit waring for very long about tags ( most of the his reasons for tags are intangible ( as reasons he using self evident and doesn't needed to pin pointed). But when he confessed he was not knowing factual errors, but edit repeatedly edit waring. He said he can't provide reasons now. Will provide later. Himesh84 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• obi2canibe, You was asked and you promised to justify factual errors tag but you claiming something else (neutrality) and start reverting and reporting. This is what administrator recommended.

> Neutrality - Administrator recommend you to start by section wise.

This is your answer.

< This leaves three tags:"Lack of references", "Neutrality" and "Factual errors". You have asked me to explain the last in detail and I will do this, though it may not happen immediately.

I couldn't participate to DRN because I was blocked at that time. Why did you skip following latest DRN 1 ? Himesh84 (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added the tags which were removed by Himesh84 on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka.

The lead para states on the artcile as follow;

"The ethnic conflict of Sri Lanka is a conflict mainly between Sinhalese and Tamils and conflict between Tamils and Muslims. The conflict started to appear when Kalinga Magha, a Tamil invader claiming Kalinga (Orissa) lineage invaded Kingdom of Rajarata in 1215."

But when I went through the first citation, I found on the Page 24 the following;

"Yet, racial and religious motives are attributed to the Dutugamunu-Elara conflict, and some Sinhalese scholars even regards the defeat of Elara by Dutugemmunu as the beginning of Sinhala nationalism."

"Thus, although Dutugemmunu may have been viewed as the savior of the Sinhalese race, his victory over Elara did not put an end to Tamil Sinhalese conflict nor did it deter Sinhalese rulers from having contact with South Indian rulers."

So according to the Citation provided by Himesh84 himself states the Ethnic Conflict started with Dutugamunu-Elara conflict which happened in the Pre-Christian era.

And my question to Himesh84 is what made him to assume, "The conflict started to appear when Kalinga Magha, a Tamil invader claiming Kalinga (Orissa) lineage invaded Kingdom of Rajarata in 1215."???

And to the Administrators who are perplexed of the conflict; please note the conflict in Sri Lanka is thousands of years old and developed among many tribes in the island and South India. But over the years these tribes assimilated into the ethnic identification of Tamils and Sinhalese.

Why I have re-added the tag is, if the first para itself very shallow in describing the thousands of years old conflict, how the entire article will be neutral. The entire article is Himesh84's POV and should be re-written jointly by editors who take interest of this conflict.

Hope some Europeans and American and other neutral editors will get involved on this project; some of the lost civilizations and kingdoms in South and Southeast Asia were re-discovered by European amatuer historians.Hillcountries (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

About start point of the conflict - see the following section in page 25.

• Reference in the Rajavaliya to the plundering of buddhist shryne, forced conversion of buddhist to hindusm, burning of rajarata the king's country by invading army from south India have had great impact on Sinhalese national consciousness.

Rajaravilya ( Sinhalese) is the primary source and the book is the secondary source state what is the time Sinhalese consider it as the starting point of the conflict. That is the possible earliest point of the conflict between Sinhalese and ethnic group called as Sri Lankan Tamil who are descendants of the Jaffna kindom which established by Magha and his army invaded Sri Lanka in 1215. I can't find where you find your quote. But first please verify relationship between Tamils in your sentence and present ethnic group called as SLT. Because identification for SLT today is they are descendants of Magha's army. Also article has verified sentence which verified Tamils( in your claim) mixed with Sinhalese. If you said conflict between Sinhalese and SLT are earlier than SLT came to Sri Lanka you specially needs to show us how a conflict can start when Sinhalese(present) in Sri Lanka and SLT are in South India in a era with no Internet facilities and satellite phones

Are you saying that Europian found lost civilization other than Anuradhapura,Pollonnaruwa bellow to Jaffna peninsular ? Can you please share findings with us because I feel it is very very interesting. Himesh84 (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Himesh, since you have started something attacking South Indian pillage, I am starting with the following;(please refer page 24[163])

"...Elara, the Chola general from South India who ruled Anuradhapura for forty-four years, and for thereby rescuing Buddhism. It is surprising to note, however, that Elara is portrayed in the Pali Chronicles as a benevolent king who extended patronage to Buddhism. There were also other Tamil rulers who assumed the traditional role of protecting and fostering the state religion while "Sinhalese kings sometimes pillaged temples and monasteries of their wealth."

So, Himesh, you should understand the fact that South Indians are always not destructive. And Sinhalese kings involved in geo-political-military war fare in the medieval time supporting Pandian Empire of South India in their Wars against Cholas; so Cholas also retaliated Sinhalese kings and invaded into their kingdoms time to time.

I disagree with your point, "earliest point of the conflict between Sinhalese and ethnic group called as Sri Lankan Tamil who are descendants of the Jaffna kindom which established by Magha and his army invaded Sri Lanka in 1215."

How sure there were no Tamils(who were there for Centuries) in the Northern Sri Lanka when Magha invaded. The Tamils who came with Magha might have been mixed with those Tamils who were already there. Otherwise what happened to those Tamils who were there in the Northern Sri Lanka. How it could be possible those who were there in the North being Sinhalese while the Tamil coast in South India is only 30 KM away from the Northern Sri Lanka.

What you refer as Sri Lankan Tamils today are a Mixture of Tamils who migrated towards Sri Lanka in different waves since several thousands of years.

What I mentioned about the European re-discovery is about Srivijaya - "After Srivijaya fell, it was largely forgotten and historians had not even considered that a large united kingdom could have been present in Southeast Asia. The existence of Srivijaya was only formally suspected in 1918, when French historian George Coedès of the École française d'Extrême-Orient postulated its existence. The aerial photograph taken in 1984 revealed the remnants of man-made ancient canals, moats, ponds, and artificial islands in Karanganyar site in Palembang suggested the location as Srivijaya urban center."

Hope you will understand above facts.Hillcountries (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

you saying 'The Tamils who came with Magha might have been mixed with those Tamils who were already there.'.On the other hand there are several Shiva temples within castle of Pollonnaruwa. Also cow had been removed from [[164]] due to Tamil concerns. Cow is a deity in Hindusm. Also adopted son of king parakramabahu VI who invaded Jaffna kingdom was a Tamil (During kotte era). So it is evident that Tamils came before Magha had good relationship with Sinhalese. Sinhalese names like Kulasekara,kulasekara, .. are derived from Tamils. The distance between Anuradhapura and Jaffna peninsula is only 80 miles away. Ruhuna which was about 160 milles away from Anuradhapura was a part of the Anuradhapura. It is hard to believe Tamils lived separate from Sinhalese as a separate kingdom. Without having kingdom Tamils can't resists to power of Anuradhapura. Having a conflict with Anuradhapura it is impossible to survive. Also there is no sign ( see ruins of Anuradhapura, pollonnaruwa) of any civilization except Jaffna kingdom. Unfortunately Sri Lanka don't have find anything like Srivijaya. Northern province is not a big area if some thing is there to find it must be already found by both LTTE and SL army because they know any place in the region. After king Parakramabahu I (1180 ? ) , the king unified Ruhuna, Rajarata, Mayarata for last time by serious of wars there can be new Tamil settlements. But it wasn't come as big army which threaten to power of Rajarata. Himesh84 (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There were Tamils mixed with those Tamils who came with Magha and the same time there were Tamils who mixed with Sinhalese.

If you could see the current ethnic conflict which is actually nothing to do with any of those Conflicts of Tamils and Sinhalese in the different time periods of the history of Sri Lanka. Because the Tamils in the Pre-Christian era and the Sinhalese in the Pre-Christian era are nothing to do with the ethnic identities of the modern Tamils and the modern Sinhalese. Because there were a lot of admixtures happened in between these ethnic groups over the centuries. That is why User:Blackknight12, a Sinhalese Wikipedian himself wanted to delete the article[165].

What I tried to say by my initial,"Hope some Europeans and American and other neutral editors will get involved on this project; some of the lost civilizations and kingdoms in South and Southeast Asia were re-discovered by European amatuer historians.", is, there could be some neutral editors will find a lasting solution for this issue on Ethnic Conflict article on Wikipedia like the interest shown by some European historians in the lost Southeast Asian kingdom like Srivijaya.Hillcountries (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be great if independent editors contributed to the article but for the moment I would like to focus on Himesh84's behaviour rather than the specific content that is the subject of the dispute. During the November dispute Himesh84 steadfastly refused to accept the core policies on content - neutrality, verifiability and no original research - despite a number of editors pointing them out (as exemplified by this discussion). The current dispute shows that Himesh84 still doesn't accept the core policies. Numerous editors (User:Richwales, User:So God created Manchester, User:Mike Rosoft, User:Qworty, Qwyrxian and myself) have spent a lot of time trying to educate Himesh84 but he is unable, or more probably unwilling, to change. Himesh84's attitude is that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Even when Himesh84 is forced to back down he won't accept that he is wrong: I will wait until non participants realizing the mistake; I am correct on past disputes; I refuse the sock puppet charges.

I don't believe Himesh84 is afraid of edit warring if he believes he can get his own way. In a recent dispute on Sri Lanka Himesh84's preference was opposed by everyone else but this didn't prevent him from reverting once, twice, thrice, four times. Indeed, Himesh84 has used strawman socks to create the appearance of an edit war. It was spotted in November that Himesh84 was using dynamic IP accounts in the 61.245.xxx.xx range. Here are some of the many edits by Himesh84 using the 61.245.xxx.xx range: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Recently a number of 61.245.xxx.xx accounts have engaged in "edit wars" with Himesh84: 61.245.165.24 v Himesh84 v 61.245.163.56 v Himesh84. This was in fact a lousy attempt at framing me.

I'm afraid Himesh84's excuse that WelupillaisOb is a public network account is lame. On 15 January WelupillaisOb was editing between 4.53 and 5.34 whilst Himesh84 was editing between 6.32 and 7.37. On 25 January Himesh84 was editing between 16.40 and 16.43 whilst WelupillaisOb was editing at 17.21. A check user will show that both accounts use the same computer. And if it's a public network account why try to hide it twice: 1 and 2? (BTW, the name WelupillaisOb is an insinuation that I'm a supporter of Velupillai Prabhakaran).

I'm not concerned about what sanction is taken against Himesh84 (blocked, topic ban etc). I just want some action taken that will make Himesh84 realise that his behaviour is unacceptable.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest someone to take action against Obi2canibe. He was supposed to justify neutrality tag. Not to do some joke comments under topic 'neutrality tag' in talk page and re insert neutrality tags. No consensus made Obi2canibe next explanation (even he said neutrality tag must restored since he is supporter of prabakaran) eligible to restore neutrality tag.

• He was joking in here. He saying SLT resorting to militancy due to their sympathy on Indian Tamils and Sinhalese by some government cruel action against Indian Tamils and Sinhalese ( Indian Tamils - CC Act, Sinhalese - standardization). Anyone can understand this is an joke even I am out numbered with votes.
• He has to show Tamil heritage out side of Sinhalese kingdom(With SLT). I have given lot of references to Tamil heritage within Sinhalese (ruins of Shiva temples,Sandakadapahana,..) and I can't believe his opinion unless it is come with verified sources. First these Tamils needs come to Sri Lanka from Canada and find long lost their heritages outside Sinhalese kingdoms. If someone can show that I can accept.
• Also colonization (based on 'Traditional home land claim') is one of the major fact they say as key reason to the last civil war. It is already is in the Obi2canibe's comment which he used to insert neutrality tags . This Land conflict is there since Sinhalese expelled in 1215. The war was for fertilized land in Rajarata. Now it is same story and come it as Traditional home lands. Still Tamils resists Sinhalese settlements in North and East (even after the war). I will withdraw the conflict has relationship to 1215 when Obi2canibe showed me Tamils and Obi2canibe withdrawn traditional home land issue with Sinhalese. Even Obi2canibe saying traditional home land issue has major reason how I can withdraw first incident about Lands.
• 61.245.xxx.xx belonged to Mobitel. One of the Largest mobile provider in SL. Tamils also logged from them. If I did I say it was me. Please see my confession in my home page.
• I haven't misused WelupillaisOb account. Verify I have misused the account after I recovered himesh account.
• Letting you to do your changes as you mentioned in [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sri_Lanka&diff=535499563&oldid=535352496 I will wait until non participants realizing the mistake] is one thing , but accepting it is another thing. I again say it in here. I don't accept what you did was correct. It is my opinion. If you need to change my personal opinion you must show why ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka article not fit in to Sri Lanka page rather voting counts. You start this because your previous attempt to introduce 'orphan' tag to 'ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka' page in here. The sentence could be rewritten in many different ways which could keep both ECSL and intuitive.
• Until richwales bought the issue to talk page in here no one participate in the talk page to include changes. Why only me wrong ? All were wrong.
• >> I would like to focus on Himesh84's behaviour rather than the specific content that is the subject of the dispute

I think you need to clarify content rather my previous behaviors as reasons to insert tags. Otherwise please withdraw your tags that currently in the page. Most of the time you question my behavior as a reason to revert my edits specially in Here. If some one allowed to questioned behaviors rather content to include changes there is no point been in WP. Himesh84 (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing orphan tag since it is referred from Vanni forest Himesh84 (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This looks like an extended content dispute that is not going to get resolved here. For now, I'm going to put a "tag removal ban on all articles related to Sri Lanka" on Himesh84 (citing the arbcom decision on Indian subcontinent related articles) though he/she is welcome to argue (non-tendentiously) about particular tags on the article talk page.--regentspark (comment) 16:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Reasons for your decision ? Himesh84 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

RegentsPark, I support your decision. Himesh84 is pushing POV on Wikipedia based on certain ethnically based POV epics and literatures. He will find if there any content to support to his pre-conceived POV theories from various sources; but if there are any counter arguments mentioned in those sources, he won't mention those. If some one refer the counter arguments; he will ask where you have found the content. My first question on this ANI thread was responded by Himesh84 similar way.Hillcountries (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Regentspark, can you please ask obi2canibe to withdraw tags. As you can see in the article I have fixed issues mentioned by him and I promise to insert rest of the things when I got list of war crimes and genocides by SLA from him. Until I received information (not arguments) little I can do to improve article Himesh84 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

To 2 Tamils,

• Showing Tamil's stupidity in a discussion and showing it on a article is different. First only see few audience, later will see every body. But both are stupid. Some people will see it. I have insert your concerns about colonization, standardization, CC act . Now go Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and see(Major disputed areas) how stupid the Tamil reasons to resorting to militancy looks like.
• Neutrality is not something which allows counter argument rather counter facts. I was reluctant to insert those things because Tamil concerns ( colonization (land issue), standardization, CC act ) looks extremely stupid. Hiding stupidity, en-education helped to preserve the neutrality. But if they claims they need their true identity to be mentioned I will insert them. But don't insert cn tags for counter arguments since those things are just counter arguments rather counter facts. It is there simply because Tamils says so.
• I will insert details about war crimes by both parties , genocides by both parties,... I have LTTE's list and don't know genocides done by SLA. I will wait until I got your list (with names and references) since it is non neutral to insert LTTE's list is alone.
• obi2canibe, I have fixed your concerns and I will insert rest when I got your help. Can you please withdraw your tag until you provide facts ? There is nothing I can do until I am receiving your lists Himesh84 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have re-added the Multiple issues tag on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Till the issues are resolved with the help of some neutral editors, the tags should be remained. Himesh84 is trying to show to the world Sri Lankan Tamils has got a short history in Sri Lanka and their presence in Sri Lanka is only after 1215. I have already pointed out, that is not true. Tamils who were there in Jaffna and the North and elsewhere have got mixed with Tamils who came with Magha and even thereafter in number of waves from South India. The lead para is itself problematic and POV and there is no need to say about the rest of the article with the edits of Himesh84 who is highly biased of Sri Lankan Tamils and their history.Hillcountries (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This id*t can't understand that I have work to do rather visiting north and east and finding your lost heritage. But I included your concerns in the land section. go and see.

What is till resolved? I have insert your concerns and already resolved. Neutral editors can't find your lost heritages.

orphan tag is pure technical. No need to take votes on that Himesh84 (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've given Himesh84 a final warning for talking about "Tamil's stupidity" and calling Hillcountries an idiot just above. While I'm probably WP:INVOLVED, I hope another admin will block Himesh84 if there is any more behavior like this. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I will not talk any more about "Tamil's stupidity" . Excuse me non-stupid Tamils, if you got hurt from above facts. I will never express opinions. Himesh84 (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that Himesh's response on his talk page was "If they are idiots why I can't say so ?", I think it's clear that a block is warranted. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Before things are getting worst, I must say Qwyrxian has misunderstand what I said in the ANI discussion may be due to my bad English. Himesh84 (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Banning removing tags may resolve the immediate dispute but it won't change Himesh84's behaviour.

Reaction to being blocked:

• November 2012 - You are such a stupid. ... But I strongly believe you wont do that since stupid can't have that much brain....final decisions are taking by few idiots in here(I only talking about you, scientic guy, and the one who wrote stupid comment on Sinha's page)...Yes. Idiot. ...Did you take this long to get it understand ? ...Still your program hasn't concluded Jimmy is a sock puppet of me. It is concluded by sceintis stupid. I believe your program is not an idiot like you or scenitic guy. ...May be your boss(who gave your admin badge) will believe you but not experts on this subject.
• February 2013 - fu*** Materialscientist. I think WP administrators clearly supporting Tamils and have a problems with Sinhalese. First in ANI comment, I didn't said Tamils or anyone is stupid. I blamed tamils in ANI (obni**, hillcountries) for making Tamils who resorting to militancy as stupids by forcing me to add stupid reasons to wear arms (sorry. but honestly the reasons are stupid) into the article. If reasons are stupid first administrators should block 2 Tamils and other administrators who forced me to add content to the article. .

Calling other editors idiots/stupid:

• November 2012 - Idiot, if you want to block me only block or delete me...What a stupid administrators you people; But seems like some stupid called as Materialscientist...This is what that stupid idiot wrote on my page...I asked it from some Ealam idiot...seems like Ealam idiots don't know anything useful.
• February 2013 - This id*t can't understand that I have work to do; If they are idiots why I can't say so ?.

Racism:

• November 2012 - That's may be the reason they are called as barbarian and rest of them are Aryan. I am guaranteed that you can find lot of interesting things on aryan invasion over barbarians in India around 1210. Then these barbarians come Sri Lanka in 1215..
• February 2013 - * Better you can say You were hurt by Aryan Barbarian discrimination in India and since SLT unable to reach Aryan in India, SLT raised arms against Sinhalese who are also Aryan section.

Has Himesh84's behaviour changed? No. Is he willing to change? No. How many more chances is he going to get.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User targetting my edits

User: Ysfan has been blindly reverting all my edits. This is apparent not just from the fact that all of Ysfan's recent edits are unexplained reverts of my edits (see contributions log), but that most of the edits he's reverted are uncontroversial edits such as code fixes, grammatical corrections, and filling out of bare link refs. On Script (comics) I placed a merger discussion tag, then removed it once the discussion was closed. Ysfan reverted both the removal of the tag and its original placement. I couldn't guess what this behavior is all about, but I'm confident that any attempt I make to communicate with Ysfan would only make things worse, as would simply reverting all these reverts. Please help.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let me show you what this appears to be all about: you were bold and made an edit to the article Ys (series) right here (I haven't checked if you ever edited it before). User:Ysfan - who clearly has a fixation on Ys-related articles, seeing as from May 2012 until January 2013 they only edited those articles - obviously took offense to your change. He then reverted (without explanation ... but still within WP:BRD), and went on a childish rampage against you on Feb 5. He then went back to normal editing on Feb 6. If you had approached them I bet they'd tell you that they were pissed off at your edit. This doesn't excuse their behaviour, nor does it excuse your failure to approach them directly, but now you probably have the story. So, what's your plan next? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess I should just avoid editing the Ys-related articles from now on. If he indeed "took offense" at an edit which fixed some atrocious grammar and removed obviously inappropriate phrasing, that suggests to me that Ysfan is at least somewhat unreasonable, and editors far more experienced with Wikipedia than I have warned me that attempting to open discussion with such editors will always, always make things worse: the editor will either step up his personal attacks, assume the debating techniques of a brick wall, or perhaps the worst scenario, not respond at all, and after weeks of waiting in vain for a reply, attempting to reinstate your edits will be considered by moderators to be edit warring. It stinks, but it is consistent with what I've observed on WP myself. Anyways, thanks for illuminating the situation for me.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody suggests that you stop editing that article...I do see that you had made the almost-identical change in January, and it was effectively reverted. You should not have made the same edit without getting new consensus on the article talkpage, even though your edit does look "correct" in face. If that consensus discussion proved to be fruitless, then dispute resolution processes can kick in in lieu of edit-warring. Nothing on Wikipedia is time-sensitive, so delays happen. However, if you attempt communication/consensus and the other party acts like a jerk, then you've taken the high road and will always have the stronger leg to stand on. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. NukeofEarl is a WikiVandal that was well aware of why this occurred having wanted to start an editing war with me. Him feigning ignorance and claiming he couldn't guess what this was all about is completely dishonest, but that is what you get from a lying hack! The paragraph in question in the Ys article was original and entirely written by me (yes, without explanation) before it caught his attention, before he decided to monitor it like a hawk ever since and keep swooping down to excise and edit it... At least 3 times he excised several sentences from it and his "atrocious" grammar/spelling fix was to lowercase a job title and selectively declare comments "inappropriate" and self-references along with excising relevant links. Even his description in his edits were subtle insults. He waited a few weeks this time before reimposing his 3rd edit, hoping to sneak it by me would be the only explanation. Not exactly somebody that wanted to communicate with me to resolve it civilly. Since he was mostly excising the aspect of what fan translators have felt in terms of legality and what it means that a corporation actually purchased fan translated scripts, that was relevant/interesting information and history he kept trying to excise, not edit for improvement, so I don't see how I could've "worked" with him on that particular issue. Declaring yourself by implication to having superior writing/grammar skills doesn't exactly help either.

Mr. NukeofEarl, poor fella, claims pessimism in that if he had communicated with me, that it would've never led to a resolution. If the only resolution was him imposing his edits and mostly excises on my paragraph, and ignoring all other problems with the article, showing particular bias and animus against me and what I said in particular, yeah, I'm probably not going to be willing to let him have his way. But, having said that, how does insulting me here (declaring me unreasonable, a brick wall, even before ever speaking to me, and that I'd be the one to make personal attacks when he already made them here before I even got here!) and getting an admin to insult me as well, how was that ever going to "solve" the issue which he instigated to begin with? It's laughable. He only used this opportunity to report the incident and add further insults in addition to the subtle ones he made with his first edit.

You say that I would "step up" the personal insults, when you've making them from the very beginning! That's cute cause I have never spoken to you before, this is the 1st time I've returned your insults, so that's a rather convenient prediction, that I'd insult you back... You go on to thank an admin for "illuminating" the situation which is also insulting! Please, you knew full well you started this, NukeofEarl, ~3 times you swooped down on *just* that paragraph to impose your excises/edits to it. You've been monitoring just my paragraph like a hawk ever since you saw it and I guess you don't like a taste of your own medicine, so you ran running to an admin to waste more of my time on something that was rather minor frankly to begin with (not to someone with a grudge of course, as in your case)! Anyway, you might fool somebody else with the innocent routine, but you don't fool me for a second... Ysfan (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, perhaps NukeofEarl should have attempted to talk to you about the changes after you kept reverting it. Vandalism, no. Not even close. Just because someone makes an edit that you don't agree with (which was made in good faith and done boldly), that doesn't make it vandalism. However, when you also could have taken the chance to attempt to talk to him about it when he hadn't, you instead blindly reverted all of his following edits to other articles for no reason, which you have avoid addressing or acknowledging it as you shove the entire blame on NukeofEarl. Also, it takes at least two to editwar. SassyLilNugget (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Ysfan, please calm down. The situation was improving until you came around, with your personal attacks (calling NukeOfEarl a vandal, a "lying hack", etc.), WP: CANVASSing (here), WP: OR ("The paragraph in question in the Ys article was original and entirely written by me") and WP: SPADE. I suggest that you strike those offensive comments before the admins start handing out blocks. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins - Nobody suggests it, but it's the sensible thing to do. It's true that if I did waste hours of my life trying to get Ysfan to engage in reasonable discussion I would "always have the stronger leg to stand on", but my time, my peace of mind, and my freedom to continue making improvements to other Wikipedia articles are far more important to me than my pride. If my walking away makes everyone think I'm the smaller man, they're all welcome to that belief.

I'm sure everyone's asking "If you're walking away, then why are you still posting here?" Well, I had no intention of doing so, but Ysfan just dropped a novel's worth of flame-baiting on my talk page. I've clearly stated my intention to ignore the Ys-related articles from now on, nor have I sent any private communications to Ysfan, so my guess is that someone in this topic is provoking him. Would it be too much to ask that he or she stop? I'm just trying to resume my regular WP editing, and if Ysfan decides to go back to random reverting that's going to really slow me down.--NukeofEarl (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Actually, that message YSfan posted on your page is the exact same one he posted here on AN/I (an obvious case of WP: CANVASS. Regardless of what conflict Nuke and YS got into, WP: HOUNDING Nuke is unacceptable and has to stop. Not only is the user WP: HARASSing Nuke, but also WP: FILIBUSTERs and makes accusations of personal attacks (of which, Nuke made none). This user should seriously think about their edits before they become blocked. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur and would hope that an admin gives Ysfan a politely worded talking too. I also see Nukes edit as an improvement and intend to restore it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the insinuation of Alles Klar is; the comment I pasted in Nuke's talk page was the same one as here. How that is being declared harassment I find bizarre. Whether here or there, made no difference to me. He called me into this discussion by dropping the tag in my account and had insults waiting for me here, so I don't think you get to cry fowl at that - I simply made sure he saw my response (and he gets to excise it out, so!). NukeofEarl, I don't care that you will cease to edit/excise that particular article (you've been mostly excising it it seems), I only cared about the particular paragraph I wrote that you kept trying to edit/excise down. Anyhow, I don't want my time wasted any longer with this either, so I have nothing further to say if you're making your intentions known to leave my original content alone. Ysfan (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Ysfan's above accusation of vandalism on NukeofEarl's part is ridiculous. Ysfan's contributions, as far as I can see, have thus far consisted of adding links to fansites, adding poorly-referenced, unencyclopedic prose, deleting perfectly valid "citation needed" tags with no explanation, and basically reverting anything that interferes with what he/she has written. NukeofEarl was not "bold" in editing the Ys article; he was restoring a small portion of the article to some semblance of good encyclopedia content. Ysfan seems to have serious WP:OWN issues with the article Ys (series), and is now harassing another user who tried to edit that article in good faith. His/her entire edit history consists of around 40 edits, of which half are either harassment or unexplained reversions. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Elvenscout742 tries to entirely negatively generalize my account over the issue claiming all I do is revert anything that interferes with what I wrote among other things. That happens to be the case with NukeofEarl and the paragraph in question that he targeted, but that would be the only case. Claiming that half of all my edits have been harassment is nothing short of slander. I was able to recall/find ONE citation needed tag, that's hardly plural ("tags") so again, an attempted generalization on his part (The purchases of fan translated scripts are verifiable on the company's website that bought them on that issue). I reject his claim that Nuke saught to edit the article in "good faith" given his approach as already mentioned above. He has mostly been excising from what I can tell, not adding new or informative content as far as just that article is concerned. I have not been in any further communication with NukeofEarl, neither has he, and claiming that I am *now* harassing him indicates you're rather late to the party. Finally, I don't claim I "OWN" the article nor is that somehow implied just because I reject Nuke's 3 attempts to excise some sentences that I wrote. Ysfan (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you explain this, then? NukeofEarl's "excising" was, as far as I can see, fixing the tone of the article and removing questionable material that was unreferenced. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ysfan is starting to dig deeper, now accusing me of meatpuppetry for restoring Nukes (IMO) improved edit. There are some serious ownership issues here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, Little_green_rosetta just made good on his/her editing war harassment threat on behalf of NukeOfEarl's excises/edits and has twice so far tried to reimpose Nuke's revision - Just in the last minute. It would appear Nuke succeeded since he gained a previously uninterested party's interest in my paragraph who is now monitoring it like a hawk on his behalf. Dear rosetta, YOU don't own the article and just because you want Nuke's revision to stand to harass me given this context, doesn't mean I nor anybody else can't edit it back. FYI! Your ownership argument goes both ways. Ysfan (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I had a dispute that was very similar to this one a few months back. Another user suggested we both take a TBAN and IBAN voluntarily, to prove we were both good faith editors working in the best interests of the Project. That solution worked out fantastically. How about both user take a voluntary TBAN on the Ys video games, and agree not to interact with each other at all? elvenscout742 (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment I opened an RfC since I get the feeling that Ysfan has the bit between his teeth on this issue. Let others chime in in this important issue.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems Ysfan has removed my RfC. I've restored it. If he removes it again, can someone please block him and then restore the RfC?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

LittleGreenRosetta, emphasis on the little, has continued his/her harassment campaign with multiple posts on my own account's Talk page (I responded a few times back on his/hers as a result) and apparently demands a ban for removal of a RFC that was opened for no other reason than to heckle/harass me on NukeOfEarl's behalf with regards to his revised version of my original paragraph. I thought everyone was free to edit at any time? LittleGreenRosetta demands his/her posts be free from editing or removal evidently and that anyone that would dare to do so should be banned. Interesting... Well, I made it very clear to LittleGreenRosetta that any further posts on my account's Talk page I consider harassment and that I find this individual rather disturbed. If he/she posts on my account yet again, can I report this somewhere? Can somebody be banned for this form of continued harassment ? Also, is there a simple ignore or block feature against a troublesome user like LittleGreenRosetta in the meantime? Ysfan (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted Ysfan's removal of the RfC and given a clear warning that any further ownership attitude, removal of other people's comments, or attacks will result in a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have given Ysfan a 48 hours rest from editing the project. Their personal attacks here, on their talkpage, and in edit summaries have escalated beyond what is acceptable. Having read the original series of edits, now having seen the responses above, I would say that Ysfan simply hates any suggestion that their edit/editing is wrong. When Nuke made a change, Ysfan took it personally. Now Ysfan has a number of people telling him that their editing is wrong, and everyone is being attacked. This is not a positive sign for growth in the Community, so I fear the worst instead of better (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban and topic ban (plus mentorship)

After the discussion continued on YSfan's talk page, resulting in several heated arguments, I propose a solution to the problem: that YSfan have an interaction ban with nuke; and be topic banned from any articles relating to Ys. Along with mentorship, YSfan can cool his heels working on another project. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the topic ban support mentoring as mentoring would hopefully solve the collaboration issue.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  01:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic and interaction bans because that doesn't even address the issue. The simple and obvious issue is that Ysfan cannot handle any criticism of their edits; period. He went on a vandalism streak against Nuke, is calling LGR a harasser, and has gone off on me. Let him be an SPA, but he has to be a civil and open to criticism SPA - mentoring could be the resolution for that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - as a WP:SPA, the topic ban would probably just stop them editing, other than to attack people. I think they should get a longer block, considering they appear to be lacking in competence and have written several personal attacks - the latter of which kinda makes me think that mentoring would be ineffective. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Starmagicxxx

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

---

Seems to be no one at AN3. I warned Fastfromlight (talk · contribs) for 3RR, took him to AN3 at 4RR, another Admin told him he was mentioned at AN3, he reverted a 5th time and I mentioned this at AN3, now he's reverted a 6th time. I'm raising an SPI as he is obviously Starmagicxxx (talk · contribs) who reverted the same material earlier. Neither ever discuss on talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring; happy to move to indef after the SPI comes back. GiantSnowman 11:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Neither account is willing to discuss their edits, not the sort of editor we want. Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User talk:Chascharl

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

---

AussieLegend suspects that the above user abused multiple accounts, with that account being an IP, 68.205.136.58. Refer to this diff for more info and please check their contribs. Arctic Kangaroo 15:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Chascharl has been editing disruptively at List of Pair of Kings episodes for the past few days. All attempts to engage this editor in discussion have failed, with the editor preferring to edit war. I eventually filed a report at WP:3RRNB because of the edit-warring.[166] Unfortunately there has been no reponse in the ten hours since I filed the report, which has given Chascharl the opportunity to start vandalising my comments on the article's talk page. After I gave him a final warning he disappeared and the IP started making the same edits, with its only recent activity being identical vandalism of the talk page and removal of content from Chascharl's talk page. I warned it after the first instance about vandalism while logged out but after the second reported it to WP:AIV. Daniel Case has now blocked both Chascharl and the IP for a week, so I guess there's nothing else to be done at this point, although I expect I'll have to do it all over again in 8 days. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Further WikiProject banner-related disruption of Talk:History of Vojvodina

• Original title of this thread: Further WikiProject banner-related disruption of Talk:History of Vojvodina from WP:SPAs evading semi-protection & suspected creation of new WikiProject as part of the disruption

G'day all, back in December there was significant disruption to a number of article talk pages relating to Vojvodina by a new user User:Oldhouse2012. This resulted in a report here [167] specifically about the editors behaviour at Talk:History of Vojvodina, and an ARBMAC warning was issued to User:Oldhouse2012 by User:EdJohnston here [168]. User:Oldhouse2012 then fell off the face of the earth. The disruption to the article (this time by two IPs) re-commenced in mid-January [169], [170] and [171] and User:EdJohnston protected the page on 23 January here [172]. User:Brianyoumans was subjected to some personal attacks and abuse by these IPs here [173]

On 31 January a new user User:Baća bez gaća registered, joined a number of WikiProjects that had previously been subject to the banner disruption on Talk:History of Vojvodina (a total of ten edits), waited four days then began the same disruption of the talkpage as User:Oldhouse2012. During early discussion with this new editor by User:Brianyoumans (who was involved in dealing with the disruption earlier) another new account User:Foodsupply appeared to support User:Baća bez gaća. A quick look shows that User:Foodsupply was created on 29 January and did ten edits that day. When four days had expired this new editor's first edit was to support User:Baća bez gaća at Talk:History of Vojvodina here [174].

The two new accounts appear to be either new WP:SPAs created by the disruptive IPs to continue that activity or socks/meat of User:Oldhouse2012. In particular, User:Baća bez gaća's behaviour and comments are highly reminiscent of Oldhouse2012.

Could I please get some admin attention on this? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said!Brianyoumans (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I hear ducks quacking. Two new registered accounts miraculously sprang up when semi was imposed, and are now making the same silly reverts. They are removing certain WikiProject banners from the talk page, apparently as a sort of nationalist turf-marking behavior. Unclear whether an SPI would have much to go on. We might have to go ahead and block new registered accounts on behavior. One option might be to open an WP:RFC on the talk page about the WikiProject banners and then block anyone who reverted before the RfC reached a conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea Ed. Could we block these characters while I get the RFC up and running? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC done [175]. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have another potential sock to add to the pile: User:AnyWay5000. Created on January 30th, the very first edit on the account was to create a WP:Kingdom of Hungary.Brianyoumans (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Agree Brian. I thought it was highly convenient that WikiProject was created just as this was happening. I'm just offended that these people think we're THAT dumb. :-) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think we should add the creation of WP:Kingdom of Hungary by User:AnyWay5000 to the report (per Brianyoumans). This really needs some attention. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Can a CU please take a look and give a verdict on the Sockpuppetry issue please? Mdann52 (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

I just would like to add that this distruption may be much deeper than it first looks. For the record, it was me who first added the project banners at first to articles like history of ... , battle of ... and so (territories that were ruled by Hungary or battles it participated in, etc.) a long time ago. For a good long period it was okay, however, when I started to add to articles that are some way related to Serbia, Oldhouse2012 (talk · contribs) popped up from nowhere and began its action. At first removed the banners, then, after realized that it won't work, started to overtag the articles. S/he was not shy to stalk me and come after me even into the category space (how else could you answer this). Recently, IPs started to remove the overtags paying special attention to inculde WP:HU into these removal actions (in the category space or in the article space).

Not much later, I've created a category titled Category:Hungarian communities in Vojvodina and added to the related articles. Many of them, however, were soon removed, and replaced by a number of badly named, new categories created by Account2013 (talk · contribs) - most of them looked to have created to prove his/her point. (interestingly s/he came up from nowhere, and as a brand new account started quite "mature" actions like creating categories, despite s/he was supposed to be a complete newcomer - sockpuppet?).

As immediately pointed out on the category's talk page, it was a bit rushed and eventually it ended up in a mass category deletion as these new categories were found improper. I've also requested comments from experienced users, who suggested a new, probably more proper name for the category, however, this was rejected by Account2013 (being the lone one to do so), which led to a hiatus, as now some of the articles are in the category while other ones (from where the badly named categories were removed) are not.

Being stucked at this point, I was bold and listified these settlements and added to the articles in the list, however, just after a short while these were also arbitrarily removed (most of them by an IP (79.175.95.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). I brought the issue to ANI that time, even went to the DRN, however, Account2013 and the IPs who countinued his/her action after s/he stepped down, remained silent and even the DRN was dropped because of the lack of interest. While I cannot force the other side to participate in a discussion (actually probably could do if I would re-add those, though it would generate an edit war or whatever, which i don't want), it is kind of suspicious that I have a "fan" who tries to prevent everything I do. I don't know how much possible it is, but would like to draw someone's attention on these, if I did not manage to do earlier, and get a solution on these (renaming the category/adding it to articles/re-add the list article to the related settlement articles) and ask some experienced users to have an eye on these as it's likely that further actions will be necessary.

Thanks for your time and just drop a line for further details if needed — Thehoboclown (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Thehoboclown for the new data. It looks to me that this will be a long-running issue and a filing at WP:Sockpuppet investigations may be best. For convenience I would suggest Oldhouse2012 as the master. I hope that one of the parties will have the patience to create an SPI report. If blocks turn out to be needed, a link to the SPI will provide a guide for further review. For the overall pattern of ethnic warring, a report at WP:Long term abuse is another option. Though it would be hard to show if all these guys are socks or meats, they do have a well-defined common interest -- erasing the significance of the current or historical non-Serbian minorities in Vojvodina. I shortened the header of this thread to simplify future reference to it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Funny. There is just one question: if I have so many sockpuppets (and listed accounts are not blocked) then why I had to wait 4 days to edit semi-locked page with this user name? Why I simply haven't used one of mine supposed sockpuppets? There are 6 million people in Serbia and you suggest that one person operates all Serbian accounts in Wikipedia. Besides this, both Peacemaker67 and Thehoboclown are nationalist POV pushers themselves. I suggest that their behavior is examined too. Baća bez gaća (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

@Ed. Thanks again for the advice. I'll handle the actions you've suggested. And @Thehoboclown, thanks very much for the info. I completely understand your frustration, I'll be in touch if I need any more data. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Great advice Ed. SPI checks out per [176]. I have already WP:MFD'd WP:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary. I suppose we can resume normal operations, sans our new friends. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your great efforts, Peacemaker! Too bad it took one minute (!) to remove the info you reinserted. Thehoboclown (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I blocked all the CU-confirmed socks who had accounts per the SPI case. But due to the section below about Srbobran, there may be more to do. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

yes, EdJohnston, there is something more you can do. you can examine pattern of behaviour of editors like Thehoboclown or Peacemaker67 and you will see that they are agressive POV-pushers too and they waste large amount of their time in Wikipedia in POV revert wars. they try not to make any page better or neutral but they revert war because they want that they POV prevail over POV of others. if sanctions arent imposed on them too, I affraid, this war in Wikipedia will never stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.127.0.177 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask an admin to consider closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary early? It is directly related to this report and the related SPI. Thanks very much! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all the admins that have dropped in and helped out with this one. The dark (Balkan) corners of en WP need a bit of sunshine to cut through the mould every now and again. I know I'm a bit rough and "old school" sometimes but... I loveyoozall. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruption and threats on Srbobran

This might or might not be the same clique, but the topic is the same: 113.193.187.226 (talk · contribs) first tried to erase official Hungarian name of Vojvodinian town of Srbobran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and when I reverted and warned him under WP:ARBMAC, I got this nice tirade [177]. Google translate with my fixes:

What the fuck? Srbobran is the Serbian city. Why are you supporting the Hungarian fascists who killed Serbs and threw them under the ice. This here is a real Hungarian fascist whose account is blocked on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srbobran&diff=535767619&oldid=532170630 Why are you doing this? And besides, do you think you'll be able to keep this article to the end of life there ? You're pushing the stone up the hill, but will certainly fall down. Understand that you can not do anything, they can block this IP or temporarily lock the article, but it does not help. You have no idea who I am and who I work for, and so I say it's better that you do not interfere in such a way. 113.193.187.226 ( talk) 21:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess a permanent semi-protection and a heavy block is in order. No such user (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is very similar to the language used on my talk page by an IP, except that they used English. See User_talk:Brianyoumans#Notification (Serbia). (I added (Serbia) to make it unique.) Brianyoumans (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we please get some admin help here? This is the same bunch of loonies all over the place. I feel like I'm playing Whac-A-Mole at the moment... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy days, SPI checked out. Not sure about your IP though, Nsu. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Now Nado158 (talk · contribs) has stepped into the revert game [178]. Sorry, but I don't think that this is a mere content dispute: it is pure nationalist POV-pushing. Can an admin hand out a WP:ARBMAC warning, I don't want to play a defender. I might be close to 3RR. No such user (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• • No such user: I have proposed a compromise at Talk:Srbobran. I'm not sure the Hungarian name needs to be in the infobox, or even should be, but it deserves to be prominent. You are definitely in an editing war and have probably violated 3RR yourself; maybe you should have called for help sooner? Brianyoumans (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As a small addition, Nado158 was active in this "removing-game" in the Subotica article (check the article history focusing on early December), however, that time it was solved quickly thanks to Iadrian yu (talk · contribs), who was there to patrol the article, re-add the name which was countinously removed, and even gave an explanation for the inclusion. That time it looked that Nado158 understood it and after a few tries he dropped the action.

The next time his/her name appeared on my watchlist came when s/he, hand in hand with one of the above mentioned IP started to remove the links to the communitly list article. ([179], [180], [181]). This was the time when I went on to submit an ANI report, pointing out that his/her actions might fall under WP:ARBEE (so his latest action was not his first when s/he went probably too far). However, I got only a dismissive answer, subsequently Nado158 did not even bother to participate in a discussion. As mentioned above, after received no admin reaction, I went to DRN as well to bring them out, however they played it out by simply ignoring it. Seems like s/he did not want to participate and understand the things and don't even mind to learn from his past actions. Thehoboclown (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest Mentorship, if the user who was doing this would be willing to create an account so that we could track their edits more easily and have a way to communicate with them more quickly as well, but I"ve seen quite a few failed mentorship arrangements so said idea might not work out too well if this persists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.101.25 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

IP Stalker and Vandal

I have had an IP Stalker and Vandal attack my user pageUser:I am One of Many and talk page User talk:I am One of Many for the last several days using different IPs. Bencherlite has been semi-protcting my pages for the last few days, but now he is under attack and the IP stalker claims to be running an automated script and will never stop and perhaps expand his attacks against Wikipedia (see Protection).--I am One of Many (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Trolls say lots of things. I wouldn't worry about it too much. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not going to worry about it. He must have a sad life to spend it trolling.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha, how do you say, "look who's talking" in a more classy way? Some people spend all day manually adding intrusive welcome notes to the user pages of new members to inflate his "edit count", and go about drive-by tagging without thinking and then feel sorry for someone else. Fun! By the way, does the word Duke ring a bell to you? Monpoo (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the contents of User:Monpoo? Voceditenore (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Right. Suggest sending this on to SPI to determine the sockmaster, then take it from there. This appears to be more than trolling. Jusdafax 17:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I just received a large number of emails via Wikipedia to my personal email account from sock puppet User:Dougie Bowser signed "~ The Duke" with other derogatory content.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is King of Zeroes (talk · contribs). I ran a CU and found a couple of socks, which I blocked; unfortunately, a rangeblock is not possible at the moment, due to the collateral damage. As a side note: admins, when you block a sock of this guy, please remember to disallow them from sending e-mails. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I expect most Wikipedians to be adults ... who knew they were "that kinda guy"? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've heard Bambifan101 was a kid, but yeah, most of the people who vandalize, from my personal guess, are people with too much freetime or they are really pissed at Wikipedia for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.101.25 (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

IP adding false information to articles

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

---

An individual editing from the IP 24.159.181.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding false claims to various articles. The IP has been twice blocked for similar edits, the last block being for six months. It is obviously the same individual making these false claims so I reported the IP to AIV, but it was removed due to "insufficient warning" being provided. My thinking is that a six month block is all the warning someone needs. The IP has been trying to remove any mention of Anthony Mason being the co-anchor of CBS This Morning: Saturday and replacing it with the claim that Jim Axelrod is the anchor. Other problematic edits included falsely claiming that the Australian version of "The Price is Right" is ongoing, when it has been cancelled and that includes removing sourced material stating it has been cancelled. Unfortunately, it is difficult to suss out if all the edits are false or only a large number of them. This IP should be blocked again for a long time and all its edits should be reviewed for veracity.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Otiscalms

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

---

Otiscalms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Could somebody please block them quick? It's the latest Mangoeater1000 sock, and AIV isn't responding. (In fact, they're currently edit warring to remove the report.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

DoRD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked the sock. --Webclient101^talk 20:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Deletion of another's RfA comment

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

---

Here, Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) suggested that, "since you seem inclined to continue to be personal and pointy, why don't you take your opinion of my comment, and stick it where the sun don't shine, sweetheart, it'll keep your head company". I removed it. Should I have done that?

My view is that my comments were appropriate in civilised debate but his were not. I understand refactoring his comment is, possibly, controversial, but believe it was appropriate, under the circumstances. Other opinions would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

BMK's oppose reasons were reasonable and you dismissed them in more than one place on that page in an unreasonable way with hyperbolic rhetoric (one example [182]). The issue of making a small number of deleted pages viewable for the RAN arbcom case has now been resolved. Mathsci (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken gave no reasons, just a blank I don't like that and it's dangerous, without giving any reasons for not liking it or it being dangerous. That's not argument, it's a vote. My "worthless hot air" was a little harsh, but true and part of reasonable, if robust, argument. His suggestion that I stick it up my arse was a gratuitous insult. Was I right to remove the insult, or was that inappropriate? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:WQA is now defunct. What administrative assistance are you requesting? Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm really just after advice. Do you mind if I move this to another venue, perhaps AN or Village Pump/Pplicy? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The general level of your comments towards opposing editors there - at least a dozen edits towards at least 7 oppose !votes has reached an unacceptable level in my opinion and I suspect in the opinion of a number of others. Your are, frankly, annoying verging on disruptive and at your next challenge I would have brought it up until I saw this. Please tone it down. There are at least 2 dozen inane and frankly dubious support !votes which could readily be challenged. To do so would be seen as disruptive. You have made your support of the candidate clear. Badgering opposers has achieved nothing so far. Leaky Caldron 13:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's called argument, Leaky. It's what we do here. Or, at least, it's what some of us do. Others just close their eyes, throw their heads back, stick their fingers in their ears and shout assertions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You might think of taking the plank out of your own eye, Leaky Cauldron [183]. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read the whole thread instead of selectively picking one of my edits. In that link I was challenging hypocrisy by the candidate who had made a personal attack against me (observed and commented on by others). The OP here just badgers anyone he doesn't agree with and comes here looking for validation. Not the same thing. Leaky Caldron 13:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You reference a nursery rhyme synonymous with name-calling and taunting and then ironically "welcome" the candidate to RFA. The substance of your subsequent remarks translates as "Don't dish it out if you can't take it." While I've read the thread, there's no context that makes that an appropriate addition to such a process. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I turned up here to comment on a persistent and annoying badgerer where this RfA would not be the first time he has behaved in such a way (his block log is available). My behaviour is wholly irrelevant to this thread. Keep bringing it up if you wish, it doesn't alter the facts under discussion. Leaky Caldron 14:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think if you're complaining about the behaviour of another contributor to the RFA it's reasonable, if there are issues at hand, that your own statements at the same RFA may also be subject to comment. As regards relevance, this thread was concerned with soliciting opinion on whether Anthonyhcole's refactoring of another editor's comments was appropriate. Although you address this issue below (and I would tend to agree that he should not have done this himself), your preliminary remarks did not. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh well. While we're here, I might as well clarify something. I'm unsure what your complaint is, exactly. I have been challenging the arguments of some opposers (and pointed out to Beyond My Ken that his was no argument at all). Can you clarify for me just what is disruptive about that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You have challenged at least 7 !votes you disagree with using at least a dozen edits together with your lengthy, personal support narrative. I have seen an editor threatened with a permanent block for similar behaviour in an RfA. My opinion is that you are pushing things too far. All of the !votes you have badgered are well made points by respected, generally established contributors. You should respect their right to comment without repeatedly challenging them because you simply disagree. There are at least a dozen banal and a couple of extremely dubious !vote supports. Do you not find it odd that in at least 2 cases editors who have made hardly any contributions for the best part of a year and have never voted in an RFA just turn up now? Why not challenge them? Piping up with a well thought out rationale is absolutely fine, repeating your personal mantra is excessive (in my opinion). On topic, you should probably leave refactoring other's comments to uninvolved editors, although what you removed was a bit strong and targeted. Leaky Caldron 14:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"You should respect their right to comment without repeatedly challenging them because you simply disagree." Here, you are expressly telling me that I may not argue with other editors. This seems to me to be contrary to our purpose here. For instance, I challenged Kurtis and (partly, I think, due to my argument) he changed his mind. We are here to change minds and have ours changed. Argument is what we are here for. I despair often over the ignorance of this fact, and over the ignorance of the nature and value of good argument. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's reasonable to ask admins' opinions here, Mathsci. I presume Anthony wants to know if either he or BMK did anything actionable. My opinion is they didn't, though neither of them acted any too well.

@Anthony: at least he called you sweetheart! But seriously, BMK's comment that you removed was indeed rude, and escalated the tone of the quarrel considerably. BMK shouldn't have said that, but then the tone of the argument at that RFA was already annoying and bad-tempered and niggling. He lost his temper; people do.

About your removal of the comment: as you may know, removing personal attacks is controversial; there was a lot of argument about it some time back, and it's certainly not policy. Compare WP:RPA, which makes the point that you need to be especially careful about removing attacks against yourself; better let somebody else do it.

I'll (hesitantly) accept your removal, but the way you did it was poor. Two things: you must leave something behind when you remove somebody else's comment. <Personal attack removed>, or the like. Secondly, you didn't remove it, you modified somebody else's post, on an RFA, yet, by removing part of it — and again, with no indication that this wasn't what BMK wrote. The much shortened comment still carries his sig. That's not right, Anthony. Please go back and indicate that you've removed something. Bishonen | talk 15:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC).

Thank you sweetiepie. That's exactly what I was looking for. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The proper way to address me as established by User:Giano is sweet pea. Bishonen | talk 15:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC).

How's that, goddess? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Very proper. It is indeed best practice to put a link in there for the curious. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC).

(ec) The policy page you point to is not clear on that point, in fact it brazenly contradicts itself; at the top of the page it says "Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor". Now, unless that's actually descriptive rather than prescriptive (so that its relevance to the topic is similar to "an elephant in musth may destroy inanimate objects in its way"), which seems problematic, that really doesn't fit with the sub-section of the policy that you cite, which does indeed say that in most cases editors should not (not quite "may not") remove comments about themselves that fall short of extreme seriousness such as outing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• BMK's comment was really ill advised, indeed, people have been blocked for less. But I don't think he should be blocked. Ideally Anthony should have left the redaction to an uninvolved editor, but I understand why he did what he did. The situation seems to have been settled now, I think this can be closed. Everyone remember not to comment on other editors and walk away when the tempers start getting real heated--remember, Rfa comments have triggered Arbcom hearings in the past. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• I knew there was a reason I stopped reading the comments and never did read the discussion page. War's over. Everybody drop it and get back to work, god damn it. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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

CBNG-reverting ducks

I seem to have found some WP:DUCK socks who add the same text to a page and revert anti-vandalism bots. For an example, see diff one and diff two. If it's not apparent, the users are User_talk:41.233.63.61 and User talk:Bola George. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 02:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Unknown IP edit warring

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

---

There is an unknown editor (see here) who has reverted at least four times other users in the last hours:

• Reverted User:Yopie: [184]
• Reverted User:FactStraight: [185]
• Reverted User:Cristiano Tomás: [186]
• Reverted Lecen (me): [187]

Every one of them for the same reason. --Lecen (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor hasn't reverted since being made aware of the three revert rule at 22:56, 8 February 2013. The editor appears to have taken the issue to the article's talk page (00:08 9 February 2013). Unless another revert is made, it would seem the warning did the trick and no further action is needed. --auburnpilot talk 01:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No, he hasn't stopped.[188] He has simply created an account (check the history log of both). Could someone doe something about it? --Lecen (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

How can you be sure the new user is the ip? Probably just easier to issue the new user a 3RR warning.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This new user hasn't crossed 3RR. I don't see what the problem is.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it's obvious that they are both the same person and someone who is offensive toward other editors. Isn't a single administrator who can actually do something here to resolve this problem? --Lecen (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Just be patient. Either this user will clean up their act, or they will get blocked. And now that an account has been created, any new users that exhibit the same behavior can be reported as sockpuppets.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

In other words: you're telling me to wait for further edit warring in that article. Are you serious? Isn't there aynoe else in here who can do something to stop the madness going on there? --Lecen (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for a week. -- Dianna (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dianna. --Lecen (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Possible username violation

If editor returns, toss him at WP:UAA. Otherwise, nothing to see or to do here. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Jewishterminator, I believe, is an inappropriate username. I know the account has been around for about a year and hasn't edited in a long while, but we can't just let this stick around, can we? The username, to the best of my knowledge, could either refer to Naziism or speculation that Arnold Schwarzenegger is Jewish. Either meaning is, I think, inappropriate for a Wikipedia username. I think a block or usurpation may be necessary (Seriously, how has this been around for so long?). --Free Wales Now! what did I screw up?  01:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Or, we could WP:AGF and figure that the editor was Jewish and a fan of Arnold's movies.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC) User appeared on 17 January last year, made four edits on that day - which were a bit dodgy, then disappeared forever. Why are you poking this horse carcass with that stick? The user is obviously long gone, and we can't make the username go away. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I guess your right, I probably just freaked out when I saw an inappropriate name with a talk page that wasn't blocked. It's certainly not a common thing here on Wikipedia, usually when you type "User:(Profanity/Euphenism)" in the search bar, it is either non-existent or indef-username blocked. Just startled me I think. I'm calmed down now. This discussion can be closed/archived/deleted if so chose. --Free Wales Now! what did I screw up?  01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC) His handful of edits should have gotten him indef'd at the time, but either no one took notice or no one took action. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by 213.10.158.120

This IP, 213.10.158.120[189], has for months been systematically removing references and referenced information from articles, with no edit summaries or false statements like, "These sources are not reliable. The ancient sources explicitly describe him as coming from a Turkic line, which claimed shufa descendence. He was not a Kurd.[190],"I can't find any reference anywhere to a Kurd origin"[191]

Further unexplained removal/change of references and/or referenced information:

• [192]
• [193]
• [194]
• [195]
• [196]
• [197]
• [198]
• [199]
• [200]
• [201]
• [202]
  

This IP's disruptive editing needs to be addressed.--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (newsection) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henkywijaya.1 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Very important and accurate, Amen.-----

• I've left a message. They seem to have a NPOV issue, but I will leave to another who is more familiar with the content. I would assume if they keep editing disruptively, they will soon be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

apparent statement of intent to ignore WP:DRN consensus regarding WP:RS determination

Apostle12, an editor at Huey P. Newton, after discussions on the talk page and at WP:DRN regarding the reliability of a source (consensus seemed to be non-RS), has announced intent to write a wholly new section that would appear to include this source. Talk page discussion is here and here, original material that prompted DRN involvement is here -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I do intend to write a new section, using various sources. I have not voiced any intention to ingore WP:RS, though I do not in any way agree with the hasty conclusion of various editors. This is the third attempt by editor UseTheCommandLine to attack me personally because we disagree, a pattern I find wholly intolerable. Apostle12 (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This looks more like a content dispute than anything else. However, also, CommandLine, you've not shown us where this editor has explicitly said "I will not listen to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or participate in DRN" through a diff. If you can get a diff, maybe something should be done, but as of right now, it looks like content sourcing dispute, nothing that needs to be at AN/I. If DRN fails, the next step for you would be an RfC, and then possibly the Mediation Committee. gwickwire^talk_edits 14:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the direction. Sometimes it's not immediately clear to me what the "next step" is in the process. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, this diff is the one i was most concerned about. It looks to me like, after being told that consensus is that this article is non-RS, they are immediately creating a new justification for placing this reference back in the article. Though perhaps this would be better dealt with by an RfC on the appropriateness of such a section, as you sort of allude to. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• What gwickwire said. Not an incident that requires admin intervention at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP vandal

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

---

IP User:69.20.167.78 has been making a series of vandalistic edits to Nordic gold, despite talk page notifications. Here are the relevant contribs. dci | TALK 06:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't vandalized after the last warning, so we don't need to block quite yet. By the way, AIV's the normal place to report these things, just for future reference. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I'm probably a bit too tired to be reviewing vandalism right now, and for some reason thought to report it here. dci | TALK 06:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries--happens to the best of us. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Rollback

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

---

Please revoke my rollback rights. I have a tendency to click there when I shouldn't. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User Norden1990

User:Norden1990 made several personal attacks against me, here are some examples: "then read history books, please. And not only in Slovak"[203], "No one can argue with a nationalist editor, just like you, Omen1229. You have strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration. The modern Sibiu was never called under its present name until 1918. The Wikipedia is not should be the scene of the falsification of history..."[204] - this post is absurd false personal attack so I wrote here [205]. Some anti-Slovak POVs: "Jeszenszky is a Hungarian noble family. Slovaks had not yet existed."[206], this is interesting edit [207] and facts: 1437 Trnawsky (adjective), 1451 Trnawie, 1483 w Trnawie, 1512 Trnawie, 1512 miesta Trnawy etc., Bernolak codified the Slovak language standard etc. and now important thing - I used English term Magyar (see Hungarian people: "Hungarians, also known as Magyars"), but User:Norden1990 used Hungarian term Tóts, which has a pejorative meaning. User:Norden1990 mentioned my name also in his comment in Hungarian language [208] and his translation [209]. I wrote on his Talk page the Warning [210] according to his battleground behavior and this was his strange response [211]. Unfortunately he broke again 3RR in this article [212]. And typical behavior, User:Norden1990 wrote "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid." [213] and here deleted name Oradea [214]. So what is the definition of "quality" for him? --Omen1229 (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Omen, when you run out of arguments, you always report me. So, let's see. 1, Your source is invalid because it does not contain primary sources, and contains Slovak POV. You know, one of the main pillars of the Wikipedia is the NPOV.

2, Omen, you said about yourself in your user page that you are nationalist. Don't blame me for that, true, since this information is already deleted by you. Sibiu was called "Szeben" or "Hermannstadt" until the end of WW1. It is a historical fact.

3, Slovakia really did not exist until 1993. Jeszenszky is a Hungarian noble family which provided famous members to the Hungarian nation. For example, Géza Jeszenszky, foreign minister of Hungary between 1990 and 1994. What is the problem?

4, I did not call you as "tót". Magyar is a pejorative meaning in Slovakia.

5, My edits show that I write articles in the spirit of neutrality. I give the city and municipality names in many languages when warranted. Giglovce was part of Hungary from the 10th century to 1920, so your edit deleted an important information.

6, You can calmly reported, my conscience is clear. You are an extremist editor who are incapable of the slightest consensus. Your talk page proves I'm not the person with whom have occured problems. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

7, Yes, I deleted "Oradea", because that disrupted the integrity of article (anyway this edit was done by a sockpuppet). Since then the modern names were add to the other towns (Kassa, Kolozsvár etc.), so there is no problem. You also broke the 3RR rule in the article of Giglovce. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Norden - I don't understand your argument. Are you aware that Wikipedia prefers third party sources over primary sources for controversial topics?--v/r - TP 23:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that statement has only 1 (one) GB hits here. None of Hungarian, Slovak or English publications mentione John Zapolya as "Slovak king". The source says "contemporaries" called him "Slovak king", but does not mention anyone by name. There are no footnotes. I would not call it a good source (see also: Talk:John Zápolya). --Norden1990 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that even en.wp uses the "pejorative" term "Magyar" that is invoked by Norden1990: "Hungarians, also known as Magyars" (Hungarian people) 202.29.238.193 (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It was pejorative in that sense. But the point is that I did not use the term "tót", I said exactly that I will not use such a term for Omen, while he did this. Anway, who are you? (Although I have a hunch.) If you have problem with me, please register and discuss. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

2. "strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration", "falsification of history" is normal vocabulary and behavior of User:Norden1990 - no problem for him with these claims. Norden has also strange Hungarian POV called "historical fact". Norden, do you have any source about etymology of Sibiu? In fact: 1191 - entioned for the first time in a document of the Vatican, under the name "Cibinium"[215] etc - something about this name with this user is also here [216].

There is no Hungarian POV in my edits. You're trying to reinforce the misconception that the Kingdom of Hungary was not the country of Hungarians. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

3. You did not write about Slovakia. In fact you wrote about Slovaks.[217] We are not stupid here. Your arguments are strange. This sentence "Jeszenszky is a Hungarian noble family which provided famous members to the Hungarian nation" is like from the 19th century. In fact: family of Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary, as you did here [218]. No Hungary, but Kingdom of Hungary - multilingual and multiethnic Kingdom country and with the official language Latin until the 19th century [219][220] ("Hungary used to be a polyglot country with Latin as the official language until 1844." and "Hungarian: it was minority language up to 1844"). Kingdom of Hungary was never homogeneous Hungarian structure and this debate ended in 1920.

I hold my position. The Slovaks did not develop to as a nation in the Middle Ages. There were many Slav groups in Upper Hungary. Do not try to separate the history of the Kingdom of Hungary and current Hungary. The official language was the Latin, of course, but this was everywhere in the Middle Ages. However the people used Hungarian language, do you think each person spoke in Latin? Absurd assumption. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

5. spirit of neutrality - of course Norden :-D "Giglovce was part of Hungary from the 10th century to 1920, so your edit deleted an important information." Do you have some reliable source for this statement? Your last edits are very dubious POV[221]. In fact: It was not Hungary. In historical records the village was first mentioned in 1408. (So what do you think from 10th century?). Czechoslovakia existed from October 1918, when it declared its independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire (so what do you think "to 1920"?). The Hungarian name Giglóc was used 1863-1913 (100 years ago!)> it was period of Magyarization there are also other names Hungarian ethnicity-0,00%[222]. You edited very sensitive issue, so please stop with your provocative behavior and original research.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It was not Hungary? Then what was it? Giglovce (Giglóc) was part of the Kingdom of Hungary from the 10th century to 1920. As well as the entire Felvidék, today's Slovakia. I think nothing wrong with that previously used Hungarian name appears in the article. Since it has not bothered anyone except you. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

De facto 1918, de jure 1920, the Treaty of Trianon. All the same. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Norden1990 has no reliable source, because it is total nationalistic nonsense, as I wrote above. His last posts are very dubious POV. Note: User:Norden1990 used again pejorative provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor. Slovaks associate the term Felvidek with the period of Magyarization and consider it pejorative used anti-Slovak, nationalist and revisionist chauvinists. In the article about Jobbik politician Elod Novak from web site associated with Jobbik and Hungarism(Hungarian fascist ideologue) is also used "Felvidék nem Szlovákia" (Felvidek no Slovakia).[223] And who created the article about nationalist politician Elod Novak from Jobbik?[224] --Omen1229 (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god, I'am a chauvinist, because I created an article about the far-right politician Előd Novák. Oh... wait, I'am also a green liberal because I created the András Schiffer article. Probably I am also a Nazi, because I made several articles on Arrow Cross Party members. I'll see what articles I wrote. I am also a Communist because I wrote about some People's Commissars from the Hungarian Soviet Republic. Felvidék means "Upper Hungary" in Hungarian. I could not say that "the entire Slovakia, today's Slovakia". It's just like the "Hungary before the Hungarians". This argument is very embarrassing for you. Please, don't hate. :) I recommend a quote from Miklós Zrínyi (Nikola Zrinski) to you: "Don't hurt the Hungarian!" --Norden1990 (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

AE

I checked the archives and it seems there is not the first dispute between these 2 editors. Admin User:Sandstein talked a month ago about the necessity of WP:ARBEE sanctions against User:Norden1990. Link: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#AE.3F. Maybe an initial step can be to place User:Norden1990 on notice. In this moment Omen1229's name appears at Wikipedia:ARBEE#List_of_editors_placed_on_notice, but Norden1990 is missing 202.29.238.193 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

These anonymous, IP editors without any edits are very interesting. If you look at my edit, no reason to punish me. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Norden1990 is an excellent wiki contributor. Just look at his contributions in connection with biographies. His work is high-class in every way. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with Fakirbakir, Norden1990 is a valuable editor and he made several excellent contributions to Wikipedia. User 202.29.238.193 is *very* dubious (likely a banned user), his comments should be disregarded. It seems to me that users Omen1229 and Norden1990 have some content disputes, which is an absolutely normal thing. On the other hand, these disputes should be resolved on the appropriate Talk pages, instead of wasting the time by bringing the issue to ANI. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Pejoratives

Could someone explain "Magyar is a pejorative meaning in Slovakia"? "Magyar" is used on millions of web sites, sometimes used to refer to the ethnic group, sometimes the language, and sometimes generally related to Hungary or the Kingdom of Hungary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Magyar is a synonym of "extremist Hungarian" in Slovakia. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. However, this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Slovak language Wikipedia, and it is not necessarily the case that the use of Magyar is intended as pejorative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This is false disinformation, Magyar (or Maďar in Slovak language) is totally normal neutral word for HungariansMagyars in Slovakia. This term is also used HungarianMagyar politicians in Slovakia[225], also in official census was used adjective for nationality - "maďarská"/Magyar[226] etc. --Omen1229 (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: Hungary in Slovak language is Maďarsko, Kingdom of Hungary in Slovak language is Uhorsko, the slovak term "Uhor" is similar to latin term "Hungarus"[227], it was a geographic category, regardless of language or ethnicity so in Slovak language: "Uhorský Maďar" is "Magyar from Kingdom of Hungary", "Uhorský Slovák" is Slovak from Kingdom of Hungary. The ethnic structure in Kingdom of Hungary[228] and in Hungary[229]. User:Norden1990 wrote above "However the people used Hungarian language" and facts: "it was minority language up to 1844... Between 1867 and 1920, Hungarian was majority language in the area of present-day Hungary... but not in the Hungarian Kingdom"[230]. --Omen1229 (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Slovak historiography tries to separate the Kingdom of Hungary and today's Hungary, as if any political continuity between the two entities does not exist. Until the birth of the modern nationalism, it was not important that the people belonged to what nationality(in modern sense). There were nobles and serfs. The Hungarian, Vlach (not in the pejorative sense), Slav, Croatian etc. serfs all suffered the landowner's tribute. The members of the nobility were the Nation. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the context. However the bottom line is that I did not call Omen as "Tót" (former name of the Slav people in Upper Hungary, nowadays it's a mostly pejorative word), so this "pejorative problem" is meaningless. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the word Jew. Neutral in meaning, can be used as a pejorative.--v/r - TP 03:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is edit warring

I've noticed the Slovak-Hungarian troubles sparking up again - I protected Košice for 3 days last week after seeing an utterly lame edit war about whether the Hungarian name should be in the infobox. Now the battleground seems to have moved to Banská Bystrica about the etymology of the name and while I think this dispute seems less lame, I note everyone is just reverting one another, and no one has bothered to write anything on the talk page, and that these edit wars seem to have been going on since time immemorial. This kind of behaviour is simply disruptive, and I would suggest using WP:ARBEE to put a 1RR sanction on articles relating to Slovakia and Hungary so that people at least start communicating about article content outside of edit summaries. Trying to resolve a dispute using revert summaries is like trying to write a novel on Twitter, use the talk page and actually resolve disputes rather than sniping at each other in less than 140 characters then coming to ANI. These "personal attacks" are less worrying than the edit warring. filelakeshoe (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

How is this related to me? A completely different problem, please open a new section to this. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the wider problem of the battleground conduct rather than singling out any particular editor, but as you asked how it relates to you, the first of Omen's diffs (Giglovce) shows you and him edit warring and sniping at each other in edit summaries in the same way . filelakeshoe (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with filelakeshoe, this is getting annoying and similar problems often appeared in the past. The "utterly lame edit war" at the Košice article happened because anonymous IP accounts (who very likely belonged to the same previously banned user behind proxy servers) tried to remove information based on a questionable reasoning. I reverted the edits, since I thought the reason was false (the true motivation of the editor was quite likely nationalistic, but that's another question). I requested the temporary full protection of the article myself, to end the edit war. But, after user Omen1229 also expressed that he did not think that this information was appropriate there, I accepted this and did not start the discussion on the Talk page (mainly, because the issue was not that relevant). The suggested 1RR may not be the best solution as, for example, in the case of the Banská Bystrica article even the 1RR was not violated. BTW: I suspect that the troublemaker in both cases was the same (likely a previously banned user). A clear-cut guideline to the region (not just about Slovak and Hungarian, but also Romanian, Serbian, etc. historical, biographical and geographical articles) and open, good faith discussions would be the long-term solution. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

RFA disruption?

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

---

Is this a suitable addition to an RFA? I undid it, seeing it as disruptive, but I am obviously not the best person to make the final call on that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• I see it as disruptive as well, but I'm also not the best person to make a call on that. Ryan Vesey 04:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Frankly that smells to me of sour grapes... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I certainly can sympathize with the goal of proceeding with Dirtlawyer's RfC in an orderly manner, so that the community can determine whether he can be trusted not to have negative impact by a careless application of the tools. However, it is also true that SarekOfVulcan, who supports the nomination, has filed an ArbCom enforcement action against one of the editors who opposes the nomination, based on comments made at the RfA. Whether or not this is due to "sour grapes", as one editor has ventured above, I would not presume to comment on, seeing how the least little comment about motivation these days can be seized on for sanctions. If it is true that this editor is only being accused out of "WP:HARASSMENT" and "WP:WIKIHOUNDING" by one of the admins directly involved in an ongoing dispute, as is claimed, then of course the mention of ARBATC sanctions doesn't belong on the RFC. However, one admin has just stated that "the instruction not to personalize MOS disputes applies to all pages on Wikipedia, and a warning that noncompliance may result in a sanction such as a topic ban". If Dirtlawyer's RFA page is indeed subject to ARBATC sanctions, then why bring this to the attention of only one editor? Everyone who edits the page should be made aware that they do not have more latitude of criticizing others in this venue, if they do not want to face the possibility of sanctions. —Neotarf (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I am somewhat unsure whether the substance of the comment is appropriate or not, but the tone of the comment was decidedly disruptive. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Leaves you wondering whether "disruption" is being silently defined as "any comment that might upset one of your admin mates". Tony (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(e/c with NE Ent, placing mine above as its a direct response to Tony.) Perhaps I should elaborate: It was disruptive in that it would likely have unduly influenced the vote at the RfA if it had been there. Even if the substance was appropriate (again, I'm unsure), such a tone is clearly not. As a side note, please remember to WP:AGF and if you want a clarification, just ask for a clarification. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

SoV's opening an AE thread about an editor addressing the candidate's MOS comments was inappropriate, as it's obviously in scope of the Rfa but the proper remedy is what's happening -- the AE thread is going to be closed without (signficant) sanction. The Rfa section was pointy and sour grapes and incorrect; there's no evidence that editors can't forcefully oppose Dirtlawyer's Rfa as long as it's done consistent with the expectations of civil discussion on Wikipedia. That said, SoV shouldn't have reverted per the meme of involved, they should've left it for someone else. NE Ent 13:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily, Ent, it looks to me like any admin or even any editor, involved or uninvolved, can apply the sanctions from the ArbCom Capitalization case to any page on the Wikipedia, and as of now, the editor involved has no recourse. This has been already been invoked against four editors and has now been specifically invoked by SoV against User:SMcCandlish at Dirtlawyer's RfA. —Neotarf (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree that SoV should have let someone else remove it. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's why I came straight here for opinions about the removal. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Clearly inappropriate in an RfA (and I say this as someone who rarely finds anything inappropriate). Sarek should probably not have removed it himself but, on the other hand, the faster it was out of there the better so removing and bringing it up on ANI seems fine. --regentspark (comment) 14:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Having the comment removed seemed the right solution since it was not consistent with acceptable discourse at RfA and was just muddying the waters for the purpose of inserting FUD into the discussion. Like others here, I think it would have been better to have someone else remove it. Since Sarek brought it here (the correct course of action), there really is no issue with removing it, however. As for whether Sarek should have opened the AE, that can get settled at Arb and isn't an ANI issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You know Dennis, I've always had a lot of respect for you, even if you are an admin, but with all the ugly accusations going around these days about MOS discussions and "casting aspersions", I don't think it's at all fair to claim someone has a negative purpose, even if you cloak the assertion in an acronym. —Neotarf (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • There is a right way and a wrong way to raise an issue about an editor. How it is done is quite important. If your point is valid (I have no idea nor opinion on the substance) then you just shoot yourself in the foot when you express the concern in a way that is offensive or disruptive. You end up undermining your own position when you do it that way, and create an environment that is more about slinging mud rather than discussing the merits. That might not have been your intention, but objectively, that is how it came across. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I can appreciate that some people might be unhappy that I have called attention to the actions of an admin, but no one has addressed the substance of my concern, that ARBATC sanctions are being invoked on that page, at least against one editor, but all the editors are not being warned that specific MOS sanctions may apply to that page. —Neotarf (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
      • As for "shooting oneself in the foot",I have already resigned over the way these sanctions are being applied, as has another long time editor, and a third is considering leaving as well; we only await the Arbcom deliberations on the subject. —Neotarf (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict)If you know anything about me, you know that I don't care who is an admin when it comes to policy. As for AE, we aren't going to censure Sarek or anyone else for filing an AE here at ANI. ANI is not the proper venue to make a complaint about an active AE, go there instead. Personally, I prefer to just let RfAs play out and not drag other processes into them (AE or ANI) but dragging what boils down to an RfA across multiple venues isn't particularly helpful, no matter who is doing the dragging. This ANI report by Sarek is just about removing the comment, which is what I've limited my comments to. Since AE is dealing with the other issues, it would be inappropriate to drag them over here as well, potentially causing a conflict between the two boards. Afterwards, if you feel Sarek broke some policy, WP:AN would be the place to go. It isn't about being bureaucratic, it is about keeping ongoing discussion at one place at a time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The toe bone connected to the heel bone,The heel bone connected to the foot bone, The foot bone connected to the leg bone, ... it's Wikipedia, everything's connected. NE Ent 15:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, but we usually don't review all vandalism at RFPP, nor page protection at ANI, for example, even if we spill over from time to time. Sometimes, things are better handled at the venue where they are filed unless there is an urgency that is lacking here. Dennis Brown - 2¢

© Join WER 15:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • • The justification for supporting SoV's removal given above is the faster it was out of there the better which implies urgency, doesn't it? NE Ent 16:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

And Sarek could have opened a dialogue with me and some other editors instead of running to ANI and AE and dropping yet another template on another talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • Not in my eyes. The justification is found in wp:involved, that another admin would have done the same thing (even though this isn't an admin action per se). That Sarek removed it himself was not the best way to do it, but since it is a reasonable action that others might have done themselves AND he brought it here for review, it is acceptable, even if less than optimal. The "timeliness" of the removal wasn't really a major factor for me. I can't speak for others, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
          • • Many admins would have explicitly not taken that action, but rather request someone else take care of it. If an editor feels an action is sufficiently borderline to open an ANI thread it, that's prima facie evidence it wasn't a good idea to take it, unless it both affects the encyclopedia and has some urgency. 19:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Neotarf should heed Dennis's advice, and SoV should cease all admin activity in the MOS area (but should feel free to continue as an editor) because, at this point, their actions tend to escalate situations rather than deescalate them. I'm disappointed in the editors here who have opined that the inappropriate Rfa section needed to be removed quickly lest it interfere with voters -- what that implies is Rfa voters are easily swayed rather than responsible members of the Wikipedia community. The Rfa page has 59 watchers as of this posting; someone else would have removed the section sooner or later. NE Ent 16:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• The comment by Neotarf should have been removed. Sarek shouldn't have been the one to remove it. I agree with Ent that there was no particular urgency to remove it, although I'm not so sure I agree with his reasoning ("responsible members of the Wikipedia community" - are we talking about RfAs? ). As for Sarek's role "in the MOS area", I have no opinion on the matter except I think such a restriction would require a separate topic. Finally, I think this should be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• I find this matter of SoV's involvement at the Dirtlawyer Rfa disturbing, since it rightly or wrongly gives the appearance of censorship, intimidation and manipulation. The candidate himself firmly injected the MOS material into his Rfa, making it a matter for discussion. As an admin and supporter of the candidate, SoV should not have been the one taking action against an opposer. Bringing the matter here is laudible on the surface, but can also be seen as an inoculation. For those of us concerned with abuse of power by admins, this action during an Rfa gives off an unsavory impression. Rather than quickly close this ANI report, which gives the additional impression of sweeping the matter under the rug, I instead wonder if there is support for sanctions for SoV, a not uncontroversial administrator who may well be seen as crossing a bright line here. And for full disclosure, I am one of the decided minority who is opposed to Dirtlawyer's Rfa. Jusdafax 18:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  See also User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall criteria, but bear in mind that that RFA edit was not a use of admin tools, so you'd need better grounds than that to open a recall petition. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I suggest you focus on what kind of "sanctions" you want and start a new topic in the appropriate forum. I'm not going to close this discussion because I've already expressed an opinion, and god knows I wouldn't want to be lumped into the category of admins who abuse their powers, assuming I'm not already in it (can't you tone down the rhetoric?), but my opinion still stands: we're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• SoV, it is important to note that I have at no time called for anything as drastic as a recall. Your actions, as an admin and editing an Rfa that you support, reflect badly on you, in my view. Bbb23, I am not sure what part of my "rhetoric" you feel I need to "tone down." We are dealing with rank and file editor perception during an Rfa, and the need to clarify what actions administrators can and cannot do during them when they are involved as supporters. Several comments above, including your own, indicate that SoV was wrong to have taken the action he did. My question stands... are there consequences, and if so, what type? If not, we set precedent: It is OK, because aside from a bit of hand-wringing, nothing will happen in the way of accountability. Jusdafax 18:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Rhetoric: "abuse of power" & "censorship, intimidation and manipulation". Just because I think Sarek was wrong doesn't mean I believe sanctions are warranted. Generally, sanctions are imposed for either egregious or persistently disruptive behavior, and are preceded by warnings. Despite your opinion that Sarek came here for less-than-honorable reasons, I don't see any basis for sanctions; nor do I know what they would be. But all of this is just you and me talking and doesn't address the more important point. This is not the topic - or necessarily the place - for you to further your goal. This is hopefully my last comment on this issue as I don't find it constructive to continue a discussion I believe should have been closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think lack of judgement is a better description than abuse of power for SoV's action and this ANI thread can and hopefully will provide a positive, long term outcome -- let's call it feedback rather than sanctions. To that end, I see leaving the thread open so the earth can rotate and we can get a greater variety of editors to comment as beneficial. NE Ent 19:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Iranian Space Agency

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

---

There has been a lengthy discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iranian_Space_Agency#Moon_program_claim) about a claim that Iran will send astronauts to moon by 2025. Some of the editors believe the date is not mentioned in Iranian media or official sources.

Some non-Iranian media have stated a target date (2025) for the project. None of the articles has mentioned an Iranian source for the date. There is not a SINGLE credible or official Iranian source for the date. One of the references points to the official website of Iranian Space Agency (http://www.isa.ir/components1.php?rQV==wHQyAkOklUZnFWdn5WYMJXZ0VWbhJXYw9lZ8B0N3QDQ6QWStVGdp9lZ8BUM4ATMApDZJ52bpR3Yh9lZ) that includes information about the program but does not mention a date for it. It does however mention a date for sending astronauts to lower orbit (2020).

I added a sentence that "the date is not mentioned in local Iranian media or official sources." Now a user User:Darkness_Shines continuously removes the sentence. I have looked into the non_Iranian references, searched carefully and asked (in the talk page) for the editors to find such a reference if any but no-one has been able to provide any Iranian source.

If a SINGLE credible source or official reference (quote from an authority in Iran, or even a news agency in Iran) for the mentioned date could be found the sentence can be removed.

Please comment. Sarmadys (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• (was about to post this at WP:AN, where this was moved from) Generally speaking, we don't take admin action on content, only on behavior. WP:BRD then WP:DRN are the links for content disputes. If someone is battling or being disruptive, admin get involved, but we don't pick "winners" and "losers" on content, the community of editors is responsible for that. We admin just clean up the place. You really don't want admin deciding content on articles. I know I don't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Another editor has reinserted the OR, in violation of policy. So admin intervention is needed here. Explain the policies to them. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The user does not pay attention to other editors and repetitively removes content. I hoped we can get an advise.Sarmadys (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The user removes unsourced OR you keep adding. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not an OR, it is a comment about the verifiability of the provided references as per discussions with other editors.Sarmadys (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

So you have a source for it then? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Taking off my admin hat for a moment, we generally do not put disclaimers in articles. If a disclaimer is needed, that usually means that the information isn't properly sourced and just needs removing altogether. If a date, for example, can't be verified in a source that passes WP:RS, then the date is simply removed. If there are multiple sources that give different dates, you note that with those multiple sources, but you don't essentially disclaim the questionable material, you remove it wholesale, with few exceptions. WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN apply, if people will actually take the time to read them. The burden of proof is on those that want to add material. A comment on the validity of information is original research unless that comment comes directly from a source, by the way. One reason we don't allow it. Ok, putting the admin hat back on now....This is still a content dispute, and explaining policy isn't exactly an admin function since there are plenty of non-admin know policy as well or better than admin do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Dennis. This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. Many content disputes hinge on the interpretation of policy; that doesn't mean administrative intervention is required. I would caution the editors of the article, though, that edit-warring is a problem for administrators, and there is a lot of that going on in the article. Editors may be sanctioned for participating, and the article may be locked if it's being used as a battleground by multiple editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have quoted from the relevant policies, NOR & V. I have told them they got 24hrs to source what they are adding, I cannot be fairer than that. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Issuing ultimatums in this situtation is not constructive. And what are you threatening them with if they don't "comply"?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there are better ways to communicate than that DS. It seems they have good intentions, even if flawed methods, but using flawed methods to deal with it doesn't help. Just work with them, or take it to DRN. You know the drill. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What am I threatening them with? Dunno, maybe pillage their women and rape their village? I am going to remove the OR obviously. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW Den, why should I waste my time at DRN when policy already says I am right? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The point is that you start with BRD, ie: on the talk page, get fellow editors to explain (as I've tried to do here somewhat) and use the editorial process rather than the admin ban hammer. We try to teach editors, not just punish them. This is why giving ultimatums isn't a good idea. You might feel it is a short term answer, but it isn't in the long term best interest of Wikipedia to strong arm people that way. You know this, you are just letting frustration get the best of you, and patience totally escape you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Already explained, a lot. The policy is clear, as a fellow editor head on over and voice your opinion, then we can be ignored together Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately he constantly insults the editors and does not listen to the reasoning provided by several other editors. Check the talk page of the topic. Sarmadys (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

His use of the words "crap" and "bullshit" are tame in comparison to other things he's said elsewhere. That, of course, doesn't excuse it - and I'd advise DS to be careful given his track record - but the easiest and probably best thing to do is ignore it unless it really goes over the line (don't forget our application of civility policy is not exactly consistent or principled). I'm actually more troubled by the peremptory threats.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

An unsourced statement about the absence of something is almost certainly OR and generally should be removed. Imo, DRN is overkill for something this simple. The correct thing to do is to remove the statement and let the person adding it seek wider input (per WP:BURDEN). --regentspark (comment) 17:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but there is no exemption for edit-warring over such a statement (or over tags), and sometimes editors don't follow the layered procedure of BURDEN or BRD. Is ANI the right place to resolve the OR/content issue? I dunno, but it feels wrong. As we all know, admins often disagree about the intepretation of policy and procedure.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that ANI is not the right place for content issues. But, I'm not sure that this is a content issue in the first place. We're not arguing over the specifics of what is being added or removed but merely commenting on what the proper policy is for dealing with edit warring over unsourced statements. And while BRD is not policy, WP:BURDEN is, and is quite clear that onus for sourcing is on the person adding information to an article. Perhaps we can't enforce this easily, but we can, and should, clearly spell it out. --regentspark (comment) 19:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

But it wasn't framed that way; if anything, I reframed it when I cautioned the editors about edit-warring, which, btw, continues (the latest is an IP removing the phrase (without removing the tag, which makes little sense)). At this point, unless you or another admin is going to take action, this should be closed. I should add that the article is on my watchlist, and I will lock the article if the dispute continues.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I've protected it for two weeks. That should give everyone time to work out the "include-ablity" of the statement. --regentspark (comment) 21:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Procedural/canvassing issue in ongoing RfA

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

---

Greetings, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a current RfA candidate, and two editors have posted a notice of that RfA on a Wikiproject talk page, effectively inviting additional comments during my RfA: [231]. The first editor posted the notice; the second editor altered it in attempt to address the obvious canvassing issues presented. I believe this notice (in either its original or modified form) is highly irregular and a violation of the letter and spirit of WP:CANVASSING. At best it is procedurally improper; at worst, it is an attempt to influence the outcome of the RfA. Obviously, as the RfA candidate I am in a highly vulnerable position, and am at some risk to even post this ANI notice. I certainly am not interested in any sort of a dramafest or anyone taking actions against the posters of the notice; I do believe that the notice is improper and should be removed immediately, and in a manner that does not attract further attention to it. For obvious reasons, regretfully, I do not feel that I may comment further at this time. I hope you understand. Thank you for your consideration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever edit-warred over manual-of-style issues? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Give me a break, BB. This question only confirms my comment below.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, we could argue the issue as to whether the current iteration of the invitation is canvassing (I think it is), but I see no good coming out of it unless an admin is willing to take bold action and remove it without further discussion. Otherwise, despite your statement about not wanting to creat a dramafest, I think posting this here (this board is the epitome of drama) will do just that. And there's already enough of it on your RfA talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I would note that editors who posted/edited that canvassing notice have not been notified of this ANI discussion.--Staberinde (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring sock

User:Chowhonwai, duck sock of User:Chowkatsun kelvin, has introduced what look to be deliberate errors at several articles, including George Harrison, Jimi Hendrix, and Paul McCartney (including, but not limited to, pointless violations of the MoS contravening consensus on infobox listings, and disruptive insertion of personal comments into hidden text) and has repeatedly refused to discuss the edits on talk pages or on his own user talk page. He has done this in the past, and has edit warred to reinstate his erroneous version of the articles. Last October he was blocked one week for this, and I now believe it is time for indef. While I believe he is a sock, I would prefer to have him blocked on edit warring grounds, as I have neither the time nor the energy for SPI. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Both of his accounts should be indef blocked for socking Blackmane (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like Chowhonwai (talk · contribs) and Chowkatsun kelvin (talk · contribs) should be indef blocked per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Chowkatsun9/Archive. This is probably the same person who was active in July as an IP at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 27#MoS vandal IPs. The common element is changes to infoboxes of famous musicians, especially The Beatles, that are contrary to the MOS. The edits appear to to be whimsical insertion of personal preference and churning of small details. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like time to clean out the sock drawer again. I'll post the results of my investigation at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Chowkatsun9 when it's complete. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC) ...and  Done ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys!. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Community ban proposal of User: Chowkatsun9

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

---

• OK, this editor is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia, and is just as clearly using multiple socks, per the SPI. I would like to submit that the point has been reached for consideration of a community ban, to avoid further needless consumption of good editor time. Jusdafax 17:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per JustDaFax above, the user is clearly WP: NOTHERE and should be banned until he can show that he can contribute to the encyclopedia. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support, of course. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support, clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support – This person is here only to waste others' time. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - EdJohnston and JustDaFax are correct, whoever this guy is, they're here to waste valuable time and they aren't here for good purposes. If this guy wants a spot on the List of Banned Users, then I'd say he's earned it. The last thing that Wikipedia needs is another Bambifan101. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.101.25 (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Leeksrene - Mangoeater1000 sockpuppet

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

---

It looks like there is a backlog at SPI. Can an admin familiar with User:Mangoeater1000 please block his latest sockpuppet, User:Leeksrene? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's them. Also found Ridsrover (talk · contribs) which I've also blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Ping Fu

Hey, I'm a single purpose account for just this post, sorry, but I would like to point this out without getting my primary real life-traceable account involved:

Ping Fu has been attacked this week for her recent book Bend, Not Break which details her exile from China for her study of infantacide during the Cultural Revolution, here, on Amazon (forum), Twitter, and elsewhere. I suggest that this might need a few more eyes than a typical RPP, but her article would certainly qualify for semi-protection now as it stands. Among other things, the fact that she hired Mark Andressen at the lab where he developed Mosaic has been scrubbed. Thanks; over and out. ExtraInCase (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Some additional BLP-savvy watchers would be good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears like the same folks who swarmed Amazon with one star reviews for her book have also done the same with the Wikipedia page ratings at the bottom of our article. First Light (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

And this is why "page ratings" are a bad idea...the only people who pay any attention to them are the vandals. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, we should just go ahead and call them "votes." First Light (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'll put this article in my watch list and keep an eye on it, this seems like a massive vandalism magnet. I fear a full-protect may be needed before too long... Lukeno94 (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

And you'd think most Chinese people would be peacefully spending time with their family due to the Lunar New Year... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if you'd never been on ANI on Christmas Day, I suppose you would think that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

MervinVillarreal

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

---

User:MervinVillarreal has returned and with it his disruptive behaviour. In particular over on Talk:World War Z (film). After an attempt to change the nationality on this and other articles, he was eventually blocked for Edit Warring, then again for Disruption, uncivil behavior and more edit warring, he was then again for longer for Sockpuppeting. At the end of his block he has returned on World War Z and first off going off topic trying to defend himself against his Sockpuppeting with little regard to the topic at hand. After going back and forth with him and other editors, I proceeded to close the discussion with the relevant template in line with a "no consensus to change" after all the discussion had been opened for nearly 2 months and had little comment by editors for the change suggested and the majority saying to keep the nationalities as they were. Any way, the editor then proceeded to reopen the discussion by removing the template several times

• here I closed/archived the discussion
• here he reopened the discussion
• I then closed the conversation again.
• Again, he reopened it.
• User:Grapple Xthen closed the conversation again.
• And again he reopened the discussion.
• User:Darkwarriorblake then closed the conversation again.

Not necessarily after a block again on this editor, but if an admin could swing by his talk page and give him a word or two so we can move on from this tedious back and forth that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 23:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I did, because i think you can not close a consensus just because have two months of being open, if the discussion continues, just continus, why not closed for 15 days ago when I was blocked? MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Mervin, if discussion is clearly going nowhere because it's simply one editor railing against facts and better arguments, it's both constructive and encouraged to shut it down and move on. We have no need or desire to remain bogged down in a circular argument with one person blindly repeating nonsense until everyone else gives up. Your lone views have been roundly rejected, your claims refuted with simple facts, and you still continue to act the victim. Please do us all the favour and stop. GRAPPLE X 00:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's also worth pointing out that I know for a fact you're aware of the three revert rule, as someone (me) already warned you about it here; the fact that you've once again broken it shows you have a problem abiding by our guidelines. GRAPPLE X 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

For the love of god Mervin, use the : to indent your responses. It wasn't closed because people weren't paying attention to it because it was over and we all have better things to do. Then you come back after a block for aggressively pushing a jingoistic agenda against all consensus, reasoning and evidence and start doing the same so we pushed forward to bring the conversation to a permanent conclusion as you had been indulged enough, were being disruptive, wasting volunteer's time and you would simply use a lack of further response as justification for you to do what you set out to do by opening the discussion. That is why it was closed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

User has again reverted the discussion. Which was again Reverted by Grapple X. Citing WP:REFACTOR which it would seem the user is determined to ignore. MisterShiney ✉ 00:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

oh right, because everyone thinks that I not have reason, "all British" that chance ...then it should be closed because I have no reason, wikipedia is so fair. MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I for one have NO idea what you are trying to say here... MisterShiney ✉ 00:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

He's being sarcastic. The discussion should be shut down because he's being unreasonable (this is from his perspective) and Wikipedia is "so fair" (sarcasm - Wikipedia is not fair).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, I thought no one would know. MervinVillarreal (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, Mervin, I'm not saying I agree with you; I don't. Your persistence on the talk page is clearly disruptive. In addition, in a related vein, User:SarekOfVulcan left a canvassing warning on your talk page, which you removed (you remove a lot of warnings from your talk page, which is permissible but in your case tends to support an unwillingness to collaborate). Frankly, I'd like to hear some acknowledgment from you that your approach to editing here is inappropriate and that you will change it. Otherwise, the only issue here is whether your behavior merits a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

my god. MervinVillarreal (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we take that as your not acknowledging that your approach to editing here is inappropriate and won't be changed, then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

At this point I think we can read more into Mervin's behavior than earlier. I waited patiently for Mervin to edit again after leaving his last comment here. After he did, I left a note on his talk page advising him to respond here. He removed the note; so I think we can safely assume he's not going to discuss the problems. I would propose a 3-month, 6-month, or indefinite block based on his behavior before this topic was opened, as well as his subsequent behavior here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Enough is enough; having looked over the evidence and Mervin's comments and actions, I'm calling this one a no-brainer: a clearer case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT would be hard to envisage. Either he's determined to be deliberately disruptive, or he just doesn't get it (and isn't likely to in the foreseeable future): whichever is the case, Wikipedia is better served by Mervin not editing. I'm therefore going to block him indefinitely; any admin who strongly disagree's is welcome to lift the block, but I'd expect to see a phenomenally competent unblock request before I personally would even consider it. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

A Canadian governmental agency is editing its own article

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

---

Employees of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada have, over a period of years, done almost all the editing to its article, as recounted in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. The material included is agency promotional boilerplate and uncited, and is generally suspected of being copyrighted though we cannot always show this. I could find little in the way of secondary sources and stubbed it down in this edit. Now, once again, we have an editor restoring the same content, who has admitted on my talk page that he is an employee of the agency. I can keep stubbing the article, and my guess is that they will continue to keep restoring it. I don't know how others feel about letting part of the Canadian government write its own material here, but my gut reaction is that it sets a bad precedent. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The article looks pretty neutral and informative to me. What's the problem, exactly? I see a mention of copyright concerns here and on the editor's talk page, have you detailed those concerns somewhere? Since the information the agency is adding is highly likely to be accurate, may I suggest simply adding {{cn}} at the end of each unsourced paragraph? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

My gut reaction is so what? I completely agree with Anthonyhcole and his suggested approach, and I think it's about time that Wikiedia opened its doors to allowing those who know most about a subject to write about it, instead of chasing them away with spurious accusations of COI. Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

COI editing isn't against policy, although it should be approached very cautiously. A cursory look at the article doesn't show any major problems except needing more cites which can be solved with tags. As to copyright, I assume you meant infringing, since all the content here is copyrighted. If you can find the source, remove that portion then report at CCI if it is a major problem. In short, Anthonycole is correct. I don't see any need for admin intervention at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the uncited material because it has been that way since forever, and because I could not cite it myself. And they just turned around and put it all back, perhaps slightly reworded. BUt whatever: if nobody else has a problem, I'll let it go. Mangoe (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If the issue is content, then WP:BRD, then WP:DRN is your path. But there is no reason for an admin to get involved, that is a content dispute. Content disputes are settled by fellow editors, no admin bit is needed at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(ce) I'd say go with what Anthonyhcole says. If you see unsourced statements, add {{cn}} tags and ask the contributors to fill in the gaps. As long as their contributions can be regarded as WP:NPOV and if they can source what they are editing, I believe WP:COI doesn't quite apply. WP:CORP is a whole different issue but again, reliable sources are the key word. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Somebody please close this. The discussion is redundant to the one on the COI noticeboard and, as Dennis says, there is no need for admin intervention. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by User:Drg55

Summery and links of events:

First legal threat (prior to notification of policy): "This article is supposed to neutral and not libelous."

Second legal threat (prior to notification of policy): "wikipedia could be sued"

Notification of policy: [232]

Third legal threat with Drg55's response: " In 1998 the Church of Scientology sued an organisation called Cult Awareness Network and got full possession of all its assets. That is a matter of history. Furthermore Anonymous is coming under increasing legal attack by Governments and their members are being jailed."

Second notification and clarification:[233]

Warning of two other threats:1, 2

Final response from Drg55:[234]

Statement by User:Coffeepusher

User:Drg55 has engaged in what I believe are three seperate legal threats, and refuses to acknowledge wikipedia's policy regarding legal threats. Instead they have used my attempt to discuss this with them as an opportunity to dispute an unrelated edit, and to use wikipedia's policy as a point of negotiation.

Drg55 deleted some material from the Volunteer Ministers page with an edit summary that contained the phrase "wikipedia could be sued". This showed up on my watchlist, and seeing as Drg55 was a new user with less than 200 edits I decided that they were probably not aware of the policy and not to report it to the ANI, but rather just give them a warning to inform them of the policy. I also placed a comment on the talk page for volunteer ministers letting that community know what I had done, how I intended to handle the situation, as well as stating that I agreed with Drg55's deletion and believed that in spite of the legal threat the material should not be inside the article.

Drg55 responded that they didn't believe that their statement was a legal threat and then argued that they were simply stating factual history with that comment, backing it up with the statement " In 1998 the Church of Scientology sued an organisation called Cult Awareness Network and got full possession of all its assets. That is a matter of history. Furthermore Anonymous is coming under increasing legal attack by Governments and their members are being jailed." They then brought up several content disputes that they were engaged in, and challenged an edit I made on a separate scientology page.

I then tried to clarify exactly what my intentions were, and restated what the policy was, why I believed it was violated, what the consequences were for violating these policies, and stated that I wasn't trying to get them banned but that I was assuming good faith and needed them to state that they understood and would abide by the policies. I then let them know that I believed their statement about scientology litigation was another legal threat, and I needed them to state that they would abide by the policy. Later I ran into a third moment where, on a discussion page, Drg55 stated "This article is supposed to neutral and not libelous." This happened prior to the first warning so I let Drg55 know that this too constituted a legal threat, and that they needed to change the way they edited.

Drg55 responded that they felt I had thin skin, and used the discussion as an opportunity to again bring up a separate content dispute. They then stated that "I will play ball with you if you will play ball with me" in reference to the content dispute on the separate pageCoffeepusher (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

notification to Drg55 of this conversationCoffeepusher (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

For clarification, the content dispute that Drg55 is referencing is this edit, which occurred 40 min. after I placed the warning on their page.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe Drg55's comments are a threat to take legal action, especially after his clarification. He is simply commenting that Wikipedia could have a legal problem with the content, but he is not threatening to do anything. This falls more under WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats, and Drg55 should be reminded of the following from that policy: "While such comments may not be per se legal threats, they may fall under the scope of the aforementioned policies and repeated or disruptive usage can result in the user being blocked.". Beyond that reminder, I personally am of the view that no further action is required here. Singularity42 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have left a comment on Drg55's talk page which I believe explains the relevant policy and asks that such words be avoided in the future. Singularity42 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I regard them as a threat, with an attempt at wording it so the threat does not appear overt. A threat at WP is anything which would have the effect of inhibiting editing. A threat mentioning legal process as a justification for an edit is a very tricky thing to do--if the matter is actually a legal hazard to WP or its participants, it should by handled thru OTRS, or the Foundation. Worded the way this was worded, it has this effect of trying to prevent criticism of Scientology and is I think intended to have that effect. We do not quibble over evasive wording. Considering the material on the talk page as a whole, I think any repetition of this will be clear indication that AGF with respect to this user no longer applies, and an indefinite block is needed. I would apply it immediately, but it is possible that Singularity's optimistic assessment will be correct, and I do not want to interfere with even the possibility of that welcome resolution. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. I'd like someone from WMF to review this Scientology-oriented matter. Jusdafax 04:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not say I was going to launch legal action and I am not in a position to do so. Thank you to Singularity42 and Anthonyhcole (on my talk page) for your support. If neutral point of view policies were followed I think that would go a long way. However I have experienced frustration with editors who are deleting material that I put in to balance things, to me seem to be protecting a single point of view and won't countenance another take on a subject. A position I describe as neo-fascism, which is my criticism of Anonymous, and I also suspect that members of Anon (and also anti religionists like Skeptics) are editing Wikipedia to run their campaign against Scientology, if for no other reason than these articles run the same lines. I note that part of the arbitration on Scientology was to block the other side which was using Wikipedia as part of its attacks on the Church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_editing_on_Wikipedia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-01/Scientology_arbitration.

I support Wikipedia and although not a frequent editor believe I have contributed here and there, something to the world of knowledge. I also have a slightly more liberal view than perhaps Church of Scientology management to whom I sometimes give my advice (mostly ignored) in that I believe they should use more facts and a conservative approach in their PR so as to let people form their own opinions, which is most effective. And rather than seeking to delete what might be offensive to us I am pragmatic enough to let it be, provided I can put in some qualifying facts. I was active many years ago in some of the Church's victories unfortunately I don't have most of my old files and this was pre-internet so I do the best I can. I also acknowledge that in some struggles, such as I had in Ten Commandments where contrary to NPOV: "Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources" I was on the other side trying to put in some Archaeological facts (from Israeli Archaeologists) and having it constantly deleted. The process still can lead to a better place in terms of making you lift your game and refine your position. (I was not trying to invalidate the TC as mythology, but as fact its as accurate as Camelot). All religions should be respected, not because they are true but because people hold these views and things that are dear and important to people should be sensitively handled. Religions are not immune from criticism, but it should be done without jackboots and gratuitous insult.

And finally, I do believe that Wikipedia should follow the law, of course it varies in countries, but if one has sufficient ethics one doesn't come near violating laws because the fundamental principle is respect for others. I think that was the point I was trying to make in my mentions of the law which Coffeepusher has identified for you. I have learned a bit more about Wikipedia policy, and I guess when you aren't familiar with it you try other things, I'm not saying I'm always right. I'd like to work constructively with Coffeepusher and have made another edit, notifying him, taking on board some of what he has said.

Laws increasingly are being aimed at the Internet, I understand the ideals of the internet but the reality is theft of copyright on massive scale (which could be dealt with in more creative ways by copyright owners than just prosecution); gross immorality - Anonymous hacked the Australian Government in a denial of service because they thought they would lose access to child pornography http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/335760/hackers_launch_dos_attack_government_websites/ Then there is bullying which the over confident young hackers demonstrate in their lack of respect to other points of view http://www.lawstuff.org.au/sa_law/topics/bullying/cyber-bullying This could affect Wikipedia if a group of editors were to gang up on others to run their lines. And not to mention cybersecurity: http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/security-it/australia-must-become-a-regional-cybersecurity-leader-20130201-2doo4.html http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-stratfor-hammond-judge-440/

The law isn't always just and can be oppressive, but like other idealist societies such as communes and even anarchism and communism, unless the internet has some form of internal ethics these abuses which are rampant will inevitably lead to increasing Government control. Freedom depends on responsibility. I can see Wikipedia has some good processes in this respect.

A condition of anxiety sometimes exists in relation to legal proceedings, which is recognised in Wikipedia policy. This can be relieved through an understanding of material covered in Scientology: A History of Man which some kind person has written an article about in Wikipedia.Drg55 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. You start out sensible and end up rambling (WP:CHUNK?).--Auric talk 13:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have put some paragraphs in and a little extra. Its about the same length as the complaint.Drg55 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The point remains that you must not use legal threats on Wikipedia. If you would like to know your on-wiki options in a given situation, all you have to do is go to your Talk page and add the test {{help me<}} above your question. Another recurring problem that I see in your recent posts is a lack of reliable sources. It is true that there have recently been more reliable sources critical of SCientology than in favor of it, but it does not change the rule that all claims must be sourced. Many of your sources use synthesis, which is not considered reliable. Andrew³²⁷ 01:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

For example, providing data on an unrelated issue with the text "it may or may not be relevant" is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Andrew³²⁷ 01:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

a request

In December 2011 a well meaning contributor thought that the content at Bounty_II should be at Bounty_(1960_ship). So far so good. But they cut and pasted the content -- losing the revision history.

Could someone graft the history of Bounty II to the current article?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

All done. I think there is a place for history merges but I forget where it is.--v/r - TP 17:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Man, I was all excited to do my first real histmerge, but TParis beat me to the punch! DAMN YOU TPARIS Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

My bad, you're welcome to undo it ;) --v/r - TP 17:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Knock yourself out, Writ: Wikipedia:WPHM. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The official place for history merge requests is the cut and paste move repair holding pen. Graham87 02:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Block this clown, please?

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

---

• Ekazp (talk · contribs)

Run-of-the-mill birtherism last week] at Barack Obama escalates to racist vandalism this week. And no, I will most decidedly not notify this user, as it would be a waste of time. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rklawton (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Moar blacklist

While reviewing pending changes I caught this attempt to bypass the spam blacklist; \bsilkroad.*\.onion\b was added to the blacklist after numerous instances of phishing attempts resulting in claims of thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin losses. Anyways, if there's any way to amend the blacklist entry to catch variations like this, that would be nice. Alternatively, while the trifecta of the hidden-text note, the PC-protection, and the blacklist does the job pretty well, an edit filter wouldn't hurt... logged-in users are still seeing the false links when they get added, and according to the last discussion of this, historically some users have even managed to game autoconfirmed. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ping to keep alive. Someone feel free to move this to another forum if they think it's more appropriate. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You want MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Legoktm (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Main Southern railway line, New South Wales and Template:Main Southern railway line, New South Wales

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

---

User:Bidgee has repeatedly removed material referenced by reliable sources from these the article and template, claiming it is in dispute but without saying what is actually in dispute or why, just reverting it. Bad faith removal of warnings not to remove content[235][236] and made personal attacks against me. Dbromage [Talk] 06:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• People are allowed to remove warnings from their own talkpages - they shouldn't be doing so with edit summaries like the second one, but nor should you be edit-warring to re-add the warnings after they've removed them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, and I'm not really sure what you're driving at here. You're making large edits and he has suggested they are controversial or against WP:CONSENSUS. You guys are both way past WP:3RR, at least in spirit (it's been over a couple of distinct 24 hr periods). WP:BOLD strongly suggests not getting upset at deletions of boldly added content and also suggests not letting such a deletion drive you to an edit war (which I would suggest is exactly what has happened since). I can see you've tried a couple of times to ask what it is he disputes, but I would suggest the next step is probably WP:DRN or an WP:RFC, not WP:ANI. And if you're going to bring it here, you need to notify the other user that you have. Stalwart111 07:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Having a further look, while Bidgee is allowed to remove content from his own talk page, the edit summary for this edit is a bit problematic. Given it hasn't happened yet, I'll notify him of this thread so he has a chance to respond if he so wishes. Stalwart111 07:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Those attacks were inappropriate; however, Bidgee is allowed to remove notices per WP:BLANKING. Also, the Bold, revert, discuss cycle should have been enacted on the article - that means properly discussing with those who dispute the content you want added in, as the onus is really on you, Dbromage. A word to the wise: you and Bidgee abstain from further edit warring, and that you both attempt to get to the bottom of the issue, civilly, on the article's talk page. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• I am uninvolved in this but I have some knowledge and interest in the subject matter so I hope I can provide an objective view. The changes seem to be very informative, accurate, well sourced, add missing information, correct errors and put a badly formatted template into the correct format. I cannot see why this would be disputed. Bidgee has, despite numerous requests, failed to state exactly what content is in dispute and what the objection is beyond "it wasn't discussed". While the edit war should not have happened, Bidgee has not been very helpful and this edit is cause for concern. Remember BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. ShipFan (Talk) 11:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's a difference between "I don't like it" and "get consensus" (as Bidgee requested). I don't dispute Dbromage's content change, but I believe that there is a way of making those changes to the article - today's example was clearly not one of them. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• True, but reverting and saying "you didn't discuss it" without saying exactly what is in dispute isn't helpful. In fact it's quite counter productive. The only thing Bidgee says that even comes close to substantive is "it hasn't been formatted that way in the past" but the formatting is quite clearing wrong. It should not necessary to get consensus before making every change, even bold ones and especially when they make changes that conform to manuals of style. Otherwise nothing would ever get changed. While the onus is on the editor to discuss the dispute, complainants shouldn't be unnecessarily obstructive. ShipFan (Talk) 12:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• That certainly defeats the purpose of BRD does it not? Major changes are supposed to be discussed, at one's discretion. I'm not disagreeing on the "unhelpful" claims, but, Bidgee clearly wanted a discussion on these major changes (and not in the edit summary). Instead, an edit war ensued, and Bidgee's edits were mislabeled as "vandalism" (There goes Dbromage's boomerang). Further, I'll give credit to Dbromage for initiating a clearly set-out discussion on the article in question's talk; hopefully things remain positive from then on, by both editors. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Bold says just do the edit. Frequently no one will object and the editing is done. If it's reverted, then BRD comes into play. The wise Wikipedia, rather than thinking edit summaries are good enough and it's the other guy who needs to start a discussion, races to the talk page and puts their stake in first. That way, if the editor ends up in an ANI pissing contest discussion the editor looks like the more reasonable one. 17:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs)

• But in this case, Bidgee did ask for consensus, in regards to this Bold edit. The wise Wikipedian would have avoided this situation as a whole -- but the fact of the matter, is the onus is on the editor who adds in the content to explain themselves and start a discussion, rather than the one disputing it. Major edits are supposed to be discussed, to avoid issues like this one. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

*Both full-protected: Article by me, Template by DeltaQuad. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And an appropriate discussion has now been started at Talk:Main Southern railway line, New South Wales, which is good to see. Stalwart111 12:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Article protection by me lifted due to the SPI result... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not proud of my actions yesterday, I allowed myself to get carried away and become rather uncivil. I took a few hours time out, I am surprised that Dbromage and ShipFan were the same editor but not surprised that Railzone Cleanup was the same editor (Dbromage). One big issue with the template in the format that Dbromage wanted, was the fact it was quite large, to the point that some browsers can't handle it and it has other problems with it which I'll raise on the talk page of the article and/or template and not here. Bidgee (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Bidgee and sockpuppet

Sum one needs to do checkuser on em by filing at the investigatoirs page! Bidgee sock is User:Railzone Cleanup, clearly Bidgee, block em now as we wot miss em. 149.135.146.3 (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=537662186 c link clear Bidgee sock! 149.135.146.3 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe it's you.--v/r - TP 14:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Relevant. Next time, check to be sure the account you're picking for malicious accusations of socking hasn't already been CheckUsered to someone else. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hang about, Dbromage [Talk], ShipFan and Railzone Cleanup are all the same person? And he accused someone else of using his own sock for sock-puppetry? That was always going to end well. *Facepalm* Stalwart111 22:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Sanillin1

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

---

Could I have an admin please look at User:Sanillin1's edit history? He has previously demanded that the content of Billava be replaced with content from another wiki (because ours is just all wrong, despite being verified by reliable sources), and now that he's autoconfirmed, is just removing info he doesn't like from the article. The article, like all South Asian caste/tribe articles is on discretionary sanctions, and the user has been warned of this (see User Talk:Sanillin1#Caste warning. I am likely WP:INVOLVED on the article, so I can't act as an admin there. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Eyes needed at TfD

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

---

Strange things are going on at Template:Infobox invisible and the TfD for that template. At the moment I don't even trust that my last comment at the TfD will survive with the old version link intact. Going to bed anyway, and would appreciate a pair of eyes or two. Hans Adler 00:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well you got a pair of eyes, and what I saw was an extremely WP:POINTy template that never should have been created and is more than ripe for deletion. I don't know what makes you think you can screw around like that and then come crawling here with complaints about being mistreated. I also don't know what your purpose is here, but the majority of us are trying to build an encyclopedia and aren't indulging in sophomoric b.s. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

While you are here, maybe an admin would like to examine your POINT violation? Problem 1: CSD nomination during ongoing TfD. Problem 2: Borderline fraudulent reason, as the template only became orphaned through this and I mentioned the fact at the TfD. You knew about both problems, as you !voted at the TfD. Hans Adler 07:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no prohibition against a CSD nomination with an ongoing xFD if an editor believes the page qualifies for deletion under speedy criteria. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Which it does. Given that template has no purpose other than to propagate HA's pointy views, it's utterly crap and some admin ought to step up and delete it, and give HA a kick in the tush for creating it. I don't know why he's here, but building an encyclopedia seems to be really far down on his list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

BMK, Two things: firstly, please could you stop attacking Adler simply because you disagree with him. You have no idea what his motives are here and trying to smear him with your above post is unnecessary. Secondly, you are involved in pushing your POV a little too far. You have your say in the TfD, which is OK, but your deletion of a fair amount of matierial on the template looks a little too POINTy: please wait for the TfD to run its course, or at least try and discuss the material on the template's talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

My IP Stalker and Vandal is back

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

---

My IP User:117.193.52.10 stalker is back. Please protect my pages.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please erase this edit

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

---

In this edit someone's name, address and telephone number was repeatedly published. I undid the edit, but could someone make it invisible? We don't know if it is the ip-editor's own information or someone else. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 09:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Revdel'd and oversight requested. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Lova Falk talk 09:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal threats?

This diff looks like a personal threat (and a strange "outing")to me:

This is your last warning, your lies and dubious assertions are seriously damaging the way I make my living and I reserve the right to hold all such editors personally libel. My request is that you hide your prejudices better or just don’t have an article at all. Furthermore, if I get one of your sanctified scholars to admit that “scholarly analogies have been drawn between the two traditions” I am warning the editor again, I, [redacted] of [redacted] 68.32.41.19 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC), will locate such individuals and attempt to ask them about such gross omissions in person. If camping is permitted outside of your dwelling, I, and every vagrant I can find to join my cause, will plan to set up camp!

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats (specifically for the deliberately chilling effect of the above message, though the mention of intent to hold individual editors personally responsible for libel was the kicker). Retraction of the statement should lead to a lifting of the block. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

They probably meant "hold all such editors personally liable". Liable for libel, you see. The private army of vagrants camping out is "liable" to cause quite a stink! Hey Bugs: you out there? Or has he been totally chased off of this page by the humorless? A shame... Doc talk 08:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I hadn't considered that. I never make such speling mistakes myself, you see.

I'm going to leave the block as is, but I've no objection if someone else wants to remove it; just go right ahead. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of a lack of a legal threat the post is indeed still an attempt at intimidation, so the block is good. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's one of those rules of legal threats: Editors only use the word libel when they mean liable; when they mean to say libel, they say slander. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So I did some digging. If I understand this right, the author self-published a book on Jan 3, 2013 that contradicts our Wikipedia articles on the subject. Articles that pre-date his book by 7 /5 years each. And he is accusing us of libel for it? Good luck, good block.--v/r - TP 14:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we really have two different articles on the non-intermingling of two different religions? Please don't tell me this is another international relations quagmire. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

College name in Royal College, Colombo

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

---

The many variations of the school's name used in local news papers have become a source of requests to list all names in the article. To sort this problem a section called College name was created. It has turned into a two line section and suggestions to move the contents to the lead have not met with consensus. Furthermore the inclusion of the term "Colombo Royalists" based on two news articles [237] [238] that both are unclear and ambiguous. Assistance is kindly requested to help sort out this impasse and fix the lead. Cossde (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The administrators' noticeboard is not a generic dispute escalation channel, especially when you haven't commented on the article's talk in nearly three months. Try WP:3O. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Or WP:DRN if need be. Blackmane (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Need the eyes of an uninvolved admin

I need someone to look over my shoulder and help smooth some hard feelings, perhaps offer feedback. Recently another editor (Tedickey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has reverted (ex:[239],[240],[241]) edits by ip 76.184.46.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because in that editor's opinion, the ip user's repeated insertion on ACW battle pages of links from a single website (thomaslegion.net) constituted spamlike activity (ex:[242],[243],[244]). The ip user proceeded to delete other links from such pages, using edit summaries which claimed that Tedickey's standard was being applied (ex:[245],[246],[247]). I mentioned this to Ted, and he and I pondered what to do. I placed a message on the ip's talk page admonishing the editor for such point-like deletions. I'll concede my language wasn't overpolite; I'll concede that not all of the ip's deletions were poorly founded. After leaving some messges on Ted's and the ip's own talk pages, the editor requested (in edit summary) a "senior party" to look over the situation. I'd rather not ask an admin I know, for obvious reasons. BusterD (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a plethora of "perhaps it would have been better to ..." but that's by the by. At this point, rather than argue about it, a trip off to the the appropriate noticeboard is probably the best thing to do. There's plenty more experienced eyes there. Yes, their actions were pointed even though there were justified deletions but nothing that would rise to anything blockable. Feathers have been ruffled, it could have been dealt with better but lets try at least to make sure that the follow-up actions are done in a gentlemanly (or ladylike) manner. Blackmane (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking for uninvolved admins to watch Jung Myung Seok

Two weeks ago, I fully protected the article on Jung Myung Seok in order to stop an edit war. I've told people to hash out their concerns on the talk page and take intractable disagreements over WP:NPOV or WP:RS to the approprate noticeboards, but the opposing sides appear to be not much closer to a consensus now than they were before I intervened, and I fear the edit war will simply pick up where it left off when the article becomes unprotected in a little under 24 hours from now. I've tried to guide the parties toward middle ground, but if blocks or other measures become necessary, I feel I'm too WP:INVOLVED now to be seen by everyone as neutral. I'd be grateful here if some uninvolved admins could keep an eye on this article and be ready to act as appropriate if things get out of hand. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted.--v/r - TP 18:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Lectonar (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Or we head it off at the pass. Block/ban McAuthor and MrTownCar as SPAs who have no other business here but to whitewash this article. They've managed to edit-war and wikilawyer to the point of protection, where they have had their favorite version (which screams out for attention, and I'm about to heed the call) up for two weeks now. I'm stepping in and will use my magic admin powers to make this a less promotional piece, one that shows more respect for what we consider to be reliable sources, which discusses the trial in neutral terms, which doesn't pretend that opinions given are to be considered factual statements--and one which doesn't blatantly blame the victims. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• I gotta say, that's about the worst I've seen, BLP-wise. Rich, it would not have been an abuse of your magic admin powers to have restored UKexpat's version (supported by a number of other editors) by citing our BLP policy. I hope some other admins will scrutinize the competing versions and the apparent interests of the two main editors responsible for that atrocious piece of promotional apologetics. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Careful, based on past experience, MrTownCar will accuse you and me of being sockpuppets.--ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • MrTownCar will find himself in a heap of trouble regardless if he continues to edit in the same vein. Let's see what happens tomorrow. If this ANI thread doesn't prompt action if action is necessary, BLPN is next, with or without ANEW, and then ANI and AN again if needs be. Possibly SPI since I have suspicions of my own. And now I'm all out of acronyms. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Drmies, I should mention here that I agonized at the time over which of the two competing versions of the article I should freeze. In the end, I decided that although the current version at the time certainly had problems, those problems did not meet the specific criteria in WP:PREFER under which an admin may be justified in reverting to an earlier version. It was a "d—ed if I do, d—ed if I don't" kind of decision, and I took it fully realizing that I would be criticized no matter how I acted, but something clearly needed to be done. If I had it to do over again now, I think I would probably have protected the article for a shorter time (maybe just one week instead of two), and I would have brought the matter myself to the relevant noticeboards (instead of just asking the parties to the dispute to please do so) in order to make sure it could be dealt with much more promptly. Live and learn, I suppose. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Rich, hindsight is usually 20/20... You were dealing with some determined warriors, methinks. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I have left ANI notices for both Macauthor and MrTownCar.--ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please erase this edit (part 2)

One more edit today that included an address. Could someone see to it so it is no longer visible? Lova Falk talk 20:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's something happening: I just removed the same thing, with apparently racist commentary, from Black market. It might be some kind of action directed at a company at that address. I've blocked 75.212.39.29 and 75.217.178.39 for three hours for disruptive editing; there may well be more. There are: 75.212.6.234 and 75.212.59.246. OK, we need a quick filter here if this keeps up. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be alert! Lova Falk talk 20:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, you might want to avoid continuing to use ANI for revdel/OS requests. Might I suggest #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I had never heard of it! However, your link was strange. My computer doesn't know what to do with it. I guess you meant: Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion? Lova Falk talk 20:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is the IRC channel; see also Wikipedia:Revision deletion#How to request Revision Deletion Lectonar (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Lova Falk talk 20:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• And 75.212.179.174. And 75.217.83.66. Pink, ANI is a real quick way to get attention. This is going faster than it should. Hey! Admins! Filter builders! Can someone please calculate a range block or set up a block? I'm serious. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Edit filter 530. Set to log-only for now, but at least it allows for centralized checking and reverting from [248]; (ignore the first two hits from me, I co-opted my test filter). As an aside, my (shaky?) mental math shows a large amount of collateral damage from a rangeblock. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I sent a request earlier today to RFO and and had 6 such edits hidden. Two (at Wetback (slur) and Crimes against humanity) were particularity nasty.--Auric talk 20:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• No FPs (not that there should've been any), so I'm switching the filter to block the edits. Keep an eye out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Two such edits still viewable in the history of Fraud.--Auric talk 20:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RevDeled. For the curious: the edit filter has caught four edits so far (two since switching to block mode). It might be a good idea to still keep an eye on the edit filter's output, to monitor the IPs' other contribs. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the filter, Writ Keeper. You are worth your salary and more. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, does your filter search for the string or its individual elements? They've used a couple different permutations. The address was always in there, but sometimes they used the first name (misspelled) instead of the initial. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It searches for a piece of it, not the whole thing. Don't want to give out too much detail, but it's relatively naive, so like I say, keep an eye out for edits that slip through. I've hidden the filter itself, on the wild off-chance that the guy knows/cares enough to look it up; admins and edit filter managers can see what it checks at Special:AbuseFilter/530, in the "conditions" box. (It should be pretty easy for anyone, even English professors, to understand, so don't worry about that.) Any examples of edits (that haven't been oversighted yet, obviously) that got through the filter or look like they would've would be welcome, to help me refine the filter. You can email me the details if necessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll RevDel this discussion and your credit cards, just to make sure. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Most of the edits I am aware of were to articles about topics with an extremely negative connotation, with spurious edit summaries.--Auric talk 21:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped, but I've refined the filter a bit, just in case. I'll leave it in place for an hour or two, unless random false positives start happening. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Pusalieth

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

---

For fear of someone screaming WP:INVOLVED in my direction, I will point out Pusalieth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who, upon discovering that I had removed a blatant copyright violation of http://www.animemusicvideos.org/guides/avtech/video2.htm, responded with this attack, and, upon being gently corrected, responded with this and this.—Kww(talk) 20:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

See here, here, and here. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User Ash Loomis

Seriously inappropriate approach to other editors and a confrontational approach expressed on his talk page: I'll eat your cunt bitch, literally! Fuck you! Go ahead and block me or whatever! I don't give a rat's ass you fucking piece of bitch trash shit! is just one example. - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like this person just wants attension, I say ban the fucker! Ash Loomis (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your wish, etc. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ash has been reported to WP:AIV (not sure if that's the right venue). Even so, it doesn't end there - take a look at Talk:Punisher; Ash has continued her string of insults against Chaheel Riens there; and added some odd comments on Chaheel's talk page. hmssolent\Let's convene 08:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I do find myself wondering if this account may have been compromised - the recent series of edits seems pretty extreme and trollish, but Ash has been here for many years as a (comparatively) trouble-free editor. Any thoughts? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Before you blocked the account, I was about to write that it seemed compromised. The comments are quite out of character compared with previous talk page edits. At the moment it's all a bit odd.[249] Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; having undertaken a more thorough review of Ash's interaction history, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm pretty certain the account is compromised; the behavioural differences (plus the request for a ban, above) are too extreme to suggest otherwise. I've amended the block accordingly. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It might be his younger brother. Happened before. [250] And the offending edit, or one of them, was [251] Seems like something someone's unsupervised immature punk little brother might do. Dream Focus 15:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If he requests unblock, tell him to keep his brother off his account, and give him some ROPE. —Rutebega (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder if it was (briefly) compromised back in November as well:[252]. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. So it appears that Ash has been compromised all along. hmssolent\Let's convene 01:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Vhat a tweest! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Help:Userspace draft

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

---

The help page Help:Userspace draft has gone walkabout; a new editor has overwritten it and has moved it twice. I think it needs an admin to sort this one out, possibly with a history split so that the draft article can go somewhere sensible. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the help pages.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Block Evasion / Edit Warring

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

---

User:64.134.134.133 is block evading on [253]. Original block was User:64.134.134.64. Suggest rangeblock of 64.134.134.0/24 or at least a block of the evading IP. Vacation9 20:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP and semi-protected the page he is edit-warring over.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Long term POV problem and user in breach of topic ban agreement

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

---

User:HighKing was the subject of a topic ban concerning the removal of the term British Isles. Here are the details: [254]. He was un-banned after agreeing to certain conditions but is now apparently in breach of them again. This problem seems to go back five years, during which time the user has made repeated attempts to remove the term from articles right across the piece. Here is the latest batch, all from this year: [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260]. The clear intention of each of these edits is to remove the term, but this is not stated in the edit summary. This one from this year: [261] is a repeat attmept from way back in 2008, shown here [262]. This is obviously a very long term problem where a user simply won't be told. There is much other material in connection with these removals. I just present a sample here, and urge action to be taken to deal with this matter once and for all. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Indef blocking, anyone? Rklawton (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hold the fort just a second. Is he in breach of his current restrictions? RashersTierney (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

BlackPrinceDave, what were you doing between these 2 diffs in your contribution history, did you use a different account ?

• 2013-01-08T23:43:29 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles ‎ (→‎Suggestion v5)
• 2012-07-13T11:48:44 Orange Order ‎ (Rv. Discuss this major change first)

How did you come across the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles page ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. Just lost interest. What's your point, and what's the relevance of your questions? BlackPrinceDave (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The relevance is that when an editor with few edits, gaps in the editing history, an apparent knowledge of the history of a topic area under sanctions and the existence of relatively obscure pages, files a compliant like this that relates to issues covered by sanctions, there is a high probability that the visible editing history is not the entire editing history. This can occur because they edited logged out, used a different account or are a sockpuppet of a topic banned user for example. That is why I asked. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

When an editor resumes edits that resulted in a topic ban, that editor is subject to sanctions ranging from topic ban to site ban regardless of whether or not the topic ban is still in place. Since this case is unambiguous (removing the term "British Isles" from articles), I'm not in the least bit hesitant to ban the user and be done with it. Rklawton (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of lifting the ban is that he was no longer restricted from removing the term "British Isles" from the articles, as long as he did so within reason and policy, as he promised. Frankly, the diffs listed above don't show that he's disrupting Wikipedia, they just show that he's removing "British Isles" from articles, which is not enough for a site ban and certainly not enough for "Indef blocking, anyone?". The only diff that I would view as nonconstructive is this one, since Great Britain refers to only one island, not including the many others. Pretty much all the other articles were improved by his edits, and if you have a problem with that then AN/I can't help you. —Rutebega (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Rklawton - I'm not sure how your logic works. What is the point of lifting a ban if they are still banned from doing it? Does it mean we remove their name from WP:CBAN but they can still be blocked? I don't understand how that makes sense.--v/r - TP 13:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Quack.

Jesus, not this again. Let's recap: When not topic banned from doing so, HighKing likes to wander around Wikipedia systematically finding articles that contain the term British Isles, and edit them to either remove the term entirely, or replace it with some other term or terms that he thinks is better. There are many reasons why this wouldn't ordinarily be an issue for administrators, namely: If the term was clearly not being used correctly in the articles (c.f. thefreedictionary.com) If HighKing is recognised on Wikipedia as a good copy editor or creator of high quality prose/articles If he was ensuring adherence to some established Manual of Style or other Wikipedia policy If he was restoring text originally written by him (WP:OWN not withstanding) However, there are many reasons why it should be an issue for administrators: If, to a dispassionate observer, HighKing cannot be considered an objective judge as to the appropriateness of the term or not If he had never edited any of these articles either before or since If he is not being upfront with other editors about the primary purpose of the edits If the changes reduced/obfuscated the intended meaning of the original text (c.f. the less accurate 'Britain and Ireland') If the changes are being reverted and then re-imposed by HighKing through edit warring If HighKing has a record of wasting a lot of community time with disputes arising from edits like this Even after the ban was lifted, it's clear that HighKing's behaviour is still a cause for concern with respect to Wikipedia's strict stance on the neutrality of articles and the motives of editors. Restoring the topic ban and upgrading it to indefinite is more than justified. Martin911 (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the section above has been closed up, because it gives and excellent summary of the problem at hand. I find it very odd that, a) this user has been allowed to get away with the disruption for so long, and b) no one here seems interested enough to do anything about it. I've spent a bit of time today looking further into this matter and it's fair to say the disruption could be described as "low level", but it is persistent. I can find examples of it going back to April 2008, and during the five years since then there have been many attempts to deal with it, only one of which has been partially successful (see above). Over the five year period there have been hundreds, maybe over a thousand, removals of British Isles, much wasted time and a lot of aggravation. I take the point about the user impoving articles; he generally does, but with every improvement comes a removal of British Isles, and that removal is not the improvement. It's as though the user is going to great lengths to hide what's going on here. Primarily he is at Wikipedia to remove British Isles, and if, along the way he can improve an article then so much the better. Where to go? Given the low level nature of the disruption we could forget about it. I would prefer something be done about it, because it diminishes the status of Wikipedia to have this sort of thing going on. Any other thoughts? BlackPrinceDave (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as a breach of the sanctions. I have reviewed all of the edits listed above, and there is only one that I would want to correct: this one to Peerage of Ireland. In that case, neither the previous version nor High King's edits are strictly accurate, because there has never been a "peerage of the British Isles"; the peerages concerned related to the Kingdoms of England, Ireland, Scotland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom. High King's reference to the United Kingdom is more accurate in scope, but it is anachronistic: when the United Kingdom was created, Peerages of Ireland ceased to be created (with a few rare exceptions). A better wording would be "refer to places in Great Britain".

None of this merits rebuke, let alone sanction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Current sanctions, applicable to everyone, state that British Isles can't be removed (or added) without justification and proper referencing. He's in breach of this. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else in the last 12 months who has added (or removed) 'British Isles' that you would like to report? RashersTierney (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt anyone else is doing it, so no. However, if you know of anyone else whose primary objective is to push the anti-British Isles pov in the way that HighKing is doing, then I suggest you name them here. Looking yet further into this, it is quite staggering the impact this guy has had of the last five years. I described it above as "low level" disruption, but when you can see the bigger picture it's actually massive disruption; fights and squabbles breaking out all over the place, simply because one person seeks to impose his world view on Wikipedia. Amazing that no-one can stop him. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Your own first edit as a registered user was to criticise a different editor for 'having an agenda' wrt 'British Isles'. Your edits as an IP are, of coarse, unknown. The term 'pot and kettle' springs to mind. RashersTierney (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, another editor who was topic banned for removing British Isles, but he spat out his dummy and left (maybe). I do like this place, it really makes me laugh! Whenever anyone reports a problem, as here with HighKing, people like you don't address it at all, but try and rubbish the person making the report. I hope you never have to serve on a jury! BlackPrinceDave (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that BPD is yet another sock of HackneyHound who has an impressive array of socks blocked in the past for the same behaviour. Not even counting his usage of Vodafone mobile accounts which appear to be impossible to block. I'll be including the Quacking account above. --HighKing (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you don't. On the other hand, perhaps we should set up a page called "Suspected sockpuppets of HighKing". After all, in your case there's substantial evidence, so I note [263], that you've previously engaged in this activity. This is not so with me, but if you think otherwise then go and make your accusations in the correct forum. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneyhound. The next time a 'new' editor at this page calls for a posse and a rope, bear it in mind. RashersTierney (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Donnelly (journalist)

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Donnelly (journalist) has been inappropriately relisted by a non admin. I request an admin to close. thanks. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The relist is...borderline, but for future reference, AN/I is to deal with relatively serious issues. You also don't appear to have notified the non-admin in question that this discussion was happening or spoken to him about it (for reference, asking him a question and then not giving him any time to reply is not a conversation). In the future:

1. Discuss it with the closer;
2. Then bring it to AN/I;
3. Assuming it's important. Ironholds (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've notified and left a question. Relisting when not necessary is just wasting people's time and thus requires admin intervention. LibStar (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not approach a single admin, but leave it to a random admin to close. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Then WP:AN would be the place, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Persistent abuse of WP:OWN and WP:TRUTH.

After several users, including myself, have tried to reason with Tritomex with no success, I take the matter here. The background is quite simple, and concerns the Khazars, a Turkic people that converted to Judaism in the 9th century. In the academic world, there is a minority view that the Khazars are the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews, either fully or partly. While this is a minority view, it is none the less a theory with support from academics in genetics, in history and in linguistics, who have all published several studies on the topic.
Most of the recent activity of Tritomex consists of trying to censor this view and edit it out of Wikipedia, either by taking it out altogether or trying to discredit it with material that most other users find unsuitable under WP:RS. This is a sample [264].
In the discussions, there is a broad consensus for including both views (both the view that Ashkenazi Jews have Khazar ancestors and the view that they don't) as there are good scholarly sources for both views. This is the broad consensus, supported by most users involved in the relevant articles. While a dispute about what to include or what to exclude would normally be a content dispute, the problem is that Tritomex repeatedly appoints himself the judge over what can be said and not said, and interprets "consensus" as meaning that he gets to veto anything he dislikes. [265], [266], [267]. As far as I know, no user can veto edits, and consensus does not necessarily mean complete unanimity. What is more, it is perfectly in line with WP:NPOV, in my understanding, to mention conflicting theories, when both theories have academic support by leading experts in their fields. Nobody is trying to push the idea that Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars (and I for one does not believe in it), but Tritomex's continuous campaign to censor it and to block the efforts of four other editors to work on an article starts to be tedious.Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably worth mentioning that similar disagreements began, and I do not think have ended, on Genetic studies on Jews.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• The way I see it, the current version of the lead has been hammered out on the talk page and should probably be labelled as the consensus version. Tritomex shouldn't be messing with that without discussing it, but you've just stock-reverted him, erasing all the other changes he's made to the article in the same edit. This includes re-introducing unsourced claims and claims sourced to a self-published book. Please take more care. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have misread what he did, extensive damage to a good editing environment at last, by overruling consensus on two distinct passages, making a WP:OR emendation to the consensual lead, and removing both a piece of text, and one impeccable academic source (Raphael Patai) from which it was quarried, attributing the fact as a claim, and the source as 'self-published'. Worst of all, he writes garbled English. He has left a wake of paralysis and distortion through several articles on related themes, flies in the face of consensus, refuses to understand policy. In short, he needs a topic-break.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Basalisk, it's quite right that the current version of the lead has been hammered out by several of us on the talk page and represents a consensus, and I'm glad you agree with that. I am surprised to read your final part, that I "re-introduced unsourced claims and claims sourced to a self-published book." We are currently working on the whole article and how to restructure it, and we hope to have it done by the end of this week. Your help is appreciated, so can I please ask you what self-published book I re-inserted? If you find it, I'll gladly take it out. If not, I hope for a retraction. Unfortunately, the fact that Tritomex claims that a book is unreliable or self-published only means that it says something he does not like.Jeppiz (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the allegations against myself, user Jeppiz who recently became involved in this article ignored that beside me other editors objected editions made by him and talk see [268]. Related to his edits on the same page, in violation of WP:CIVIL he labeled other editors who did not support his edits (related to same subject) as "disruptive editors engaged in edit warring" [269]. The same pattern s/he used against myself on February 8th, accusing me of edit warring [270] despite the fact that my only edition on this subject happened on February 4th, before he came to this article. In line with his/her edits on same subject but on different page, namely on Genetic studies on Jews s/he threatened any editor who revert his edits with WP:ANI, [271]. All of this edits have happened after 5 sock puppets have been caught on this two pages, [272] who were involved in attempt to present Khazar Theory, namely the theory which claims that Ashkenazi Jews are the descendants of Khazars, not just as valid theory, but to artificially create an impression that this theory is supported by broad academic society, which is not the case both regarding historians like Douglas Morton Dunlop, Bernard Lewis who described this theory as "This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics" or Moshe Gil who described this theory as follows [273] "we arrive at the conclusion that all historical discussions, or assumptions on conversion of the Khazars to Judaism, inclusive of Jewish medieval texts, are totally baseless. It never happened." (and many others) and geneticists [274][275] [276] or academic books from population genetics [277] or 23 another genetic study listed in details on Genetic Studies on Jews . Despite this, after enormous changes made in last few days on long standing bases of Khazar's article [278] the Khazar Theory, which was described by some of the greatest scholars like Bernard Lewis like "racist and Antisemitic" was introduced in the lead [279]

presented as historic probability, without any criticism and without any clear suggestion that this view in academic world is held by extremely tiny minority which is in my opinion WP:UNDUE violation. All of this happened after as I said five sock puppets were caught placing the Khazar Theory in following pages: Ashkenazi Jews, Genetic Studies on Jews, The invention of Jewish People and Khazars. In all of this pages I objected that identical users came after this sockpuppets were disabled and practically reinstated their editions with different wording.

Concerning the Khazar page, the Turkic name of this Turkic people, was replaced with the translation of their name to Hebrew in lead, alluding that Khazars are Jews. Kevin Alan Brook, novel (Kevin Alan Brook is Business Administrator) novel was presented as WP:RS regarding the history, origin and genetics of Khazars. Even racial profiling of Khazrs from this sources is cited aluding that Khazars did not have Turkic lookings. My personal edits on this page was driven by my believe that as per WP:UNDUE the Khazar Theory can not be presented in lead without clear references that this theory is not supported by almost entire academic society beyond 3 scholars whom I know (Shlomo Sand, P Wexler and recently by Eran Elhaik) Their views are considered marginal by geneticists: Atzmon, Behar, Sorecki, Shen, Moorijani, Campbel, Hammer, Nebla, Thomas, Goldberg, numerous historians and linguists.--Tritomex (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I most certainly labelled a user "disruptive", as Tritomex points out. I did so after the same user reverted for the third time without taking part in any discussion. I find such edit-warring disruptive, and saying so is not in breach of WP:CIVIL. Concerning the rest of Tritomex's long post, it does not address the issue here, but is yet again a long attempt to justify why he wants to censor a theory he does not like. I don't like it either, for what it's worth, but as I already stated, I believe that when there are conflicting theories and both theories have the support of recent research by leading experts, then we should also present both. Tritomex tries to suppress one theory in spite of a consensus to include it as as minority view, and that is the topic here. Any discussion concerning the two theories is better taken at the talk pages of the two articles, the discussion here is about Tritomex persistent refusal to accept a consensus he doesn't like and his attempts to censor out theories he dislikes.Jeppiz (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex is an extremely problematic editor. Witness his endless attempt at Genetic studies on Jews to exclude a peer-reviewed scientific paper, entirely on the basis that he doesn't agree with it (see the thousands of vacuous words he wrote on the talk page). Zero^talk 23:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• I read the talk page and a bunch of the diffs in the article earlier today, and subsequent commentary (at length, to put it mildly) by Tritomex does not alleviate my concern: I do believe that Tritomex's behavior in the article and the talk page is disruptive. If they can't abide by consensus, and there seems to be consensus on the talk page for the lead and other matters, they need to butt out of the article. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The same 3 editors including Zero0000 and Nishidani edited the same subject, namely the Khazar Theory in to following articles and their talk pages: Ashkenazi Jews-exuding 2 editors, Genetic Studies on Jews-all editors, The invention of Jewish People-exuding one editor and Khazars-all editors. In all of this articles, beside Ashkenazi Jews, their joint edition (regarding Khazar theory) stands, despite my objections on talk pages (backed by numerous sources) regarding the way how this edits were done and the wording of this subject. As in this case, all the objections I presented on talk page were left unexplained and without answer. The assumption that there are equality between Khazar theory and the views held by almost entire academic society is in my view per WP:UNDUE problematic. --Tritomex (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • That your objections weren't answered is (at least in the case of Khazars) simply not true. Such a claim is the hallmark of a TRUTHy editor. Moreover, at some point you have to accept that the consensus is not with you and find a different battle the fight (I'm using this metaphor on purposes given the crusading tendencies I find in these and other comments). Drmies (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
      • As Zero, Nishidani and Drmies all point out in their posts above, Tritomex tends to be disruptive. This, in combination with his refusal to accept a consensus and his insistence on always knowing the truth, makes it much more of a challenge to work on articles that he targets. As can be seen from comments on those pages, good users have simply given up out of sheer frustration. I would go so far as suggesting that it would be beneficial for Wikipedia if Tritomex did not edit articles related to "Jewish genetics", including Khazars and Ashkenazi Jews. I think a review of Genetic studies on Jews and Khazars shows that Tritomex's overall contribution is not positive. An editor who always knows the truth and will fight any consensus to challenge the truth is not helpful. The problem is that most moderate and neutral users are less passionate (but probably better placed) to edit than those with a strong personal interest. In the end, moderate users simply grow tired and so the disruptive editors 'win' simply by being disruptive long enough.Jeppiz (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I hate to have to break in here, but the issue is a bit more complex than that presented. Regardless of his manner, Tritomex has raised valid concerns around WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG issues, though he may not have stated them as succinctly as that. While the rest of the lede seems fine, I've moved the contentious bit back to the article's talk page, so that discussion can develop more fully, and less heated (and hopefully more policy-focused) views can be aired. In my experience, too much fighting over a lede is often an indication that the article itself needs significant development. The ideal lede simply summarizes an article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Jayjg , nobody is challenging Tritomex's right to voice valid concerns. For the claim about WP:UNDUE, please see the talk page of the article as that is not the issue here. I would never take a user to WP:ANI for raising concerns over WP:UNDUE even if I disagree (and in this case I certainly do). The issue is Tritomex's behavior, which several editors find disruptive; not his views, to which he is perfectly entitled.Jeppiz (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is simply not truth Jeppiz as until today I did not made any edition to this article from February 4th. You made two reverts of my edition and although you stated that you don't have source for Khazar Theory (or that you need a source for Khazar Theory of Ashkenazi Jews) you edited it, right in to lead without any source. All my observations until today were directed to talk page-From the fact that this fringe theory labeled Antisemitic and racist by some of the most respected historians does not go in to lead, especially not without clear explanation that it is not supported by almost all historians (beside maybe one) by all human population geneticist (beside one) I posted dozens of sources for this claim, not just here but on Genetic studies on Jews article and other articles talk pages were you, Nshadani and Zeero00 jointly edited subjects related to this theory one by one. In the case of Khazars it was WP:UNDUE violation. Without any reasonable explanation you removed the Turkic name of this Turkic people and replaced it with the Hebrew translation of their name, although Khazars and Hebrew language have nothing in common. You used a novel written by Business administrator as WP:RS for Khazar history and origin and finally you edited the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi Jews in lead without any source to support your claims.--Tritomex (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

None of that is true. As you know full well, several of us are currently reworking the whole article (and you have offered no help, only hindrance) and I explicitly stated on the talk page that we should of course add sources to the introduction, particularly for the section in question. So when you try to claim that we tried to "push" it into the lead without sources, you are not being honest. The facts of the matter is that there was a broad consensus, and everybody agreed sources would need to be added. Several editors have taken part in constructive discussions, while your input has consisted of vowing to stop any change you don't like (WP:OWN) and even quite sharp personal attacks by indicating, as you do above again, that it is anti-Semitic to include a theory with support in history, in linguistics and in genetics. I have stated clearly, and several times on the talk page, that I don't believe in this theory myself, but that it exists and we need to recognise it. Here, I am repeating the same things for what must be the tenth time in just a few days, and all because of your behavior. So yes, just like Zero, Nishidani and Drmies I find you disruptive, borderline dishonest, and I think the article would be better off without your participation. To put it bluntly, you are not a net contributor to Wikipedia, quite the opposite. Worse, your behavior causes good and serious contributors to leave.Jeppiz (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you blindly reverted and restored unsourced material?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The restoration of the unsourced sentence was a mistake on my part. Then again, we are currently rewriting the whole article (as discussed in long detail on the talk page) so that sentence would have gone in either case. But yes, it was a mistake on my part as I did not see it when I reverted. That's quite beside the point, though. There's a huge gap between making an honest mistake when reverting and being constantly disruptive.Jeppiz (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The team that edited Khazar Theory in numerous articles overtaking and ignoring the opinions of others, like user Shrike, Galassi and myself on this article certainly will not leave, but you want me out as you have openly stated above. That is why you threatened any editor who revert your editions regarding the Khazar Theory with WP:ANI [280]. So no one did reverted you. Second I can not make WP:OWN without actual edits and by pointing on talk page to the mistakes, unsourced claims and Wikipedia policy violations. (and prior to yesterday edition I made only one edit on February 4th, before you even involved yourself ) Despite this, you labeled me and Galassi as disruptive editors immediately as you came) Concerning this question I pointed out that a marginal theory refuted by almost entire academic scientific world has to presented as such per(WP:UNDUE) Concerning the Khazar Theory, it was not me but Bernard Lewis, Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, (Black Sun: Aryan cults, esoteric nazism, and the politics of identity, NYU Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8147-3155-4, p. 237.), Paul F. Boller, Memoirs of an Obscure Professor and Other Essays, TCU Press, 1992, pp. 5-6. Michael Barkun and others who described this theory as racist and/or Antisemitic.--Tritomex (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So let me see if I've got this right. You are citing a couple of references in a manner that takes them somewhat out of context and using them to support assertions that the work of even the noted Jewish scholars among Raphael Patai, Shlomo Sand, P Wexler and Eran Elhaik is anti-Semitic against editors seeking to cite such works? One wouldn't be hard pressed to view such assertions by Tritomex to represent behavior combining POV pushing and anti-Semite baiting(?) in relation to the discussion of the Khazarian hypothesis, which I only participated in on the RSN noticeboard in relation to Elhaik's recent publication. --Ubikwit (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost all above is a gross distortion, characteristic of Tritomex and the reason I brought the matter to ANI.

• I know of no "team" that edits any article. I've never met any of the users involved on any other page or article.
• Which are these "numerous articles" that this supposed "team" is editing?
• Despite all your claims, (often coupled with personal attacks) that somebody wants to focus on the Khazar theory, the opposite is true. All of us agree that it is a minority view, all of us want to present it only as a minority view. You want to censor it out completely. I find that hard to do, given that it has support by academics in different fields such as genetics, history and linguistics. We are not talking about one single person suggesting the theory, but different experts in different fields. They are of course still a small minority, but notable enough not to be censored by someone shouting WP:UNDUE.
• Yes, there was a period during which you made no edits - because the article was locked. Your edit history is quite revealing.
• Yes, I labeled you and Galassi "disruptive editors". Galassi immedediately, as he was actively engaged in an edit war, constantly reverting others without even bothering about discussing. That is disruptive. What is the problem in saying so? Jeppiz (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I listed above the articles to whom the Khazar Theory was edited by identical users despite objections regarding the wording and WP policy. Contrary to you I did not call anyone a "disruptive editor" nor I have used any bad word for anyone. All my criticism on talk pages was policy based and backed by arguments and sources.--Tritomex (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion Tritomex is stopping other editors from improving article and balancing the areas that he/she is concerned about. Both in edits and on the talk page there is an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As a result both of the involved articles I am watching are maintained in a state of distorted disaster. In the genetics article, I am too often finding sentences and even numbers being inserted which are not even in the sources cited, while other edits chop up and remove well sourced materials. I do not blame Tritomex for physically doing all those edits, but there is certainly a POV movement of editors with various positions about this subject who are quite happy to keep the articles crappy while good editors are being blocked from working. The best defense against that type of editing would be to try to get some stability to the articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As I was asked to name the 4 editors who edited the Khazar Theory from one to another article, I will do it now. They were Nishadani, Zeero, Andrew Lancaster and recently Jeppiz. All of them participated in the edition of Khazar Theory to the Khazars and to the Genetic Studies on Jews. Nishadani, Zeero made the edition of the same subject to the Invention of Jewish People book site, while Nishadani unsuccessfully tried previously to edit it to Ashkenazi Jews. I do not say that this theory should not be mentioned in this articles. What I said and asked is to determine a clear WP:UNDUE issue, and to place this theory in correct frameworks as per Wikipedia policy and in accordance to the prevailing opinion shared by almost entire academic community. This does not happened. Regarding allegations against myself I ask for concrete examples and links from this editors. Yes I slowed down the POV pushing which started with 5 consecutive sockppueppet vandalization of this pages by editors who also tried to push the Khazar Theory in this article in a way which created artificial impression that this theory has broad and universal support.--Tritomex (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I made very few actual edits on this pages and most of my focus was directed to talk pages. I asked and I stil ask very simple and clear questions-Like Why the Hebrew translation of the name of Khazars was edited in to lead? How Kevin Alan Brook a businesses administrator novel can be used as WP:RS for Khazars history and how the Khazar theory of Ashkeanzi Jews can be presented without mentioning that the overwhelming majority of scholars rejected it. For all this facts I presented relevant references.--Tritomex (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The Hebrew word for Khazars was put in because, like the Greek and Latin and Arabic and Persian words for Khazars, the Khazars were mentioned by Jewish writers in Hebrew sources, by Greek, Latin, Arabic, Persian (and Chinese) chroniclers in medieval times. Anyone, anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the subject knows that. You don't, you know no history at all, it appears at least to me from having to cope with your editing on several related pages. The only history you seem to trust is what peeps out of the margins of genetic papers. That is indicated time and again in your edits. And you belabour endlessly editors who actually do know in some detail these obscure subjects with ungrammatical, uncomprehending questions, while ignoring policy. Just lay of what you do not understand and let competent editors do their work, quickly efficiently and precisely. Then, once a rotten page becomes readable, by all means challenge some detail here or there.Nishidani (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who knows the history of Khazars knows that more than 90% of medieval chronicles mentioning them comes from Arabic historians and are written in Arabic language. Here is the list of medieval

historians of the Khazars: Ibn Qutaybah,Al-Baladhuri, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ahmad ibn A'zham,Ibn al-Faqih,Ahmad ibn Rustah-Persian but his chronicles were written in Arabic, Al-Masudi, Al-Ishtakhri,Ibn Hawkal, Al-Maqdisi, Yaqut al-Hamawi,Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad, Ali ibn al-Athir,Hudud al-'alam. Contrary to this there are no contemporary Jewish historians writing chronicles in Hebrew language about Khazars. In fact contemporary Jewish historians like Saadia Gaon and Benyamin Menashe Lewin whose work covering all aspects of Jewish life all over the world (known by them) writen in Judeo-Arabic do not mention the Khazars at all. The very few Jewish sources related to Khazars derive from Arabic scriptures and were written in Judeo-Arabic. So by this logic, without any exuse Arabic would be placed in first place instead of Hebrew. ---Tritomex (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The question of whether to put Hebrew and Farsi in the first line is surely one for the article talkpage? I think other editors would also be flexible. Tritomex I think you are mixing a small subject into a bigger one. Let's try to get past small stuff like that with minimum drama.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have seen Tritomex editing the articles under discussion and I believe that unfortunately it has been disruptive to the project. The editor has strong opinions on these topics and is unable to accept when a consensus forms against his own position. The editor needs to understand that not everything in the encyclopedia will be written in a way that corresponds exactly to his own personal understanding of the topic. If he cannot get to grips with that I think editing will be a very frustrating experience for him, and he will continue to be a disruptive presence in the articles he involved with. Dlv999 (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Martin_Kimmel - internal error, returning 404 status

The page Talk:Martin_Kimmel is returning a 404 error. A real 404 error, not a wiki "you can create this page" error. It worked earlier today. Martin_Kimmel is working. I'd put a suggest-merge tag on the article, but hadn't done anything to do the merge. Did someone try a merge, or perform some other maintenance operation, and have it go wrong? --John Nagle (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It works fine for me. Try using http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Kimmel&action=purge, see if that helps you, and try to clear your local cache. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Working for me as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This happens to me periodically when my Internet is working; somehow my browser just can't load a page. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Article which probably shouldn't be an article...?

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

---

Dear all; have just found this article in AfC, I removed the Sandbox template before looking closely at the article itself, assuming it had already passed. But if so, why? Viz., it's crap. Needs Wikifying in both content and tone, as well as only providing two refs in what is a substantial article. A large amount of it is also lifted verbatim from an Indian Army site and- bizzarely- a US marine page (the links to both these sites is blocked, but google any chunk of text and I think you'll find what I mean). I guess it should be deleted now it's in the name space? Cheers! Basket _Feudalist 12:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• It hasn't passed - the editor created the article in mainspace and since it doesn't scream immediate CSD, NPP probably haven't picked up on it yet. I've moved it into AfC space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Cheers, I dealt with it there.PS, was this not the right place to raise the issue? So as to know for next time.Basket _Feudalist 12:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• You probably want to use Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation - you only really need this place if there is severe disruption and all the regular avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted. Maybe if somebody was spamming AfC with lots of junk articles every day, or was doing lots of bad faith reviews, we could come here, but that's not what we've got. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by User:Ceco31

Ceco31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 3 months on February 6 for disruption in Balkan related topics [281]. Immediately after, first one IP, and then another, resumed his edit-warring right where he left off [282], reverting to the same version as him. Both IPs have the same location and ISPs. The disruption is ongoing, so it needs to be dealt with promptly. Thanks in advance. Athenean (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hihimanshu70

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

---

Hihimanshu70 is a new editor. Both of the articles he has created, Kloodin and Lashzone, have been nominated for deletion. There is an account on a freelance website with the same user name that has been paid to create Wikipedia articles. A new page creation block or something similar may be in order until this editor demonstrates the ability to edit responsibly. Andrew³²⁷ 18:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Really, really racist edit from new user

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

---

I hope this is the appropriate venue for this, but User:John Catagness has posted something incredibly offensive as his first and only post here: [283]. I've reverted it and warned him, but this is the kind of edit that often gets deleted from the page history and this is the kind of user that can be justifiably blocked after one edit, so I thought I'd bring it to Admins' attention. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threat in edit summary

From this edit summary[284], "Stop slander, lies and defamation, Mr. Schönherr. I will inform Mr. Hesemann on your campaign so he can sue you for compensation."

The article in question, Michael Hesemann, could use a few more sets of eyes on it, even without the threat, frankly - there's a serious edit-war going on there at the moment. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that this person didn't know our policy on legal threats. I slapped warning template on their userpage and linked them here, I'd say it's best to wait until they respond after they know the policy. Otherwise, clear legal threat. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• The claim in the lead that HSchnyder removed, calling it "slander, lies and defamation", comes from the lead to the German Michael Hesemann article. I've reinserted it with the addition of the reference from the German article. I'll take a look tomorrow at the other statements that HSchnyder has reverted, unless somebody else has taken care of it by then. It doesn't look like references would be hard to find for any of it. I note that HSchnyder has been warned of 3RR; if he should happen to revert me too, I hope somebody blocks him. As for the legal threat, I find it a little hard to take seriously (but then I often do). The only thing that makes it a little unpleasant is that the other editor, Maximilian Schönherr, uses his real name (or so I presume), and that HSchnyder actually mentions it in his edit summary threat: "Stop slander, lies and defamation, Mr. Schönherr. I will inform Mr. Hesemann on your campaign so he can sue you for compensation!" Still, the third-person nature of the whole spiel—'I will inform him so that he can sue you' (for apparently true and not in any obvious sense offensive statements, too)— makes it pretty un-alarming to my sense. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC).
• Yeah, it's all a bit...well, pathetic. I actually edit-conflicted with you Bish; I was going to do the same thing. It's an interesting affair, by the way, and I hope that Herr Schnyder finds other things to do here besides edit-warring. The BLP exemption does not apply, in case that wasn't clear. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• One more thing: it's pretty clear to me why we see efforts to erase the UFO past--it's an attempt at becoming a more serious persona. "One of the most important religious historians in the world": I guess we shouldn't be surprised to see that claim made on the pages of a supposed reliable source. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Bish et al, this is getting funner and funner. Have a look at Talk:Michael Hesemann, for that preposterous claim about a multitude of Hesemaenner. I think that maybe some administrative tools, or a consensus about a topic ban of some sort, could come in handy. I wish Dougweller, DGG, or Randykitty would drop by to have a look at the article and its editor(s); I have seen no evidence, for instance, that the subject is actually an academic (with a degree and all that). Yes, we are dealing with a long-term cleanup effort, a whitewashing operation. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The latest edits came from an IP in Düsseldorf, the subject's place of birth and 'place of activity' [285].

Also compare:

• "Obviously there are two writers with the same name. There is also a third Michael Hesemann who is involved in microbiology and fossiles. Probably they were mixed up by this "ufoevidence" web site!" [286] HSchnyder on English Wikipedia, 2 January 2011
• "1990, Hesemann was 26. So still a [university] student. 'Well known' he became not through his folkloristic material collections on the UFO myth, for if he were well known, then at least a single big publisher would have asked him to write a book on the topic. Instead he self-published (!) everything, machine typed and hectographied, as was common at the time for minimal runs. Then in 1994 a mini-publisher called "Silberschnur" published one of his books on the topic, 1997 he wrote for Falken the hobby guidebook "UFOs over Germany" with practical hints how to examine UFOs and identify them as weather balloons, stars and advertising zeppelines. In the same year his bestseller "Secret Matter Fatima appeared, which saw 8 reprints since then. Another year later in another mass publisher, Herder, "The Jesus Plate". That is, Hesemann 'became well known', big publishers published him and he wrote bestsellers, when he concentrated on church historical topics." - My translation from Hschnyder on German Wikipedia, 3 February 2013 [287]
• "The additions are a mix up with another author with the same name and part of an anti-Catholic slander campaign, startet on German wikipedia." Edit summary [288] HSchnyder on English Wikipedia, 11 February 2013
• Unified account: Special:CentralAuth/HSchnyder
• Hschnyder account on German Wikipedia (blocked as non-constructive SPA since 4 February)

Clearly the story has changed from 'never happened' to youthful folly over the years. HSchnyder/Hschnyder is evidently aware that it's a good strategy to be consistent over time. He does not seem aware that one should also be consistent over space.

Also, if we assume that the youthful folly variant of the story is closest to the truth, then the subject has merely moved from UFO fringe to Catholic miracle fringe. Oh, and Falken-Verlag (where one of his UFO books appeared) was one of the 15 biggest German publishers in Germany in 1991. Practically all bookshops stock many of their guidebooks. Hans Adler 08:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked HSchnyder, semiprotected article. WP:BLP goes both ways: deliberately lying about the subject of a BLP is unacceptable, no matter if it's done to defame them or to defend them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

hi, i'm the author who was threatened by Hschnyder. in the german wiki we've had this issue (threats, edit wars) for years, and it's always been Hschnyder or anonymous IPs who removed the UFO history from the article and kept inserting ad-like praises for hesemann's theological works. i've returned to the german article after a long time when i read in a renowned german newspaper that a court in hamburg ruled against hesemann in mid january. i contacted the court and got this case confirmed. so, a new struggle began, mainly by other users, who fought for the pargraph about the court case - while Hschnyder was reverting and calling the autors dumb, anti-catholic and biased. Hschnyder finally got blocked infinitely.

then i walked to the english article about hesemann and found that it was even more an ad and praise. not a word about the UFO past. i did nothing more than inserting quite briefly the UFO-background plus hesemann's involvement in extremely conservative catholic circles (with source, of course) and cutting down several, but certainly not all non-encyclopedic sentences such as "the pope thanked hesemann...", "and he thanked hesemann again...".

being a journalist i met hesemann personally at the UFO world conference 1995 in düssedorf. i have nothing personal against him, as Hschnyder suggests. and, yes, i'm here under my real name. best, Maximilian (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well done everybody. Nice catch, Dawn, and special thanks to Hans and Maximilian. Bishonen | talk 11:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC).

• The disruption made by this user, across multiple Wikis, makes me wonder if he deserves a global ban from editing Wikipedia, if there is such a thing... Lukeno94 (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's called a global lock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Guerrilla of the Renmin removing links to China in many articles

User:Guerrilla of the Renmin has unlinked China in many, many articles, citing WP:OVERLINK as the reason. See his/her user contributions: [289]. There seems to be no overlinking in these articles, and it is only ever China that is unlinked, so for example we may get lists of countries with just one link missing, e.g. [290]. GotR has been warned that this is not how to do things by both me and User:Djsasso. However he/she seems to be adamant that his/her actions were correct. See User talk:Guerrilla of the Renmin#Overlinking to China. He/she seems to have stopped editing for the time being, but I suspect he/she will continue later. Please can an admin intervene? Bazonka (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And in a blatant breach of etiquette, GoR just removed this thread: [291]. Bazonka (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Has the editor explained why they are removing just "China".Moxy (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Bazonka, you do not have evidence that I will continue, and I have promised not to do so. So duly refrain from stirring drama and running, crying to mother after just a few minutes. Would someone kindly close this thread henceforth? GotR ^Talk 20:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So you're going to stop removing links, is that correct? thanks in advance for your confirmation/clarification. And I would very much like to see a clear acknowledgement that you understand that you do not ever remove a thread on ANI which is about you; and very rarely one which is about anyone or anything else. KillerChihuahua 20:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth I just disagreed with the mass unlinking on some pages I didn't think it should be. I don't think it needed to rise to the level of AN. I think both of you need to calm down and take a step back. No need to get so heated over what is really not that big a deal probably. -DJSasso (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no reason given for why it is just China that has been unlinked. I suspect there is some POV involved, but I have no proof of that.

Normally, this sort of thing would not be one for ANI, but given the sheer number of articles that have been affected, and there is a risk that further articles could be affected in the future, it needs to be raised. Bazonka (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect there is some POV involved—That's right! You only suspect, Bazonka. there is a risk that further articles could be affected in the future—Smacks of "if it snows today, it most certainly will tomorrow" type of idiocy.

@Chihuahua, once again, I vow that the Twinkle delinking will cease. GotR ^Talk 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And yet that's not the most serious issue here. Will you also "vow" not to remove threads from ANI? The delinking might be seen as good-faith, but removing a thread on ANI can only be seen as you trying to avoid scrutiny by admins. KillerChihuahua 20:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:TPG, yes. GotR ^Talk 20:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

NO. This is NOT a talk page. Please look carefully. This is a Wikipedia namespace page, IOW it is a project page. I still really need to hear you will never remove anything from ANI ever again, and not per a guideline that doesn't quite apply, just a simple, clear promise you won't do it. KillerChihuahua 20:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You have my word, then. GotR ^Talk 20:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What should be done with the edits - should the edits be reverted? Any recommendations?Moxy (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think most of them should be. I have scanned and found none where China had been previously linked in the article, but a couple where a city in China preceded the word "China". Such as; Beijing, China. It doesn't rise the level of reverting vandalism, and I see no reason not to leave it to the editors of the various pages, or revert all the edits as unhelpful. Either would be an acceptable approach. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@GotR: What does "the twinkle delinking" mean? Your edit summary alluded to the same thing. How about this: "I will stop delinking China period."--v/r - TP 20:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I manually reverted some of them from the top of GotRs contribs list, but it is a huge number of articles, and with the current technical problems Wikipedia seems to be experiencing at the moment, it seems to be a rather massive task. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm working through them too. Bazonka (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If no one objects to an arguable technical misuse of rollback, I'm just gonna massrollback them here. Any cases where they should have been unlinked can be handled on their own. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahh. Looks like Bazonka beat me to the bulk of it. Gosh massrollback is a fun script. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@TParis, "Twinkle delinking" should be unequivocally clear; there is an "unlink backlinks" option for every mainspace page. 2) Regardless of one's interpretations of WP:OVERLINK, Twinkle delinking (or going on delinking rampages) is more disruptive than delinking through general copy-editing; the latter is the case with my editing. So, no, asking me to "stop delinking China, period" is an outrageous request. GotR ^Talk 20:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How about "stop delinking period." Does that sound better. You've offered no justification or policy that supports your actions, so how about just stopping delinking China, before someone suggests a topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

1) If it is really necessitated, then I will be pedantic. In most situations, articles on nations/states, which are gross overviews to begin with, would fit the example provided at WP:LINK#An example article, and do not fulfil any of the criteria offered by WP:UNDERLINK: A) Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully—clearly, for example, in an article about alchemy, linking to a nation/state article, which is a gross overview, is of no help. B) Articles with relevant information—same reason as for A, and distant nation/state articles, i.e. anything but the US and Canada for a British Columbia topic, go off on clear tangents. C) Articles explaining technical terms, jargon or slang expressions—This is obvious D) Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar with readers—Well nations/states certainly aren't. On to WP:OVERLINK, the second criterion of which states names of major geographic features and locations—Nations/states are certainly major.

2) Suggesting I am not invulnerable to a topic ban is laughable; no one in their right mind would think a topic ban pass, as I edit almost exclusively in the Sinosphere, and am indispensable to the project (far more than any of you above). GotR ^Talk 00:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest you drop the "I am invulnerable" train of thought right now. Nobody is "entitled" to edit anything; nobody is "indispensable". A good Wikipedia contributor listens to criticism and alters problematic behaivor when it's pointed out. A bad one claims entitlement and usually winds up indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, given your unrepentant attitude and arrogance, a topic ban would actually pass. Blackmane (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if GotR is trying to goad someone into blocking him, by stating that he is "indispensable to the project" - when there is no one who is indispensable.. (Look at the ArbCom case being brought against RAN, who is a massive contributor, for example) Lukeno94 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ditto Bushranger and Blackmane. Further to the linking issue, there are two things worth pointing out in this context. First, as needs to be pointed out too often, the part of overlink cited by GOTR above has a specific qualification to the advice against linking "major" geographic features, when said things are "relevant to the topic of the article". There can be a debate on how that might apply to places in China, but let's not pretend that that qualification is not there in the guideline and that blanket delinking of the term China is mandated by that guideline, as opposed to it suggesting editors make intelligent judgments in individual cases (this is a wider problem btw). Secondly, this should possibly be seen in the context of the move a year or so ago of the China and Taiwan titles and content. GOTR opposed those moves and has long been a warrior for the use of the more obscure terminology People's Republic of China/Republic of China to refer to each entity respectively. The term "China" no longer links to a broader "civilisational" article that implicitly includes Taiwan in its definition, but to the page about the modern country known officially as the PRC and universally referred to as China, which is generally taken to exclude the territory of Taiwan. N-HH talk/edits 11:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. That certainly clears up a lot of questions, and does indicate that this whole maneuver was very much of a pointy (as well as WP:POVPUSHy) character. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@Blackmane: You have no right to suggest I am unrepentant when I, and as KillerChihuahua recognises, see the wrong in using Twinkle to blanket revert. Now get over it and stop beating a dead horse. @Bushranger: I meant indispensable not in the way you suggest, but perhaps "occupies an undeniably invaluable niche" is a better phrasing.

@N-HH. Wrong again on count 2, and you have nothing to corroborate your claims. Yesterday's actions were out of discontent with the treatment of Chinese geography (This is an example of what I'm talking about) by much of the media and even many of our own editors. For instance, I am irked by linking such as "in northeast [[China]]" (instead of "in [[northeast China]]") since it does the average reader no justice by not linking to the regional article, which clarifies that that region is restricted to three or parts of four provinces. GotR ^Talk 17:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That is a better phrasing, but it doesn't change the fact that a "come at me bro" approach to the prospect of being topic banned isn't a good way to go about things. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

But that wasn't what you were doing. You weren't carefully going over links and exchanging them with others that would be more appropriate, you were mass delinking every instance of the China-wikilink on a huge scale with no obvious reason provided. If your edits was in fact made "out of discontent with the treatment of Chinese geography" then WP:POINT does indeed apply, since your edits did nothing to fix the problem, but was intentionally disruptive in order to prove a point. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@Saddhiyama. So it seems you are still having quirms about "mass delinking every instance", when I never claimed Twinkle unlinking of backlinks is copy-editing, and have already admitted to wrongdoing. What self-deprecatory remarks you made there. It's high time to close out this useless exercise. GotR ^Talk 21:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not "wrong" on count 2, let alone "again". I cannot be, since I never made any specific claims about what exactly is involved here or what might be motivating this recent run of your edits (I'd not be so stupid). What I said of course was that "this should possibly be seen in the context of ...". With my second observation, as with my first about WP:OVERLINK, I was simply providing some context for those at ANI who might not be aware of it. Once that wider background is a little clearer, they can make their own minds up about what it might all mean and what relevance it might or might not have, and you can clarify your position in respect of the issue; which you seem to have now done. N-HH talk/edits 23:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

One comment does not a dead horse beat. It's certainly well within my "rights", as you put it (although "privilege" is more accurate since I have no more "right" to edit here than anyone else) to make an objective view after parsing what you have written. I have no need to "get over" something that doesn't actually get in my way. Blackmane (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967‎

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

---

A few days ago an IP made the claim at the help desk that "Date of birth incorrect. 21.06.1945 is OK. Jan Mak." Canoe1967‎ (talk · contribs) took this to refer to the Jan Mak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, removed the previous DOB, added in this new (unsourced) DOB, and that was that. The help desk thread is brief, but to me indicates that there is general agreement that we should not accept this new, unsourced DOB - I agree fully, and would go further by stating we have no idea that this IP is the subject himself, or somebody else called Jan Mak, or neither, and whether or not they were even referring to the article in question. Discussions continued between myself and Canoe1967 at our respective talk pages; I found plenty of sources which confirm he 1948 birth date, and so re-added it with a direct reference. Canoe1967 appears to have taken exception to this, stating that "I don't really care if the wrong date is entered in the article. I just hope I am not around when the crap hits the fan on it. I will take it off my watch list and let others deal with it. Bye" and that "I no longer give a shit! Go ahead and fuck up the article! I will have a good laugh when egg hits face after shit hits fan." He now appears to be refusing to engage - he has removed my comments from his article talk page using the mis-leading edit sumamry of "Copyedit (minor))" (1, 2, 3) and he has refactored my comments at the article talk page to try and support his position. We also have a disturbing pattern of personal attacks & uncivil behaviour against a number of editors - see 1, 2 3, 4, 5...he has been warned many times for this (check history of user talk, he likes to remove warnings & comments from other editors), and I'd like a wider opinion on the matter please. GiantSnowman 11:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Notified. GiantSnowman 11:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

...and then removed. GiantSnowman 11:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

He's certainly not one to beat around the bush and say what he thinks, but I don't really have enough experience to say if the sources for the DOB are reliable. It's certainly possible that the other sites have copied our article, and (pre-wiki) experience with Keith Moon#Birth date demonstrate it's sometime quite hard to actually prove a date of birth and get it right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The DOB is a minor issue, it is more Canoe1967's reaction to the situation, as well as his track-record of personal attacks and uncivil behaviour. GiantSnowman 11:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm also concerned by the editor's user page which says at the very top, in large & bold letters, "vandalize deletionist user pages." GiantSnowman 11:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Enough. Whatever about the substantive content issues here, Canoe1967's persistent incivility and personal attacks are unacceptable. This is not a matter of an editor occasionally blowing off steam when they have had a bad day or have gotten unusually frustrated with something on Wikipedia; it's a longer pattern, and the call for vandalism on Canoe's userpage suggests that there is a persistent battleground mentality. I think that what we have seen already merits a block, but before rushing to do that I want to hear Canoe's response to the damning evidence set out above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I see that Canoe1967 has deleted the ANI notification from hir talkpage with the usual misleading edit summary of "Copyedit (minor))". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Also edits like this show a complete disrespect for the project and other users. Checking through a few of his edits and comments, they are definitely not here for the betterment of all. While they do make good edits, the edit warring and personal attacks are worrying. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring or deleting other user's talk page comments is a definite no-no, particularly the one on the BLP noticeboard. I just laugh when people tell me to fuck off, but appreciate other editor's don't see the funny side. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Given 48 hours off, and that's generous. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've reverted his POINTy refactoring of the block message. GiantSnowman 13:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• If he does it again, somebody turn his talk page access off. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Think I've played nice long enough

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

---

Despite my having warned him repeatedly, 3abos (talk · contribs) (whose name, incidentally, it's been suggested could be seen as racist) persists in accusing me of "heterophobia", a concept that is not only a fringe view, but a fringe view that he wrote an article on, which was subsequently deleted. (This deletion and its review have been the locus of our dispute.) While I won't pretend to be anything other than amused by all this, I think I've cut him as much slack as I can be expected to, and believe that it's now time to conclude that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to tendentiously soapbox his POV, and refuses to listen to my requests that he stop engaging in POV-pushing and/or ad hominem behavior. Most damning, I think, is that he responded to my "last warning" with the exact type of discourse I was warning him for. I think this all adds up to a fairly good case for an indefinite NOTHERE block. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't say he doesn't deserve an indef, but you probably shouldn't let people like that get your goat, Pink. Recently, he's been egregiously defending an article that shouldn't have been created in the first place (heterophobia had been deleted before for the same reason, and nominated twice before that with no consensus). However, he's also made quite a few (about 45) edits to Syriac Catholic Church which seem to be fairly constructive (though I'm not too good at spotting subtle POV). I wouldn't assume bad faith and invoke NOTHERE just yet, and I'm curious to see what he has to say for himself, other than making accusations of Heterophobia of course. If he tries that on AN/I, indef ignore immediately as a troll. —Rutebega (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC) slight refactor after TP's comment since, on reflection, user hasn't done anything really block worthy. Users have the right to be as annoying as they want within policy. —Rutebega (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the complaint? What policy is violated? That he created an article that got deleted? That he's pushing an anti-homosexual agenda? Is that the policy violation? You've clearly got a POV on this issue too. Perhaps you just shouldn't engage with this editor? That, or provide diffs of actual behavioral issues because what you've given is not enough to block.--v/r - TP 03:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I linked to all three pages at which we've come into conflict, but, diffwise: Here he comments at the AfD after its (SNOW) closure, calling the decision non-neutral, discriminatory, and a "suppression of freedom of speech". Here [292] [293] [294] [295] he calls me heterophobic, and attempts to push his POV. Here he calls the deletion persecutory and biased. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pointing him to WP:FREESPEECH might or might not be useful. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not personally offended or anything. In fact, I'd say I'm often a tad too quick to take the bait, but here I've really tried to keep my cool and take him as seriously as I could. If it's felt that he's a net positive, no need to worry about me ragequitting or something if he doesn't get indeffed. This report is purely in the line of duty of bettering the project, not settling any scores. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, the comments make my skin crawl just a bit, but I still don't think a block would be legitimate. I think bias is certainly a factor here, whether or not we recognize or acknowledge it. —Rutebega (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. PinkAmpersand, I'm sorry to have to disagree with you and chime in with Rutebega a bit. First of all, Heterophobia was a farce and is rightly nixed, as the DR confirms. That they'd be a troll is not impossible but, as Rutebega noted, your continued engagement with him (sorry, assuming gender here) can then be seen not only as giving in to baiting but as a kind of baiting in itself (I know you're not trying to get them riled up, you're trying the humane thing--conversation). Second, the edits they've made on Syriac Catholic Church do appear to be constructive and so I'm not ready to say this user is not up to any good. I suggest you leave them alone and keep WP:ROPE in mind. If they're a troll, they'll take care of that themselves.

  One more thing, or two. "Abo" is perhaps a slur, but it depends on context whether we can be sure they meant it like that. Second, their comments are certainly not friendly, but I wouldn't block over it. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Abo is not a slur. My name is 3abos. 3 stands for an arabic character with no english equivilant. Please see Arabic_chat_alphabet#Comparison_table 3abos (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

While I've no idea if it's within existing policy to do so, if this user was simply topic-banned from homosexuality related articles now it would save a lot of time and hassle down the line (one could also preemptively topic ban them from race-related articles). Not all POVs are equal and it's inane to treat them as such. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

For what? Not conforming to a pro-homosexual point of view?--v/r - TP 03:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on WP:CRYSTAL. I don't care whether their point of view conforms with mine or not; rather, I'd advocate a topic ban based on a cursory assessment of the probability of whether they're likely to make productive edits in that area given their POV and, from the limited evidence, their likely ability to both edit and create articles neutrally despite their POV. It's not something I'd push but I bet it would really reduce the time-sink of editor-behavioural control (although personally I'd probably ban/topic ban hundreds of activist editors for POV pushing given half the chance). FiachraByrne (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with Rutebega below. And that's where I have a problem. It doesn't matter whether it's en-dashes, eastern Europe, or homosexuality. I am tired of seeing folks seeking topic bans for "disruptive behavior" simply because it opposes their own point of view. If this guy should receive sanctions, it's for behavioral issues that deserve a block and not a topic ban.--v/r - TP 03:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, the likelihood of that particular point of view - regardless of its merits - having good support from scholarly, reliable sources is low. That's just the way things are culturally and socially at the moment. Based on their (limited) previous editing in this area it doesn't look likely that they can edit neutrally. If they continue editing in that or related areas it's likely that they'll be back here sooner rather than later and its highly unlikely that their additions will be encyclopedic in any case.FiachraByrne (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban would also have the virtue of keeping them productive in areas where they can contribute encyclopedic content.FiachraByrne (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL? What? You have thoroughly lost everyone. —Rutebega (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A joke. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• also, i have asked this specific user too leave me alone, yet he/she continuous to edit my page. Heterophobia is not a farce, i had made a page with about 8 references, the references got deleted. Then the page got deleted on the fact that there was no references. Where is the neutrality here? this is persecution? 3abos (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I hate to break it to you, but I just looked again at your version of that article and it's really a farce, worse than I thought after the first look. Don't continue to fight over that; it's not a battle you can win. Those who said "delete" and later "endorse deletion" were entirely correct. I have no problem accepting your "abo" explanation, by the way. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, the article was pretty terrible. The term itself does appear in sources though and an article should exist. As far as the deletion, I doubt any content from the article is useable. I'm pretty sure at this point that this user is simply trolling per this and I've just giving it a little while longer to confirm this before I indef the user. Not for opposing homosexuality, opposing a predominant POV is not a blockable offense, but for general trolling.--v/r - TP 03:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't block over that. We're dealing with a person who has some growing up to do, who thinks that every contradiction of their paradigm is a personal attack and the result of bias/persecution. I say we leave him alone. If they seek out Pink or anyone else, one way or another, then they're not here to hunt bears. Pink, if we can go by first names, don't think I wouldn't run to your defense in a heartbeat; I just don't think that this as yet warrants a block. Again, let's disengage, here and on their talk page, and keep ROPE in mind. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't agree with the preposition that i "have some growing up to do" but i do agree that Pink should just leave my talk page alone. 3abos (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
          • We'll agree to disagree on that first point then. I'm sure Pink will indeed leave your talk page alone to prevent temptation of any kind. Let's all move on. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Haha Pink's fine, Doc. Or &. Yes, I agree with you. I'll disengage talkpage-wise, and if this line of rhetoric becomes a habit for 3abos, it'll be dealt with through the usual means. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
          • please do not threaten. 3abos (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
            • That's not a threat; it's a statement of fact. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict × 3) I think TP has it about right. I'd definitely never report a user who was open about a generally anti-gay point of view, but was respectful of other editors and whose edits didn't skew too far toward their biases (since, let's be honest, everyone's edits in some way, however small, reflect their POVs). My concern was the troll-like behavior. I agree with the general consensus here that 3abos probably hasn't done anything blockable yet, but is rather close. And now there are several uninvolved admins keeping an eye on this, so any one of them can block should that become necessary, without my having to perpetuate the dispute any longer. Oh, as to the "abo" point, that was originally referenced (also mostly in passing) by Delicious carbuncle; 3abos's explanation makes perfect sense, and I apologize for any unnecessary drama caused by bringing it up. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, I was the person who pointed out that "abo" is a racial slur. Since this user appears to be posting from Australia, I am sure they are aware of the context. It looks like just another blunder on my part, like the time that I thought PinkAmpersand was somebody's sockpuppet. I'm just glad we can laugh about it now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
          • I only realised this when you pointed it out. Is there anyway to change my username? 3abos (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
            • There is; you can usually request a change in username at WP:CHU/S. If your desired username has been taken by someone else, it may be able to be reclaimed for you under certain narrow circumstances: the place to request that is WP:CHU/U. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• The version of Heterophobia edit-warred back into existence by 3abos was clearly not okay. It was full of obvious original research supported by tenuously-connected sources, some of which didn't even mention the subject but simply served as "examples" (in 3abos's opinion) of the alleged persecution in question. Simply not okay. That's not how WP works. 3abos either gets that, or a topic-ban should be instituted to ensure that sort of damaging material is not recreated again (and again). No one is suggesting that 3abos should not be entitled to his point of view. It is possible to edit in a neutral way in a topic area you feel strongly about and 3abos should be encouraged to do so. Broadly, 3abos needs some assistance providing sources for his edits. His most recent to various Syriac Catholic Church-related articles include long sections of personal opinion or original research with few sources. That's only going to create problems later on. I don't think the problems are insurmountable but I think 3abos needs to accept that some editing-style changes need to be made. A good case for mentoring perhaps? Stalwart111 12:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I can't see the deleted article, but I would generally disagree with TParis, that if some editor actually writes an article as a polemic in a topic, than it would make sense to ban them for a time from that topic area. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The article written would compare to Reverse discrimination if it were written by a completely new and highly POV user. The content was entirely worthless but the article subject merits an article.--v/r - TP 14:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Don't know, not having done the due diligence needed (reading broadly in the area from high quality sources) whether we should have such an article, nonetheless your comment seems to conclude that this is not the editor to do it, regardless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• This user is clearly not here for constructive purposes, especially given this response during the DRV. I called him out for the continued "but gay just means happy" rhetoric, and the response was an "it's all the media's fault!" talking point. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

TfD reverts

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

---

Please review my edits at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 14 and recent reverts:

• this
• this also
• and then this.

I enjoined the editor who made the first two to desist:

• in this edit

and here is:

• his response

This appears to result from a content dispute unrelated to the template nominated for deletion. The two editors involved will be notified once I post this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad faith and trollng nomination for deletion because Pigonthewing was losing a debate here [296]; the then began trolling at Montacute House and was reverted by another uninvolved editor [297], so he began a parallel trolling debate here [298] when that failed too, he lost the plot and made the bad faith nomination for deletion. I suggest he's warned and/or blocked for disruption.  Giano  17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That may be, but if a TfD is raised, you shouldn't just blank the tag. Just wait for consensus to resolve it one way or the other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What Ritchie said. I've restored the TfD. Comment on its validity there. Ryan Vesey 17:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(2 c/es reponse to the original poster) This is untrue. I was preparing a report against User:Pigsonthewing myself about this. Basically, he has broken advice in WP:5P and WP:Reckless, then acted as if to pre-empt any attempt to reach a consensus opinion by proposing for deletion templates that were being considered in an attempt to reach a compromise solution which would give User:Pigsonthewing a means of emiting geodata unless it conforms exactly to what he wants (placing a visible infobox on a page that is at Featured Status, and has been without a visible one for many years.). The template he has now proposed for deletion and used on Montacute House forms an active part of the discussion to reach a consensus, and its proposal for deletion was another act that effectively, if successful, would have made any agreed upon compromise impossible unless it was entirely to User:Pigsonthewing's initial desires. see Talk:Little Moreton Hall#Infobox where there is clear evidence that the template used in Montacute House formed part of the ongoing discussion. Additionally, User:Pigsonthewing has never answered a question that is fundamental to this dispute and which myself and others wish to have answered: is using an infobox the only way geodata can be emitted from an article? Until that is answered, we cannot easily progress, but the proposals of deletion of templates of infoboxes and his refusal to answer this basic question mean that we are continually being haampered in using the normal collaborative means of resolving disagreements here. I admit I did remove his proposal for deletion because I thought it was extremely uncollaborative to do this when we were activelt discussing it and when it could have formed an alternative solution to the one he favoured.I apologize unreservedly for this, but I was doing it in an attempt to prevent the drama increasing even more. I will not do any such thing again, but I feel unwise actions provoking drama have been at the root of this, and User:Pigsonthewing seems to have initiated it all.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Could I also just point out that ddstretch and I do not know each other, have never worked together or emailed each other.Pigson the wing is a Wikipedia ambassador and 'Wikipedian in Residenc'e at a museum - is this the sort of behaviour we should be witnessing from an eminent Wikipedian? Now, i shall go and revert the troll again as Vesey is obviously making this an issue to support Pion the wing.  Giano  18:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

off topic joke NE Ent 20:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Could I also just point out that ddstretch and I do not know each other, have never worked together or emailed each other." - spoken like a true sock.--v/r - TP 18:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Who on earth is this plonker?  Giano  20:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC) TP, please don't. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You and ddstretch are both taking a behavioral issue and making it a content dispute. The content aspect of this can/should be discussed at dispute resolution. You're blanking of the TfD discussion is disruptive and if you continue to do so, you should be blocked. Ryan Vesey 18:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Somebody block this guy already. Ryan Vesey 18:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Settle down please, Ryan. It is entirely possible that the restoration of the TfD discussion is what's disruptive. A bad-faith nomination should be undone. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That was what motivated my action in removing it: I considered it to be a bad-faith nomination that acted to prevent any resolution of the issue in a way that User:Pigsonthewing disapporved of. Of course, I will not comment on that TfD and I think I ought to now withdraw, since all I wanted to say about the process, and the actions have been said.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I apologize, but as far as I'm concerned the reason a template is put up for deletion is irrelevant if that template should be deleted, which I believe it should. If Giano and ddstretch believe it shouldn't, they should make their case at the TfD. Removing it should not be an option. And as I mentioned below (and above) dispute resolution is the proper venue for the content dispute. Is there any sanction in place disallowing Pigsonthewings from commenting on infoboxes for featured articles that aren't "Today's featured article"? If not, bringing up the infoboxes issue here is an unnecessary sideshow distracting us from the focus on the TfD. Ryan Vesey 18:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm loathe to wade into what looks to be a full-on ANI nuclear war, but I do know that telling Andy to "piss off" is not going to win you any friends. Is it not worth just sitting this TfD out? I've had the odd thing of mine sent to xfD, and I can assure you it's far better just to state your position on why the template's okay, and leave it at that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is a battleground issue more than anything else. A dispute occurred on a page Giano wrote. Giano appears to be upset. A redundant template is nominated for deletion, Giano removes it three times calling it a "bad faith trolling nomination" and saying Pigsonthewings should be blocked for disruption. (reverts are listed above). On his talk page, Giano has stated "I am more than happy to be blocked if it stands up to bullies like you." [299] and called Pigsonthewings "a bully, a troll, and a sore loser" [300]. I have no idea if Giano has a history of battleground behavior, but he needs to not remove the TfD again. If he cannot leave the TfD in place, he should be blocked for the remainder of the discussion. The issue about the infobox should probably go to dispute resolution. Ryan Vesey 18:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No, this should be discussed. Giano won't be able to argue that it's a bad-faith nomination if he's blocked. If leaving the TfD up isn't supposed to be a big deal, then the same probably applies to the reverse. Andy can always renominate it, or whatever. We have two long-term, experienced editors here, one of them an admin, and both of them responsible for quality content. We don't go around blocking them immediately without establishing what's going on and what the merits are. FWIW, I can't determine that--this template stuff goes well over my head, but I do know that when Giano says something it is wise to try and listen. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I left Giano a note, and Floq, who's much cleverer than me, has done the same. Fingers off the block buttons, please, on all sides. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, you're wrong about my cleverness, but you're right about maybe just this once not turning this into a big thing. Andy and Giano are Wikipedia's versions of an irresistible force and an immovable object; let's not have a 17 day melee. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not confused beyond belief. {{Hidden content dispute}} isn't used on any of the pages in question. I can't for the life of me see why it was a)considered trolling and b)reverted. There are statements that deleting it would force a compromise not to occur, and I just can't imagine how that is the case. As far as I can tell, the template isn't related to Giano in any way. Ryan Vesey 18:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: ( and EC) The template nominated for deletion is {{Hidden content dispute}}; nominated as "redundant to {{Collapse top}}". It is used on only two archived talk pages, Talk:Abortion/Archive 31 and Talk:Evolution/Archive 49. How is that nomination bad faith? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I can't remember ever seeing an XFD un-opened before, except when vandals blank the page. We don't even do this when a banned editor creates a nomination; instead, we have an uninvolved admin do a procedural close without prejudice to renomination. Why mustn't this TFD be permitted to appear on the log? Leave it alone or ask for its closure, but don't remove it entirely from the log. Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Tfd restored per Giano's comment on his talk page. NE Ent 18:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Can this be closed then as one big misunderstanding? Per Drmies, blocks are unnecessary. Per me, if the content needs to be discussed outside of the talk page it should go to dispute resolution. Ryan Vesey 18:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Are we just going to ignore the blatant personal attacks made above and elsewhere? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm inclined to trust Drmies' judgement above. I said I saw a battleground issue; however, I don't know if there's a history of it. If battleground behavior persists, it can certainly be addressed. For now, I believe that closing this discussion is the best thing for the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey 18:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Jeb2003, article creation issues.

I think we have an issue here, jeb2003 has had a very rocky entry to the community, he persists in making promotional articles, previously removing csd tags, improper use of block templates and eventually sockpuppetry and blocked for a one month period. His first edits upon expiration of block is to recreate an article Gaisano Iloilo City Center which was deleted via an AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaisano Center Iloilo. I am greatly doubting his WP:COMPETENCE or willingness to edit constructively within the community guidelines, can we please have an Admin review and determine whether this editor should be blocked or some other community restriction be issued to correct this. Thanks in advance, and for evidence of concerns please look at his talk page, a very large number of issues are evidenced there. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I believe we also missed one of his Socks, User talk:Good man76, same area of interest only a few edits before he was ip hardblocked to which I added to the sock puppet investigation. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've left Jeb2003 a message suggesting he seeks adoption. Whilst his conduct is disruptive, he appears (to me at least) to simply be unaware of or unable to comprehend Wikipedia's policies. An adopter may be able to guide him towards more productive editing. If not, well, the blockhammer is always there in the toolbox. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocko hammer is needed, he has again recreated the article and is once more removing csd tags. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

4 times and counting [[301]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted and tried to give some constructive advice. I'd be hesitant about tagging reverts as vandalism though - I think we can still assume he probably thinks he's doing the right thing (even though we know he's not). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree had he not been blocked for sockpuppetry, removing csd, putting block templates on other peoples pages and a return to the behavior immediately at the end of the block. Take a look through the talkpage, enough is enough. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Number six removal of csd just happened, and he knows how talkpages work becasue he used his sock to ward himself two barnstars...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

All the same, it's good just to keep calm about these things. Maybe if he comes out with something like this gem I'd change my mind. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ip socking to add to the list [[302]]. I'm calm about this, I just think that teh disruption should be stopped. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't wish to stick a spanner in the works, but a news search for "Iloilo City Center" does return a few hits such as this and this - tenuous mentions, granted, but just about enough to get over a CSD and up to the level of a redirect. The AfD mentioned above seems to be just a handful of people saying "But it's just not notable!!!!" Throw into the mix that Jeb2003 might not speak English as a first language, and I can see why he's annoyed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

He knows enough to write the articles. award himself in English no less [[303]] and at least 5 confirmed sock puppets not including when he IP socks [[304]] and [[305]]. I respect your attempt at assuming good faith but if he can't speak English enough to understand the policy or even attempt to work in good faith he shouldn't be here. Also [[306]] he understand English enough to change his block length out of the template. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on his edits in the last hour or so, I'm starting to agree with Hell in a Bucket - either there's a serious competence issue, or this is deliberate disruption. If Jeb2003 still doesn't get it, whether it's because he doesn't speak English as first language, is too young to understand the complexities of Wikipedia, doesn't want to, understands but is being intentionally obtuse, is pissed off at the community, or just gosh-darn-it ain't that all that blessed in the brains department, his activities need to stop. If he won't stop them voluntarily, well, that's why admins get paid the big bucks. I'm not going to block-slap him myself, but anyone doing so will hear no argument from this quarter. At this point, it's gone beyond a question of whether his created articles should be kept or not; this is fast becoming a purely behavioural issue. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess all I'm saying if you do block him (and I'm not saying you shouldn't), it should be more "please come back when you're older" rather than "don't let the door hit you on the way out". I suspect the "2003" in his username is related to his age. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Why the debate? If there's socking, it calls for blocking... now. Jusdafax 18:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha, that's catchy.--v/r - TP 18:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that too. However, Jeb2003 doesn't appear to have created any new socks since his last block (for sockpuppetry) expired; this is more a question of his repeated recreation of inappropriate pages in the face of community disapproval. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not the only issue that had happened, he was IP socking logging out to remove csd templates, removed the csd template a total of six times from the article, and just overall editing issues. It's stale at this point so I don't think it's actionable at this time now, but when it does start again, and I'm fairly sure it will it should be dealt with swiftly. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just given him a month off for breaking WP:3RR at Iloilo International Airport (I know a month's a bit strong for a 3RR violation, but given the previous disruption and continued refusal to engage with other editors I felt a longer block was justified). If any sockpuppets appear during that time, I see no reason not to make it indefinite. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)