An administrator is requested to close and summarize a request for comments at Talk:September 11 attacks#RfC: Conspiracy theories link. Since the article is under administrative sanction, I think an admin would be good as the closer, rather than just an experienced editor. The RfC has attracted considerable comment, with over 40 participants, but seems to be winding down (only 2 new participants in the last 4 days). My summary in comparison to the last consensus we're trying to overturn (just of the numbers - I've stated an opinion opening the RfC, so I'm biased in evaluating the arguments) is at Talk:September 11 attacks#Comparative summary. --GRuban (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I just applied the 4th year long block to this IP. In addition it was CU blocked for a year but the block was lifted as it was a hard block and not soft. I hate to say this but I think it's time for an indef, but I want to get some opinions here first before doing so. Kwsn(Ni!)13:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I just found the report on AIV, saw the number of previous blocks was pretty high, blocked it for a year like normal, then reported it here. That's my entire interaction with the IP. Kwsn(Ni!)14:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
This IP is shared between schools and certain public institutions, like libraries. It is very likely it won't remain assigned to Synetrix, or to schools, forever. That's the reason IPs are not indef'd. -- zzuuzz(talk)14:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering it's blocked, and easy to block, and very difficult to prevent abuse from the IP, I would say that's pointless. There is an interesting discussion at WT:ABUSE about it. -- zzuuzz(talk)14:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I would have supported a 5-year block myself. If this school has not been able to police their students about proper Internet usage, then the school (more specifically, the faculty and staff) has itself to blame when their Wikipedia editing privileges have been taken away. If anyone disagrees with that, please look at the over 5 years' worth of blocks. –MuZemike14:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I commonly block schools that have been repeatedly blocked for 3 years, and HJ Mitchell commonly blocks them for 1001 days. I agree with MuZemike: If the IT professionals cannot stop vandalism of Wikipedia, then they shouldn't complain when they get blocked for a long time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If can I can throw my $.02 worth in here, it looks like that very soon after the block is lifted this vandalism immediately starts. I think a longer block may be a good diea here, and perhaps some sort of contact with the IT staff of that location? Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
PS: I blocked 173 for a week, but perhaps that should be longer based on whatever technical response comes to my question above. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
209 is registered to the Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District using AT&T internet access, and 173 is registered to SmartCom Telephone LLC using it's own internet access. I'd guess that the kid vandalized from his school, got blocked, and then vandalized again with his phone. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Ha, thanks geek! Well done. So--do we have a "student block" to be issued concomitantly with the school block? And do we call the principal to tell them that one of their kids is using a phone illegally during school hours? And do we spank the kid ourselves? Drmies (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, corporal punishment is not an admin power (I think only stewards can spank people). I think the year-long schoolblock will be enough and I imagine the vandalism from the phone was a parting shot. -- Atama頭17:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure about that, Atama. Are you suggesting that when the LadyofShalott spanked me last weekend she was abusing her powers, or overstepping her boundaries? Drmies (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Drmies, what you do in privacy is your business. Nick, unfortunately you just recently missed the window for nominating yourself for stewardship, but elections are running right now for the new group of stewards. You can possibly ask the candidates how soft their hands are on the questions page (though I'd not recommend it). -- Atama頭18:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I requested Vassar College be semi-protected yesterday but that request was denied at RFPP. I renew my request here where other admins may see and act on it. The article has been persistently disrupted by one or more unregistered editors for well over a month now. I posted a message in the article's Talk page on July 27 and have received no answer. The unregistered editor changes IPs regularly so a message on his or her Talk page would probably not be very helpful (nor would an ANI notice). The article was briefly semmi-protected a few days ago but the disruption resumed the day after the protection expired. Can someone please help? Blocking the editor(s) would not be helpful considering the ever-changing IPs and a rangeblock would not be a good idea considering its size. Lengthy semi-protection seems the optimal solution but I'm open to constructive help of any kind. ElKevbo (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the article get vandalized a lot, I can see that much. It could be a group of people vandalizing the page, perhaps some spirtited members of another school. I am not sure whether or not the article should be blocked, that is for the admins to decide. Shakinglord:Kudos, Mailbox, ???18:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not a whole lot of vandalism, but I see ElKevbo's point. I've semi-protected for a week--let's hope they get tired of it. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
A review of SarakOfVulcan's edit history will show that he has been following each of my edits with edits of his own for the last week, regardless of subject. These edits include subjects that SarakOfVulcan has previously shown no interest in. The situation became disturbing when SarakOfVulcan made an edit on the Gerhardt Cycleplane article, that took place on 20:00, 9 September 2011. SarakOfVulcan deleted a factual statement referenced from a cited book published by the US Air Force. In his explanation he posted; "just about every other ref calls the Gossamer Condor the first successful human-powered craft", referring to an aircraft that appeared a half century later. The article lists several Human-powered aircraft that existed before it, with appropriate citations. SarakOfVulcan offered no reference for his claim, which contradicts the properly referenced information in the article. SarakOfVulcan has been warned that continued editing of every article I have edited, often with erroneous information as seen above, would result in the matter being placed on the appropriate Wikipedia notice board. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The issue seems to be the definition of "successful". They apparently did a few test flights. Did anything come of it? Or was it like the "Spruce Goose", i.e. flown a little bit and then mothballed? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The Wright 1903 Flyer made a couple of test flights before being wrecked by a strong wind. It was rebuilt into a different aircraft, but is still considered the world's first "successful" airplane. The total number of flights made is not relevent. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Lifebaka, I'm sorry, but I cannot accept "input" as a verb. Informally, maybe, or in a memo, but not in a public forum like this one. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's a verb, just not an intransitive one. You have to input something, you can't just input. At least, my Apple ][ would always complain if I failed to input something following an INPUT statement.</pedantry> 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Question Sarek could you explain, preferably with some diffs, why Ken keisel's edits are being legitimately followed as part of your job as an administrator? John and Bwilkins have both said that this is what you're doing, but I'm not sure I understand why. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:WIKIHOUND states "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." In this diff, I removed a statement about Irving Harper that was cited to a particular source, when a Google Books search in that source showed that Harper's name appeared nowhere in the book, never mind in a way that supported the edit. In this diff, I removed a statement that appeared nowhere in the given source. In this diff, I supplied a reference supporting an unexplained change that Ken keisel had made. In this diff, I removed uncited original research. Do you notice a trend here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk)20:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I notice two trends. 1) Ken keisel is not referencing claims the way he is supposed to and 2) Sarekofvulcan seems to be addressing this problem in a very aggressive manner. Much of the actual information in question, provided your own diffs, appears to have been correct but inadequately sourced. Aren't there other ways to handle this? Do non BLP, non-vandalism edits need to be flat out reverted because you, one reviewer, aren't seeing the information in the sources provided? Aren't there tags to show that something fails verification? Aren't there ways to try to bring issues like this up with someone in a collegial manner that might actually help them reform their habits? We want knowledgeable people editing here. Of course we want them to abide by policy when they do so, but it just seems to me that there is room for improvement on how this has been handled. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
People have been collegially telling Ken keisel to cite sources for three years now. It hasn't worked yet. If you think you can get him to follow policy where nobody before you has succeeded, feel free to engage him yourself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)21:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
One diff merely shows someone saying that to him once, and not a repeated pattern of him getting advice over and over again which is what your statement claims. Now I'm not saying that other people haven't pointed this out to him, or that this hasn't been a problem for years. I'm simply saying that following him around and reverting his additions isn't a particularly productive way to solve the problem, and I don't care that two other admins claim this is part of your job, because IMO its simply going to provoke this editor to do things like accuse you of stalking. Perhaps he needs a mentor? Perhaps you need to start an RfC? Perhaps he can be leveled with if someone else steps in? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This is within the normal scope of admin interventions. The question is, if another admin takes over who has no other background history here, will there be any change in ultimate outcome in responses.
Ken's right that Sarek seems to have made one mistake while responding to Ken, but Ken's missing the point that everything else appears to be reasonable "You can't say that without sourcing, and this is becoming a behavioral problem" admin response.
A mentor or RFC would be great. But the policy is pretty straightforwards. Ken, please listen to the feedback that sourcing accuracy and citations are important. You're being far too loose with this and it's gotten you in trouble (and will continue to get you in worse trouble if you don't correct the problem).
You'll find a thread on Ken's talkpage from me about using sources as well [1]. In this case the problem was using 'insider information', and a sense on Ken's part that he was doing the project a favour by including such info, which he cannot source because it's not been made public yet. All his articles are about aircraft, not BLPs, so it's slightly less problematic, but the talk page contains numerous conversations about sources, so it is an ongoing problem.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Couple of more concerning things [2] demanding to know if Sarek is a child - not helpful. Also [3] and [4] which appear to be fibs designed to get Sarek into trouble - even less helpful. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Elen those links convince me even more so that he needs a mentor, or that a systematic effort to evaluate the problems with his editing are needed if he can't be leveled with. Going around reverting his edits is clearly not an end in itself. I can't imagine that Sarek is resigned to shadow another editor as a solution to this problem. I wont speculate to motives but all I can see happening from that activity is provoking something out of Ken that might get him blocked or otherwise dealt with. Most of the edits Sarek linked to from Ken were accurate pieces of information that were added without the proper sourcing. The encyclopedia gains nothing if good edits that are poorly sourced are deleted as opposed to actually verified. Such edits also do not require deletion on sight, like BLP and vandalism concerns do. In fact in most other circumstances deleting as opposed to tagging or discussing on talk will lead people to think the deleting editor is the disruptive one. Another question to you all is, what is being sought here? What type of solution are you all looking for? More warnings building up a block? Or do you want this editor to actually comply with policy, because again I suggest other means will work more effectively.Griswaldo (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
A very minor point: it's "Sarek", not "Sarak". This edit summary seems to indicate that Ken knows it's actually spelled Sarek (plus, all one has to do is use their freakin' eyes to see that it's not "Sarak"). Doctalk03:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be basically respectful (and correct) if Kan (eep) Ken would spell it properly from here on in, Atema (urk) Atama ;> Doctalk06:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I took a second look in light of the comments. Maybe mentorship would be a good idea. Not sure if I can commit that much time to it but I am happy to keep an eye on Ken, if he will accept that. Or maybe someone else has more time? --John (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I find Griswaldo best reflects my thoughts regarding this thread. I do not think any of SarekOfVulcan's actions should be considered an admin function. It is the function of normal editing. While SarekOfVulcan might demonstrate sound judgement with regard to admin tool use, he is not in keeping with best practices for collaborative editing. I also know that Ken is amiable to collaboration, as we have interacted personally. This thread became disproportionate when the biggest deal was made regarding semantics. How improper it should be for an editor to say you appear to be stalking me. The initial argument was to ask Ken to retract his concern (his word), and to adopt the opposing rational, which effectively was; "He didn't stalk you -- you should recant -- he did stalk you but as an admin function". I do know Ken well enough to say, he reacts much better to sound reason, than straw man and ad hominem. Many discussions with Ken rely too heavily on these.--My76Strat (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
My main concern with SarekOfVulcan remains his following me onto each article I edit, and deleting information that should be tagged at worst. I have tried entertaining him in discussions on the article's talk pages without success, and any efforts to work with him in a civil manner has resulted in outbursts. I think you can see from the way he has responded to accidental misspellings of his name in this discussion how he deals with adversity. The issues he has raised should all have been discussed and resolved on the article's talk page. Not simply deleted. He consistantly acts in a devisive, not helpful manner, and not one that is becoming of an administrator. I am constantly looking for the best references thaty can be found, and referencing my edits in the manner I learned when I began editing here in 2005. If that method is dated than I encourage others to modify my edits using a more up-to-date method. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
May we please have some diffs for your accusation that he responds to civil attempts to work with outbursts? See WP:DIFF if you don't know how to provide a diff. And for Sarek overreacting to you managing to misspell a name which was correctly spelled in front of you? Looking above, it appears to be Doc9871 pointing out that you've been misspelling a word which was correctly spelled in front of you, to which Sarek has not commented. There is nothing on your talk page or his about you misspelling his name either. Please quit inventing stories about him, we keep records.
This is the claim of being a sockpuppet of PoTW. Not sure how we move this forward, but one way could be to unblock and reblock for a different reason. I don't think we can expung the block log though. Mjroots (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Developers can (I gather) remove the block reason from the record, but would only do so in extreme circumstances. Since the user is already blocked, it would be possible to just amend the block reason. I do not understand why Andy Mabbett was not made aware of this block at the time it happened, and invited to comment. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded these images years ago, and have tagged them with KeepLocal. User:RHaworth has deleted these images, despite their being marked as such. I restored them and tried to discuss this on his talk page, but he(?) didn't really seem to agree with this, or listen, as he has now tagged them again for speedy deletion, and protected them citing "vandalism". I am not happy, as KeepLocal has been okayed for use on two separate occasions (see its TFD discussions). Also, tagging an image with KeepLocal is not vandalism. As I don't want to get into some kind of half-baked edit war, please could an uninvolved admin undo this, and ask him to behave, and respect the wishes of his fellow users. Thanks. Also, File:Pacs1.jpg. fish&karate08:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
What has any TfD discussion got to do with anything? I am not questioning the validity of the {{KeepLocal}} tag. I am questioning the presence of these two images. The only reason fish&karate can offer for keeping these images is "would like to be able to keep them on my watchlist". I do not consider this a good enough reason for keeping local. I request a ruling by an uninvolved admin. (OK, I apologise about the "vandalism" tag - please read as "uploader is removing speedy tag from their own upload".) — RHaworth(talk·contribs)09:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Note that RHaworth tagged them for speedy and then protected them - I'm not entirely sure this is an appropriate use of the tools given this isn't a clearcut administrative action, it's a difference of opinion (and particularly pointless given that I'm an admin anyway, so I don't see what possible benefit there was of doing this). As regards the TFD discussion, this contains a list of reasons why a user may want to retain a local copy of the image they created and submitted. I agree with all these and they sum up the reasons I would like to retain the images on en.wiki, very eloquently. I don't understand why this would upset RHaworth so much that he has to delete them, protect them, and tag them for deletion again - whatever happened to respecting a reasonable and in-policy wish from a fellow user? fish&karate09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I also apologise for protecting. After doing it, I was amazed to discover that it was an admin saying weakly "I want them on my watchlist". Also, if you want me to look at some TfD discussion, do you think that providing a link to it might be a good idea? — RHaworth(talk·contribs)10:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The TFD discussion(s) are linked on Template talk:KeepLocal. You may think "I want them on my watchlist" is weak (others do not, see the aforementioned TFD discussion), but is that small request so weak you felt compelled to a) ignore my wishes, b) speedily delete the images, c) ignore my further request to leave them on en.wiki, d) re-tag them for speedy deletion and e) protect the images? If the main point of contention is now that I didn't give you enough reason to not delete them(! - any reason should be enough as they break no policy), why not say so, and ask for additional discussion, rather than summarily re-tag them for deletion? fish&karate10:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The gist of the TfD was that because Commons is not directly answerable to us as editors (i.e. that it has its own policies) that editors should be able to reserve the right to retain local copies of media in case something happens to it at Commons. I'd argue that the only negative thing that could happen to an image at Commons is that it's deleted, and that unless there were a threat of that we shouldn't be retaining forks of any media at all. "Keeping something on my watchlist" sounds all well and good until one realises that this entails essentially overriding Wikipedia's use of the file at Commons. Why not just tick the "email me if a page on my watchlist is changed" option in the Commons preferences? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk10:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
No, the gist was that users should not be forced to use Commons if they do not wish to. I have no objection whatsoever if an image I submit is uploaded to Commons (and nor should I - they were freely given) but to retain a local copy is not unreasonable. fish&karate10:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but, it's not just a case of "retaining a local copy": it's a case of forcing Wikipedia to use your local copy when displaying the image. That actually has quite an impact on both projects as it requires someone to attempt to keep both forks in sync, leads to confusion when an editor thinks updating the Commons image will fix it here, and so on. It is not obvious to me that an image offered freely to Wikipedia is any different from any other contribution offered freely to Wikipedia, and the words "edited mercilessly" spring to mind. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk10:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
In that case, Chris and Mtking, why not send every image marked with NoCommons or KeepLocal to WP:FfD and delete these templates? If you want the commons image used rather than a local copy, to prevent the horror that is two copies of an image existing on en.wiki and on Commons, rename it on Commons (I won't mind!) and update the article's image links appropriately. Or go and produce your own image and do what you like with it. fish&karate11:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to be so aggressive. I'm not proposing deleting files, just trying to establish why they're being kept in two places at once and whether we should endeavour to come up with a list of good reasons for doing it (rather than the present situation, which seems to be "if you feel like it"). Maybe a |reason parameter on {{KeepLocal}}? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk11:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The KeepLocal issue is an annoying one: people tag their images (despite WP:OWN!) with KeepLocal with no reason why. I proposed a while back that KeepLocal should have an optional reason parameter so people can put the reason in. What's to stop someone who just has, say, generalized animosity towards Commons from just tagging all images with KeepLocal? "We're using it in a high-value template" is a pretty good reason. "Just because" isn't. "I want to keep it on my watchlist" seems a pretty crappy reason to keep a file locally rather than put it on Commons and enable all the projects to use it and potentially prevent improvement of the image and the metadata. Should we do the same with policy pages and Meta or, say, original source materials and Wikisource or dictionary definitions and Wiktionary? Without particular reference to this case, I think it is high time we re-evaluate continued existence of KeepLocal given the incompatibility with WP:OWN, and the implicit idea that we must always abide by KeepLocal's placed by uploaders for their benefit (like not wanting to use Commons) rather than for meaningful community benefits (like preventing breaking of high value templates). —Tom Morris (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm also concerned that editors who don't want their images on commons (for whatever reason) will choose not to submit them at all, rather than knowing they can submit them and keep them on en.wiki. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If an editor is so spiteful as to not release a file under a free licence in case it happens to be uploaded to Commons (because once a file is freely licensed, anyone can upload it to Commons without the author's permission) then that editor should have a word with himself. The same also applies to the hypothetical "Commons managers" who would delete a file out of spite just because en-wp is using it (I really must make sure I'm up to date on the boogeyman of the week: I thought it was still de-wp). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk13:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I recently marked File:SarekOfVulcanAvatar.jpg as KeepLocal because I'm not sure that my licensing would stand up under close scrutiny. I took the picture myself, but the carving I photographed was anonymous public art in the middle of the woods. I have no problem with it being uploaded to Commons: I do have a problem with it getting deleted once it gets there if there's no backup on Wikipedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like an imminently sensible rationale to me, as was SlimVirgin's in the last TfD for {{KeepLocal}}. Evidently there is some degree of support for local copies; the question is to what degree that is. Now that the immediate problem at hand has been resolved, though, that discussion should really take place somewhere other than ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk14:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded images of Mategna's Triumphs of Caesar here that I reconstituted from the Royal Collection because of possible problems on Commons (cf the National Portrait Gallery problems of Dcoetzee). The joins between the layers of the images could be detected when magnified 10 times (each image being made up of about 10 pieces). An Italian user uploaded my images to Commons claiming he had found them at the website of the Royal Collection, but that licensing was deceptive since magnification shows that they are my reconstituted images (the detailed images can only be viewed piece by piece). In addition one engraving from Vienna was deceptively labelled as being from the Royal Collection. In cases like that, there is a reason for keeping images here. Mathsci (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's not forget that after the great "porn" purge a bit ago on Commons, several users walked away from the project. By forcing their images over to commons, you may alienate them from uploading anything at all.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Who said anything about child porn? That's a rather disturbing comment to make about other editors, with no evidence that I can see, and despite not being directly targeted at an individual editor, it could be construed as being targeted at anyone who stopped uploading to commons over that fiasco, and thus easily identifiable. Honestly you should be blocked over that. Child porn allegations are extremely heavy handed. From what I saw, even users who didn't upload any "pornographic" images left the project simply because of the way the entire incident was handled with Jimmy just going through and wiping out anything he didn't like.--Crossmr (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Cool your jets. It was my understanding that Jimbo was zapping stuff that he considered to be child porn, but I don't know if that was the scope or if it was broader (maybe you missed the question mark in my comment). But the whiners seemed to forget that they're anonymous, while Jimbo is the very public face of wikipedia, and he had to do what he thought best. Kind of a broad-ranging IAR. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo went off half-cocked as part of a knee-jerk reaction to some article on how Commons was a treasure trove of degeneracy. From what I saw at the time, basically anything with nudity in it was fair game, and there were messages all over the place trying to get him to stop. With him running roughshod over anyone who disagreed with him. It certainly wasn't limited to, nor focused on child pornography, and he deleted a lot of in-use images at the time as well. The people who left were image uploaders, but also those who were just disgusted by his behaviour in general. tacking a ? onto child does very little to soften the implication and generalization of what you wrote.--Crossmr (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo was zapping stuff that he considered to be "out of project scope", which included child porn but also pornographic artworks like [5], which he deleted three times in a row (so hardly an error) despite being clearly in scope for Commons and not child porn at all (it is now used on ten Wikipedia articles in different languages). Actions like this led to the departure of a number of Commons contributors, and the removal of a bunch of rights Jimbo had previously, and probably a loss of faith in the leadership qualities of the co-founder for many other editors as well. Fram (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Somebody added a link on my userpage recently - a link to an article he had created. This was done without my knowledge nor consent -in fact, I don't even know the guy - and I personally wasn't too happy about it. I left a message on the person's talk page basically requesting him (politely) not to do it again. I have received no reply, and do not expect to. However, it got me thinking. Are there any rules against modifying other people's userpages? I know that articles are considered to be everybody's and therefore we are all free to modify and edit them as much as we want, but userpages are not articles. Do we own our userpages? Anyway, are there any written guidelines or rules which deal with this? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)14:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Administrator Atama advised me to report this issue here. User:Gilabrand who has previously been block by the ARBCOM and is unblocked with the promise of not causing any further disruptions, is engaged in disruptive editing in Babylon (program). He refuses to come to term with the editors, often in form of remaining silent, refusing to participate in the discussions (See [[6] and [7]) and simply reinstating the changes that are times and again contested without supplying a description, as well as supplying bogus edit summaries. He has also vandalized my talk page.
Diffs
This and this diff are of an edit warring in 10 May 2011. He has:
Removed all maintenance tags from the article with this edit summary: "tags unneeded" and "delete tags added by someone with an obvious grudge intent on wrecking articles rather than improving them"! Well, I do not know how he can possibly count {{bare links}} as someone having grudge, or how he can count {{Unreferenced section}} as unnecessary!
Merged "Company information" section with the lead section, which is against WP:MOS. Lead section must no have novel info.
This diff shows the six edits that he did in 10 May 2011 which include:
Moving the auxiliary information about the company from "Company information" section at the bottom of the article to the top, and rewriting them in an advertising manner.
Using euphemism in "Malware-like behavior" section to reduce its effect in a non-neutral manner: He replaces the accurate adverbs of time with the inaccurate ones, which is not allowed in WP:MOS. Also, he renamed the "Malware-like behavior" title into the vague "Controversies".
This diff is his eight edits that he has done on 15 September 2011. He has:
Again, has shifted focus of the matter from Babylon to its creator in the History section, thus converting the "History" section so that it is now "History of the producer" instead of history of the product.
Again, has add novel information to lead section that is not about the subject of the article. (Something about "Babylon-Enterprise", which is obviously a separate product.)
Commited the same violation of WP:MOS about use of accurate time adverb that he did back in May, in the same section ("Malware-like behavior").
Again, he attempted to reduce the negative weight of "Malware-like behavior" section by calling the behavior "potentially intrusive" instead of "intrusive".
Added a single spam link to See Also section; though this is not much of an issue.
This diff is that of an edit on 21 September 2011 (today). He has:
Reinstated all his previous edits while knowing that they are likely to be contested. These include deletion of External Links section, removal of formatting from References section and reduction of the image size despite the fact that the image is no longer the same.
Supplied a bogus edit summary that reads: ce; add info & ref
This diff is what he has done to my talk page on 21 September 2011. He has:
Deleted many of my communications
Deleted the protection template
Supplied the following edit summary: "Edit warring and other violations of Wikipedia policy"
Correct me if I am wrong but is it not vandalism? It looks like naive act of vengeance.
FleetCommand has already cites these "arguments" at the COI noticeboard. He was informed that the editing of the article actually improved it, and he admitted that he had no evidence of COI. Meanwhile, he has accused other editors - in fact anyone who comes to the page - of COI, and has engaged in active edit warring for the greater part of the week. I never touched the article after he made a string of edits. They were objected to by other editors. There is a clear consensus for my additions to the article, which were all reliably sourced. Yet FleetCommand insists that I am in violation of consensus. An administrator even wiped out some of his problematic comments this morning. I left him a polite note on his page regarding his challenge of my edits, but he has chosen to focus the problem on me. Looking at the history of the article, there is an obvious attempt to keep information from being added, especially if it reflects well in any way on the company. FleetCommand's attempt to commandeer the article and draw me (and others) into a fight, all the while appealing to various noticeboards for support, is worrying.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
This argument is only half true. I was told that his edits were not COI, but was also told that they are not okay. In fact, administrator Atama said "that may be like saying that a burglar is innocent of jaywalking". In any case, Gilabrand has failed to participate in the post-noticeboard discussion and continued to reinstated previously contested edits. As for an administrator wiping out my problematic comments, this is another matter entirely. Surprisingly, Gilabrand has removed that administrator's comment in my talk page in his vandalism attempt (for which I supplied the diff above). Now, since I supplied the diff, you can see for yourself that this second COI is another COI entirely. Fleet Command (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
That said, I would like to reiterate that if a user is once suspected of COI but was cleared, it doesn't mean that he can do ANYTHING he wants, like disruptive editing and refusing to work towards reaching a consensus. Also, there is no policy that says "if FleetCommand is told that he was wrong about a COI case, Gilabrand may refuse to work towards a consensus." Fleet Command (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a clarification, I pointed out that Gilabrand was indefinitely blocked for WP:ARBPIA violations, and less than a month ago the ArbCom block was "provisionally suspended". My comment about "burglar innocent of jaywalking" was because disruption at an Israeli article (Babylon is an Israeli company) for a person in Gilabrand's circumstances would be much more serious than a COI suspicion if this was shown to be in violation of the block suspension. I also suggested that there did seem to be MOS violations, but I also stated that I felt that Gilabrand's edits at the article were "overall an improvement". My suggestion to try ANI was because there may be other administrators more familiar with ARBPIA or Gilabrand's previous troubles, and that WP:COIN was a poor place to try to find administrator advice or action since there aren't a lot of admins that hang out there. I also brought up the possibility of making a request at WP:AE but I doubted that this fell under the P-I dispute area. I don't like to get involved in AE-related issues personally, which is why I suggested another venue for advice. -- Atama頭17:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Update: In his latest edit, this user has broken apart the "Critical reception" section into two "Malware behavior" and "Awards" section, again integrating the same contents that are times and again contested. This contribution has one message: "I have interest in conflict and love dispute." In the interest of resolving this matter quickly and avoid an edit war, I shall stop editing the article for a while. Fleet Command (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Fleet-As mentioned in the talkpage discussion, it is clear that you are passionate. But it is also clear that your views are non-consensus, relative to the subject matter of that string. I wonder whether you may not be bordering on using noticeboards to seek to chill the editing of others, whose view does not match yours.
I mused about that when you used a noticeboard to bring this complaint against me, which was found to be without basis. As we were involved in precisely the same editing dispute. Your views in that complaint were not shared by other editors. You then accused a second editor, who had disagreed with you, of COI--in statements that had to be suppressed by a sysop on the basis of our outing policy. You then brought another complaint, which similarly went nowhere, against yet a third editor -- the subject of the complaint. And you now bring this fourth complaint, which I don't see as having merit, though of course I am involved in the underlying issue in which you are disagreeing with the three mentioned editors and others.
And, of course, this has all happened within a few hours, as you have reverted multiple editors at the Babylon article, without consensus support for your views. I would hope that you are not using these noticeboards as tools to seek to intimidate editors with whom you have an editing dispute. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Please avoid personal attacks. In addition you are gaming the system: You are stealing another person's topic to win a content dispute in your favor on the pretext that the articles are the same. Yet you are committing the same error as him: You do not discuss the content at all. You constantly comment on me and make believe that a consensus is reached while there is no such thing. Until now, you have refused to even comment on my objections. Please stay out of here. Fleet Command (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and besides, one person might lodge many complaints in ANI and all of them might get rejected. Neither the lodging is a crime nor the rejection is a shame. Most important of all, lodging complaints and rejection does not mean you are allowed to do whatever you like. In Wikipedia, consensus is the primary way of decision making. Disputes should be solved through dispute resolution. Fleet Command (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
(On a small side issue, and without prejudice to FleetCommand's primary complaint here.) FC, your response above seems to indicate you thought Epeefleche's contribution was a personal attack. I didn't read anything remotely attacking in there and it only weakens your case if you make such assertions. Epeefleche may have written things you disagree with and which you think are an attempt to weaken your case; this does not make it an attack. Also, any user can comment here and it does no good to ask people to stay out. Bringing an issue to AN/I implies that anyone and everyone can and will comment, and that your own as well as others' contributions will be closely scrutinised. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)12:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I can only repeat that Epeefleche's comments above did not, in my opinion, constitute a personal attack - even in terms of the clause you mention above. I have now had the chance of looking at the discussion on the talk page of the Babylon (program) article and this seems to me to be a content dispute which should be resolved there. I cannot see anything at present requiring administrator involvement, though I would counsel all sides (yes, you too FleetCommander) to be scrupulously polite to one another. There is an unnecessary degree of acrimony over what is really a rather trivial detail in the article itself. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)15:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I do accept your counsel and I will either initiate a MEDCAB case or leave the matter entirely. I also do not demand any action against Epeegleche. (Though I still think his post can be at best seen as pointless and should be removed and at worst a personal attack and a malevolent attempt to disrupt Wikipedia in favor of his friend.)
However, let us not go astray from our discussion: Gilabrand. His past actions have not been constructive to the article and will prevent it from ever becoming a Good Article. He has shown no sign of willingness to abandon his disruptive behavior. At this point, I believe it is enough for him to promise that in the future, he will be more cooperative, will respond to my communication and do not refuse to get the point. Although I believe that a block may also be appropriate, with respect to Blocking policy § Disruption and with respect to the Arbitration Committee motion that has set a much more strict standard of behavior after his block is suspended, as well the recent chain of personal attacks that he has started against me in his talk page. At this point however, taking the matter to the arbitration committee is not very friendly. Fleet Command (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The reason that academic arguments are so viscious, said Henry Kissinger, is that there is so little at stake. That is certainly the case here: this entire war is about the most picayune editorial changes. Gilabrand wants to say it this way, FleetCommand wants to say it another way. Gilabrand wants company information at the beginning of the article, FleetCommand wants it at the end. Gilabrand wants to write "...Israeli entrepreneur Amnon Ovadia who sought to create an English-Hebrew dictionary", FleetCommand wants to write "...Amnon Ovadia who had the idea of creating an English-Hebrew dictionary". FleetCommand insists that it is important to specify the exact date that Microsoft issued a warning about Babylon - 7 August 2010, while Gilabrand thinks that the month alone is sufficient.
It is true that FleetCommand has deleted a few documented facts from the article. The stuff he wants to delete might be construed as a commercial pump-up of the company and the product, but then again, it might not. In any case, it isn't really important stuff. FleetCommand is obviously touchy about people futzing with his prose, and Gilabrand clearly has a short fuse, something that has gotten her into trouble here before.
Full disclosure: I am the editor who recommended that Gilabrand's indefinite block be rescinded. I therefore feel a sort of paternal concern in ushering her back into the fold of wikipeace and love.
Be that as it may, this editing dispute ranks in my mind as one of the stupidest and most pointless that I have seen. If I were an arb, and if editing conflicts had asses, that is where I would kick this dispute out onto. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect sir, I must contest your use of euphemism to describe the situation. Gilabrand has vandalized my talk page. In an edit, whose summary reads "delete tags added by someone with an obvious grudge intent on wrecking articles rather than improving them", he has deleted {{bare links|date=February 2011}}! Besides, he has failed to communicate thrice and violated WP:BRD. These cannot possibly be passed for a good-faith content dispute. Fleet Command (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
So, to the substance of Fleet Command's complaint. I find little to differentiate the behaviour of this user and Gilabrand. The latter certainly refactored a talk page comment made by the former which was ill advised, but not what I myself would call vandalism. Nothing that Gilabrand (or for that matter FleetCommand) has yet done deserves a block, unless pointless angels-on-head-of-a-pin arguments render you both due a block. You should both spend more time proposing constructive compromises rather than prolonging this. Please note, I'm not taking Gilabrand's side in this content dispute. But it was you FC, not Gilabrand, who brought this to AN/I and in my opinion it doesn't belong here so it's you I'm criticising for this. Now, I've made my position clear and won't prolong this with further posts. If any other admins wish to express a contrary (or supporting) opinion that would be fine. If none is forthcoming in the next 24 hours I suggest we strike this issue as 'no admin action necessary'. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)20:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? He deleted three whole discussions on my talk page as well as one of my replies and you don't call it a vandalism? What do you call a vandalism? Yes, it is obvious that you are taking Gilabrand's side, you need not have said it. Fleet Command (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Kim (and others), as to dismissing the complaint brought against Gilabrand, which is the original focus of this matter. As to Fleet, I have a different view. See, e.g., my above comments re Fleet's editing against consensus, Fleet's attempted outing of an editor w/whom he is in conflict (itself, a blockable offense), Fleet's bringing multiple baseless complaints in the past 24 hours against a series of editors w/whom he is engaged in a content dispute, Fleet's edit-warring (2.5 months after being unblocked on the basis of an agreement not to edit war), etc. Whether they are addressed elsewhere or here, these have built up to such a point that they do perhaps deserve some attention, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
There are clear competence issues here. The user is incapable of accepting any other opinion regarding anything (wikipedia editing details as well as content issues) and regards anyone not looking for "those 79 states of which we have no proof of recognition" as against the "spirit" of making the page ok. I ran out of patience 3 weeks and decided to ignore his talkpage monologues (but lookng now: not much has changed). There is a limit to what even a good faith editor newbe can do... L.tak (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this heads-up. The second account has been indef blocked by NawlinWiki, and those edits have been removed. I've removed the name of that deceased Wikipedian from your comment, for the sake of those who don't want this account associated with his memory. More eyes on those articles tonight would be useful. DeliciousBits (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
BTW, is it possible to force a name-change on an account? (Of course it's technically possible, but do we do that sort of thing? That would be nice in this second case.) DeliciousBits (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
– IP warned and content from user talk page removed, report to AIV if they do it again Nil Einne (talk)
A logged out user keeps restoring a comment[10][11] I keep deleting.[12][13]
Per our Wikipedia:User pages guideline, "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages."
Per our Wikipedia:User pages guideline, "Policy does not prohibit users, [...] from removing comments from their own talk pages, [...] There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters if needed."
Per Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. [...] It is also wrong to force them to keep it there as a sort of 'Badge of Shame'." (emphasis in original)
Our Wikipedia:User pages guideline states, "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user," but the anon's edit summary establishes that this is not his or her purpose.
The interesting thing about this user is that the user's IP doesn't change. Can it be discovered who this tendentious game-player is? This may be the only way to stop this mischievousness.
Is there something I should be writing on the anon's talk page, so as to get to the point of blocking or something? I've had more to do with my life than Wikipedia lately, so please forgive me if I've forgotten what to do. -- Ríco22:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to remove the message, and if the IP restores it again, you can leave them a pointer to the policies and guidelines you've referenced above. If they persist after being warned you can take them to WP:AIV. There's not much point in warning them now, they've only made two edits and both are over a month old. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I have given my support to Ríco's comment on the IP talk page. Since last time the IP's removals were about 1 month and 10 days apart and it's only been about 1 month and 10 days, I don't see any harm in giving a clear cut warning to that IP at this time. If they are still using the IP this should make clear to them they aren't allowed to repeat their actions and if they do, filing a block request will be easier. If they come back with a different IP, that specific IP can be warned. If someone else using that IP sees the warning well another editor already left a welcome and ISP tag and in any case they were always going to see the ANI discussion tag. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
You can delete nearly anything you want to from your talk page. You can also go to WP:RFPP and ask for lengthy semi-protection. In such a case, you should also provide an unprotected sub-page for IP's to edit upon (and which you can ignore if necessary, and it won't pollute your normal talk page). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I have re-removed the message you originally removed. As others have said, this combined with the warning should hopefully be enough. If the user persists in re-adding the message feel free to report them. BTW, in terms of determing whether the IP is a logged out editor with an account, there's not much chance of that happening, see WP:SPI. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
MangoWong & poor policy interpretation: can someone have a word, please
See this from MangoWong. I am becoming fed up of having to counter the often snide comments of this user but this particular one is a recent example of their unwillingness to accept what I believe to be a correct interpretation of policy. There is similar stuff scattered all over Talk:Yadav and other caste articles in which they have had an involvement, and even in forum discussions such as this one. I feel that there is a need for some uninvolved admins to provide some input on what is or is not policy. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
And recent advice regarding continually bringing up these types of issue and instigating inappropriate "teaching". MW is clearly stalking my edits, given the number of WikiLove messages that they post to users whom I have become involved with, but that is merely an irritation - I can live with it. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
If I might make a suggestion: I don't really think you're dealing with the user particularly well on your part, either. I read from his messages that he's having difficulty understanding WP:NPOV and WP:RS, but at the same time it appears nobody's really bothered to explain in an uninvolved fashion that these are non-negotiable Wikipedia policies and that he must follow them. I'd say that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the user seems to be trying to make his efforts in good faith, however misguided, and it might be worth stop seeing the user's lack of policy understanding as "snide" comments. If after explanation he continues to fail to get the picture, then it is possible a WP:TBAN might be appropriate. But, how about trying the WP:AGF route first. --Tristessa(talk)23:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand your concerns about my attitude. The problem is not really that but rather the fact that this type of issue has spread across so many articles and tends to be driven by the named contributor. The consequence of this is that there is a substantial back-story and potentially a list of diffs as long as my arm. It has reached the point where I am struggling to nail things down both in terms of examples and in terms of policy interpretation. I am aware that my initial comments here are somewhat vague: this is borne of frustration and that is indubitably my fault because the last thing that I should do is become frustrated with another editor. My request here was for intervention regarding the specific policy issue precisely because it is so difficult to nauil MangoWong down to any particular definitive statement: the pedantry, lawyering and refusal ultimately to "see things through" is extremely disruptive, in my opinion. But it is a frustration shared by others. I'll sleep on it and see if I can better define the issue, a part of which is the repetitive nature of the general policy disputes across multiple articles and the certainty on the part of MangoWong that they are correct despite umpteen others trying to explain that they are not. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I've had pretty similar problems with MW, as like Sitush I've been involved in the current cleanup of Indian caste articles, which were nearly uniformly in terrible condition, uncited "my caste is severely awesome" propaganda pieces. We've gotten a lot of blowback of "how dare your cited scholarly sources debase my caste's awesomeness!", which is not surprising, but MangoWong has had a very irritating habit of lurking in the background, constantly butting in to encourage inexperienced editors to engage in bad behaviours: ANI-ing Sitush and I for removing uncited material, insisting that citations for the lede don't apply to the infobox and thus material can be removed, making extremely vague statements about articles being "terrible" and then refusing to either improve them or go to dispute resolution, etc. Further, on a disturbingly frequent basis, whenever a "new editor" or IP turns out to be a sock of one of WP:India's many "caste warriors", MangoWong has frequently been their moral supporter throughout the Talk page. As Sitush says, it's tricky because the list of diff's is indeed arm-long, and it's a tremendously long pattern of simply encouraging bad behavior, dragging up endless allegations of mis-editing and refusing to fix, DR, or often even to narrow down what his complaints are. Further, he's made many blatantly incorrect statements both about WP policy and about Indian history, and no matter how many times he is contradicted by other, or how many times his only supporters are sock-puppets, he persists. Sitush, let me know if you need help assembling diffs, particularly of his literally trying to get IPs to edit war on his behalf to keep his hands clean; rather "hey buddy, you're new here, don't let these biased Westerners push you around! Go get 'em man!" MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, MW is clearly a bright person, so I'm not trying to label him a vandal nor am I trying to get him banned or TBed. He just has some sort of huge concern with how Sitush and I are handling caste articles, and simply refuses to actually address the issue, while continuing to get other rifled up about it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I had an accident recently and things have taken a slight turn for the worse over the last couple of days, which is making things a little awkward for me. My problem, I know. But MatthewVanitas or anyone else, feel free to stick some diffs in here while I try to sort things out. This is a very complex situation but the obvious immediate examples are evident at Talk:Lodhi and Talk:Yadav, where MangoWong has been arguing the toss about generic policy issues but refusing to provide examples of their point at a localised, article level. Indeed, in both cases, they have mentioned the point that they will reveal more (?) if others turn up to support them. It is a disingenuous and semantic tactic that sometimes seems to have bordered on "rabble rousing" & there have been numerous requests for clarification from MW that have been met with a pretty much stonewalled response. It has been suggested that the wider policy issues be raised in a more appropriate forum (the Pump might be one) but these have not been taken up. And when the issues are raised here or at RSN or at DRN, AN3 or, indeed, wherever ... well. MW always appears to contest the numerous and varied opinions of long-term contributors and continues to restate various non-consensual interpretations of WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:DUE etc on individual article talk pages. Far too many new-ish contributors (as well as clear socks and meats, although not of MW his/herself) appear to have been drawn into untenable positions as a consequence. This is a net loss to the project. I know that there are issues here and I do feel that they need addressing if only because this sort of semantic disruption is actually consuming a vast amount of the time available to genuinely constructive editors but, sorry, I am on Tramadol again and need a little time unless someone else can help me out. Like MatthewVanitas, I do not think that MangoWong is ill-intentioned, merely misguided ... and unfortunately dragging other people down that misguided path. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright, guys. I think this is getting way too personal from a number of aspects. I'm really sorry to hear about what you're going through, Sitush; but we'll stick to the matter at hand and let's please try to keep personal affairs out of what's going on. I'm going to see if I can have a chat with MangoWong and talk through his side of things, and advise him where appropriate on how WP:V, WP:RS, etc. are interpreted by the community at large (without prejudice to either side of the dispute). Then hopefully MangoWong will chip in on this AN/I thread and we can go from there. --Tristessa(talk)12:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I am reducing my contributions generally due to my circumstances but having started this thread I thought it necessary to explain that some things have changed and are limiting my ability to see things through. Several people have commented directly on various talk pages & their thoughts are appreciated (well, I appreciate them, at any rate). I have not always acted appropriately in this particular instance but as has been said before, there is a long-ish back story. It is also in a topic area which I sense a fair few experienced contributors have chosen to stay out of precisely because of the fractiousness. It is one that sooner or later is going to need to be addressed in some sort of substantive manner, especially with the WMF "push" to increase the visibility of WP in the subcontinental area. I am simply not in a state to expand on it right now as I will likely only make matters worse. My apologies for this: I have raised an issue here and it will probably die a death due to other events. That's life. Thanks for your thoughts & those offered by others: let's hope that some sort of communally useful progress can be made in due course. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
↑ MangoWong, surely you're not surprised to find out that some people have a very low opinion of you. Despite the whining displayed on your userpage about how admins are leaving articles to rot (the usual complaint from editors who are wrong), your talk page was again visited by an uninvolved admin who pretended to explain the rules and guidelines to you as if you don't know them.
Hey, uninvolved admins, this isn't kindergarten. You don't have to be nice to someone who doesn't play by the rules, and MangoWong does not play by the roles--and they're dragging along a bunch of sidekicks (like Zuggernaut) who in turn also start crying like a baby over perceived admin abuse. Look at how often these caste POV pushers are taking up space on this board. MangoWong is a net negative who shouldn't just be blocked but banned. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not so much an issue of not knowing rules; MW is actually quite well-read on a lot of WP policy, in a short time. Again, intelligent person and sincerely interested in the project, but the issues are that he has taken certain unshakeable stances on India topics (the term "Shudra" should not be used, varna is obsolete) and is using policy as a bludgeon, in such a way that questions whether he is serious about policy, or desperate to exploit policy to further POV ends. Even setting aside that, he's using policy statements as sweeping condemnations vice actually trying to be constructive: "your sources are rubbish and fail WP:V and WP:UNDUE and are full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS" is not constructive, when for a fraction of the effort he spends arguing he could say "on page 12 of Schmidt, I don't think it's accurate to extrapolate the Foo caste's funeral ceremonies in Rajasthan to other areas, since Schmidt only covers one small portion of the Foo's populated area." There's being a helpful stickler, and there's using (often slanted) policy as a weapon.
MW's issues with varna, "Shudra", etc. aren't exactly ANI issues, but are sweeping WP:INDIA issues that we eventually need to get everyone around the table for. In the meantime, however, accusations that Sitush and I are inserting "derogatory material", "OR lies", ruining caste articles, etc. are allegations that either require him to file an ANI over these alleged grievous harms to the project, or else keep his peace if he can't build an actual case. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The underlying issues here are about sourcing and content and are only marginally behavioral in nature (with no side exhibiting perfect purity). I don't think this needs to be discussed here on ANI. Qwyrxian has opened a consensus seeking discussion on the issue here and, perhaps, the best way forward is to close this thread and let that discussion proceed. --regentspark (comment) 13:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The article in question is Volunteer (Irish republican). I removed a section from the article per WP:TOPIC as it is entirely irrelevant to the article. Domer48 reverted saying The Volunteers were and became Republicans. I've since opened a discussion on the articles talk page and Domer48 has continually refused to engage in discussing or answering any questions directed at them. Rather they are continually stating "Sources please", despite the fact i provided a source that is in the article and the fact he has failed to provide any sources at all that back up his claims in any form whatsoever.
This violates attempts to improve Wikipedia and constitutes disruptive editing.
I will briefly comment by saying that this sounds like par for the course given my experiences with Domer48. I don't know the details of this dispute but he/she is a very difficult editor to work with in my experience. --RA (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
It really is a content issue that is simple to resolve, however Domer48 won't engage in discussion to provide evidence for their opinion on the matter. Mabuska(talk)12:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
If they won't engage in proper discussion on the article talk page, what makes you think going to user talk pages would make a difference? I did already try to engage with them on their talk page on an edit to the section in question and asked them to provide evidence for the content dispute on the articles talk page. Their response was to delete the entire section without a response. How can you collaborate and work with that? Mabuska(talk)13:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I know whatcha mean. I've been barred from his talkpage for over a year or two. His 'door in the face' method is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This is what happens when you try to discuss with Domer48 on his talk page. We'd had our differences, but even when trying to keep things civil there's no budging – simply ignoring the problem til it goes away. JonCTalk13:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Also i must add in the following "discussion" where Domer48 responds to a further issue with the same section with ad hominem rather than actually discussing the issues and questions raised. Totally unwilling to engage in proper discussion to help improve the article. Mabuska(talk)13:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
In my experience, Domer48 is usually loath to discuss anything he doesn't feel like discussing. He's an expert at gaming the system and will frequently simply trot out an essay or guideline—even if it doesn't really support his view—rather than discussing and trying to reach consensus with other editors. A recent example of this has been at Talk:Kingsmill massacre#Names of victims, in which a new editor was bitten by Domer48 citing rules and calling their points "inane". D48 then simply vanished, ensuring no more progress could be made on the matter. A very difficult editor to work with indeed. JonCTalk13:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I already made the edit before the discussion and they reverted it, hence why the article talk page discussion started. So the avenue of WP:BRD has already been trodden and there has been no relevant discussing from Domer48 on it at all. I simply want Domer48 to answer the questions asked to vindicate his opinion and to stop being disruptive with his lacking or ad hominem responses. I will however take your advice N5iln. Mabuska(talk)16:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I would now like to highlight that Domer48 has decided to turn his hand to making ad hominem statements and canvassing in an attempt to undermine me as an editor and to possibly sway opinion on this matter. Evidence of ad hominem is all of his responses (other than their first one) in this discussion, as well on this admins page where i am "the other editor", as well as canvassing N5iln after they made a response here that they didn't agree with, canvassing that also contained ad hominem.
Alleged issues with my editing behaviour are not the issue here, rather its Domer48's. If there are issues with my behaviour, its for another discussion on this page. Such attempts at canvassing and ad hominem to try to divert from the fact Domer48 is being disruptive by his failure to answer the simple questions asked of him, further highlight the problems of working with this editor. Mabuska(talk)00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, what he did with me wouldn't qualify as WP:CANVASSING, since he wasn't asking me specifically to side with him. Any time I comment here, it opens the door for someone involved in the particular episode to speak with me semi-privately on my User Talk page. It's part of "normal operations" on Wikipedia. With all that said, I think there's more than a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude drifting about. I still feel the issue can be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes without direct admin intervention, but Domer48 first has to take the act of self-preservation and show a willingness to both talk AND listen. Failing that, well...maybe admin action will be warranted in the near future. That's as far as I go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
As an outside editor looking in, and not one to comment on such matters usually, I have to say I can't make heads or tails of what is going on here. The user's page] is so convoluted, and the article discussion so broad (rather than going at it point by point) that I don't see how anyone aside from experts on the subject could possibly make any sense of right or wrong here. Quinn░ RAIN 01:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC) BTW, whether within policy or not, I don't appreciate being [forcibly removed from watching you user page] just because I object to the way you communicate with other editors. The whole point is collaboration. Quinn░ RAIN02:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
In all technicality the core issue to which i reported Domer48 is over a very simple matter that revolves around the removal of information per WP:TOPIC and reverting of that by Domer48 and their continued failure to provide evidence that it is relevant. An expert isn't needed to resolve the issue as all Domer48 or anyone has to do is provide evidence to back their opinion up - Domer48 has continually failed to do so despite continued asking. Mabuska(talk)10:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The Dispute Resolution appears to be a dead-end as there is no input at it, and Domer48 still refuses to collaborate and discuss the issue appearing to simply disappear from it altogether other than to remove a couple of article tags i added to the section in question.
To try to vindicate their position without providing a single source at all they even swapped sentences around to make it appear thats its sourced: Heres the swap, and heres the attempt at claiming its now sourced after i placed a {{cn}} after the dubious statement. If it was as Domer48 claims in the edit summary "editor simply ignores fact", then i'm sure they can provide the evidence (which i've been endlessly asking for).
This behaviour is rediculous and regardless of whether they call it a personal attack, is disruption pure and simple by refusing to discuss, whilst continually making edits that constitute synthesis, whilst throwing in an underhand edit to give the appearance that something is sourced. How hard is it to discuss things and to provide hard, cold evidence to back up their viewpoint?
I find it telling that Domer48 deleted the ANI notification from their Talk page with the edit summary of "per talk page header", and said Talk page header states that "Trolling will be deleted with extreme prejudice". Apparently, "trolling" means anything Domer48 doesn't want to hear or doesn't agree with. I wonder if a notification regarding a pending RfC/U would meet with the same non-response. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I've finally gotten responses at the Dispute Resolution notice, and Domer48 finally made a comment on it as well - yet another comment laden with ad hominem and no providing of any evidence. This AN/I was about getting Domer48 to stop being disruptive and to provide his evidence, the Dispute Resolution board i was directed too seems to finally be getting somewhere - and thanks for the suggestion of that place as i didn't know of it.
Whilst that is all i wanted to resolve here, Domer48's overall recent behaviour outside of that article leaves me wondering should anything be done about that? The ad hominem arguements he has recently directed at me when all he had to do was provide a source - colvoluted ad hominem arguements at that; the lack of responsiveness whilst continuing on making article edits; failure to even explain his actions at this AN/I whilst making ad hominem comments about me on other editors talk pages; the fact others here in this dicussion have remarked negatively about his user page and talk page etc. etc.
Is anyone else still seeing a pink "this user is currently blocked" bar for this IP's contributions count? From a look at the block log the last block should have expired on the 8th, but still... pink bar. Am I missing something in the block log, or is this a bug? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk13:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, autoblocks - or rangeblocks - don't show up as a pink bar on an IPs contributions (plus the one that's showing shouldn't be, because it's expired). This is surely a bug (or very misleading). Black Kite (t)(c)13:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
If an IP is actually blocked, even indirectly, the most recent block log entry for that IP is displayed, even if that entry has expired. It's been that way for quite a long time. I'm sure it would be nice to see the real reason for the block, but still it's useful to see if it is blocked. bugzilla:23059 btw. -- zzuuzz(talk)14:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't displaying the "real" reason allow other editors to match up the IP with the user name, thus a potential privacy violation? Franamax (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The only indirect method which exposes the underlying logic tying users to IPs is autoblocking, isn't it? And if a user is autoblocked then if the user name is known it's already possible for non-checkusers to confirm the link between user and IP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk12:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Could I get someone to do a short (probably 3 hours) rangeblock on 62.0.224.128/26? Repeated vandalism of the Scottsboro Boys article from multiple IP addresses including:
Request that the two users be banned from editing the Berezovsky article and its Talk page, or possibly a topic ban that would prohibit editing any other article or Talk page related to Berezovsky.
The Berezovsky article has generated a lot of controversy in the last few weeks. It has been locked twice by User:Black Kite. The battle has been fought in many Wikipedia forums, including the following:
The article is currently locked and will be until September 28. However, Deepdish and Kolokol continue to battle in some of these other forums during the block. At BLPN and at COIN, several editors have endorsed the idea of an article block (the Berezovsky article and Talk page) at a minimum, and possibly a topic ban that would include anything related to Berezovsky.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking over this, I'm seeing that Deepdish7 has issues editing without warring and avoiding other editing issues, and that Kolokol1 has issues with civility. Perhaps it would be easier to give them both a bit more WP:ROPE so that they can hang themselves and earn indefinite blocks? lifebaka++01:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Any topic ban for Kolokol1 will have to be a broadly construed ban. I would suggest a post-1992 Russia topic ban for him, given that he has declared he has a close connection with Berezovsky but refusing to say what that connection is. Not that I am suggesting he should out himself. As he is very clearly an SPA who is engaging in advocacy across a wide range of articles relating to Russian politics, such a topic ban is warranted. But before we enact such a ban, is it possible for him to get a free photo of Berezovsky with OTRS permission for us to use on the article? lol. --RussaviaLet's dialogue02:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Just trying to be objective here... Both editors are essentially newbies based on the number of their edits. Perhaps they need some help and advice. They do appear SPA at this point; none of them edited in a wide range of articles. They accused each other of COI problems, which I think was extremely unhelpful. Deepdish7 was already blocked twice, caught with sockpuppetry and said that he is prepared for a "lifetime struggle" [27]. Kolokol1, on the other hand, did not receive a single warning. No idea if any sanctions would be warranted at this point...Biophys (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Please consider useful long term contributors have to deal with this disruption and it affects them - its worthless to the improvement to the Biography itself - never mind giving them more rope - topic ban them now, their disruption of the BLP is enough already. Off2riorob (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the BLP issues, it's pretty obvious that main problems come from Deepdish3 editing, as was already noted by several people at article talk page. Therefore you was right by reverting edits by Deepdish3 here. I am telling as a long term contributor to these subjects.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you please point out exactly where I broke any BLP rules??? I haven't seen any proven case so far, and was happy for information I inserted to be changed to make everything NPOV and correspond to BLPDeepdish7 (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps. Main issue here is not for how long he edited, but that he started receiving official warnings more than a year ago, e.g. here, at the bottom. Biophys (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
support topic ban for both narrowly construed this bio- any wider topic ban for either user is a separate topic, perhaps AE?--Cerejota (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
In case 2 users in question are banned then Off2riorob should also is also banned then from editing anything Berezovsky-related as well as all IP addressed he used for that article, since he was engaged in edit war on Kolokol1's side, and is now engaged in edit war on Paul Klebnikov page Deepdish7 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to point out, that unlike Kolokol1 I was always happy to discuss my edits and change them to be in accordance with NPOV and BLP. Which makes a big difference between me and Kolokol1, and why I think it would be fairly to block him alone in this case.Deepdish7 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Even if you decide to block both of us (make sure you block Off2riorob as well as he, again, engaged in same edit wars as Kolokol1), there must be official judgement from Wikipedia whether Paul Klebnikov has right to be represented on Berezovsky's page, since all information which used him as a source was cut from the article by Kolokol1 and Off2riorob. Editors to Berezovsky's article have full right to restore information based on Klebnikov there, and there must be a resolution by wikipedia confirming that, so that Kolokol1/Off2riorob/other users in their company would not vandalise page further and cut everything Klebnikov-basedDeepdish7 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
support topic ban for Deepdish7. Reading through this thread including his recent defense further down I don't see any other working solution. No comment (as of yet) about Kolokol1.TMCk (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Although not strictly relevant, I have just spent a chunk of time backing out changes Kolokol made to this discussion, including but not limited to adding section headers in the middle of previous discussions and making a significant change to one of my comments. I have left a stern warning on Kolokol's Talk page. What really made me angry about this was that there was already a discussion on Kolokol's Talk page that I started with respect to refactoring and the problems associated with it. For Kolokol to come here and repeat the same behavior makes reminds me, regrettably, of Deepdish's unwillingness to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, even when they are brought to his attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I inserted two subsections (see diffs below) with the sole purpose of making the reading of this oversized discussion easier for the users. Please don't brand this well-intentioned purely technical improvement as an act of malice - this not constructive and is simply not worthy of everyone's time. And what is the "significant change" I made to your comment? I don't think I did. Please provide diff. Thanks --Kolokol1 (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. First, I didn't accuse you of malice. Second, I would normally have assumed good faith in the addition of the subsections if it weren't for our previous discussion about refactoring. Even so, I didn't think it was malicious - perhaps more willful or stubborn or something along those lines. Finally, here is the diff of the change to my comment, which is, of course, what bothered me the most.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I hope you will accept my apology and take my word that this insertion of gibberish in the middle of a word was a completely inadvertent technical error, perhaps a glitch in my keyboard. Happened to my posts too.--Kolokol1 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Adding subsection headers is a standard practice on Wikipedia. You should have familiarized yourself with the guideline you are referring to before issuing stern warnings. There is, of course, nothing wrong in not being familiar with it, and subheaders weren't strictly necessary here, but warning people over this is a bit rich. At this point I think it is better for you to let Kolokol1 alone, it is obvious that nothing good will come out of this bickering. Colchicum (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Adding subsection headers at the end of these kinds of discussions is common (as has already been done here). Adding them in the middle is not and can cause problems in misleadingly characterizing or confining comments to a particular subsection. And you don't even acknowledge my point that he changed one of my posts, which no matter how you interpret WP:REFACTOR and other related policies, is not permitted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed the diffs (including the two above) and haven't found any changes in any of your comments. And I am afraid you won't find many supporters of your interpretation of WP:REFACTOR. See WP:REFACTOR#Resectioning. Stop already. Colchicum (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Response from Kolokol1:If I am banned, I would like to be given a reference to the specific WP policy that I have violated. In the edit war, I was removing information basing on the policy highlighted in the first paragraph of WP:BLP, namely: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I have always explained this, specifically referring to this clause. I have never received any warning. My understanding is that the WP:3RR rule is not applicable for WP:BLP. With respect, I do not see how you can ban me for trying to implement your own policy. A ban without explanation and not referenced to a specific violation would be arbitrary and lawless. I will appeal--Kolokol1 (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Please refer to Wikipedia:ARBRB#Purpose_of_Wikipedia states that you can't use WP for advocacy. You clearly are, and have admitted as much after the issue was brought up with you. Wikipedia:ARBRB#Decorum states no assumptions of bad faith. You have accused me of being in the employ of the Russian government, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I have dealt with such loony accusations in the past, time and time and time again. And then we have Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions. Take note. And it goes for both of you. (written by User:Russavia)
Russavia, my understanding is that I am being reviewed in the context of the edit war over Berezovsky. If am penalized for advocacy, I would like to see specific instances of advocacy in my edits. With regard to you, I indeed suspect you of advocacy for the RusGov - both in your posts, and in your campaigning to have me banned. This is not a bad faith on my part, but evidence-based. I am entitled to ask the question, which was perfectly legitimate in view of your impressive body of work promoting various Russian Government agencies, and particularly your correspondence with the Kremlin spokesman, which you disclosed. I am not unaware that your interlocutors in the Kremlin spend millions on PR contractors in the West (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/24/public-relations-russia-georgia-ketchum ), which, of course, does not necessarily mean that you are one of them. I asked the question, you gave the answer, I am satisfied, matter closed. It is now up to admins to consider whether or not this is relevant. I am not accusing you of COI, but detect a strong bias in favor of RusGov, which, as can be easily sourced, is out to get Mr. Berezovsky. If you want me banned on this basis, please file a separate complaint.--Kolokol1 (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
You have removed a lot of well-sourced material and violated wikipedia Deletion policy. That alone justifies your ban, as well as having a conflict of interest on this page. I in turn do not have a conflict of interest. If interested admins can see IPs I logged from, one of which was my working address (which should remove any accusations of my connection with Russian government either)Deepdish7 (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Question for admins Is it possible to give both editors a WP:DIGWUREN warning, and as written in the remedy, "counselling" on what the problem with their editing is. That is a fair warning to give, and if they decide to hang themselves with that rope, so be it. --RussaviaLet's dialogue06:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see very specific references to what is wrong with the editors. Now, Deepdish7 (talk·contribs) has engaded in sockpuppetry (2 times) [28], repeated instances of edit-warring (wich has already earned him two blocks and page protection of Boris Berezovsky (businessman)), posting copyvios ([29], [30]), massive BLP violations (see the entire edit history of Boris Berezovsky (businessman)), canvassing [31], misrepresentation of sources, incivility, and his only purpose of editing Wikipedia has been "adding negative information" on Berezovsky, which he himself admitted many times and promised to continue no matter what. I haven't seen any disruption of this level from Kolokol1, let alone Off2riorob, who is just trying to enforce our BLP policies. Another relevant ANI thread: [32]Colchicum (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Support narrowly-construed topic ban (perhaps just the article) for the two editors mentioned in the original post. These two accounts have locked horns and show no intention of disengaging. Not only does a situation like this destabilize an article, it also essentially shuts out any editor who wants to work on the article but doesn't want to enter the morass of angry postings and reversions. Actions not beneficial to WP. The Interior(Talk)13:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting the feeling it'd be easier to just indef Deepdish, Colchicum. He does not seem to understand our policies, or the reasons for them, and when informed about them seems unwilling to follow them. Even after a few blocks for edit warring, he (as mentioned above) does not seem to understand that he is doing anything wrong and (also as mentioned above) believes that what he is doing is justified, both of which are evident from his currently visible unblock request. He's currently blocked for two weeks for edit warring, but I have a funny feeling that he'll end up reblocked within a few days after it wears off, and since blocks are preventative I think we should just cut out the middle man.
As for Kolokol1, I worry that he is not necessarily here to build an encyclopedia and he is having trouble discussing content rather than contributors, as well as some other civility issues. There's nothing particularly actionable there yet (except perhaps some discretionary sanctions), but as my obvious subtext implies, I'm pretty sure there will be if nothing changes. Kolokol1, please review our civility policy and other behavioral guidelines. You'll find most of your interactions here a lot smoother if you do. Cheers. lifebaka++13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Lifebaka, thank you for your advice. I would be exceedingly grateful for a specific reference of incivility on my part. Will immediately apologize and take it back. I am all for "discussing content rather than contributors", and urge you to read and comment on my content instead of worrying about my motives for being here, which I have stated on numerous occasions: to protect a friend from being unjustly smeared in violation of Wikipedia's own policies. I would like to add to the attention of admins: your colleague yesterday asked me to make a formal declaration that I have no intention to litigate over what I called "potentially libelous" material, which I did (COIN#I declare that I have no intention ). Then, presumably, coming here and trying to find an alternative remedy from an unjust attack must not be punishable by bans, should it?--Kolokol1 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Russavia, for god's sake, these references have nothing to do with me! I did not accuse you of anything, I simply noted that because of your self-proclaimed sympathies, your writings, and your declared contacts with the Kremlin PR Chief, you may be working for them, or have COI. A perfectly natural concern under the circumstances. You inquired about my association with Berezovsky on a much lesser grounds, and I did not take offense. But if I offended you, I am sorry. And you are an SPA, or rather DPA, by your own admission, writing almost exclusively on two subjects, as you name suggests - RusGov agencies, and planes. --Kolokol1 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The "general test" for a SPA: "A user who appears to have a very brief editing history, or an apparent focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, aware of project norms, not improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia." In other words, SPA has a clearly negative component to it. Even assuming Russavia is mainly interested in Russian and aviation articles doesn't mean he's a SPA, whereas an account like yours, with relatively few edits, and almost exclusively about Berezovsky, seems to fit the definition. Even assuming, as you state, that you are not using the account "improperly", you admit to having an agenda, which seems to be more about protecting Berezovsky than protecting the article or Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Having read everything above, I have some additional comments. Deepdish, on the face of it, is the more obvious editor to sanction. He has a stubborn, obstreperous, although occasionally passive-aggressive, manner. He has been shown previously on ANI not to respond well to attempts by others to counsel him. He has already been blocked and is now blocked again for two weeks. Kolokol is tougher because his demeanor is more professional and because many of his comments, on their face, appear to be more reasonable. However, his admissions at WP:COIN are troubling: "I do not hide having an association with the subject of this BLP, and accept the COI tag, but I do not see why I should be prohibited from editing." He then argues that despite the conflict, based on quoted policy, he should be permitted to edit. However, the policy he quotes should not be considered in a vacuum. This is a highly contentious article, and allowing Kolokol to edit the article in an effort to supposedly protect the subject, will be a nightmare for other editors, as has been shown by recent events. It's one thing for someone to say that an article says "John Doe was convicted of murder", and there's either no source for the assertion or it's simply a hoax, and he was never convicted of murder. That kind of issue is cut-and-dried. However, in the Berezovsky article, the questions as to what are fair assertions and what are not are far more complex and don't lend themselves to such easy review and resolution. It is with these thoughts in mind that I think an article or topic ban is appropriate, not just for Deepdish, but also for Kolokol.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Then please show diffs of specific content edits which are disruptive. Reviewing articles on unfamiliar topics is never easy, but it is not a reason to ban people. Frankly I see no nightmare around as long as Deepdish7 is removed. Colchicum (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The practical effect of banning Deepdish but not banning Kolokol will be a continuation of the battle between Kolokol and Russavia. Russavia, a long-time editor, has opposed some of the actions taken with respect to the Berezovsky article in the last few weeks. To some extent, he has "sided" with Deepdish in the sense that he felt that the wholesale removal of Deepdish's edits was an overreaction and that more pinpointed surgery would have been sufficient. At the same time, Russavia and Kolokol have been trading accusations on the Berezovsky Talk page about themselves, their editing history, and their motives. You can see some of that in the links Russavia provides above. I defended Russavia in that discussion (I had opposed some of his comments about other things in the past) because I felt that labeling Kolokol a SPA was amply justified but labeling Russavia a SPA was not. Yet, Kolokol persisted:
"The impressive body of Russavia's edits does not negate the fact that the bulk of his work on WP, as is evident from his personal page, is devoted to creating information material about Russian Ambassadors, Russian Embassies, Foreign trips of Russian president, the bio of Russian presidential spokeswoman, etc. He may be doing this out of obsession with the Russian government trivia, of course, but prima facie it looks like a PR job form the Russian foreign ministry."
and
"Kremlin.Ru, my god! That explains it. So, I guessed right. No, you are no KGB, in the old days they would've called you 'a fellow traveller'. You have as much COI, my friend, as I do. I wonder what letters Deepdish has in his treasure chest."
Well, first of all, what does it have to do with the Berezovsky article? Then I (and probably many others) can't say I disagree with him too much. The bulk of R's work is obviously devoted to just that, nobody would deny this, not even R himself. It does indeed look like a PR job form the Russian foreign ministry, though IMO the obsession version is more plausible and I don't care enough about his reasons to bother with speculations. And what's wrong with the second quote? K recognizes that he doesn't think R is an employee of the Russian government anymore, now he thinks R is just like-minded with them (that's what was probably meant by the "fellow traveller" metaphor), which is not news to anybody even remotely familiar with his editing. I'd just say that this need not concern us. R certainly doesn't feel offended by this in the least, otherwise he wouldn't post this information on every corner. Then you have probably noticed that R himself pestered K with automated COI notices [33], while the discussion with K was already under way in another place, and has a long and dramatic history of battleground behavior. But it is not at all clear what topic bans are supposed to do with that. D is now blocked for two weeks, by the way, so do you see the predicted practical effect? Colchicum (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The practical effect is a world without Deepdish but still with Kolokol, so my comments assume that Deepdish is banned.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
To Bbb23, with all due respect:
Your argument that an interested party should be prohibited from contributing to an article under existing WP guidelines because it "will be a nightmare for other editors" destroys the stated WP policy of discouraging litigation by people who have been wronged by unfounded accusations. It leaves them no alternative remedy (see note to the attention of admins in my response to Lifebaka above)
Your argument about permissibility of assertion of murder in complex cases like this, frankly, is quite shocking. What about presumption of innocence? The subject has never been convicted, or charged, or even accused of murder except in the writings of Klebnikov, about whom there is a notable record of allegations of anti-semitism, and whose murder claim has been retracted by his own publisher. And I am not against MENTIONING it, I am against repeating the slur WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. Is this NPOV and BLP?
In regard to Russavia. First, I have absolutely nothing to do with the two references that he provided. I never accused him of being the KGB, my reference to KGB was in response to his own words, "They have already called me KGB, etc". Second, as I explained above, my concerns about his possible COI were well founded, because (a) he is the principal writer of material on Russian Foreign Service and other RussGov agencies on Wikipedia and (b) in his article on Abkhazia - a Georgian province, occupied and annexed by Russia - he simply repeats the Kremlin propaganda line that it is a sovereign state, the notion discounted by the rest of the world. When on top of that he produced a personal letter from the Kremlin Chief of PR, Ms. Natalia Timakova, who actually distributes millions in contracts, every reasonable person would have asked him whether or not he is working on a contract. I assumed good faith, accepted his word and did not report him for COI. If asking such questions could lead to a ban, then why have WP:COIN in the first place? Perhaps my remark about Kremlin.Ru was excessively ironic. And I take the "fellow traveller" back, he is simply a "Russophile", as he calls himself. --Kolokol1 (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
You make three points.
1. There is a remedy. Other editors are perfectly capable of responding to alleged BLP violations.
2. You misunderstood. I compared a hypothetical article with an accusation of murder to the Berezovsky article generally. I am not addressing any specific accusations against Berezovsky.
3. My comments about you and Russavia have more to do with what I call the "practical effect" below. I see endless unconstructive bickering ahead, which is not conducive to improving the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
1. for some reason, they have not. The article has been there for nearly 3 years with tons of complaints and abortive rescue attempts, but when I bumped into it three months ago, it was quite a disaster.
2. sorry for misunderstanding
3. Well, I did not edit war with Russavia, He seems quite reasonable for a Russophile :). I am sure, I could work with him--Kolokol1 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Do not add additional editors when the discussion is already underway
I have reverted Deepdish's addition of Off2riorob mid discussion because it is confusing. People were supporting and opposing the ban of the original two, you can't sneak a third in there that they had no comment on. If you want to propose a separate ban do so separately. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Topic Ban of Kolokol1Kolokol1 has received no blocks, and most of the warnings on their talk page are for forgetting to sign comments. The evidence presented here is no where near enough to support a rather drastic restriction on Kolokol1's editing. A topic ban should never be a first resort when there is a conflict at an article, and the evidence here does not indicate that alternative corrective measures have been tried and failed, at least in regards to Kolokol1. Monty84515:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Our edits criss-crossed. I have stated my concerns about Kolokol just above this "subsection". I don't completely disagree with you, though. Whether or not to ban Kolokol is a tougher decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Lifebaka. Site ban Deepdish7 and issue a civility warning for Kolokol1. An especially troubling sign is the posting by Deepdish7 on ruwiki asking for help against people allegedly "bought by Berezovsky".Biophys (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you link that, please? I don't speak Russian, but I'm pretty sure that a machine translation will get enough of the gist. lifebaka++19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, he said: "админ BlackKite, заблокировавший англоязычную версию страницы, охуел совсем уже". But incivilty on another wiki probably does not count. The real problem is WP:Canvassing. I wonder how many people may appear to support his version of article Berezovsky. This "oligarch" is quite unpopular in Russia. Biophys (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Google translator: "admin BlackKite, who locked the English version of the page is quite ohuel". "Ohuel" in plain Russian means "out of his f--king mind".--Kolokol1 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I see that Deepdish is back with a vengeance. I will then heed to the advice of a fellow wikipedian to avoid the drama and rest my case. Let the river run its course. Leaving the battlefield to connoisseurs (and Russophiles :) Thank you everyone--Kolokol1 (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so when I originally supported the idea of a ban for both Deepdish7 and Kolokol1, I wasn't aware of all the details at the time. Here is my analysis... Kolokol1 is a long-time editor (has been on Wikipedia longer than me even) with over 1,000 edits and a clean block log. Deepdish7 has been around for a few months and has been blocked three times (including a current block) for edit-warring and sockpuppetry. I also see some evidence of canvassing. I don't see the same level of disruption from Kolokol1, or really any actual disruption. Therefore I don't think that equilateral action is called for. I'm definitely more in favor of banning Deepdish7 than Kolokol1. I think that a page ban from the main page of the Berezovsky article would be sufficient. Having said that, I do have some concerns about Kolokol1's conflict of interest, but as long as the COI is openly acknowledged and not accompanied by actual disruption I don't think that it causes a problem. I already cautioned Kolokol1 at the COI noticeboatd about being careful when accusing others of libel, per WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats. -- Atama頭01:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Atama, saying Kolokol is a "long-time editor" is not quite accurate. Kolokol edited first for a few days in 2006, then nothing until 2008, at which time he made 4 edits to the Berezovsky page. After that, he didn't edit until July of this year. So, although it's true he has been editing since 2006, he really has only been editing in earnest since July of this year. I'm glad you weighed in, though - I wondered what had happened to you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. My point is that even though Kolokol1 has had more activity overall than Deepdish7, he has a clean block log, which would indicate that Deepdish7 is far more prone to disruption, and that's why I no longer support applying the same measures to both editors. -- Atama頭02:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Atama, for taking time to review my history and for acknowledging my clean record. I would still hope that any administrative action taken would cite a specific WP policy that I violated and give a reference to the violation. If I am banned simply to "balance" a justified restraining measure applied to another user, this would not be rooted in any of current WP policies. I scrupulously obeyed all the rules and will exercise my right of appeal in case of an arbitrary sanction.--Kolokol1 (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
First of all, despite not having received any warnings (I didn't know it's so important to give a warning here and whether they matter at all, but Kolokol1 clearly knew what he was doing because he saw me getting blocked for exactly same things as he was doing), Kolokol1 has violated multiple wiki policies, such as conflict of interest, one-purpose account, edit warring, deletion, advocacy. He does not only have issues with civility as lifebaka++ mentioned, it's far from that.
If you want en example of him being engaged in edit warring, check history of Berezovsky page. In the last couple of days, or check it It's just obvious what he was doing. Or check this report:
[35]
he wasn't blocked simply because I reported him from another account. You can say it's wrong to report from sockpuppet account and I understand that, but apart from strict wiki rules there's truth and lies, and the truth is that he's been engaging in absolutely same edit wars, but his friends would always report me before I reported him. If that only fact vindicates him in your opinion, then go on block me and don't block him, would be logical.
Notice also, that some sockpuppets were protecting Berezovsky on the discussion page:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29/Archive_2#Major_POV_issueshttp://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Jw2035
would not be surprised if this Jw2035 turned out to be Kolokol1's sock puppet.
Unless you clearly want to see only rules broken by me and intentionally ignore rules broken by him you will notice that Kolokol1 broke at least as many rules as I did. I don't see that many issues with BLP that I wasn't ready to discuss/edit. The problem always was that Kolokol1 never wanted to discuss anything - he would simply cut text from the article. But since they would be the first to report, it was me who was getting blocked, though again we were engaged in absolutely same edit war, as I reverted his edits as he never responded, just kept saying that everything that Klebnikov said regarding Berezovsky should be erased because some magazine accused Klebnikov of anti-semitism (which doesn't make any sense since he never mentioned Berezovsky's ethnicity, spent his youth in the USA where any racism is strictly prohibited and was a chief editor of Forbes Russia magazine).
I still haven't heard any opinion on whether Off2RioRob should be banned as well. Carefully check Berezovsky's page edit and you'll see him again engaging in same edit war. He also engaged in edit war with me yesterday on Klebnikov page and I got blocked while he didn't simply because he reported me first. Check history of this page: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Paul_Klebnikov&action=history. Moreover he even had enough audacity to revert my edit today, once he already had 4 reverts in the last 24h.
Even if you decide to block me (make sure you block Off2riorob as well as he, again, engaged in same edit wars as Kolokol1), there must be official judgement from Wikipedia whether Paul Klebnikov has right to be represented on Berezovsky's page, since all information which used him as a source was cut from the article by Kolokol1 and Off2riorob. Editors to Berezovsky's article have full right to restore information based on Klebnikov there, and there must be a resolution by wikipedia confirming that, so that Kolokol1/Off2riorob/other users in their company would not vandalise page further and cut everything Klebnikov-based
"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" that Kolokol1 is trying to use to justify his actions doesn't work here - he was erasing simply everything, not just unsourced or poorly sourced material. And he will continue doing so, I'm 100% sure
"For the record, I have seen no evidence linking you with the RusGov, in contrast to Rusavia, as explained above" by Kolokol1 is lies again. Check below link:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29/Archive_2#Anti-semitic_Bias "From your above comment it is clear that you are on a mission to expose the criminality of Mr. Berezovsky and establish the superiority of Russia over Britain in matters of the rule of law and freedom of the press. While I do not question the sincerity of your zeal, Wikipedia is not a Kremlin propaganda outlet but an objective source of information."
Would also be happy for the page to go into arbitration in case we're not banned lifetime with Kolokol1 on working on this page. Without arbitration there will be a mess if we're both or only I alone am banned, as Kolokol1 doesn't listen to anyone and erases all negative information on the page and inserts white lies in order to whiten Berezovsky's reputation (with whom he confessed of being connected, and as his nickname suggests he works for Berezovsky's Kolokol website).
"And I am not against MENTIONING it, I am against repeating the slur WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. Is this NPOV and BLP?" this is again lies by Kolokol1, he deletes all negative material on Berezovsky without paying attention to whether it's NPOV or not, he just deletes everything. Just read Berezovsky page history for the last two days
"Well, I did not edit war with Russavia, He seems quite reasonable for a Russophile :). I am sure, I could work with him" - lies again, he doesn't "work" with anyone, but deletes sourced material at his discretionDeepdish7 (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I checked the 3rr report you'd filed as a sock and there was clearly NO violation by Kolokol1. You're right now blocked (again) for violating exactly this rule and you still don't get it right and reading the rest of your post just reads like "some one is digging his hole deeper".TMCk (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC) And in my opinion you're already past 6 feet.TMCk (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that (sarcassm or truth) but I think Kolokol1 has shown some professionalism here and seems to be willing to hold his temper and be more civil in the future. I wouldn't wonder if they would do so if they don't have to deal with Deepdish7 at the article in question. Just a thought.TMCk (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the (stupid) link that I of course didn't check as it is apparent in the first part of my post.TMCk (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
More response to Deepdish7's defense post: There is another problem I see here. You write: "...Kolokol1 had perfect chance to discuss, but when the block expired he preferred to engage in edit warring instead." You give the impression that Kokolol1 was blocked at some point even so they have a clean block log unlike you of course who even now can't add this page without a legit proxy as you're sitting out yet another block of 2 weeks for edit warring. Not that i wonder since you already made clear on BlackKite's talkpage that you'll resume reverting (called edit warring here on wiki) after the protection of the article in question is lifted.TMCk (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
He is specifically talking about the article being unlocked, not Kolokol being unblocked. I can attest that Deepdish did post on the talk page whilst the article was locked, seeking opinion, and nothing was responded to. Due to the oft cite "silence equals consent", all editors had the opportunity to discuss changes to the article, but they said nothing. Instead they engaged in reverting Deepdish when he made changes to the article. Look at this objectively, not just one way ok. RussaviaLet's dialogue12:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, silence does not usually equal consent. This was another instance in which Deepdish tried to make up his own rules as to procedure. In a less controversial situation, I can see an editor going ahead and making a change when he receives no response on a Talk page to a proposal, but this was hardly a normal situation. Part of the problem is Deepdish is just too impatient, not unfortunately an uncommon problem on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Please refer to this rubbish. Why does he feel the need to do this? It may as well read:
You said you wrote to the girl
The girl said she was raped
You denied you raped her
I believe you
But hey, I am going to accuse you of being a rapist via the back-door again by leaving shit like this on your talk page.
And yes, I stand by my edit summary when I removed it. As anyone who is familiar with cases involving myself, this accusation is something I have had to put up with for a long, long time....hell Colchicum even basically insinuated the same thing above...instead of possibly informing the editor on his talk page in his discussions that there is no evidence of that, and continued accusations are harrassment and to drop it. Colchicum's comments above only encourage crap like this.
Tell Kolokol1 to stay away from me. He is here to engage in advocacy, and I'll be damned if I am going to continue to be accused of crap like that on a continual basis. I suggested a WP:DIGWUREN warning for Kolokol1; you guys wanted to give him a civility warning? LOL yeah I see that was really going to work. RussaviaLet's dialogue21:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
My note to Russavia was a well-intended and civil attempt to put the matter to rest by giving him the benefit of the doubt for the record. It was not intended for further discussion. In response, I got curses and insults. I do not know what to say, this place is really a minefield.--Kolokol1 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kolokol1, generally when one puts a matter to rest, it stays there. So, if I see you continuing to badger Russavia about this perceived COI, I will block you. Russavia, if Kolokol1 does do this, drop me a line on my talk page with the diff. I also agree with DJSasso's comment below, that was not called for. Cheers. lifebaka++00:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kolokol1's harassment of Russavia is about as egregious as it gets. I think we should finally start doing something about the constant attacks on Russavia by Kolokol1 and other users. Nanobear (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
This topic isn't about Russavia (it's about Deepdish and Kolokol). Perhaps, you should start a new topic about these attacks by editors other than Kolokol if you feel it requires administrative intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow...seriously? Consider this a civility warning Russavia. Another personal attack like that will end up in a block. -DJSasso (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
THANK YOU!! I wasn't attacking bbb23, but was attempting to show what Kolokol's comments that were left on my talk page were akin to. If I asked you that same question I would expect you to tell me to fuck off too. Now that I have shown that asking users if they have stopped beating their wife, is exactly what Kolokol posted, I expect some action to be taken against him. He has trolled my talk page to provoke me, specifically after he was told what he has been told above, and he got the answer he deserved. But if you want to give me a civility warning for my response to Kolokol1, that's fine, I promise to never ever ever call anyone an idiot again. On the other hand, SPA trolls need to be told straight. --RussaviaLet's dialogue00:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I must say that I don't think they are even remotely equivalent. Thinking you have a COI is in no way equivalent to physical violence or a crime. Your "example" was waaaay over the top. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Wading thorough all of this: Support topic bans for Deepdish regarding all Russian "oligarchs". Propose administrative deletion of the problem BLP entirely. Propose topic ban for Russavia on all Russian "oligarchs. " Propose that Russavia be trouted for personal attacks. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Russavia injected an interesting issue - were I not to react to the self-injection, I would be dis-serving the reasoning behind this noticeboard. In fact, the history of the noticeboard is that people who make such posts as Russavia made, frequently attract notice to themselves. I note also a post by a "Bbb23" suggesting a civility warning for Russavia just above - I do not see the "trout" as being further afield <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed its the boomerang effect. Well known and not out of line for different people than the original people in the thread to be sanctioned or whatever for what they say here. Threads are not limited to the person being talked about originally. They never are. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Generally, what I've seen is if someone in one of these topics says something sanctionable, they can be sanctioned, even if they were not part of the original request. I've seen that happen often, although it's frequently the requester who gets the boot (not an invitation :-) ). At the same time, if an editor wants a participant sanctioned because of something that really requires more discussion, it's better to open a new topic, partly because it would be a major detour and a distraction to address it in the current thread. Naturally, that's a judgment call, and not for me to decide. I just noted to Collect, in case he hadn't seen it, that Griswaldo had objected to Deepdish's request to ban Rob. Of course, unlike Collect's request, that was clearly off-the-wall and fairly typical of Deepdish, but it still seemed to me that a discussion of a topic ban for Russavia might be better off in a new thread. Please note I'm not commenting on the merits of the request itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe this topic has been fleshed out by a number of contributors and the time has come for closure. My sense is there is a consensus for topic banning Deepdish, but it's not clear what action, if any, will be taken with respect to Kolokol. Although I raised these issues here, I did it partly because of comments by other editors in other forums favoring topic bans for both editors. After having followed all of the comments here, my support for a topic ban for Kolokol has weakened but not disappeared. I recognize that the community prefers progressive action rather than more drastic action unless there's sufficient evidence to warrant skipping intermediate sanctions. Based on that model, I'm not sure I see sufficient evidence to warrant banning Kolokol. At the same time, I see a pattern that indicates a probability of more trouble without such a ban.
When Deepdish first came here complaining, there was some disagreement as to what action against him was warranted. Ultimately, he received a fairly short block, but not too long after that, he received the longer block that is now in place. Although there is no question that Deepdish's and Kolokol's styles are completely different, I see a strong possibility of the same thing happening with Kolokol if only minimal sanctions are imposed. But I also recognize a certain unfairness in imposing greater sanctions based on speculation as to what might happen in the future.
Finally, putting Deepdish and Kolokol aside for a moment, I see a greater problem with factions in editing some of these articles, with more experienced editors battling as to content and adopting, mentoring, and coaching less experienced editors as part of their group. Although generally mentoring new editors is a good thing, in this instance, it seems more agenda-related rather than helping newbies learn about Wikipedia. It's a troubling dynamic.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is the problem: people are looking for malicious intentions (COI, work for someone, tag teaming). They should not. Simply look at the recent history of disruption by user X, as evident from his warnings and blocks, and check if he did the same a year ago. Biophys (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm making no accusations of malice. However, in just the short time I've been looking, I do see evidence of admitted conflicts and factionalization. Is that relevant to the current ban request? Maybe not, but it's worth noting.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
You could be be right if someone supported the sides by reverts in article of the conflict. Let's look at the edit history [37]... Only one person previously sanctioned in EE affairs was involved in edit warring (on the side of Deepdish7 [38]). Do you mean we must assume bad faith on his part? Biophys (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
My sense of factionalization (the conflicts are admitted) is based on comments on Talk pages and forums, not so much on actual article edit history. I think those comments have evidentiary value and are relevant. The edit history on the Berezovsky article is long and tortured, and I stopped looking at it as it spun out of control, which, by the way, was something I predicted on the Berezovsky Talk page would occur.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Please note that there will be possibly be ramifications for other users in relation to the harrassment that is continuing here by Kolokol1 and another user. --RussaviaLet's dialogue20:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Support Topic Ban Deepdish7. Ban should cover the article and talk pages of Boris Berezovsky (businessman) and all other article and talk pages related to Berezovsky. Evidence of disruptive, non-neutral editing plus unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia rules, policies, and guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Support Warning Kolokol1. Warning should cover the article and talk pages of Boris Berezovsky (businessman) and all other article and talk pages related to Berezovsky. Evidence of conflict, some incivility, and possible agenda. Warning should counsel caution in editing these pages and that any subsequent evidence of policy violations may result in a ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I must protest here. A full ban from editing any article related to Berezovsky is a must. The conflict of interest here is major. The editor has admitted that they are directly connected to him, so we must take him at his word, that he is connected. Him editing any article is akin to all the American politicians whose staffers edit articles...we frown upon that in a major way, and the parallel here is the same.
In the last week of Litvinenko's life, it was also Berezovsky's money that bought the publicity campaign, so expertly fronted by Alex Goldfarb. Thus the view that the British public had of Litvinenko's illness and death was essentially dictated by Berezovsky. Until the very end, neither the hospital, nor the British authorities, nor the Russian embassy contributed anything at all. Berezovsky, through Goldfarb and the PR company, Bell Pottinger, had the field entirely to himself.[39]
Are you guys seriously suggesting that someone connected to Berezovsky, given the above, is not here to engage in advocacy? WP:CAMERA is a great thing to remember.
Additionally, some incivility? I call it outright harrasment. If you refer to the "dark forces" comment on his talk page, who exactly is he referring to here? And the other editor egging him on isn't helping matters either. --RussaviaLet's dialogue21:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there may be something else happening here as well. If this person is connected with Berezovsky, which they say they are, please know that Berezovsky currently is under suspicion of ordering the murder of Anna Politkovskaya.[40][41][42][43]Kommersant isn't some yellow journalism newspaper (like Novaya Gazeta) -- in fact, it is one that Berezovsky himself used to own. Given that Novaya Gazeta has thus far approved of how the case is proceeding, there could be some major goings on in the future in relation to Berezovsky, and because of this, the ban from editing anything in relation to Berezovsky is needed as a preventative measure, not as a punitive one. And given that they have already threatened legal action (and retracted it), this Berezovsky topic ban is needed. --RussaviaLet's dialogue21:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This calls for a response.
(1) For the record I never threatened a legal action, and hence could not have retracted it. A WP administrator asked me to declare that I have no intention of legal action in view of the nature of the material that I removed, and I immediately complied ( [44] )
(2) In regard to Anna Politkovskaya, Kommersant reported leaked information that a suspect in custody testified that Berezovsky "could have been" involved in Politkovskaya's killing. A spokesman of Memorial (society), a major human rights group, immediately made a statement of concern that the testimony could have been extracted by torture - based on prior history ([45]). Politkovskaya's colleagues at Novaya Gazeta discounted the Berezovsky theory and the attorney for Politkovskaya family said that her clients "do not need an appointed perpetrator" as reported in the same story in Kommersant ([46]). The leak has not been officially confirmed and Berezovsky is not a suspect. It is precisely for balancing the one sided presentation displayed above by Russavia that I feel my presence here would be conducive to WP goals
(3)Regarding Litvinenko, it is illustrative that in the initial article that I sought to improve, the suspicion for the murder was pinned solely on Berezovsky (sourced to the statement of the ex-head of FSB in Moscow) without even mentioning the fact that the British police has named another suspect, whom Russia is refusing to extradite. This is another example of smear editing, which should not be allowed to stand here.
(4) "The forces of darkness" was a humorous remark on my talk page, which was accompanied be the :-) smiley, intended to mock another editor's paranoia (diff: [47])
(5) In regard to incivility, I confess to voicing a concern about Russavia's possible advocacy, but this pales in comparison to him calling me an "idiot" or advising me to "fuck off" [48] (which BTW proves that my concern was unfounded, because RusGov would never have authorized using such language)
(6) The notion of preventive sanctions because "there could be some major goings on in the future" sounds so exquisitely Russian satirical literature - Gogol or Chekhov. Is that serious?--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Whether he is here to engage in advocacy is decided not by your speculations but by his behavior. So far nobody has presented a single diff of his disruptive editing to be prevented. Where did he threaten with legal action? And his incivility is very mild by Wikipedia standards, yours, or mine, or others', for that matter. Kommersant is no yellow journalism, it is just reporting allegations, but what do they have to do with the issue in question? I am not following you here. Colchicum (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't remember proposing that when I first started this topic it seems like years ago. :-) I tell you what, regardless of whether Kolokol gets a warning, a barnstar, something else, or nothing, you are to be commended for !voting.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This is disruptive editing - sorry, whitewashing. So much so, another editor has had to revert Kolokol's whitewashing. It is highly unwise to allow anyone who can already be shown to be whitewashing articles be able to edit anything relating to Berezovsky in future. I am somewhat concerned at his intention to edit Alexander Litvinenko, given the history of that article, and the fact that I got blocked for 3RR for removing a BLP violation of Putin being a paedophile from it. Unbelievable right?!? Well, it happened. And given that myself and other editors worked on getting that article to resemble some notion of NPOV, the fact that Kolokol is an admitted advocate for Berezovsky, he should be kept away from such articles. Talk page is fine, but articles, definitely not. Also, bbb23, nothing is a vote around here, everything works on consensus. --RussaviaLet's dialogue07:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This "whitewashing" brought the article much closer to BLP and NPOV standards and removed tons of copyvios. Multiple comments concerning the version defended by Deepdish7 in the archives of the talk page ([49][50]) are also quite illuminating, as far as consensus goes. Colchicum (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is just ridiculous to read people saying that I have history of bans and edit wars, whereas Kolokol1 and Off2riorob has "clear" history and didn't do anything wrong. It's not because he didn't do anything wrong, but again, because nobody reported him. Everyone can see clear evidence right now, if you look at recent changes to Boris Berezovsky and Paul Klebnikov pages. Russavia, will you please kindly report them on 4 reverts to Berezovsky page and Klebnikov page accodingly. At least they will receive warnings from you (which would be fair) and if not blocked, then still will not have a right to say next time that they have "clear" history and were doing "useful" contributions (when only thing they do is whitewashing indeed, whilst breaking deletion and many other wiki rules). Thank youDeepdish7 (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually I saw that leading accusation of murder a BLP violation. ...the murderer has never been found but according to his brother he was most afraid of ... - I was quite careful also - I had three reverts and then I reported the user and then he was blocked and then I removed the offending edit after that. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw your last revert there when you made it and saw it as a serious BLP concern myself and thus said nothing but it would've been better if you'd made your own BLP concerns clear in your edit summary. Just hinting.TMCk (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Its not easy defending an article about a living person from such a conflicted determined user. I could have been more clear in my edit summary I will accept that - any admin could also just indef the user right now and this will all be resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
For those of us who are relatively untutored in Wikipedia arbitration policy and procedure, perhaps you could elaborate a bit. What is EE? Enforcement of what? Are you speaking of Deepdish and Kolokol? Just Deepdish? The Berezovsky article?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
"EE" is "Eastern Europe". The Digwuren arbitration declared, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Because Berezovsky is a Russian businessman, the article would fall under discretionary sanctions which give administrators broader enforcement powers for disruption that occurs at that article. -- Atama頭16:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I refer to 4 edits by Off2riorob on 16 september, which clearly were a 3 revert edit rule violation, not a combined recent edit. Russavia or someone else, will you please submit a report on him as well as Kolokol1's 4 reverts in Berezovsky article. Thanks Deepdish7 (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 (talk • contribs) (copy/paste as requested by editor)
I think your suggestion to report someone for removing content that you inserted and revert warred to a point of a two week block in an attempt to keep the content in the article, content that myself and another user in this thread have WP:BLP objections to, just show how in need you are of a topic ban on anything to do with Boris Berezovsky. Off2riorob (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Even though specific cases are often controversial, reverts of BLP violations and copyvios are generally officially exempt from 3RR. IMO, no violation there. Colchicum (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
First of all, it wasn't that you "removed what I inserted", since it was you who started cutting text from the page on Sept 5th, and I reversed your edits, and you reversed mine again. And secondly, my edits did not break BLP policy, despite you're claiming the opposite, and everyone can see that if they look at my changes. Dispute arbitration is the only way to go here, as you're using the name of BLP policy to cut any text from the article that you want, wheverer it is conflicting with BLP or not. Since we have very different views on BLP (and Kolokol1 obviously has a conflict of interest here), we need dispute resolution here. Otherwise it's just my word against your word, that's all Deepdish7 (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC) (copy/paste requested by author)
I think the discussion is going in circles, and it is a waste of everyone's time to repeat the same thing again and again. It is not getting any closer to a consensus. An administrative decision is long overdue--Kolokol1 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC).
Consensus seems to be fairly clear to topic ban Deepdish under WP:DIGWUREN, above. Although the discretionary sanctions don't say anything about the length of topic bans implemented, I'd suggest that one year is a good starting point, to mirror the block length the sanctions allow. Unless there are any objections, we might as well close this and implement the topic ban. lifebaka++17:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Unarchived to note my action. Although I'm perfectly aware that there is an obvious consensus above to topic ban Deepdish, I have instead opted to extend his block length to indefinite. I must admit, at least part of my reasoning is that I feel as though it cuts out the middle man. While he has been blocked, I have seen zero indication that Deepdish understands that he was edit warring, and I have seen no indication that he's really trying to understand, either. Especially given at least one comment to the effect that he would continue to edit war on Boris Berezovsky (businessman) when his block expired, I believe that an indefinite block is the easiest way to avoid further disruption. I'm open to other opinions, of course, but while he is blocked I see little point in also banning him from a topic. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++21:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Given the refusal to accept what is and isn't edit-warring, that in combination with other behavior makes this block justified, I think. I expect that Deepdish7 would just return to edit-warring again if the block were allowed to expire. -- Atama頭18:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
User kolokol1 has somewhere admitted that he has a conflict of interest with the subject Berezovsky. In fact, using the user name kolokol1 (talk·contribs) is prima-facie admission of a conflict of interest, as the name implies that the user is the number 1 (Executive Director) of the International Foundation for Civil Liberties, a proxy organization founded and funded by Boris Berezovsky. I do not know what exactly "kolokol" stands for, but the organization used the domain names http://kolokol.org/ and http://kolokol.ru/ before its connections were put into the limelight by the "Polonium Letter from Hell."
While it may be appropriate for subjects to "defend" their articles, I do not think it is appropriate for paid propagandist to take ownership of articles, to the extent of having opposition banned. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
P.S. As a case of WP:OWN I present this blanking of the talk page. If this edit really needed to be done – considering his COI – he should have waited or asked for others to do it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Already discussed in many venues, no diffs of actual disruption have been presented. Calling people paid propagandists and insinuating page ownership without evidence is over the top. Given his history of disruption, I think Petri Krohn should receive a stern warning. Colchicum (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of reliable sources that state that the person kolokol1 prima-facie claims to be is Berezovsky's propagandist. I do not think I need to go into details. If he is not who he claims to be, then he should seriously consider changing his user name. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Alas - I fear you have injected yourself into an argument where your own positions in the past may well cause you more harm than anything else. Usernames are not evidence of much at all, and therefore all of this is quite far afield from anything this noticeboard is remotely suited for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
"Kolokol" just means "bell" in Russian. Actually, I learned that from our article about the newspaper with that name, it translates the name at the beginning of the article. Perhaps he's affiliated with that newspaper, but perhaps not, if I picked "Guardian" as my username I don't think I'd be automatically associating myself with The Guardian. If you look here, you'll see that Kolokol1 basically said the same thing, "BTW, "Kolokol", which is "Bell" in Russian, refers not only to Herzen, but also to Jon Donne and Ernest Hemingway." Kolokol1 later said, on the same page, "For the record, I am associated with several Russian dissidents, including the subject, you can call it COI, I don't care. I will not disclose my identity because I do not want to get a dose of Polonium in my tea." So he is "associated" with Berezovsky, and that's all the COI that has been disclosed. Given the lack of any evidence of disruption, COI claims are essentially academic. Note that it is very much frowned upon to try to use COI claims to gain an upper hand in content disputes and can lead to sanctions, this is stated clearly (in bold text!) at the top of the COI noticeboard. -- Atama頭19:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
After talking with Kolokol1, I came to conclusion that he has no COI problems so far. As about Petri, he is a productive contributor in this area, but he frequently exaggerate things when it comes to connection of wikipedia editing with "real life" [51][52]. Biophys (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Now, after this recent comment to disengage, he continues to inject commentary about the situation with LikeLaers2 that occurred weeks ago. It seems he has no desire to disengage from this situation and stop being a dead horse. What can be done with this at this point? only (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
While that particular comment was fairly temperate, as Srobak's commentary on LikeLakers goes, I agree that it (and his behavior on my talk page today when I gave him yet another warning) shows that he has no intention of disengaging from his anger at LikeLakers2, despite repeated, increasingly pointed warnings. Since the last ANI thread petered out before being closed as "yes, you're interaction-banned, STOP IT," I would suggest a formal, binding interaction ban be cemented between the two users now (Srobak, because he can't disengage, and LikeLakers2, because a one-sided interaction ban never ends well). If Srobak remains unable to disengage even in the face of an interaction ban, appropriate sanctions could then be implemented. Note that Srobak claims I am part of a conspiracy of admins acting against him; you can feel free to consider me involved or not, based on whether you believe that.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to address this once (again), and that's going to be the end of it - so try paying attention this time you two, as you have both refused to do so before. I have explained repeatedly, and even directly to you flutter, on your own talk page... that this has nothing to do with LL, and everything to do with questionable if not shoddy adminship as a whole. Understand - I am not engaging LL - I AM engaging YOU. On more times than I can count over the years I have been told by the same handful of admins to stop reporting about a dozen different accounts (some socks/dupes) who habitually violated policies. I have also witnessed other users be told the same thing, and even observed reporting users getting warned and blocked, often times with WP:BOOMERANG getting cited - which more often than not is pure bullshit in those instances. After my last time around with this (which yes, was LL), I was contacted outside of WP and directed to another location with dozens of users citing hundreds of instances of similar things by less than a dozen, repeating admins. No - this isn't conspiracy theories (and so what if it were?) - but it is awfully damned coincidental. Why are a handful of admins protecting, harboring, enabling, placating to and encouraging habitual policy violators? That is the only question and situation there is here, and it absolutely must be answered as it is detrimental to the WP project. I could give a rip less about LL... his situation just happens to be a recent, shining example of what I am referring to, but is otherwise completely inconsequential. But understand this - none of you... not a single one of you - get to decide what I am doing or why I am doing it. Those determinations are up to one person: me. I have told you what I am referring to with the issues at hand (final hint: it isn't who, it's what) and I have told you why. It is not your place to categorically ignore those and invent your own of what I am doing or why and then try to hold your fiction against me and launch a witch-hunt. Now - with that, I am done with this nonsense... but 2 parting points: this has nothing to do with LL (read that over and over until you understand), and the issue which I have specified above will be rooted out - one way or another. Hasta. Srobak (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Srobak, I would like to remind you that on 31 August 2011, you agreed to a formal community-sanctioned interaction ban between yourself and LikeLakers2, and you agreed to be blocked if you violated the ban.[53]Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to remind you (again!) that 1> there has been no interaction with LL, and 2> this has nothing to do with LL. I have very, very clearly stated above what this is about. Read it for effect, and not for your own fiction.Srobak (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Just as a note, Srobak was commenting on Colofac's talk page in the thread following his block in relation to ChristianAndJericho and the Nanjing University students project. It's basically shit stirring. Before this blows up into another fight, perhaps a bold admin can close this before the heat:light ratio gets out of proportion as there isn't anything actionable here. --Blackmane (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Support the formal interaction ban. Srobak & Colofac, and LL2 need to stay away from each other. Srobak and Colofac need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Let us be absolutely clear that this is an absolute interaction ban. The two camps of disputants are not to discuss the other with any other editor, including any admin, or any other party to this interaction ban. VanIsaacWScontribs10:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to remind you (again!) that 1> there has been no interaction with LL, and 2> this has nothing to do with LL. I have very, very clearly stated above what this is about. Read it for effect, and not for your own fiction. An interaction ban is inconsequential, solves and accomplishes nothing. I can easily submit an extensive list of other users that have enjoyed similar shielding in their rampant abuse of policy. Stop trying to make this about something it isn't. Srobak (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
And I'm saying that ANY discussion or interaction with ANY member of the Wikipedia community regarding LL2, I consider to be a violation of the interaction ban. Period. You have to drop the stick. Let it go. Delete it from your memory. Just. Plain. Stop. VanIsaacWScontribs23:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree and it should be obvious too. It's clearly going to be nearly always inappropriate to publicly talk about someone you have a mutual interaction ban with because the person can't respond without violating the ban. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Nothing good can come out of continued shielding and enabling of repeat policy violators. This has nothing to do with my interaction (or in reality - lack thereof) with LL. An interaction ban is inconsequential, solves and accomplishes nothing. Srobak (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
As requested below, some diffs would help here. All that's apparent from your recent edits is that you seem to be being disruptive, and you're upset about something that you haven't really been too clear about yet. I glanced at your edits, you don't seem to have made any cases at ANI in several weeks. I understand you think you've been through all this before, but if you want the help of other editors, you need to do a better job of showing editors who haven't followed this whole discussion what you're talking about. Dayewalker (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it will stop you from "yelling" by excessive use of bolding, underlining, and any other formatting that provides far-too much emphasis on your words? (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Understand this - if I want something emphasized, then I will emphasize it, got it? That is my decision to make, not yours. Obviously it is an important detail. One which keeps getting ignored, so if I choose to emphasize it to try and get you people to listen. Maybe if people paid attention to what is being said instead of fictionalizing crap in order to shift the focus off them (read: something to hide) I wouldn't need to emphasize my points. Pay attention, and mind yourself and your own emphasis, Bwilkins! Srobak (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Srobak, please provide links to edits that LL2 is violating policy, or that any admin is "shielding users". Thank you. Kwsn(Ni!)14:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Support formal interaction ban between LikeLakers2, Colofac and Srobak. They are clearly unable to interface productively with each other, as the regular appearances at this noticeboard and elsewhere prove. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
While I can't support nor oppose due to being the proposer of the first interaction ban proposal, clearly this problem hasn't died off as some may hope. It seems more and more like there's one and only one agenda at hand, and that's getting one user in trouble, which is not what we do on Wikipedia. Clearly no evidence has been provided to these accusations, and the only diff posted is of the original proposal. If this gets worse, after if an interaction ban is formally added, that I would look into a block of community blocks/bans here. There's problems and it needs to end.Mitch32(Never support thosewho think in the box)20:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I would support an interaction ban; it would prevent (or at least mitigate) drama. With a little luck, people could devote more time to working on the encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, VanIsaac, this and the previous thread do appear to constitute consensus to give Srobak and LikeLakers2 interaction bans for each other. I'll be off to put a notice on each of the users' talk pages. Cheers. lifebaka++15:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Your attempt at feigning ignorance here is amusing, if not absurd, Fluff. You have had it explained to you repeatedly - even directly, and you know damn well it has nothing to do with either one of those. Srobak (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Whether he accepts it or not, the interaction ban is in place. Let's just leave him alone for now, if he breaks the ban he'll get blocked and he knows it. His threats to expose something-or-other are already tiresome, all light and no heat. He's had plenty of chances to make his case, now he can just forget it and go about working on the Wiki. Dayewalker (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Whatever happened to messaging people about AN/Is concerning them? I was not messaged about this. Not on IRC or on my talk page. (if I was told on IRC, I didn't see it.) Anyways, even though this already has a consensus, I would support the interaction ban. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Oops. This thread kind of wandered, and we forgot that you were becoming involved. To be honest, this is really just the formalization of the interaction ban that was discussed previously - an arrangement that you appear to have followed, and which we are only revisiting because others are not. Sorry to have gotten a bit tangled up and backward in regards to you. We welcome any input you have to this matter, and appreciate your understanding displayed above. VanIsaacWScontribs02:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
He wasn't involved until y'all involved him! I never did. That was my point with this from the very beginning. Now you have demonstrated and proven my point perfectly. All this was an exercise in stupidity on your parts. Congratulations... this will all make an excellent contribution to those discussions about administrative misconduct and will serve as further proof to that effect when it is all brought to bare in the near future. This will be much fun. :) Srobak (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This is the master page [54] and the following link will have the latest content that would include "Dr. Bidisha Mohanty and several others around the world." [55]
The following are the series of edits done by the user "DanceCritic1971"
I have requested the user "DanceCritic1971" to provide me with their rationale behind this edits but am yet to get a response. The following is the content of the user talk page of "DanceCritic1971":
User talk:DanceCritic1971
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please provide your justification behind this edit. Thank you. --Karan1974 (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Please provide your justification behind this edit. Thank you. --Karan1974 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Still awaiting on the rationale. Please provide your justification behind this edit. Thank you. --Karan1974 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure of the reason you have behind this edit. So, could you be kind enough to please provide your justification behind this edit. Thank you. --Karan1974 (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Please provide your justification behind this edit. Thank you. --Karan1974 (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Still awaiting on the rationale. Please provide your justification behind this edit. Thank you. --Karan1974 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Please provide your justification behind this edit. Thank you. --Karan1974 (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I also wish to bring to your attention that a series of ids have been created just to pull out Dr. Bidisha Mohanty's name. May be it is kind of "Sock Puppetry" being played out here. The other profiles which got created only to edit out Dr. Bidisha Mohanty out are as follows. Strangely these have been created newly during this month of September, 2011 to facilitate edit and give the impression that a multitude of people are involved.
There is a user named "Mukkhuu" who was pretty much vocal about not including her name during 2010 and I have provided the apt justifications behind that and the person had grudginly agreed but I believe not totally convinced. Initially the person had agreed but I could see a fake BOT profile getting created (Editbot3) just to edit out her name. I had reverted the edits made by "Editbot3" and after quite some time Wiki found out that "Editbot3" was a humanoid masking as a bot and had BLOCKED it. Thereafter user "Mukkhuu" again started editing out the information. I again provided the justification to user "Mukkhuu" and again he agreed to keep Dr. Bidisha Mohanty's name. But, we see that a host of profiles are getting created with the sole purpose of editing her name out. These ids are
Profile >>> Profile Created on
OdissicriticDelhi 13:41, 12 September 2011
IndianDanceCritic 16:46, 3 September 2011
DanceCritic1971 09:25, 13 September 2011
I could presume these multitude of ids are created by user "Mukkhuu", who probably wishes to provide a clean profile but is carrying out his purpose behind different facades.
I would earnestly request the admins to please block the following profiles of ("OdissicriticDelhi", "IndianDanceCritic", "DanceCritic1971" and "Mukkhuu") as they are not inherently healthy and reduce the genuineness of the article. My request for discussion is not entertained (except for "Mukkhuu" and we can see that there are biased editing (singling out a person) which is not healthy for the community. I only gave the extract for user "DanceCritic1971" as the other users "OdissicriticDelhi" and "IndianDanceCritic" have done it only once and they never responded to my call for discussion.
It's not clear enough for me to do any blocking so I opened up a sockpuppet investigation here. Also, none of the editors mentioned here have been notified of this report, as is required, so I will do so. -- Atama頭21:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Just an update, checkuser has shown that OdissicriticDelhi, IndianDanceCritic, and DanceCritic1971 were a "direct match" as well as a fourth editor. All 4 accounts are now blocked. Mukkhuu was unrelated to those 4, although it was shown that Editbot3 was a likely match. Since Editbot3 was blocked over a month ago, and Mukkhuu doesn't seem to have socked since, I left a warning. -- Atama頭17:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I replied to your "warning" Atama. "Mukkhuu doesn't seem to have socked since"??? Further to my earlier reply to you Atama, My "Editbot" got deleted coz at that time I was not aware of the username policy about using "bot". The moment I was made aware of this I stopped using that and used "Mukkhuu". I have never socked, nor will I ever do so. I would like to ask you to look into the "edit history" of "Odissi". Karan1974, the person asking for investigation of me has been writing messages on my board, long rants about my deletion of this person's name from a list. I feel mildly threatened at his big-brother attitude about this wiki article. I tried to handle it good-humourdly, but Karan's messages are long and offensive. His accusing me of multiple sockpuppetry is extremely irritating and offensive to me. He chose to make major changes in the page recently, including inclusion of "Dr. Bidisha Mohanty"'s name in the list of prominent Odissi dancers and since then he seems to keep such a careful watch over it, it is not possible for anyone else to make any changes without Karan1974 immediately meddling with it. The person he included is not a prominent dancer, and like he mentioned in a message to me, she is his daughter's dance teacher in California. Several people tried to edit that, unfortunately turns out a few of them are sockpuppets. Nevertheless, Karan1974 will not give up his attempt to keep that one name and there is nothing that anyone else is being able to do. Mukkhuu (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Atama and thank you Mukkhuu. User "Mukkhuu" got created on July 24, 2010 and user "Editbot3" got created on Dec 5, 2010. There has been overlap of edits (verifiable by looking at the revision history) which suffices to say that they were used in parallel. The admins have already found this out and have determined that user "Mukkhuu" is the master account as that was the account that got created first and not the other way round. By indulging in this action, unfortunately you socked.
I have tried my best to respond to queries posed by the user "Mukkhuu" and no doubt answers are longer than questions i.e. What are her achivements? Can't be answered in a brief sentence. The same questions have been reiterated again and again which gives the impression that my answer didn't suffice enough and hence I had provided more facts. I tend to go by the facts and if it is factual information it deserves merit. I had provided information about her dance credentials, her education credentials, have listed websites and what not. My daughters go to a guru (Dr. Bidisha Mohanty) of great repute and how this affects the credentials of a Dance Guru is beyond my comprehension. I have with great effort provided validations to queries to basic stuff like how is she an international artist, what are her achievements, how is she reputed, how is she prominent, etc. which I believed to be unbiased editors but sadly I was duped badly. My response to queries were responded with ignoring it completely or sarcasm and I just kept my humor along and obviously used sarcasm too. Over this period of time, I have done enough studies to get the complete picture of what Odissi is. I have just made an effort to make the page more presentable. This is what I had done:
None of the gurus or artistes that have been added in the past have been deleted. I have reordered it in an alphabetic way. There are two sets: One is for Gurus/ Senior Performers and the other is for Upcoming performers. And I did remove the contribution from one sock puppet of Rani2010 with the user id "IndianDanceCritic" for I never got a response about why they should be included.
Have fixed the links which pointed to non-existent wiki pages or links that were not formed properly.
Inclusion of Odissi gurus who were not listed on this wiki. Information can be verifiable at Odissi Kala Kendra on Gurus page which is one source of authentic information.
I have made cosmetic changes to bold out the words which are not English syllables but local ones as they are used frequently in the Odissi community and corrected a couple of sentences so they sound right.
I have not removed the image but removed the name of the artiste whose image has been listed for it gives the impression of promotion of a particular dancer
All of these changes have been explicitly described in the Edit Summary section. No sneaky changes or usage of any sock puppets to give the impression of a multitude of editors. Nor making bold assumptions or proclamations on the edit summary. Just today there were two edits done by user "Mukkhuu" one of which is undoing a change about alphabetic ordering which I had done, and then the other one is reverting the same with an equally caustic remark "No Karan1974 can have it her/his way".
p.s. I apologize Atama if this is long and takes some of your time but I am unable to communicate this out briefly and still do justice. However, this summarizes all that has happened since the past till now.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I already replied at Mukkhuu's user talk page about the denial of socking, but what Karan1974 says above about account creation dates and overlapping edits is completely true. Mukkhuu's statements are demonstrably false, just looking at the contribution history and creation logs of the two accounts makes it pretty obvious. I don't know why this denial is even being made, I won't block someone for sockpuppetry if the sockpuppet was already blocked over a month ago and no further socks have been used since. I doubt any other admin would either. My whole point about the warning was so that Mukkhuu couldn't claim ignorance of policy if another sock was used in the future. I'm assuming that Editbot3 was created out of ignorance of our sockpuppet policy. But then again, with this recent attempt at deception I'm starting to wonder if it's safe to assume good faith here.
As to everything else, Karan that is a content dispute and isn't what this noticeboard is for. You might want to give WP:DRN a try if you can't agree with Mukkhuu about what is proper to include in the article. This board is to get help for issues that need admin help, and admins don't have any special authority or tools that would be more effective with content disputes than any other editor. -- Atama頭19:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Atama for your response and time. I do know that this is not a forum to decide on the content of articles and I had only brought across the original issue that was related to possible sock puppetry to the admins with substantiated facts. But the false statements bought forth by user "Mukkhuu" prompted me to shed more light in this area so an educated judgement can be made. I have always put up the apt responses and need for information on the user talk pages, and arrive at the merit of the entry on the basis of facts. I am sorry that I have played a part in cluttering up the board but I hope you can understand my intention of just bringing out the truth and nothing else. Thanks.
--Karan1974 (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This user has an issue with Romanian diacritics, performing a substantial number of undiscussed page moves and content changes to accommodate his taste. One recent example was the renaming of Deşteaptă-te, române! (the Romanian anthem), changing "ş" to "ș". Yes, you need a good screen resolution to see the difference. Admittedly, I can't even order a beer in Romanian, but it's pretty clear from assorted searches (and the Romanian Wikipedia) that the original spelling is the common one. But we are not here to discuss truth; the issue is the user's unwillingness to explain and discuss in spite of several invitations to do so on their talk page. As may be seen from their global contributions, this behavior extends over several Wikipediæ, and they are blocked from the Romanian one (because of sockpuppetry) as well as the English and Romanian Wiktionaries. The editor is at it again, having ignored my note, so I'm seeking consensus to use stern measures. Favonian (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours to stop the immediate problem (the user was still making rapid edits of this sort right up until blocked, which was ten minutes after the ANI comment). With any luck this will encourage the user to discuss his edits. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk11:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the spelling with the "comma below" (ș) is considered the normatively correct one for Romanian, but since that character was for a long time unavailable in many computing environments, it has become very common to see the spellings with cedilla (ş) substituted for it. See Romanian orthography#Digital typography for a bit of background. If he was moving stuff to the "comma" spellings, there's a case to be made that his edits were correct. Fut.Perf.☼11:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the block and the explanation. The latter gives me a good excuse for not reverting all those page moves right now ;) Should something be done about the global account? Favonian (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
As a person who has been involved in Unicode for a number of years (I'm a script sponsor and researcher), I can tell you that the problem with Romanian is quite old. The correct spelling of these articles should be with the S with comma below, but as you can see from the Sorting It All Out blog, Romanian Wikipedia only updated to the correct characters last year, and this is an issue that has taken decades to get straightened out. Blame shortsighted ISO people that made 8859-2 in 1987. VanIsaacWScontribs23:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow! And I thought we had problems, just because certain people think Æ, Ø and Å are diacritiacally modified versions of A and O. Thanks a lot for the link and your work in this area generally! Favonian (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
ALL diacritics should be eradicated from English Wikipedia, ALL of them. Let the Non-English Wikipedias have'em. We're only stuck with them, due to many editors letting their 'home country' pride or ancestry 'home country' pride cloud their judgement. GoodDay (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay, I respect your opinion and I find you an outstanding editor, but I don't think AN/I is the place to circulate unfounded allegations about why wikipedians such as myself use diacritics. I also take objection to the misrepresentation of our motives (namely, that we are doing this because of some patriotic fantasy), and invite those reading this to look further into the issue and note what was already discussed in the past. I am a cosmopolitan man, a rationalist, and a nominalist, and nothing of what I have ever done, here or in real life, was ever motivated by "country pride or ancestry" - I am sure many who support the steady use of diacritics where required are just like me in that respect. I deserve better than to be depicted as some troglodyte with a clouded judgment. Dahn (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
My use of diacritics has absolutely nothing to do with any home country pride - I'm at least fourth generation English speaking in any branch of my family tree - but has everything to do with properly rendering foreign names and terms. VanIsaacWScontribs13:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
In any case, the whole polemic about diacritics is irrelevant to the present case anyway. We are not just talking about article titles and use in running text; we are also talking about the formatting of text that is explicitly tagged as quoted Romanian (such as alternate native names of geographic places etc.) GoodDay, please take your ideological battle elsewhere. Fut.Perf.☼13:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I can only be grateful that reliable sources take a different stance on diacriticals to GoodDay, and with a little luck wikipedians will follow what reliable sources say rather than taking GoodDay seriously. However, I'll take it no further; we have a dedicated page for arguing about diacriticals, and this isn't it. bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I at least wish we used them much more frequently — and those of my ancestors who didn't speak English used a language that wasn't even written in the Latin alphabet. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that the "switch" User:ClueBot NG/Run for ClueBot NG is not protected. Now this switch either turns on or off the bot. I don't get why this page isn't protected. There's hasn't been much vandalism to this page, but this is a very sensitive page so I think there would be good reason to protect the page.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved
– No one has done anything to merit a block, as of right now. If this discussion keeps going, that may change. This discussion is generating far more heat than light, and doesn't seem to be likely to result in any sort of reasonable conclusion; this is simply a case of users that don't like each other, and admins can't make people like each other. Closing this down before it wastes anyone elses time reading it and coming to the conclusion that there's still nothing for admins to do here. --Jayron3218:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
No, this has nothing to do with me liking or not liking anyone, where did you get that idea? I have no problem with this discussion being closed, eventually NorthAmerica understood the problem and changed his behaviour, so nothing more needs to be done here. At the time I posted this, there was no indication to how many pages Northamerica1000 was going to post this (he had already posted it to user talk pages and article talk pages as well), and neither a polite nor a more urgent request had any effect. Please tell me what action I should have taken instead of coming here, so that I know what I can do in the future if something similar happens. But please don't blame it on "users that don't like each other", which is a very patronizing and belittling comment to make, certainly when everyone who commented while the events unfolded apparently had a very different opinion and treated this as a genuine problem. Fram (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Despite repeated requests to stop, User:Northamerica1000 continues posting thesame discussion in different places, each time asking to continue the discussion in that specific page, instead of somewhere central. I have posted a correction the first five times, but he just continues doing this, even in the mainspace and userspace (15 different discussions started so far). He has finally replied [72], but clearly doesn't understand the problem. Can someone discuss this with him or issue a short block to make him stop? It is disruptive. Fram (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Providing full text in an edit summary is standard and accepted usage per WP:ESL. The edit summary field is limited to 200 characters, rather like Twitter, and so will truncate in cases where the text is long. The general idea is to enable other editors to get the gist of the edit and this usage seems a good way of doing this. Warden (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The users above are attempting to censor free speech and valid, relevant and useful discussions that I post on discussion pages. It is my and all users' right to post comments on discussion pages in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no Wikipedia policy stating otherwise, or that discussions about topics have to be limited to one page, per another user's choosing. Any allegations of "being disruptive", etc. appear to be based upon the desire to censor the following content, which is highly relevant to the discussions on each respective discussion page and the topic that each discussion page refers to. Why are people trying to censor this data? Additionally, it is against Wikipedia policy to censor or remove comments on discussion pages. Why do these people above feel that they have to message one-another about my good faith discussion page additions, form a quick union of two against one, and then immediately remove them right after they are posted? This is against Wikipedia policy entirely. Why is an administrator immediately needed to intervene? Discussion pages are just that, discussion pages. Rather than contributing to the discussion, the users above are injustly removing my additions to discussion pages, which again, is entirely against Wikipedia policy. Maybe they have biases about the message and are pro-deletion of articles, and want to minimize people reading these views. Here is the message:
Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process
There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.
I'll let other people judge the value of this reply, but one factual correction: "Why do these people above feel that they have to message one-another about my good faith discussion page additions, form a quick union of two against one, and then immediately remove them right after they are posted?" I have not messaged Libstar, and he hasn't messaged me. No such messages have been "immediately remove them right after they are posted" either. I posted my concerns, and Libstar seems to agree with them. We have not interacted about this at all. Fram (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I have collapsed your copy of the message here. It isn't really needed here since anyone can see it in the 15 or so other locations you've posted it but I've left it be since it sort of speaks for itself that you felt it necessary to post it yet again. Nil Einne (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
While WP:CANVASS does not mention reverting of suchlike messages but rather suggests blocking the editor in question, it is current practice to revert talkpage-spam. WP:CANVASS also defines Excessive cross-posting as spamming. Agathoclea (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
And in reality, of the 15 or so messages he posted, only one was reverted (once), and that was because he posted a Wikipedia discussion to an article talk page, which goes against Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable (final bullet). While I believe that the number of posts was excessive as well, the main problem was that each posted specifically and explicitly asked to discuss it on that page, not in one place, thus creating 15 separate discussions on the exact same issue. Why Northamerica1000 can't see that this is counterproductive is beyond me. Fram (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia which I guess you're referring to was removed twice. Once by you then when they added it back I removed it again. As you say, it was clearly OT as it doesn't relate to improving the article. While sometimes such discussions are simply archived or a comment is left that they are OT, I felt removal was appropriate here given that the message had been posted to so many other places. In any case, I agree with you that while posting to 15 or so places is in itself problematic, asking for 15 seperate discussions is discussions is the deal breaker here. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Note to administrator: The above user Nil Einne collapsed part of my rationale in my comments here above, which is unfair, like blocking part of someone's reply on this administrator's noticeboard. I feel that this is unfair. Additionally, notice the tone used to qualify doing so that the user stated above. It was necessary to provide the text to provide context to what these people are speaking about. Please be sure to read this section as well. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't necessary because anyone looking in to it will see the message when looking in to the many diffs. In any case, I did not remove it, so anyone who really wants to read it yet again is free to do so by simply expanding the section. P.S. I had already noted above that I collapsed the section as you yourself noted as well but I have now made it clearer I was the one who collapsed that section Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
My addition of the above stated (now collapsed) information to discussion pages about article deletion, essays about article deletion, the Articles for Deletion discussion page, etc. is in no manner intended to be canvassing or "spam". The message is highly congruent with the theme, intent and spirit of each discussion page. The rationales presented by the users opposing these additions to discussion pages may be biased per a pro-article deletion stance. To the admin, please consider checking out the user contribution pages for these users who immediately decided to gang up on me. It appears that there may be another agenda involved, to remove good faith information added to discussion pages about article deletion, and to prevent users, in this case myself, from introducing new ideas to improve the Articles for Deletion nomination process, for whatever subjective reasons. To reiterate, I don't perceive my messages on discussion pages to be "spam". I'm not trying to sell anything. It's functional to see points of view that may vary in different discussions.
All of the sudden I received messages about the style of my comments in edit summaries, which I base upon common sense. Sometimes is it functional to add verbatim changes so other users can view them right on the history section of a page. For example, the "full text" type of edit summary, abbreviated as "ft", is used to show additions to text in articles, in which case users can view the contents of the changes without having to refer to the article, as stated in the Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. Providing the full text of changes enables viewers to immediately view the changes in the history section of the article, and is often more useful than using a bunch of abbreviations, which some newer users will view as jargon, and likely not understand. This seems to be over-reaching nit-picking on the part of the user making these statements, going through edit summaries in history sections of articles, rather than focusing on Wikipedia's purpose, to build a digital encyclopedia. I have viewed and am already quite familiar with the Help:Edit summary guidelines. The person making these statements is taking matters entirely out of context in this case. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The above diffs demonstrate that the comments on your use of edit summaries started before you started adding your message to multiple places. Nil Einne (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of talk pages are to discuss the content of or changes to the the page in question. In nond of those instances have you suggested a change to the page in question. If you want to have a change in policy you will need to post on a policy page, where this then will be discussed. But I can tell you now that our policies on spam and copyright will not be changed very easily (There are no servers in Afganistan where we could move to to avoid the copyright question for example) as that was the reason for the articles deleted. Agathoclea (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Northamerica1000, why do you want to discuss the same thing on 15 different pages at the same time, instead of on one page, with links from those 15 pages? Fram (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It's functional to receive points of view from several people. Most people don't view discussion pages. My discussion additions are functional and entirely relevant per each discussion page and topic. Most people don't view discussion pages in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia's focus is upon building a digital encyclopedia and improving the articles within it. It only makes sense to discuss matters about article deletion policies on discussion pages that focus on the topic of article deletion. In this manner, people can view and comment regarding ideas to improve the nomination for deletion policies, add to the discussion, and perhaps form a consensus. These are attempts to reach consensus. It seems a little absurd for people to try and reach a consensus about limiting discussion that in and of itself, is also intended to promote consensus. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you perhaps just reply to the question? The question is not why you want to have as much participation as possible, and therefor posted it on 15 or so pages. The question is why you also want to have the actual discussion fragmented over these 15 pages, instead of having one common discussion about it, linked to from those 15 pages. Fram (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Note to administrator who views all of this: I think my referral here was done hastily, as no harm has been done and no disruption of any sort has occurred. I received messages to keep discussions to one page (on my user page from objecting users), but only very basic rationales were provided to justify and qualify the statements, such as "it is better to do so this way." (My quote). Please refer to my discussion page here for context. The problem with the arguments presented on my talk page is that they weren't really valid, because the text I added to the discussion pages is just about 100% correlated with the topic of the articles, which the discussion page is based upon. Very importantly, the information I placed on discussion pages also complemented topics on each respective discussion page that was already present and being discussed, which was overlooked or unnoticed by all of the objectors above. In this manner, the context of my discussions wasn't taken into consideration, per the other discussions on each respective discussion page. My discussion added was in many cases in response to topics already being discussed on the discussion pages I posted my message on. My comments on discussion pages are intended to be in context with the discussions occurring on those pages, and congruent with the accompanying article's topic, of course. Rather than address my concerns, instead objectors immediately decided to remove my comments on discussion pages, very zealously, and over-hastily for that matter. To reiterate, it is important for Wikipedia to understand that my intentions were (and are), in this particular and singular matter, to work to reach consensus regarding improving the nomination process in articles for deletion, and to prevent topics that are actually notable and worthy of inclusion from being hastily and unnecessarily removed from Wikipedia. This was the only intention in this matter. The manner in which I was "ordered" to to immediately stop stated positing of arguments is also concerning. It doesn't seem fair to have to "look over my shoulder" now when I post on discussion pages, in the event that someone might come along and decide to remove my comments under a blanket rationale of limiting discussion to one discussion page on Wikipedia. This sets a very poor precedent when viewed objectively, that if a topic is discussed on one discussion page then it cannot under any circumstances be discussed on another discussion page, which of course, is ridiculous. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
If someone makes an objection to your edits on your user talk page, but you believe that the rational for it wa unclear or too basic, you could have replied with your reasons for continuing anyway, or (preferably) have asked for further explanation. Instead, you ignored the messages and continued as before. Then, you claim that "objectors immediately decided to remove my comments on discussion pages, very zealously, and over-hastily for that matter." Your comment was removed from one page, an article talk page. To claim that this was done on "pages" (never mind very zealously and over-hastily) is clearly incorrect. On all other pages, the only thing I did was add comments like this one. This is not censoring, this is working to make a discussion more effective. You still haven't replied why you want to have 15 parallel discussions instead of 1 central one. You claim that this means that we want to achieve that "if a topic is discussed on one discussion page then it cannot under any circumstances be discussed on another discussion page": obviously, this is taking the reaction to your extreme actions towards the opposite extreme. But even so, if someone notices that a discussion which is being held at place X is also being done at place Y, then the normal reaction is to consolidate both discussions into one, and to invite further participation at that location. What exactly is the problem with that? Fram (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with reporting you. You were spamming boilerplate rhetoric in over a dozen different discussions, including obscure things like essay talk pages. That's disruptive on the face of it. If you have some boilerplate response that you like to give to discussions (because God knows you're not the first inclusionist to have helpfully given us all the answers) then add it to an essay and link to that if you specifically need to make the point therein. If, instead, you wish to start a discussion on a given subject, then start it on one talk page and link to it from other discussions as you've already been advised. For the time being, it would be an act of good faith to revert all of the mess you've made. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk10:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
@ Northamerica1000: You've made some long and detailed arguments above defending your decision to post the same material in multiple places. You cite policies and principles to support your right to do so. Unfortunately, your interpretation of these and that of others can always differ, and we come down to the caveats in WP:BURO. Any policy is only a post-hoc reflection of agreed practice, and the agreement developing above is that your practice of posting the same material in multiple places is not a good one. In due course this may get written into policy but for the time being it's clear that you are the one out of step. Please take on board the considered views of the different editors who have posted above, and also the (to me) key observation that nobody has yet chimed in to support your contentions. When voices are unanimously against you it really might be time to consider that you might be mistaken here about the best way forward. Why not post your argument in one central place, then add a link to it from everywhere you feel it is relevant? That way there's no restriction of freedom of speech, and discussions can be very helpfully centralised. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)11:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Another reply from Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I now have a better understanding about the concepts being presented about limiting speech to particular areas of Wikipedia. It wasn't my intention to "canvass"; I wasn't even aware of the policy about "canvassing" until someone finally pointed it out, as could have been done initially. I was also unaware of the possibility to place a comment on one discussion page and the availability of an option to provide a link on other discussion pages to it. Now I'm aware of this possibility, thanks to the editors who actually cited policies. Thanks to the people who actually provided examples of policies to inform me regarding these matters. While I disagree with some of the subjective language presented above, such as my opinions and ideas being "spam", perhaps by the manner in which the data was presented on several discussion pages, the content of the actual statement (collapsed above) hasn't really been addressed. Please refer to: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion— Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process, where an actual discussion has actually transpired, which was my only intent, to promote discussion about the topic of improving procedures and criterion for the nomination of articles for deletion. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
You apparently aren't that aware, what with having posted this to at least two separate pages. And you really, really don't need to preface every one of your comments with an introduction line. You're already signing at the end. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk13:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Please, now that you are aware of the reasons for the objections, rethink your approach to this. Next time someone voices an objection and asks you politely to stop, consider doing this, even if you don't understand why someone asks you to do this. Stop, engage the other person, ask for clarification, explain yourself. Don't just continue. Due to the lack of response from you (not stopping, and not replying to messages), this thing rapidly and needlessly escalated. Your responses here seemed to be written not from an objective look at what people actually said, but from what you perceived to be their motives. Your first reply here (the one titled "reply" above) four times states that what was done was "against policy", yet now it is clear that you have no idea what the applicable policies were. It's not a problem that you don't know all our policies, but it would be better, more prudent and constructive, if you would ask "what policies am I breaking?" instead of stating with such certainty that others were acting against policy. Finally, again, please do something about your edit summaries. Edit summaries with partial words and sentences are useless, and signing your edit summaries (like [79]) doesn't work, and is useless since your name is already mentioned next to it anyway. (edit conflict: and what thumperward said as well!) Fram (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
And what's up with the identical statements you post to the talk page of articles kept after AfD? They already have a link to the AfD result at the top of the talk page, they don't need a section declaring that "The article was deemed worthy for inclusion", "it's functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article" and "its inclusion is congruent with building Wikipedia".[80][81][82][83][84]... Fram (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It is unfortunate you were not aware because very early on before you came to this discussion I made this comment at your talk page [85] which linked to WP:FORUMSHOPPING which mentions:
You can obviously draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages if you are careful to add links to keep all the ongoing discussions together, but best practice is to choose one appropriate forum for the consensus discussion, and give (as much as possible) a single neutral, clear, and objective statement of the issue. See also Wikipedia:Policy shopping.
The prohibition on canvassing is also mentioned in that page although perhaps not in a way that makes it clear it applied to you.
In any case, as others have said if you didn't understand any of what was being said to you, your best bet was to engage with other editors when then tell you there is something wrong with your current actions rather then repeatedly insisting there is nothing wrong with what you are doing and that was no policy allowing deletions (even though I mentioned that it was allowed in some cases in the same comment and pointed out to you not long later [86] the talk page guidelines which makes this clear).
BTW, it seems you are still not aware what Fram mentioned earlier i.e. that signing in the edit summary does not work. If you don't want to take my word for it, please take a look at your contribution history for confirmation.
there is such a thing as excessive zeal to accomplish something that is intrinsically meritorious. To start with, repeating the same thing in multiple places bores people, and when they get bored they stop paying attention, regardless of the value of the contents. If it continues, they get annoyed enough to get antagonistic to the message--even if they would otherwise support it. And, finally, they become antagonistic to whatever else one might be saying. The history of the article rescue squadron as a whole is a good example, and so is the career of some of those associated with it at the first. There are equally good examples on the other side, such as some attempts to delete all articles of a given kind. And it's prevalent in attempts to change articles to read a given way, or to use a particular terminology, or enforce a given rule particularly strictly--or leniently. The structure of Wikipedia is not very susceptible to bulldozing on any issue to which people are paying attention (the tactic can unfortunately work well in areas where few are watching--one zealot can bias things in such cases and still escape notice). There are too many people, and most of them think for themselves./There is much less follow-the=-leader thoughtlessness here than in many other places. (That's why canvassing is usually ineffective--it gets noticed and brings out all the opponents as well as those who reject canvassing on principle). People here tend to behave like cats, and can't be herded--though sometimes it is possible to get them all screaming. They also , like cats, go their own way doing their own thing, and can not be easily or permanently distracted, though they do, again like cats, sometimes take the bait of a familiar phrase like "blp", or "not-censored."
The only way to be effective here is to be selective in where to use one's efforts. My algorithm for what to try to save has 6 factors: what is intrinsically worth saving, what is likely to be saved, what arguments are needed as an example, what is easy enough to do without losing sight of everything else, whether other people will cooperate, and what I in particular can do effectively. Sometimes I'll deliberately suggest something rather extreme, or that I know will not be successful, in order to get the argument familiar for the future, or to register a protest that a few people might understand, but I try not to make a nuisance of myself by doing it very often. And I listen for the reaction: it is the mark of zealotry to ignore the reception, to say what one wants to say regardless. And even when posting essentially the same thing to an absurdly large group of articles brought to AfD with the same repetitive rationale, I try to distinguish myself from the nominator by varying it a little, to show that I at least have actually looked at all of them individually.
This mainly seems to be a clash of Wiki-ideologies - routine inclusionist/deletionist stuff. The complaints about discussions and edit summaries seem to be trumped-up charges contrary to WP:GAME. The plaintiffs should please explain their real beef as I, for one, am not sure what the root cause of this matter is. Is there some particular class of topics which Northamerica is trying to defend or what? Warden (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
User NA1000 is reposting the same lengthy comment on the problems with AFD across at least 18 different talk pages (including user pages), and does not seem to understand that people have directed them to keep discussion to one centralized location. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I've added links to some discussion pages I posted upon which state: Please refer to: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion— Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process. In this manner, the discussion regarding my ideas about policies regarding article nomination for deletion are based in one, centralized location. I'm hesitant to now remove the data from the discussion pages in which I originally posted, because from what I've read, it's against Wikipedia policy to do so. I'd rather an administrator do so at this point, if necessary. If I go and remove my own comments, it's possible that someone will state that I'm violating user page policies in doing so. It wasn't and isn't ever my intention to disrupt Wikipedia whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is a wikipedia-space content dispute (and more broadly a policy dispute), no admin is going to block over it, and people should stop whining on both sides. If Northamerica adds his extensive post to userpages that user is of course allowed to remove it per WP:USER but other than that he's pretty much free to post his spiel wherever he wants. Perhaps if he sat back and thought for a second he'd realize that fragmenting the discussion in this manner is likely to make obtaining a consensus on the matter much harder to achieve. N419BH16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I protected this for a day, then semi-protected it for six hours, and finally unprotected it. I thought this needed to be protected because of international media attention to the recent suicides at the secondary school, and because the principal had edited the article in the past to boost it. I made the changes after concerns were raised about my actions. I will watch it for potential vandalism, and I ask my fellow sysops to do the same. I also added many citations to document the international attention, since the text makes extraordinary claims, and to allow for further explication of the incidents. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I have watchlisted the article, and indef'd the account you thought was the principal. That's an impersonation vandal if ever I've seen one. -- zzuuzz(talk)21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, such autoblock would have expired by now. Otherwise, I would recommend that people watch this article for any vandalism/attacks or whatever and get an admin to protect if necessary. –MuZemike07:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
A recent thread on this noticeboard refers to "the alleged plagiarist Grutness". Grutness has been an admin for over six years, and is one of Wikipedia's more consistent, prolific and useful contributors. He seems highly distressed and has withdrawn from the project. The original allegations [87][88][89][90] were presented in the form of militant attacks by Rjanag, who also alleged Grutness was a liar. It is understandable in the face of this onslaught, and in the absence of editors coming to his support, that Grutness retreated in despair.
As will be seen throughout the threads and related threads presented here, Rjanag is always right. Once she has made her decision, that's it, and she seems willing to go to any length to suppress contrary views. She appears unable to listen to reason, and repeatedly asserts she will not reconsider anything once she has made a decision.
Comments from other editors on this issue can be found primarily here (these are the views Rjanag sought to suppress). Rjanag not only failed to establish Grutness was a plagiarist, but according to her own standards, Rjanag is a plagiarist herself. On the issue of lying, Rjanag did not convincingly establish credibility issues with Grutness, but simply bulldozed him into the ground with an a priori assumption of guilt. It is unfortunate Grutness did not hold his ground and fight back. He may have been overwhelmed by the savagery of the assault.
Bringing matters to a notice board like this seems to me a last ditch thing to do, but Rjanag made it clear this is the only remaining option. I would like to see other editors assess this situation, and the redress I seek is that Rjanag should make a full and adequate apology acceptable to Grutness, on Grutness's talk page. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
This is the administrators' incident noticeboard. It is difficult to see what administrative action is being sought here. Demanding that people make apologies to editors who have ostensibly left the project is not really within the remit of the admin corps, no matter how much polemic said demands are attached to. It's understandable that Grutness felt deeply insulted by what happened, and the project would be better if he returned, but there's not much that can be done with the tools to remedy that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk13:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
(Ec)What is the purpose of this thread? The incident happened over a week ago. Users other than me agreed with the plagiarism concerns. I specifically said that I didn't see anything more to discuss, no one else asked me to do anything, so I recused myself from the rest of the discussion; the last sentence of your message to me on that talk page suggested to me that you didn't want me to comment further either. What is the point of digging all this back up a week after it ended?
Yes, well that is a typical Rjanag-style response. You know very well Rjanag, that I already replied to your claim that other editors agreed with your plagiarism allegations. My reply was included in the diff you just gave. Since you are pretending you haven't read it, here it is again:
You say there are editors who have "agreed with the plagiarism concerns of the original version of this article", that is with your false plagiarism claims. I can't find these straws you are clutching at. Surely you don't mean Flagstaff1? If so, his supposed support of you was the subject of an ANI. Nor is there another supporting editor on some talk page linked above, unless you mean this one. That is just someone saying that he hasn't time to look into it, but the the duck evidence you initially presented was strong. Yes, well I would have thought that too, if I didn't take time to look into it. That is precisely the problem, that you skillfully present what at first blush looks like a convincing case, but it falls apart on closer examination.
It is also disingenuous of you Rjanag, to cherry pick a diff from that message to you when you know very well that I had second thoughts about trusting you any further, and had retracted that last sentence. And you say you don't see how you've "sought to suppress any views". I gave you the diff above. Here it is again. You tried to hide a direction to views opposing your own by placing the direction on a nomination talk page, where nobody would ever look at it. Another administrator dissented and took you to task about it. And you ask, "What is the point of digging all this back up a week after it ended?" It never "ended" Rjanag, and I took four days, not "a week", to respond. I already explained I was going to persist [91]. There is an absence of core decency here that rankles, and I find I can't work productively anymore in this muck. I feel like a lazy coward for not trying to put things right. It seems impossible to engage Rjanag at a rational level. It is really depressing if what you appear to be saying is true Chris, that even when it drawn to their attention, administrators will simply ignore matters like this. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Editors who expressed concerns about the writing include SL93, MaterialScientist (contrary to your creative reading of his message, he explicitly states there that the evidence of plagiarism is difficult to dispute), Crisco1492, and Bbb23 (who did not call it plagiarism, but nevertheless said the writing felt "wrong"). The other user who has been involved in this dispute, Carcharoth, as far as I can tell said that I should have given the editor more time to improve the article, rather than saying that the article was already OK (Carcharoth, you may correct me if I'm misunderstanding).
Regarding the "suppression" thing, this has nothing to do with trying to suppress views. I have for weeks now been enforcing the DYK nomination system, which includes not allowing edits to be made to archived discussions (a rule that is also in place at AfD, ANI, and many other locations); if you look through the history of WT:DYK you will see I have done this to several other editors and it has nothing to do with wanting to "suppress" dissent against anything. I certainly don't feel like Carcharoth "took me to task" about it; we had a disagreement and discussed it like adults without flinging loaded words at each other, which is more than I can say about you. Please refrain from using unnecessary fire-and-brimstone prose (accusations about people "suppressing" disagreement or people "retreating in despair") if you want to have a civil discussion about the issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
So you still seem to be insisting plagiarism occurred. Now that's a really serious example of "flinging loaded words" about. So, to use the language the way you use it, what about your own plagiarism? And in a featured article! --Epipelagic (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
If you think that article is plagiarized, you are welcome to nominate it for WP:FAR. But I think you need to read WP:Plagiarism and brush up on what plagiarism is, if you think that article is comparable to the wholesale copy-pasting that happened at Tom Skinner. I have nothing more to say on the matter of my article here, as it is a content issue not relevant to this topic; if you wish for more comments you are welcome to raise the issue at a more appropriate forum. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, in keeping with your usual style, your list of your supporters doesn't survive examination either. It gets too tedious, so I'll just mention the first of your claimed supporters. It seems to have escaped you that this supporter didn't support you on your plagiarism allegations at all, he never even mentioned them. He just baldly announced that Grutness was a liar, and then detailed some rather shoddy ways he had treated Grutness. I posted some queries to your supporter which he reverted. That fellow and Flagstaff1 seem to be the only real company you have on your crusade. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not on any crusade. I reviewed a DYK nomination, pointed out that it didn't meet the criteria (which it didn't), and failed it for that reason. I would be just as happy to leave it at that. You're the one who wants to keep reviving the issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Epipelagic, but this isn't really an AN/I incident, despite you being correct in what you have written. I haven't discussed it further, because there was no point. Rjanag got the idea that I was plagiarising, and then when I explained what had happened, (s)he accused me of lying. There's no point in carrying it any further. I cannot prove that what I have said was true, and even if I was able to do so, it is clear from Rjanag's comments that I would not be believed. I have left Wikipedia. Since the incident I have made one edit to an article, that which Rjanag has helpfully pointed out, when I was researching a subject and was surprised when Wikipedia took me to a page other than the one I expected (I added a hatnote). One edit, compared to over 10,000 in the previous three months. So technically, Rjanag, you are right that I have edited since then. But you're also right that it's ended. My years of work on Wikipedia have been irreversibly soured by your unjustified, unwarranted slanders, and I am currently not contributing to the project. Grutness...wha?14:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on the editors here, but at the core of the issue is plagiarism. I've read through the original ANI thread as well as the diffs with that and find that there is a lot of talk about plagiarism but no evidence. ?There's a great deal of "take my word for it, I know what I'm talking about". --Blackmane (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
There's plenty of evidence for close paraphrasing, and some for close paraphrasing before the source in question had been cited. That this blew up into accusations of plagiarism is unfortunate, but irrespective of that nobody forced Grutness to retire ("retire" of course being very much a subjective word in the history of wikidrama) and posting to ANI (especially in the manner Epipelagic did) is not an effective way of reversing that. Grutness is still presently free to return if and when he wishes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk18:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've got it. The system upholds administrators behaving like Rjanag. My behaviour is wrong. Note to self: Look away, keep your eyes averted. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
It is absurd to portray this as some sort of admin abuse when a) Rjanag did not use his tools in the incident in question and b) Grutness is one of the project's most experienced administrators. Frankly, all this sort of factionalism (conducted as it has been on the main drama board) does is negatively impact the perception others have on your objectivity. FWIW I've no stake in this particular issue at all and have collaborated with Grutness many times in the past. I've got a low opinion of GBCW actions in general, however, especially when they lead to this sort of attempted retribution from sympathetic third parties. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk00:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I never portrayed this as "some sort of admin abuse", just as plain abuse. I haven't asked for any sanctions against Rjanag, certainly not admin sanctions, merely that she do the right thing and acknowledge the impropriety of her attacks by apologising for them. I wanted to see if that was possible on this board. I accept with Rjanag that cannot happen. If by objectivity you mean Rjanag's systemic and creative reframing of the facts, then no, I don't aspire to that at all. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
If you weren't asking for administrative attention (and just wanted to communicate with Rjanag), why did you post this at ANI? Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I explained why in the opening statement above. It is impossible to communicate with Rjanag on matters like this; she is always relentlessly right, hunkered into a rigid unchanging position impenetrable by reason.[92][93] It is true she is skillfully, if robotically correct as far as administrative style goes, so in that sense it can be said that this is not an administrative matter. But there are wider ethical issues here. Can ordinary editors, who came to write an encyclopedia, get a balanced hearing on matters involving blatant injustice? Or is it necessary first to spend years immersed in a Byzantine morass of guidelines, observing and learning how to align with the machinations of admins? If it is just a matter that the person who studies and plays the system best prevails, then Rjanag prevails. Or is there some board on Wikipedia where natural justice, basic decency, common sense and keeping things simple, also have a place? If this board is not that place, where is that place? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why you keep insisting that my status as an administrator is relevant to this matter. Any editor can review DYK nominations and anyone could have pointed out the same issues I did. I was not at any point during this issue acting "as an administrator", and I never used any administrative tools in this dispute. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no need for you to keep complaining about "injustice" from the "machinations of admins". This has nothing to do with adminship. I meant every word of what I said in my review of Grutness' poorly-written article, and I would have reviewed it in the same way if I weren't an admin. So you can just leave your issues about evil administrators out of it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree this has nothing to do with adminship. That was what I just implied above, "...is it necessary first to spend years immersed in a Byzantine morass of guidelines, observing and learning how to align with the machinations of admins?" Just let it drop Rjanag. You never seem to absorb what I actually say, but just go rigidly back to your original position. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm still confused what you expected to achieve here since this is not Rjanag's talk page. If Rjanag does not wish to respond in the fashion you desire, so be it. Posting here was never achieving anything since this isn't their talk page and you concur there is nothing that needs adminstrative attention. You didn't need "first to spend years immersed in a Byzantine morass of guidelines, observing and learning how to align with the machinations of admins" to see that but use simple common sense. If someone does not respond in the fashion you desire when you communicate with them directly, posting in some random other place isn't likely to make them change their mind. There's no 'name and shame' board on wikipedia where you can post things and people to try and force them to respond to defend their reputation. If you wish to start an RFC or whatever of Rjanag's behaviour, this is the wrong place. Nil Einne (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course some action is required-- has anyone checked some of Grutness' other articles to see if a broader copyvio investigation needs to be started? Relieved to see this problem is now being detected, at least some times, at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Followup-- it also appears that Epipelagic started an article talk page section aimed only at disparaging Rjanag's contributions, and that Epi could benefit from a good read of our talk page guidelines. Looks retaliatory, pointy and disruptive, not intended to improve the article, belongs on user talk (if anywhere), and I don't see the value added to Wikipedia in shooting the messenger when DYK is finally working to detect copyvio, plagiarism, close paraphrasing, and cut-and-paste. I reviewed some of Grutness' older (now delisted) FAs and found them 1) poorly sourced, and 2) too old to search for instances of copyvio. I haven't reviewed any of Grutness' newer work, but it would be helpful if this noticeboard would focus on the issues at hand rather than the petty interpersonal charges. I'm mystified at why this DYK ran anyway, after it was cleaned up, as that doesn't seem to be good practice, but I guess someone decided it was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
On the issue merely of how we address these kinds of issues: I think it is extremely important to flag and fix copyright problems as soon as possible. It's important that editors who are not using the community's approach to plagiarism and close paraphrasing start to do so as soon as possible. It's also really important that we don't lose good faith contributors who can be brought into line with the community's approach to either of those issues. The ideal outcome is that we all wind up on the same page about what these things are, that our articles are written accordingly, and that everybody keeps happily contributing to Wikipedia. I agree with Chris here; I see some close paraphrasing. However, the duplication detector does not find wholesale copy-pasting, and neither do I (though, again, there are some sections that need revision). When something is "copied word-for-word", the duplication detector looks more like this. (Assuming Country Studies doesn't relocate on me. :))
It's good to keep an eye out on issues and work together towards repairing them, but I really hope that as a community we can focus on fixing problems, keeping people. Our guideline on plagiarism suggests some approaches to this emotional issue meant to reduce distress and help us reach that ideal outcome. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Like I said at the DYK review page, to me it looks very much like large chunks of the article were copy-pasted in and subsequently changed around a little bit (changing a word here and there). In the examples I listed at that page (Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner) this seems fairly obvious. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Wholesale copy-pasting is different than close paraphrasing. I agree there were some close paraphrasing concerns. But while wholesale copy-pasting is hard to do accidentally, close paraphrasing is frequently an inadvertent issue. Again, it is important to find and clean problems. :) I've put a ton of time into doing that over the last four years, and I have found that quite a few people who have had close paraphrasing issues have been able to alter their approach to meet Wikipedia's and subsequently do quite well. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The subject of this complaint is User:Edward.Didier, a disruptive POV-warrior who apparently seems to have a history of making ethnic-centric and pro-MQM edits on Wikipedia, which is a Pakistani political party. This user is relatively inexperienced and has repeatedly been making undiscussed changes which go against WP:NPOV such as on Politics of Karachi (where he keeps replacing a well-structured sentence with a gramatically incorrect and unclear paragraph); on the same article, he has removed a large chunk of writing about the Pashtun community of Karachi and also "see also" links to the articles Operation Clean-up and 2007 Karachi riots. He has also frequently vandalised the Imran Farooq article, such as removing a whole paragraph, inappropriately tampering with references. Another article where he tried to push his pro-MQM POV is on the Major Kaleem Case article. On the Wali Khan Babar article, he keeps removing a sentence (that is again, clearly referenced) about some protestors accusing the MQM party of Babar's murder without providing any reason. He is also tampering with a sentence on the 2007 Karachi riots article which presumably mentions the MQM, as can be seen here. On the article Suspension of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, he removed a reference without giving any reason. The talk page of this user shows that they have in addition been warned before of vandalising the Nawaz Sharif article (a politician), suggesting that this user seems to have some sort of political agenda in nearly all the edits he makes. On the Najeeb Ahmed article, he removed a sentence (with a citation) alleging that Ahmed was gunned down by MQM workers (see here). In the Zeeshan Kazmi article, he removed the lead which mentions Kazmi as a police officer "who gained popularity during the Operation Clean Up in Karachi against the MQM" (see here). On Mafia Raj, this user removed the word "MQM" from a sentence (see here), which I had to revert. He has been messing around with the MQM article as well, including removal of references and an entire section (see this and replacing The Guardian, which is a reliable source, with YouTube which was reverted by another user (see this).
However, most importantly, this user has repeatedly been removing a large paragraph about Pashtuns on the demographics section of the Karachi article, without any valid rationale, as per here). I tried to request this user to stop persisting in these unconstructive edits by posting a message to his talk page [94]. A few hours later, Edward.Didier replied by copy-pasting exactly the same message I had posted to him back on my own talk page, only changing "pro-MQM" to "anti-MQM" [95]. I had reverted his edits on the Karachi article at least three times (see this and this), but to no avail, he came back and immediately reverted me here and more recently, again. He's also reverted me on the Wali Khan Babar article ([96]) and two times on the 2007 Karachi riots article (here and again here).
Since the attitude of this user suggests that he does not want to engage in dialogue, but rather wants to go down the path of edit-warring and persistently making unconstructive edits that are damaging the quality of articles, I think some concrete action needs to be taken. Mar4d (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, on one bad note, the user clearly seems to have switched to editing while logged out (see these IP contributions), which are identical to the ones that Edward.Didier was pursing. That being said, it's not so clear to me that Edward.Didier is the one in the wrong here. For example, see this revert by the IP, whose edit summary reads "fake report reference not shown what he tries to show". As far as I can tell, that edit summary is completely accurate: Mar4d is attempting to keep/add (not sure which) information that is not found in the source, including a direct quotation which appears nowhere in the source. At this point, I see no reason to consider Edward.Didier's actions any worse than Mar4d's, and possible even better if Mar4d is including information not covered in the connected sources. So...any other admins think that they both need to be blocked for edit warring? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
That's because someone has directly tampered with the ref (the name of the citation which supports the quote is "ET", not "PT"). I suspect its Edward Dider up to his old tricks again. I have fixed it now, so please go check again without making accusations on me. If anyone needs to be blocked, it has to be Edward.Dider for repeatedly messing arround with references (see the links I gave above), deliberately changing and modifying information and causing disruption to the project. I am merely trying to clean up the mess he's causing and preserving the articles in their original shape. It would be nice if you afforded some acknowledgement of that to me, keeping in mind how much time I have wasted already pursuing this user's vandalism. Mar4d (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to work through the long opening paragraphs in detail and get to the bottom of this complaint. It is complained that this edit for example is evidence of capricious removal of a reliable citation. On looking at the original source however it has nothing to support the statement in the WP article (which already has a cite to another source in any case). Therefore User:Edward.Didier could on that occasion be seen as acting quite correctly. I would agree with the comment above that both editors should be warned for edit-warring and lack of collboration through talk pages, and if necessary blocked if they persist. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)12:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see the source again; it clearly mentions that Farooq is a Bihari "Muhajir" (a descendant of immigrants from India) which the sentence was supposed to convey. I don't think there was any valid reason given as to why the source was removed. I have already presented enough evidence to suggest where else this user is making unconstructive edits. I am only preserving the articles back into their original form prior to vandalism, thus there's no grounds for a block on me. I've even tried collaboration (haven't you read what I wrote? I sent a message to the talk page of this user but they didn't give a suitable reply) and also notified them of this thread at ANI. He hasn't made any effort to engage in dialogue or collaboration. In fact, the user has started to edit while being logged out as Qwyrxian just mentioned. Mar4d (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I do that all the time (I just reuse my sandboxes over and over again). He is still the first user in the history, it doesn't really matter if it took him one or fout edits to create this article. It is even better this way, at least the page shows up in the New Pages queue like this. Fram (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
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 talk:ChristianandJericho seems to be making a lot of CSD/AFD errors as well as leaving a few inappropriate warnings, for instance a 3RR warning on Future Perfect's talk page. After CSD rejections and other warnings the user wipes their talk page. I don't think the user is acting in bad faith, but could an admin take a look at the contrib history and determine if any action or a warning is needed? Thanks. NoformationTalk09:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to believe neither of these statements - particularly the second, as he never appears to have edited in this area. I have left a warning [97] - if he makes another stupid nomination, I would think another block would be in order, and given his previous three, I'm thinking a block of several weeks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Not trying to be disruptive, but I was never warned by an admin, also most of my CSDs were confirmed and deleted so fine I'll read the WP:Deletion thing before I nominate an article for deletion --ChristianandJericho13:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
You are the perfect example of why there needs to be a minimum age limit for joining Wikipedia. It's quite obvious that this website exceeds your maturity levels. If you think being a member of a porn project is the reason why this debate is taking place, you only serve to further validate my opinions. Colofac (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, despite the fact that in some jurisdictions it would be illegal for someone to sell you (or possibly even just show you) porn, there is no restriction on a 13 year-old editor joining Wikiproject Pornography. Sorry if you thought my criticism was directed at you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as a non-admin, I'd say that if someone (a) claims to be 13 years old, and (b) declares that they want to be part of the porn project, this is sufficient grounds to block, simply for bringing discredit to Wikipedia. If ChristianandJericho can't see that, he lacks the maturity necessary to be a useful contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
There is an edit war about the redaction of the comment above by Delicious carbuncle. The comment is so disturbing that I insist it stays redacted until the matter has been resolved. HansAdler15:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
ChristianandJericho, you should probably stop nominating anything for deletion, except perhaps in the most obvious cases, until you get some more experience. You should refrain from making statements, such as that you are active on a pornography project, while simultaneously listing your age; this creates the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you are seeking to provoke people or get attention rather than seriously edit. I also hope you will not be offended if I suggest that a reading of Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, in either the original form I wrote it or its current incarnation, might be useful to you.
I move that the user be indefinitely banned, it's obvious he isn't here to contribute within the rules, and given his previous history (No less than 5 blocks), it would be foolish to AGF as he will just throw it back in our faces. Colofac (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I can't say I agree with a minimum age restriction, since I've seen some users claiming to be middle and high school students, who are actually studying research techniques and grammar for a grade, handle that stuff better than some users who provided evidence they were university professors. In fact, based on my personal subjective experiances, the good university professors tend to be exceptions (the bad ones get banned for incivility over their WP:OR not being accepted, and the good ones realize their degree means nothing here). However, Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, so their laws do kinda apply here. There means there probably should be a policy of "no kids allowed" on the porn wikiproject. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Ian, I agree that your suggestion of an age restriction on WikiProject Pornography (and possibly other WikiProjects) seems like an obvious and common sense move. I hope that a proposal of that action results from this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, that would mean that every editor would have to send a copy of their passport to the WikiMedia foundation to verify that they are old enough. Count Iblis (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily. There are a lot of websites that accept a representation from the user as to the user's age. Of course, this is a legal issue and should probably be evaluated by Wikipedia/Wikimedia's lawyers. As an aside, I'm not sure that the pornogrpahy project should be the ones deciding.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
ChristianandJericho, your interest in the subject pornography is entirely valid (despite the snide comments above). I have already been chastised for trying to make this point in a more subtle way, but let me spell it out - many of our article about pornography also contain pornography. While it may seem to be obvious what a "fluffer" does by simply reading, even this article contains an image which many people would say is not suitable for under-age editors due to the unexpected appearance of a penis. I hope you understand why people may be concerned about your self-professed interest in pornography topics. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Age verification would be impractical, but we could at least hold ourselves to at least the standards 4chan manages and ban people who admit they're under 18. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no age limit (or maybe it's 13+) for wikipedia, okay here's the deal
The only deal I will accept is your indef blocking. You have 5 previous blocks, the last of which should have resulted in an indefinite anyway - quite how you got around that is amazing. Colofac (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
On what grounds do you think he should be indefinitely blocked? Also, what do you mean "deal"? This isn't a negotiation. I find it interesting that you've been here for a few weeks but are already calling for several members to be banned on flimsy premises. See WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for reasons we actually do block. either way (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia as a whole has no age restrictions, Wikipedia's servers are located in the U.S. and so U.S. laws do apply here. U.S. law says "don't give kids porn." Wikipedia could get into serious trouble (social and legal) for allowing you be a part of the Porn WikiProject since you have admitted you are underage. Right now the debated options are:
A) You do not contribute to the Porn WikiProject
B) You do not contribute to the entire encyclopedia
From a non admin perspective unless an age limit is set which it hasn't been for that project he hasnt done anything wrong there up to now. An age limit should be set and he shouldn't be allowed to edit within that area again until he is older. In terms of nominations for deletion more care is needed there and he should be discouraged until he is more competent. To me a ban as such isnt needed unless he chosses to ignore which he might. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as a lawyer it is sensible, given draconian punishments, to run screaming away from anything involving kids and anything sexual. That being said, it isn't obvious to me he's breaking the rules. And he hasn't edited there, he has just declared himself part of that wikiproject. I would remind C and J that discretion is the better part of valor and he may be well advised to remove his claimed age from his user page and otherwise lie low for a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Would that "U.S. law", whatever that is, were so simple as don't give "kids" (whoever they are) porn. The law at the federal and state levels on issues of sexually explicit materials and minors (who are defined differently by different laws) is far more complex than that.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
What "material" is illegal to expose him to? The same material that anyone can look at on Wikipedia? Some hidden material? What law? And why should we "enforce" a non-existent age limit against him in particular, just because he chooses to admit his age? If he deserves a block, it's for other behavior but not about this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
If anyone bothers to look at what I've posted, I've never actually advocated that he be blocked for claiming to be part of the Porn WikiProject. I said that there should be bans for anyone claiming to be underage. Bans are different, he would still be allowed to edit everywhere else. While anyone can go and look at any part of the encyclopedia, that's the parents'/guardians'/schools' problem. But by coming here and claiming to both underage and part of WP:Porn, we're open to at least a media campaign of "Wikipedia endorses minors working in Wikipedia porn!" All states define 13 as a minor. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
(This comment has been 'moved up the thread out of order at the request [98] of 28bytes)The original complainant states there is no bad faith editing on this users part so take the opportunity to analyse this users behavior to make better guides for AFD's. When a good faith editor is making errors, it's because the Docs and guidelines are misleading. Hijacking the discussion into age, age+porn, and america is the whole world is unhelpful, and that discussion goes elsewhere. ChristianandJericho has no reason or obligation to disclose his jurisdiction this suggests to me he may live in a tribal place where he could already be married for example. Or if he lives in Texas, Mexico, Canada, or new hampshire he may have to wait till he is 14. There are also many places where 50 year olds are jailed for reading or possession of porn. So this editor may be acting in a perfectly legal, logical and normal manner as he is entitled to do depending where he lives. Application of Wikipedias Current community guidelines is appropriate. ANI is no place to change the rules, or apply personal ones. Penyulap talk05:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you should stay clear of stating legal principles ("All states define 13 as a minor"). Maybe you'd care to provide 50 sources for your statement.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Secondly, I was just starting to edit at the time of "sockpuppets" so and I only used on IP and one account and many users post their age on Wikipedia --ChristianandJericho17:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
We are not CandJ's parents or teachers. It is not our job to prevent him from what he chooses to do, and it is not illegal for a minor to join a porn wikiproject. I don't think he can be blocked or topic banned for being too young to edit in the area. We are the encyclopedia anyone can edit, you know. If we are to put an asterisk on that, I think it takes a broader discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I became aware of this editor in June when they were a disruptive IP inserting BLP violations into articles. If I recall correctly the ChristianandJericho account was created to evade the block the IP had earned for edit-warring over one of those fake "you have new messages" boxes on their talk page. In my opinion this editor has improved since those days, but would still benefit greatly from a mentor, as they still have a ways to go in the competence and policy knowledge departments. Aside from completely missing the point in this thread (no, people aren't wanting you to get more involved in porn articles) there are head-scratchers like giving a final warning to an editor for having external links on their user page. Anyone willing to mentor this editor? This editor willing to accept a mentor? 28bytes (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(edit conflict)Wehwalt, does federal law not say that pornographic materials are not to be knowingly distributed to people under the age of 18? If it isn't, pretty much everyone outside of the legal system is fairly convinced it is.
I fully acknowledge that we can ignore minor users who view or edit porn related articles. I said bans for people claiming to be under 18. I have never said we should do anything about people either claiming to be 18 or working on porn articles, but not both. If we know that he is under 18, and we know that his work is directed at the porn articles, we are knowingly providing an underage person access to pornographic materials. While individual users are not going to get in trouble directly, the site being in trouble does cause trouble for those who like to read and edit Wikipedia.
If I am mistaken about the federal law, you still cannot pretend that this does not at least give the media a chance to get into a moralistic shitstorm.
I am not saying he should be punished or retroactively punished. I would prefer that people quit associating me with that position. I am not saying he should not be allowed to edit the encyclopedia, just that we would be safer if we did not allow users to both claim to be underage and edit porn articles. We already place restrictions on who can edit what articles, which is why "anyone can edit" has been dropped from the logo.
To draw an offline comparison: a bookstore which has porn can hire underage workers. If the underage workers look at porn on their own, the bookstore can claim they didn't know. If the underage worker volunteer to organize the porn section, wouldn't the bookstore open itself to being charged with knowingly distributing porn to a minor? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: I personally don't care if C&J works on porn related articles. He just needs to log out before doing so to cover Wikipedia's ass, so that Wikipedia's legal representatives can claim we didn't know he was underage. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
A number of articles contain images that can only be described as pornographic (and are only encyclopedic in context). Are you really willing to risk letting a judge figure out the difference between distributing porn for business purposes and distributing porn for encyclopedic purposes? A judge in a country where many states still have anti-sodomy laws and gay people aren't allowed to marry? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
You really need to abandon your entree into the legal arena. So many of your statements are legally incorrect, and some of them are wildly incorrect. Your proposal about covering Wikipedia's ass (above) is particularly alarming.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I also have no comment on the Porn project membership, and agree that it should be up to WMF. However, to return to the original issue, this user's deletion tagging is extremely problematic. I've had to decline several speedy deletions; in and of itself that's not terrible, but the fact that xe rarely responds to those concerns is. And, to clarify, the user doesn't "archive once a week"--it's actually about once every 2 days. Then, yesterday, it turns out that the user has switched over to making spurious AfD nominations (see this complaint on xyr talk page). So, I think it's time that this user take a mandatory break from deletion tagging of any type. If some user is willing to mentor ChristianandJericho on this issue, that might help, but for now the disruption needs to stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I would like confirmation from ChristianandJericho at this point that he will not make any more deletion nominations without the agreement of his mentor, should he find one, and no deletion nominations whatsoever should he not find a mentor. Absent that confirmation I would be open to supporting a topic ban and/or competence block. 28bytes (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
A complete block for a good faith editor is destructive to the wikipedia project. Better docs, or a civil word is called for. Or make the CFD process a little more complex for newbies to access. Penyulap talk05:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Noformation, your complaint can't really go anywhere, as it would need you to point out where ChristianandJericho has broken the rules, it REALLY helps a lot if you put up diffs (links to the exact place he did something wrong) it also helps if you can suggest a solution, although that is not needed. ChristianandJericho as you have said is not doing anything bad on purpose, just making mistakes. That's allowed. Is there anything you know of where he has done something wrong, plus been warned about it by an admin, and ignored the warning from the admin, and kept going ? Penyulap talk06:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't really have a complaint, I was just concerned about the large number of mistakes the user was making. I wasn't looking for my "complaint" to "go anywhere" except under the eyes of an admin who could decide whether the user needed something like mentoring. Since the "complaint" is general, I didn't provide diffs as a cursory look at the talk page explains it clearly. With that said, I'll keep your comments in mind if I ever decide to persecute a newbie. NoformationTalk12:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
ChristianandJericho has made simple newbie mistakes and has made an apology here showing respect for a more experienced editor. We need more editors like ChristianandJericho time to close this one or what ! Penyulap talk06:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering your edit-warring on his talk page, I think an interaction ban between the two of you might be a good idea. Find something more useful to do with your time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Whatever your problems (and the problems) with ChristianandJericho, edit warring to preserve the barnstar speaks for itself. I presume you weren't aware of WP:OWNTALK and the rights of user to remove nearly everything from their talk page at their absolute discretion until it was pointed out to you. Even so, while I can understand why people may mistakenly feel the need to preserve warnings and similar messages, trying to preserve a barnstar which is supposed to be a sort of honour (even if it was seemingly misused here) makes no sense. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
"Do you giggle when you see the boobies? I bet you do." At 13? He's not 8. Most 13 or 14 year olds on average have (illegally) viewed hardcore pornography and seen most if not all of the entire works in lurid detail. Usually some old dirty 70s or 80s videos of one of your friends' parents with a sound track like this LOL, or a thieved Mayfair or Penthouse with some ageing tart on the cover nicked by the paper boy and sold to you. C'mon he's 13, the hormones are off the scale, and remember what it was like to be his age. Beats me though why he would want to contribute here when he could be scouring the internet for naughty sites and images. Or has his parents blocked em all LOL. But to be honest I think there should be an 18 requirement for joining WP:Porn as it seems illegal LOL. But if he's stupid enough to declare his age...♦ Dr. Blofeld14:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
No need to get defensive, I was actually defending what it is like to be a 13 year old (before you were born) and treating what you are likely knowledgeable about with some humor I thought. But anything with pornography and age 13 in close proximity is going to attract a mass of unwanted attention and send out alarm bells. This discussion is more about that than you invalidly tagging articles for the chop. I know being 13 you feel a lot older amd more mature than it seems to us but from our perspective it is a very bad look to have declared 13 year old contributing to articles about hardcore pornography. A friendly word of advice would be to drop your user page tags and messages with attitude and get on with writing articles about wrestlers and stuff and try to keep a low profile. Why not try to get some collaborators and try to promote some articles like the legendary Hulk Hogan to WP:GA? Feel free to ask me if you want any help on anything. ♦ Dr. Blofeld15:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Admin comment: This ANI has been raised about concerns of inappropriate CSD tagging and/or other aspects of page patrolling. The only seriously disruptive behaviour by ChristianandJericho appears to be the immature approach to a process as fundamentally important as NPP. I suggest a topic ban from patrolling new pages until this editor has made 2,000 good manual edits to mainspace. Any involvement as a minor with page related to pornography should probably be the subject of a separate discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I think Kudpung is right. A lot of the comments here have been most unconstructive, and totally unfair to ChristianandJericho. I support the proposal for a topic ban. If ChristianandJericho would like to accept Swarm's offer of mentoring then that should be a helpful step forward. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, fantastic, I didn't see that someone else had offered mentorship. The self-imposed restrictions should be sufficient as well. Thanks, SudoGhost! Swarmu / t10:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Not to drag this out any more than necessary, but we still have a self-identified 13 year-old who is listed as a member of WikiProject Pornography and has a userbox that says "This user is a hard-core member of WikiProject Pornography". Mentorship seems like it might help address the other issues, but the "hot potato" issue of an underage user working on porn articles has not been resolved. SudoGhost, do you think you can do something about that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments like that are precisely why some of the editors commenting above have concerns about your editing at WP:PORN. Someone suggested that you lay low for a while and edit other things, to let the drama die down, and that's sound advice - which you promptly ignored. And that's concerning. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I haven't commented prior to this, but I've been following the conversation, and frankly I'm not seeing anything remotely encouraging here, and the lack of block is beginning to boggle me.--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's the thing though, when I joined WP:Porn I made sure there was no age limit, anyway I'll lay low for awhile but when the drama dies out, I'm going to edit those articles --ChristianandJericho14:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
ChristianandJericho, your argument seems to be that there is no "rule" against you editing porn articles, and you are right. That doesn't mean that you will be able to edit articles on pornography. Even if you wait until the drama dies down, someone like me will come here and ask that you be blocked. And you will be blocked, because having a 13 year-old editing porn articles is going to look really really bad if the press gets wind of it. I do not claim to know what laws might apply here, but I suggest that this has enough of a smell that any US-based admin who acknowledges knowing about this would be wise to block you unless they wish to find themselves in an unpleasant situation. Let me ask you a question. You feel that you, a 13 year-old, should not be restricted from editing articles on pornography (most, if not all, of which contain explicit images) - do you think a 10 year-old editor should be restricted from editing those articles? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion Despite the lack of policy violation, I believe it would be in WP's interest to ignore all rules here and slap a broadly construed topic ban on ChristianandJericho with regards to Porn articles until such time as a clarification is made by WMF. --Blackmane (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If the user has agreed to your terms and the discussion is immaterial, then why is the userbox still on his userpage?--v/r - TP17:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
This diff [99] where he offers to lay low and come back to the articles later doesn't seem to show him accepting a voluntary restriction, unless he's laying low for five years. Or here [100] where he says he'll fight to edit those articles eventually. Dayewalker (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
And? If he actually violates the restriction (which he has abided by thus far), there may be a basis for a ban. However, it's unnecessary at this point. Swarmu / t18:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to strongly concur with Penyulap that the thing about age and WikiProject porn is an unwelcome hijacking of the discussion. The RFC is running something like 10-0 against the proposed restriction. This is a non-starter of an idea. Just please, would the closing admin look at this issue without reference to the age thing, and declare that he is making the decision based on the deletions and prior blocks only! Wnt (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
And? he's explicitly stated that he plans to re-engage in edits in that area and fight to do so if necessary. The maturity level just does not seem to be here for this user and it looks like he's going to cause a large time sink with his behaviour, as he's already done, and that is not a net positive. Send him packing for 5 years to do some growing up and then let him take another stab at it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no rule against editing in that area. They haven't caused any disruption in the area. The disruptive editing was entirely unrelated. Do I think a 13 year old should be focusing on porn-related articles? No. Do I think the community should act as a WikiParent and ban him just because we don't like the idea? No, and here's why: the proposed age limit restrictions have been overwhelmingly rejected. We can't ban someone for failing to meet an age limit, while simultaneously rejecting said age limit. So, unless someone is actively planning on proposing a topic ban or a community ban, I don't see what else talking is going to accomplish. Swarmu / t00:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Moot point now
Regretfully, I agree. C&J doesn't seem to understand that, regardless of whether or not the rules say he can do something, doing it is not doing him any good. I'll leave him a message to see if I can explain it. Also, I stuck a header on this for ease of navigation. lifebaka++00:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I've looked at some of the evidence, and I at least slightly disagree. I still believe there is a chance for "mentoring back to reason", and the disruption is minor and yet still related to the whole WikiProject Pornography scandal. — Kudu~I/O~00:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why the indefinite block stops 'mentoring back to reason'. Remember an indefinite block is not a 'permanently block' and instead often a 'block until we are resonably certain we can trust the editor to edit again' which in a case like this is 'until they have reached a mentoring agreement and understand they do have to obey it if they wish to edit and understand why their previous behaviour was unacceptable under their agreement (and we resonably believe they will obey it)'. Note that the DGAF issue was part of what lead to his block and while easily resolved it was not part of the pornography problem. As for the porn issue, actually I find his behaviour which lead up to the block in some ways far worse then the porn issue. IMO regardless of how you feel about the fairness of the porn restriction, if he's going to agree to it he should obey it. Despite his age, I find it hard to believe he really can't understand why some people are concerned about it even if he doesn't agree with them. And therefore I find it hard to believe he didn't appreciate his attempt to keep himself listed as an inactive member was basically highly disruptive wikilaywering around an agreement or conditions. I know a few people believe this is an acceptable way to do things if they feel the agreement or conditions are unfair but IMO this is generally fairly disruptive on wikipedia. If you don't agree with something, either fight it openly, follow it despite you disagreement or leave. Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I've unblocked C&J as he's agreed to further restrictions. This isn't a comment on the above porn fiasco and if the user goes against the agreement, any admin can feel free to reblock. WormTT· (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
and the time sink just marches on. It is a comment on the porn fiasco since it's part of the restrictions and he's still stating his intent to directly return to it once this process is finished. By unblocking him you're commenting on that.--Crossmr (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Crossmr, they were blocked for violating editing restrictions and ignoring an explicit warning, not for saying they'll join WikiProject Porn once the mentorship is over. We're not their parents, we're not responsible or liable for them, and there's currently no consensus that I'm aware of that would prevent them from doing so if they wanted to. I don't think your comments are justified. Swarmu / t20:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit restrictions which involved Project pronography right? The current proposal to age limit was mostly rejected on a technical basis. We don't know every user's age so how can we enforce it? While the proposal won't pass, several did support it and But Seb hit the nail on the head with his support !vote. We also haven't heard from the foundation on the matter. It is one thing to have articles with images in them which may be considered pornographic open to any random person for reading. It's another thing to have a self-identified minor explicitly state that they're going to make those articles an area of their focus.--Crossmr (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
But that could've been uncovered with a simple google search. Crossmr, seriously, there is no reason to keep dragging this out. I understand the concerns, and if they cause disruption, I'll be the first to support a reblock. And, if we decide as a community that this particular user can't edit that particular area because of his young age, I will wholeheartedly support that too. However, short of that happening, this ANI thread is degenerating into unnecessary drama. Completely unnecessary, in fact. The problem has been remedied. The user has a mentor. They understand that they're on their last chance. I encourage you to keep an eye on them if you're suspicious, but as of now, the most damage that's being done is the drama caused by throwing more logs into the fire (i.e. dragging this thread out longer). I would respectfully ask that, for now, you let it go. Swarmu / t00:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
There has been a relevant proposal regarding minors and pornography-related articles. I encourage anyone here to weigh in and/or offer a different proposal. Swarmu / t19:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Let me see if I understand this. This user was blocked on 20 September not because of their competency, but because of issues their refusal to give up their "membership" in WikiProject Pornography. They were unblocked with conditions and mentorship. After only three (3) mainspace edits, they were blocked for competency issues. I guess that means we don't have to address that issue of this 13 year-old editing porn articles anymore. What do we do about the general case? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Of minors editing pornography articles? We'd have to take it on a case by case basis. The proposal was rejected on technical grounds (or it will be) since we don't age verify, but if someone identifies as a minor and then proclaims a strong interest in project pornography, then we'd have to look at that as a community. Frankly, I can't see what a 13 year old can bring to project pornography anyway. They're unlikely to be SMEs, have incredible experience in the area, or even be that well versed on the nitty gritty and background. Potentially they could do wikignome stuff, but why limit that to pornography?--Crossmr (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Crossmr, you say that this is something to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but perhaps you could outline circumstances wherein a self-identified 13 year-old would be welcome to edit pornography articles? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
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.
Manual of Style says all articles start with a capital letter. The article itself can explain the details of the way that site styles itself. P.S. This is not an admin matter. It should be posted on the article's talk page.apparently Not. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Logos and names aren't always the same thing, they often aren't the same thing really. Remember that a logo is still just a picture that represents a brand, and even when it includes text it doesn't necessarily mean that's the official name. Myspace does the same thing, they officially capitalize the first letter even though their logo doesn't. I think it's more useful to look at a company's press releases for guidance rather than their logos. -- Atama頭00:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The full quote is 'When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner' (emphasis mine). All of the independent sources in the article use 'wikiHow', as do about 90% of sources on a few different types of Google search. Common sense would suggest that properly reflecting usage in sources is better than dictating a representation that is not in widespread use. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On July 20, 2011 ZooFari removed an image from Dale Folwell's page due to a question over its copyright protection. I probably didn't fill out the license forms correctly, as I am a new user.
The file is titled Dale_NCGA_2011.jpg. It is owned by the State of North Carolina and not copyright protected. You can refer to the state legislature's website disclaimer. Refer to the use of photographs and graphics section.
Furthermore, the office in charge of the photographs supplied the following clause from the state's contract with its photographer.
"The photographs selected for the House and Senate Rules Directories and placed on the NCGA’s web page will become the property of the State and as such are public records. By acceptance of the award of this contract the undersigned agrees that the copyright to the selected pictures is transferred to and vests in the State of North Carolina."
What do I have to do to regain use of the photograph?
The problem is that they state they are a public record, but then they go on to state that the State of North Carolina retains copyright. It is possible for something to be both copyrighted and in the public record, but it is kind of unusual. Look forward to hearing a response. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
They then go on to say "Photos of House and Senate Members on the individual NCGA Web Site member webpages are not posted without copyright release so they are considered in the public domain." —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think they mean that some photographs, including the official pictures of the House and Senate members, are public domain, but that not every picture on every part of the website can necessarily be assumed to be public domain. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
"Photos...that are not posted without copyright release...are considered in the public domain" What kind of sense does that make? Buffs (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It actually makes perfect sense, if we don't insert the word "that". Photos of Members are not posted without copyright release. In other words, if Senator Smith didn't release copyright, they wouldn't have posted his photo. So all posted photos have been released, in other words in the public domain. --GRuban (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Putting the cart before the horse here. The conclusion is erroneous: you cannot conclude that the photos are in the public domain because they lack a copyright release. Buffs (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
One more time - the State of North Carolina writes that the photos would not have been posted if they lacked a copyright release. In other words, the photos have a copyright release. --GRuban (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin please have a look at Folwellla's user page? It seems on its face to be violating the rule against role accounts. It appears to be done in innocence and good faith, but still. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
If taken literally, the declaration on the user page is a clear violation on our policy against role accounts. I'll ask for a clarification on the editor's talk page, but if I can't get a response from them I might just block the account. -- Atama頭19:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Please also discuss conflict of interest with them. And they certainly could release a picture for our use, as well. :) - Nunh-huh19:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll be sure to. I thanked them for declaring up-front who they are (and thus acknowledging the conflict of interest) and if they're communicative I might pass along some of our suggestions we make to COI editors. You make a good point about the photo, also. That's one reason why I try to be welcoming to good-faith COI editors, they can sometimes make helpful contributions that would be more difficult for other editors with less access to the article subject. -- Atama頭19:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Their edit regarding Folwell's same-sex marriage amendment struck me as somewhat disingenuous, but the rest of the article isn't as egregiously slanted. - Nunh-huh19:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The user Kurdo777 has once again placed two dispute tags [103] that were removed by different users before: [104] and [105]
Kurdo777 only left this comment to 'justify' their inclusion [106]. As it stands, the article Azerbaijani-Americans appears to be better written and better sourced than analogous articles such as Iranian-American (where Kurdo777 is very active), yet the disproportionate attention and persistence in placing these "dispute" tags by Kurdo777 are just astounding. Kurdo777 does not leave any real justification for these tags, he does not explain what merits for either of the tags to be there. He also threatens unspecific action in case tags are removed. --Saygi1 (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
From that discussion, it appears that he is not the only person who has a dispute with the article. Why is it so important that the tag be taken down, when multiple people have posted on the article's talk page citing problems with the article? There is clearly a dispute, with distinct sides and multiple people on the sides. I can't see where Kurdo777 is acting in bad faith, and there is clear evidence that multiple people in good faith object to the state of the article. That sounds like a dispute to me. --Jayron3217:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
In order for there to be a genuine dispute, one has to properly state what does he/she object to. One can't just declare he has a dispute and then call up a few buddies to offer some semblance of "dispute". As it stands, there is no dispute - user Kurdo777 and his collaborator Alborz Fallah, with whom they edit Iranian-related pages (e.g., Iranian-American, do not elaborate on their objections. These tags have been removed by different users (as shown above), and frankly, they make no sense at all: 1) in one case Kurdo777 tries to dispute "factual accuracy" (the tag calls for "reliable sources") - well, there is not a single (!) unreliable source in the article, indeed, there are more citations and references than in the Iranian-American article; and 2) in the second case, he tries to dispute "neutrality", whilst not specifying what does he mean: neutrality of which sources? What neutrality, over what, over whom? This is an article about an group of people in America, not about some bilateral or multilateral topic where one can argue about neutrality as there could be multiple perspectives. In an article about a conflict, there are two or more sides, but in an article about a group of people in a country, unless they are in the middle of some scandal of their doing, there can be only single/one mainstream view of them, and that's typically from the government of the country and from them themselves. If sources cited are verifiable (they all are) and reliable (all are from a good mix of sources: US government, US universities, officially registered and recognized US NGOs, and reputable US media outlets), then what problem can anyone have with them? By that measure, I should afix both of these same tags to the Iranian-American article (and many other similar articles about hyphenated Americans) as I've been editing it and don't like some of its content, and find actions of some editors there non-neutral (e.g., removing references to Jews, removing references of the U.S. Marines official manual on Iranian people, etc). --Saygi1 (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
First of all, Saygi1 starts his comment with a false statement, he says "Iranian-American page, where Kurdo777 is very active" when I have not edited that article for as long as I remember. Secondly, the main issue here is Saygi1, he is a problematic user with a battle-ground mentality, engaged in nationalistic disruption all over Wikipedia. He was just blocked twice last week on one related article, and I strongly suspect him of being a resurrection of an Arbcom-sanctioned/banned user given his expert-level familiarity with Wikipedia when he started editing with this new username a few months ago, and his patten of edit-warring and causing disruption in a topical area (Azerbaijan) that's subject to ArbCom sanctions, where socks are frequently used in ethnic-nationalistic disputes. (see more details about Saygi1's conduct here). Besides making false statements in order to fish here, he is also acting in bad-faith, unilaterally removing a dispute tag from a disputed article, and labeling opposing editors as this and that, when the article in question (Azerbaijani-American) suffers from multiple issues like fringe definitions, and usage of synthesized material from questionable non-academic sources in order to exaggerate the numbers for lobbying purposes. Also, during the month of September, the dispute tag has been applied and reapplied by at least 4 different unrelated editors of completely different background, before being removed over and over by Saygi1.[107][108][109][110] Given the evidence above, I think it's time for Saygi1 to either be banned or at least be put on the Armenia-Azerbaijan Arbcom sanctions which would limit his ability to wage edit-wars and disrupt Azerbaijan-related Wikipedia articles. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice, I didn't expect anything else from Kurdo777 but a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations and attacks that are all over the place - except the page Azerbaijani American where he once again fails to explain his persistent inserts of the two irrelevant tags (as well as the insertion of those tags by his friends from among those known to edit Iran-related pages. So Kurdo777, please use this opportunity to clearly state, case-by-case, source-by-source, what exactly are you objecting to and why are those two tags, or even one tag, merited in the article. Also, please assume good faith and don't make such attacks. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not dispute resolution, and any discussion concerning Kurdo777's -- or any editor's -- objections to the article should take place on the article talk page, not here. However, in terms of behavior, it is worth noting that Saygi1 appears to routinely charge that any editors who disagree with him are "friends" who are in cahoots with each other. This seems to be an attempt to downplay legitimate differences of opinion by negating his opponents as meatpuppets. Saygi1 should control this propensity, and deal with editors who disagree with his judgement as distinct and legitimate participants in the discussion.
Beyond My Ken, the reason I say "friends" is not because I use that word lightly, but because it reflects the record of the users, who've edited same articles over some time. Kurdo777 and Alborz Fallah are definitely friends, they edited multiple articles, always in sync, and that applies to other users as well, who even call each other "doost e man" (my friend) - here on Kurdo's talk page[111]. Meanwhile, I invite more checking into all users involved, from 5aul (whose edits I've previously removed or objected, by the way) to Kurdo777 who can't elaborate on his stance and is just debating for the sake of debating. --Saygi1 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, it was not Alborz but me who called Kurdo777 doost-e man. I am not a party o the Azerbaijan-American dispute anymore (just have made some talkpage comments before and my last one now), but not editing it. As per Kurdo777, I urge him to not waste time on the Azerbaijani rticle and Sayig1 not waste time on the Iranian-American article. It is best actually to let users not from the region edit such articles.. Just to note my involvement in iranian-American was clean up of the lead and making new sections for variety of opinions. I hope everyone can edit peacefully before new sanctions. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
First of all, calling someone "doost man" (my friend, dear friend etc) is a common sign of respect in Middle Eastern cultures, and it doesn't mean the person addressing you is literally your friend. Secondly, that was not even Alborz who made that comment on my talk page. But this is a common trait in User:Saygi1's comments, he throws false statements all over the place, hoping something would stick, like earlier when he claimed that I am "very active on Iranian-Americans" page when I haven't touched that page in ages. In short, he is trying to deflect attention from himself for obvious reasons. Finally, speaking of being "in sync", as User:Beyond My Ken has pointed out, someone should just check the the editing history of User:5aul, a "new user" who just appeared out of the blue to remove tags, make blind reverts, and basically assist User:Saygi1, and User:Atabəy. (an editor who is under sever ArbCom sanctions in this topical area) Kurdo777 (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Kurdo777, please assume good faith and stay clear of such blind and totally groundless accusations as some allegation of some "false statements" (where? gives us some diffs, please, along with proof that anything said was "false"). Isn't it you who has placed and defended the placement of the dispute tag without being able to justify it, and have in general been engaged in what can be considered as disruptive behavior on Azerbaijani American? As of "doost man" being a "common sign of respect in Middle Eastern cultures", then please note that me saying that Kurdo777 and Alborz Fallah are "friends" in Western culture doesn't mean they live together, eat together or hold hands, either. In fact, due to social media, people might have never met in "real" life and yet still be considered and identified as "friends". So when I classified you two as "friends" - and I stand by that label - all I meant was that you guys edit same and similar pages, help each other, agree with each other, and aside from making positive contributions, also act in tandem in your negative contributions, such as on the Azerbaijani American page. So calling you two as "friends" is very appropriate. I didn't say you were close friends, or best friends, or like brothers, or otherwise - just "friends". --Saygi1 (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that uninvolved admins take note that contributions concerning Azerbaijan are still under Arbcom sanction, and that all editors in this area should be kept under close scrutiny, as the nationalistic disputes which provoked two Arbcom cases are still clearly current, and there appears to be a significant degreee of ownership behavior being exhibited. The Arbcom sanction says:
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Looking at the Enforcement Log I see that admins have not been shy about enforcing this sanction in the past, and they should continue to actively do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
BMK, the article Azerbaijani American is not about just Azerbaijan, indeed, it's mostly not about Azerbaijan. So thanks for your concerns, but not every article that uses the terms with the letters "a" "z" "e" "r" "b" "a" "i" "j" "a" "n" in it is "concerning Azerbaijan" or Armenia, for that matter (the Arbcom is about that, it seems, the disputes that relate to the nation-states of Azerbaijan and Armenia, and their common subjects). As we can see, Azerbaijani American has far more in common with Turkish American, Iranian American, Russian American, etc., than it has with Azerbaijan or Armenia. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
[112] (Marginal, it just says the edits are in violation of Wikipedia policies, without naming the editors)
[113] (Statement that only Americans are allowed to edit the article)
[114] (Accusing an editor or editors of insulting him, when it's really a request that he back up the preceding entry)
[115] (Accusing, clearly incorrectly, an editor of calling him a liar; also <possibly> accidentally reverting that same editor's comments.)
[116] (I can't think of anything this might be except a personal attack, of yet another editor.)
[117] (Seems to be threatening me, in response to my comment that he should be blocked. Note that anyone with a basic knowledge of English would note that I didn't say I was going to block him.)
Some of his other edits are merely attacking Wikipedia's policies, which may not be "personal attacks", but does show a lack of intent to abide by those policies. I'm requesting feedback on whether he should be blocked, under the circumstances. I'd rather not attempt to invoke the 9/11 Arbcom ruling, but that is, I suppose, another option. — Arthur Rubin(talk)02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh look, a "Malleus was a meanie" topic. Can we just take a shortcut to to the end and save us about 12 hours of steel cage grudge matches as all the usual suspects climb into the ring to get their shots in? We all know that the end result of this will just be some admin's witty "more heat than light"-esque closing statement. Tarc (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The simplest and most direct way of ending the the dramaz would be to simply block him, lock his User Talk page, and throw away the key. But my guess is that isn't what you're looking for, but can't be bothered to concoct new excuses for his behavior. --Calton | Talk02:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of any connection between the subject of this section and the last editor, is there any evidence that Malleus is attempting to do anything but disrupt discussion in this article? For all I know, he may be doing good work in other articles and/or subjects. — Arthur Rubin(talk)02:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Of those diffs, the only one that comes close to a persoanl attack is the second to last, and that doesn't rise to a level that would justify any action. The only thing we're going to get here is drama, which is all that ever results from a trip to ANI, especially one involving Malleus, so what are we hoping to achieve here? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Should no-one dare to complain here if the complaint concerns Malleus?
I don't recall running into Malleus before. If he's really that sort of an editor, perhaps Calton's suggestion is the most appropriate. Again, I may not block him in regard 9/11, at least under the 9/11 sanctions. Either WP:ANI or WP:AN is the appropriate forum to discuss someone who I think should be blocked, if I cannot or may not do it myself. — Arthur Rubin(talk)02:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
ZOMG! Malleus is - gasp! - bluntly putting forward a view on the quality of an article. Time for a Latin lesson, not an AN/I report. --Shirt58 (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Ummm, no. To give him as much rope good faith as possible, he's putting forward a view that Wikipedia polices make it impossible to make the article what he thinks it should be. That's a bit different than "putting forward a view on the quality of an article". Or, at least, he should comment about the policies, rather than about the article. — Arthur Rubin(talk)03:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I've given plenty of Latin lessons. I didn't come here to try to teach Latin to a foul-mouthed know-it-all who thinks others should lick his shoes just because he thinks he knows Latin. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you not see any inconsistency in your "foul-mouthed know-it-all ..." comments when accusing others of using far less abrasive language? MalleusFatuorum03:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm all confused here. I thought we had the "OMG Malleus is being uncivil!!" threads starting on Tuesday. Who changed the schedule? Franamax (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Since march 2010 Malleus seems to have only been blocked for about one hour and twenty mins, which is quite a decent record. I don't see much value in this report - there is a comment in the thread that is at least as attacking as anything in the diffs presented. The issue is resolved as in no action can be taken in regard to the discretionary sanctions as they appear to require notification. User:NW has given that notification on Malleus's talkpage while this thread has been open and so unless there are future violations that is it basically resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Blocking for disruption doesn't require a warning, but we'll see what Malleus does with the warning. It appears that no immediate admin action will be taken, no matter how justified, so we'll see if the editor(s) warned heed the warnings. — Arthur Rubin(talk)03:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I realize I'm late to the game, but isn't this a clear indication that he is both abusive to other editors, and has no intention of following wiki policy? Why is this being debated? VanIsaacWScontribs06:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm probably adding heat, not light--but this, Arthur Rubin, is kind of a cop-out. If MF's words are such terrible violations you should simply block him, whether you're involved in some minor way or not--or even if you're involved in some major way. Involved in what, anyway? Edits to the talk page? Or to WP:NPA? Besides, no amount of involvement prevents you from starting an AN thread and calling for a ban. MF has a point in his response: you won't like how would end up, because such a call would go nowhere. Close, please. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Drmies, you are an admin? Wow. In no way should an Admin every block a user for an NPA/Civility issue when said admin is involved in the discussion. Such would be a blatant abuse of Admin Priviledges and regardless of how justified the admin felt they were, would be a bigger issue than Arthur's original complaint.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon08:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Per HJ Mitchell and Drmies, these infractions are not so serious as to merit admin action. I've queried with Arthur what exactly he meant here, as it really doesn't make sense to me at the moment. There's been a furor at the 9/11 article because Malleus asked for a GAR and there's been a lot of spirited debate about whether the article meets NPOV and the Good Article criteria. This is now I think the third AN/I thread about it. There have been heated words from a lot of participants on all sides there. To focus this on some misrepresented and/or innocuous remarks (at least by Malleus's earthy standards) makes this seem like a frivolous complaint. Let it rest, for now, but the area certainly needs enforcement by somebody prepared to read the whole story. It's important that such enforcement be even-handed and not focus on one person. I think a lot of us on both sides have said things in the heat of the moment that we could have phrased better, but to focus on Malleus would be to focus on one side of this and not see the whole story. --John (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and here is the diff where MONGO says "Perhaps people outside the U.S. have been influenced by too many biased anti-American treatises on the subject matter. Repeatedly, the vast majority of those that keep saying the article is POV are not Americans." which is likely to be what Malleus is referring to in the cited diff. Arthur Rubin's misrepresentation of this diff (his number 2) may be mistaken, in which case I would expect him to show good faith, apologize to Malleus, and censure MONGO. Over to you, Arthur. --John (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Malleus, I am truly disappointed in you... the level of civility that I've seen in the past few ANI complaints brought against you is nothing compared to that which made you notorious a few years back... these posts are, well, down right tame compared to the Malleus of the 2008/2009 era. But let's go through the cited issues:
How can this edit be deemed uncivil? If it was made by anybody other than Malleus, it would not have been cited.
So let me get this straight. Malleus made a comment. The veracity of the comment is called into question basically saying that the statement is not true or a lie. Malleus takes that challenge as a personal affront of somebody questioning his integrity and calling him a liar. Did the person use the word "liar"? No. But that may be how Malleus took the challenge. Does that mean he clearly incorrectly accused somebody of calling him a liar? No.
Yup, there's the Malleus of old... I knew you were in there somewhere. Ok, this one I'll give you. It is a personal attack. Malleus, please review the policy wp:civil and provide a 500 word essay on what you think about NPA.
You indicate that if you weren't involved in the article that you would block him and seek a ban. He responds with, Just try it, and see where you end up. I doubt you'll enjoy it. I don't see it as a threat, I see it as a warning/statement of fact. Malleus in an ANI Magnet. He gets more complaints than most people, but by and large most of the complaints I've seen against him have been frivolous or overblown. Most people who have either blocked Malleus or threatened to block him have come to regret the decision because A) the individual complaint is weak (as is this one) and B) it is extremely difficult to get things to stick against Malleus. He knows this, so his statement is somewhat a warning, not a threat. I mean, what is he threatening you with? Is he going to block you? Is he going to say something that would hurt your feelings? No, he knows that after a myriad of bogus ANI complaints he is somewhat bulletproof and that you need something stronger than what you've shown here to get consensus to impose sanctions against him. Sorry, not a threat, but a statement of reality.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon08:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be a content dispute and not a suitable topic for this board. I'm not normally a fan of Malleus, but if editors there are so defensive that they'll respond to his saying "The suggestion I've seen made that only Americans should be allowed to edit this article just beggars belief" by reporting that here as a "(Statement that only Americans are allowed to edit the article)", then perhaps this is an occasion where Malleus's special talents could be put to good use. Needless to say it is utterly unacceptable to limit any article on Wikipedia to only be edited by the citizens of one particular country. However I have confidence that Malleus Fatuorum can resolve the situation himself without the need for reinforcements from here. ϢereSpielChequers09:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
One thing is slightly different about this particular Malleus AN/I report. That difference is that it's still going on for some reason, when clearly it should be over with. Someone should do what is normally done (outside of reminding the reporter of their "overreacting", which has been done already) and put this poor thread out of its misery. You know: resolved tag with clever/humorous summation, archive, collapse. The usual routine. Doctalk10:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
At List of wars 2003-2010, a person named Lena Mitnik keeps vandalizing the article. A few editors including myself have reverted the person vandalism, but the person doesn't get the message. Could someone help me out here? B-Machine (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Why do you call those edits vandalism? From a cursory look, they do not appear to be bad-faith edits, but I could be missing something. That said, I've issued a warning because she appears to be edit warring; by the way, you should notify her she's being discussed on ANI. SalvioLet's talk about it!13:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
User:93.45.60.12 continues to revert my changes to the Mont Blanc page. See the history page. He 1. insists that the Italian flag should precede the French flag in the infobox (despite the usual method being AZ ordering, where France would precede Italy); 2. he inserts material about the Mont Blanc massif to the page, despite being told that such material doesn't just refer to Mont Blanc and belongs on the Mont Blanc massif page; and 3. he refuses to discuss any of this on the article talk page, despite there being a new section created for the creation of consensus. Ericoides (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, no, it is what it is. I suspect, but don't know for certain, that the complaintant's "copyright infringement" case is pretty much non-existent, and that the WMF legal eagles will see the "cease and desist" order for what it is, one person's over-zealous attempt to claim more rights for their creation than are actually provided for by copyright law. But IANAL, so we'll see. In any event, the place for them to prove their case in is a court of law, and not in rogue "cease and desist" orders. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The IP 115.184.49.207 has begun to contribute at Paravar in the last few hours. Comparison of User:ThenPandyan with User_talk:115.184.49.207 strongly suggests that the editor is the IP who then registered (which is generally A Good Thing, IMO). There may be cause for moving the IP's talk page over to the registered user & revdel'ing on the grounds of geolocation etc. Can anyone deal with this in a more authoritative manner than myself? (I am not an admin, and so could only do a copy of the TP in any event). Or am I being too sensitive? In the scale of current India-related caste issues it may be thought to be minor but I would appreciate some uninvolved consideration because these things certainly at present tend to blow up. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The geolocation isn't terribly specific, as I assume multiple castes live in pretty much every area of India. I'd suggest simply continuing the conversation at the user's new talk page and not worrying about it. If the user himself wants it RevDel'd, I'd be happy to, but otherwise I doubt it'll matter. Cheers. lifebaka++03:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
"he wasn't a fool but was doing everything right. it's just too difficult to fight against people who are paid to fight in wikipedia. but don't give up guys i'm going to rejoin you soon. you were a fool in fact, nanobear, not him, instead of helping us you just stood aside and looked at what was happening, and then wrote this stupid comment. fuck you DD"
I've got a pretty good idea of who the IP is and was headed to block for block evasion. Anyway, I've removed the comments, since grave dancing isn't exactly what I would call awesome. I'll look to make sure more of the same doesn't happen. Cheers. lifebaka++04:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Oops, edit conflict I guess :P feel free to run over my block if he is evading, I'd rather both of them be the reason, than just NPA (aka you could go for a longer block, not that they won't jump to the next IP) -- DQ (t) (e)05:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, no, it is what it is. I suspect, but don't know for certain, that the complaintant's "copyright infringement" case is pretty much non-existent, and that the WMF legal eagles will see the "cease and desist" order for what it is, one person's over-zealous attempt to claim more rights for their creation than are actually provided for by copyright law. But IANAL, so we'll see. In any event, the place for them to prove their case in is a court of law, and not in rogue "cease and desist" orders. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The IP 115.184.49.207 has begun to contribute at Paravar in the last few hours. Comparison of User:ThenPandyan with User_talk:115.184.49.207 strongly suggests that the editor is the IP who then registered (which is generally A Good Thing, IMO). There may be cause for moving the IP's talk page over to the registered user & revdel'ing on the grounds of geolocation etc. Can anyone deal with this in a more authoritative manner than myself? (I am not an admin, and so could only do a copy of the TP in any event). Or am I being too sensitive? In the scale of current India-related caste issues it may be thought to be minor but I would appreciate some uninvolved consideration because these things certainly at present tend to blow up. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The geolocation isn't terribly specific, as I assume multiple castes live in pretty much every area of India. I'd suggest simply continuing the conversation at the user's new talk page and not worrying about it. If the user himself wants it RevDel'd, I'd be happy to, but otherwise I doubt it'll matter. Cheers. lifebaka++03:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
"he wasn't a fool but was doing everything right. it's just too difficult to fight against people who are paid to fight in wikipedia. but don't give up guys i'm going to rejoin you soon. you were a fool in fact, nanobear, not him, instead of helping us you just stood aside and looked at what was happening, and then wrote this stupid comment. fuck you DD"
I've got a pretty good idea of who the IP is and was headed to block for block evasion. Anyway, I've removed the comments, since grave dancing isn't exactly what I would call awesome. I'll look to make sure more of the same doesn't happen. Cheers. lifebaka++04:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Oops, edit conflict I guess :P feel free to run over my block if he is evading, I'd rather both of them be the reason, than just NPA (aka you could go for a longer block, not that they won't jump to the next IP) -- DQ (t) (e)05:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Disruptive copy and paste Advocacy editor across multiply pages
User:Tamsier has been warned so many times by so many different editors i am exhausted of dealing with them. See there contributions as evidence. [Tamsier]. They are at war with everyone, and finally they brought the war to me with their incivility. Anyway, what is of concern is a particular tone is being copy and pasted across various wiki articles into Senegambia related themes. Not to mention the NPOV violation and terrible unreliable sources used to push a ethnic point which advocates nobility of their ethnicity. Finally they have (on their own) redirected numerous Arab slave related articles to Islamic ones. They saw it fit to do this on their own based on their opinion of anything Islamic and Arabic. The contributions to wikipedia I feel are disruptive and other admins have warned them and it is not working. It is a problem as time spent here should be spent improving articles. Not vindictive editing.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This editor Halaqah among with Kwamikagmi have used their position and connections and have been in constant edit wars agains me for days now. I have reported them both here [118] and here [119] as well as here [120] yet nothing has been done even when vulgar language is used by the two reported. And as for Halaqah as you can see in the report, their language against me has been so insulting yet not single editor or administrator injected and told this passing off eventhough that statement has been visible for 24 hours and seen by the editors. Instead, everytime I reported these people they found in their favour. I do not have a gang of Wiki editors/ administrators to come to my aid in complaints or discussions. I do it by my own merit. Halaqah has been continually disrupting edits since they decided to wage edit wars against me. Most of this is to do with Islam V Serer religion. Any edit about the Serer people's experience with islam in their history this person views as anti islamic even if they are sourced with notable sources and they are direct quotes from the author [121].
This person also accused me of not providing a reliable source in their attempt to discredit the author as in here: [122] but not only have I have provided the source and quotation of the author, they say that the author does not exist or is fashion designer or editor who knows nothing about the history of Africa. The author in question is of course Elisa Daggs, which this person is so obsessed with eventhough Elisa Daggs in merely quoted once and certainly not more than twice in each respective article that is Serer related and where the content or context is appropriate to quote her. This person Halaqah deleted the source and quote I have cited as in here [123] The quoted Elisa Daggs is totally different from the fashion editor/designer this Halaqah googled and then expressed their opinion that the person is not notable / reliable. Here is Elisa' book [124] and here [125] and here it is reviewed as one of the best books to read among with other authors on African history as well as African politics[126].
This Halaqah even went on to say that, just because Elisa Daggs does not have a page on Wiki, she is not notable. See Senegal talk page (above). I don't know if there is any truth in this but if this is true then most articles on Wiki are wrongly sourced. Also in the Serer religion talk page, this Halaqah expressed their own opinion rather than providing sources by saying the Almoravid (Arabized Berbers) didn't bring Islam to Senegal [127] and in their opinion, deleted my sources. This has gone on for long enough. After several reports and complains nothing has been done instead they find in their favour. Judgement should never be about how many friends you have here. It should be judicially applied regardless of who you are and how many friends you have here. I stand on my own two feet and do not depend on any body to come to my aid in discussion or conflicts. I expect others to do the same. Tamsier (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to report users Wikidoctor956, XSciencegamer3 and IP 76.105.185.164 for attempting to introduce a non-existent person into Wikipedia. First, Ariel S. Orasud was added as one of the inventors of MRI at the MRI page by 76.105.185.164 (1). Having not heard of this person, I ran a Google search and turned up no trace. I asked on the talk page if anyone else had heard of Orasud and Yoganate79 confirmed the edit as bogus (2). Users XSciencegamer3 and Wikidoctor956 then created a page for Ariel S. Orasud (now speedy deleted at my request (3)), deleted my query at the MRI talk page (4), and attempted to reintroduce Orasud to the MRI page (5). XSciencegamer3 also tried to introduce Orasud on the X-ray generator page (6) and Wikidoctor956 introduced Orasud to the Neuroergonomics page (although this was undone almost immediately) (7).
As far as I can tell, none of these three users have introduced a single helpful edit.
Thanks for nailing these. Blocked the two accounts indef and the IP for a month. (My block of the accounts immediately caught the IP in an autoblock, which means it's been stable for the last few weeks at least.) Fut.Perf.☼15:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Over the past month, I kept an eye on Bad good dragosh98. He was a disruptive editor who vandalized the articles involving FC Vaslui. However, I managed to contact him and tried to explain him what he did wrong, and that he should ask me for help anytime he wants. It seemed that he understood. Over the last month, I checked his edits and corrected his many mistakes, and noticed him about. But it was all in vain, because he doesn't seem to understand anything. He still edits false information, and in some cases he even vandalize.
There are many many other articles like that. I don't deny that probably he has done some good edits, but the mostly are bad. When I asked him why he edited false info, he said "`cause I wanted so" or "just for fun". And by the way, I think his English, on a scale from 1 to 10, is situated somewhere around 0.001. For instance, he renamed "Out on loan", because he believed that it meant "Sold and loaned". Alexynho (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I suggested to Alexynho that he start another ANI thread. The old one is in the archives somewhere and ended with the hope that some mentoring would be helpful, but that seems to have been in vain. I agree that Dragosh's edits are not a positive to the project. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This editor has a habit of performing undiscussed and controversial page moves combined with an unwillingness to discuss these. Here is a summary of recent problems; see the previous discussion linked to above for earlier cases. Undiscussed page moves: Ajax, YOG, FC Bayern Munich, EPL, YOG. Phanuruch has a problem understanding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and a dislike for disambiguation in general. Unheeded messages have been left on his talk page here, here and, finally, here, but today he did this. As a curiosity, Phanuruch has tried to impose a policy forbidding signatures on his talk page, but was reminded that this was not acceptable.
It is clear that something has to be done. A number of Phanuruch's edits are constructive, which is why I raise the issue here rather than just send him off. In my opinion, an unrefusable offer of mentoring is the only alternative to a block. Favonian (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that either mentorship and heavy supervision is the only way forward, other than a block. Phanuruch has paid almost no attention to the previous ANI discussion or to any messages left on his talk page, with his persistent page moves being a good example, though he has at least stopped making cut and paste moves. He persistently creates rather bizzare pages and templates, such as Template:ProjectLogo just today, and there are plenty more in Special:DeletedContributions/Phanuruch8555. A further problem is his continuous stream of dodgy image uploads, most of which are non-free, and are being uploaded outside WP:NFCC. I and others have nominated the problematic ones for deletion (some are already deleted), although Phanuruch has not co-operated with such action, and has demonstrated a willingness to edit war over the addition of tags in order to save the images, as can be found here. On the sidenote he has also been causing disruption on Commons, which is being dealt with separately. CT Cooper ·talk13:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Given that this has been going for months now, through numerous warnings - here's one of mine from 30 August - hardly any of which Phanuruch has ever acknowledged (indeed most of the time he's simply continued his problematic behaviour), I have blocked him for a week as a starting point. It is not acceptable for him to continue wasting editor's time through a simple lack of competence. Black Kite (t)(c)20:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a one week block is a good starting point to get a message across that such behaviour is not going to be tolerated any more. CT Cooper ·talk20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Crikey, all this happened back in April and has lain unremarked ever since. But it does seriously change the content and usefulness of the article. I hesitate to step into Anglo-Irish editing fields, but is there not room for TWO srticles; one on the surname [[Ó Raghallaigh]] (and pretty much in its present form) while the Anglicised version and its exemplars could live at [[Riley]] where it started? Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)22:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been reverting and undoing so much on this article ranging from WP:OR, WP:FANSITE, WP:OWN and WP:VANDAL that IPs had done. They also removed and mixed content on the article, its been attracting a lot of vandals since the show is currently airing. The article went up for semi-protection three times before it was extended through October 2011. The article's vandalism wined down, however, some of the IPs registered for an account and began adding speculations on the show, which was a major issue when the show was not aired, it was subsequently nominated for deletion. Currently the article has problems with WP:CHRYSTAL. On 22 September 2011, User:Junebea1 had added two episodes (due to air within two weeks) without a source. I removed his additions because of WP:CHRYSTAL. His response was "TV Guide is my source.". He did not add the source, I did verify that it was true. But he did not give a source, so I removed it again because of the rules. He subsequently undid my edit stating that the other episodes didn't have a source before they were aired - which isn't a valid argument to justify that these new additions should be added without a source. I couldn't redo his edit because I was blocked before because of WP:3RR so I kindly add a Citation Needed tag. He removed that, so out of WP:AGF I went and added the sources. The next day, User:Awesome444a444 had added information regarding a new castmember to his knowledge she will be arriving in the house in the next episode. I removed it because it did not include a single source and fail WP:CHRYSTAL. However, the next day User:Junebea1 added everything back. However, User:MikeAllenreverted some of the vandalism. I recently removed all of it. I'm pretty sure they are going to add everything back. I don't know what to do now. There's currently a discussion about a WP:BLP issue with the article. Can someone come in and help? Thanks, Jonayo!Selena 4 ever03:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This is definitely an issue. Your warnings are well-founded in policy, yet they're being ignored; let's see if we can fix that. I'll step in and ask the two offending editors to be less hasty with their additions. m.o.p04:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your service to the community for helping resolve problems. We really need your help on the Bible article. We have talked at great length about putting a statement about Divine inspiration in the lead, with a redirect to the section. After myself and four other editors (Dougweller, kwami, Supt. of Printing, Lugnad) agreed it should be done, I put it back in with 6 RS. This is the majority Christian view that our Holy Book is Divinely inspired. User Slrubenstein has shown strong bias against the Bible as divinely inspired. After strong community support was reached (though not all editors agreed) Slrubenstein removed the agreed upon addition, and said I needed to talk more. We have talked so much about it, I am not going to be able to change his mind. We already have 5 editors in support. Here is the diff: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Bible&action=historysubmit&diff=452391139&oldid=452390932. I have talked a lot with him. I told him I was planning to go to ANI. He has not changed. WP policy says that all majority views are to be covered in the article. Divine inspiration is one of the most important characteristics of the Bible according to Christians and should be at least mentioned in the lead. Please help. WalkerThrough (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a content issue, which is not to be solved here. Walkerthrough has been editwarring to enforce his editorial judgment at the expense of those of others. That has to stop. You are misrepresenting the opinion of the five editors you mention - they have not expressed support for your version, but varying degrees of agreement that a statement about the belief in the bible as diveinely inspired should be mentioned somewhere in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·19:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The editor has been, appropriately I think, given a 24 hour timeout. Xe has been editing warring on several articles to use the Bible as a reliable source for history. At least one Christian who shares the same beliefs (which are pretty fundamentalist) has given some wise advise on how to edit which has been ignored. Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow. OK, here's what was really going on. WalkerThrough has altered the Bible article multiple times to include fundamentalistic Christian views about the divine origin of the biblical text. He has been reverted numerous times by a number of other editors who have also informed him that he was violating WP:NOR, SP:SYN, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:RNPOV, WP:HEAR, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. I had told WalkerThrough that I would take this matter to ANI today if he would not change his conduct and stop his diruptive editing, for which he has been warned before (the notices of which he removed from his talk page). He is now taking this to ANI himself in an effort to force an outcome that would favor his position.
Well, he is new to WP and has strong convictions. It may take a while to make this one respect the rules. So what should be done when his current block is over? Watch his conduct for a few days and the decide what to do further? Maybe he really is sincere in wanting to adhere to WP rules although my first impression would be otherwise, which is why I brought him to your attention... ♆ CUSH ♆21:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
On the content issue, there is great merit in WalkerThrough's case. I am sure that if he/she had the patience to build a consensus on the talk page, he/she would probably get something he/she find acceptable. WalkerThrough - please abandon this confrontational approach and try to build a consensus on the talk page. If you listen to those who find fault, and then find acceptable sources that meet their objections, you would probably convince people.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Should we start WP:No Religious Threats? While we ask editors not to make legal threats because it damages the editing environment, religious threats have the potential.. I should be able to edit an article without facing fire and brimstone--Crossmr (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You mean "you'll burn in hell statements" ? I would suppose that unlike legal threats, religious threats would be understood by most as insubstantial. And a policy against personal attacks already exists. ♆ CUSH ♆23:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we should make an special inquisition to deal with religious threats. Generally they can be dealt with by simply replying "No, my daddy is stronger than your daddy".·ʍaunus·snunɐw·23:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I think religious threats should really just be counted as rude and/or obnoxious incivility (also kind of arrogant given that a person might actually think that God could be arsed to give a rat's ass about someone expressing an opinion during a debate with them). Also, Atheismo > all Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 26 Elul 5771 23:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
It looks like this editor has been blocked indefinitely now, and as I indicated on his talk page I am inclined to agree with it, as the nature of his edits have definitely been pointy. I certainly see a battleground mentality that is disruptive, and I am finding it hard to see any statement from this editor that doesn't contain an ad hominem attack against someone who doesn't share his ideological views and/or an accusation of bias. I've attempted to "coach" this editor into saying the right thing and indicating how he can contribute; while his wording of the statement in question has been inappropriate, his idea might have merit, and having him back in the discussion with a cooler head might be of benefit. However, this has been met with continued reticence and an apparent unwillingness to reach consensus in a collaborative environment, so I fail to see what can be done unless there's a significant attitude change on his part. --Kinut/c23:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Reduced to 12 hours based on their most recent statement. I think this can be conisdered resolved, the only thing that needed administrative attention was the OP themselves and there's sufficient attention that an ANI discussion isn't needed. Edit:Forgot to mention: Any discussion of how to treat 'religious threats' from a general policy standpoint belongs at WP:VPP or elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record, I was not consulted over the reduction to 12 hours and am not entirely convinced of its merits, but I'll let that pass for the moment and see what happens. I'll re-block if he resumes any form of tendentious editing again. Fut.Perf.☼08:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
FutPerf@Sun should certainly have been consulted, but we all make mistakes. I share FP's concerns. I am not convinced this editor understands our policies at all, and will also continue to monitor the situation. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice14:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Brunodam, community-banned for sockpuppeteering and openly promoting Italian ultra-nationalist views ("irredentism"), has briefly returned to enWiki in the form of User:NewPangea4 and has composed what is essentially a political pamphlet (mirroring the extreme right-wing of the Italian political spectrum) dubbed "1918–1920 incidents at Spalato", which he "dedicated" to Vituzzu beddu on the talkpage. The pamphlet basically attacks various (non-Italian) ethnic groups in the most appalling and thinly-disguised manner, listing various Italian right-leaning, non-reliable, non-professional authors as "sources" as is the fellow's wont (the user has also been caught purposely misquoting Italian-language sources several times) - the composition even uses Italian-language toponyms for settlements Brunodam considers part of (quote) "historical Italy", e.g. "Spalato" in the title: Bruno's Italian name for the city of Split.
This isn't the proper venue (since I'm still on vacation and only have a few mins :)), but I would like to request that the political sock-essay please be speedily deleted "by the quick procedure" as it were :) --DIREKTOR(TALK)13:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
User:NewPangea4 was blocked back in April. 1918–1920 incidents at Spalato has been cleaned up mostly since then with the removal of his racist POV garbage and poor sourcing removed or corrected. Er...I think it's sorted? Add - tagged the page for issues that are clearly present, started talk page discussion & done a little cleaning myself with my little fairy-wings and magic duster wand. Enjoy your vacation! --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Τασουλα :). 1918–1920 incidents at "Spalato" is very far from cleaned up. The "incidents" were protests and riots against the military occupation imposed on the city by Italy, and in opposition to what looked like an imminent annexation. Italy hoped the move would help its claims on the city and the region (both of which were populated by a vast majority of Yugoslavs) in the ongoing Versailles talks, while the local population supported the city's inclusion in the newly-formed Yugoslavia (which was also the position of US president Wilson).
Turning this into an "attack" on the "poor occupying troops", is truly a work of art. The name of the article itself is a provocation, implying that the "real name" of the city was in Italian and that the city ought really have been annexed by Italy.
User:Brunodam was community-banned for a large number of very good reasons, which is more than evident from his racist "pamphlets", and he should NOT be allowed to edit this project. The implication is that any sockpuppeteer can create a sock and write-up all manner of racist/nationalist rubbish at will - while Wikipedia users have to stop what they're doing, and work on basically rewriting an entire article from scratch. Cuz thats what's needed here: the entire composition and conception of the article is inherently biased and offensive (not to mention 99% unsourced). I mean, whats stopping this guy from writing ten more rubbish articles like that one? --DIREKTOR(TALK)07:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
P.S.User:Firstpangea is another Brunodam sock. Also very likely User:8Magicgiven. I found these in 2 mins (I'm still on vacation) so there's likely others. Both socks created additional sock articles of an offensive nature about various "unredeemed" Italian territories ("Italia irredenta"), such as "Derna (Italian Province)" and Italian Province of Cattaro. I'd say banned users have found a new and exciting way to push their rubbish into enWiki - creating new articles. Any thoughts on fixing this? Aren't sock articles supposed to be deleted on sight per WP:SOCK? --DIREKTOR(TALK)07:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
An RfC was started June 29, 2011. Since then, to my knowledge, the consensus was found, but was never finalized. The discussion was whether to keep announced MMA fights in tables of the fighters who are scheduled to fight. There were some editors against keeping the announced fights in the table. Those who were against are still doing dozens of daily reverts (e.g. [140], [141], [142]) on many MMA bio articles based on the often contested rule that was the subject of the June 29 RfC. The rule is found on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts ("Never add future bouts" and "Upcoming bouts that have been officially announced can only be mentioned within the body text..."). Can someone help finalizing the June 29 RfC properly if that has not been done yet? Thanks! Fayerman (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed that straw poll. Surprisingly, none of the RfC participants who supported the inclusion of future fights in the record tables participated in the voting. Conversely, most of the editors who were against the idea in the earlier argument voted in that straw poll. The most fundamental issue here is whether the insertion of announced future fights violates Wikipedia guidelines, such as WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps this is not a proper place to start a substantive argument. This straw poll effectively overwrites what seemed to be the earlier hard-fought consensus from the 29 June 2011 RfC. Why wasn't the RfC finalized? Looks like that straw poll was a "smart" way to play the system in order to get "another consensus." Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Administrator, yesterday, the article on militant atheism was appropriately locked due to continued edit warring. One RfC was already opened and is still receiving comments. However, today, User:Binksternet started two new RfCs, which has not been the policy over the past few months of discussing, obtaining consensus and then changing the article. I reverted the creation of the two new RfCs and asked the reviewing administrator who is mediating issues on the talk page to determine whether starting two new RfCs was appropriate. However, I was reverted back and do not wish to edit war on the talk page. If it is, I am willing to restore the two new RfCs and apologize for my action. I have informed the creator of the two new RfCs to please wait until a response from the reviewing administrator is received. Could you please comment on this issue and watch the talk page? Thanks for taking the time to read this message. With regards, AnupamTalk15:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no policy to limit RfCs on talk pages. The article was locked to promote discussion, and discussion is what I am after in opening two RfCs. There is no formal mediation underway, and Master of Puppets, the locking administrator, has not shut down the talk page. In fact m.o.p. specifically called for discussion! The RfCs will stimulate discussion. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to start two more RfCs at the same time that one is already going on at the talk page, User:Binksternet. Please revert what may be considered disruptive editing until we have a response from the reviewing administrator, User:Master of Puppets. Thanks, AnupamTalk16:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I concur that the page was properly protected, with an aim to foster discussion. But I'm unclear as to why the existing RFC could not be (or was not being) used for that purpose - nor do I see how three separate RFCs would do anything to clarify matters. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did17:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright, here's my input. Technically, there's nothing stopping the two parties from starting ten RfCs each. The fact that there are three ongoing discussions is not against policy. Therefore, it is not within my power to limit the amount of RfCs. However, given that I've been mediating the page for the last two months, I'd suggest waiting the current RfC out before starting another one (or two) - having three discussions underway may prove hectic.
Again, I should restate that I am not saying not to do this. How the parties choose to conduct themselves is not my decision. I would recommend letting the current request for comment run its course before starting another two, but if others feel that's not the right way, then so be it. m.o.p17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Then explain your position to Anupam who is using your authority as an excuse to violate talk page policy. See here. He's been using your authority to get his way on this page for a month now. What are you going to do about that? Will you warn him for removing other people's talk page comments and edit warring? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Not that I have any experience with the history and problems with the article but in this particular case I would suggest leaving either a combined or both the other RFCs open may be advisable despite the problems. It seems to me if consensus is reached to either split and particularly to turn the page into a disambig page, discussion over the LEDE may become redundant. Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
And no doubt that is why Anupam is willing to go as far as to remove the comments of other editors and edit war over it in order to keep these RfCs off the talk page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Nil Einne, actually there was an RfC to split the article this past summer and it was closed as "no consensus" to split the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk17:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC several times) Not that I have much involvement in RFCs but I don't believe there's any 'one at a time' requirement. In some cases it would be better to raise or merge issues in to an existing RFC but if they are mostly unrelated issues I don't see anything wrong with two simulatenous RFCs and indeed think I've seen it done before. 3 does seem like quite a long and in particular, the issue of whether to split the article or it should become a disambiguation page seem quite related so I don't personally see the need for seperate RFCs on those 2 issues. P.S. Under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography I found there appears to be 2 ongoing for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War. P.P.S. While it's good you stopped, I would suggest removing the RFCs in the first place was not advisable. I don't see any reason why it was that urgent, if you felt the admin would remove them then it's best just to leave it up to them unless there was a history of rejected RFCs from that user on the page. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The two new RfC's don't overlap with the other one. They deal with a problem that many of us find more essential than the one Anupam is discussing. The first RfC has also been ongoing for over a month now. Also, I would like to add that Anupam has violated the talk page policy here, but not only deleting the new RfCs but edit warring to keep them deleted - [143], [144], [145]. While Master of Puppets doesn't believe that there is an ownership problem with Anupam's edits, many of us don't agree. I would like another admin to review this. I posted diffs of ownership on MoP's talk page - HERE. Of course this latest attempt to delete good faith RfCs might just take the cake. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the creation of the two new RfCs and asked the reviewing administrator who is mediating issues on the talk page to determine whether starting two new RfCs was appropriate. However, I was reverted back and do not wish to edit war on the talk page. If it is, I am willing to restore the two new RfCs and apologize for my action.
Are you now saying you did not remove the RFCs? Because a quick look at the page history suggests your first statement is the correct one. The fact you initiated a discussion with the mediator (rather then just removing) is a good thing but as I said above, I don't think you should have removed it in the first place since even though you may have genuinely believed it having simultaneous RFCs on different issues wasn't allowed and Master of Puppets would stop it, there was no reason why it was urgent to remove the RFCs. Master of Puppets response indicates that while they would prefer there to only be one RFC, they also concur you should not remove the RFCs. In the absence of anything else I don't personally see the need to make a big deal out of this but I do hope you agree not to remove RFCs again without very good reason and understand why you shouldn't have removed the RFCs (not just because there's nothing stopping multiple RFCs but because it was best to let others handle it).
Dear User:Nil Einne, thanks for your response. Yes, I reverted the addition of the two new RfCs to the page and left a friendly note on the creator's talk page, informing him that I was checking in the the reviewing administrator whether it was appropriate to do so. I apologize for removing them as I said I would do if my actions were deemed to be incorrect. As I indicated in my statement to the reviewing administrator, I was not opposed to the idea of holding those RfCs. I just thought it might be less confusing if we did once at a time. I hope this helps and once again, I apologize for my actions. Respectfully, AnupamTalk17:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been on articles from time to time that had several RFC's going on, covering different topics. Master of Puppets questioned having 3 going, not for any policy reason, but just for possibly adding to the chaos. But if there are multiple independent issues, then multiple RFC's can be very appropriate. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I see no problem here with the new RfC's. They pertain to a different question than the RfC that was already in progress. I'm also concerned by Anupam's attempts to WP:OWN the article with his filibustering and attempts to intimidate other editors by misrepresenting statements of the mediating administrator. I'm having a very hard time assuming good faith here on his part- it seems that he wants to discourage further discussion. Very troublesome is his repeated removals of the RfC's and his denying doing so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like someone to look into the issue of Anupam's editing at this entry. Some of us think he is violating WP:OWN. These editors have said so on Master of Puppet's talk page -Abhishikt, Snalwibma, Mann jess. I provided diffs to Master of Puppets regarding this issue as well. They can be seen User_talk:Master_of_Puppets#Diffs_of_WP:OWN. Anupam's deletion and edit warring over the two new RfCs is the latest example of this, already mentioned here and also listed on MoP's talk page. I'm not particularly keen on the idea that more than one admin now knows about that and has not warned him officially not to delete other people's talk page comments, and not to edit war on the talk page. The over all pattern of ownership that he exhibits on the talk page can be seen in the diffs provided to MoP. An RfC of months ago that he opposed ended in "no consensus." Another more recent RfC that he supported was closed in his favor by Master of Puppets (despite only having a 7-5 margin I should add). He uses these two facts to shout down those who disagree with him on the talk page and to revert people trying to make changes to the entry. When he does this he cites the authority of MoP who decided the RfC. In the last episode he went so far as to cite MoP's authority as he deleted talk page comments and edit warred over it. Can an uninvolved admin please review this matter?Griswaldo (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
That is incorrect User:Griswaldo, your allegations of WP:OWN have not only been dismissed by the reviewing administrator, but by other editors as well, including User:Lionelt, User:Cody7777777 and NYyankees51. Moreover, I did not unilaterally remove the two new RfCs today but asked the reviewing administrator if starting two new RfCs was appropriate before doing so. He also did not think that starting two new RfCs was appropriate, as indicated by his response above. Part of the issue here, is that User:Griswaldo, User:Snalwibma, & User:Abhishikt were part of the dissenting party in the consensus introduction RfC; as a result this is a dispute issue, not one of WP:OWN. Moreover, User:Griswaldo, there was no consensus to remove the information. In fact, three editors, including myself, User:Cody7777777, and User:Turnsalso expressed our disapproval with the information being unilaterally removed. User:Snalwibma did not discuss the removal of the information but did so unilaterally, which is why I reverted him once, two anonymous IP Addresses reverted him several times, and User:Cody7777777 reverted him. The removal of information was not performed after consensus. You did not even add a single comment to the discussion that was taking place about the topic! Instead, you reverted the reinstatement of the consensus version and are now stating that I was violating WP:OWN, despite the fact that I was not edit warring, and even engaged in discussion with other editors on the topic. As such, it is totally appropriate that User:Master of Puppets protected the article (preserving your revision by the way) because you were not following the injunction given by the reviewing administrator: Also, any further changes should be discussed on the page. We've only got consensus on this proposed versions (and loose consensus at that) - please do not attempt to subvert said consensus by making undiscussed changes. You also ignored the page notice given to create a spirit of discussion, consensus, and then change. As a result, do not criticize User:Master of Puppets, but look to yourself for violating consensus, edit warring, and posting rude messages, when you never bothered to discuss your edits in the first place. With regards, AnupamTalk20:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Would you stop repeating that falsehood about not removing the RfCs? You removed them, then you asked for advice on the matter from the admin, and the whole while you kept reverting, before this admin ever replied (and his reply in the end doesn't even support your removals). How is that not "unilateral?" Nil Einne also challenged you on this above. Here are the diffs, again - [147], [148], [149].Griswaldo (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
We are discussing your accusation of WP:OWN, which has been thoroughly refuted, not my mistake which I apologized for. Please stop trying to frame me because your dissenting position was not in line with consensus. Thanks, AnupamTalk20:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I haven't yet formally weighed in on the question so I will: I think Anupam exhibits article ownership problems in several ways such as using the first person in talking about article issues, and in berating and demeaning article editors who do not agree with him. Anupam appears to own the article by responding to each opposing discussion in an RfC. Anupam shows ownership problems by challenging the person of opposing editors rather than the argument forwarded, and also by wikilawyering about policies rather than addressing the issues brought up. Anupam has driven other editors away from the article because of this obsessive ownership style. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Pure unadulterated WP:BOLLOCKS. Anupan presents persuasive arguments which engender consensus with a majority of editors at the article. His positions have enjoyed majority support a number of times. His current Introduction proposal has 9 editors supporting and 5 in opposition. He doesn't have to own the article, he owns the discussion by virtue of his erudition. These attemps to censor him are pathetic. – Lionel(talk)00:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved admin) Nobody "owns" a Wikipedia discussion under any circumstances whatsoever, just as no editor "owns" an article. There is no special virtue accorded in discussion as a result of the persuasiveness or "erudition" of the arguments an editor presents -- it grants no special authority. Consensus is also not arrived at by a simple majority vote. I personally do believe that Anupam's approach to discussion and consensus-gathering relating to Militant atheism and the RFCs in the dispute diaspora are starting to look a shade like gaming the system (and this may be entirely unintentional), and frequently involve a level of wikilawyering. I certainly do see WP:OWN-type behaviour from Anupam -- again, quite possibly undertaken with the best of intentions -- relating to his view on when editors have "consensus" to modify the article and under what circumstances, which does seem to be of a self-determined kind. I would politely suggest to Anupam that he might consider stepping away from the article for a period of time, and I believe that other users involved in this dispute could benefit from doing the same also. --Tristessa(talk)07:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice Tristessa. I do not believe that Anupam is going to curtail his style of editing unless he is warned that it crossed the WP:OWN line and the he needs to try to stop it. Many editors have commented on this already and he simply denies that he is doing it. I was not a regular contributor to this page or its talk page discussions, though I have it watchlisted because irreligion in general is an interest of mine, but what I saw from Anupam was just more of the same behavior - bullying editors with authority based one claim of "consensus" and the one administrator who declared it, stifling conversation with walls of text and wikilawyering, etc. I thought that maybe one persistant voice added to those who were being worn down by this behavior might help, but it hasn't. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Lionelt, WP:BOLLOCKS is about major problems with article notability. Perhaps you meant to say "bollocks", without the caps and the wikilink to an unrelated essay. At any rate, my reasoning for describing Anupam as having article ownership issues is carefully considered, point by point. Nothing I wrote is made up, or bollocks. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
No, User:Griswaldo had placed similar messages at WikiProject:Atheism. As such, User:Lionelt appropriately placed a neutrally worded message of a relevant RfC at WikiProject Christianity and its sub-projects. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk17:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, Anupam, I wasn't asking you. I was asking administrators. The diff I provided was at the talk page of WikiProject Conservatism, not a project dealing with religion or irreligion-related matters, whereas the Atheism WikiProject is clearly related to a page on Militant atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting point, and I didn't know that. However, looking at your diff, there is still a discrepancy between the projects in the banner, and the projects that were contacted. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The conservatism project was never appropriate. Anupam added it along with "Theology," "Christianity," and "Islam." Interstingly he did not add the Atheism project at the time, and apparently no one added the Religion project ever. The conservatism project was correctly removed without contest by someone recently. Anupam's WikiProject additions appear to have been made in some sort of watchdog capacity, and not in relation to applicability to the subject matter. I think that diff shows some very questionable activity on Anupam's part -- WP:BATTLEGROUND comes to mind. Also, none of this explains the LDS project being contacted by Lionel.Griswaldo (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I added the religious WikiProjects because they are directly relevant to the subjects mentioned in the article. WikiProject Conservatism was added to the article because the term militant atheist is often one levied by conservatives. This is also probably why User:Lionelt added the RfC notice to WikiProject Conservatism after you had canvassed WikiProject Atheism. I am not a part of WikiProject Atheism and did not know that it existed at the time when the article was a stub until I fully expanded it. For this reason, I did not add the template. Moreover, the only individual creating the battlefield mentality here is yourself, demonstrated by your recent threats (Exhibit One, Exhibit Two) to the reviewing administrator of the article, User:Master of Puppets. You are being warned right now to stop and participate constructively. Thanks, AnupamTalk00:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Tryptofish, yes, that is correct information but still is not relevant to the fact of my knowledge of a WikiProject Atheism. Moreover, I was never a part of WikiProject Atheism. I usually do not add templates on talk pages of projects that I am not a part of. Nonetheless, the template for that project was added to the article this past summer which is what matters. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk17:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you make an argument without referring to the "reviewing administrator of the article, Master of Puppets?" I did not canvas anything. Wikiproject:Atheism is clearly the primary Wikiproject for all atheism articles. The fact that American conservatives are often critical of atheism does not make what you did any more acceptable. Indeed it proves my insinuation about why you added it. Again, this topic has nothing to do with "conservatism." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Anupam says: "WikiProject Conservatism was added to the article because the term militant atheist is often one levied by conservatives." Seriously, this is disingenuous in the extreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkhwiki (talk • contribs) 02:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. There have been concerns raised in the past about overenthusiastic project tagging of tangentially related articles by WP:Conservatism members, and this is another piece in an emerging pattern whose end goal seems to be circumventing WP:CANVASS, particularly given the politically skewed distribution of invitations to the project. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to say that I do not really understand why we should assume that editors interested in discussing about this issue can be found only at WP:WikiProject Atheism or WP:WikiProject Religion. And since WP:WikiProject Atheism had already been informed about this, in my opinion these actions do not look like an issue of WP:CANVASSING. The comments posted by Lionelt look neutral to me (since he did not ask editors to either oppose or support there), and if there are no interested editors at these WikiProjects, they will probably just ignore the notification. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm asking the question. It's not so much about the fact that more projects were contacted, but about the appearance that there was a pattern as to which projects were contacted, and which were not (see WP:Votestacking). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I note that Lionelt has made multiple edits after the time I notified him on his user talk page of this thread, and presumably has had an opportunity to reply here. I would welcome hearing from administrators, since we've certainly heard already from other involved editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Tryptofish - while I'm not sure why Conservatism was listed as a relevant Wikiproject for the page at hand, it looks like Lionelt just went to all parties he thought would be interested in the RFC. I don't see any malicious intent or an attempt to canvass supporting voices. m.o.p19:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
You mean like Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, which he contacted here? You don't think he felt that other Christian denominations would be interested in this? People in the Wikiprojects of History or Politics perhaps? I don't buy the distinction you are making one bit. Of course he thought that members of these Wikiprojects would be interested in the topic, but he also knew they would be interested in it in a certain way. Preventing that is the whole point of the Canvasing rules.Griswaldo (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That's the kind of objective response I was looking for. I'm still uncomfortable with the appearance that those interested parties were selected as a conservative-leaning (ie: it's appropriate to call the New Atheists "militant") subset of all parties that would really be interested in the RfC. But I recognize that this is a tough call to make with certainty, which is why I posted it as a question. I have a feeling that time will tell whether this will eventually end up as a matter that the community will need arbitration to sort out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I find this conversation quite suspicious in terms of canvassing as well. An RfC clearly doesn't qualify for deletion sorting, yet Anupam decides to ask an editor who he knows shares his POV on this whether or not this RfC could be listed in the Christianity deletion sort. How many other ways to do you have to spread the good word Anupam?Griswaldo (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Anupam claims to contact StAnselm in that conversation because he is supposedly active at Deletion sorting/Christianity, but that isn't even true. StAnselm has very low levels of activity there compared to other editors, and none since August 30th. Might there have been another reason to post such a strange conversation, like say, drawing this editor's attention to the RfC?Griswaldo (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo, if you were paying attention, you would have realized that I openly informed the RfC that I placed a request on User:StAnselm's talk page, asking him if he could include the discussion in the AfD list of WP:Christianity, WP:Islam, and WP:Islam. Unlike you, who was the first user to canvass the entire WikiProject Atheism, conveniently not leaving a message at WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Islam, or WikiProject Theology, which were listed as relevant projects there, I made my request for all of the relevant projects. Moreover, you never even informed the discussion you did so. In addition, I wanted to correct you for inaccurately stating that User:StAnslem is not involved at the WikiProject Christianity list for AfD. If you know how to use the "find" and "replace" function on your keyboard, you can see that his involvement three times in different AfD's there with another editor citing one of his comments. Also, the user in question does not share my religious views as he is a Calvinist. In fact, if you'd like to know the relationship between Catholicism and Calvinism, I urge you to read this article. I am warning you to stop creating a battlegound mentality here. Further attempts to do so will result in a block. Thanks for your cooperation, AnupamTalk02:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, User:StAnslem just admitted on his talk page that he is very active at AfD], voting in "three of the eight deletion debates currently on the page." Your fallacious argument, like most of the baseless accusations you make here, has once again been debunked. Cheers, AnupamTalk03:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Not quite. I linked to the history of the page you claim he is "active" on and it shows the minimal levels of activity rather clearly. What denominations you two belong to is immaterial, since it is your POVs vis-a-vis Militant atheism that are most likely the same. Also, I'm a bit confused about the fact that you seem to be claiming to be Catholic. Your user page says you are a "United Methodist" with interest in Catholicism. As I pointed out elsewhere the Protestant Reformation did in fact occur, and Methodists are Protestant (like Calvinists), and not Catholic.Griswaldo (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Anupam, please don't threaten other users with blocks. You have no grounds for issuing a block on anyone. I agree that picking the Christianity deletion sorting project, and one minimally involved user specifically, seems a little odd. Could I ask what made you choose to do that? Why not ask the (now fairly active) article talk page if placing it in the AfD list would be appropriate? Or, perhaps, one of the variety of administrators who have already commented? Or, here? — Jess· Δ♥04:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Both of you are framing this discussion as a battleground between believers and atheists, for which I am warning you. I mentioned earlier that I publicly notified the RfC of my comment on User:StAnslem's userpage. Finally, unlike User:Griswaldo, who canvassed only WikiProject Atheism (and not the other relevant WikiProjects), I clearly indicated in my comment that the discussion should be included in the WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Islam, and WikiProject Atheism deletion list. Finally, I wish that you cease presenting false data; User:StAnslem openly admits that he is very active at AfD, which was the reason I placed a comment on his page. I must mention that today a new visitor to the talk page commented on your abrasive behaviour with me. I have been nothing but polite to you in our discussions and you continue to hound me. This is completely unacceptable. --AnupamTalk04:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This is probably the 4th time now that I've asked you to stop a certain behavior, and a couple days later you've begun accusing me of that behavior. I'm not sure what part of my question above indicates I'm fostering a battleground mentality. I simply want to know why you went to the Christianity deletion sorting list regarding an article on Atheism, and then picked out a minimally active editor to ask if it could be included. Why not ask the article talk page, or one of the administrators who have already commented, or here? I'm sure you understand that there are canvassing concerns in the minds of a number of editors (even if you do not share those concerns), and so picking out this one uninvolved editor (or project) to inquire about the RfC seems odd to me. I just want to know why you did that, as opposed to taking one of the many other options you had available. — Jess· Δ♥04:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not what is meant by WP:CANVASS as posting to projects has not been considered in the past to be a CANVASS violation. Had he posted to selected individuals with an anticipated particular POV, the issue would be substantially different, but Projects have not, in the past, been considered problems. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Then explain why he posted to projects that have no connection to the entry's subject matter but coincidentally are known to have a population that would lean towards a specific POV relating to the RfC? It doesn't matter where one posts if the aim is to vote stack people of a certain POV. I do not agree with your interpretation of CANVASS. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
On what grounds do you assert that the project per se is "populated" by people with a specific POV? As far as I know, all the project pages are public, and frequently watched by people with disparate points of view. As for as the projects go, they each have some rational connection to the topic even if the article does not bear their imprimaturs. Cheers - I fear you misapprehend what CANVASS rules are. Collect (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's what WP:CANVAS says about "votestacking" -- Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. You may disagree with me about whether or not posting at the Conservatism Wikiproject, or any of the others Lionel posted at constitutes selective notification of "editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view," but I fail to understand how you can say I "misapprehend what CANVASS rules are" when what I quoted is what I think has happened. I understand that wikiprojects are open to all, but they clearly get biased in various ways because of who is interested in the subjects they are organized around. I refuse to believe that you don't understand that. For instance a few months ago I argued pretty vehemently at the Atheism project about the fact that they were displaying banners on the Wikiproject page about people's personal beliefs - I felt this was inappropriate. Wikiprojects are meant to be about a subject matter and not a social meeting places of like minded people, but they often become the latter to some degree anyway (and this is true of civil society as well). Do you deny that members of Wikiproject Conservatism are more likely to share Lionel's POV on this RfC? I see no reason to post a notice there other than an attempt to rally such people since "Militant atheism" is not related to the topic of conservatism. It is also, quite clearly, not related to the subject of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints, yet Lionel posted at that Wikiproject too. Mormons are known to be socially and religiously conservative. That is reflected in polls and social science research. What else would one think he was doing there? I have asked repeatedly for Lionel or anyone else to explain his posting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement but no explanation has been forthcoming. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not getting the argument that this isn't an attempt to votestack while flying under the guidelines against CANVASSing, by notifying selected WikiProjects where he thinks there will be more users who support his POV. Observe:
Did he notify only those projects which had expressed interest in the subject by tagging the talkpage? No - WikiProject Latter-Day Saints did not express interest in the subject.
Did he notify only those projects of which he was a member? No - he is not a member of WP:LDS or WP:Christianity.
Did he notify those projects which are mentioned in the article text? No - he did not notify WP:History or WP:Politics (France, Soviet Union, China, Judaism, Islam, etc.), which are mentioned in the article text, while notifying WP:LDS and WP:Conservatism, which are not mentioned in the text.
If we take as a given that members of a specific religion WikiProject might be interested in the topic - did he notify all religion WikiProjects? No, he notified WP:Catholicism, WP:Christianity, and WP:LDS, which are known for being conservative, while failing to notify WP:Judaism, WP:Anglicanism, etc.
If I'm not mistaken, several users have already asked Lionelt to explain why he chose to notify the projects he did and not others. What reply has he given? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, it should be noted that per your first point it was User:Anupam who put those Wikiproject banner on the talk page from the start, even for Wikiprojects that he is not a member, and he's also the one who decided that the page was "high" priority.Griswaldo (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
And in today's latest news, editors on the talk page have been edit warring over removing and re-adding the WikiProjects that either were or were not canvassed. At the moment, it seems to have quieted down, but I think it would be helpful to have multiple pairs of administrator eyes on the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm keeping an eye on it. So far, things seem to have died down - if edit warring resumes, it'll be dealt with on a user-by-user basis. m.o.p04:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear User:Master of Puppets, thanks for being willing to watch the talk page. We really appreciate your efforts and patience in dealing with a tough issue here. With regards, AnupamTalk04:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
We've had an endless series of pov-pushing and synth. We've had edit wars where anupam goes up to the 3RR boundary then mysterious IP addresses make exactly the same reverts and anupam claims they're extra supporters. We've had SPAs which also make exactly the same reverts to save anupam from 3RR. We've had canvassing both onsite and offsite. We've had misleading edit summaries, obstructionism, wikilawyering, and walls of text. Editors which haven't touched the article recently (or ever) suddenly appear on the talkpage to cast the required vote in one of the many polls and RfCs. We've had Lionel canvassing every imaginable wikiproject which might support the anupam-lionel perpective (there are several, although they have minimal connection to the article), and it's written off as harmless good-faith editing.
But when I echoed other people's concerns about sockpuppetry, anupam hid them. Then when I came back with a lengthy list of diffs (which took a lot of research), m.o.p removed the list of diffs as "defamatory".
I'm giving up. Whenever folk are willing to have a discussion based on evidence and fairness, rather than seeing who has the best canvassers, the most sock/meatpuppets, and the fastest revert button, I would be happy to rejoin the discussion. bobrayner (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I hope no one gives up. The very facts of the RfCs and this ANI thread mean that more and more eyes are on the page. The best thing that can happen is if editors of good faith just take what's going on calmly, and let any civil POV pushers that might be involved go about their business. In time, I'm pretty sure there will be a case before ArbCom, but not today. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please give a hand to User:Helpthesouls? This isn't a case of needing any kind of sanction, but they just seem to need some help that probably requires an administrator, and I cannot figure out what to do with them. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, everyone who got involved. It was pretty weird with this person when I interacted with them, but I AGFed that it was just someone who was unhappy about something. I appreciate the help, even though it turned out to be pretty sordid. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Note - I'm copying this WP:WQA per the suggestion of editors there. The original title of the thread was User:Lionelt -- Wikihounding and canvassing to attack me, but as Collect has pointed out those two terms, Wikihounding and canvassing might not apply to this situation so I have renamed it this time around.Griswaldo (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I find this type of behavior completely inappropriate. User:Lionelt is on the opposite side of a disagreement with me on Talk:Militant atheism, and I, along with several others, have raised concerns about him and another user canvassing for support at the RfC on that page - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Does_this_rise_to_the_level_of_canvassing.3F. Now it appears he is digging through my edit history (see WP:HOUND) to find other people I may have had disagreements with in the past, and canvassing for support against me, as shown int he first diff I posted above. Can someone please explain to him that this is unacceptable. I am hesitant to take this to AN/I because I don't think its at that level but if anyone thinks it belongs there instead please let me know.Griswaldo (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
1. It is clearly not "wikihounding" (an attemot to force a person off Wikipedia in any improper manner) so let's take that off the table. 2. The issue of CANVASS initially raised was ill chosen where the posts were to projects and not to individual editors. If you wish to rewrite WP:CANVASS that would be needed to make the judgements you seek. 3. If he CANVASSes in order to make an RfC/U appear to be "frontloaded" as to opinions, then that would, indeed, be a major problem (WP:False consensus). The post you cite, however, is not even close to CANVASS in my opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Collect, what else should I call it? He's not simply posting a relevant topic to Wikiproject in that diff at all. He's posting to a thread in which I am in a disagrement with a user, and saying "hey look this editor is having problems with these other people, hint hint." What does Lionelt's post have to do with the thread he posted to? Indeed what does it have to do with Wikiproject:Judaism at all? OK so maybe I chose poorly when it comes to describing what he did, but can you please consider what he did instead of nitpicking about what I called it? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(E/C) As an uninvolved party, I don't see how you can call this "digging through edit history"; the disagreement with Orangemike is easily read if somebody decides to scroll up on your talk page, and Lionelt may have come to Nealdowntome123's talk page the exact same way as you did. I'm assuming good faith on Lionelt's part, yes, but I think you need stronger evidence to accuse somebody of harassment. Furthermore, that's not hounding, and the canvassing situation has already been dealt with on ANI (so there's no reason to discuss it here). m.o.p15:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
1) Please do not call yourself "uninvovled" given our recent history and my vocal disagreements about how you've handled matters specifically relating to this entry and some of these same editors. 2) You "assume good faith" on Lionelt's part when he posts a comment at Wikiproject Judaism that has nothing to do with the scope of the project or the thread he posted in, but consists entirely of a comment about me as an editor. Seriously? Not to mention that this is a project he does not edit. He clearly went there after discovering the disagreement I had with Debresser either on my talk page or in my edit history. Like I said to Collect, I'm fine with the idea that I've mislabeled what he did, but I'm having a really hard time understanding how you think it is appropriate or in "good faith." Please explain that further.Griswaldo (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm uninvolved because my role is to mediate, not voice opinions. Whether or not others agree with what I say is not up to me. As for Lionelt's edit, I never said it was acceptable, and I never said it was good faith - I said I was assuming good faith when interpreting his intent and judging that Lionelt is not hounding you. Also, please don't put words in my mouth, because I never said Lionelt's edits were appropriate (and, to the contrary, will take them up with that editor in time). m.o.p16:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You said, and quote, "I'm assuming good faith on Lionelt's part." So what do you consider them if not appropriate? I see no comments about them being inappropriate just this assumption of good faith. So how about you actually comment then on the edits that I raised questions about? Isn't that what one does when a concern is raised?Griswaldo (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
See my above reply: "I was assuming good faith when interpreting his intent". I did not say his editing was good faith. m.o.p16:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You are mincing words. That's what editing in good faith, or good faith edits are. It's all about intent. As to whether or not they were "appropriate" I took you as meaning they were since the only thing you said was that they were good faith edits. Can you please comment on whether or not they were appropriate, which I'm now asking you a second time? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Verbum sapiens: Arguing with people who are trying to give you sound advice rarely results in a truly beneficial result. Your mileage may vary. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
So you will not comment on Lionel's edit at Wikiproject Judaism either? What advice exactly are you trying to give me Collect? I have been extremely critical of MoP's administrative involvement at Militant atheism and I don't really expect to be given neutral advice from him as a result. I mean no offense by that, but it is what it is. You say that the post I cite is "not even close to CANVASS." OK well is it appropriate otherwise, or now that I changed my tune about Canvass have I lost my chance to get an honest answer? I laid it out to you above. It has nothing to do with the Wikiproject in question or the thread posted to, and everything to do with me. He also clearly found his way there from my talk page or edit history. Is that appropriate? Forget canvass and tell me if it is appropriate.Griswaldo (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm still neutral, and still giving you neutral advice - if I held grudges this easily, I wouldn't have lasted the six years I've been here. You can choose to ignore my advice if you wish, of course, but I assure you that I'm not on anybody's side.
As for Lionelt's behaviour, I left a message here raising the concern voiced above. m.o.p21:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I'm very concerned by this: Lionelt turns up at an unrelated WikiProject and tries to build common cause with editors who have had some kind of dispute with Griswaldo. If we take Lionelt at his word, he is "unfamiliar with this editor" (i.e. Griswaldo). Surely if he is unfamiliar with Griswaldo's edits (I'll get on to that in a second), he surely should assume good faith rather than trying to stir things up at an unrelated WikiProject.
I can't take Lionelt's comment that he is unfamiliar with Griswaldo seriously given Griswaldo has been one of the major proponents of an argument Lionelt disagrees with on Talk:Militant atheism. Lionel comes up 14 times on Talk:Militant atheism and Griswaldo's name comes up 41 times. With the heavy polarisation of the discussion on said talk page, the idea that this was some kind of innocent inquiry is simply unbelievable. As an uninvolved user, I have to say that Talk:Militant atheism is greatly depressing to read for the frequent shortcomings in civility, massive shortfalls of good faith and a fair few dirty tricks to boot. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
another (Non-administrator comment). Looking at the diff that Griswaldo provided, it strikes me as very odd that Lionelt's comment is framed in terms of concern about Griswaldo's account being compromised. Given the past interactions between the two of them, as pointed out by Tom, it sounds a little disingenuous to me. Griswaldo isn't helping himself by the way he is communicating here, but I do have concern on his behalf. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Resolved: Chris is an obvious sock - extended block to cover the account's talk page as I see no point in feeding trolls. Hans should be commended for his diligence and adherence to policy.
User:Chris.usnames is an obvious reincarnation of blocked User:Spyro02/User:Gqhs. It's pretty obvious if you look closely (in many independent ways), but this guy is so careless with his personal information that I simply can't say more without outing him very seriously. Admin User:Agathoclea has seen the evidence and has confirmed the connection, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Spyro02/Archive.
I'm removing the resolved. Hans has escalated this situation needlessly on the user's talkpage. I became involved via an unblock request and saw significant badgering of Chris.usnames by Hans. Chris asked a question, Hans was advised that he could answer that question, but beyond that Chris has request Hans stay off his talkpage. Unfortunately, this became worse as Hans chose to make additional comments there that should have been reserved for right here on ANI ... and of course, Hans is failing to provide proof/diffs.
Chris.usnames still has an open unblock request. Hans has been warned that any further poking of the bear will be met with a rest of his own. However, the sock allegations need to be looked at. Hans actions in this definitely need to be looked at further (whether he's right or not, he knows better), and Chris.usnames needs some action of his own (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
There are some pretty severe allegations flying around, and it occurs to me that any additonal discussion on this should be taken totally offline, as it sounds like Adler would have to expose some real-life names in the process, which is probably why his comments have been vague up to this point. ←baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I am failing to provide proof? That's tall. As I think I made sufficiently clear on Chris.usnames' talk page, I cannot provide the proofs on-wiki as they would out the user to an unusual degree. (To be more explicit: This includes full name, Facebook profile with photo, date of birth, names of his parents, where he grew up, details of his schools, various domain names he has registered for apparently fraudulent purposes, PDF of a criminal complaint against him, as well as press reports on the criminal complaint, on his conviction and on his loss of visa status in his then host country.) He had been active last year, at which time I was able to stop him by calling his parents' phone number. He himself answered the phone and denied that someone of his first name even exists at the address, but stopped socking anyway.
As I also said on the talk page, I will provide the detailed evidence to any responsible admin who requests it, as I have already done to User:Agathoclea. Bwilkins has not requested the information, nor, apparently, done the entirely trivial research himself (there must be approximately a dozen completely independent ways of finding this information from what is available on-wiki), and has chosen to instead come here and complain about me for not violating WP:OUTING. Bwilkins has also threatened me with a block, but forgot to notify me that he has reopened this discussion.
In case there are still people capable of looking at the situation and missing the obvious: Chris.usnames' modus operandi in Wikipedia and elsewhere is to build a fantasy world in which he is an American. In the process he leaves an enormous amount of information about himself. He tries to deflect from this by relatively convincing role play and by attacks against whoever exposes him. For example, from his German IP address (see SPI) he claims to be an AOL customer editing from the American Midwest. Or, to quote him from last year: "Ah, and if still someone thinks I am using a proxy, he is wrong. I use these IPs natively. As I said, my fiancé's grandma created the Internet Protocol and so I had access to this 1990 laptop with these awesome files. I am not giving out any more details. You can assume that only I and my fiancé are legitimated as descendants to take opportunity of this. So better let me do the edits to the article about my school. You can't win an Internet war against the grandson-in-law of one of the Creators. What sense would it make to harass someone whose family created this wonderful medium."
And what self respecting Internet Protocol inventor will touch AOL even with a barge pole? Not to mention it's rather unlikely a 1990 laptop will be able to handle any browser capable of editing wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The user can be identified purely from the editing history of his previous accounts, as Hans writes. I suggested to Hans by email that he pass that information on to ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I have seen the evidence after I came accross the editor in question and first misjudged him to be a geographically challenged American. A systematic agenda became apparent and once the off-line prove was available I could connect the dots between earlier and more recent edits. In fact what is currently going on is rather tame as there are already enaugh eyes on the target articles. As I am subject matter involved though I would rather have arbcom or someone designated by them to take a look at the off-line evidence. As far as Hans is concerned - he is trying to protect wikipedia from some twisted individual. Agathoclea (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
If so, then maybe he shouldn't be chastised for confronting the user on his talk page. The blocked user should be grateful that Hans has refrained from laying out the whole story on the talk page and outed the guy directly - and if the blocked user is a criminal, maybe he should be outed? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes Hans has been extremly careful toeing the line between protecting wikipedia and not outing the user. Hans been threatened with a block as a direct result of not providing all the evidence on-wiki as it would have been an open and shut case otherwise. Anyway - No, the details of the crime should not be made publicly available. As far as his crime is concerned he is no danger to fellow wikipedians. Agathoclea (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
WTF? Hans was warned to stop poking the bear - he had been asked a question by the editorm, who had actually asked him to leave him alone. Instead of answering the question, he dropped some additional poking on the editor's page. He was NEVER warned for not providing "evidence": he was told to take those accusations and the associated evidence ELSEWHERE. Let's not make shit up, simply because it's Monday. (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you could explain to me (off-wiki) why you found it appropriate to 'warn' me for answering a 'question' (he asked so many silly 'questions' in the course of his role playing that I am not even sure which one you mean) without first asking me for the evidence which I offered to responsible admins intending to deal with the situation. Were you worried that I would not consider you to be sufficiently responsible, or did you just assume that I was making things up, or maybe that I'm a fool who doesn't know what he is talking about? HansAdler21:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify. I did not mean he was threatened with a block for refusing to provide evidence, but if he had provided that evidence the situation would have been resolved a lot earlier and the situation would not have escalated. Sorry if I was unclear. Agathoclea (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The Overblood article has been subjected to recurring bouts of vandalism from IP addresses since last January. The general pattern is that someone messes up the article (almost always in the same way), then goes away for about four days before doing it again. The damage gets quickly reverted, but the vandal (or possibly team of vandals) keeps on coming back. Possibly because they go away for several days after each incident, the page has rarely been semi-protected. And the virtually identical bit of vandalism comes from many different IP addresses — apparently from many different ISPs — so it's presumably been impossible to address the problem by blocking specific addresses or ranges.
An example of the vandalism in question can be seen here. The vulgar epithet is basically the same every time, though the vandal sometimes spells it differently.
I semi-protected this article last night for two weeks. However, it was semi'ed for two weeks in late July, and the vandal reappeared as soon as that protection expired, so I'm not overly confident that my latest action will be a long-time fix.
Does anyone have any ideas as to how to deal with this issue more effectively? Is there, in fact, some non-obvious common factor linking all these IP addresses that a checkuser might be able to use to track down the perpetrator? Is there a way to educate ClueBot NG to recognize and automatically revert this particular strain of vandalism? Any other suggestions? Richwales (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This page is about the Principality of Hungary. I assume this user continuously wants to ruin it. See its talk page Talk:Principality of Hungary. First, he wanted a speedy deletion[160], after that an AFDWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Principality_of_Hungary and simultaneously a renaming process (see talk page)...Now he always changes the introduction part of the article, because he does not like the title "Principality of Hungary".
I have inserted a reliable source from the historian Susan Wise Bauer about "Principality of Hungary" confirming the name.[161]
He just disregarded this source and changed the introduction of the article again. I do not want edit war. This article is not about the Hungarian tribal alliance (as user Samofi desires that), it is about Principality of Hungary. The title of Hungarian tribal alliance is incorrect, we can talk about 'Hungarian tribal alliance' in Etelköz, prior to the Hungarian state in the Carpathian basin, so those expressions are not entirely synonyms. Anyway this board is not the place for this specific 'debate'. Please check it, it is alright if Samofi flourishes like this? Fakirbakir (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
1, He should cite the full conversation about Principality of Nitra: [162], 2, I did not remove sources without valid reason(as opposed to user:Samofi [163]) I only took them to the more appropriate part of the text. (see Principality of Hungary) 3, User Samofi continuously change the introduction part of the article. This article is not about Hungarian Tribal alliance, He would not have to change it..... 4, He obviously provokes me. 5, Check the page of László Mednyánszky[164] or [165], or his contribution here Magyar tribes.[166] 6, I almost forgot it:
Reports are old, some of them older than year. A) I did not make such mistakes as I do before in this case. B) Sockpuppets were not confirmed as mine - they were of user:Iaaasi. Hungarian sources in article about Mednyanszky were deleted only once and I asked you for a translation in the footnotes coz I could not verify and translator told something different than you. You add the translations and I let it be. It was explained in the talk-page of Mednyanszky. Which provocations do you mean? I dont know about this. I added sources about Hungarian tribal alliance in Carpathian basin - no about hungarian tribal alliance in Etelkoz. All the time it was a nomadic tribal alliance which moved from Etelkoz to Carpathian basin. Why is it no article about Principality of Hungary in Hungarian Wikipedia? Why is it no scholar article about Principality of Hungary with the exact year of the foundation and the main seat of the principality? You have found a few terms in the encyclopedias and hungarian sources, took it from the context and created a new article. I cited a sources which speaks nothing about this principality in the Carpathian basin. I invested a time to read these books, I spent a lot of time to explain it to you, but you are not able to discuss and you report me oppressive each month. --Samofi (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The report at ANEW (here) makes a clear case for a 3RR block. I'm not sure on the length, however. If this is a continuation of his disruptive editing and a breach of the unblock conditions from his indef block, then that block should be reinstated. If this is just a simple 3RR, then I'd go lower. Would like other opinions. Kuru(talk)15:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Can he (User Samofi) change the article with no boundaries? Is it normal? The name of the article is Principality of Hungary. We have to emphasize it in the introduction. And he just deleted it a lot of times because he does not like it. I think it is highly disruptive.
The introduction with the title of Principality of Hungary:
A) I was not in edit warring about 1,5 year (so I dont know which disruptions I make). B) I misinterpret 3RR, I thought that its about persons (Fakirbakir vs. me) its reason why I undone the edit of Koertefa (I wrote in the edit summary that its for a first time what I undone him). So it was a big mistake from my side that I broken a 3RR. Sorry. Term Principality of Hungary is based only at tertiary sources. Its no reliable secondary source which deals with this term. Principality of Hungary is not in Hungarian Wikipedia but its kind a original research or fringe theory. Some encyclopedies from 1905 use this term and some Hungarian writers of popular literature (Hodos created 2 new countries "Principality of Hungary" and "Czech-Bohemian kingdom of Moravia" - he is not expert in the topic). But we have a Hungarian experts like Sugar, Hanak, Lendvai which has a detailed analyses of the period 895-1000 about the history of Hungary and there is written nothing about Principality of Hungary - but about Hungarian clans and Tribal alliance. User Fakirbakir just used this rare term "Principality of Hungary" (its not mentioned in old chronicles) and he is writing about the Hungarian tribal union. This term is very rare neologism from 21th century - majority of English language sources speaks about tribal alliance. Btw, in the google books is term "principality of hungary" more connected with Transylvania. Entry was changed, coz secondary sources are prior to encyclopedies - secondary sources talks about tribal alliance. There we have a few logical problems. How could be created a principality of hungary in 895? It was a strong country Great Moravia on this territory which ended in 902 or 907. It were a 2 principalities in this territory? What is the capital city of this principality? What was the borders of this country in 895? When was created a first coin in this principality? It was a seminomadic tribal alliance.
Fakirbakir wrote:
The Principality of Hungary,[1][2][3][4][5] also Hungarian Principality[6][7][8] or Duchy of Hungary[9][10] (also "Grand Principality" Hungarian: Magyar Nagyfejedelemség), was the first documented Hungarian state,[11] a tribal alliance[12][13][14][15] in the Carpathian Basin, established 895[16][17] or 896,[11][18][19] following the 9th-century Magyar invasion of Pannonia.
The Magyars (Hungarians), a semi-nomadic group of people led by Árpád formed the Principality of Hungary at the very end of the 9th century,[2] arriving from Etelköz, their earlier principality east of the Carpathians.[20]
The principality was succeeded by the Christian kingdom of Hungary with the coronation of Stephen I in AD 1000.
In contemporary Byzantine sources, the territory of the Hungarian tribal alliance was also known as in Greek as "Western Tourkia", because of its allegiance to the the Khazar Khaganate.[21]
Its total original research, its like an essay from my high-school. He is patriot and he wants use name Hungary from 895 to 2011, but its unscholar. How can we know that Principality of Hungary, Hungarian principality and Duchy of Hungary are the same country? Duchy of Hungary is a tribal alliance? Where is it cited? Createing a new history of Hungary in 21th century? lol.. He took articles about Hungarian tribal alliance, than he found a term Principality of Hungary and created a article. Its not complex analysys of the history in Principality of Hungary, but maybe it will be - in Wikipedia. Its just a new term and Wikipedia is not dictionery. Its like I would find a informations about Upper Hungary and call it Slovakia, because in the Czech, German and Slovak sources the name is Slovakia for this area (from 15th century). This is special case, coz its very big different between hungarian interpretation of history in carpathian basin and interpretation from the neutral sources. --Samofi (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked Samofi for the 3RR violation. I don't really care about the content dispute, but if WP:DR is not utilized and the edit warring resumes when the block expires, I would recommend reinstating the indefinite block from last year. Kuru(talk)14:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I've found another vandal working across several IPs who seems to be vandalizing reality television program pages by putting in false information, particularly information about episodes that are yet to be broadcast.
The range 49.145.64.0/18 seems to cover this, but the Philippines are notorious for having shitty IP assignment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I am fed up with dealing with Fractyl (talk·contribs) (who also edits as 72.184.129.252(talk·contribs·WHOIS)) and his persistent intent to write extensive swathes of prose, despite his constant inability to write with proper English grammar, without repeated spelling errors, and without omitting words or entire sentences that make the sentence or whole paragraph indecipherable. I have told him on multiple occasions throughout the past several years to stop writing prose (mainly episode summaries) because it is unnecessary work to clean up after him. I do not know why he persists in making these edits, but I want them to stop. He has on occasion rewritten items that I have written, and turned it into his indecipherable garbage. He will not respond to me on his IP (which was proven to be his during a past checkuser run by Muzemike), and he poorly defends himself on his account, saying that he puts in information I miss, which I severely doubt.
Something needs to be done about this user, because kind requests and emotionally charged requests do not deter him (both talk pages are full of requests from me and some other editors that he stop writing content). This is not the first time I have brought my qualms concerning Fractyl to these boards:
I have really tried to improve myself. Plus, I have been using a Microsoft Office spell/grammar check. Furthermore, I said I add stuff Ryulong misses because I watch the subs to get the info needed. But I respected Ryulong, too. He defended me from a fellow member who treated me like a sub-human and cursed at me alot. Therefore I'm sorry to Ryulong but in writing, sometimes I do a good job and sometimes I don't. The fact I have Ryulong telling me my mistakes helps me to at least try and fix my mistakes, sometimes even fixing the few mistakes that he made in correcting mine. But I am sorry if it seems not to be the case.Fractyl (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, I'm not sure I am seeing this as a major issue; and I can't find in your prior ANI links where others have either. Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress:_perfection_is_not_required makes it clear that good faith additions should be expected to be perfect the moment they are submitted. If you don't like cleaning up grammar, Ryulong, then don't do it. You're a volunteer, and no one will think worse of you. If you would prefer to see the grammar improved, feel free to fix it. If the additions of text themselves don't belong because they violate Wikipedia guidelines, then remove them completely. If they belong, but need some work, fix them up. Why is this a major issue? --Jayron3220:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been trying to get Fractyl to improve, but I have seen no such improvement. His prose is disjointed and full of errors and it makes it that much more difficult to try to clean up after him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that. But is this just a matter where his grammar and word choice and spelling needs fixing up? Because I checked a few of the places where you "cleaned up" after him, and I don't see you substantially changing the content of his additions or removing them altogether, which would seem to imply that you have not yet had a problem beyond the copyediting. Is that a fair assessment of what you have done so far in response to Fractyl's additions? Or am I misreading this somehow? Please clarify. --Jayron3200:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
It is because his grammar, word choice, and spelling needs fixing. However, he has been like this for five years now. I am tired of copy-editing after him every single time, particularly when I haven't caught up with the content that he decides to write about. Other users have shown that they are completely capable of performing the edits he gets to first, but then we have to work around his sometimes indecipherable prose. Sentences will end abruptly, be missing key words, or he'll use some sort of awkward phrasing that completely obfuscates the meaning of the sentence. This would be fine if he was writing one to two sentence blurbs, but these are massive paragraphs of information that he is adding.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I still don't get the problem. Yes, I understand his writing is substandard. But if you or "Other users have shown that they are completely capable of performing the edits he gets to first" then, if they were going to write text on the same subject anyways, he hasn't cost anyone anymore work; just write that text as if his didn't exist, and replace it. If his writing isn't being replaced or deleted, but instead just cleaned up, then there must be some redeeming quality to it. Again, I notice that you have not, as yet, deleted or removed wholesale his additions. I recognize that his edits need massive copyediting, but if they still have something worth keeping (they clearly do based on your keeping of some of his text), then I can't see where WP:AGF needs to be cast aside here. I understand you are frustrated, but I don't think that Fractyl is being disruptive, and I am not sure what admins can do here. If there are real problems that you need to document, perhaps WP:RFCU is in order to gather some opinions on Fractyls editing. Maybe the community will decide that there exists a problem, but as yet I don't see the overwhelming evidence of that. RFCU exist as a place to gather that community opinion. I will not speak for my fellow admins, but I highly doubt any admin will block a user who makes good faith additions to Wikipedia merely because his writing needs a lot of copyediting. --Jayron3203:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Ryulong, you're a good friend to me and I don't want to mess it up. There has to be a way we can work this issue out where we both come out winning.Fractyl (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) May I suggest that Fractyl submit suggested edits to Talk pages for group improvement before committing? This way one editor might not feel so burdened "dealing" with prose in live articles. As long as proper sources are provided, other editors might be happy to add the text to the article while copy editing a bit. --Lexein (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Earlier in the month, I added an image (an alternate album cover) to Who You Are (Jessie J album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For some reason, an individual in Finland who uses Elisa Oyj as their ISP has been removing this album cover repeatedly, with the only attempt at communication being this. The IPs responsible are the following:
These appear to be on the same range (91.154.96.0/20). Would it be feasible to block the range (4096 IPs), or would semi-protection of the article be better?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Feasible to block that range, yes - but less-damaging than semi-protection? I'd say no. It's probably in our best interests to just semi the article for a while. m.o.p21:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Only established editors can edit for the next three days. I did not want to do it longer since that article has a history of good IP edits. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the edit-warring, I have removed the additional album cover again, because it clearly fails at least two criteria, and probably three, of NFCC. Alternate album covers should rarely be used unless the alternate cover is notable and the subject of sourced commentary (for instance see Electric Ladyland, with its famous censored cover). Black Kite (t)(c)10:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
That is a new rule concerning album covers that I have never heard about. As far as I have been aware, they do not fail any of the criteria (minimal use, contextual significance, no free alternative) that you claim.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
User: STSCreverted an edit with an edit summary "Reverted 1 edit by Oda Mari (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Cybercobra." which is never identified as vandalism and reverted immediately by User:Cybercobra with edit summary "Undid revision 452666201 by STSC (talk) clearly not vandalism)". Wikipedia:Twinkle#Abuse says "Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's access to use Twinkle revoked or one's account being blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used.". I request to revoke STSC's privilege to use Twinkle and block the user to convince the user never to do the same wrong doing again. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Blocks are not punitive, only preventative, so that's not going to happen without a lot of bad behavior. Pertinent questions are: 1) has this user been told about their violation of expected behavior on their user talk page? 2) do you have reason to believe that they will continue dispite the warning? If those two conditions have been met, we can start a conversation about revoking rights, although tools in general have a much lower threshold on #2. A block is only appropriate if they have indicated an unwillingness to modify their behavior, and we need to block them to protect the project from their continued disruption. VanIsaacWScontribs11:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
It's typically up to individual editors to provide gently warnings - Twinkle access is no longer something that can be removed, except by full-out blocking. Show them WP:VAND, guide gently. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Please note that the technical ability to revoke access to Twinkle ("one's access to use Twinkle revoked") is no longer available - the only recourse now is to block - and I have updated the documentation accordingly[167]. —DoRD (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Then, I have to be warned edit warring and STSC is innocent to anything to using Twinkle reverting the edit clearly not vandalism? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
No, you're either not reading what people are writing, or you don't care. When someone acts like a snot, most people tend to not want to help them. Perhaps if you altered your approach... --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I left you a message specifically explaining why the passage about removing access to Twinkle no longer applies. I did not issue a warning or discuss blocking. Please ensure that you get your story straight in the future. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Phoenix, listen carefully: in terms of computer-programming, Twinkle access cannot be disabled anymore. Full stop. This is not policy-driven, it's technology-driven - it's now built into the standard Wikipedia interface. The only way to stop someone from using Twinkle is to full-out block them from editing anything. At this point, the user has been warned to not mark things as vandalism that are not really meeting the definition. You have been warned to not edit-war - nobody is free to do anything. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
He has been warned, Phoenix. You warned him, by posting this ANI thread. Cybercobra warned him by undoing his revert with a summary that told him he was wrong. If it will make you feel better, I'll warn him again: STSC, reverting that edit as "vandalism" was a bad idea. Oda Mari's edit, whether you agreed with it or not, was not an attempt to damage Wikipedia, which means that it's not vandalism.
Please do so. The user is not conscious of one or several warnings. Waning from ANI is a quite effective to restrain the users disruptive edits. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Let me say that if the editor continually breaks policy in this manner, a block might be needed. But 1 or 2 incidents are not significant enough to block. A warning from any editor formally carries the same weight as one from an admin ... we have a sequence escalating levels of warnings; use them wisely. (talk→BWilkins←track) 15:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Over the last few days, User:JGabbard has made several non-neutral edits to Planned Parenthood, with multiple editors disagreeing with him on the talk page. However, in the course of the dispute, Gabbard has violated the 1RR restrictions placed on the article. [168][169]. The article in question has the template above the editing box when you try to edit informing editors of these restrictions. Falcon8765(TALK)14:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Falcon, This was last week's news, and is less about the wording of a sentence than it is about the disagreements on the PP Talk page, where I have already spoken my peace. I had attempted to revert myself, but User:Noleander also did the very same thing.--JGabbard (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Normally with vandalism you revert it and move on but this person seems to know me somehow. My suspicion is this person is a long-term abuse case judging from Special:Contributions/Barongarong. then again I only see edits to my talk page as I do not know which talk pages to track this user. Is a checkuser needed? -- とある白い猫chi? 19:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Not transient, I waited a while before raising this. I'm using Firefox under Ubuntu and logged in under http not https - could be variable on one of those things perhaps? ϢereSpielChequers19:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
@WSC: do you get the same results logged out, or logged in using https? As far as I know, that template is hard-coded into Special:NewPages and wouldn't have been untranscluded without developers making changes. 28bytes (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Curious. I see it as an IP and with my alt account. Now working my way through user options to see what it could be, I've ruled out skin and some other user Preferences. ϢereSpielChequers20:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I honestly don't know. I didn't want to avoid mentioning it entirely because it seemed like the sort of thing it would be relevant to bring up (someone says they're going to stalk you and two days later a new account pops up and stalks you), but it could be coincidence - users other than CP have stalked me, and CP only followed me to one more page after stating his intent to continue his prior stalking behavior, so maybe he changed his mind. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Oops, sorry for copying your username, not his. (thanks for the correction, Doc) If there's any chance that a user is involved, it's best to inform them. I'll let others delve into the content of your report, as it lies outside my experience. VanIsaacWScontribs04:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Good call to inform Conservative Philoposher, Vanisaac. Pajko123's clearly a throwaway harassment-only account, but maybe a CU can check it against other recently active named accounts; with a SPI, probably. Doctalk04:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Has there been a spate of this recently or something? Because I know "CU isn't for fishing," and there's no one I'm proposing to check it against. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
No suspects... not good. If you've been getting stalked by sock accounts, keep track of them and see if you can make enough connections for a reasonable SPI report. Otherwise you'll have to grin and bear it! Doctalk05:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The others aren't so recent and at least one of them has since been blocked (ZHurlihee). Pajko's sockitude or lack thereof doesn't concern me - I mean, it's obvious that a user with four edits that are all reverts of the same user is a sock, but that's enough for a "harassment-only account" block, which gets them out of my hair just as well as a sock block might. Pajko has now been blocked as well. Now that CP's been notified, I'll wait to see what he says, but if this is just coincidence (and if he does not continue to stalk me) then I've got what I wanted out of the thread. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no connection with Pajko123. The implied suggestion that Pajko123 is a sockpuppet of mine is false. If anything, I suspect that it was set up by someone to make it look as though I were using an alternate account to 'stalk' Roscelese. I won't speculate about who would do such a thing. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but none of the edits seem directly related to you (i.e. impersonating you). You haven't edited any of those articles. How is that account made to look like you specifically (and not someone else who could be stalking her)? Your last two sentences have me confused a little, I guess. Doctalk07:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Roscelese has accused me of 'stalking' her. Pajko123 is an account that appears to have been 'stalking' Roscelese. So it could be impersonation of me because of the supposed similar motivation behind our edits, even though different articles were involved. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
No, Roscelese accused you of threatening to stalk here. Quite frankly, I think that's a fairly reasonable interpretation of your edit. It's only natural to at least be suspicious when a new account starts doing something that another editor just threatened to do, but like Doc said, you haven't edited any of those articles, so it is somewhat illogical of you to characterize it as impersonation. VanIsaacWScontribs08:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
It may actually be worth speculating on who would do such a thing. Impersonation does happen, but it's quite uncommon from what I've seen. Who would go through the trouble to so deviously frame another? Doctalk09:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
It's probably someone with too much time on their hands, a poor sense of perspective, and tendency to bear grudges. Which narrows it down to... well, everyone on Wikipedia. :P MastCellTalk11:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This isn't yet resolved, because MastCell, who has accused me of 'stalking' Roscelese, has left an ambiguous message on my talk page threatening to block me if I don't stop 'following' her. I don't understand exactly what I have to do in order for MastCell to be convinced that I am not 'following' Roscelese (does it mean never reverting her at any articles, ever?). I have asked MastCell for further clarification, but he has not yet responded. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
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 trying to prepare a section of Women's rights in Saudi Arabia for ITN, but I've hit a snag because an editor who seems to have an ownership issue with the page (User:Noloop/User:Mindbunny) insists on mass-reverting the changes. Firstly, this was done because I had orphaned two refs. So I fixed that. Then it was done again because I had removed a (totally inappropriate) boxquote from the Koran. So I replaced it (although I moved it to a section where it was more relevant). And now I've been reverted a third time because my edits apparently don't have consensus.
I wouldn't come here, but ITN waits for no-one and I don't see why I should have to put up with such erratic behaviour. No actual issue has been raised with any of my updates to the article.
I don't know what ITN is, and FormerIP has not communicated any goals for the article to anyone (until now).
FormerIP and some others added new material, deleted material, moved material around, added redundant material, and did a bunch of stuff extremely rapidly. Some of it probably has consensus, some not. It was too much, too fast, and combined with deletion of valid material. I reverted, started a thread in Talk, and asked him to slow down.
My requests were ignored and he started a thread here, essentially on the grounds that I disagree with him. He is the one making the "Bold" edits, however. Noloop (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not know what ITN is either, and one look at Talk:Women's_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia#slow_down started by Noloop to discuss changes shows little "discussion" from the FormerIP. FormerIP, please discuss changes to the talk page. A post like this "I don't wish to seem unfriendly but I don't have time for this pettiness. If you carry on I'll take it to ANI", should not be your very second post on a talkpage.AerobicFox (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Aerobic Fox: Please look at the recent article history, not just the talk page discussion. Noloop has been reverting changes to the text without reason. I haven't ignored the users comments on the talkpage, I've accommodated them, but its become clear that Noloop is just not comfortable with someone else editing the article. "It was too much too fast" is not justification - it's gatekeeping. Noloop is entitled to tweak, amend, criticise, delete information that is wrong or unsourced, but not to just mass-revert and demand talkpage discussion before any change is made. The ITN process can't work if that is allowed. --FormerIP (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
From Noloop's userpage: "I've contributed a lot of content to Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and Bitch. Not coincidentally, both articles were abandoned and I was able to work alone." --FormerIP (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
It would have been helpful if you had mentioned your goals regarding ITN, and the purpose of your edits. Also, if your main goal was a quick, consensual update, deleting quotes from the Koran was an ineffective method. The law doesn't go into effect for a year, so a simple sentence or two is all that seems appropriate at this point. This is the sort of thing you might have discussed in Talk after the first or second revert or before starting an ANI thread. You can't dodge the consensus process just by declaring it an ITN matter. If ITN requires fast editing, it seems at odds with nature of writing an encyclopedia. Noloop (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus issue if there are no specific content objections on the talk page. everyone who edits the article is not obliged to get consensus/your permission. --FormerIP (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that, if I have to spend time getting approval from one editor for all the changes I make (to which there is no objection beyond "please discuss these changes on the talk page"), then there's no point. ANI is the only real way to resolve the matter in a reasonable amount of time. The way this discussion in going, an important news story just won't get to the front page. I suppose worse things happen at sea but I think it would be a shame to let it happen just because there's an editor hogging the article.
The important point is that there is no content dispute to be resolved. It's about whether Noloop is entitled to just blind revert and ask for changes to be discussed first. --FormerIP (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I was perfectly clear in my objections. A quote from the Koran on male guardianship, located in the section on male guardianship, was deleted. Another quote on women's rights of inheritance, located in the section on women's legal rights, was deleted. A reference was deleted that orphaned several other refs. A statement was added that implied women currently have the right to vote. They do not currently have that right. It's true that I haven't explained an objection to every edit that was made. A flurry of a dozen edits was made all at once and it was hard for me to sort out what was being added, moved, and/or deleted. I didn't know there was a "deadline" to beat. I think there is a contradiction in thinking of encyclopedia articles as news stories to be gotten on a front page. Noloop (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Noloop, you complained about the orphaned refs so I fixed them. You wanted the quotation box back, so I put it back. The inaccurate material in the lead you are complaining about wasn't put there by me. I would have also reverted it had I seen it first. But I would have been content just to revert it, rather than see it as a reason wind the whole page back half a day for the third time. You haven't raised any objection to the content I actually added to the article. Because there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. WP has no official speed limit and the material I added would have taken you about thirty seconds to read if you had wanted to. It looks like you get to retain control of the article though, so well done. --FormerIP (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I am completely uninvolved. My previous participation in the article was part of some mass categorization I did on women's rights around the world; I came to the article to see if someone had already added information about the new decree. And I cannot for the life of me understand why Noloop is making edits like this one. Why would you insist on keeping the article out-of-date? Why would you insist on re-adding unsourced personal interpretations of a primary religious text? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
If you would make an effort to have a discussion in Talk, you might find out why an editor would "insist" on something. Instead, you've just decided to pick up making the exact same mass-deleting edits that FormerIp was making--only you are deleting even more. As I said, I think some of the changes are consensus-worthy and some are not, but we can't find out what has consensus when editors refuse to converse. One reason I "insist" on reverting is that you and FormerIP are piling multiple issues into your edits: the quoting of the Koran, the addition of recent news, the removal of allegedly unreliable sources, etc. I am reverting because I can't begin to figure out what is going on, and nobody is using the Talk page. Noloop (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to re-open this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) has decided to continue deleting text and sources from the article. S/he has twice mass-deleted material and reinserted material into the article, yet does not have a single comment on the Talk page. Noloop (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
As I read it, deleted things once (two separate edits), without discussion; you then reverted, and you added to the discussion on the talk page. If Rosenclese repeatedly re-reverts without discussion on talk page then there's reason to have independent review... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I sit corrected; I missed the first change in the morning. This is still preferably addressed by user talk notification that they please talk on the article talk rather than further revert. It does not rise to the level that admins need to intervene unless that persistently fails. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. I've left your subpages that weren't sandboxes, such as your useboxen, alone. Reply here, drop me a line at my talk page, or tag them with {{db-u1}} if you also want them deleted. Cheers. lifebaka++13:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Aciyokrocky and Fenerbahçe S.K. (football team)
This user (User:Aciyokrocky) has been making repeated problematic edits to Fenerbahçe S.K. (football team) and refuses to engage in discussion. This article was created as a spin-off from Fenerbahçe S.K. so that there were two separate articles for the multi-sport club and the football section of that same club. It took a long time for them to stop trying to make the two articles identical. Now, they are repeatedly reinstating info that shouldn't be on this article, such as unreferenced POV OR regarding Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Şükrü Saracoğlu as well as the club's museum and honours won. Much info here is also repeated on the same article. They keep putting copyvios in the infobox - kit patterns including adidas logos. There's also problems with recentism and formatting. I have brought this to the attention of relevant project WP:FOOTY. This most recent diff is my undoing of a load of the problems that the editor had reintroduced. Thanks. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on here. It's an article about a defunct-in-2003 Oregon radio network. A look at the page history from the past few days shows an unregistered user (from Switzerland) who may have been connected with the company trying to get the page deleted, apparently thinking that defunct companies don't need articles. Today a different unregistered user (from New Jersey) adding a prod tag that includes a legal threat regarding a similarly named IT company. I reverted the tag because of the threat and because it wasn't a legit reason to propose deletion. (The company seems notable enough, so it would probably pass an AfD.) I didn't block the anon per WP:DOLT. I think it is a coincidence that the two IPs have tried to get the article deleted recently, as they seem to have different motivations, but maybe something more is going on here? Anyway, I'm hoping someone with more experience (and interest--I don't particularly care about the topic) in these matters could advise. Valfontis (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Blocked. It's a pretty clear legal threat and it's not a biography of a living person. I'll leave a message on their talk page they can email OTRS or the Wikimedia foundation.--v/r - TP01:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll conceed the edit summary to his blatant and ridiculous vandalism was probably not called for, but I won't apologize for the other comment. I think telling him to "go hump someone elses leg" is a fairly mild response to "go fuck yourself buddy". Niteshift36 (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Someone please look at my recent history and the blocks I handed out. There is a massive attack going on at things that I think are video games (I started with Ninja Theory; the editors I've blocked, including some IPs, have also vandalized other articles (General Butt Naked, for instance). I think you know what I think this is. We need some admins to hand out blocks and protect some articles; I have to run to class in a minute or two. Thanks for your speedy attention. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm at work right now and I can't promise anything, but I'll throw some eyes that direction.--v/r - TP14:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Due to an MFD a page I created has been userfied (here) and I don't particularly want it, does anyone else want it before I ask for it to be speedied? EggCentric16:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
If anyone has infinite time, they are free to review the tendentious editing themselves and the production of massive walls of text at the article talk page: Talk:Militant atheism, and the archives. In lieu of going over the talk page, I'll speak to specific instances of Anupam's disruptive editing and issues of ownership.
unrepentant tag team edit warring: This is covered in detail on the talk page thread Stop edit warring over WikiProjects. The short of it is that when confronted with his role in the edit warring, Anupam preferred debating whether or not he was engaged in an edit war to discussing the content being warred over. The article page has been fully protected for some time to prevent edit warring. Despite this, an edit war broke out on the article talk page relating to the status of various WikiProjects. In conjunction with two other editors, Anupam himself reverted article content for a third time. His rationale for reverting content a third time: I correctly restored the relevant templates after there was no more objection at the reverting users' talk page. (Other tag teaming diffs: [177].)
edit warring on template sidebars: An RfC on Talk:Militant atheism exposed a significant ambiguity problem with the article content. Specifically, that both state atheism and new atheism were treated as a single topic in the article without any context or disambiguation or sourcing. In response to the synth/or/pov/ambiguity issues brought up by the RfC I updated several templates, unlinking Militant atheism: [178], [179] noting this on the article talk page: [180]. These links to Militant atheism had been inserted by Anupam: Template:Atheism Sidebar, Template:Irreligion. Today Anupam reverted those changes based on the fact that the RfC had not been closed[181], [182]. I undid that changes as the RfC neither applies to the template, nor would it resolve the quality and ambiguity issues related to the article. Anupam reverted again: [183], [184]. (Here is a link to the template discussion: [185].)
reverting corrective relinking: Four days later I was reviewing articles which linked to militant atheism to update the links for articles which clearly were referring to state atheism as opposed to new atheism, or some generalization of the two. As I was doing this, I noticed the text for many of the articles was eerily similar. Reviewing page histories, I found the following:
the text "militant atheist" was introduced by User:Pseudo-Richard copy/pasting the same summaries across many articles back in 2007 (e.g. [186],[187],[188],[189]).
In other words, the linking to militant atheism is generally an occurrence of serendipity rather than one of sourcing. After correcting several these links, which deal explicitly with the topic of state atheism, Anupam reverted the disambiguating edits that I had made: [190],
[191],
[192],
[193],
[194],
[195]
other editors views: Anupam's disruptive editing and ownership issues have been discussed by other editors, and this has apparently been an ongoing problem.
I'm not sure of the best way to resolve these issues. For the time being waiting for resolution of the RfC to conclude the most sensible way to go. But the problems go much deeper than the specific issue raised by the RfC. I think more community involvement would help in this situation. I invite uninvolved editors to at the very least review the issues presented here. Thank you, aprock (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Subsequent to complaints from both of you about each other (on the edit warring noticeboard), I've warned the both of you. I know this sounds confusing, but if there's any tendentious edit on the areas related to the RfC by either of you before the RfC concludes, I'll be forced to block the one making the edits. As you correctly mention, the sensible way is to wait for the RfC ending. I have to admit that in terms of warring, Anupam seems to be worse off than you are Aprock. Therefore, even though my words may seem harsh, they're made simply to ensure that you don't destroy a clean record by making edits that perhaps anyway would be authorised by the RfC. Clearly, there's no excuse for jumping the gun while the RfC is in progress. In summary, if either of you sees the other guy going against this warning note before the RfC concludes, drop into my talk page or here and the respective editor will be blocked. WifioneMessage09:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
There is now three seperate threads on ANI (one of them with many subthreads) that relate to disputes originating in Militant atheism.... Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned above, there are already two other topics on the militant atheism article - all three seem to unite on the fact that waiting for this RfC to conclude will solve all problems. So why keep making discussions about it? I'll close the RfC as soon as I've reviewed all responses and discussion has stagnated - then, whatever the result is, you guys are free to discuss further actions like unlinking sidebars and the like. m.o.p16:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Non-admin comment: I, too, was brought to the page via the RfCs, and I've been observing what is going on. It does not really appear to me that Anupam is engaging in WP:OWN. Wall-of-text, yes. Civil POV-pushing, probably yes too. But annoying other editors isn't really ownership. It's important to get these things right. Yes, this is becoming the new Scientology, and maybe the new Santorum. If so, it will eventually work its way up the dispute resolution food-chain. I notice another recurrent theme in these multiple ANI threads, which is that good faith editors keep saying they are exasperated. I wish that weren't true, but given that it is, the best advice is patience. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
As someone who (like Tryptofish) came to the page on the basis of an RfC, I share his view. I'm not sure this is WP:OWNershipper se, as opposed to just an obsessive focus and civil POV-pushing. Anupam (talk·contribs) is by far the heaviest contributor to Talk:Militant atheism in the past few months - no one else even comes close (see recent talkspace edits and edit-counter). I think it's just wearing everyone else down - the Abd-esque combination of civil POV-pushing, voluminous and narrowly focused editing, and poor listening skills can make other editors feel like they're beating their heads against a brick wall. As to the best solution, I dunno, but this problem comes up fairly often. MastCellTalk18:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Given that I've been mediating the various goings-on over at the MilAth talk page for the last few months, and as I've said above, I have not seen Anupam engage in ownership of the article. At worst, they're simply very interested in improving the subject matter, and have the patience to outlast other people of differing opinion. Does that mean they're doing something "wrong"? I don't think so. m.o.p20:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Content disputes shouldn't be resolved by one party having the "patience" to exhaust and outlast all other comers. That dynamic favors obsessive single-purpose editors over those with more diverse and generalist approaches to the project. In fact, when you phrase it like that, it makes me think that there is a real WP:OWNership problem here. MastCellTalk21:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith when I say this: Anupam's not doing it with the purpose of "winning". In fact, they've been more than willing to discuss (and, in fact, have lead most of the discussions on the talk page) with other users, including ones new to the article. I don't believe outlasting the competition is Anupam's intent. m.o.p03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
MoP was there an official mediation request that everyone signed onto, with you as the mediator? I'm asking in earnest because while I also became involved more recently because of RfCs I'm unaware of anything like that being the case. If you feel that you are unofficially mediating in your role as an admin then it is my opinion that it hasn't been a very neutral mediating job. Tryptofish and Mastcell might not feel that this is actual WP:OWN behavior (though they are not dismissing it like you are either), but a vast majority of editors opposed to Anupam's POV do think it is. Other than simply saying, Anupam isn't doing anything wrong, I have not seen you try to "mediate" between the people who find his behavior problematic and those who do not. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
There was a formal complaint submitted to WP:AN3 about Militant Atheism somewhere in June or so. Given that the article was in a rampant state of disrepair and there were a good five or so editors edit-warring repeatedly, I stepped in and helped mediate a compromise. Through a lot of discussion, we managed to turn the article around from something that needed to be protected to something that the community was actively building.
Of course, we're in a different place now. I understand that you're new to the article, and, as a result, haven't been part of most of the compromise building, but I assure you that I haven't taken sides; I am simply here to facilitate discussion. If you feel there are things I could be doing (for example, if you have a proposition that will help your dispute with Anupam get resolved), I'd be happy to hear it. All I have on the list now is closing the RfC (which I'll be doing when it turns seven days old).
Now, when it comes to Anupam: as I've said, I do not see outright ownership. Other issues that have been raised were taken care of, but to say that Anupam is attempting to control the article strikes me as strange, given that user's tendency to initiate discussion and compromise on the talk page. Is Anupam interested in the militant atheism page? Undoubtedly so. Does he/she want to shape it to their own will? I don't see it. m.o.p03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
MoP, I'm sorry but I do not agree with much of what you wrote. What discussion have you "facilitated" in the last few weeks? I've made all my complaints abundantly clear to you and you're MO has been to dismiss every single one of them. Indeed, despite numerous complaints about Anupam from a number of editors I see no attempt by you to work with Anupam to alter anything about the way he has been behaving. When you are called on that fact your answer is always that either the issues resolved themselves or you don't think Anupam has done anything wrong in the first place. When people call you on the idea that Anupam (or Lionelt for that matter) has done nothing wrong you claim you never said such a thing, but instead that you're simply "assuming good faith." At the end of the day, what disturbs me is this: Despite all the complaints I've never seen you validate any of them. Instead you skirt around these issues in a number of ways, especially the ones I've outlined above. Most problematic is the idea that you seem to think that saying that you AGF gets you out of both acknowledging any wrong doing by Anupam and having to own up to doing so. In relying this heavily on "intentions" you are undermining Wikipedia's ability to adequately govern itself. Disruption is not a matter of intention, it is a matter of action. When people accuse Anupam of problematic behavior they refer to what he's doing not to what is in his head. An administrator reviewing the situation needs to respond to Anupam's actions, and not dismiss them based on presumed intentions.Griswaldo (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I feel like we've had this exact same discussion a few times. I've agreed a dozen that Anupam has done some things wrong, as have multiple other editors, yet you claim I don't acknowledge said wrong doings. I've already warned Anupam on issues others have raised, yet you say I'm skirting around them. I don't know how else to tell you: I do not share your views on Anupam's supposed 'ownership'. No amount of discussion will change that. If you can find evidence of actual ownership (not moving active topics around on a talk page or asking people to edit according to consensus), then I'll investigate those claims. For now, let's stop rehashing old topics. m.o.p05:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Please provide diffs of your "warnings" to Anupam and your "agreements" about specific things that Anupam has done wrong. That's the only way to settle this. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
No, not really. There's nothing here to settle. I don't see eye to eye with your opinion of another editor, and that's that. I've already entertained this long enough - I refuse to start fetching "proof" of my own actions. If you wish to discuss other things, such as my upcoming closure of the RfC, that's fine. Cheers, m.o.p06:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
m.o.p.: I want to make it clear that what I said was that Anupam isn't doing OWN. I did not say that Anupam is doing everything right. If you really think there is no problem at all, then Griswaldo may be right. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I never said Anupam was doing everything "right" either. I just don't believe that some of the accusations being thrown are valid - this article has seen some strong opinions rise up, and a few of them concern the composure of certain editors. Yes, Anupam's name has risen up a few times. Each time it has, the dispute has been cleared up and settled. So no, I don't think there's a problem with Anupam that we haven't covered. m.o.p03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for making that clearer. I agree that there isn't anything here that would require the typical ANI kinds of actions, although I also believe that there are things that will eventually have to be "covered" elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
"Each time it has, the dispute has been cleared up and settled." This seems like an odd statement. That many new editors from the most recent RfC appear to be echoing problems that have been brought up in the past indicates the contrary. aprock (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I feel that I've addressed all real concerns. If I haven't, I welcome people to point out issues that they feel need to see more attention (provided they're backed by policy). m.o.p05:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to respond to the claim that Anupam has been engaging in discussion and compromising. I don't think this is true. His substantive contributions are almost entirely posting the same arguments again and again, claiming some past (often nonexistent) consensus is a reason not to have a discussion at all, or ignoring attempts at discussion outright. Here is a brief (and incomplete) list of posts I've personally made to him which he's entirely ignored: 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. That's just me... but I'm not the only one he's shut out. (e.g. 1 - no response) This happens all the time.
He prefers to edit war and wikilawyer rather than discuss, even going as far as lying about past discussions to justify his behavior. See this starting from the middle (2:49 pm, 13 July 2011), then read his supposed "compromise" here and here. It was also brought up and ignored here. This behavior has persisted, distorting events and attempting to shut down discussion (bottom reply). This is, of course, among a multitude of other inappropriate behavior (1, 2).
I believe the claim that he engages in discussion and compromises is misinformed, at least any more than superficially. Yes, he posts text to the talk page, but that itself isn't discussion... reopening the same proposal to change the lead over and over again without addressing any of the actual concerns isn't "discussion and compromise", neither is copy/pasting comments over and over again, masqueraded as responses to different editors (1, 2 - just one example).
As far as the OWN accusation, I'll add that I feel Anupam lords over discussions, insisting everything meets his approval before entering the article, (accepting and rejecting content as he sees fit). Now he's saying that "even if" consensus is to split the article, we can't actually do it (1, 2). I don't really know what should be done about this, but something is necessary to prevent it from continuing.
If all this, on top of the proliferation of socking, the canvassing on and off-site, the swaths of SPAs, and other absurd behavior doesn't warrant some kind of action, then that's really disheartening. This behavior has driven away several editors (1, 2 (bottom)), and with the multitude of established editors saying there's a problem (1, 2, 3), I have yet to see as much as a real, legitimate warning issued (outside of a single 3rr report).
It looks like the article will be split, so this particular dispute will subside, but the behavior exhibited on this article is seriously concerning. — Jess· Δ♥08:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to propose Militant atheism for deletion, but can't run it to AfD since the page is locked. There is no such encylopedic concept as "Militant atheism" any more than there is "Hardcore conservatism" or "Wild-eyed liberalism." The whole thing is an elaborate POV-driven original essay which is in practice a fork of the authentic encyclopedic concept, atheism. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd advise against deletion or turning it into a disambig. I'd say either:
Merge material into History of atheism and Atheism (discarding the coatrack material), redirect to Atheism. The most valuable parts of the current article appear to mainly concern history on politics and atheism, therefore History of atheism will be the most likely recipient of the content; or
Move/redirect to Political atheism or similar; move non-political content into other articles and rework to fit new article title discussing the political side specifically.
I believe these are the two least controversial, and hopefully most productive, solutions to the POV/coatrack/topic-as-OR trouble with the article. --Tristessa(talk)07:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place but honestly I'm tired of navigating through the entangled bureaucracy here at WP. Anyway, there's this user "User talk: Calabe1992" who is exclusively dedicated to revert vandalism and report so-called vandals, but some times he reverts good faith edits and just keep posting baseless warnings on people's talk pages and scaring away good editors. I wanted to edit some articles here but I really don't want to engage in a discussion with this annoying user who doesn't even add actual content to WP. Please do something, at least to temper/moderate his habits. --Seignard (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Tomballguy (talk·contribs) has been going around various movie articles, "zapping" negative criticism without adequate edit summaries, and when I reverted one of his contributions he reverted me back, calling it "vandalism" in the edit summary; he also did that to another user. When I tried a polite conversation on his talk page, he reverted it with the following edit summary: "goodbye, stalker". Diffs can be provided upon request. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that Tomballguy has been whitewashing a few film articles, stating in his edit summaries that "razziesare not notable awards." Unless there has been consensus somewhere that these are not notable enough for inclusion, it appears that Tomballguy has been incorrectly marking edits as vandalism, not adhering to NPOV by removing criticism, and attacking other editors. Eagles24/7(C)21:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The rules of his talk page ("and around the site") are interesting. The AN/I notice apparently broke Rule #1 as a possible "administrative threat".[207] But "Pornography, Hentai, etc., is NOT allowed, especially if it's in a sexual content." How could it not be in a sexual content? Competence issue, I wager. He's also relatively young, as he used to sign his name as "It's my Junior year in High School!". Doctalk21:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Right....which would make him possibly a college freshman at this point. Still a baby, yes, but theoretically approaching the age of responsibility... ---jpgordon::==( o )21:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The last sentence indicates that this erroneous interpretation of notabilty is one he is going to be sticking to. The Razzies are notable enough to have their own article here since 2003 and to be mentioned by sources like the BBC and AP. Doctalk21:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
One thing I have been completely unable to find (perhaps I did not look long enough) was any attempt to resolve this directly with the editor on their user talkpage ... (talk→BWilkins←track) 22:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
As KillerChihuahua points out, Tomballguy has said he'll cut it out, so as far as I'm concerned we should take him at his word. If that doesn't work out we can always reconvene here. 28bytes (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Per this guideline [209] is the "joke" at Talk:Pregnancy appropriate? It starts "A bad taste joke (not entirely unrelated to the current discussion) In a psychiatric hospital, a patient is submitted to a test aimed at assessing the evolution of his condition. The doctor shows him a piece of paper on which a triangle is drawn, and asks him "What is this?". The patient answers: - A woman's pubis..." I do not see how it relates to this topic? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete as per the article talkpage guidelines, massive warning, and a gigantic WP:TROUT (with no WP:CHIPS) for even trying to defend its use. If you have to preface the "joke" advising that it's in bad taste, then you know already that it will offend people, and it does not add whatsoever to the improvement of the article. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The poster was making a satirical comment on the efforts of a few prudes at getting a rather tame photo censored. Also, that's a somewhat more explicit variation on a very old joke. "Bob" used it in What About Bob?, for example, a film from 20 years ago or so.About 1:20 of this clip ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was funny and I rather think that people on whose contributions the joke was a comment could rise to the occasion and laugh at how silly other people's perception of them is. But if offense is taken, I guess it becomes a matter of CIV, see [211]. But let's not get too upset about the whole thing. At most, it was a tame breach of CIV, and of much much less significance than many other breaches of CIV on that page. Be——Critical__Talk13:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This may seem petty, but I'm not sure what to do. Earlier this month I tagged what appears to be an OR statement with a "Citation Necessary" on Boko Haram. For some unexplained reason, a range of similar IPs continues to remove the citation request. No details are given in the edit summary nor on the talk page. I continue to revert the removal (which I suppose puts me in violation of the 3RR, but it thus far has been a one-way conversation). Since the IP keeps changing, it really does no good to place a warning on the user talk page.
Hi, QX (magazine) is a Swedish LGBT magazine. I've used this article (in Swedish) as a source for the sexual orientations of only seven Swedish politicians (specifically the last paragraph, listing the nine openly gay/lesbian politicians in the Riksdag). Considering it's also a printed magazine, it doesn't look too suss to me, and I figure an LGBT magazine is unlikely to present intentionally false claims about the sexual orientations of the people in question. 97198 (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I m a wiki user.There is an article on pakistani artist on "Imran Channa" which is being tagged for deletion and copy-violent which is done by one shared IP ( 182.185.234.113) ( 182.185.219.2) ( 182.185.128.145) constantly for few days. i want help from the administration for the protection of the page.. Thank u..--Artmartxx (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I've semi-protected and am trying to engage the IP at the talk page. Once he has explained the basis of his concerns, I may unprotect to permit him to place the tags. IPs are permitted to voice concerns with articles, and even to nominate them for deletion, but it is hard to tell at this point if this tagging is being done in good faith as his tags have included allegations of copyright violation that I have not yet been able to substantiate and he has also tagged for AfD another article. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I think all the IP needs to do is be guided through the AfD process. Artmartxx, I'm disappointed that on multiple occasions you summarily removed an AfD tag without comment. I'm much more disturbed by your actions in this matter than the IP's. VanIsaacWScontribs12:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Citation bot 1 (talk·contribs)
The bot currently is messing up the authors on several pages like this, which it completely lacks consensus to do, and despite several requests to not do that. Citation bot used to operate manually for a long amount of time, so one would control when the bot should edit, based on if one though the bot's edits were worth the following cleanup. But this seems to be an automated run, and it messing hundreds if not thousands of articles. Please block it immediately, before it creates an even bigger cleanup backlog. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}14:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm reporting this here, because I think it doesn't quite fit anywhere else. There's a slow motion edit war going on over the racial status of this Doctor Who companion. Disagreement is over whether he is/was human. I believe this will continue without external intervention. Hope it can be resolved. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll warn those two involved to stop. The talk page has a discussion about it already, so let's hope it works out. Regards SoWhy16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
– Article deleted. Whilst the deletion may not be technically correct, at least WP:DRV provides a forum for a discussion. That's the place to head now
I created the article London Weight Management -- while researching sources I simply noted that Vivian Balakrishnan had launched one of the events they had donated to, which simply provoked attacks by this IP. This seems more of trying to pick a petty fight with me rather than actually having a genuine content dispute. (For one, the IP tries to remove the whole instance of a perfectly good well-sourced statement, rather than fixing any problems seen.) elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I was simply showing that it wasn't any old event they were donating to -- it should be favourable news to the company. I am only reflecting what news sources tell me. In any case the IP editor's style of editing -- taking out an entire paragraph as opposed to fixing a sentence or seeking compromise, is rather abrasive. elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 17:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
So, your not creating a negative attack article about a company to associate it with a person that is from a political party that you are a known opponent of? Are you claiming you are creating this article as revenge against the COI whitewashers, as you call these editors? ? - such a position taken by yourself was the discussion of recent threads regarding your contributions, is this a continuation of that revenge position? - Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Not at all, I simply created this page after witnessing a media storm on facebook. I discovered the links to Balakrishnan purely by chance. London Weight Management could have donated to an event that was launched by anybody important and I would have added that in. I was simply adding sources so the entire page wouldn't just be about their ads. elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 17:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggest a speedy blanking and deletion request by La goutte de pluie is the way to go here. I would topic ban him from all Singapore political articles and associated content additions as well. His contributions are not getting any less conflicted or more compliant with NPOV in that area. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
That last paragraph is given undue weigh toward the 'controversy' but I personally find interesting how a pregant woman can have postpartum depression. I'll refer to the Wikipedia article on Postpartum depression which says "is a form of clinical depression which can affect women ... after childbirth." (emphasis mine). One citation for that paragraph is not enough. We require significant reliable sources for these kinds of negative prose. I also agree with the above that this article likely would not survive an AFD. User:La goutte de pluie could do us all a favor by tagging that article for {{db-g7}} and saving us all the drama.--v/r - TP18:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Despite being repeatedly warned on his incivility, User:Floydian has shown no interest in stopping. And despite being explicitly warned to by an administrator to avoid me, User:Floydian will not stop stalking and making personal and uncivil attacks on me wherever he follows me to. I've been very patient with this user for several months but it's now getting ridiculous.
And as you'll see below, he has no respect of administrators who disagree with him.
Starting with this user's multiple failed AfD's earlier this year that I was involved in, in which this user demonstrated some of the most egregious violations of civility I've ever seen, this user suddenly became obsessed with me, hounding me, showing up in discussions about articles that he had absolutely nothing to do with. Throughout his 7 month long obsession with me and interaction with other editors, he has demonstrated complete inability to interact properly with those he disagrees with. This list of his violations is long, but these are only the ones I've come across in just the few minutes of searching.
Here are just some of the amazing examples of this user's incivility at other editors and a couple to me. These are just some, starting from February into this month (September):
After the proud spree of incivility in the first few diffs above, Floydian began stalking me by showing up in discussions I was involved with that he had nothing to do with.[217][218]. He then showed up on my talk page, again regarding a topic and discussion he had nothing to do with, and just kept on hounding and baiting me, all on my talk page. [219][220][221][222][223][224][225] He just wouldn't go away.
In an apparent attempt to save face, the user inexplicably started an ANI against me for calling his behavior childish in the above exchange, despite him attacking me by calling me "childish" [226] and then "thick". [227] In that ANI, administrator Chris Cunningham/Thurmberward closed the ANI with no action but appropriately warned us to avoid each other.[228]
Since that ANI last April, with the exception of one AfD on a road [229] (I have a long history of strong interest in transportation articles), where user Floydian strangely attacks my "honesty" [230], I have managed to stay away from him. User Floydian on the other hand has repeatedly violated the administrator's notice in his own ANI and has continuously been hounding me. Just after that AfD he dropped in on Talk:News International phone hacking scandal (a topic obviously having nothing to do with roads which make up a majority of his edits) right after I made a comment there just to counter my opinion. [231][232] (His opinion was almost unanimously out of line with consensus). After I made an edit related to the Hollywood Freeway chickens article [233], someone quickly started and AfD on it and he immediately jumped right in to advocate its deletion.[234] (with the exception of a SPA, his opinion again was unanimously out of line with consensus).
The final straw came today after I created a stub for Hollywood Walk of Fame honoree George Hicks (broadcast journalist) where I removed a prod and began collecting citations to place in the article. Floydian jumped in out of nowhere and drops this foul language-laced attack on the article's talk page, the very first edit on it. When called on his stalking and his uncivility, his response was:
While noting that adding citations is always good to any editor, it's clear this user's sole motivation was to hound and harass me instead of improving the article. As of writing this user has made zero improvements to it. (I've made great improvements to it.) I'm tired of contributing and having to worry about his guy who is obviously monitoring my history page and has no sense of civility and boundaries, from jumping into articles I'm working on or discussions I'm involved with to throw attacks at me. My toleration for this is over. It's disruptive, immature and and at best extremely bad form.
What's terrible about his editor is that he thinks his uncivil behavior is perfectly fine.
For the first two diffs above, when called on his incivility by several users [235][236][237], he not only didn't apologize but actually doubled down. His response was most telling about his view of Wikipedia's civility policies.
“
I will continue to use profane language as I please, there is no rule against that (or can you provide to the contrary?)
As administrator User:Fastily stated about his incivility in Floydian's failed RfA (have a read, it's quite amazing) which was almost unanimously opposed due to his incivility, "Many users have been blocked for much less." This user has been called on his behavior for the last several months by several administrators and users and yet he has not stopped. Clearly this user has not learned anything about civility in the last year. Nobody has ever been blocked for disagreeing with other users, but profanity laced personal attacks and hounding on this project should not be tolerated. Let's finally demonstrate that our rules against stalking, harassment and incivility are valued. Otherwise this user will continue with this poor behavior and others won't be deterred from it.
That was my response in the ANI started by Floydian against me. It hasn't been resolved because Floydian has ignored that ANI closing Admin's suggestion for us to avoid each other. Also his incivility was not scrutinized there so he just continued with it. I wished this was all done, but alas.--Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
What does a bunch of evidence from months ago show? I've actually taken many steps to improve my civility since a failed RFA in the late spring; I have completely cut out my use of foul language (though Oakshade would like to consider words like "hell" and "damn" as foul, we don't live in the 1950s), completely toned down my edit summaries, and disengaged myself from most drama (where possible). I still tell people when they are being poor editors, but that is far from incivility - that is factually based, and telling someone that the edits they make are doing more harm than good is not personal, its part of building a good encyclopedia.
I'm assuming this report is a result of my posts at this talk page. As an aside, Oakshade regularly accuses people of OWNership, as you'll see in his generous collection of evidence, yet treats any interaction I have with him on articles he's created as stalking. Back to that article, Oakshade regularily contributes very dismal quality articles to the encyclopedia, makes no attempts to improve them, and fights vigorously against those who try to encourage him to include a source or write more than a sentence before hitting submit. Many of his articles are taken to AFD where the community's time is wasted for seven days because nobody wants to do the work that the initial creator should have done in the first place (WP:DEADLINE applies here in my mind). But I digress; after avoiding this editor for at least 3 months, I brought in a source to the talk page of their recently created article and asked them, for the love of god, to please include a source and do a little more research. The reason I found the page was because of the PROD placed upon it. Anyways, I don't feel Oakshade has any case here, and so I don't plan to reply any more beyond this once. Just the same thing as months ago, with the exact same evidence, and half a year of separation between then and now.
And as a last point, you added just over 11000 bytes of data in the edit to make this complaint (though as has been mentioned, most of that is probably copied directly from the report in April). Meanwhile, you added 1300 bytes of content to an article. This provides a value many like to refer to as the content : drama ratio. For what really should be a non-issue, you have spent far more of your time focused on this than benefiting Wikipedia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢08:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
You say you have taken steps to improve your civility. I find the following edit summaries contradict that statement:
I also find your response to this report contradicts that statement as well; Oakshade regularily contributes very dismal quality articles to the encyclopedia. I draw attention to the fact that my own ban history was gained through far, far fewer "incidents" and far far less serious reasons. I cannot believe that after the first list posted above, this user has not been blocked. Colofac (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
If we can't point out when we think someone is not providing a net benefit, then slowly the encyclopedia will be taken over by entropy. I'm sorry if people take it personally, but perhaps those people should double their effort and prove otherwise instead of taking it as an insult against their character. It's not. It's an observation based on the concrete content that you submit in the form of text, nothing more, nothing less.
The edit summaries you've cherry picked are certainly taken out of context. Perhaps read into them and the surrounding edits before jumping to conclusions? Please observe the history of that IP over the past 3 months and you'll see that yes, a rangeblock for their school is soon to be necessary.[239][240][241]
And if you think calling such a persistent vandal a "dummy" is an attack or personal assault, well, then you don't have a lot of hours logged to Wikipedia. Dealing with clever vandals over the course of three months, regularly trying to mess the articles you've committed a lot of time to, then YES! You become frustrated! Calling a persistent vandal a dummy is well-earned on the vandal's part, and I can't lower myself to the social interaction of a McDonalds Playplace, treating even the most extremist of people as fine and dandy. Vandals are vandals, I'm sure the verbal pain I cause them will be absorbed. As for the first summary, that's exactly the problem with Oakshade - Sooner than taking a source that I offered, along with my observation of Oakshade's persistent creation of two sentence unsourced stubs instead of taking the initial time to create an infomative and sourced article, he accused my of stalking, acting in bad-faith, and reported me here. You tell me where the good-faith was broken in that chain. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢16:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but calling someone a "dummy" is very much a personal attack. For someone who feels they can talk about logged on hours, you of all people should know this. Short articles are not "dismal", in fact, would you post the links to short articles the editor has created on my talkpage so that I can edit them to make them better? Calling all their edits "dismal" is uncivil and bad faith. I'm gonna advise you to drop your line on "worth" and "benefit", it is shockingly arrogant and totally unnecessary. I would rather short articles than that attitude. Colofac (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I am very much surprised to see you attacking Floydian for incivility. Does this mean we are not going to see anything like this from you in the future (maybe I missed where you conceded that it was wrong and undertook not to repeat it -- it's hard to stay up to date when people keep purging their own talk pages), or are you just being hypocritical? HansAdler18:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I left a warning. Even though they appear to be inviting a block, if they are User:Sanscha30, then they have edited reasonably and in good faith in the past and we should afford them an opportunity to return to good encyclopedia building behavior.--v/r - TP19:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. However, my gut feeling is that this will have no effect. Warning him hasn't worked before. Let's see what happens. Bazonka (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Ladies, gentlemen, I would sincerely like to know what Wikipedia is going to do about the banned User:Brunodam and his articles. Quite simply, this fellow has figured out that if he edits an existing article, he will be reverted easily, but if he creates a new article, specifically named, conceived and organized so as to promote (unbelievably offensive racist) POV - an AfD needs to be posted! And if these obscure pamphlet-articles are not deleted, then otehr Wikipedians (i.e. me!) have to go around rewriting the nonsense. The articles are obscure and noone edits them otherwise, leaving these unbelievable pamphlets about (quote) "fanatical Slavic mobs" floating about our project. Frankly, I just read some of his stuff: now I'm simply enraged and want to know why these articles. i.e. sock edits(!), are not deleted on sight?? No Wikipedian should have to go around cleaning these articles-up essentially on the demand of some banned sock. The next step for me is to start going around reverting sock edits on those articles - i.e. blanking them almost completely.
It's always been my understanding that indef blocks that are then evaded by massive, persistent sockpuppetry automatically amount to indef bans after a while. What happened to good ol' "a ban is a block that no admin would ever overturn"? In any case, for the purposes of handling CSD#G5 the distinction is immaterial. Fut.Perf.☼06:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Surely if we've got an indef-blocked user creating POV articles in such an obvious manner to disrupt Wikipedia's deletion process (by having a week of AfD discussion), there's two possible solutions: we could have a proper community ban (which, if the facts are as the opening poster suggests, would pass with ease and effectively be a nail in the coffin) or just have admins doing WP:IAR deletions per WP:POINT/WP:GAME. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The old-timey de facto type of ban apparently has not survived general community suspicion of how that will be interpreted by individual editors. IMO if you read through the various pages, there is a big hole where a good-faith editor defending the wiki against an obvious indefblocked prolific socker could get blocked on a 3RR vio. I'm not sure axactly how to plug the hole, but on my reading, it's there. Franamax (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1918–1920 incidents in Split should also be speedied, since most of the non-Brunodam edits are basically the removal of the more-obviously offensive segments of his "essay". Not only that, but the events are so insignificant and obscure they probably do not meet WP:N requirements and should not stand alone but be elaborated-upon as part of a larger history article (History of Dalmatia comes to mind). I mean I'm from around there, I do know my history, and I never even heard about them.
Though I suppose the rubbish will stay now that the (ironically article-saving) AfD has been posted.
I tagged the account more explicitly - in the future feel free to examine block log yourself and tag accordingly. The article can't be speedily deleted because of a lot of intervening history. The other one, however, Italians of Ethiopia, was only trivially adjusted by others and I removed it. On the talk page, he used yet another sockpuppet account, User:4researchvita, and signed his last comment as "B.D.". D'oh. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I honestly thought the user was already banned (as opposed to merely indeffed). The guy has perfected block-evasion and sockpuppetry to a fine art, there must have been at least a dozen serious dozen socks by now. --DIREKTOR(TALK)07:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
A no-brainer. As I said above, cases of persistent longterm sockpuppeting after an indef block should almost automatically be considered community-banned. Fut.Perf.☼09:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
There's still a spectrum of sockpuppetry, and while this is an egrecious case there will obviously be others where it's less so. A tiny bit of formality helps to ensure that editors remain comfortable with reverting the most troublesome cases on sight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk09:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
There is some amount of input from this editor that is not egregiously slanted and useless, but that pales in comparison with this behavior where they don't appeal their block since 2008 (?!) and instead keep creating new accounts. That is unacceptable. I just re-read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia and the end-result is indicative - Giovanni Giove and Brunodam have both deteriorated since, and while DIREKTOR (as well as Kubura) have caused significant issues, they've at least managed to keep it together. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
There's the Italian Province of Spalato, which imho should be speedied asap as its virtually all sock edits. There's the 1918–1920 incidents in Split article (actually "dedicated" by Brunodam to "Vituzzu beddu") that's undergoing an AfD which imo could greately benefit from input by users familiarized with this thread. And then there's the "Italian Irredentism Series" that Brutaldeluxe discovered:
The question is whether one prolific sockpuppeteer, who found a (pretty gaping) hole in the system, should essentially force enWikipedia to sport this series of offensive nationalist "Why Italy Should Annex its Surrounding Lands" pamhlets, or whether they should be reorganized, merged, renamed, or deleted. --DIREKTOR(TALK)08:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
What I wanted to do with this sub-thread is ask what people think should be done with these articles..? Do we leave them as they are? --DIREKTOR(TALK)12:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Ragusino's English is noticeably worse than Brunodam's so I don't think they're one guy. Though if there's one guy that has created more socks than Brunodam its Ragusino. I'm not kidding: there were (and probably are still) dozens and dozens of Ragusino socks, all of them very obvious. But there were/are just so many its a full time job reporting them :P. As far as the article is concerned, I don't think it makes a difference. --DIREKTOR(TALK)11:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, ya learn something new every day at wikipedia. When I saw that word "irredentism", I thought it had something to do with teeth cleansing. Then when I read the article, I was reminded of Hitler trying to glom onto every place he could think of where German is spoken (including parts of Wisconsin, perhaps). Looks like Hitler's kind of dream has never died. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Irredentism is a common word - and is part of a great many cultures - including almost every European nation, African nation, South American nation, Nort h American nation, a bunch of Australasian nations, Asian nations. And Antarctican as well (the Argentine v. Chile land claims). Did I miss any? Collect (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Well yeah, lots of nations have "unredeemed" territories that are theirs "by right!", but few really call it "irredentism".. its an Italian term and is primarily used in that context. You have a city of some 25,000 people, and 2,083 of them Italian. Suddenly the 23,000 non-Italians find themselves under Italian military occupation, and about to be annexed into Italy, with Italian troops changing signs into Italian, forcing Italian as the official language, and preventing any non-Italians (half-dead war refugees) from entering the city so their tiny percentage does not decrease further. But nooo, its all about the "constant suffering of the poor occupation forces" and one of their guys that got killed - thats the title of the subsection, while the fact that some "few" non-Italians might have been killed when the Italian troops opened fire on crowds of people, thats not so significant, they were only Slavs.. a part of a "fanatical Slavic mob". Unbelievable stuff.. --DIREKTOR(TALK)14:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
To be more accurate: Italian troops do not occupied Split in 1918/1920: they sent one ship (the Puglia: January 12, 1919) with no more than 50 soldiers. No one changed signs into Italian in that period, but in 1941/1943. Italian wasn't the official language in 1918/1920. No one forced the non-Italians from entering the city. One non-Italian was killed between 1918/1920 by Italian troops: his name was Matej Mis (July 11, 1920).--Presbite (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
You're wrong on several points, but this is not the place to start a content argument (my mistake for bringing it up of course). --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
^ abCite error: The named reference Hodos was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Council of Europe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Alfred Rambaud, Vladimir Gregorievitch Simkhovitch, Aleksandrovitch Nivokov, Peter Roberts, Isaac Aaronovich Hourwich, The case of Russia: a composite view, Fox, Duffield & company, 1905, p. 298
^Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae" (published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Volume 36, 1982, Cited: "Prior to the foundation of the Hungarian Kingdom, in the age of principality, ie between 896 and 1000 AD, the princes of the Arpad dynasty, like the majority of the land-conquering tribes, bore Turkic names"
^Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae" (published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Volume 36, 1982, Cited: "Prior to the foundation of the Hungarian Kingdom, in the age of principality, ie between 896 and 1000 AD, the princes of the Arpad dynasty, like the majority of the land-conquering tribes, bore Turkic names"
Resolved
Resolved
Confirmed as Helpthesouls:
IP blocked –MuZemike 00:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. I've left your subpages that weren't sandboxes, such as your useboxen, alone. Reply here, drop me a line at my talk page, or tag them with {{db-u1}} if you also want them deleted. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AF%C3%A9licien+Rops+-+Sainte-Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se.png){kind=link}
