Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745

Need review of page history block

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.

---

Re: E Ink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

About half of the page history of this article has been blocked and there is little to explain why. There are a couple of edits near the last blocked edit[1] which indicate that there may have been a copyright violation and there is a link to an OTRS page at wikimedia[2], however, the linked page says that the ticket was accidentally deleted. There is nothing on the talk page about it.

The article was recommended for merger around the time of removal/block, and the edit comments indicate that a large amount of material was removed. I'd like an admin to: 1)review what happened; 2)if the page history still needs a block, please add a note to the talk page about the reason for the block and if it was a copyvio, include the source of the copyvio material so that editors can use that source to help expand the article. Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the very earliest blocked revisions (indeed, the first edits to the article after it was merged to E Ink Corporation) and it did read suspiciously like a corporate product description, but I could find no exact text match. I can't view OTRS tickets, so I messaged User:Moonriddengirl who performed the revision-hiding action. Hopefully she can answer your concerns. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 08:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the article's listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 May 26, the copyvio was from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/electronic-paper-display--epd-.html The complaint was from the site owners. Apparently there have been multiple articles (dozens) with plagiarized material copied from that site into Wikipedia, all of which are listed on that page. Just a few examples: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I suspect there's a lot more copy-paste from this website all over Wikipedia. Those were just the ones that made it to the article talk pages and/or have been discovered. Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Voceditenore. :) I've added {{cclean}} to the article's talk page; looks like that step was omitted when the content was removed, although I've spot-checked some of the others from that day and find the tag there (1, 2, 3). I assume this one was an oversight. FWIW, not all of the material the IP pasted was from whatis; some of it was from the official site, which we also can't use. The link is on the talk page now along with the official complainant's. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that and thanks MRG for placing the tag. That article was part of one busy day.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As the handler of the OTRS ticket in question I will just note here that Voceditenore is correct in the interpretation of the situation. – Adrignola talk 12:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 15:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Abusive and Persistent IP Stalker

81.156.191.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81.156.191.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
86.154.7.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeatedly posting abuse [8],[9] and[10]. Going through my contribution history and just reverting all my edits [11]. Its stopped being funny, could I request a range block please as he appears to be IP hopping. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest, the data set is a little small for a rangeblock at the moment, but if they keep coming from the 81.156.191.x range, it would be eminently feasible. Acroterion (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

81.156.191.208/28 would be a better range block should there be more problems from this range (81.156.191.208-81.156.191.223). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Another one, very similar style: 86.154.7.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Kahastok talk 19:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, there is no effective rangeblock possible with these ranges. The actual range is actually /10 or /8 and spans multiple /10 or /8 ranges. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Permablock for disruptive IP?

After returning from a 4 month block, looks like 58.147.235.216 is at it again with the same disruptive anti-semitic edits[12],[13]. Note that 125.193.106.3 appears to be a sock. Is a perma-block for both IPs now in order? --Nug (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution

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

---

Resolved

Hi! Apologies in advance if this is the wrong forum for this. While looking at the articles I've created, I noticed the inclusion of Til_da_Sun_Come_Up, an article I did not create. Researching the issue further, I'm pretty sure it resulted from a copy and paste from a redirect created from a move I did, rather than a proper move that preserves attribution. Basically something to do with this article and this one. I have no idea how to fix this (or if an admin is actually necessary to do so), so any help would be appreciated. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the cutpaste move by history-merging both to Til da Sun Come Up. Jafeluv (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Does a tool exist...

I recently closed this CFD where there was clear consensus to mark the categories as hidden, as well as rename them. I was about to start doing this, but I wondered, is there a bot that could take care of this so I don't have to spend a couple hours manually hiding and moving several hundred categories? Thanks. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You're probably looking for WP:CFDW, where Cydebot (talk · contribs) would create the new categories, populating them while emptying out the old ones, and delete them once emptied. — ξ^xplicit 23:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess that does make it a little easier...I still have to go in and add each category manually to the bot page, then manually edit each category to include {{Wikipedia category}}. Oh well, I guess that's why we have humans here on Wikipedia! -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeated false accusations of 'vandalism' etc at The Zeitgeist Movement article

See [14] with the edit summary "Adding real content about actions which troll who govern this page would prefer not to allow. Removing ongoing POV vandalism". The editor User:Reinventor098, who's only contributions have been in relation to TZM, or related articles, has been repeatedly [15][16] told (see also Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement, and of course Special:Contributions/Reinventor098 - particularly the edit summaries) that such false accusations of 'vandalism' [17] are uncalled for, and must stop. The fundamental problem is that TZM supporters are trying to spin the article their way, and adding questionable material sourced solely to their own organisation. Given the fairly obvious sock/meatpuppetry that has been going on in relation to the article, I doubt that a simple block or topic ban is going to solve the problem. Administrator action is clearly necessary regarding Reinventor098's actions, but I think we will also have to consider wider measures concerning the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure blocking anyone would help as I expect socks to appear in fairly short order. From their actions, I don't think they really care too much about our policies, just getting their POV in the article. Semi protection won't help as several of the SPA's are confirmed. Maybe a month of full protection to force the use of the talk page? If they get used to using the talk page, maybe they'd continue after the protection. Ravensfire (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, they seem to consider the talk page as an ideal place to make accusations of 'vandalism' - so I'm not sure that would help much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, but I'd rather there than deal with the continual reverts. Full protection + some polite but direct warnings from someone totally uninvolved might get the point across to them and if not, short blocks for civility as needed. More than anything, it's the reverting of their POV and minutia that's tiring to me. As long as they don't get too personal on their comments, calling anything they don't like vandalism is something I consider annoying but expected. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I must be one of those "trolls who govern this page". There is certainly a problem with single-purpose POV editing here. Users Reinventor098 (talk · contribs) and Voiceofreason467 (talk · contribs) have concrtrated almost exclusively on this topic and have very similar styles and points of view, although VOR has disclaimed any connection [18] . Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out here Cusop that I have not in large actually claimed false forms of accusations whenever their would be edits that are not what I would like to be done. [For example see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Joseph#Is_this_a_worthy_source_to_say_he_is_P.J._Merola.3F]. Accusations of vandalism and trolling are obvious that I tend to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_S#WP:Manual_of_Style.2FBiographies.23First_mention [my comment is at bottom]. For those wondering about my bias in editing, you should see my comment I made here:

" * Weak Keep - Considering that another article titled The Zeitgeist Movement has been suggested to be merged with this one I would imagine that it would be best to keep it. Especially considering that this might even be a method of trying to get both articles removed. I myself am not opposed to the issue of merging that article with this one, but if we are to do so... it might be a good idea to keep this one. To be honest though, the notability is a bit lacking at any rate about the person in question (even though I would disagree, but my disagreement is based on personal opinion, and thus has no place for dispute).Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Joseph_%282nd_nomination%29

So my bias and my accusations are not baseless and I do have good reasons for them being such. I just did not realize that Wikipedia had such an internal method to use and I will use that from now on. It was pointed out to me so as such I was simply in mistake. Oh and for the record, my contributions have been relied upon since 2008 for those wondering.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article was just reverted with the only explanation provided being: Removing Anti-TZM Troll reversion. Editor still reluctant to engage the troll hordes on the talk page
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would concur with you Ankh, calling what was edited as a troll edit is completely uncalled for. I mean I think the edit of inserting the word cult into the article would be trollish, but that is obvious, the edit that AndyTheGrump did was not trollish and I have no course other than to say the person is engaging in a false accusation, probably based on a personal grudge.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that the edit-warring is continuing, with both Reinventor098 and an IP making yet further massive reverts: [19][20]. As for my comment about cults, that was made on the talk page, in response to a personal attack - I have at no time suggested that the article should describe TZM as a cult (we'd need a third-party reliable source, for a start). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Good grief - it's getting worse with IP's and new SPA's coming out. At this point, I think protecting the article in a non-POV version and going from there is about the only option. Ravensfire (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it's protected now. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Finally registered

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.

---

So I finally registered a username. I edited extensively as an IP and am wondering if there is any way to salvage my history. Old IPs were:

• 76.18.43.253
• 98.203.99.251

Thanks --Sinophobe (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You can view the edits made by those IPs via 76.18.43.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 98.203.99.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), however it is not possible to merge accounts and their editing histories. WilliamH (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Verification of a source

I'd like a neutral party to verify a Romanian source used in the article about Iosif Constantin Drăgan. I opened a discussion on the matter, thinking that I might remove the paragraph myself, but user:dahn--who suspects me of being a permabanned user (he didn't elaborate)--claimed that I was stalking him. I haven't touched the article, fearing it could lead to an edit war. Maybe you guys could ask a Romanian speaker to take a quick look on the article and see if the paragraph in question corresponds to its source. Thanks in advance! --Defetistul (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would personally recommend user:Biruitorul to review the source, since his judgment can be trusted. I don't know how he would feel about that, though. --Defetistul (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Have no idea of the history here. I had a look at the source article, it appears to correspond to the edit. However this new user's first edit summary was User:Defetistul ‎ (←Created page with 'In Dahn We Trust.') ... Draw your own conclusions.... In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that I like Dahn and I appreciate his work. As for the source, are you certain you have read the article? Do you speak Romanian? Where in that article does it state anything about protochronism? --Defetistul (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Defetistul as an obvious, more or less self-admitted ([21]) sock of somebody. I don't really know who the sockmaster is, but I trust Dahn when he says it's obvious for people who know the backstory here. Perhaps Dahn could confirm who it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeated false accusations of 'vandalism' etc at The Zeitgeist Movement article

See [22] with the edit summary "Adding real content about actions which troll who govern this page would prefer not to allow. Removing ongoing POV vandalism". The editor User:Reinventor098, who's only contributions have been in relation to TZM, or related articles, has been repeatedly [23][24] told (see also Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement, and of course Special:Contributions/Reinventor098 - particularly the edit summaries) that such false accusations of 'vandalism' [25] are uncalled for, and must stop. The fundamental problem is that TZM supporters are trying to spin the article their way, and adding questionable material sourced solely to their own organisation. Given the fairly obvious sock/meatpuppetry that has been going on in relation to the article, I doubt that a simple block or topic ban is going to solve the problem. Administrator action is clearly necessary regarding Reinventor098's actions, but I think we will also have to consider wider measures concerning the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure blocking anyone would help as I expect socks to appear in fairly short order. From their actions, I don't think they really care too much about our policies, just getting their POV in the article. Semi protection won't help as several of the SPA's are confirmed. Maybe a month of full protection to force the use of the talk page? If they get used to using the talk page, maybe they'd continue after the protection. Ravensfire (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, they seem to consider the talk page as an ideal place to make accusations of 'vandalism' - so I'm not sure that would help much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, but I'd rather there than deal with the continual reverts. Full protection + some polite but direct warnings from someone totally uninvolved might get the point across to them and if not, short blocks for civility as needed. More than anything, it's the reverting of their POV and minutia that's tiring to me. As long as they don't get too personal on their comments, calling anything they don't like vandalism is something I consider annoying but expected. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I must be one of those "trolls who govern this page". There is certainly a problem with single-purpose POV editing here. Users Reinventor098 (talk · contribs) and Voiceofreason467 (talk · contribs) have concrtrated almost exclusively on this topic and have very similar styles and points of view, although VOR has disclaimed any connection [26] . Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out here Cusop that I have not in large actually claimed false forms of accusations whenever their would be edits that are not what I would like to be done. [For example see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Joseph#Is_this_a_worthy_source_to_say_he_is_P.J._Merola.3F]. Accusations of vandalism and trolling are obvious that I tend to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_S#WP:Manual_of_Style.2FBiographies.23First_mention [my comment is at bottom]. For those wondering about my bias in editing, you should see my comment I made here:

" * Weak Keep - Considering that another article titled The Zeitgeist Movement has been suggested to be merged with this one I would imagine that it would be best to keep it. Especially considering that this might even be a method of trying to get both articles removed. I myself am not opposed to the issue of merging that article with this one, but if we are to do so... it might be a good idea to keep this one. To be honest though, the notability is a bit lacking at any rate about the person in question (even though I would disagree, but my disagreement is based on personal opinion, and thus has no place for dispute).Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Joseph_%282nd_nomination%29

So my bias and my accusations are not baseless and I do have good reasons for them being such. I just did not realize that Wikipedia had such an internal method to use and I will use that from now on. It was pointed out to me so as such I was simply in mistake. Oh and for the record, my contributions have been relied upon since 2008 for those wondering.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article was just reverted with the only explanation provided being: Removing Anti-TZM Troll reversion. Editor still reluctant to engage the troll hordes on the talk page
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would concur with you Ankh, calling what was edited as a troll edit is completely uncalled for. I mean I think the edit of inserting the word cult into the article would be trollish, but that is obvious, the edit that AndyTheGrump did was not trollish and I have no course other than to say the person is engaging in a false accusation, probably based on a personal grudge.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that the edit-warring is continuing, with both Reinventor098 and an IP making yet further massive reverts: [27][28]. As for my comment about cults, that was made on the talk page, in response to a personal attack - I have at no time suggested that the article should describe TZM as a cult (we'd need a third-party reliable source, for a start). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Good grief - it's getting worse with IP's and new SPA's coming out. At this point, I think protecting the article in a non-POV version and going from there is about the only option. Ravensfire (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it's protected now. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Finally registered

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.

---

So I finally registered a username. I edited extensively as an IP and am wondering if there is any way to salvage my history. Old IPs were:

• 76.18.43.253
• 98.203.99.251

Thanks --Sinophobe (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You can view the edits made by those IPs via 76.18.43.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 98.203.99.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), however it is not possible to merge accounts and their editing histories. WilliamH (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Verification of a source

I'd like a neutral party to verify a Romanian source used in the article about Iosif Constantin Drăgan. I opened a discussion on the matter, thinking that I might remove the paragraph myself, but user:dahn--who suspects me of being a permabanned user (he didn't elaborate)--claimed that I was stalking him. I haven't touched the article, fearing it could lead to an edit war. Maybe you guys could ask a Romanian speaker to take a quick look on the article and see if the paragraph in question corresponds to its source. Thanks in advance! --Defetistul (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would personally recommend user:Biruitorul to review the source, since his judgment can be trusted. I don't know how he would feel about that, though. --Defetistul (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Have no idea of the history here. I had a look at the source article, it appears to correspond to the edit. However this new user's first edit summary was User:Defetistul ‎ (←Created page with 'In Dahn We Trust.') ... Draw your own conclusions.... In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that I like Dahn and I appreciate his work. As for the source, are you certain you have read the article? Do you speak Romanian? Where in that article does it state anything about protochronism? --Defetistul (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Defetistul as an obvious, more or less self-admitted ([29]) sock of somebody. I don't really know who the sockmaster is, but I trust Dahn when he says it's obvious for people who know the backstory here. Perhaps Dahn could confirm who it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandlisim and slander being repeated

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

---

Resolved

Slander about a third party is being posted on the American Digger page. It has been removed twice in three days by those who monitor it, but was reposted. Here is one view of the coments, calling a former employee a fraud and fake. It was not posted by anyone with any knowledge of such things nor connected with the magazine, but purely as a revenge tactic against the person slandered, Ric Savage. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Digger_(magazine)&diff=485402608&oldid=485279098 Even though we are 99% dertain who it is, we can not prove it. If it is the person we suspect, we have warned them before about slander and such abuse. Can this action be stopped and the poster either warned again or blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.124.165 (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Proposed indefinite topic ban for Yogesh Khandke

Topic-ban enacted: banned from all edits on the subjects of colonialism and Indian history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 4 April 2012 (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.

---

Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) figured in the departure of Blnguyen/YellowMonkey in late 2010. Since then, his persistent attempts to skew Wikipedia's coverage of South Asian history in favor of various fringe Hindu nationalist theories has repeatedly sapped the time and morale of knowledgeable and/or expert contributors. As seen in the latest episode (and again in a previous iteration), YK is adroit in promoting a non-consensus position—one that can hardly be said to enjoy more currency among reputable historians than does, say, Holocaust denial. Time and again in YK's career, this problematic editing programme is backed with non-pertinent and non-specialist sources in intense bursts of repeat reverts and talk-page spamming of questionable sources. He backs off for a time before returning, often to the same article and the same issue. This sporadicity has perhaps allowed him to dodge the blocks and other injunctions that befall other disruptively tendentious or revisionist editors not savvy enough to strategically time or space their spurious content challenges.

Nevertheless, the damage is done: again and again, as exemplified most recently at Talk:India#Aryan_Invasion_theory_oops_read_migration, experienced editors must tediously refute each of YK's formulaic challenges: fringe theories backed by marginal or non-specialist sources; Hindutva-sympathetic rewrites and removals backed by marginal or non-specialist sources. This would perhaps be OK if the editor in question were newer or less familiar with core content policies, but the episodic recidivism of YK is a different matter: a topic ban for YK revolving around South Asian history, preferably indefinite but otherwise of duration not less than six months, renewable upon occurrence of further disruption, would be a solution that would save time and foster more policy-compliant content contribution on both sides. Saravask 11:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some additional points:

• I recommend that the closing admin interpret "a topic ban for YK revolving around South Asian history, preferably indefinite ..." as taking the form of the first restriction placed on Zuggernaut (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log): "topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia." Presumably, as with Zuggernaut, a mentoring admin would step forward to guide/police YK with respect to the topic ban.
• Below, editors suggested that the proposed editing restriction should have been stronger, for example stating that YK's source misrepresentations and undue referencing and tendentious editing not be merely decanted from one topic (South Asian history) to another (British literature). Some seemed to hint that an indefinite site ban is required: "It is time for Yogesh Khandke to go."; "... but, when it involves misrepresentation, an "us and them" attitude, alteration of sources, stuff like that, I think it is time to say thanks but goodbye to Khandke." In light of the further evidence of YK's persistent pattern of disruption (more detailed and disturbing than mine) presented below, short of a unequivocal promise to reform tendered by YK, I'd support a site ban, whether now or in future YK-related damage-control discussions.
• For now, the spirit of the proposed topic ban should ideally inform uninvolved admins dealing with YK-style disruption, whether the strict letter of this proposed ban cover the affected pages (say, on Pakistani or Indian history) or not (Dickens). If YK returns to disruptive editing (which, given his on-and-off history, is likely), the consensus that emerges here should help enact stronger future restrictions earlier rather than later in YK's next disruptive cycle.
• Several editors with greater sourcing expertise than I or more experience dealing with YK have corrected/clarified/expanded the observations above. Johnuniq, Truthkeeper88, and others point to the harm YK has done to the Charles Dickens articles by giving undue weight to sources or positions, driving away responsible editors, etc. Had I known, I'd have recommended a more wide-ranging editing restriction, perhaps by proposing enactment of point four of the Zuggernaut restrictions with respect to the Dickens articles as well as point three, allowing uninvolved admins to spot ban YK from talk pages/articles where he has been or is being disruptive.

Saravask 05:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I have been watching this latest sequence and did on a couple of occasions try to explain to those who were getting drawn in by YK's fringe theories, but my experience of YK's methodology, which Saravask explains well, goes back for quite some while. Nothing is changing, nothing is being learned and the time-sink aspect is phenomenal. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• This gives an idea of just how many times Yogesh Khandke's POV-pushing/undue weight theories etc have been referred to this noticeboard. There are plenty of other instances that did not make it thus far and he was, of course, involved in the politically-oriented protest at the India Wikiconference last year when he tried to obtain a legal resolution to an issue relating to WP's depiction of maps of India. He disappeared when that failed and has only recently returned to editing. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources never say that they are 'fringe' theories by 'cranks'. These are assertions from editors on Wikipedia. I am little puzzled how Sitush is silent on this facet, even if that goes against his vote.

Also Sitush and other editors are well experienced to let know if content disputes can be taken to ANI or not. My understanding says that content dispute has to be dealt with first before concluding that these are 'fringe theories'. Considering your expertise on sources, could you present sources please that state clearly that views from the side of YK are exclusively 'fringe theories'. Unless it is proven that views from the side of YK are exclusively 'fringe theories', such assumptions can be made against views presented by YK.

I don't think that much of what User:Saravask states such as "in favor of various fringe Hindu nationalist theories" etc holds unless any content disputes, if any, are resolved.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Saravask describes it well. I've seen editors spending huge amounts of time trying to explain to Yogesh Khandke how we use reliable sources, how we evaluate sources, how we can't add improperly sourced fringe ideas, can't add nationalist POV, etc, but it's just not getting through and a lot of time is being wasted repeatedly going over the same kinds of things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that there are no sources presented by the involved admin himself that state the sources presented by YK are exclusively fringe theories. Per me, this is in contradiction to his statement above about his own idea of reliable sources and loses much weight especially in absence of any discussion as such on 'fringe throries' which could not be discussed on this noticeboard.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the original content disputes and this discussion of YK's behaviour. Saravask has provided links showing evidence of YK's behaviour, and the sources/fringe/POV issues are covered at those links. In order to evaluate YK's behaviour and Saravask's recommendation, I do not need to restart the content arguments here and now or provide any content sources of my own (as the sources used were presented and discussed at the time), I simply need to evaluate the evidence of YK's behaviour in those content discussions. (And by the way, I really don't think your badgering everyone who supports this recommendation is doing you any favours, you know). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just to clarify as per Johnuniq's request below, I am supporting an indefinite topic ban on editing in any topic areas related to South Asian history, in any Wikipedia space. I note other editors' opinions that there is a wider problem, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with any other areas of contention to offer my judgment on that, so I have to remain neutral on any proposals for wider sanctions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - My understanding here is that the views per YogeshKhandke are not 'Hindu nationalist theories' or 'fringe theories backed by marginal or non-specialist sources; Hindutva-sympathetic' etc. I can say this by words present in the discussion itself such as 'contemporary scholarly debates', 'some Indian scholars', 'Some historians and Indian nationalists', 'The Aryan migration theory has been challenged recently by several archaeologists', etc. Words like scholarly debates, Indian scholars, Some historians, archaeologists etc. can hardly be described as 'fringe' groups etc - I think all the participants here in this debate need to understand this well. In any case, this is about history long ago which no one can directly prove much at all directly with certainty; much less if there is indeed a debate on such topic ongoing - more so hotly debated topics such as this. Also, western sources per my understanding do not represent exhaustive views, and quoting someone of higher repute is considered sufficient for substance, without actually going into details of all sides. For me therefore this does not merit such action, especially when sources can have diverse views and are not bound to present all views (- this needs to be better discussed per me). As far as other edits are concerned, undoing an edit is no big deal especially compared to edits put in especially with sources mentioned. I would also suggest people here, learned and experienced too, to avoid name calling on personal perceptions. An example would be 'crank' which is per individual editor's (here Fowler) choice of words to describe what he calls nationalist historians/archeologists. While being experienced and reputed on Wikipedia, this wouldn't affect the seniormost editors but it would definitely affect any not-so-senior ones in case views from one side is made to look worthless, leading to bans etc. If senior editors do it, others will learn to repeat the same behavior. I am reminded of one instance when I was involved in an ugly exchange with some senior editor who suggested something like I have sympathy for 'saffron terror' or 'saffron terrorism' or whatever, while reopening a closed vote in my absence; and got away without even a warning and that lead to a ban on me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 12:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Where were you banned or even blocked? I don't see anything in your block log. Would you mind supplying a diff? JanetteDoe (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• JanetteDoe, Thisthat2011 was topic banned per this. It has expired now. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush, I didn't see that. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about this topic ban [| link], the one mentioned by Sitush is incorrect. It is where I was accused one the lines of saffron terror as a reason reopening a vote which I think is not a correct way to reopen a closed vote. No one corrected either the editor not the reopening of voting.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban link to which you refer appears to be the same ban to which I referred. Am I mistaken? The fact that you more or less sat out that ban and then returned to similar topic areas and, in a fairly short space of time, end up here ... well, it does not look great. I would not have raised the issue if you had not volunteered it. My suggestion would be that in future you do not refer back to that topic ban: it had consensus and it is over and done with. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please check again, these are two messages with same header for some reason! Also, my ban is over. Per instructions of the person who banned me, I am discussing this on talk pages, I have not indulged in any edit war which you may imply. I have presented my views on talk:India page too. If you have anything against it, please reply there because I have neither edited anything on that page currently, nor edited even if sources requested by me are not presented, even here.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made my position clear here. I will not make any further comments other than saying that I think this discussion has turned rather fragmented, with little smaller discussions on sourcing when it is not being discussed at reliable sources board even for dispute, and more. I could have said a lot more with sources on various topics on each topic but but I think that won't be possible here with an open mind for all sides so I won't regardless as also that this looks too confusing to me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I dont see anything wrong being done by Yogesh, first you may argue that he had edited the article before discussing but that action alone would not merit a ban. He did not push aside the sources presented by other editors all he displayed was that there are other theories so the sentence needs to be changed. Editors like fowler are considering few historians a cranck case and thus not considering those historians work, now this is something that can be debated. Coming to the point of Yoges pushing few Indian nationalist theory; Yogesh did provide few other sources and none of them were Indians, if he is wrong you can discard the sources but not initiate a discussion to ban him.--sarvajna (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is going no where and its getting murkier with every reply from either side. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Its high time he is topic banned. His POV pushing is wasting everyone's time. He knows perfectly well what can be added here and what cannot. This is not the first time he is doing it. He knows well that the POV he pushes cannot get consensus through discussions, so his method is to first add unilaterally, then edit war without breaking 3RR. When thwarted he will try to argue it in the talk page. He usually doesnt get his way and comes back a few months later repeating the same point or similar points. He is a colossal drain on the community's time and resources.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• 'Yogesh Khandke replies:(1)Some of those voting here Soda, Sitush, and admin Zebeedee, a long history of conflict with me regarding content, Sitush has been hounding me for many months but I have ignored him, not to create conflict. (2)ANI isn't the forum to bring content disputes so I will not justify my edits unless asked to do so. (3)Regarding gaming the system: I don't have computer access at work, so my editing is subject to the time I have leisure, that cannot be held against me. (3)Since it is year-end, (financial year), I have limited time, so that should be considered, I mean I will not be able to watch this page, I could know about this discussion only because I received an email alert because of the message left on my talk page. (4)This ANI is used as a tool in content disputes, which is unfair. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Holocaust denial: Saravask writes: "YK is adroit in promoting a non-consensus position—one that can hardly be said to enjoy more currency among reputable historians than does, say, Holocaust denial.", which is nothing but a lie, all I wanted in the article was the mention that the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory is disputed for which I have presented evidence, I repeat my position which is that the India article which mentions the Aryan Migration theory should also mention that the theory is disputed by academics - historians, archaeologists, experts on genetics, cultural and language scholars, I am not disputing the mention of Aryan Migration in the article, my position is that this theory is diputed by numerous NON-FRINGE, RELIABLE SOURCES, for which I have presented evidence which I have collected on a sandbox and so the India article should take cognizance of the dispute as it is NOTABLE. (sorry about bringing up the content dispute but the fatuous reference to Holocaust denial needed to be scotched.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Fowler I should add his name in the list of content disputers and one who has been frequently abusive and uncivil, however since I don't believe in formal action against fellow editors I dropped the issue after he tendered an unconditional apology - twice. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The language that Fowler uses: "Hindu nationalist fringe "scholars" ", "Indian cranks" in the latest discussion.[30], when administrator Regentspark was requested to reign in the abusive Fowler (for an abuse a short while before the edit presented by the diff), admin Regentspark excused himself as an involved editor,[31] here he has no qualms in rushing to support a topic ban, he was an opposite party made by me in the historic YellowMonkey case and was admonished for batting for YellowMonkey. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that Mr. Khandke is cornered he has suddenly turned saintly and is accusing me of being abusive. He conveniently forgets his own transgressions. Long before I entered this latest fray, when user:AshLin asked for my input on the current state of knowledge on the Indo-Aryan migration theory, Mr. Khandke, unsolicited, offered a Marathi language proverb which he offhandedly asked AshLin to translate if requested. Well, why don't you translate it for us now, Mr. Khandke? I am requesting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

PS Perhaps someone else who knows Marathi could translate it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Marathi, but found the proverb here. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure what to make of it, but YK has a history of using vernacular expressions (which I don't understand) in exchanges with me. See, for example, user:Sodabottle's post at the bottom of this ANI thread titled Personal attacks by Yogesh Khandke. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well Fowler even before you entered the discussion YK had suggested that you would ardently oppose the inclusion of the other theory(that is what the proverb mean but indirectly) which proved to be right. Yes there are incidents were your language can be very objectionable for example [[32]] where you say that it is the last time that you would consider ppl bringing other sources, I guess if I had pursued it may be there would have a been a discussion about banning me as well, calling historians whom you don't consider worthy as crank case is also objectionable anyhow the discussion here is not about Fowler's language but about YK. I feel that this whole discussion is biased against YK--sarvajna (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is more likely to be the case that the comments here reflect an emerging consensus, but time will tell. However, even when not indulging fringe theorists etc, Yogesh Khandke has to be watched carefully. For example, compare this new article by him with its current state. I am still trying to fix the gross slant that he put on the thing, using for now just the sources that he has identified. It is the usual subtle "all the fault of the Brits" stuff in which he seems to specialise. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that everyone is being vindictive of YK and everything that was edited by him is being dug out, this discussion was started after he had given some evidences of sources on the India talk page. Few admins/editors have declared that nothing would change as long as they are the administrators and I feel the point of banning YK has come up because he annoys few admins POV(This is what I think after seeing the talk page of India and few other AN/I involving YK, I also know that this would not matter a lot) --sarvajna (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

From Sitush "even when not indulging fringe theorists etc, Yogesh Khandke has to be watched carefully", does this mean that opinion of User:Sitush is more likely that the editor YK is not indulging fringe theorists in this case? just for clarity. In that case, the entire discussion may be seen in another light - perhaps a content dispute, and not what this looks like.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You ask for clarity. If I could understand the rest of your message then perhaps I could provide it. Can anyone assist? Perhaps I am a bit more than my usual dumb self today. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that YK has failed to observe WP:SPEAKENGLISH with me more than has any other editor I have encountered in my six years on Wikipedia. His command of English is not that poor that the vernacular (Marathi) is his only option, that he can't provide a translation, when he knows perfectly well that I do not understand a word of the language. How come he is not using Marathi (with offhanded remarks about translation) in the frenetic edits he is making on the Charles Dickens page? How come there are no "frog in the well," or "wrestling with a pig" expressions there? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Further from Yogesh Khandke:(1) "On the Ganga move": www.fastcompany.com quotes Sue Gardner Wikipedia's CEO thus

She likes to tell the story of the Ganges/Ganga argument playing out now on English Wikipedia. In India, the official name for the country's second-largest river is the Ganga. The British have long called it the Ganges, a term that bears the stench of colonization for many Indians. Since 2007, there has been a spirited back-and-forth between editors about whether a search for the river should redirect to Ganga or Ganges. "There are two Indian guys arguing one side, and then there's a bunch of casual editors from the United States and Europe arguing the other," says Gardner. "And it's interesting because there's this tiny number of Indians who care a lot and are correct and have all kinds of citations and evidence to support their view, and then there's this group who just are rebuffing them because the numbers are on their side."

I am one of the two she mentioned. (2) The Charles Dickens' article is refered here - the result of my edits on that page was that we have a wonderfully sourced new article, whose major contributor has been user:WickerGuy, so much for non-collaborative editing accusation made by user:Spanglej, considering the sensitivity of the subject. One of my recent edit's[33] has been called

It's an excellent and worthy addition to the article. Thanks for keeping us a bit less Anglo-centric.

(3) Those who are after me with knives (metaphorically used) have company at Metapedia where I am called a "Dravidian troll", for bringing the numerous non-fringe, scholarly, notable, sources mentioning Dickens' racism to the table. (4) Closing admin Please look at this carefully (a typical example of the flimsy and false accusations): In his opening statement Saravaska calls my edit Hindutva-sympathetic, (see the very racist term used Hindutva - Hinduness, do we use terms like Christian-ness sympathetic or Wicca-ness sympathetic on Wikipedia?). What is my edit?: I removed the internal link that led lower-caste communities to Shudra; I explained in my summary: Shudra is not a community it is a Varna, the bloke cannot distinguish between a community and a Varna. (The other change was deleting the wp:Weasel most and quoting the source as per wikipedia policy - state opinion like a fact) (5) Regarding Child marriages both child and marriage are wrong in the quote –as (a) Is 18 the threshold for defining the status as child? (b) I had given many sources that explained that marriage doesn't mean that the relationship is consummated, there is another ceremony called as Gauna, which follows "marriage", "marriage" is more like a betrothal. (c) I had mentioned the Gillick Fraser competence, that allows doctors to advice and supply contraception to 12 year olds, in the United Kingdom, and wondered whether "Child marriage" was a notable mention in what admin RegentsPark lately called a "summary article". (In my opinion the skewed male:female ratio is more alarming and notable.) (5) @ALL: Sitush is trying to connect alleged real world actions with Wikipedia editing, is that allowed on Wikipedia? Is my honesty in using my real name in editing here, and in other contributions on the Internet, to be held against me? What action could be taken against an editor who levels such charges? I use my real name because it acts as an implicit censor, I can only write what I can associate with as my own work, I don't spew vitriol hiding behind an assumed name. I like to "play with my cards on the table". 6) I am happy EyeSerene's blocking action has been mentioned here, that was a kangaroo court type of decision in which I wasn't even allowed to put my point across, I wasn't editing while it was enforced, I wrote to EyeSerene, but he went for a long vacation and when he returned I just didn't have the time and energy to pursue the matter, about user:Qwyrxian he in course of a discussion extrapolated his experience with Asians he encounters as a teacher, to all Asians, making comments to the effect "Indians don't have a culture of questioning scholarship and implicitly follow persons in authority". (also see post script) The "cabal" he "modestly" confesses (NPOV and RS warriors), is a load of nonsense, the persons mentioned by him, have been demonstrated to, that they simply lack competence, they have been called "google scholars", I don't say that you need to be a "rocket scientist", but you need to know a little about the subject, so as not to confuse "varna" for "community". I must add that their incompetence is not just related to the subject that they write on, but surprise of surprises for those like administrator Zeebeedee and Qwxryian? also extend to Wikipedia policies. (7) Similarly Johnuniq, Jaga and Seb 86556, were on the winning side of an article move debate, which won because at least in that instance wp:NOTDEMOCRACY failed. @John: Kindly spare us the original research on this page, please find RELIABLE, NON-FRINGE, NOTABLE sources and make the necessary changes to the page, instead of indulging in disruption. (8) I will explain my editing pattern - I am a self-employed person, I don't have fixed hours or days, I edit whenever I have time, I have a school going daughter who needs my help with her studies, there are other social responsibilities in my community, where we have lived for about 60 years, I volunteer for a Luxembourgian NGO, helping them in their campaign; a kharicha vata (squirrel's contribution) to enable the Roma people in Europe to be able to have the same rights that other humans living there have. (9) I could reply to more insinuations but I request the closing admin to hear my side in any other matter before closing (please a note on my talk page I get email alerts), and also see the 30 odd articles I have created, to ascertain for himself/herself whether they fail NPOV or are not supported by RS, or contain UNDUE or are FRINGE, I have been verbose enough, my prose has been called obscure before. I must hang up. (Post script: see point no (6) above) Considering here, the repeated harping about "experienced editors/experts..." to me expectation of "implicit subordination” seems to be the culture of some Wikipedians. I have been called "aggressive"; if you want a submissive, fawning Indian, you are at the wrong door. If you want me here, be prepared to accept me as an equal. I have clear understanding that editing Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right, and I am careful in not abusing it. Au revoir!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional statement from Yogesh Khandke I am back as this has taken longer than I expected. Fowler&fowler has called me deceitful in this discussion, which is a strong allegation. If I would write Indlu yako injani,[34] would the reader say don’t talk Zulu with me? I doubt very much, unless he has a familiarity with the language, he would say stop that gibberish, we have Fowler&fowler saying on this page Mr. Khandke, unsolicited, offered a (edit summary reads please translate) Marathi language proverb which he offhandedly asked AshLin to translate if requested Well, why don't you translate it for us now, Mr. Khandke? I am requesting. [35] (1) I request the closing admin to muse over how (a) Fowler&fowler knew what I said was in Marathi language, (b) how Fowler&fowler had enough familiarity with the language to know that I had used a proverb and wasn’t say swearing at him in my native language. (c) With answers to (a) and (b) at hand I request the closing admin to think over why Fowler&fowler asks me to translate the non-English statement for him. (d) Assuming there is a good reason for Fowler&fowler to have written what he did, I request the closing admin to understand that the statement was for user:AshLin an editor whom I have met at a Wikipedia programme, and who I know is familiar with the language in which the statement is made. Please note that: I wasn’t talking to Fowler&fowler, I was talking to AshLin. (2) I have used non-English words when Fowler&fowler has been around, one must not forget that these were used in the context of editing in the Indian content environment (and not while editing say Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism), where editing is done in Indian English, so that words like bandh, dharna, gherao, loot, jungle, lakh, crore etc potentially could be used. Some of these words may be a part of UK or US English, others may not. Also, the only other non-English term (if my memory serves me right, apart from the German quotation I gave on 2012-03-31) has been kupamanduka, a Sanskrit philosophical term, one that The Times of India, the world’s largest circulating English newspaper has used too[36]. Another thing that puzzles me is the very old-fashioned word vernacular, that he used, one more popular with the British when referring to native languages in colonial India. How does he know that Marathi is my vernacular, if it is the vernacular which in his opinion is the lingua franca? (3) Fowler&fowler continues to create in his words "drama", he writes about how Elst and Frawley are anti-Muslim and belong to the camp that thinks that Aryan Migration/Invasion isn't the final word in ancient Indian history. Isn't that a classic Ad hominem argument? Fowler&fowler's argument is also classic strawman as I haven't quoted Elst and Frawley, those I have quoted are here[37] viz. Stephen Oppenheimer (who has been quoted by a rediff.com news-story), Gavin D. Flood (who acknowledges the disputes but who considers that Aryans arrived as a minority - not several waves as the India article describes it as), Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, Edwin Bryant, Laurie L. Patton (who are editors of "The Indian-Aryan controversy..."), Jim G. Shaffer and Diane A. Lichtenstein whose article is included by Bryant et al, who quote Edmund Leach, Mikel Burley, Charles Michael Byrd, I stopped looking after that. There is also the Times of India article which quotes a study co-conducted by Harvard School of Public Health, Broad Institute of Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and I'm sorry there is an "Indian crank" here Dr. Lalji Singh of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology. Their study concludes that " the hitherto believed "fact" that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of north and south Indians might after all, be a myth." and " there was no scientific proof of whether Indians went to Europe first or the other way round."[38] There is too much mention of Fowler&fowler by me, let us not forget Saravask the bloke who brought this AN/I about has called these sources "marginal or non-specialist sources", and who accuses me of recidivism, is it common for him an admin,[39] to use such pointed language? Am I going to be hanged (used metaphorically) for using such sources. (4) Assuming for the moment that everyone related to the disputing camp (or sources that acknowledge the notability of the dispute by mentioning) such as Leach, Oppenheimer, Flood, Harvard, MIT, Broad, and the "Indian crank" Dr. Lalji Singh and his Centre) etc. are anti-Muslim, does Wikipedia censor NOTABLE, RELIABLE, VERIFIABLE, non-FRINGE, and non-UNDUE inclusions just because they are allegedly anti-"some"ism (5) Non-notability of child marriage: previous discussion, also see Fowler&fowler insulting Hindu god Hanuman [40] {6) I have been called tendentious, can an editor who has others who agree to his edits such as user talk:Zondrah89, user:Ratnakar.kulkarni, user:Thisthat2011 User:Raghu-holkar (the latest in the long line of editors who resort to socking when stonewalled, and then get banned, to the glee of those like Fowler&fowler, who calls them trolls-peddlers of garbage, who disappear or get banned.[41]) be called tendentious, just because I haven't disappeared or got banned (so far anyways) like a good garbage pushing troll should.? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban for one of the most bizarrely tendentious editors I have encountered in my six years on Wikipedia. user:Saravask has eloquently and precisely summarized what many of us have felt about YK's edits (most of which are on talk pages) ever since he first arrived on Wikipedia. People have cut him more slack than any definition of slack allows. It is time to end this; otherwise, productive editors will feel disheartened and be rendered unproductive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Tendentious doesn't begin to describe this user, from the looks of things. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Fowler&fowler needs to rethink his stance on various issues he considers as fringe. His views are consistent that many theories are projected by 'by Indian jingoists', 'cranks', etc. Examples: [| 1], [| 2]. He is not ready to consider that there are debates on it ongoing even though sources mention so. About this comment from "The minority is too small and, in many cases, unrecognized as scholarly, to gain mention in the summary history section of a Wikipedia FA. None of the people you have quoted including Edwin Bryant or Laurie Patton are historians. As scholars of India none are even remotely in the same league as Colin P. Masica, Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Romila Thapar, Michael Witzel, Burton Stein], Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Patrick Olivelle or Stanley Wolpert, all of whom have lent their support to the notion Aryan migration." I am not sure if this is the place to reply to this comment as discussion is also going on talk:India page in parallel. The sources themselves mention 'scholarly debates' etc.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Tendentious in the extreme and here only to push a fringe POV which he does aggressively and relentlessly. --regentspark (comment) 14:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  The alteration of quotes, misrepresenting citations by cherry picking comments, misidentifying sources, reframing the debate as something it is not, etc. demonstrated here by Fowler are classic examples of tendentious pov pushing behavior. --regentspark (comment) 14:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is hardly any discussion to support the assertion that the views presented by editor YK are 'fringe theories', etc. The discussion is still going on on talk:India page. If the user regentspark finds sources that say the theories are from 'cranks' & 'Hindu nationalists', please mention sources here or on talk:India. Such assertions from experienced users without sources, without going to reliable sources noticeboard, without concluding discussion on talk:India are hardly considered appropriate on a vote according to me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as per all the reasoning above. Given Yogesh's lack of concern and non-constructive edits to the respective articles, he deserves a Topic ban. Ab hijay  ☎ 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned about this user just adding one-sided comment here without being involved at all. Examples of his talk page are: [| 1], [| 2]. I would therefore have comments from this user ignored.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

agreed the whole discussion is being conducted like "my way or the highway " as mentioned above by me few editors are hell bent to ban YK --sarvajna (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, attack the editors taking part in the discussion - that's sure to get people on your side ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this right, people who haven't been involved with the dispute can't add their opinions; while those who have been involved with their dispute but are in support of a topic ban are "hell bent" on getting their way. Riiiight. If anything I think its the defence that is going overboard... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

1st Boing! said Zebedee if you think you are being funny you are not 2nd. I did not say that people who are not involved should not add their opinion all I meant was "they should not form an opinion just on the basis of what it is being discussed here but rather check out the matter properly" (apologies if I was not clear) --sarvajna (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This part, started from the user User:Abhijay nowhere involved in this and apparently not too well versed with Wikipedia, is going nowhere. Look just two topics above this topic [| here on the same page], which perhaps has led to the other user User:Strange Passerby here. As an admin User:Boing! said Zebedee who is on one side of discussion here could have avoided passing comments on someone on the other side like this, when it is clear which side which editor belongs to.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My comment here had nothing to do with Abhijay so you'd do well not to assume. I've watched this from afar for a long time, having previously had pleasant interactions with Sitush and Boing. Wait, I suppose in your eyes that makes me involved. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about User:Abhijay, see where this is going? Editors on one side writing about editors on the other side and then more!!इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. You're not making coherent sense. You suggested that I was "led here" because Abhijay posted about me to the board. I'm saying my taking part in this discussion has nothing to do with that. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected then. I suggested that perhaps you were checking on his edits and then saw this discussion and then added your opinion. In any case, it does not affect your view. Though still I am not sure how much weight is carried by the opinion of User:Abhijay. Perhaps your could clarify about it, even if his comment does not support your view.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys c'mon. Abhijay is a good faith, but new, editor. He has obviously not long found this board and has tried to comment and contribute. Any competent closing administrator will be able to see that train of events and weight his contribution accordingly. Piling on each other, based on his comment, is not going ot help either him - or you. In fact it's probably pretty off putting all round. Lets chalk this up and move on. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support as I have seen the POV pushing and use of UNDUE sources over an extended period—it will never end voluntarily. However, I am concerned that a topic ban from South Asian history would leave YK more free time to cherry pick negative commentary to inflate stuff like Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism—the central problem is not so much South Asian history as a misunderstanding of what is DUE. When Dickens died (1870), the world was an extraordinarily different place, and an article highlighting alleged racism and anti-Semitism of Dickens completely misses the point, and should not be tolerated at a neutral encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  The editor himself says that "When Dickens died (1870), the world was an extraordinarily different place", but does mention the topic here, without commenting on whether the editor disputes any sources and how the sources 'inflate' stuff etc.. The topic in that era, 'inflate stuff', etc. do not matter in any case; and so would be the editor's perception of POV based on Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism article.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  The central problem is that for any major topic like India or Charles Dickens there will be literally thousands of sources that could be argued to satisfy WP:RS (and similar sources might be adequate for unsurprising text in other topics). However, when a thousand sources have written about Dickens, it is inevitable that some of them will have chosen to interpret Dickens' writings as racist or whatever. It is not satisfactory for an editor to find such sources and create articles based on them (that is undue cherry picking, aka WP:SYNTH). For major topics like these, there are hundreds of high-quality scholarly sources written by acknowledged subject experts, and it those sources that should be used for a neutral encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that YK has stopped anyone from editing the page. If you think it is biased, then use the talk page of that article. Have you added any content or made any efforts at it to dispute sources etc. before claiming that he is cherry picking, even without any discussion.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is this discussion heading to? Some dispute that needs to be settled on the talk page is being brought up here in support of a topic ban --sarvajna (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to "POV pushing and use of UNDUE sources over an extended period" and explaining that it is easy to cherry pick POV commentary from sources for major topics—that is why a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Really? You imply here that 36,031 bytes page size with 39 references used in it is a baised point of view? Forget the page size. I can stretch articles to huge lengths (just like Dicken's writings). But 39 valid independant references does not seem like something that can be ignored and not included in an article. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If the Johnuniq has consistently made, for which he has not provided any sources, the similar/same assertions about all users with views on the side of YK on the topic Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism, his opinion would have weight per me. Otherwise his views are not consistent w.r.t. editors.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Two points i want to say....
  1. As i see, most of the comments by editors here are complaints based on content dispute on various articles. I have observed a few threads here at ANI which keep on saying that content dispute should be addressed on a seperate forum assigned just for resolving those and ANI shall not be used to deal with it. So... if all the complaints are based on content dispute, this is a wrong place! Furthermore, I do not understand why the editors against YK's edits are actually against YK. Most of his edits which are called as "Undue" here actually are well referenced. 50:1 ratio will be called as undue. But i dont see such a huge ratio here. He clearly cites more than one references about various points he includes. I dont call it undue. All editors here should understand that Wikipedian editors should be neutral about the subject, but at the same time keep in mind that Wikipedia's aim is to be information bank which can be used for research. If contradictory views of reliable sources present on the topic are not mentioned in the article, i will call that as undue. Also, wikipedia articles are never complete. One must hence always assume good faith in other editors and not disregard the chance that something more of same sort might exist in other places which is yet not covered and brough to wikipedia. Building of articles might take long time and as wikipedians are not bound to do anything for wikipedia, it is unfair to assume that facts mentioned are Undue.
  Come on! Isnt it really good to have all views about a topic mentioned?
  2. As few ediotrs have pointed out above, other few editors who have not been involved in these topics should not vote here as Support or Oppose. I request them to change their views from Support or Oppose to "Comments". Although i do trust that admins who go through this would "read" carefully, i also trust in errors that humans can do. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• 1) No, this is not itself a content dispute, it is about YK's chronic tendentious *behaviour* in content disputes and his repeated attempts to push his own POV against policy and against consensus. As a behavioural issue, this is a perfectly valid venue for it.

• Meant to add - A Wikipedia article is not a repository for every opinion ever aired on a subject or a place to publish all views, with each given equal weighting - that's not what balance is all about. A Wikipedia article is supposed to balance various views in accordance with the weighting given to them in the real world, by academics and experts as published in reliable sources. Fringe theories and minority views should only be included in proportion to the support they get in the real world, as support by reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• 2) Anyone is allowed to support or oppose the suggestion as they please, even if they have not been involved in these topics. In fact, previously uninvolved people examining the presented evidence with fresh eyes can be of great benefit - if YK is innocent of the charges, surely that's what they'll decide when they review the evidence, isn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We live in an age when even the craziest assertions can be traced to someone who has already made them in a public forum. It doesn't make the assertion sourced, especially not to a reliable source. I have written most of the history section of the long-standing FA India. It is sourced to impeccable sources. I have tried to use textbooks on the history of India that are used in undergraduate and graduate courses in the best universities around the world and published by well-known academic publishers. The reason for this is that such textbooks have been vetted for balance. Many editors try to insert one-sided points of view into the India article, sourced to poor unreliable sources. They are usually dealt with on the article talk page. However, when an editor does this relentlessly, dozens, indeed scores of dozens, of times, it becomes a behavioral problem. When an editor does this with full knowledge of what he is doing, it becomes a behavioral problem. I don't appear at ANI that often. Perhaps one or twice a year. Let me state very definitively: Yogesh Khandke is likely the worst (and certainly one of the worst) of the tendentious editors I have had the sad privilege of encountering in my six years on Wikipedia. If editors here seem against him, he has only himself to blame. He has wasted an enormous amount of time of law-abiding, content creating, editors. It is time for Yogesh Khandke to go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that these days we can find source for assertion made but who is to decide what is crazy and what is not? call it crazy if it not in match with your POV? --sarvajna (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia would not exist if this sort of solipsism were the norm here. Figuring out what to include and what to exclude is not a question of "matching with your POV" (unless a POV is the only thing an editor brings to the encyclopedia). Rather, it is a question of incorporating whatever is the consensus view amongst scholars. "Most historians" captures that adequately. However, the larger issue here is Khandke's tendentious behavior rather than what is "right" or "wrong". I'm perfectly happy to discuss insertion of new material but, when it involves misrepresentation, an "us and them" attitude, alteration of sources, stuff like that, I think it is time to say thanks but goodbye to Khandke. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's decided by consensus in discussion (see WP:Consensus), and once a consensus has been reached, one should not keep restarting the same content war over and over again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

you are right Boing! said Zebedee, but a consensus was never reached, all the sources provided were discarded by few editors neither there was any third opinion on the matter --sarvajna (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean a unanimous decision with everybody agreeing, it means an evaluation of the arguments made in accordance with policy. Having re-read a number of previous disputes, I see YK repeatedly trying to misrepresent sources, and pushing minor sources against arguments made in full compliance with Wikipedia's Reliable sources policy. And I see far more than three opinions offered in those disputes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was extremely dramatic of HumorThisThat to over-react about my comment about Yogesh. Do not assume things the way you think them to be HumorThisThat. So stop being such a dick. Ab hijay  ☎

sarvajna, The history section of the India page was rewritten during a few months in Spring (April through June) 2011 during a lengthy FAR of the page where dozens of experienced FA and FAR hands were watching, and finally supporting. If that is not consensus, what is? Where were you guys then? It has been a year since. All the Hindu nationalist fringe theorists whose opinions you are impaling us with had already had their various epiphanies about the topic by then. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fowler you are talking about a discussion that had taken place almost a year ago, are you suggesting that nothing should change after the edits that were made? Consensus was never reached during the last discussion, I am not referring to something that happened over a year ago. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Replies to Boing! and Fowler: "Once a consensus has been reached, one should not keep restarting the same content war over and over again" is wrong. Consensus can not be necessarily permanant. New experienced/inexperienced editors keep on coming to newer topics. Newer sources can be found. Thus consensus can very well change. (Its written somewhere in some policy. You all probably know where.) I dont understand how re-raising an old point again is a problem. You all very-well give references to age-old fights when you want someone blocked! You don't let bygones as bygones then! Do you? An editor who believes in something and wants in it the article has every right to discuss it to introduce the content he wants. He ofcourse needs consensus. When YK (or anyone) re-raises the discussion, the editors who said no to it last time jump in again and again say no. The intention of re-raising the subject is to partly see whether old editors' views have changed and partly see if new editors have arrived who agree with him. If old editors' views are still same, they need to say that. But that does not mean they close the discussion and not allow newer editors to ponder. Hence i find you all also faulty here. It takes two to fight.
As to my 2nd point above.... Editors are surely welcome to post their views here. But the main topic here is discussion on "topic" ban. Its not a montly meet of I-Hate-YK Club. User:Abhijay is supporting ban for some reason. I havent understood what the reason is. (& why is he now poking in my space?) User:Johnuniq is also supporting ban for some Dicken's article. How is that related? Its like, "Yesterday he bumped me and my icecream fell. Let me say that this has nothing to do with the topic. But i say Block him!" -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point about consensus not being unchangeable - and yes, past consensus decisions can be revisited. But when it's the same points, with the same old arguments, and the same old sources, brought up again and again and again, it really starts to move away from the fair re-examination of past consensus and towards tendentious disruption. As for "You don't let bygones as bygones then! Do you?", if they really were bygones I'd be delighted to let them go. But the whole reason for this proposal is that it is YK who won't get them go, and instead keeps starting up the same old POV-pushing and refusal to follow sourcing and NPOV policy over and over again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And PS: As for why User:Abhijay has offered an opinion, I can't answer for him, but how about the possibility that he clicked on the links provided, read what they linked to, and formed his opinion based on that? You know, try a bit of WP:AGF? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• What the hell is the matter if I just support a ban. It's my account (yes, i just renamed) , I have the right to edit, so what on earth is the big deal. I've had a view of Yogesh's contributions, and you have to admit that they are extremely disruptive in nature. Now let's stop creating such a huge battleground situation here. It is purely unethical. Arguing all over and moving all over the place isn't helping anyone, nor it is helping yourself. Oh god, this stuff just turned a lot more all-over. First a discussion about a ban about Yogesh, then some guy over-reacts about my comment and then moves on to a blocking of another editor. Good grief guys. Well done for screwing up this whole thing. I will contact an admin about your behavior if this condescends into a more stupid matter. Soviet King (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC) (Moved this comment up to the appropriate section so it's clear what it's replying to - hope you don't mind, Soviet King -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@Boing! and also others: Lets take this example.
User:Spanglej on 22 February 2012 says at Talk:Charles Dickens "Yogesh, you have banging this drum for more than two years. It seems you are advancing a personally held political position. The article is not a soapbox nor a vehicle for political promotion."
What we have after YK's so called "drum banging", "advancing personally held political positions", "persistent and tendentious modus operandi", etc. is Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism with numerous reliable sources and a completely valid self-standing article. Various editors opposed him when the Dicken's discussion started. But looking at the present condition of the article we see how YK's editings were right and other editors were just not ready to accept that. I know that they still disagree with points of undue weightage and POV. But numerous independant references on that article give different image than what these other editors hold. The conculsion here is, all the so-called YK's views on Dickens are not really his views. Had other editors been considerate enough to view this material properly at the start, YK wouldnt have needed to be tendentious. Again, it takes two to fight! And after proving himself right at Dickens one should seriously think that others, and not YK, can also be wrong. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not about "right" and "wrong". It is about consensus, reliable sources, correct quotations, balance, cherry-picking, pov-forking and numerous other issues. I'd wager a bet that there is much that is dubious in the article to which you have linked, simply because that is YK's modus operandi (and it can be seen in umpteen comments he appears to have made a various blogs, news websites etc). However, any review of the article by me will have to wait until Sunday. Suffice for now to say that his recently created articles concerning Indian news media/people have been pretty woeful and, yes, non-neutral. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, it is about being right & wrong. Other editors repeatedly said he was wrong and these were his own opinions on Dickens. When given time, he proved his points were not his own but of other reputed writers backing with sources. And to his modus operandi of being tendentious and sometimes aggressive and annoying one should blame opponent stubborn editors. Frankly speaking, if YK is able to fight all these obstinate editors he is doing a brilliant job. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Animesh, you're generally a reasonable editor. But, classifying misquoting and cherry picking sources as a "brilliant job" does not become you. I don't see any problem with reasonable discourse but, when an editor cannot be trusted to correctly quote sources, then we're better off without that editor. It is this 'no holds barred in getting my POV across' attitude that is detrimental to this encyclopedia. And, when that 'no holds barred' editor also calls the theory he does not like a fairy tale or attempts to recast it as an obviously discredited theory, then there is little doubt of that editors intentions (and little doubt that the net result is going to be not good for wikipedia). I should also add that Khandke's tendency to frame debates as an 'us Indians' vs 'them colonialists/westerners/whatever' is also extremely bad for the encyclopedia. Not only does it make otherwise well meaning editors think that 'India' is under attack, it also leads to a tendency to discount scholarly sources and research. And, scholarly sources are the only independent yardstick by which the quality of this encyclopedia is measurable. --regentspark (comment) 17:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Firstly sorry that i did not reply to your upper post. I did not notice it. Usually when debatable discussions get this long and non-followable i quit them and say do whatever you want. That is a reason for me calling his work as brilliant. Cherry-picking and misquoting is obviously wrong. But thats what other editors can check and correct. That doesnt mean indefinite ban. I dont see "We have to rework on whatever he does" as a reason for ban. As to tendentious behaviour towards a group of editors i have already said before that those editors are to be blamed for it. It seems to be natural that he has to be aggressive while fighting alone against many others. That is not a reason for indefinite ban. But that can very well be a reason for controlling/monitoring discussions on these topics between YK & those editors. Does it mean over work? Yes! But over work is not reason to ban. These matters are all content disputes which can be handled without ban. Considering the fact that all of his edits are well sourced, we know that he is usually not writing something wrong but is surely bringing a contrasting view than the one that dominates the whole article. I see that as a good thing as it makes article unbiased. If he is banned, how do you propose to handle these points when he is not supposed to talk about them? Wont that be a lose?
When i read Wiki articles i mostly consider them to be full. Even after becoming an editor here i mostly find it difficult to add something to an article which seems full. If YK is being able to add something new to a long standing FA (which one can call as stagnant and something that the then-editors thought of), it is a good thing. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Now merely translating my views for clarity as "Oppose" from "Comment". -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support solely on the basis of behavior. User's modus operandi is persistent and tendentious; had experience with YK on the Ganges-move odyssey. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I have just reverted the latest personal jibe from Humour Thisthat2011 against User:Soviet King (formerly Abhijay), which raised events that were nothing to do with this discussion. I would caution Humour Thisthat2011 to remember his previous bans for aggressive behaviour, and stop the unwarranted personal criticism of a good faith editor who has every right to offer his opinion in this discussion. Humour Thisthat2011, you need to calm down and stop throwing mud at people, stick to discussing the issue at hand, and try assuming good faith occasionally. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee I would like to disagree, Humour Thisthat2011 had to support his previous argument about Soviet King's unwarranted display of support for the ban without really looking into the matter properly and it was also very much required in view of Soviet King's indirect threat(as written above by Soviet King) and its very much required now--sarvajna (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And you are guilty of exactly the same kind of Bad Faith behaviour - there are no justifications to the accusations that other contributors have not "looked into it" properly, and nobody has to satisfy you or him that they have. If your only tactics here are to throw dirt at those with whom you disagree, then you really are only damaging your own case. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee Humour Thisthat2011 provided proper justification but you reverted it --sarvajna (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Are personal attacks on the competence of your opponents the only kind of argument you people know? Because that's all that's happening here with the attacks on Abhijay. How about discussing the actual arguments people present here rather than trying to throw dirt at them personally? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I had already given my closing comment under my vote but I felt I have to reply, what do you mean by "Are personal attacks on the competence of your opponents the only kind of argument you people know?" please refrain from using such language. I was referring to the evidence(the page history) that was given by ThisThat2011 which atleast shows that Soviet King made a decision in a hurry. I will not drag it further, I feel I have made my point. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"You people" is a second-person plural phrase, referring in this case to you and ThisThat2011. What on earth is wrong with that? And no, the "evidence" given by ThisThat2011 showed no such thing - no number of diffs can possibly show anything about when somebody read something or whether they were previously aware of an issue. But having said that, I've spoken to ThisThat2011 on his Talk page, and I will accept that he did not mean it as an attack. However, if you wish to carry on criticizing someone else's ability to form their own decisions, then I'll leave it to the closing admin to judge. The closing admin will be someone uninvolved, and will judge consensus based on the policy-based arguments presented on the subject of YK's behaviour, and I would strongly recommend that that's what you should stick to if you wish to influence the outcome. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarvajna, stop using such language against Boing. He's clearly trying to help mediate, and I did not use a indirect threat. If I gave you a threat, I would end up getting blocked by Boing! right now. I've wasted enough time here. Good luck to the next person reviewing this.

Arbitrary break

• Comment - can't comment on the topic ban, but something needs to be done, and I think a RfC/U might the direction to take. Yogesh's edition style is clearly tendentious and off-putting. Charles Dickens is a page with between 8000 to 10,000 views per day, yet his edit warring there and the pattern of his contributions to the article and talk - page has driven away editors who would have pitched in for a rewrite of the page [42]. This goes far beyond a content dispute, it's a pattern that drives away editors who are willing to make useful contributions. That's a problem in my view. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of times YK has been here, I don't think an RfC/U is needed. Specifically, I call attention to the comments of the last person who blocked YK:

I've blocked Yogesh Khandke for one week, both for the utterly unacceptable comment he made regarding MatthewVanitas's edits and for the other evidence presented above of his ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing. I had considered an indefblock because I strongly believe that users who make the editing atmosphere unpleasant for others are a net negative, no matter what content edits they've made, and we're better off without them. Editor recruiting and retention is a growing issue and combative attitudes are actively destructive. However, I decided to to err on the side of caution... although I consider any return to editing after the week is up in the light of WP:ROPE. Review welcome as always, EyeSerenetalk 11:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

An RfC/U would ultimately just waste time, since they can't result in any formal sanctions, and the ANI history alone should be sufficient for a full topic ban. And if that's not enough, then I strongly recommend reading the discussions on Talk:Charles Dickens. I'll admit I've only read part of them, because it's extensive.

Disclaimer, just to save YK and his defenders time: I'm one of those involved editors who is unfairly prejudiced against YK from the past, who has been engaged in a long-standing witch-hunt against him and others, and who is a part-time member of the Sitush-Boing-Fowler-MatthewVanitas cabal (you know, that cabal that wants Wikipedia to follow devilish rules like WP:NPOV and WP:RS). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Do an RfC/U, if need be. JN466 13:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• As Qwyrxian says, a RfC/U is not likely to achieve much. We've gone past the point where it would be useful. Yogesh knows exactly where he stands with regard to his Wikipedia life and has known this for some considerable time now, but nonetheless chooses to continue with more of the same. Classic battleground stuff, in fact. As with Zuggernaut and MangoWong (both of whom seem to have decided to retire), he holds some very firm anti-colonial etc views and they massively affect his ability to understand that there are other viewpoints, let alone that his own are fringe-y. His cherry-picking and misquoting is also not a new thing and does rather suggest that it is a deliberate attempt to subvert our policies. RfC/U will merely result in another visit to this noticeboard at some point in the near future. If we're lucky, it may not be until July but past history suggests that he is likely to be around in April and then absent May/June, so I wouldn't bank on it being so long before we are back here. This might be interesting, although I am deaf & cannot hear it. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting there is something wrong with having firm anticolonial views, or that such views are "fringe-y"? Last time I looked, colonialism had decidedly gone out of fashion. I will not stand by and watch people who have their own NPOV problems take out an opposing editor through summary justice at AN/I, just because we have more Western than Indian editors here, and each group comes to the topic with their own favourite literature and perspective. --JN466 06:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No, that's not it. I understand Sitush's mention of "very firm anti-colonial etc views" to be a coded way of saying that certain editors are overcompensating for past oppressions, and they look for ways to poke the former colonialists. That would be excellent if it were confined to giving a WP:DUE summary from typical scholarly works. However, as noted above, with enormous topics like India or Charles Dickens there are literally thousands of marginally reliable sources that have written from just about every conceivable angle, and cherry picking from those marginal sources allows an editor to insert almost any desired slant. For example, it is extremely undue to pick Dickens out from all the people alive worldwide in 1850 and assert that Dickens was racist—the truth is that the world is a very different place since then, and while an article on how views have changed in the last 150 years would be good, using cherry-picked dubious or primary sources (rather than comprehensive scholarly works written by acknowledged experts) is not satisfactory. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, here's my take on this. I consider myself pretty strongly anti-colonialist, and I am of the firm opinion that the British in India committed massive abuses and atrocities. The British Empire was not glorious and heroic, it was a shameful episode of history - as were the colonial conquests of the Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. But the answer to that is not to re-write the history of India from a Hindu Nationalist POV - that would be no more acceptable than having, say, the history of the UK written by a British Nationalist group. We need to write our Wikipedia articles on India in as neutral and well-documented a way as possible. And to do that, we should weight them based on the best academic sources we have available. We should not allow cherry-picking from all manner of minor and fringe sources to try to right past wrongs or change unfavourable history, and we should have no room for anyone who repeatedly edit-wars to adopt such a tendentious approach. That's what I think is meant here, and it really is the only way an encyclopedia should be written. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Frankly, I get worried if the first diff given in evidence of an editor's malfeasance sees him citing Cambridge University Press and the Times of India, the second cites the University of Michigan Press, and I then see him accused of citing fringe sources. Fringe sources? If you want to make a case that he cites fringe sources, don't come with University Press sources that actually happen to bear out what he says. --JN466 18:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Nobody here is claiming that *all* the sources he has ever cited are fringe sources - but much of the criticism here is that, amongst other things, he has frequently misrepresented reliable sources (and again, nobody is saying that *every* citation he has given is misrepresented). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Yeah! No one is saying he is *everytime* wrong. But they are just saying, lets block him so that he can never be wrong neither right! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • @Johnuniq: Why do you call "picking" Dickens by YK as undue? Because Dickens is non-Indian and YK is Indian? Is that the reason? Is there some rule that editors cannot edit articles related to other projects? And whats wrong in writing about Dickens' racism if it existed? Being 150 years old doesnt make it go away. Its like saying after 100 years we should edit Hitler and remove all material related to Holocaust because the world is a very different place since then. As you are free to edit any article here, so is he. Wikipedia is not compulsary. If he edits about Dickens' racism he is not bound to write about how racism has reduced in 150 years. Nor is he bound to right about everyone's or anyone else's racism to prove he hasnt unduely picked Dickens. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't care where editors come from. In a 100 years there will still be lots of scholarly sources that accurately describe Hitler and the Holocaust. It's getting off-topic so this will be my final explanation here regarding my attitude towards Dickens. What would be very interesting (if suitable sources are available) would be an article on how different are the attitudes between typical people from 1850 and today. If a time machine transported a typical person from just about any country in 1850 and got them to live in society today, it is highly likely we would be shocked by their toilet habits, table ettiquette, views on gender and race equality, and opinions regarding a wide range of human activities. However, to pick one person from 1850 and declare that their attitudes were unacceptable is UNDUE as it fails to mention that something similar could be said for most people from that period. It would be fine to state that Dickens was racist if that is the conclusion from scholarly sources written by acknowledged experts in the topic of Dickens and the history of the period. This is very similar to the Shakespeare authorship question where hundreds of arguably reliable sources have written just about every conceivable conclusion about Shakespeare, and one editor could easily "prove" that Bacon wrote Shakespeare's works, while another could do the same for Oxford (people claiming to be expert have supported seventy different candidates as being the author). The only way for progress to occur at Wikipedia is for major topics (where hundreds of marginally reliable sources are available), is for articles to be based on the major scholarly works written by acknowledged experts. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Oooooh dear! You are at the wrong address. You should post your request for new article Difference of attitude between typical people from 1850 and today at Wikipedia:Requested articles. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

To Jayen466, Please don't flatter the sources that YK pushes by calling them anti-colonial. The Hindu nationalist cranks that are pushing the "Out of India" theories on various Hindu nationalist website have no history of anti colonial views. They were nowhere to be seen when the anti-colonial struggle was being waged in India by Gandhi and others before him. They made their first notable appearance when they murdered Gandhi. They see a firm connection between "Out of India" and "Get out of India (if you are Muslim)," and are all virulently anti-Muslim. (This also goes for the Hindu nationalists' confused western sympathizers such as Konraad Elst and David Frawley.) The problem with YK other references (Cambridge, University of Michican) is that he quotes them deceitfully. Gavin Flood, for example, that he quotes in support of his views, says clearly at the outset that the most widely-believed theory to date is that of Indo-Aryan migration. He then says that lately there have been some other views, but then goes on to himself support a revised Indo-Aryan migration based on the work of Asko Parpola. What does YK do? He deliberately says nothing about Floods opening paragraph, saying nothing about his revised views; he only mentions the one sentence about their being other views! I'm afraid Yogesh Khandke is about the worst of deceitful POV pushers I've seen on Wikipedia. The earlier he is topic banned from South Asian history, the better it will be for Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, this would not be a place to showcase your political opinion about "Hindu Nationalist" and you know that very well. Please keep your personal opinion out of this discussion and would not suit an admin editor to make statements like "They made their first notable appearance when they murdered Gandhi. They see a firm connection between "Out of India" and "Get out of India (if you are Muslim)," and are all virulently anti-Muslim." also Hindu Nationalist were equally fighting for freedom and your statement "They were nowhere to be seen when the anti-colonial struggle was being waged in India by Gandhi and others before him." is insulting and false. --sarvajna (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

would not suit an admin to make statements like "They made their first notable appearance when they murdered Gandhi. They see a firm connection between "Out of India" and "Get out of India (if you are Muslim)," and are all virulently anti-Muslim." Who said Fowler&fowler was an admin? Has the camp defending YK gone to the lengths of making up positions of power for people to discredit them? —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment was meant to be a generic one. I have made the correction( I hope it had not created a lot of confusion, you are pointing out a small typo but have nothing to write about my comment??)--sarvajna (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi sarvajna. I do think your comment has merit, and I think the comment you replied to strayed too far into personal political opinion. But I also think it is important to distinguish between Hindu nationalism and anti-colonialism, because the two are not equivalent (although, of course, it is possible to be in both camps). We are talking here about the pushing of a Hindu nationalist agenda, and are not suggesting sanctioning someone for being anti-colonialist (if we did the latter, I think we'd have to ban just about everyone here). And I think that's something that needs to be made clear to whoever takes on the daunting task of evaluating the consensus here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Boing! said Zebedee if I was not clear let me restate it, comments like "They made their first notable appearance....are all virulently anti-Muslim." and ""They were nowhere to be seen when the anti-colonial struggle..." may be Fowlers own opinion and they need not be discussed here, that is all I wanted to convey in my reply. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you on that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Though I agree that fowler's opinions should not be discussed here, to be fair to him he was responding to JN466's comments about western editors and Indian editors. Fowler's point was that the material pushed by the Indian editor in this case, YK, is neither representative of what is accepted by academic historians nor is it representative of the view of Indians in general but that it arises from a group that is particularly good at pushing its own agenda. We should focus more on what reliable sources say and less on where a particular editor happens to come from, especially when someone is misquoting and misrepresenting scholarly work (all to easy in this age of google) to push their pov across. --regentspark (comment) 13:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarvajna, Everything I say is based in sources. Here is Smith, David James (2003), Hinduism and Modernity, Blackwell Publishers, pp. 38–39, ISBN 978-0-631-20862-4, retrieved 2 April 2012 Quote (pages 38-39): "The counter-view, the 'indigenous Aryan' thesis, is upheld by a small group of enthusiastic Westerners, most notably Konrad Elst and David Frawley. The latter's Myth of the Aryan Invasion sold out in 18 days on its first publication in India. But these writers, like the Hindu fundamentalists whose cause they espouse, are vehemently anti-Muslim, and the two positions seem generally tied together the Aryan invasion has been refuted; and the Muslim invasion of several hundred years ago should he reversed." Next time, stop wasting people's time by making needless drama. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, stop making rude and personal comments.

I am not the only one who thought that you are pushing personal political opinion, if you have a source doesn't mean anything. If a source is all that you require than YK had several sources to his arguments. They made their first notable appearance when they murdered Gandhi??? all Hindu Nationalist are murderers?? also Hindu nationalist were present even during Gandhi and were noteable enough(do you need names?) many Hindu Nationalist were freedom fighters unlike mentioned by you They were nowhere to be seen when the anti-colonial struggle was being waged in India by Gandhi and others before him. --sarvajna (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I just aid above, everything I say is based in sources. Here is Hadiz, Vedi R. (2006), Empire and neoliberalism in Asia, Taylor & Francis, pp. 247–, ISBN 978-0-415-39080-4, retrieved 2 April 2012 Quote (p. 247): "Hindu fundamentalism derives its ideological orientation from a kind of Brahmanism that naturalizes a hierarchical structure of the world and, therefore, does not harbour serious ideological contradictions with many forms of political and cultural domination, which explains its various paradoxes. While committed to Hindu nationalism. it never came into serious conflict with British colonial rule and, rather, opposed anti-colonial struggle. While subscribing to the Gandhian vision of development, its adherents were responsible for Gandhi's death;" Are you sure you want to carry on this argument? I'm getting a headache reading your boldface lettering. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support The Ganges move debacle was a long time ago. If Yogesh hasn't learned how to contribute constructively by now, he must have decided not to change. Tendentious editors like Yogesh are a poison to the community, as Saravask's evidence shows. --JaGa^talk 17:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Request Please make it a bit clearer what is being supported/opposed. Obviously those opposing want no sanction, while those supporting are wanting a topic ban per the original request, namely South Asian history. However, subsequent comments have claimed a wider problem, and some of the more recent supports are worded in a way that suggests that something more is being supported. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Fowler&fowler comments above; the danger of the disruption moving elsewhere is also noted and it might be best to add probation on disruptive editing to the ban proposed here. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Tendentious in the extreme and here only to push a fringe POV which he does aggressively and relentlessly. He doesn't seem to want to work collaboratively. I would suggest general ban. Span (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  Comment - just to note that nothing is changing even while this thread continues. This revert of a YK edit is a direct consequence of the subtle "colonial" POV pushing - the press agency in question was effectively shut down by the government of the newly-independent government of India, as per statements in sources that YK seemed to choose to ignore. The article was poor when created by YK and still needs some work but there really is no need to phrase things as they were prior to my revert. As a consequence of my expansion the lead section needs a rewrite, but the gratuitous insertion of "colonial" is not the way to do it. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, I dont see any harm in using some adjective for India in that sentence. But if you object using "colonial India" do you prefer "pre-Independence India" instead? -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen what YK has done now? Leads are supposed to summarise articles. I am crap at writing them, but nowhere in the body of that article is there any mention of this claptrap. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral comment from main author of Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism‎ aka User:WickerGuy

Over the past few weeks I have developed a low-key form of a Love–hate relationship with User:Yogesh Khandke whom I find alternately fascinating, frustrating, earnest, exasperating, clever, and obtuse. He both says things well worth considering and can be wildly over-the-top. I can never tell how much of the latter is due to poor command of English or not. Perhaps he is like a character in a Greek tragedy, a man with noble qualities but with a serious Hamartia (character flaw) that undermines his better qualities.

I have little expertise on matters Indian beyond having thoroughly enjoyed the Bhagavad-Gita, watched The Jewel in the Crown (TV series), A Passage to India (film), a couple of good Bollywood films, and worked through my brother's bad experience with a prominent Indian guru whom I shall not name, so I can't comment on YK's edits there but I can comment on his Charles Dickens work.

Very early in the Dickens' disputes, I had decided that while YK was disruptively ignoring consensus (to the point of driving away good editors from the article which is a very serious matter of concern) that as Polonius said of Hamlet Though this be madness there is method in it. Somehow, I felt YK had to be simultaneously given his proper due (allowing his legitimate points in) while also reining in his excessive POV. Both editor User:MistyMorn and I agreed that the main article on Dickens should not have excessive space taken up discussing is racist attitudes (as they were relatively uninfluential on the English public), but that a fork article would be a good idea as long as enough people were involved to prevent it from being a WP:POVFORK or as one editor (rather ungenerously) put it, YK's "hobby horse". (As there has been both one full-length book on Dickens' xenophobia and it is mentioned in the Oxford Dictionary of English Literature there is certainly a basis for discussing it somewhere on WP.) (It was YK who created the article, but he was not the first to propose it. I wished he had waited a bit longer to get consensus on it, but I supported it.) I believe in this article I have been successful at accomplishing both aims. One of YK's very best contributions to the article was Charles_Dickens'_Racism_and_anti-Semitism#Reconciliation and I am grateful to YK for having added it to the article. (He quotes my complement above.) One of his very worst proposed contributions was trying to interpret writer Patrick Bratlinger as saying that "Dickens spawned a whole new genre of hate literature". This is a blatant misinterpretation of Mr. Bratlinger and clearly a "fringe" assertion.

I am a little concerned that editor User:Animeshkulkarni cites the excellence of the Dickens fork article in a manner that suggests the article is mostly Yogesh's work. It is largely my own rather free adaptation and revision of his work, which both involved some fertilizing (using YK's stuff & sources) and some pruning and weeding (rejecting other stuff of YK), and I respectfully disagree with User:Johnuniq that the article in its current form involves inappropriate synthesis and cherry-picking, though further discussion of that point should go on that article's talk page. Finally, I am disappointed that Yogesh is comparing anyone at Wikipedia with metapedia where he has also been maligned. Metapedia is a white supremacist Wikipedia, and (as I have already communicated privately to Yogesh) the fact that both editors here and there both have issues with Yogesh is more or less equivalent to noting both liberal columnnist Derrick Z. Jackson and also the Ku Klux Klan have both been highly critical of Al Sharpton. (The metaphor I used in private communication was that both Winston Churchill, Communist film-maker Sergei Eisenstein and Adolf Hitler were all fond of Disney's film of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) but IMO my new analogy drives the point home more effectively.) US politics is filled these days with surreptitious and specious comparisons with one person or another to Hitler, and we don't need such comparisons on Wikipedia, which indirectly borders on personal attack.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello WickerGuy! When i almost appreciated and gave all credit to YK for the new Dickens' article i did not want to demean any of the contributions by you and other editors too. But i wanted to stress out to other editors in this ANI fight of how YK was the reason for start of this article and how without his so-called hammering, tendentious, annoying behaviour this article would have had little chance of being what it is. Just like how YK's editings on Dickens were rejected at start by reasons of "drum beating", they are been done here on Indian articles too by giving little thought of how they could also be right. All the defects you mentioned in his editings like misinterpreting can be solved by other editors as you all did and as i mentioned somewhere above. I certainly dont see this flaw as some reason for any ban but i do appreciate how he rattles stable stagnant articles and brings a viewpoint which at times is overlooked for long. -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No apology necessary, but thanks (same re your gracious and kind notice on my page). If YK could develop a better style of interacting with other editors, the better parts of his overlooked viewpoint could be more easily incorporated into WP. The origins of the Dickens fork article are a bit "dodgy" as the Brits would say, but I think the results are good. It is quite true as you say that YK's persistence was largely the origin of the Dickens fork article which is now in (I think) fairly good shape, but I'm afraid it is also true that his behavior is the origin of the article being tagged with a POV template at the top (which YK has made inappropriate objections to) and at least one or two editors were contemplating nominating the article for deletion.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate WickerGuy taking the time to write down this long reflection on Yogesh Khandke's participation. I think we are getting closer to the nub of things. I am certain that without Yogesh Khandke, Wikipedia would be poorer. While his bloody-mindedness may not always be on target (whose is?), there are enough times when it is. --JN466 23:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, what you're saying is that wikipedia is made richer by an editor who misrepresents sources, deliberately changes quotes from sources, continuously reframes debates (he is doing this in his latest post by conflating Aryan invasion and Aryan migration), all to push a pov that is, even in India, associated with right wing fringe groups. Baffles me, this sort of logic. --regentspark (comment) 00:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban we are discussing here is not about the Dickens page. YK's defenders can have him on that page until both time and times are done. But, in South Asian history, where I have some expertise and experience, he is easily among the worst of the deceitful, biased, and time-wasting editors I have dealt with in my six years on Wikipedia. Others before him have all been topic banned or indefinitely banned. When his South Asia topic ban is in place, he will be available, even more unreconstructed and many-splendored, on the Dickens page for the enrichment of your Wikipedia experience. This is really win-win. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Short version: as per WickerGuy. Long version: This is the first ANI I've participated in, and I feel in a strange position. My dealings with YK have been largely confined to the Dickens page, where my contribution was almost entirely restricted to the search for a pragmatic solution to unblock a longstanding and depressing virtual standoff between YK and just about everyone else, which was itself becoming quite Dickensian. Like WG, I felt that the sort of subject matter which YK was anxious to shine the floodlights on, so to speak, was indeed of genuine encyclopedic note, but that his presentation and communication strategies were deeply misguided. As a proponent of -- rather than contributor to -- the present subarticle I feel WickerGuy deserves a really big round of applause both for his editorial work and, especially, the patience and understanding he has shown in trying to communicate constructively with YK. I recognize in myself some of the mixed feelings WG describes. Leaving aside the politics of POV, my impression is that YK hurts himself and his own causes by using quite inappropriate firepower (I believe this is the first time I've ever been accused of 'denialism') blasted off at all and sundry in a sort of me versus the rest of the world scenario, with replies -- often at cross purposes -- to multiple points and editors grouped together in a single paragraph, in such a way that it's rather difficult for everyone else to engage in a meaningful dialogue. How much of this is deliberately disruptive, how much a good-faith attempt to get a hearing? I've sometimes felt quite exasperated... But now that the sort of information which YK so wanted to be made available is present in a well-written, reasonably stable (albeit controversial) subarticle carefully supervised and authored by WG based on material largely gathered by YK the signs of systematic disruption here appear to be a thing of the past. Wasn't there an easier way of getting where we are now? Continuing to assume good faith, my hope is that YK will, more generally, come to see that it can be in his interests to relax a bit and start assuming some good faith in others (he's explained to me that certain misunderstandings were quite genuine, and I have no reason to doubt that). I also have a lot of sympathy with editors who are currently exasperated by the YK all guns blazing approach. I feel that one possible solution, if YK were willing, might be for him to allow himself be adopted by an enterprising and experienced editor (of the calibre of WG) who has sympathies with some of the issues which concern him so much. Adoption might entail mutual agreement to focus for a while on topic areas where it's easier for him to find consensus (while temporarily resting other, more contentious areas where he's locally lost goodwill from other editors). I feel that, with the right sort of guidance regarding communication and impartial implementation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he could be surprised by how much he can achieve with a lot less hassle. Having said that, I think it's really important for him to acknowledge the need for a constructive change in good-faith outlook and style. My 2 cents, —MistyMorn (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

To clarify my view on the "POV fork" issue: I think the article can be a legitimate subarticle (as distinct from "fork"), broadly along the same lines as Wagner controversies, even though Dickens's rather shocking racist views are far less widely publicized or influential than Wagner's. I'm not especially enamoured of the current title though. I've argued that Dickens deserves several other thematic subarticles, including questions surrounding other aspects of his his social involvement and influence. —MistyMorn (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support ban in all areas. Extremely tendentious editor, a perfect example of WP:CRUSH with novel interpretations of policy. As one editor has stated, it's sometimes easy to attribute his misreadings and IDIDNTHEARTHAT to the fact that he's a non-native English speaker. I came to the conclusion that he encourages that perception as yet another tactic of his strategy of attrition, because in other interactions he's quick to grasp what is being discussed it it's to his advantage. I interacted with him on the Charles Dickens page (which BTW is a disgrace to Wikipedia the last I checked) to try to bring it up to at least good status, but his edit-warring behavior and tendentiousness caused me to retreat after only a few days. I have dealt with his like before, and I don't have another two years of my life to waste trying to impose WP policies on someone who's only interested in their POV-pushing. He doesn't care about any other part of the page except for his particular interest, which in the case of the Dickens page was to expose the colonialistic racism at the core of everything Dickens wrote. It is gaming editors such as him who cause others to walk away from Wikipedia in disgust. And IMO the new Dickens article is nothing but a POV fork and should be deleted. Any valid points should be neutrally handled in the main article and given due weight. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note I believe this proposal has been discussed to death. The discussion has gone off-topic, even off-off-topic. I believe we need input from a closing admin. For what it's worth, there are 13 support votes for a topic ban (of at least 6 months duration) for YK in South Asian history-related topics. There are 4 oppose votes. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC) PS I had not counted my own vote as it had become inconspicuous as a result of this edit by Yogesh Khandke. Now restored. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine. When WP decides to block him indefinitely, let us know and we'll get to work on the Charles Dickens article. As one of the two greatest authors in English literature, his article should be an FA, but it's not even a good article, and is likely to remain that way as long as YK is allowed to edit it. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Yogesh Khandke brings excellent, A grade content to Wikipedia that no one else is either capable of bringing, moslty because they are blinded by their POV. Dickens' racism towards Indians is an excellent example of this. Thanks to Yogesh Khandke, we now have a better article on Charles Dickens which a potential 1.3 billion Indians, most of whom have never ever heard of Dickens will find interesting to read. This cabal mentioned above almost has an orwellian zeal to maintain "NPOV" which makes it impossible for them to see the slightest criticism of their British heroes. Unfortunately, almost every British hero in colonial affairs (and sometimes outside of colonial affairs) between 1818 and 1947 is by definition a villan in Indian eyes. Incidentally Saravask, the person pushing for this ban, has pigeonholed people into a category of people who should be killed off. [[43]] He tells his buddies that these people should be hunted down by the FBI or the CIA or the MI5 and be killed. The Wikipedia system/ANI is setup in a way that some people will never get fair treatment. In many ways it is not too dissimilar from the British colonial government and their system of justice which let off General Dyer largely unpunished for the most heinous crime in Indian history. Here's that relevant video from one of the most historically accurate films - Gandhi. Video Bob1781 (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Bob1781 appears possibly to be an SPA. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As of 11:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC) a single edit account: Bob1781 (talk · contribs) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: Bob1781 has been blocked as a checkuser-confirmed [44] sock of Yogesh Khandke. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you guys behave like this? If someone complaints against you on ANI you shout its "content dispute" and ask to close the discussion and take it somewhere else. Then one of you just blocks the editor who is complaining by giving some excuse of edit war so then he cant respond to the ANI thread. Example case. Someone (me) proposes that disambiguation pages related to Ganga should be changed and you rudely just try to throw away those comments. When still explained further you close the discussion saying its not the right place. Someone like YK says something and you ppl always ignore it because you have had fights with him before. Now some unknown Bob1781 comes and posts something what you have to say is he is a Sock, probably of YK. But what are all these ppl saying? Oh lets trash them! Either they are at wrong place or rude or single purpose accounts. Its like some professor dumbing someone's journal because the page margins are not right! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Regretful Support Though none of the Dickens' editors seem innocent, alas. Wikipedia is ill-served by some of the related clearly unsourced or improperly sourced POV pushing zeal evinced. I also note this !vote is elicited by the post above implying that it is somehow improper to see NPOV as being a proper goal, when it is one of the "pilllars" of Wikipedia. I would suggest that he be topic banned from colonialism and racism articles broadly construed, per what I read above. I think he would benefit, moreover, from studying the racialism in the Indian literature to gain some historical perspective on the history of racism in that sub-continent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This user is incorrigible, tendentious, and still doesn't get it, after multiple trips to this board. In this very discussion, he is accusing others of 'hanging' him, attacking him 'with knives', and of wanting a 'submissive, fawning Indian', when even other Indian editors have blasted his inability to properly weigh views and to compromise. He has wasted the time of dozens of productive editors around Dickens and other hot-button Indian nationalist topics. His time here has long passed. Shrigley (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

National Autism Society

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 request a block on the National Autism Society (NAS) IP address for a period of one week (as agreed with the society's computer manager). The address is 217.204.11.194.

The society's network is open to both staff and to patients. Recently there have been a significant amount of "reordering" of junction numbers on various British motorways (see contributions page at here. I telephoned to the society's computer manager and both he and I are of the opinion that these changes are being carried out by a patient who is suffering from autism (and who therefore will not respond to normal reasoning). The manager quite reasonably challenged me to "prove" my assertion that the NAS network was the "guilty" party and after I led him through the Wikipedia audit trail, he proved very cooperativce. He is quite happy that there be a one week block on the IP address so that the patient concerned will get bored trying to make any changes. A study of the changes associated with that address suggest that few changes, if any, are appropriate to Wikipedia's aims and therefore neither Wikipedia nor the society will be harmed. Martinvl (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What might work better is if the Society's IP address(es) are indefinitely soft-blocked, thus allowing those with accounts to continue to edit while avoiding vandalism from unregistered users. IIRC, this has been done before for other institutions, particularly schools. However, the technical officer/manager/whoever you're talking to should probably email such a request to info-enwikimedia.org or functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org from an official email address, so if any questions arise from the IP we can be confident in saying "ask your manager, they're the ones who requested the block." Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, you called them? Whoa there Nelly, let's back the truck up a little bit here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Hersfold's suggestion of an indef soft block. That way genuine editors can continue editing from that IP, and anyone minded to engage in vandalism can be dealt with individually. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding this somewhat disquieting. As far as I can tell, the National Autistic (sic) Society doesn't have "patients" and would not use such terms as "suffering from autism". It does provide community and residential services for people with autism. There may well be a range of constructive and respected Wikipedia editors among its service users. I can't see that it's constructive to deter any future such editors by confronting them with an indefinite soft-block placed because of a batch of edits of motorway junction numbers made in late March 2012. NebY (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If a soft block comes with an automatic notice something along the lines of "You must create an account to edit from this address" if someone tries to edit, then I can't see it being a problem. (And yes, I'm an Autie, too!) Pesky (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's certain, I'm sure, that there must be Wikipedia veterans amongst the membership of the National Autistic Society. After all, to paraphrase Mel Brooks, without aspies, trannies and queers, there is no Wikipedia. :) --Tristessa (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

After examining some edits, I'd oppose any action until Martinvl can demonstrate that this editing is actually vandalism. This fundamental prerequisite step has been overlooked. 217.204.11.194 stands accused of editing wikipedia. Penyulap ☏ 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to see Martinvl establish that "a patient who is suffering from autism ... therefore will not respond to normal reasoning", a presumption which might explain why after warning the user twice Martinvl called the NAS to discuss how the user could be blocked. NebY (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we not have any guidelines discouraging users from sleuthing/contacting people on their own? I would be surprised if this has not been discussed within the context of schools.. I also strongly object to the sweeping characterization of all people on the autistic spectrum as suffering people who cannot behave nor respond to anything. Kansan (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Although autism varies widely in severity, I agree that the phone call in question is either being misrepresented or invented, as explained by NebY. NAS is not a hospital and the people who work there are, for the most part, not autistic; moreover, most autistic people capable of editing Wikipedia are also quite capable of having a conversation about their actions. Talking about an indef soft block of the entire NAS in response to unproven vandalism by a single IP is premature, and is nothing like the persistent vandalism by many people that we see from a typical high school. Dcoetzee 09:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Persistent editor at University of Ottawa article

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

---

Resolved

User:24.114.252.234 is engaged in an edit war with many different editors at University of Ottawa. There is an outstanding 3RR report (although he or she is at 8 or 9RR by my count, just today!) and an SPI request. Those requests have been outstanding for several hours but the edit warring continues. Can someone please block this editor? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Up to 10RR, which is a record for anything I have ever seen..... Yeah hopefully this gets resolved soon. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article semied by Bwilkins. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:AIV

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

---

This also needs attention from one of you fat cats. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There are only 3 active reports at the moment - not much of a backlog, really. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So--I reported a redundant issue to a redundant board? But man, they're like totally destroying everything we worked so hard for! 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1exec1 and Template:Use dmy dates

• 1exec1 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

1exec1 is systematically adding the templat {{Use dmy dates}} to articles with the edit comment of "date formats per WP:MOSNUM". WP:MOSNUM covers a multitude of points among which are:

• MOS:DATEUNIFY
• WP:STRONGNAT

As can be seen on archives of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, British dates can either be in the format of "dmy" or "md, y" it depends on the sources used (EG The Daily Telegraph uses "dmy" while the The Times uses "md, y").

While there is a good argument for adding {{Use dmy dates}} to cope with British articles with dates that already have the dates formatted as "mdy", as there is no agreement in sources or guidelines for British dates to be exclusively formatted that way, {{Use dmy dates}} should not be imposed on articles that have no day month information or are already formatted a different way.

My concerns were raised by edits made by user:1exec1 because of the number of British articles that I watch which 1exec1 has been editing in the last few days.

On looking further I left a comment on user talk:1exec1:

Take for example this change to the article John Du Cameron there are no dates in article in the format of either dmy or md,y so it can not be justified on dates already in the article.[45]

1exec1 has not replied to this comment although 1exec1 has since replied to another user's comment placed on the talk page after mine, indicating that my posts have been read.

After the reply to the last posting on user talk:1exec1 in which 1exec1 says "The script doesn't run on its own, I would need a bot account for that. All edits are rechecked by me, so there should be few such errors, since I've manually fixed most of them, this one must have slipped below my radar"[46] which on the face of it would seem to indicate due diligence, (a similar comment was posted before "I agree that sometimes I could make an error judging which format is used more, or just changed to DMY because there were few accessdates at all. I'll try to recheck some of my past edits and fix them if there are problems."[47]), so I decided to look at the User contributions of 1exec1.

I only had to look back eight edits from the most recent to see that 1exec1 made 15 edits in the minute 01:33, 3 April 2012. On examining the first of those edits it is clear that more than simple tagging is talking place as the article Roy Campbell (poet) has had all its dates changed from mdy to dmy and like the other 15 edits it was marked as a minor edit although it made many changes to the text.

So it seems clear that 1exec1 can not be observing due diligence if 15 edits are being made in a minute and that 1exec1 is imposing a format on British articles that is not justified by article content.

I suggest that 1exec1 desists from changing dates in articles unless there is consensus to do so (or split usage), and does not add the template to {{Use dmy dates}} unless before 1exec1 starts to edit the dates in an article an article they are already all formatted as dmy or there is a consensus on the talk page of the article to use dmy in the article and to place the template {{Use dmy dates}} in article space. Also these automated edits should not be marked as a minor change.

Until a consensus emerges here on what is acceptable, 1exec1 should desists from running the script that is being used. -- PBS (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I did these changes was that these pages were already in a hidden category Use DMY dates. ALL articles are about a British subject and should have DMY dates anyway per WP:STRONGNAT. Only articles about an American subject can be in MDY, and even then there are exceptions, such as the military. Since I was editing pages related to military, specifically from Category:British Army officers, I'm almost sure that all articles would use DMY per WP:STRONGNAT, since even if an article is mistagged, almost all Commonwealth countries use DMY (Date format by country) and even then, the US military uses DMY also. Finally, my edits are not disruptive and can always be reverted if I'm wrong, so I see little misconduct here. But I'll stop until consensus is reached here. 1exec1 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As for very high edit speed, I do all my edits in batches. I.e. open e.g. 300 articles in edit mode in tabs, do all changes, preview all changes and then commit all changes. This results in a lot of pages edited in short time, however this doesn't represent the time I spend on the articles. 1exec1 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

1exec1's edits are consistent with WP:MOSDATE. If anybody wishes to change policy to have articles on British subjects use dates in US format, they should raise it on the talk page there and gain consensus for change. --Pete (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reread the relevant policy (WP:STRONGNAT) and it seems to be pretty clear: Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. (emphasis mine). Because my edits are not disruptive (i.e. are very minor, often with no visible changes and can be easily reverted), I'm continuing to edit. If there are any other issues with my edits, please contact me on the talk page. Thank you. 1exec1 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What 1exec1 said has been my understanding all along. Our conventions tend to ignore the mix of date formats used in the "real world" in US and the UK. I'm sure that if he cares to delve into the archives, PBS should find the above wording of MOSNUM reflects the consensus position. WP articles on British, Irish, Australian, NZ, SA, India, Pakistan subjects almost universally use dmy format, and American articles almost always use mdy. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be true in which case adding the template to those pages where the format is already consistent is in my opinion a minor edit. But altering the dates in a page is not a minor edit and there should be consultation on the talk page before the format is changed. Also placing a template on an article that will automate date formats on a page which does not yet have such a format under the argument of WP:STRONGNAT flies in the face of the spirit of WP:TIES "This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article". --PBS (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what national ownership means. The spirit of WP:OWN is that being the author of a piece of content doesn't make your opinion more important when that piece is edited. In this case national ownership means that being a national of some country shouldn't make your opinion more important. Thus this doesn't apply here. 1exec1 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

1exec1 I think you are ignoring the word "generally" in that quote from the guideline. Also there is no explicit mention of what is the most common format in Britain (see above both are used when the date is expressed with month in letters so neither is wrong) therefor I do not think it appropriate to make mass changes as you did to Roy Campbell (poet) (particularly as a minor edits), or to add the templates to articles where the format has not yet been decided by a first major contributor, needs discussion on the talk page for a consensus to emerge if one is using semi-automated methods to impose dates on an article different from that which already exists, or on articles that do not already have a predetermined date format.

1exec1 what is the name of the tool you are using to make automate these changes? I ask because the changes do not look as if they are hand made as they change similar strings in all of the pages I have looked at, and it is also implied from the comments you have made on your talk page.

-- PBS (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a multitude of views what a minor edit is. But here on wikipedia it has a very specific meaning. As WP:MINOR states, a minor edit is any edit which changes only the presentation of the content, such as typographical or spelling fixes, formatting changes or rearrangement of text. My edits never change the content, only formatting, and even then, only in minor way. Thus I think my edits qualify for being marked as minor.

It also says "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." I think that this ANI is an indication of dispute, and two other editors have objected to changes you made under minor. So I suggest most strongly that any change other than adding the template to the top of the article is not marked as a minor change. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you prove that my edits are prone to objections and needs a review? So far I've made around 7000 edits and there were only 5 cases where my edits contained an error which was then fixed. I'd say it's acceptable rate of errors. 1exec1 (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This ANI is proof that there are objections. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the generality, there is consensus that articles about British subject should have DMY format. Whether the article already uses DMY or MDY shouldn't matter. WP:DATERET even has a separate exception for that: The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic (emphasis mine). If we combine this with WP:STRONGNAT, it becomes clear, that consensus is needed for using other format than DMY, not the other way round. Thus, it's the opposite, my edits are generally good. One could argue only about specific articles, but then one should have strong arguments. As for Roy Campbell (poet), I see nothing problematic, he's British and article almost doesn't talk about things related to countries that have MDY style. Pretty good candidate for format conversion on the grounds of WP:STRONGNAT.

Finally, ask for consensus first isn't a policy endorsed by Wikipedia. Even WP:CONSENSUS itself says that an edit should be made first (also, look at the flowchart in the right). WP:BRD and WP:BOLD also advocate for edit first, ask later style. The sheer number of edits I make, while irritating, shouldn't make a difference, since the error rate is so low. I use a modified script made by User:Ohconfucius, you can find it on his user page. 1exec1 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that BOLD applies to mass edits which are close to BOT edits and are inserting a template that leaves the article open to BOT enforcement. My evidence that these are close to BOT edits is your posting to User talk:Ohconfucius [48]. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, there's currently no such automatic bot which enforces the date formats. Secondly, all edits are firstly reviewed and approved by me and I'm not a bot. You argue that I do bad job reviewing my edits, could you prove that? With links to disputed diffs and so on? 1exec1 (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support what 1exec1 is doing to improve and harmonise date formats. Not sure why it has been brought here; wouldn't WT:MOSNUM be a better venue for this discussion? --John (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• • This is not a question of MOSNUM but a question of editor actions. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohconfucius I think you should have declared an interest in this section -- That you are in co-operation with 1exec1. You say "care to delve into the archives" Yes I will. But also please show me where in the archives it was agreed what is most common in the UK and that the word generally should be ignored and that all British articles should conform to that format (rather than generally conform to that format)? -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The talk archives at WP:MOSDATE contain comprehensive discussions on the topic dating, if I may use the word, from the earliest days of the project. What we have now works and while you are welcome to propose changes, this is not the place to do so. --Pete (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My "cooperation" with 1exec1 is to ensure that my script, which is used by him/her amongst others, functions within the perscribed parameters. I'm grateful for the bug reports, but ANI does not appear to be the legitimate venue for arguing to change the consensus convention for "British" vs "American" dates. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

While I can't say too much about what we do for British and American articles, I'd like to ask that this be avoided for Trinidad and Tobago-related articles, given that while we abbreviate dmy, most long-form dates are written md,y. I suspect that there are other countries that don't fit into this strict division either. Guettarda (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Juan José Nieto Gil

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

---

This article needs someone's attention. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandal accounts blocked. As you know, however there's an appropriate place to report vandals. This ain't it. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If I have to pick between AIV, RPP, or SPI, I'll take ANI. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1exec1 and Template:Use dmy dates

• 1exec1 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

1exec1 is systematically adding the templat {{Use dmy dates}} to articles with the edit comment of "date formats per WP:MOSNUM". WP:MOSNUM covers a multitude of points among which are:

• MOS:DATEUNIFY
• WP:STRONGNAT

As can be seen on archives of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, British dates can either be in the format of "dmy" or "md, y" it depends on the sources used (EG The Daily Telegraph uses "dmy" while the The Times uses "md, y").

While there is a good argument for adding {{Use dmy dates}} to cope with British articles with dates that already have the dates formatted as "mdy", as there is no agreement in sources or guidelines for British dates to be exclusively formatted that way, {{Use dmy dates}} should not be imposed on articles that have no day month information or are already formatted a different way.

My concerns were raised by edits made by user:1exec1 because of the number of British articles that I watch which 1exec1 has been editing in the last few days.

On looking further I left a comment on user talk:1exec1:

Take for example this change to the article John Du Cameron there are no dates in article in the format of either dmy or md,y so it can not be justified on dates already in the article.[49]

1exec1 has not replied to this comment although 1exec1 has since replied to another user's comment placed on the talk page after mine, indicating that my posts have been read.

After the reply to the last posting on user talk:1exec1 in which 1exec1 says "The script doesn't run on its own, I would need a bot account for that. All edits are rechecked by me, so there should be few such errors, since I've manually fixed most of them, this one must have slipped below my radar"[50] which on the face of it would seem to indicate due diligence, (a similar comment was posted before "I agree that sometimes I could make an error judging which format is used more, or just changed to DMY because there were few accessdates at all. I'll try to recheck some of my past edits and fix them if there are problems."[51]), so I decided to look at the User contributions of 1exec1.

I only had to look back eight edits from the most recent to see that 1exec1 made 15 edits in the minute 01:33, 3 April 2012. On examining the first of those edits it is clear that more than simple tagging is talking place as the article Roy Campbell (poet) has had all its dates changed from mdy to dmy and like the other 15 edits it was marked as a minor edit although it made many changes to the text.

So it seems clear that 1exec1 can not be observing due diligence if 15 edits are being made in a minute and that 1exec1 is imposing a format on British articles that is not justified by article content.

I suggest that 1exec1 desists from changing dates in articles unless there is consensus to do so (or split usage), and does not add the template to {{Use dmy dates}} unless before 1exec1 starts to edit the dates in an article an article they are already all formatted as dmy or there is a consensus on the talk page of the article to use dmy in the article and to place the template {{Use dmy dates}} in article space. Also these automated edits should not be marked as a minor change.

Until a consensus emerges here on what is acceptable, 1exec1 should desists from running the script that is being used. -- PBS (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I did these changes was that these pages were already in a hidden category Use DMY dates. ALL articles are about a British subject and should have DMY dates anyway per WP:STRONGNAT. Only articles about an American subject can be in MDY, and even then there are exceptions, such as the military. Since I was editing pages related to military, specifically from Category:British Army officers, I'm almost sure that all articles would use DMY per WP:STRONGNAT, since even if an article is mistagged, almost all Commonwealth countries use DMY (Date format by country) and even then, the US military uses DMY also. Finally, my edits are not disruptive and can always be reverted if I'm wrong, so I see little misconduct here. But I'll stop until consensus is reached here. 1exec1 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As for very high edit speed, I do all my edits in batches. I.e. open e.g. 300 articles in edit mode in tabs, do all changes, preview all changes and then commit all changes. This results in a lot of pages edited in short time, however this doesn't represent the time I spend on the articles. 1exec1 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

1exec1's edits are consistent with WP:MOSDATE. If anybody wishes to change policy to have articles on British subjects use dates in US format, they should raise it on the talk page there and gain consensus for change. --Pete (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reread the relevant policy (WP:STRONGNAT) and it seems to be pretty clear: Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. (emphasis mine). Because my edits are not disruptive (i.e. are very minor, often with no visible changes and can be easily reverted), I'm continuing to edit. If there are any other issues with my edits, please contact me on the talk page. Thank you. 1exec1 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What 1exec1 said has been my understanding all along. Our conventions tend to ignore the mix of date formats used in the "real world" in US and the UK. I'm sure that if he cares to delve into the archives, PBS should find the above wording of MOSNUM reflects the consensus position. WP articles on British, Irish, Australian, NZ, SA, India, Pakistan subjects almost universally use dmy format, and American articles almost always use mdy. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be true in which case adding the template to those pages where the format is already consistent is in my opinion a minor edit. But altering the dates in a page is not a minor edit and there should be consultation on the talk page before the format is changed. Also placing a template on an article that will automate date formats on a page which does not yet have such a format under the argument of WP:STRONGNAT flies in the face of the spirit of WP:TIES "This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article". --PBS (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what national ownership means. The spirit of WP:OWN is that being the author of a piece of content doesn't make your opinion more important when that piece is edited. In this case national ownership means that being a national of some country shouldn't make your opinion more important. Thus this doesn't apply here. 1exec1 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

1exec1 I think you are ignoring the word "generally" in that quote from the guideline. Also there is no explicit mention of what is the most common format in Britain (see above both are used when the date is expressed with month in letters so neither is wrong) therefor I do not think it appropriate to make mass changes as you did to Roy Campbell (poet) (particularly as a minor edits), or to add the templates to articles where the format has not yet been decided by a first major contributor, needs discussion on the talk page for a consensus to emerge if one is using semi-automated methods to impose dates on an article different from that which already exists, or on articles that do not already have a predetermined date format.

1exec1 what is the name of the tool you are using to make automate these changes? I ask because the changes do not look as if they are hand made as they change similar strings in all of the pages I have looked at, and it is also implied from the comments you have made on your talk page.

-- PBS (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a multitude of views what a minor edit is. But here on wikipedia it has a very specific meaning. As WP:MINOR states, a minor edit is any edit which changes only the presentation of the content, such as typographical or spelling fixes, formatting changes or rearrangement of text. My edits never change the content, only formatting, and even then, only in minor way. Thus I think my edits qualify for being marked as minor.

It also says "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." I think that this ANI is an indication of dispute, and two other editors have objected to changes you made under minor. So I suggest most strongly that any change other than adding the template to the top of the article is not marked as a minor change. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you prove that my edits are prone to objections and needs a review? So far I've made around 7000 edits and there were only 5 cases where my edits contained an error which was then fixed. I'd say it's acceptable rate of errors. 1exec1 (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This ANI is proof that there are objections. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the generality, there is consensus that articles about British subject should have DMY format. Whether the article already uses DMY or MDY shouldn't matter. WP:DATERET even has a separate exception for that: The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic (emphasis mine). If we combine this with WP:STRONGNAT, it becomes clear, that consensus is needed for using other format than DMY, not the other way round. Thus, it's the opposite, my edits are generally good. One could argue only about specific articles, but then one should have strong arguments. As for Roy Campbell (poet), I see nothing problematic, he's British and article almost doesn't talk about things related to countries that have MDY style. Pretty good candidate for format conversion on the grounds of WP:STRONGNAT.

Finally, ask for consensus first isn't a policy endorsed by Wikipedia. Even WP:CONSENSUS itself says that an edit should be made first (also, look at the flowchart in the right). WP:BRD and WP:BOLD also advocate for edit first, ask later style. The sheer number of edits I make, while irritating, shouldn't make a difference, since the error rate is so low. I use a modified script made by User:Ohconfucius, you can find it on his user page. 1exec1 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that BOLD applies to mass edits which are close to BOT edits and are inserting a template that leaves the article open to BOT enforcement. My evidence that these are close to BOT edits is your posting to User talk:Ohconfucius [52]. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, there's currently no such automatic bot which enforces the date formats. Secondly, all edits are firstly reviewed and approved by me and I'm not a bot. You argue that I do bad job reviewing my edits, could you prove that? With links to disputed diffs and so on? 1exec1 (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support what 1exec1 is doing to improve and harmonise date formats. Not sure why it has been brought here; wouldn't WT:MOSNUM be a better venue for this discussion? --John (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• • This is not a question of MOSNUM but a question of editor actions. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohconfucius I think you should have declared an interest in this section -- That you are in co-operation with 1exec1. You say "care to delve into the archives" Yes I will. But also please show me where in the archives it was agreed what is most common in the UK and that the word generally should be ignored and that all British articles should conform to that format (rather than generally conform to that format)? -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The talk archives at WP:MOSDATE contain comprehensive discussions on the topic dating, if I may use the word, from the earliest days of the project. What we have now works and while you are welcome to propose changes, this is not the place to do so. --Pete (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My "cooperation" with 1exec1 is to ensure that my script, which is used by him/her amongst others, functions within the perscribed parameters. I'm grateful for the bug reports, but ANI does not appear to be the legitimate venue for arguing to change the consensus convention for "British" vs "American" dates. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

While I can't say too much about what we do for British and American articles, I'd like to ask that this be avoided for Trinidad and Tobago-related articles, given that while we abbreviate dmy, most long-form dates are written md,y. I suspect that there are other countries that don't fit into this strict division either. Guettarda (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Juan José Nieto Gil

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

---

This article needs someone's attention. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandal accounts blocked. As you know, however there's an appropriate place to report vandals. This ain't it. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If I have to pick between AIV, RPP, or SPI, I'll take ANI. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Ankitbhatt and User:Ashermadan

I have come across two editors in articles related to Indian films named Ankitbhatt and Ashermadan. The former has been here for three years. They have been repeatedly indulging in behavior consisting of a spurt of personal attacks, bad faith comments and threats to other editors. Ankitbhatt also seemed to harass a couple of editors in the process. To note, he had taken a wiki-break for around sixty days in the period of November and December, but even after that, there seemed to be no change in his attitude. Ashermadan has been repeatedly using caps-lock in edit-summaries and has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Caps indicate shouting. I would, hence, like to bring it to the notice of admins, their behavior over the past six-eight months through a report, which can be found below. Regards, Secret of success 10:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Ra.One/Archive_1#Reliable_sources Ankitbhatt to Bollywood Dreamz "Until then, since my edits are so obviously receiving the boot very frequently in comparison to others, I will stop editing on this article. Perhaps that will give you the peace of mind you so obviously desire." "I suggest that you do either one of two things: either stop over-reacting whenever my edits come up, since you seem to be extremely touchy over that (God knows why), and get a life; or second, just completely stop interacting with me." "But since you are acting mostly like a little child, I shall not over-saddle you with things you obviously are too lazy to do." "I also can keep this discussion going on, and believe me, if it does so, it will certainly not be as pretty and polite as it is now." "You and I are just not meant to get along, so it's best to be separate and not interfere in each other's matters. However, I'm warning you, if I find that any of my edits, which have perfectly reliable sources attached, are deleted with lame excuses, the consequences will again not be pretty." "Perhaps if you had had the brains to use this method before, we could have avoided a lot of unnecessary ugliness." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Ra.One/Archive_1#Word_of_Mouth "Perhaps our biased salman-lover gurucoolguy is up to his mischief again!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Ra.One/Archive_1#Blocking the user "I strongly feel that GuruCoolguy is a vandal of an extreme nature, who is trying to use a legitimate Wikipedia account to falsify facts. he is clearly an srk-hater, and severely hell-bent on calling the film negatively reviewed." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Ra.One/Archive_2#Comments "In addition, our darling Mis Goody-Goody Oh-so-delicate Feminist has also "he he"d this issue. Isn't that so Little Miss Sunshine?" "Mrs. Seeta Maya, as I said, I'm going to ignore the viewpoints of a mentally reatrded and outdated person. Perhaps I could help you? I'll be freeing up some much-needed consensus space and be doing everyone a favour. Please do not feel bad and hurt that "this happened to a gril" ROTFL! Seriously, I completely support Meryam; she's a she, yet she doesn't wail like a helpless baby whenever she is given a counter-argument. Grow up girl." "Miss Seeta Mayya, I'm giving you pretty much an ultimatum. You are an incompetent nincompoop who doesn't deserve the attention of a street dog. Simply speaking, your claim that you are "a huge srk fan" is so outright laughable that I suggest you to shut your trap rather than embarrass yourself so much. Second, if you love 3 Idiots so much and hate Ra.One so much, I suggest that you get lost from my sight and sound. We are not here to predict the Box Office of any film; only you are so remarkably stupid to even attempt such a thing. Miss Oh-So-Crap, i also suggest that you learn proper Wikipedia rules" "Good day Miss Loser." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scieberking&diff=460429021&oldid=459792600 "I have no idea why he is acting so prickly and bruised and arrogant with me when I asked him to peer review Ra.One. I think the miserable failure of the Co-ordinator election of WP:Film, hit him really hard." - Addressing Lugnuts ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scieberking&diff=461296107&oldid=461285319 "Your comments show that you are an srk-hater." "SRK fans are less biased that Aamir or Lallu fans, but obviously you will attempt at proving otherwise." "Equating Don 2 with Ready is enough to show exactly who your allegiance lies with. Please do not give the excuse of generally disliking Bollywood to cover up your obvious dislike for SRK." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scieberking&diff=462575230&oldid=462573718#Coloring "Scieberg, this has to be the lamest excuse. And Fae is clearly using it to his advantage. I seriously doubt his neutrality, and suggest that you talk it over with him." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ User_talk:Meryam90/Archive_1#Bodyguard_Worldwide_Gross "Its seriously hilarious, and you should check out Scieberking's die-hard attempts to pull down Ra.One and push up Bodyguard." "And what is even more disgusting is that he is getting some support, especially about his rant that BOI is not reliable. And X.One is going a step further, by mailing stuff rather than talk face to face. Cowards; when they can't use logic or consistency, they resort to below-the-belt methods and cheap arm-twists to get their way. And then they irritatingly preach about "divas"." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meryam90&diff=476798086&oldid=476791553 "I think this problem with HereToSaveWiki is going out of bounds. He has the strong and undivided backing from a select group of editors (one of them being an administrator) who always patrol articles in an attempt to downgrade figures etc. This sort of backing has buoyed him on and he's getting that feeling of being unstoppable, so he'll do whatever he wishes knowing that there will always be that group to back him up in whatever he does, right or wrong." "And also expect Scieberking to go all-out madly against Ra.One for anything and everything, and don't expect him not to turn away the PR off to some totally unrelated topic as well (much as he tried to do in that Bodyguard discussion). Believe me, he'll do everything possible to ensure Ra.One doesn't become an FA, and he'll get a whole load of support from his close gang of friends and trolls whom he nurtured; he's basically making it a game of numbers, and his friends are extending their wings through mails too." "Now we have a very serious problem, as Scieberking has clearly called back his favorite troll Seeta mayya back into business; and I can't believe that she's back to her former antics without even a shred of change." "And LOL, she wants a higher figure for Bodyguard put up no matter what the cost; and then she says that she is a "fairly neutral and unbiased editor" HA HA HA HA LMAO ROTFL! Talk about SRK hatred. That too stupidly covered-up SRK hatred, exactly like what Scieberking shows." "HereToSaveWiki and Seeta mayya are joing hands to expand their trolling activities all over Wikipedia. Meryam, be prepared for some seriously irritating problems in whichever SRK article you go." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meryam90&diff=475960382&oldid=475958493 "Btw, what happened to that hilariously trashy "consensus" going on over Bodyguard, that finally got hijacked by the gang of editors idolizing Salman" "Seriously, that discussion is so lame and one-sides, and just because a certain administrator is part of their gang, the gang members are becoming confident and attempting to over-rule all dissenting voices." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meryam90&diff=475938785&oldid=475938570 "Scieberking is getting himself worked up. Its a common thing among the haters; point out their hatred and they get all huffy. Prove their hatred, they blast up on others." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meryam90&diff=474997364&oldid=474996582 "X.One is simply marvellous; seriously, I've never seen an editor this attached to hatred." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Don 2/GA1 "No consensus was obtained simply because consensus-making was purposely disrupted, diverted and man-handled by Scieberking and his gang of trolls, and that's not even a secret (notice that HereToSaveWiki and Seeta Mayya are nowhere here)." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Bodyguard (2011 Hindi film) "I'm sorry Scieberking, you are weaving your own trap bit by bit, and your comments are becoming increasingly funny to read. Your stand has been greatly diluted, and your views no longer carry the sort of weight they used to carry before, mainly due to this back-tracking and double-facedness." "Scieberking has been very silly in Ra.One and he is becoming quite silly here as well. A shame, really. Neutrals have already run down Scieberking's arguments (Karthik), and still he stands defiantly. Clap-worthy." "I don't know what sort of nonsense Scieberking is feeding you" "Support Scieberking if you wish, but don't try to pull the wool over my eyes." "As if voting against your opinion is bad. If an editor feels that the range should not be present, see it and keep quiet. Don't go about asking as to why the editor is doing as such." "The editor is required to give the reason of consensus only once; you are to read it and shut your trap. You are not authorized to go about asking as to "why have you posted as this, is it because you are voting?" etc. as it means you are discrediting the consensus. Frankly, I can't care less what you and your gang of buddies say, as you guys are capable only of posting flowery lies and laughable excuses to cover up a horde of shams you carry out in multiple articles. Let this be the last bit of nonsense I hear from you or your gang members. Clear?" "As usual, attempts to curb the discussion into a single editor's favor. Such gross man-handling and arm-twisting is rarely seen in Wikipedia. There is no problem in using BOI figures, but you are free to teach SM as otherwise. I won't be surprised to see SM supporting this editor sometime in the near future. Wonderful tactics." "Clearly, X.One has a great fondness for posting all sorts of Wikipedia policies, perhaps as a way to show his extensive knowledge." "Sciebrking, get off the high horse. Your answers are not the final truth, and they will be discussed. And your answers have been unsatisfactory, to say the least. Truly, this is getting very silly, but assuredly sense will prevail over illogical insistence." "Ah, the mega-troll is back. I was wondering how this "highly notable" editor, who gets such huge backing from some editors, had failed to appear in this "consensus". And wonderfully, this troll has plainly over-looked so many details that I'm dying to give this troll a proper and fitting answer." "Sorry troll, you got your first rant wrong. Better luck next time." "Best of luck in that endeavour. Two "die-hard fanboys" it is then, and I am loving this title to bits. I can't wait to use the title of "anti-SRK ranter" for you. Please don't cry, or run to your backers for support, or do some more foolish thing." "I suggest this troll to read carefully and thoroughly before performing more trolling and pushing an already-bursting "consensus" to the limit of readability. Adios, and I will be waiting for some more rants." "what more can this editor do other than make expressions eh? Cover-ups and shams are rapidly falling off; hard times lay ahead for the gang." "Troll, I'd suggest you read through the discussion before ranting here; there are numerous film forums where you can rant and rave to your heart's content, but this is certainly not it." "...if there is any sort of neutrality here then X.One will also agree, but frankly I can hardly care as to the whims of some street-side know-all." "Excellent, you find it insulting; you have no idea how I feel talking to something like you. You can keep your mouth shut and not talk to me." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Shahrukh_Khan#Sharukh_slaps_Sirish_Kunder "This is pure fanboyism and a deliberate attempt by you to deface a Wikipedia article with irrelevant (and questionable) facts." "Btw, LOL at the "can't take not winning Filmfare" bullshit; this is not a forum for you to spew ranting hatred against a star." "In fact, your name and your level of shit talk is strongly telling myself that you are the infamous Seeta Mayya. Remember the takkar we had? I haven't forgotten it yet; believe me, this time I will throw you out of Wikipedia for good." "X.One is blowing the entire thing out of proportion; he has also forgotten exactly how quickly the controversy died down when both SRK-Shirish patched up." "HereToSaveWiki's desperate attempt to bring this controversy into the article should not be encouraged, no matter how many supporters line up behind him." "...is so laughably fanboyistic that I'm finidng it hard to type with all this laughter. Yet, the said editor is getting a load of support for this ridiculous inclusion into the article from X.One." "X.One, become neutral before commenting. I do not like Salman Khan, and I do not go around his page insisting for silly inclusions that warrant no need." "What was most hilarious was the blatant lying going on." "I was laughing like nothing before. Great comedy circus going on here, especially by those who say that they are neutral and we are fanboys. No wonder trolls like HereToSaveWiki and Seeta mayya are encouraged and nurtured. " ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ User talk:HereToSaveWiki "Be prepared for the trial. You will be expected to answer tough questions, and can face an indefinite IP ban if you are found guilty." "HereToSaveWiki, you have been officially summoned to a currently on-going discussion taking place at the Administrator's Noticeboard. You are expected to appear in front of the examining administrators and respond to any questions put forth. Any attempt at misbehavior, trolling and non-consensus related content will be viewed extremely seriously and may endanger an on-the-spot ban." "You will be expected to respond on the discussion within a day; failure to do so can be viewed in a negative light and you may lose your editing rights. You are expected to defend yourself fully, and no mid-discussion walkouts or tantrums are allowed. Any attempt at such a thing will be dealt with in a very strict manner." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meryam90&diff=484395422&oldid=484394745 "..evidently shows that you are just arguing for your personal dislike.."

Ashermadan

Talk:Shahrukh_Khan#Sharukh_slaps_Sirish_Kunder "X.One SOS: Congrats for being the biggest Salman Khan fanboy on Wikipedia and being the biggest hypocrite on the internet. If you include the slap incident where SRK slapped some guy, then why won't you include Salman Khan murdering a man in 2002, him hitting countless women, and killing endangered species for fun? Good job! Keep it up!" "Now that Shirish Kunder has been revealed as the guy who was drunk, messing with women, sending vulgar tests to Sanjay's wife, Mr. Fanboy aka X.One will go cry to his lord and master Salman Khan and leave this topic. How much do you guys want to bet? I would heed the following advice to people like him: Stop being a Salman fanboy and stop trolling SRK's every move. The media has revealed how truly vulgar Shirish Kunder is and no matter how many Salman fanboys like you try to put nonsense like a slap on Wikipedia, the fact is that Wikipedia is not a place for such news. You may love to spread useless news about some nobody getting slapped but do so in the comfort of you own homes, stop putting rubbish on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA Mr. X.One SOS. An encyclopedia has no use for a slap. If he had run over someone or if there was a case lodged against him then that would be news. So, Mr. X.One SOS, stop being a Salman fanboy and grow the heck up." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ User_talk:Meryam90/Archive_1#Bodyguard_Worldwide_Gross "Scieberking is vandalizing the Bodyguard 2011 page. He is changing it to 253 crores when we still use BOI for HINDI ONLY films. Help me stop him. He has gone crazy with the mad-for-Salman disease." "Scieberking has gone crazy and is trying to pull down Ra.One! The Lallu fan inside him awoke finally." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeLynch&diff=prev&oldid=475997997 "Funny coming from the biggest abuser on Wikipedia. Ha ha." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=475975360 "Here's looking at your Salman Khan fans." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=475974519 "The reference says 210 crores, which cheap Salman Khan fan change it? STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE IDIOTS!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ashermadan&diff=prev&oldid=476584567 "I'm not going to assume good faith, X.One SOS. Wikipedia isn't paying you so stop being so personal." "You better stop trolling me, X.One SOS. Or you'll indeed need to say SOS. Ha ha. Stop ruining Wikipedia and stop pretending like you're getting money from it. Stop being a troll." "I don't want to have any dealings with you at all. Go cry home to Lallu." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Bodyguard_(2011_Hindi_film)#Bodyguard_Worldwide_Gross "I thought Scieberking was actually confused as first but his double standards are clearly showing through." "I will oppose using that source no matter what. Zubeida, Anikit, Meryam will too. The last thing I will say before I sleep is that you need to stop being a Salman fanboy and think of wikipedia first." "Scieberking must be useless" "He is Salman Khan fan who is upset that RaOne broke Bodyguard record. He is not a trade analyst so he does not know what he is talking about. He is two faced and a manipulator." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=475346178 "ADDED WARNING, I AM DONE WITH REVERTING VANDALISM. I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=475345653 "THE REFERENCE SAYS 16.5 CRORE (BOI) YOU IDIOT, STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE. AGNEEPATH IS NOT DOING SO WELL OVERSEAS! STOP IT." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467357781 "WE DO NOT ADD THE FINAL VERDIT UNTIL ALL REVIEWS ARE IN! STOP CHANGING IT BLOODY VANDALS! WE DISCUSSED THIS ALREADY! YOU PEOPLE STUPID?" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desi_Boyz&diff=prev&oldid=462473828 "VANDALS, STOP LYING ABOUT REVIEWS! DON'T CHANGE THE RATINGS AND DON'T LIE! I'M SICK OF FIXING THEM." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=474039432 "STOP VANDALIZING THE BOX OFFICE FIGURES! THIS IS THE 14 TIMES IVE HAD TO FIX THEM!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=473997657 "STOP VANDALIZING THE BOX OFFICE FIGURES! THIS IS THE 12 TIMES IVE HAD TO REVERT VANDALISM!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=473826752 "BOX OFFICE INDIA IS THE RELIABLE SOURCE, KOIMOI CANNOT BE USED. EVERY OTHER ARTICLE USES BOX OFFICE INDIA FIGURES. PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=472576708 "WE DISCUSSED IT AND 240 WAS THE AMOUNT AGREED UPON UNTIL BOI PROVIDES DATA FOR WORLDWIDE GROSS ALL VERSIONS" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=472190453 "STOP CHANGING THE POSTER! JUST LEAVE IT AS THE DEFAULT ONE WHICH WE HAVE PERMISSION TO USE!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=469663137 "WORLDWIDE GROSS IS NOT OUT YET! JUST WAIT A FEW WEEKS!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468631127 "THERE IS NO SEQUEL ANNOUNCED. STOP ADDING STUFF WITHOUT REFERENCES." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468629822 "ALY KHAN AND NAWAB SHAH DONT HAVE WIKIPEDIA PAGES IT GOES [[ ]] GOES TO WRONG PAGES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468557397 "PLEASE PROTECT THIS PAGE, THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE MESSING IT UP, SOMEONE PLEASE HELP" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468556825 "NO SEQUEL HAS BEEN CONFIMRED" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468319316 "ALY KHAN AND NAWAB SHAH DONT HAVE WIKIPEDIA PAGES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468029725 "THE SCREEN COUNT IS 3105 ACCORDING TO LIKE 10 DIFFERENT SOURCES. WHY DOES THIS ARTICLE SAY 2800 WHEN THAT'S WRONG?" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468007871 "THERE IS NO ARTICLE FOR ALY KHAN BOLLYWOOD ACTOR, THE LINK LEAD US TO THE KING OF OMAN OR SOMETHING!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467940068 "FART SCENE? REALLY? DELETE THIS NONSENSE. SUCH ABUSE AND IDIOCY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467720077 "BASIC MATH, ADDED ALL THE NUMBERS UP!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467600378 "WORLDWIDE GROSS FROM ALL VERSIONS TO UPDATE THE INFO BOX. UNTIL THEN USE THE BOX OFFICE SECTION OF THE ARTCILE." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467570916 "DABANGG ALSO RELEASED ON FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 10 2010 so it beat DABANGG. PLEASE LEAVE iT IN SALMAN KHAN FANS! STOP MESSING AROUND WITH THIS PAGE!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467578411 "75+% POSITIVE, 85% MIXED TO POSITIVE, ONLY 4 REVIEWS ARE COMPLETELY NEGATIVE" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467517057 "WE ONLY USE BOX OFFICE INDIA, WE USE OTHER SOURCES ONLY IF BOI DOESNT GIVE US THE NECESSARY DATA AS IN RAONE's and TDP's case." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467498682 "FIRST DAY DOMESTIC NETT! WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION BECAUSE USUALLY WE HAVE GROSS WORLDWIDE (GROSS IS BEFORE TAX AND OTHER FEES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467454399 "THESE ARE ALL EARLY ESTIMATES AND USE WORDS LIKE 'AROUND" and "EARLY ESTIMATES" PLEASE WAIT FOR CONFIRMED NUMBERS!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467454191 "BOX OFFICE INDIA ONLY! UNLESS DISCUSSED! WAIT A FEW DAYS UNTIL FINAL FIGURES ARE IN!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467454014 "ONLY WORLDWIDE GROSS FIGURES GO THERE. THEY ARE NOT IN YET SO DONT PUT NETT FIGURES IN THE INFO BOX. THERES A SECTION FOR BOX OFFICE NETT FIGURES DOWN BELOW!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467452493 "BOX OFFICE INDIA IS USED, DONT QUOTE SOME RANDOMASS SOURCE!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467378199 "JUST WAIT TO ADD THE OVERALL VERDICT ABOUT MIXED REVIEWS ETC WHEN ALL THE REVIEWS ARE IN. SO MANY REVIEWS ARE PENDING! PLEASE. DON'T JUMP THE GUN LIKE RA.ONE. WE MADE A HUGE MISTAKE WHEN WE JUMPED THE GUN WITH RA.ONE" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467353164 "TOOK OUT THE LAST PART OF MY PLOT BECAUSE IT RUINS THE WHOLE MOVIE IF YOU HAVENT SEEN IT. WE"LL ADD IT IN LATER!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=466853929 "CRITICIZED FOR "OVERRATING"? WHY WOULD YOU ADD SOMETHING. AND THE SOURCE JUST GIVES TARAN'S RATING!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Love_Story_2050&diff=prev&oldid=466394712 "THE GUY WANTED TO TRAVEL BACK IN TIME BUT ACCIDENTALLY TRAVELLED TO 2050! JESUS. GET YOUR PLOT RIGHT!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sohompramanick&oldid=465157247 "DONT VANDALIZE THE RA.ONE PAGE. THE SOURCE SAYS THE COST IS 135 CRORES. YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTED FOR THIS ACTION." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=465156256 "THE SOURCE SAYS 135 CRORES SO STOP CHANGING THE NUMBER!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Shahrukh_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=463828795 "SHOULD BE A , AFTER BEN KINGSLEY AND BEFORE ETC" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bodyguard_(2011_Hindi_film)&diff=prev&oldid=463250533 "THE REFERENCE SAYS 227 CRORES, NOT 252 CRORES. STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=463101304 "EROS INTERNATIONAL CFO KAMAL JAIN SAID IT IS AT 230 CRORES IN AN INTERVIEW" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=458390617 "SHAHRUKH SAID BUDGET OF RA.ONE IS 130 CRORES ON TALKING CINEMA WITH TARAN ADARSH, HE SAYS MEDIA IS SPECULATING AND IS WRONG" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457712886 "ROTTEN TOMATOES REVIEW ADDED, NO ONE SHOULD REMOVE THIS BECAUSE IT IS THE FIRST UNBIASED ONE" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457712729 "ADDED FIRST NONBIASED RATING FROM ROTTEN TOMATOES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457626400 "TARAN ARARSH UPDATED IT, BOX OFFICE INDIA IS WRONG)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Varunn_pandya&diff=prev&oldid=457467684 "STOP VANDALIZING OUR RA.ONE ARTICLE. IT RECEIVED MOSTLY POSITIVE REVIEWS AS STATED. DO NOT CHANGE THE INTRODUCTION AGAIN." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457454121 "STOP MENTIONING OTHER FILMS IN RA ONE ARTICLE. MENTION 7 AM ARRIVU IN ITS ARTICLE. ILL REPORT YOU IF YOU DONT STOP." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457453705 "FILMFARE REVIEW IS OUT. REDIFF ALREADY MENTIONED DOWN BELOW. TOP PART FOR TOP CRITICS." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457412307 "THESE PEOPLE ARENT PROPER MOVIE CRITICS! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? PEOPLE LIKE OMAR QURESHI, KHALID MOHAMMED, etc. are" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457410976 "DO NOT ADD WEBBLOGS, ONLY GO WITH PROPER CRITICS! CANT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Well, as its something of a rule that an editor should respond to a call at ANI, I am writing here. That's about it. I have made no statement, and I am not going to make one. I am not going to defend myself. I can partially predict the outcome of this, but I am not saying anything and I'm not going to do anything. I leave it to ANI to do whatever it think correct. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• We've been here before discussing various matters of Ankitbhatt's behavior. Civility is not optional, Ankit, and if you're not sure if something would be uncivil or not, then assume it would be and don't say it. You need to slow down, take a deep breath, and think about what you're saying before you say it. If you're unable to do that, you may end up blocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking at the above report, I believe one can immediately get an impression that it is not a question of "may end up blocked" anymore. It has gone on for a considerably long time, and all possible solutions of preventing it were implemented, just for nothing. Secret of success 16:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I would (personally) be willing to hold off on a block if we got some indication from Akitbhatt that he understands why his behavior is an issue and that he intends to change it, but I agree with you that given his refusal a few lines up to engage with this thread, the likelihood of that happening is small. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ankitbhatt has been here long enough to know what might get him blocked; he should have taken a hint when he came to ANI the first, second or third time for civility issues. I don't support him getting blocked outright; I ask for completely civil behavior from him, closely monitored by a trusted user. Lynch7 16:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that I have not stated I will refuse to listen to the comments on this thread; I only said I won't defend myself and I won't comment. I leave it to ANI to decide, and I can predict what happens afterwards but I am not going to say anything. I have tried my best to show both sides of the discussions but I am just tired of people not listening, not understanding. I would just like to be left alone. If a complete interaction ban is what you deem fit, I have no problem and anyways I don't have the energy or willingness to protest. I'm just sick of this. I only wish to edit in Wikipedia, and I feel my contributions are good even though most editors don't think so. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• But that's what we're telling you, Ankit - you need to comment here. If you don't say anything, we have no way of knowing if you understand what's going on or if you intend to change anything. This issue is not something that can be handled by an interaction ban, because the issue isn't that you can't get along with one person, it's that you can't get along with almost anyone. This is a collaborative project, where people have to work with others, and you can't be "left alone" in the sense you seem to want, where you never have to speak to anyone or explain anything you do.

  So, here's what needs to happen: You need to express to us some understanding of WP:CIVIL and that you understand that the way you've been acting isn't following that policy. You then need to commit to adhering to WP:CIVIL in the future, from this moment on, everywhere on Wikipedia. Even to people you don't like. Even to people you think are stupid or doing things all wrong. Your behavior has been disruptive enough, for long enough, that if you can't or won't rein in your incivility starting today, you're going to be blocked until you are able to assert the necessary level of control over yourself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been able to get along with a considerable number of editors, many of whom are good friends. There were instances of temper loss for a few editors which has more than patched up (Bollywood Dreamz, Meryam90). I share an excellent working rapport with some editors, and I am in pretty good terms with most people I meet. The above comments are select and directed only towards a few users. Your claim is unfounded and is your personal opinion; I am giving a nice and completely non-angry suggestion, because many have ecstatically "proved" my "uncivil and egotist" behavior through this harmless suggestion: go through more details and see the other things. I would not like to point out how many of the things in the above "report" have been placed in a negative light, but if you are going to look at the superficial alone (such as the report above) and not look deeper, it is unfortunate. That's all. You can force me to accept that I don't get along with anyone; you have caught me at the right time because I don't want to protest so it is easier to force things out. But it will turn me off from really enjoying my editing, and that's my loss. I am well-aware that most of my contributions have been looked upon with continuous disdain, though I still struggle to understand why, but I want to enjoy my editing just like any other contributor to the project. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No one's judging your contributions; I, for one, appreciate and like your contributions. Its your interactions with other editors that's being raised as a concern. Are you, in any way, disowning all the comments (which have been called incivil) that have been shown above? You may have hundreds of other civil comments, but that does not take away the uncivil ones you have made. Negative light? Of course its in a negative light, we're here to tell you why those are bad. Lynch7 17:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would also look at things a bit broader. I was responding to Fluffernutter's comment that I don't get along with "almost anyone", which is untrue. As I said, you can force me to accept that I don't get along with anybody ever. I have not disowned any comment, and I have never said that; point out where I said such a thing. Look, I do not deny that the comments were uncivil; all I ask is that you look at the arguments in a broader context and not fling observations basing only on the comments posted here, as they only show select negative comments without full context or without explanations. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Erm, it was my question, I wasn't accusing you of disowning any comment. I don't think you get the point; whatever may be the context, it is not a justification for continued uncivil behavior. You need to understand that being uncivil hurts the collaborative nature of the project. Lynch7 19:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

View by MikeLynch

Ankitbhatt is a useful editor; on its own, his content contributions are very good. Having said that, his interactions with people who disagree with is a matter of serious concern. User:Secret of success compiles a collection of his uncivil comments, and that, really, tells the story here. Ankitbhatt has the habit of immediately classifying dissenting voices into what he calls a group of "SRK haters" or "Salman lovers", and behaves as though there's an anti-SRK cabal that's set out to destroy anything that is remotely positive about SRK and his films. The nature and tone of many of his comments are nothing but confrontative, and often destructive to the congenial atmosphere that should ideally be maintained onwiki. As a result, many discussions which could have found an easy compromise end up being long and winding (Talk:Bodyguard (2011 film)); it does nothing to help the project, really, and ends up souring the mood of other editors as well.

This, apart from his partially nonsensical talk page notice (User talk:Ankitbhatt) in which he "prohibits" users from digging up and reproducing talk page archives. Some users may remember his ANI report and the subsequent "Official notice" doled out to a user User_talk:HereToSaveWiki#Official_Notice. I can dismiss these as amateurish (though he's far from being a newbie here), but the civility issues are serious.

I do not advocate any kind of sanction being placed on Ankitbhatt; I only ask him to maintain civility, and if deemed necessary, I would like a mentor being asked to monitor his interactions closely.

Note: I was previously involved in a talk page dispute on Talk:Bodyguard (2011 film) with him, and the last time I remember him mentioning me was in this kind comment.

For the Bollywood illiterate, "SRK" stands for Shah Rukh Khan and "Salman" stands for Salman Khan, both of whom are actors. Lynch7 14:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not all that familiar with Ashermadan's contributions, except that he was found using a sockpuppet in the discussion I mentioned above. Lynch7 14:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

One clarification which the above user has wholly wrongly represented; I do not nonsensically prevent people from digging up the archives. Read the notice in my talk page carefully; I said (and I quote, they are visible in the talk page itself) :-

"Under no circumstances whatsoever are the contents of the archives to be tampered with. The archived contents can only be copy-pasted here; nobody is allowed to directly reproduce any portion of the archive in this, or any other page. You are allowed only to quote it. This is a strict rule, and must not be violated under any circumstances."

Perhaps I was unclear, so let me explain: by tampering, I refer to users continuing old and archived conversations in the archive itself. This means that if I had a certain conversation with X, and I later archived the conversation, I don't want X to continue the conversation in the archive page. He is supposed to copy the previous conversation into my talk page (if he wishes to do so) and then continue the conversation in my talk page. I forbid continuing in the archives because my archives do not provide me a notice for new messages, and I have once missed out an important notification which was placed in my archives, resulting in me being called "unresponsive". I wish to prevent such things, though it has happened once or twice later (to not so drastic consequences). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This may be an English-as-a-second-language problem that led to some accidentally-borked text. Ankitbhatt, your warning actually says that users may copy-paste from your archives but that they may not copy-paste ("reproduce") anything from your archives anywhere. The two parts of that contradict each other and make the whole thing make little sense. You could probably get your point across more effectively with a wording like "If you wish to discuss something that's in one of my archives, please copy the archived material here to re-start the discussion; do not edit the archive page itself." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, maybe an ESL problem. But there is the bigger issue here. Lynch7 15:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall make necessary changes. To point out, English is my first language; I must have made a typing error and repeated a sentence by mistake, adding a "not" in between. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, by "reproduce" I refer to cutting-and-pasting, not copy-and-pasting. I shall elaborate accordingly. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As one of them pointed above, the talk page notice was a minor issue, and the incivility exhibited by the editor has crossed an alarming point. Secret of success 16:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I only need to look at a handful of interactions to see that their attitude towards people they disagree with is horrific. This is a collegial environment, even if you disagree. That type of interaction should have led to a long term block long ago. I truly think we need to see a) an understand that that behaviour is unacceptable, b) some guarantees that it will not happen again; period. Otherwise, it's time to protect this project from such abuse (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

One more thing I would like to point out is that when I asked him to not accuse others and quoted the good faith guideline, he has called that "preaching attitude" (1). Secret of success 05:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

His harassment towards editors also went beyond control. User:Scieberking, who has been the main victim of the comments described in the above report, quit Wikipedia less than a week after a discussion at Talk:Bodyguard (2011 Hindi film), in which Ankit's attitude went to its peak (perhaps). Ankitbhatt's reaction to that was "I care little for him and am very happy he is no longer causing me endless trouble." Secret of success 05:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think what we just need is a commitment from Ankitbhatt that he will not be uncivil ever again, fully knowing that he will be blocked at any instance of incivility. This has gone on for too long. Lynch7 11:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that deadline has already been crossed when he said "you have caught me at the right time because I don't want to protest so it is easier to force things out." Sounds like a bad faith comment. Secret of success 11:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The above editor is continuously indulging in twisting my comments and (as I pointed out) placing them completely out of context. The "force things" statement was clearly mentioned when I talked about Fluffernutter's comment that I don't get along with anyone. Since the above editor cut and paste only a portion of the actual statement, I shall put the real statement: I was responding to Fluffernutter's comment that I don't get along with "almost anyone", which is untrue. As I said, you can force me to accept that I don't get along with anybody ever. [...] You can force me to accept that I don't get along with anyone; you have caught me at the right time because I don't want to protest so it is easier to force things out.

I have the right to speak, and the above editor's actions are now going well into POV matters and can be construed as lying and deliberate twisting, not to mention defamation. I repeat, it can be construed as lying and defamation. I have not made even a single uncivil or inappropriate content in this section, and yet if this is the way the issue will be handled, it is extremely unfortunate. If any one administrator is ready to deal with this issue, I am willing to give my commitment; if the above editor's actions continue, you and I know that I am not the one adding fuel to the fire. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we've waited long enough for a response to my 2 simple questions. Instead, we get the above, including close venturing to WP:NLT. I have indef blocked Ankitbhatt for general disruption until they are willing to prove that they understand that their overall actions and demeanor are unacceptable, and that such actions will never recur on this project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin Poll

Someone is trying to run a poll on the page regarding some content. The poll may or may not be helpful at this point, but that is not really the issue. User HiLo48 strongly objects to the concept of the poll even being run, and is disrupting it by posting a large swearing comment in the middle of the poll, and refuses to let people move it (reverting when someone else moves). Could an admin step in, move the comment, and tell it to stay? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for presenting such a narrow perspective on this. I responded politely to your comment on your Talk page. Then you come straight here!!! Show some manners ((I was very tempted to add an adjective there that you wouldn't like) and let's continue the conversation there. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

sigh, you also responded to several other people saying not to fucking move your comment again, and that the rules of civility needed to be broken. reap. sow. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So what was the point of even posting on my Talk page? (The normal expected response is a reply on YOUR Talk page, which is what I did.) Might as well have come straight here and wasted Admins' time because you don't like me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I will admit to one mistake, which is that I saw your comment on the article talk page saying "rules need to be broken", after your comment on my page, which indicated to me that you had no intention of changing your mind. therefore I came here. and it has nothing to not liking you. I like you just fine, but your disagreement with the way someone wants to gather consensus does not allow you to disrupt it.Gaijin42 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

:Hilo is Trolling.74.163.16.52 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please understand that straight-up-or-down polls are not appropriate in most places on Wikipedia, and basic article content is one of those places. We need to make decisions through discussion, not simply votes. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they arent often useful. And HiLo is free to make that point. But actively stopping others from doing the poll is not ok imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "rules need to be broken", and what I did seems to have killed that time-wasting, destructive poll anyway. (We had another one earlier on that page. I thought people would have learnt.) All good for Wikipedia :-) See you back at that article, eh? HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::No Damn excuse for acting the WP:DICK.74.163.16.52 (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And you really think that using one swear word, that would be a perfectly normal part of conversation in some of the circles I move in, is worse than all the other crap that's appeared on that page? Crap with a façade of niceness is still crap. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::There's a Hugh freaking diff,I'm not bitching in all caps,I let stuff play out,and see the results.74.163.16.52 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Crap with a facade of niceness" may still be crap, but at least it's policy-conforming crap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Inserting comments into the middle of a poll to make a point [53], well advised or no, is as good of example of disruptive behavior as I can come up with. Per this edit, disruption in fact appears to be your intent. Whether this is in practice any different than wiki-approved ways of closing a poll early such as hatnotes is a valid question, but in my opinion a hatnote is a fair bit more palatable than big, expletive-laden text. WP:CIVIL is not optional. VQuakr (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

:Amen.74.163.16.52 (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, there's consensus in this discussion that your comments were disruptive. Although I think they should be deleted from the talk page, I've reverted to Bob K31416's revision and moved your comments to the appropriate section. Frankly, both your edits and your edit summary are highly inappropriate and you should stop this behavior immediately. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, it was disruptive, but in a sense, that was my goal. I wanted to stop people adding comments to a nonsensical, inappropriate poll. Many have agreed that the poll was inappropriate, but it's still there, wide open now for people to add comments to. It's the second attempt at a POLL on that Talk page since I started paying attention a couple of days ago. What bothers me is that the word that has so offended the masses here is much less of the sin where I come from than the absolute racist and bigoted garbage that's appeared throughout that page. So, I can work hard on following conservative American conversational practices, but how about getting rid of that stupid poll, and all the other idiotic and bigoted garbage on that page? HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, it was disruptive, but in a sense, that was my goal. - so you were being deliberatly disruptive to make a point? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. There's just been another "vote", explicitly described as such in the Edit summary, in the earlier poll on that page, but that's OK, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI: We use polls all the time on Wikipedia, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. What is inherently wrong is being disruptive just because you don't quite like the form of the discussion. I agree that many people don't provide much of an explanation with their poll response, but we can't MAKE people do anything here. So you can politely ask for people to post a full explanation with their poll answer and see if they respond, but hey, just relax. If people don't do it, they don't do it. Consensus is a policy, polling is an option. ("polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting.") Simply remind people that "polling is not a substitute for discussion" and move on.... but relax, ok? Can we wrap up this AN/I soon....? -- Avanu (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Everyone seems to want to miss my point. Maybe they like artificial niceness. You say "we can't MAKE people do anything here." Me sticking an ugly notice in the middle of an ill-conceived poll DID stop people voting in it. Ugly tactic, but hey, it was an ugly poll. I still say there's been far worse and ignorant things said on the racist front on that page, but that's all OK because they didn't swear. VERY bad priorities here, I'm afraid. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Editors have similarities and differences: similarities make communication possible; differences make it necessary. Two Quality editors that I both admire come to blows. Lets both go to neutral corners and calm down. No need to continue. Combative behavior doesnt suit either one of you. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Femto Bot

Femto Bot (talk · contribs) keeps on editing in wake of the Rich Farmbrough Arbitration request about his alledgedly disruptive bot-editing. Rich Farmbrough has been blocked for his disruptive bot-operation among other things. This bot is the only currently-operating bot, and I would kindly request an indefinite block until the ArbCom case is closed and decided. Wikitaka (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I am confident the arbitration committee can direct the clerk(s) to block the bot if they feel it's warranted. 28bytes (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Arbs made it crystal clear to RF that he was unblocked solely to participate in the case; his bots were not permitted to run. → ROUX ₪ 08:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you link to that statement for us Roux ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

nvm - found it; blocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you link for the rest of us please? GiantSnowman 12:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

See here - Courcelles statement at 01:19 on 2 Apr (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. GiantSnowman 12:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Either someone is cleaning up and refilling this backlog very fast, or Femto Bot is not working correctly: Category:User-created public domain images (no Commons) from July 2008 has been deleted twice today as being empty, and twice Femto Bot recreated it soon afterwards. The cat again seems to be empty, so I have no idea what Femto Bot is basing its recreation on. Category:User-created public domain images (no Commons) and Template:User-created public domain images (no Commons) progress both claim that the cat is not empty though...

Update: it seems as if this cat, and its parents and siblings, should no longer exist, since they have all been renamed from "images" to "files", e.g. Category:User-created public domain files (no Commons). Fram (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Update 2: I have deleted these cats as G6 housekeeping, and (hopefully) prevented further creations of these by the bot. Fram (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Nathanielfirst and massive link insertion

Nathanielfirst (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

This new user has done almost nothing but add "see also"s to many articles, marking them all as minor, and a group of us have been reverting nearly all of them as not really appropriate. Talk page entreaties have gotten no response nor change of behavior. Their only other edits are two failed AfCs and some expansion of Zhe school (painting) very early on. Mangoe (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

:I notice all his pages are almost about the same topic,the pages are related.74.163.16.52 (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If he doesn't respond here or on his talk page tonight I will be blocking him, I've been concerned about his edits since they began. Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I spent two hours reverting most of his latest spree; I'd prefer if I didn't have to do so again. Those links which actually are relevant tend to be already included in the articles, sometimes prominently in the first line. Huon (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I second this - I've spent hours earlier this week reverting most of three earlier sprees. He/it doesn't seem to be a bot, as the connections he's making have a specific "logical" connection associated w/ a very particular worldview I'm familiar with, and they're connections a bot couldn't make.--Lyonscc (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

He's using some sort of tool, because the edits are coming at the rate of a couple a minute. And he's at it again. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

After my huggle session had put 4 warnings on his talk page, which seems odd as normally Huggle wouldn't do that when editor hasn't edited since last warning, I was about to come here to ask whether I should refactor them to just one first level warning. When I noticed this, perhaps it's better to leave the warnings, as apparently it has stopped him continuing now. This must be some semi-automated tool. Bizarre. Should we blindly revert all hundreds of his previous additions? If so, what would be a proper edit summary? - DVdm (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I spot-checked a few from each of the runs and not a single one was appropriate. They were all already linked in the article-body or in various sidebars and other nav tools, or occasionally were just failed direct and obvious relevance (the standard minimum standard for a seealso). He was alerted to this ANI and advised to respond to it before continuing (among other warnings and messages) and then has done at least one run since then--obviously no intent to edit collaboratively at this time. I see his edits as a net loss (per my spot-checks) and no obvious gain (they're just seealso, not actual content), therefore no objection to blanket reversion. DMacks (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start at the first halve, with edit summary "Inappropriate mass-link". - DVdm (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed, and apologies for not noticing that he'd started editing again (but I have been away and eating dinner). He's now indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. Revert away. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. No problem. Apparently he did one revert himself: [54]. Strange. - DVdm (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources deleted and replaced with unsourced material at Allied Artists International

This version of the article has every line supported by a reliable mainstream media news story secondary source, like the LA Times. It is completely NPOV.

But the well sourced content keeps being deleted entirely, without any discussion on the talk page, and well sourced NPV material is replaced with advert promotional sources, unsourced false statements, and very misleading information giving the impression that some source supportsunsupported by any sources, as here.

Warriorboy55 has a history with this article according to adminstrator actions on his own talk page.[[55], and here[56]]. Warriorboy55 suddenly stopped editing, and USER:173.116.161.246 came in and keeps[57] [58] [59] [60] [61] removing any construction tags, removing all reliably sourced material' such as multiple LA Times sources. He keeps putting back up material based on unreliable self promoting websites and making statements unsupported even by these unreliable sources.[62]

Please help restore the reliable sources such as LA TImes, keep out the completely unsourced assertions that this company has anything to do with a historic movie company, and keep the NPOV article wording with very reliable sources for each line as in the reference list here[63]. Thank you. PPdd (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to the false allegations, I am not participating in any edit war, but did report it. I do disagree with changing the article from one that discusses a company into a blatant attack against one person within that company. The two editors involved obviously have a vendetta against the target of their attacks. I feel as though a neutral party should arbitrate the matter before further editing occurs. Also, I am not associated with any of the principals of Allied Artists International but am familiar with some of the artists and producers associated with the company. Their CEO has a similar name as the one being cited in the sources. However, I am told it is not the same person. Since PPdd thinks my nick ends in 55, maybe he also thinks it's my birth year. It actually ends in 85, which is my birth year. PPdd is accusing me of being the anonymous IP editor and even accuses me of being the target of his attack on one of the principals of the company. He ignores filed government documents that establish the fact that the original Allied Artists Pictures Corporation was assigned to the predecessor to Allied Artists International and takes the position that they are unrelated. The filed documents establish the fact that the trademarks were assigned and the date they were assigned. Regardless, I have not participated in this edit war because I have been accused of not being a neutral editor. Reading PPdd's accusations here make it clear he has a bias against the company and someone he believes to be a principal. If the admins believe Allied Artists International is not associated with the original Allied Artists Pictures, then the article is not noteworthy and should be nominated for speedy deletion, rather than using it to attack people. Thank you. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Topic Ban on following Users

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.

WP:BOOMERANG. Calabe1992 15:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

---

I request that the two users below be blocked from taking part in Mixed Martial Arts topics in an indefinite timeline. -

User:TreyGeek‎ User:Mtking

These two editors combined have been working to deleting many notable MMA events with little to no realistic solution to preserving them (some of the reasons to delete given are actually guidelines, which are optional to follow but does not hold any weight in an AfD case), and because of this they must be breaking good faith policies. They have been seeking to have pages removed to put them to an impractical 'Year in' pages which will not work, especially for pages like UFC events. Anyone who imposes them, may that be simply voting 'Keep' on AfDs or stating facts that opens the option to fellow editors to keeping the pages, they will look in error not particularly in the reason to keep, but in the editor itself, so much so that virtually every single AfD they have been part of over the last two months will clearly show that they are in some way attacking editors who view the situation differently. For example you would find that under some user's votes they would probably be a comment written right under the user's signature saying something irrelevant which makes them seem illegal for the AfD, while other Keep votes and comments would probably be crossed out for being accused of being something that I doubt they are, like sock or meat puppets. They are a few other editors who have been doing similar things but these two editors are the key people behind this system. Below this there will be evidence of all the AfDs which shows this example, though may not be in order of date.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProElite: Grove vs. Minowa Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 8 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 2 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark Fights 18 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMMAC 1

As you can see, there is clear vote stacking in favour of the delete votes, not so much in the way of adding more voters to delete, but to 'remove the competition' style campaign which to them, seems to be working as most of the pages above have been deleted through these AfDs. Going back to the 'Year in' thing, they have created a 2012 in UFC events page, which by looking through any and all UFC topics, including the List of UFC events page, they are no links what-so-ever directing them to this new page. The page consists of all the UFC events of this year which has actual event pages of their own and puts them under one. Now because of the fact that nothing links to it, as well as the fact that it is simply just a page full of the same information already on here, I also request the immediate deletion of this orphaned page which has no place on here due to sharing the exact information on different pages already accepted on Wikipedia. MMADon101 13:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMADon101 (talk • contribs)

Do I smell a User:BigzMMA sock?--Atlan (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If people are voting at AFD, you have a problem right there. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Administrators, please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BigzMMA and act accordingly as the initial CheckUser has come back with a positive confirmation. Hasteur (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Already  Confirmed as a sock. Reverted leftover edits. Calabe1992 15:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Point of order: I don't think this is resolved as we have a confirmed Sockpuppet that still retains edit privileges. Hasteur (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

They'll get blocked when a clerk takes over the case. Calabe1992 15:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a clerk, but  Done. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Vjmlhds

Resolved

Vjmlhds keeps on documenting changes about TV shows that have not occured yet. In this particular situation, Vjmlhds keeps on removing on List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company a TV show that is listed on the "Upcoming series" section and putting it on the "Currently broadcast by ABC" section even though the show has not aired its first episode yet. I really don't get his reasoning of documenting as current shows, shows that have not even premiered yet under the excuse that they will debut in a couple of days. After all, the "Upcoming series" section does exist for a reason. When I point this out to Vjmlhds, he keeps on telling me that this is how the other websites do it, that the show will air its first episode on Tuesday and that I should just relax.

We at Wikipedia always update changes at the exact time as they happened, not a minute before. This is not the first time that Vjmlhds is being engaged in this sort of disruptive editing. In January, he would consistently pulled out the name of a soap opera that was ending from the List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company, American Broadcasting Company and ABC Daytime articles before the show had even aired its final episode. Farine (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• He hasn't edited ABC Daytime in almost 3 months. Each time he has edited the other two a credible summary was given. This is a pure content dispute. I have no idea who is "right", but that doesn't matter. Even if he was 100% wrong in the content, that doesn't mean it is a reason for ANI, as "Mistaken" isn't the same as "Abuse" or "Vandalism". I didn't see your name on the talk page of any of the three articles you are talking about. Yes, you added one message on his talkpage plus a boilerplate template admonishing him, improperly. He has left two messages on your talk page, politely and clearly providing his rationale. Use the talk page for the article, then if you can't agree, go to WP:3RD or some other type of dispute resolution. I don't think this belongs at WP:ANI at this time. You are overstating your case, as the only potential abuse I am seeing is you giving him a warning template for "disruption" [64] when his edits are clearly not vandalism or intentional disruption. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]
• Beyond Dennis' cogent comments, I note that Vjmlhds has over ten thousand edits. Comments such as "We at Wikipedia always ..." are patronizing under the best of circumstances, the more so when the target has half again as many edits as you do. Ravenswing 18:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the fact that he has twice as many edits as I make his case any more credible than mine. And I don't get how telling someone to "relax, will ya" is polite. Nevertheless, I will take this to 3RD or the dispute resolution. Thanks Farine (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by long-term user Feline1

Obvious long-time user (since 2006) openly vandalises article.

Responds to warning with intentionally unconvincing faux-naivity meets Wikilawyering non-justification.

I don't intend dignifying this by considering their motives- all that's relevant is that this clearly wasn't done in good faith by a newcomer, but cynically and openly by a long-term user. Ubcule (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Notified. --Laser brain (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the edit was to prove a point about the concept of IAR, which the user is fundamentally misunderstanding (to hilarious effect I must add). The edit is also a pretty nasty BLP issue as well. But, I think a good shake and a dose of common sense is all that is needed. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, except that he's racked up numerous blocks for everything to edit-warring, to other instances of vandalism, to harassment and personal attacks, to outing (I placed that one, although I can't remember the circumstances offhand), to more edit-warring. I think waiting for common sense to kick in is a bit optimistic. And I'm actually not OK with this edit (which is outright vandalism as well as a serious BLP violation) nor his specious rationale for it. I've blocked him for 1 week (in light of his extensive previous block log), although if other admins think I've been too harsh then they are welcome to adjust as they see fit. MastCell ^Talk 21:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

While the last block was several years ago, that's no indication at all of years of good-faith contribution. Since the last block in 2009 Feline1 has only 72 mainspace contributions, of which a number are edit warring and the Everett edits. The previous blocks were intended to send a strong message that this person needed to radically reform their editing. Their recent contributions show they're not interested in doing so. This isn't a troubled soul or someone over-excited in a vexing subject area; Feline1 simply isn't here to contribute. Unless someone can show some strong evidence of worthwhile contributions, I'm going to up the block to indef. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I was aware that the user was probably trying to make some point (hence the link of "whatever" in my reply on their talk page). I simply had no interest in legitimising- and pandering to- the vandalism by paying attention to whatever petty dispute it was trying to draw attention to.

Personally, I think it's clear that any "misunderstanding" this user shows is a faux-naive affectation on their part. They've been on Wikipedia since 2005 at least, and have made plenty of edits, so they quite clearly know what they're doing. Ubcule (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's hard for me to read Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#The ignore all rules policy violates itself without thinking that the user in question is here to be an engine of chaos rather than one of constructiveness. I believe that a "This is your very last chance before we boot you from the project" message is in order. Or we can follow Finlay's suggestion and skip the final warning. Either works. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

John @ George Galloway

I'm new to wikipedia, sorry if I do something wrong

User "John" has constantly engaged in edit wars with other users, and seems to completely flaunt the 3RR rule

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&action=history

Completely reluctant to discuss anything, just bashes the "undo" button, even though the additions I have been making are perfectly sourced in a newspaper article.

Please help. I have tried very hard to maintain WP:AGF but I feel like this article is under attack from an evidently elite group with anti-Islamic/Islamophobic agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowlocust (talk • contribs) 22:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:John is an admin, and WP:3RR is allowed to be ignored in cases of vandalism...and also for WP:BLP policy violations, which appears to be the concern here. Look out for those WP:BOOMERANGs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That he is an admin is irrelevant (or at least, I should hope so), also he wasn't reverting vandalism or WL:BLP policy violations. Snowlocust (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

doesn't appear to be 3RR as his reverts are in different areas or the article. Have you discussed this in the talk page as he suggested?Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And, Snowlocust, please be aware that, under WP:BLP, we do not indicate that a person follows a given religion – or even imply it – unless said person has publicly self-identified as a member of said religion. In this case, George Galloway has not self-identified as a muslim and, therefore, to imply that he is may be construed as a violation of WP:BLP. Please, do not restore the contentious information and discuss the issue on the article's talk page instead. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Using cherry-picked and questionable sources to make assertions about Galloway's religious beliefs - particularly those flatly contradicted by one of the sources cited ([65] He carries a copy of the Koran around, which has caused speculation he's a Muslim. He says: "That's between me and my God."' But asked by The Observer, Galloway denied any intention to convert) is a BLP violation. We have repeatedly asked Snowlocust to discuss contentious edits, but instead, all we seem to get is accusations of Islamophobia (for which he presents no evidence whatsoever). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)As Salvio says, claiming he belongs to a religion when he has explicitly states he does not is a WP:BLP violation. Please don't re-add it, as if you do, that'll be edit warring and you'd be blocked. Please discuss it on the article talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The deletions he made at 21:41, 21:18, 17:24 and 12:21 all concern the same part of the article. Sad that because he is an admin he thinks he is exempt from any edit-war rules and rules the article with an iron fist, reluctant to talk things over, just simply bashes the undo button. His most recent revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&diff=prev&oldid=485604049 was deletion - WITHOUT discussion - of statements that are taken DIRECTLY from the guardian (reputable UK newspaper). Snowlocust (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify for those confused (e.g. Bushranger, no idea why you are talking about that!) that nobody is proposing to say he is a member of any religion. Thanks :) Snowlocust (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the material you cite was originally from the Observer (both papers are part of the same group, and share the website) - and I have already quoted the relevant section above, which states that (at least in 2004 when it was written) "[Galloway] carries a copy of the Koran around", but also states that "Galloway denied any intention to convert". Why are you using it as a source for the former, but not for the latter? As for 'nobody is proposing to say he is a member of any religion' you spent much of your time on the article talk page doing that - and still seem intent on suggesting that Galloway is a Moslem by implication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Because when one sources Statement X from Article Y, one does not need to automatically include every single other statement also made in Article Y. In answer to your seciont question, I have heard about deeply-entrenched anti-Islamic/Islamophobic agendas in Wikipedia, and now believing to be witness to one, I intend to fight tooth and nail for a neutral POV (one only has to look at the WP debate on the images of Mohammed to see that Wikipedians - newbies and admins alike - will take any chance they can get to degrade Islam, regardless of any Wikipedia stances contrary to it. Snowlocust (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that you intend to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? If everybody else holds one position, and you hold another, it's entirely possible that they might all be right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No. I intend to fight Islamophobia and anti-Islamic agendas to the best of my ability, hence I am requesting admin intervention on this issue. If even the admins fail to tackle anti-Islamic agendas on WP then I will attempt to take it to some higher level than the admins. If even the higher level fail to tackle anti-Islamic agendas then there will be little we proponents of equality and neutrality can do. Also, that's twice you have made completely irrelevant and unsubstantiated comments.Snowlocust (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, I happen to be in the apparent minority amongst Wikipedians regarding the debate over the placement of images of Mohammed in articles - and have made it quite clear that I consider them generally inappropriate. Still, can't let the evidence get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, can we? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because you don't, doesn't disprove the general trend. Still, good on you, I suppose. But this is getting off track.. Snowlocust (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It disproves the proposition that those who are opposing your attempts to spin the Galloway article your way are necessarily driven by Islamophobia (and BTW, there is a quote from the Qur'an on my user page: I suggest you read it, and consider whether your attempts to "rend the earth asunder" are appropriate) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Stating that "I intend to fight tooth and nail for a neutral POV", when the WP:CONSENSUS is that the current state of the article is already at a neutral POV and your proposed neutral POV is not neutral at all and, in fact, violates the BLP policy, is indeed a declaration that you will engage in disruption as determined by the community consensus, and calling you on it is hardly "completely irrelevant and unsubstantiated". You believe that this should be included in the article. The rest of Wikipedia does not. The dead horse beckons; but I'm done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No. The WP:CONSENSUS amongst my communities is that Wikipedia is an anti-Islamic, Islamophobic encyclopaedia that mendaciously prides itself on "neutrality". People like you propagate that bias, people like me wish to restore it to previous levels of neutrality before the agenda-driven editors got their hands on the articles. Snowlocust (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You are the one with the agenda - you have just told us so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Everyone has an agenda. Some have the agenda of anti-Islam and are victims of Islamophobia. My agenda is neutrality. Snowlocust (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, thoughts on my recent proposal on the talk page of George's article? Snowlocust (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"No. The WP:CONSENSUS amongst my communities..." - Which is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia's consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And regarding my thoughts on your recent proposal, I think you should reconsider making yet more personal attacks on a talk page [66] while the issue is being discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"And regarding my thoughts on your recent proposal" you said this, but didn't comment on the actual proposal itself. Shame that you also are not willing to discuss this on the talk page like a neutral WP editor would. Also in the link you gave there are no personal attacks, only comments on anti-Islamic agendas. Snowlocust (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly not going to go very far. Clearest example of "Who will guard the guards themselves?" I have ever seen. Could anyone recommend me a higher authority that I could go to on this matter? I take anti-Islamic agendas and Islamophobia extremely seriously. Snowlocust (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So do I - if I see evidence of them. Regarding the Galloway article, the only Islamophobia I have seen any evidence of was from the person who posted the YouTube video you tried to cite as a source for Galloway being a Moslem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop right there, Snowlocust. Unless you have diffs showing clear Islamophobia on the part of User:John, you need to retract that statement. That's a very serious accusation, and you do not get to just throw it out because your edits were reverted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Has already been linked. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&diff=prev&oldid=485604049 diff showing John reverting direct quotes taken from the guardian. Snowlocust (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And what part of that establishes islamophoba on his part? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, the edit where you tried to cite an article that said "Galloway denied any intention to convert" for a statement that he "refuses to either confirm or deny he has converted to Islam". Islamophobia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The part where he is desperately trying to delete any attempt at associating George with Islamic beliefs or practices, even though they are perfectly sourced and verified. Snowlocust (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Note this is not an isolated incident. Look through the page history yourself. John adamantly smashes any association of George with Islam - even when the association is perfectly sourced and verified, as per WP:BLP - and seems to desperately be trying to keep the viewpoint that George is a Christian Roman Catholic, completely at odds with WP:FALSESnowlocust (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Find a source, a WP:RELIABLE one, that states this person is unambigiously of this faith, or it cannot be added per BLP. Insinuations and half-baked extrapolations are not enough. Heiro 23:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so desperate to list George's faith on his WP page? He clearly keeps it ambiguous for a reason.Snowlocust (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so desperate to discuss this - you seem to be the one making an issue out of it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As stated, "I take anti-Islamic agendas and Islamophobia extremely seriously", hence the reporting of this member to the Admin Incidents board. Snowlocust (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Galloway is often seen with a Koran, but refuses to confirm or deny conversion" carries the obvious implcation "but it's clear he has" - which makes the article non-neutral and a WP:BLP violation. Unless Galloway has explictly stated that he has converted to Islam, we cannot even imply that he has, even if the implcation is worded using "confirm or deny". Your constant refusal to listen on this matter does not help your case here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Locust, Why is every edit you have made here connected with having this person listed as Islamic? Religious POV pushing of any stripe wont get you far here. Find a source or drop it, period. Heiro 00:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Snowlocust, you have clearly misunderstood my last post: I was asking why you were so desperate to discuss Galloway's faith on his WP page. And why are you so desperate to show links with Islam that you conveniently omit the part of a source that suggests that he is not a convert? If he wants to 'keep it ambiguous', why shouldn't we respect his wishes, rather than digging around for evidence? We have clear policy on this, as has been explained to you multiple times. And no, nothing you have provided indicates 'Islamophobia' in regard to the Galloway article - merely a concern for our policies - which coincide with Galloway's wishes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for any other admin input on this. Obviously I am acting as an editor rather than an admin in reverting contentious and poorly referenced BLP matter from this article, as I have edited the article 85 times. I would continue to suggest seeking a compromise in article talk before adding speculative material on religious affiliation to the article. I am convinced there is one to be found. I welcome review of my actions here as well as additional talk page contributions. --John (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• "User:John is an admin" It seems all I needed to know about how Wikipedia handles admin complaints was held within the first few words that I got in reply to this section. Whilst I'm here, is there any system for "higher up" complaints, or is this admin incidents section the final step in the ladder for editors/commentators? Snowlocust (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• And can I confirm that no action is going to be taken against him as per my complaints of blatant edit-warring or my perceived anti-Islamic agenda? Snowlocust (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I apologise for not providing sufficent context; I didn't mean that he was "above the law" by being an admin - none of us are - merely that he wasn't some two-bit newcomer unaware of the rules. And WP:EW is suspended for WP:BLP issues, which this was; and you are the only person perceiving an anti-Islamic agenda, so.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What action are you proposing? So far you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that anyone has done anything wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you continue accusing John of Islamophobia with no evidence to support such an accusation, it is more likely that you will be blocked for violating WP:NPA. If you insist on going forward with this complaint, dispute resolution is the process to follow. Oh, and please note: whether John is an admin or not is irrelevant. You are taking a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude here, while pushing your opinion into a BLP. In other words, you're the one in the wrong here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will continue to take this argument through dispute resolution. Your attempts to threaten me do not scare me - if a man cannot speak his mind freely in ANI, where can he? I intend to continue to fight deeply entrenched anti-Islamic agendas within Wikipedia editors, be they held within admins, normal editors, or anonymous users, in the hopes of helping return WP:NPOV in relation to any Islamic-related articles. Snowlocust (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no threats - there are simple statments of policy, ones you have continually chosen to ignore. I'd suggest that reading WP:TRUTH and WP:FREESPEECH might be of some use, but the simple fact is, if you continue as you have in the discussion here, we'll see you in the block logs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE anybody? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I give him a week at most with that attitude. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If I wasn't so lazy, I'd write WP:NOTHEREBUTYOUNERDSDONTRESPECTMYPROPHET. Chillllls (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

To be fair to Snowlocust, I'd agree with him that there have been problems regarding the way issues related to Islam have been treated in some Wikipedia articles - but I don't see this as symptomatic of anything other than the general POV-pushing that tends to go on in relation to articles on religion, or ethnicity, or all of the other contentious-and-not-actually-verifiable-except-as-opinion issues. What is certain though is that you can't 'fix' such problems by making endless accusations of bias, engaging in soapboxing, and generally acting like you have discovered some huge criminal conspiracy, which the world must be informed about immediately, so they rally to your cause. That isn't the way Wikipedia works. It isn't the way the outside world works either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Snowlocust, there is no Wikipedia policy called WP:ISLAMOPHOBIA. Your rants are relatively devoid of references to valid policies and guidelines, and claiming that there's an anti-Muslim cabal seems to be your answer to everything. Question: does it seem to you that your arguments are convincing anyone? Ravenswing 04:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What there is, of course, is Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam - I wonder if anyone from the project might like to comment? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the description of Galloway's religious affiliation in the article; and indeed there was a rather curious sentence describing how he returned from Beirut to Roman Catolicism... However, @Snowlocust, in my humble opinion, these kinds of mistakes are not signs of islamophobia as much as of the fact that we editors are human, and thus all too apt to err. I am aware that you do have tried to discuss matters on the talk page, which I think is laudable. However, in general, it is more efficient to pinpoint the factual problems than to include theories about reasons for other editors to misbehave.

In this case, from glancing at your article talk page contributions, I think that you probably have noted that the somewhat confusing claims about Galloway's purported Roman Catholic faith still were present, while other editors missed it. Unhappily, at least one other qualified editor missed this fact. If you had concentrated your article talk page contributions on the facts alone, chances are that this point would have been appreciated earlier.

Best regards, JoergenB (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I think somehow in all the confusion that got missed (or messed up further) while we were trying to sort the problems out. A further good reason for trying to keep discussions civil... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:174.1.50.249

I believe this IP user (174.1.50.249 (talk · contribs)) who changed the teams' status names in HaMerotz LaMillion 1 and HaMerotz LaMillion 2 that the IP editor had disrupted editing the second season with unsourced team relationship names translated from Hebrew, but in the Hebrew article, for example "חברות" which literally translated to "Friends" in Hebrew language. There, the editor had changed the winners' team relationship's name was to "Painter & Saleswoman" instead of "Childhood Friends" [67] that causes undiscussed on not give the proper English to Hebrew transliteration standards. To note, that editor did edit warring in the second season article and needs to get a block.

Then, the IP editor got a message from my talk page [68]:

Excuse me my good sir, but you are the one doing disruptive editing.

When I saw the "Broke up" thing for Tom & Adele, I figured I would go check it out myself, just to be sure. When I translated their "relationship" tag, which appeared on screen, I noticed it wasn't "Dating". It was "Footballer and his girlfriend".

On a whim, I translated all of the other teams and found they were also different than what was listed.

So I'm not making stuff up and pulling it out of my rear-end, thank you very much. I'm helping Wikipedia by correcting what is incorrect.

You say "Ah Okay", then change them back anyway. AND you give me a block warning. Look, I'm trying to do this the proper way, but you're not listening. The fact is that the old names aren't correct. I don't know how else to put it.

Dude, What is your problem? I'm trying to discuss this with you, but you're just deleting my comments. Am I going to have to take this up with a third party, possibly someone with more power than you? You keep accusing me of "Article ownership", but all I'm doing is trying to correct information that is incorrect. I don't know how else to say it. I translated the relationships from the show. What I'm changing them to are what is written on the screen. I don't know how much more proof you need than that.

Then, the editor did an edit war of that said season article and it may do not give an article censorship on this IP's behavior. ApprenticeFan ^work 00:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this. I seriously don't believe this.

Okay, a few questions: First, how can I cite what I see on the screen? Do I take a screenshot?

Second: It doesn't matter if Bar & Inna, for example, are Childhood Friends. For all of the TAR pages, we have put in the "Relationship" table what is written under their names when their team identifier when it appears on-screen. Peggy & Claire were probably friends, but instead we wrote "Gutsy Grannies" because that's what appeared with their team identifier (Or at least we DID, until I now see that someone has changed them).

Third: As an example, under Bar & Inna's team identifier on the actual show, it is written ציירת ואשת מכירות which translates to "Painter and Saleswoman". Citing another language of Wikipedia isn't good enough, I'm afraid. I can only assume that the Hebrew Wikipedia is also incorrect.

Fourth: I do not appreciate my comments being deleted from his talk page. I was trying to avoid an edit war by discussing this with Mr. ApprenticeFan and coming to a peaceful solution. Instead, I'm being reported.

174.1.50.249 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In the original U.S. version, Peggy and Claire's team relationship on screen has not recognized by CBS and "Gutsy Grannies" is not on the old early 2000s CBS website, but they labeled as "Friends". In the Wiki article on TAR2, the relationship labeled as Grandmothers. Herb and Nate changed to "Flight Time and Big Easy", but their team relationships' names from "Friends" to "Harlem Globetrotters". But, there is no case there. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm really sorry, and I don't mean to be offensive, but I'm having a really difficult time understanding you because of your English. What's the problem with Flight Time & Big Easy? They're identified on-screen as "Harlem Globetrotters" and their wiki page says "Harlem Globetrotters". That's what I'm trying to do with the Israeli races. 174.1.50.249 (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the CBS website has been continually unreliable in the past. They once spelled Hungary as Hungry. They also one said the Bransen Family were the winners. I don't know exactly how the hierarchy of information works here, but I should think that information taken directly from the show that the wiki page is about trumps over the website's info, and especially trumps info gathered from foreign language wikipedias. 174.1.50.249 (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Other wikipedias are never reliable sources, but the show is a primary source and, thus, superceded by secondary sources unless those are proven inaccurate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Pardon? The primary source can be overwritten by secondary sources? What? That doesn't sound right. 174.1.50.249 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Bushrangers, that isn't correct at all. Primary sources cannot be used to support analysis of themselves, but they can be generally scrupulously trusted to say what the actually say. Direct quotes are a form of primary sourcing, and we don't require a secondary source to confirm a quote; though we would to provide information about what the quote means. In other words, we can't say what a primary source means by only citing it itself, but we can say what it says. The fact that Wikipedia tends to like to use secondary sources for information is because secondary sources are those which analyze and provide context for primary sources, but that doesn't mean that we always assume a primary source is wrong. --Jayron32 04:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I say, the information is coming directly from the show itself, and I don't know how to cite that beyond taking a screenshot. 174.1.50.249 (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up; I did say that all wrong, didn't I? As for sourcing, just put something like <ref>Foos of our Bars, season X, episode Y "The Foo Bar", originally aired 25 May 2525</ref> and that should be sufficent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not from any specific episode though. It's on most all of them. 174.1.50.249 (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

All right, thanks for everyone's help. I'm gonna go try to put them back now. I just don't want to get in trouble for a 3R or anything. If someone could perhaps look at the reference tags I leave to make sure they're okay? 174.1.50.249 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please overturn the speedy deletion of Michael Joseph Miller

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

---

The 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.

---

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowinternetsucks (talk • contribs) 06:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why we should. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be mean.--Slowinternetsucks (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That isn't an answer. Why should Wikipedia have an article on "Michael Joseph Miller"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Michael Joseph Miller--Slowinternetsucks (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:GNG. Would this person pass this? Are there WP:RELIABLE sources that discuss this person? Did you use these sources as WP:CITEs when you wrote the article? Heiro 06:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes--Slowinternetsucks (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So who is he, and why is he notable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Slowinternetsucks: You can either re-create the article supported appropriately with reliable sources (for verification) that are independent of the subject (to establish notability), or make a request at WP:REFUND WP:DRV. Bmusician 06:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to disrespect GB fan :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowinternetsucks (talk • contribs) 06:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to disrespect him, take it to deletion review, as he suggested when you asked the question on his talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Rather than WP:REFUND, the place for deletion review (as the OP had already contacted the deleting admin) is WP:DRV. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

CAN YOU HELP A BROTHA OUT??--Slowinternetsucks (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV or just recreate the article with adequate support by reliable sources. Sir, there are no other options. Bmusician 06:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be "too" religious, but...did any of you look at the references (it's not even a big article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowinternetsucks (talk • contribs) 06:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User has been blocked, but per this this little nugget of constructive activity, does anyone think we need to revoke talkpage privileges as well? Heiro 08:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yes, expecially since it is in relation to another named editor. Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And he continues. Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And also extend his block to indefinite. He has made zero constructive edits since he ever came here and is making inappropriate personal attacks on his user talk page. Bmusician 09:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And now we've moved on to racist epithets. Heiro 09:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone deleted that. Editor blocked indefinitely, talk page access revoked, instructions given as to how to appeal without talk page access. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Given this and his general behaviour and obsessions, he is almost certainly the indefinitely blocked User:McYel. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Live Prayer

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

---

A couple of days ago I blocked an IP for persistently removing content from the Live Prayer article without providing any explanation for the removal. Today a different IP has gain removed this content and placed a legal threat in the edit history dif. Could someone with more knowledge of this subject take a look at the article. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that he is using edit summary to threat users. Any administrator may use the Revision delete tool to delete that. And for the IP, I think a warning might be appropriate, before a block at least. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 15:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for the blatant legal threat. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like if you also would delete the revision. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 15:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Per which of the criteria? I don't think it fits any of them, but perhaps you see something I don't.

In any case, after looking over the deleted section, it seems to me to be fully supported by the links to the subject's own website. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm deleting the edit summary under RD5; we don't need people's phone numbers floating around in the history. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The legal threat is clearly inappropriate and likely has no basis but I've done some cleanup of the article removing examples without any actual evidence of controversy (i.e. not third party reliable secondary sources were provided). This would have included the text removed by the IP. It's generally best to rely on coverage in other sources rather then relying solely on the primary source when trying to show a subject's POV (or whatever) as there's a strong risk of violating WP:NPOV and WP:Undue otherwise, as we're relying solely on editors opinions that those particular issues are significant or demonstrative when it comes to the subject. (There are some obvious exceptions, e.g. it would possibly be okay to include a subjects reply to an issue that was covered in RS even if the reply wasn't.) This is even more important in BLP cases (both examples named the person). And obviously saying something is a controversy requires evidence of controversy, which should come from RS, no matter how obvious it may be that those issues are controversial. Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Uncivil IP User

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

---

User:92.24.185.42 has been making threats of violence at Now That's What I Call Music! 81 (UK series). The user is threatening to track down and physically harm any user that reverts their vandalism as indicated in this edit Sorry if this is not the right place to report this but I have never had to deal with anything like this before.Andrew Kurish (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked and edits hidden. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Brandon.jetset continuously spamming

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

---

This user was blocked once as an IP already for spamming, and caused a ruckus about it. The user went on to keep adding the same links as an account while still blocked as the IP. Now the user has created an article again (which was previously deleted under a different name), and is still spamming the same links. The user also seems to be spouting what can be perceived legal threats, and calling people morons. Fairly sure that 3RR has also been violated. Nymf _hideliho! 22:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Floquenbeam (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I came here to say that, but I guess there's no need. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Unresponsive IP

Resolved

99.115.168.7 (talk · contribs) is adding wrong information to articles about songs, modifying the upcoming and/or previous singles to those from other artists. I've warned him a few times now but he's continuing. Prefer to have someone else deal with it rather than go beyond 3 at this point. Calabe1992 01:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• I sent to AIV as well. Stealthy vandalism, introducing intentional minor errors, such as previous songs changed to different artists, changing years that disagree with the article. Needs a block from here or there. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Returning IP sock of BLOCKED/BANNED editor?

Resolved

 – Sorted, for now. Doc talk 07:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• 74.163.16.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Patrolling Admin please take a look at this edit, as my alarm bells just went a-klaxon-ringing again~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So I forgot my password.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I had notified the user that he's being disgusted discussed here. He's been on here for part of a day (under that IP) and has already started making personal attacks at me for no particular reason. His style does seem vaguely familiar, but I can't say from where. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not helping.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not. But if you did, by telling us who you used to edit as, it could help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that is not necessary. 74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you won't own up to your previous account, it raises suspicions that you're evading a block, and things could get ugly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It was years since I had that account.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason to 'fess up. It will be good for your sole. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

what's his fish got to do with anything? Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Gizmo the Cat?,my family moved around alot so I had a hard life,I haven't seen this account in years.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Gizmo the Cat? (talk · contribs) Interesting, an account with one notification and no edits, some 6 years ago. That could account for your not remembering the password. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Noticed how adept he is able to use WP markups and templates even though his account clearly shows he's a newbie? FWIW, I would like to AGF but I find it very hard to take his word for it. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I red everything about this place from Meta to Commos,I looked on youtube,I ask questions on Wikianswers and Yahoo answers.74.163.16.52 (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My article was deleted.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you're talking about, it's not your article. Once you hit the "Save page" button, it becomes the community's article, get it? --MuZemike 01:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

True.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Quick question for 74.163.16.52: If you are here to contribute constructively then can you please explain why you are seen to be trolling in the "Trayvon Martin Poll" section below, as well as in this and this edit~? We're all ears. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I know you are,Didn't I undo my own edit,huh,also that isn't trolling,I heard a problem went to check it out,what now.74.163.16.52 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have changed and done my time.74.163.16.52 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• For perspective, please see User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67. Favonian (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• To add to what Favonian said, this user is currently de facto community banned by User:AniMate (in light of his months of disruptive editing, evasion, multiple blocks & range-blocks that have proved futile), and as such may be indef' blocked on sight. It was decided (on advice from User:MuZeMike not to take him to WP:LTA, per WP:DFTT. Salvidrim! 19:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP

90.218.255.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This looks like the same IP editor I previously raised here, who I think is deliberately adding false information. This edit changed the caption from the correct year to an incorrect one, this edit claimed Freddie Starr performed at the Manchester Comedy Store in 1986, 14 years before it opened [69]. These IPs all edit mainly British comedy-related articles; although less concerning, other common patterns that make me think it's the same person include overlinking and unnecessary capitalisation of common words in the infobox (current IP: [70][71], previous IP [72][73]). As with the other IPs they do not respond to any communication, on this IP they have ignored several requests on their talk page to stop overlinking. January (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Their addition, "Starting on Friday April 13th 2012, John will be embarking on another book tour to promote 'Being Boycie', starting with Waterstones Uxbridge." appears to be true [74], and adding caps is when they are wikifying (and overlinking...) terms. Granted, not really needed but it is a common enough mistake around here. Doesn't look like vandalism, although I can see it is mildly disruptive, and likely just ignorance of the guidelines, which yes, they can't address if they don't respond. I noticed no warnings in two weeks+, just this ANI notice. Since it is a dynamic IP, it is usually better to warn them a time or two first, at least within a day or two period. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

They removed the correct addition about the book signing [75], it was added by a different IP [76]. I can see that it's described as a dynamic IP in Geolocate, but it looks like the same person throughout. January (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• They haven't edited today, nor responded to the ANI request. Would recommend just keeping an eye on. If they are attempting stealthy vandalism, making minor errors for the purpose of undermining WP, and they come back doing more, then WP:AIV would be the place to take it for stealth vandalism. It can usually get handled much faster there as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

Edit warring on several articles

( Section titles here must not be prejudicially phrased. Converted heading to neutral, w/ anchor to original.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

I am reposting this because it was archived before it was resolved. There is a user, Arzel, who has a pattern of deleting sourced content over and over with weak arguments. Most of the deletes appear WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has contributed very little content (maybe a comment or two), and that content poorly sourced (didn't bother to include a full reference description). A few editors have confronted him about the deletions, and discussed it at length, including myself, but without much result. He has been most disruptive on the hydraulic fracturing pages, but recently followed me to another page I was working on. Discussions of behavior can be found on Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing and Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States. The page he followed me to was Philadelphia Water Department. I had warned him a while back and just let him know that I was reporting him for disruptive editing, though I didn't use a tag. I thought he had calmed down last week, but he's back, and wasting everyone's time. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor Smm201'0 seems to think that it is his/Her duty to destroy the Hydraulic Fracking industry by inserting every negative story or complaint about the industry into related articles. He/She then added unrelated fracking information into the Philadelphis Water Department article here. Is it sourced? Sure, does it have anything to do with the Philadelphis Water Departtment? No. The previous edit follows a clear WP:COAT model. The article is about the PWD, and there have been some water quality issues, he/she then adds in a bunch of information unrelated to the PWD talking about Hydraulic Fracking because of concerns regarding Fracking and ground water. Use of Wikipedia for environmental activism should not be tollerated. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor also put most (maybe the whole thing) of this article into the Hydraulic fracking article and has yet to adress why the all of the anti-fracking information needs to be so many places. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have had similiar problems with Arzel. If you look at the page Talk: Seamus (dog), editors have repeatedly asked Arzel not to remove infomation that is relevant and sourced to mainstream media sites. We have tried to talk to Arzel, but he continues to remove material that his doesn't like.Debbie W. 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does look like a similar issue. Also, to clarify a remark above, the environmental page was split off from HF without discussion, so I brought it back and started a discussion. There were also other attempts to remove negative environmental info from HF page. I agreed to condense the environmental info on the main page and have been working at that. Disruptions delay that work.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Arzel is continuing to make disruptive edits on the Philadelphia Water Department page and is leaving messages at my talk page rather than discussing the article on its own talk page.Smm201`0 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved and disinterested party checking in. The issue appears to be content driven and may require either an expert to intervene or having a RFC devoted to individual articles. This entire spat brings to mind the directive found at the bottom of the page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

The editor SMM201'0 seems to think that the removal of sourced Original Research and Synthesis of material is disruptive. I have asked the editor what the "Haliburton Rule" regarding Hydraulic Fracking has to do with the Philidelphia Water Department, but the editor has yet to respond how it is related. None of the sources he is using mention the PWD. There is some concern that HF may be responsible for some issues of water quality in Philadelphia, but that is no reason to proceed to lay out a lengthy argument against HF within the PWD article. It follows a clear WP:COAT and WP:SYNTH pattern. Present the arguement and then go off on an unrelated tangent that has no sourced connection to the PWD. The editor seems to have a strong feeling regarding HF and has been editing from what appears to be an activist approach in order to present HF in as negative of a light as possible violating several WP policies. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Arzel deleted large sections of text and references again today. I would welcome administrator input. Arzel has wanted to discuss the article on my talk page rather than the article's talk page. I have answered on the article's talk page. Arzel is also being disruptive on the HF pages, see their talk pages as well.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have put in a request for comment regarding the PWD page. There is a larger pattern, however.Smm201`0 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on other articles, but regarding Philadelphia Water Department, Smm201, your homework assignment is to read and understand Wikipedia:Coatrack. Hydraulic fracturing has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article; even the mention of a minor water quality issue is of questionable notability, but I have left it in for now as a compromise. A mild scolding to both sides for edit warring, and if you don't like what I've done, take it up with me here. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 07:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article on the Philadelphia Water Department. The water quality issue regarding iodine-131 is a big deal in Philadelphia. A lot of people are affected by the water quality. Because of the politics involved, the PADEP and EPA's reports are not always consistent. EPA recently took over the investigation. WP is one place people can read info from the EPA, PADEP, and other sources and come to their own conclusion. The problem now is that the article is now inaccurate. Even if you and Arzel didn't like what the page said, every fact was well documented. The EPA reported levels above the acceptable level several times from 2007 to 2011, and said that Philadelphia's levels were among the highest in the US. The Water Department report actually talks about the Safe Drinking Water Act and says the iodine-131 is coming from effluent from treatment plants. Thyroid cancer patient urine has been suggested as an explanation, but they are still trying to pin the source down. The article does not accurately state the uses of iodine-131. I can understand wanting to punish me for edit warring and asking for intervention...but you are also making the article inaccurate. But I asked for that I suppose. Again, thanks for taking the trouble. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing inaccurate about the article as it stands now. It is properly sourced, and all statements (in the water quality section, I have not vetted other sections) are verifiable. I can not say the same for the previous version of the page, which was in gross violation of WP:SYNTH.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability was not an issue on this page. All statements had RS. The page seems to have gone from alleged synthesis to censorship. Not sure that's an improvement.Smm201`0 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You obviously have not completed your homework assignment. Do you actually understand what we mean when we say you are using improper synthesis of sources and using the article as a coatrack? Because you are undeniably violating these policies/guidelines. An article should cover a subject, not serve as a soapbox for independent conclusions critical of something only (extremely) tangentially related.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Honest...I did my required reading. Really. A very early draft might have toed the line, but at this point it was statements and refs. I had cut down on the verbiage too to balance the focus. The PWD itself had posted information about these issues and discussed them on their web site, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the limits of what it did and didn't know about the origin of the iodine-131, and a warning about iodine-131 levels because they were periodically over the EPA limit. The PWD has been holding public meetings about it, and it is getting news coverage (see deleted refs). The Delaware River Commission has gotten involved. But...thanks again for taking the time to comment, even if we disagree.Smm201`0 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"We," eh? You two know each other? I was wondering why a neutral party would take such drastic action as deleting most of the content of a page, and call it a compromise. It didn't make sense.Smm201`0 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I'm going to revert the deletion to allow others to more easily read what's there and comment. I'll also check again to make sure each statement is well sourced. Let's allow a consensus to emerge.Smm201`0 (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Runningonbrains, so I am not sure where you are comming to that assumption. However, it is clear that other agree with my view that you are violating Synth and continue to do so on that article. Arzel (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0, RunningOnBrains^(talk) was using the royal we, referring to all Wikepedians. It's a common thing when referring people to our (in the collective sense) policies and guidelines. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your actions are unacceptable, and I have reverted your unilateral re-addition of material. I have never had prior interaction with Arzel of which I am immediately aware, and I called it a compromise because in my honest opinion the minor water quality issue does not deserve mention at all in this article.

The problem is not that your text is not sourced, as I have stated clearly above. Since you are not capable of seeing the flaws in your own writing on your own, allow me to point-by-point go through your material to point out all the flaws:

• In April 2011, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found elevated iodine-131 levels in Philadelphia's drinking water.[6][7] Nothing wrong here; a statement of fact about the subject of the article.
• In response to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings, the Philadelphia Water Department posted a notice that Iodine-131 had been found in the water supply.[8] Repetitive, probably unnecessary to the article.
• Iodine-131 is associated with the treatment of thyroid cancer,[9][10] nuclear energy, and is a popular radioactive tracer used to determine the location of fractures created by hydraulic fracturing,[11][12] [13][14] [15] We have already hit a serious problem. Here you have taken a sourced statement of fact ("Iodine was found in the drinking water") and modified it with another sourced fact ("Iodine is used in hydraulic fracturing") to reach an implied conclusion ("The iodine found in the water was a result of hydraulic fracturing"), a statement which is not supported by any source. This is the definition, to the letter, of improper synthesis of sources.
• The National Cancer Institute has reported that children exposed to iodine-131 may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer. [16] Another blatant violation of WP:SYNTH; you have now attempted to imply that the iodine in the water in this specific circumstance may be dangerous, a fact which is not supported by any source.
• Initially the Philadelphia Water department attributed the presence of Iodine-131 to nuclear energy production and the March 2011 Japanese nuclear incident (Fukushima Nuclear Incident). Iodine-131 was later found in the Wissahickon Creek, and at several sewage treatment plants along the creek near Philadelphia in late July 2011, after the fallout from the Japanese incident would have decayed.[9][10] Iodine-131 had been found in several Philadelphia drinking water samples before. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) records showed that Philadelphia's iodine-131 levels were the highest in the last decade in the set of those measured at 59 locations across the United States.[10] All of this can be succinctly summed up in the way I have in the article: "Originally this was suspected to be related to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, but it was later determined to be due to patients undergoing iodine therapy for thyroid cancer.[8]"
• EPA records show readings above the acceptable limit of 3 pCi were recorded at Queens Lane Water Treatment Plant on three occasions and Belmont Water Treatment Plant on four occasions since October 2007. This is specifically contradicted by this source: "The EPA's drinking water standard is three picocuries per liter - but only over a long-term average [emphasis mine]. A single sample that was higher would not constitute an excess."
• Readings at Baxter Water Treatment Plant were lower.[4] Nothing specifically wrong with this sentence, but it becomes unnecessary with other offending material cut out.
• The EPA also found elevated levels of Iodine-131 in the water discharged from water treatment plants in nearby Ambler and Abington in April 2011.[17] These places are not Philadelphia, so I don't see how this is relevant.
• The EPA is concerned about radionuclide levels in drinking water. In Pennsylvania, much of this wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants which are not designed to remove the natural or man-made radioactive components of this waste, which is often released into major rivers. I suppose that the EPA is "concerned with radionuclide levels in drinking water" could be inferred from the letter cited below, and I suppose we could infer that they were concerned about Philadelphia's water specifically, but on Wikipedia we are not allowed to assume.
• Some are concerned that this provides the opportunity for radioactive waste to enter public water supplies.[18] "Some" is a weasel word, and the source has nothing to do with Philadelphia; another example of a WP:SYNTH violation.
• In March 2011 the EPA asked the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) to require "community water systems (CWSs) near publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and centralized wastewater treatment (CWT) facilities receiving Marcellus Shale wastewater to conduct sampling immediately for radionuclides." They note that "in previous monitoring, radionuclides were not detected or were detected at levels less than one-half of maximum contaminant levels," but that "the CWS have not sampled after the introduction of Marcellus Shale operations." The EPA letter adds that "Discharges from these operations could increase radionuclide levels substantially."[19] Sourced, but why is this relevant? This is all from a letter to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, not addressed to the Philadelphia Water Department, and certainly not in relation to the above-mentioned levels of iodine. WP:SYNTH rears its ugly head again.
• In 2011, the US Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection and the Philadelphia Water Department were working together to test surface water (rivers and streams) and discharge from water treatment plants. By June 2011, the EPA had ruled out hospital sources and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as causes and were still trying to identify the source.[17] In July 2011 and March 2012 the Philadelphia Water Department attributed the elevated levels to thyroid cancer patients' urine because it was found in wastewater plant effluent.[10] Again, neatly summed up by the sentence I left in the article, avoiding unnecessarily verbose step-by-step language.
• The Philadelphia Water Department reports that Philadelphia's drinking water meets the standards set by the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is unsourced, but true and verifiable, as it is covered in the source I mentioned above. You have neatly used this sentence to build up the false premise that you are still talking about the Philadelphia Water Department, as is immediately apparent in the next sentence...
• The EPA and the state authorities generally have the authority "to regulate discharge of produced waters from hydraulic operations" (EPA, 2011) under the Clean Water Act, which is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.[20][21][22] Instantly back to facts unrelated to Philadelphia. You are attempting to synthesize the statement that the iodine found in Philadelphia's drinking water had anything to do with hydraulic fracturing, which, I reiterate, is not found in any reliable source.
• Although this waste is regulated, oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) wastes are exempt from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Wastewater from hydraulic fracturing contains toxins such as total dissolved solids (TDS), metals, and radionuclides.[23][24] Straying even further from the topic at hand...
• Companies are not required to provide the names of chemicals in "proprietary" formulas, so the chemical lists provided on company web sites are incomplete and the substances are not monitored by EPA. [25][26] Congress has been urged to repeal the 2005 regulatory exemption ("Halliburton Loophole") under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by supporting The FRAC Act, but has so far refused.[27] The oil and gas industry contributes heavily to campaign funds.[28]5 The FRAC Act would eliminate the exemption and might allow producing wells to be reclassified as injection wells placing them under federal jurisdiction in states without approved UIC programs. The FRAC Act was re-introduced in both houses of the 112th United States Congress. In the Senate, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced S. 587 on March 15, 2011.[29] In the House, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) introduced H.R. 1084 on March 24, 2011.[30]As of March 2012 Congress had not yet passed either of The FRAC Act bills[31][32] We are now in the complete opposite direction of an article describing Philadelphia Water Department. This is the most blatant violation of WP:COATRACK I have ever seen an author try to defend. There are exactly zero sources that relate any of this to Philadelphia, its water, or the specific incident this whole section started off with.
• On March 28, 2012, the Philadelphia Water Department reported that during the period between April 2011 and February 2012, iodine-131 levels were lower in the Queen's Lane (from graph, average about .5 pCi; highest about 1.5 pCi) and Belmont facilities (average about .4 pCi; maximum about 1.4 pCi). No iodine-131 was detected at the Baxter facility. You clearly do not understand what a box and whisker plot is, and so you have introduced statements that are not supported by the linked source.
• The report notes that wastewater plant effluent has been confirmed as one source of the iodine-131; other potential pathways have not been confirmed. The article on Philadelphia Water Department should not be detailing minute details of a single minor water contamination incident, likely one of many that have occurred over the years.
• The report also said that there have been periodic elevations of iodine-131 in the Wissahickon Creek that decrease over time and do not affect drinking water. "Do not affect drinking water", so again, why is this in the article?
• Iodine-131 has was also detected in the Schuylkill River during this period, especially when the river is low. The amounts found in the river and creek were not specified.[33] You have now included almost the entire text of the linked slide show, without good reason.
• No contaminant levels have been posted on the EPA web site since April 2011.[8] Okay, and neither have they been posted to the Harlem Globetrotters web site. Sorry if I seem a bit snarky, but at this point...I mean, come on. How can you not see how ridiculous it is to include these minute details, and pretend that they are in the article for any reason other than to prejudice the reader towards your point of view that there is something in the water from hydraulic fracturing.
• The Philadelphia Water Department plans to upgrade its water treatment facilities and water management systems to better deal with the waste water. The water department plans to raise funds for the project by increasing Philadelphia residents' water and sewer rates over the next four years.[6] Finally, the very last sentence actually has something relevant, but I don't see that a statement that water treatment is undergoing upgrades is notable enough for the Wikipedia article. No doubt every water department in every American city has upgraded their facilities at one time or another; you are using this sourced statement to stealthily imply that it is being done because of your above assertions of pollution due to hydraulic fracturing.

Your entire textual rant, sourced or not, synth or not, was hung on the coatrack of the article under the false premise of describing the subject of the article (which, I remind you, is Philadelphia Water Department). This is different from a "criticism" or "controversy" section of an article; you are not criticizing the subject, you are criticizing hydraulic fracturing, and doing so without any sources that directly relate to the subject of the article.

Your assertion that the material needs to be on the page to develop consensus is absurd. All previous versions of every page are visible in the page history.

In conclusion, the material does not belong on the page, and you will be blocked for edit warring if you re-add it again.

Sincerely,

Summer Glau - RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur - those are egrerious and, frankly, ridiculous violations of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Smm201`0, do not re-add these to the article, as they are in utter violation of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and values - as noted, you will be blocked if you do so. It's up you to make the case to have these included (of which there is no case, but you're welcome to discuss why you think there is), not for others to argue against them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. This water quality issue is ongoing in Philly, not a single event. I've tried to incorporate a lot of your feedback. Nobody can see the revisions I've made unless I post it somewhere, so at another editor's suggestion, I've put it on the talk page.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out earlier, everyone can see your revisions simply by going to the History tab of the article. Posting it to the Talk page was unnecessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, they can't see revisions made in response to runningonbrains comments because they were done after the last time I reinserted the material. They have never been on the PWD page.Smm201`0 (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

... wait, what? Are you talking about further changes, beyond the ones that were posted above? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to bring the content into compliance with Wikipedia policies in a way that allows me to get feedback from other editors, but don't worry, I didn't reinsert it in the article. I had not had a chance to edit in response to runningonbrains list of comments before it was deleted. Had it been left on the page, I could have revised it there.Smm201`0 (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page there, even your revised text would make the article into a WP:SYNTH-infested WP:COATRACK. Please stop beating the dead horse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, you didn't re-insert it. That was my point earlier about what you had previously inserted already being in the article history. That said, Bushranger is right, the points made above are clear: the majority of what you want added has no place in the article. It's not a matter of "bringing it into compliance," as it is non-compliant by its very nature. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I still respectfully disagree about the content being synthesis and coat rack because the PWD itself discusses the same topics at length on its own web site, though not with the RS that Wikipedia requires and I added. I agree that the original rendition was too verbose and wasn't well focused. But this kinda of discussion really belongs on a talk page and not here. I'm relative new at this and only came here for help with disruptive editing. Won't ask for help again. End of story.Smm201`0 (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The United States government talks about a lot of things on their websites, but it doesn't make it valid for inclusion on Government of the United States. That said, perhaps an article on Iodine contamination of groundwater might be a worthy subject? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I nearly suggested that in the PWD talk because there are several RS-compliant sources that discuss groundwater issues that Smm is trying to use in a coatrack manner in the PWD article. I am, however, afraid that such a page would develop into a synth sinkhole of anti-hydraulic-fracturing advocacy. Chillllls (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say that article already exists here. Most of the information is repeated in that section and the Hydraulic Fracking article has become largely an anti-hyrdaulic farcking article. Arzel (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Now with some time...Here are my responses to your criticisms:

• Iodine-131 is associated with the treatment of thyroid cancer,[9][10] nuclear energy, and is a popular radioactive tracer...Here you have taken a sourced statement of fact ("Iodine was found in the drinking water") and modified it with another sourced fact ("Iodine is used in hydraulic fracturing") to reach an implied conclusion ("The iodine found in the water was a result of hydraulic fracturing"), a statement which is not supported by any source. This is the definition, to the letter, of improper synthesis of sources.Nope. Just adding another use of iodine-131 to the list - you had no problem with the uses I listed - why object to HF?
• The National Cancer Institute has reported that children exposed to iodine-131 may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer. [16] Another blatant violation of WP:SYNTH; you have now attempted to imply that the iodine in the water in this specific circumstance may be dangerous, a fact which is not supported by any source. Nope. Just a sourced fact about a danger associated with iodine-131 exposure, commonly mentioned...but I took it out anyway just for you.
• Initially the Philadelphia Water department attributed the presence of Iodine-131 to nuclear energy production and the March 2011 Japanese nuclear incident (Fukushima Nuclear Incident). Iodine-131 was later found in the Wissahickon Creek, and... All of this can be succinctly summed up in the way I have in the article: "Originally this was suspected to be related to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, but it was later determined to be due to patients undergoing iodine therapy for thyroid cancer.[8]" Nope. For starters, they are still trying to pinpoint the source of the iodine-131. The urine is one of several theories that have not been ruled out. This section communicates that there were repeated readings above the EPA acceptable level - not just a single blip.
• EPA records show readings above the acceptable limit of 3 pCi were recorded at Queens Lane Water Treatment Plant on three occasions and Belmont Water Treatment Plant on four occasions since October 2007. This is specifically contradicted by this source: "The EPA's drinking water standard is three picocuries per liter - but only over a long-term average [emphasis mine]. A single sample that was higher would not constitute an excess." It wasn't a single reading, and the 'quarterly' readings were above the acceptable limit set by EPA.
• Readings at Baxter Water Treatment Plant were lower.[4] Nothing specifically wrong with this sentence, but it becomes unnecessary with other offending material cut out. Included for even-handedness.
• The EPA also found elevated levels of Iodine-131 in the water discharged from water treatment plants in nearby Ambler and Abington in April 2011.[17] These places are not Philadelphia, so I don't see how this is relevant. They are in the same watershed ("nearby").
• The EPA is concerned about radionuclide levels in drinking water. In Pennsylvania, much of this wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants which are not designed to remove the natural or man-made radioactive components of this waste, which is often released into major rivers. I suppose that the EPA is "concerned with radionuclide levels in drinking water" could be inferred from the letter cited below, and I suppose we could infer that they were concerned about Philadelphia's water specifically, but on Wikipedia we are not allowed to assume. Philadelphia is in Pennsylvania.
• Some are concerned that this provides the opportunity for radioactive waste to enter public water supplies.[18] "Some" is a weasel word, and the source has nothing to do with Philadelphia; another example of a WP:SYNTH violation. It was sourced as to who wrote that.
• In March 2011 the EPA asked the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) to require "community water systems (CWSs) near publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and centralized wastewater treatment (CWT) facilities receiving Marcellus Shale wastewater to conduct sampling immediately for radionuclides." They note that "in previous monitoring, radionuclides were not detected or were detected at levels less than one-half of maximum contaminant levels," but that "the CWS have not sampled after the introduction of Marcellus Shale operations." The EPA letter adds that "Discharges from these operations could increase radionuclide levels substantially."[19] Sourced, but why is this relevant? This is all from a letter to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, not addressed to the Philadelphia Water Department, and certainly not in relation to the above-mentioned levels of iodine. WP:SYNTH rears its ugly head again. Radionuclides (of which iodine-131 is one) are a problem in all of PA, and Philadelphia in in PA.
• In 2011, the US Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection and the Philadelphia Water Department were working together to test surface water (rivers and streams) and discharge from water treatment plants. By June 2011, the EPA had ruled out hospital sources and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as causes and were still trying to identify the source.[17] In July 2011 and March 2012 the Philadelphia Water Department attributed the elevated levels to thyroid cancer patients' urine because it was found in wastewater plant effluent.[10] Again, neatly summed up by the sentence I left in the article, avoiding unnecessarily verbose step-by-step language. Your summary was not accurate. One can't assume that it is coming from thyroid patient urine just because it is in wastewater. They may have that info soon, but don't have it yet (they have asked Merck for info to help them to identify the source of the iodine-131). One of them anyway.
• The EPA and the state authorities generally have the authority "to regulate discharge of produced waters from hydraulic operations" (EPA, 2011) under the Clean Water Act, which is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.[20][21][22] Instantly back to facts unrelated to Philadelphia. You are attempting to synthesize the statement that the iodine found in Philadelphia's drinking water had anything to do with hydraulic fracturing, which, I reiterate, is not found in any reliable source. I condensed this part. Statement means it is impossible to know whether the iodine-131 comes from fracking because agencies can't test/regulate it. Rules apply to water quality regulation.
• Although this waste is regulated, oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) wastes are exempt from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Wastewater from hydraulic fracturing contains toxins such as total dissolved solids (TDS), metals, and radionuclides.[23][24] Straying even further from the topic at hand... Condensed this later too, same point.
• Companies are not required to provide the names of chemicals in "proprietary" formulas, so the chemical lists provided on company web sites are incomplete and the substances are not monitored by EPA. [25][26] Congress has been urged to repeal the 2005 regulatory exemption ("Halliburton Loophole") under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by supporting The FRAC Act, but has so far refused.[27] The oil and gas industry contributes heavily to campaign funds.[28]5 The FRAC Act would eliminate the exemption and might allow producing wells to be reclassified as injection wells placing them under federal jurisdiction in states without approved UIC programs. The FRAC Act was re-introduced in both houses of the 112th United States Congress. In the Senate, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced S. 587 on March 15, 2011.[29] In the House, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) introduced H.R. 1084 on March 24, 2011.[30]As of March 2012 Congress had not yet passed either of The FRAC Act bills[31][32] We are now in the complete opposite direction of an article describing Philadelphia Water Department. This is the most blatant violation of WP:COATRACK I have ever seen an author try to defend. There are exactly zero sources that relate any of this to Philadelphia, its water, or the specific incident this whole section started off with. All already condensed in revision. All reasons it is impossible to determine whether or not fracking is source of iodine-131 or other contaminants.
• On March 28, 2012, the Philadelphia Water Department reported that during the period between April 2011 and February 2012, iodine-131 levels were lower in the Queen's Lane (from graph, average about .5 pCi; highest about 1.5 pCi) and Belmont facilities (average about .4 pCi; maximum about 1.4 pCi). No iodine-131 was detected at the Baxter facility. You clearly do not understand what a box and whisker plot is, and so you have introduced statements that are not supported by the linked source. I do understand, and stated the info accurately, but was watching for the actual report, due out soon. Lines are range, dots inside are averages, dots outside would have been outliers.
• The report notes that wastewater plant effluent has been confirmed as one source of the iodine-131; other potential pathways have not been confirmed. The article on Philadelphia Water Department should not be detailing minute details of a single minor water contamination incident, likely one of many that have occurred over the years. Once again, it was several quarterly readings above EPA's acceptable limit, increasing in frequency according to EPA data source. Note the lack of certainty regarding the source of the iodine.
• The report also said that there have been periodic elevations of iodine-131 in the Wissahickon Creek that decrease over time and do not affect drinking water. "Do not affect drinking water", so again, why is this in the article? That creek flows into the Schuylkill River, which is the drinking water source. Not sure why it wouldn't affect quality, but the report said that, so I included it for evenhandedness.
• Iodine-131 has was also detected in the Schuylkill River during this period, especially when the river is low. The amounts found in the river and creek were not specified.[33] You have now included almost the entire text of the linked slide show, without good reason. I included all of the most recent information about this continuing issue that is not fully understood.
• No contaminant levels have been posted on the EPA web site since April 2011.[8] Okay, and neither have they been posted to the Harlem Globetrotters web site. Sorry if I seem a bit snarky, but at this point...I mean, come on. How can you not see how ridiculous it is to include these minute details, and pretend that they are in the article for any reason other than to prejudice the reader towards your point of view that there is something in the water from hydraulic fracturing. If I am going to be true to the data, I need to provide it as it is. When there's a final answer regarding the source(s), it will be easier to summarize. Also, the EPA hasn't posted their data yet, and PADEP and EPA are at odds.
• The Philadelphia Water Department plans to upgrade its water treatment facilities and water management systems to better deal with the waste water. The water department plans to raise funds for the project by increasing Philadelphia residents' water and sewer rates over the next four years.[6] Finally, the very last sentence actually has something relevant, but I don't see that a statement that water treatment is undergoing upgrades is notable enough for the Wikipedia article. No doubt every water department in every American city has upgraded their facilities at one time or another; you are using this sourced statement to stealthily imply that it is being done because of your above assertions of pollution due to hydraulic fracturing. No, because of it's chronic, serious water problems, regardless of their source. The equipment is also to deal with anticipated increase in radionuclides and other contaminants. See Forbes and other articles on city tap water for details.

That is my response. That is how I disagree. Why are you so afraid to discuss hydraulic fracturing, yet ok with nuclear and medical causes? Rhetorical question. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This is really starting to approach IDHT territory. Chillllls (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree that it seems like this conversation has been going on forever, it hasn't been a week, and these were correction of facts. I wish I had caught them earlier because I think opinions were swayed by the litany. On the other hand, perhaps the real concern is that it violates WP:NNHF (no negative info about hydraulic fracturing in Wikipedia). Smm201`0 (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? Than what is this section about? I think your concern is that there be no positive information about hydraulic fracking on wp. I swear, environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, won't be happy until we in the USA are all living in caves using only the sun for warmth while countries like China truely damage the environment while not even realizing that our environment here is cleaner than it has been in generations. Those groups fail to understand the laws of diminishing returns. Focusing on relatively small and expensive objectives here only to push those activies elsewhere where the overall damage is greater than the local benefit. Arzel (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

System gaming and sock puppetry?

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.

---

Airbring (talk · contribs) and Empotter (talk · contribs) appear to be, quite unambiguously, the same account; based on the edit summary used in this diff and this diff. He/she appears to be abusing multiple accounts, in order to accept their own submissions via AfC. Is this case sufficiently straightforward to be handled here? Pol430 talk to me 22:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

They are autoconfirmed. They don't need to use AfC. That sounds rather odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, certainly looks that way: I think User:Fudgewunkles might also be involved. A newly-registered account, marking 3 articles as reviewed at AfC, on their first day? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• His first edit was to install a javascript to aid in editing. Sounds perfectly logical for a new user, no? I think we might have found a nest of puppets, but who is the master that has been kicked off AfC late last year/early this year? Dennis Brown (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we get more auto-confirmed editors at AfC these days. It's not the accepting of the submission that troubles me, but the multiple account abuse. Pol430 talk to me 23:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure about the diffs you provided, but the contribs are interesting. They are both new and managed to jump quickly into AFC, creating, approving and moving new articles with almost no prior edits under their belts, one suggests. This does look odd, like someone banned creating socks, but need more info. Airbrings first edit is his sandbox, the Spider article [77] on 4 April, a full article, then requests AfC review 16:35, 4 April [78]. Empotter has requested the article be made on January 26 [79], which happens to be HIS first edit ever., then April 5 he starts the talk page for it [80], and moves it into mainspace on 5 April at 16.00 [81] and starts the talk page with template at the same time. Earlier that day, Empotter installed afchelper4.js [82] to automate AfC tasks. And these are very, very new editors both, and like to edit around 16:00, and have an extraordinary amount of wikiknowledge. Very unusual indeed. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

Let's wait for an explanation. Obviously, whoever it is needs to edit from only one account, but this is rather unusual.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We look forward to an administrative resolution on this matter. Which procedure would be followed? 134.241.58.253 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are the editor in question, tell us why this was going on.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So sorry for the delay! I was shocked to see all of these messages after work. I am airbring, however, my roommate is empotter. We are both engineers by trade and tend to focus on similar topics since we work in the same area. We often edit and review eachothers' writing, reports, and code. We collectively decided this semester to add some of our knowledge into wiki. This is our first foray into wiki and I decided that an article was the way to start to learn the scripting and how the nuts and bolts work. Jumping right in was how I learned Matlab so I figured a similar approach would work here. We did not realize that it was an issue to review AFC articles right away. After trying to post the article, I thought the ideal solution would be to take care of the backlogged articles so that the editors would get to mine sooner. I went through all of the obvious violators for lack of resources or notariety first, following the guidelines. I did discuss with my roommate what was going on and she agreed that the backlog was the best was to make the process more efficient and stopped changing commas like we had been. I am so sorry that I missed the 4 day rule on editing articles- until I got the note on my userspace I didn't realize that it was a rule. We have no intention of violating any of the rules and just wanted to try to put some of our tech knowledge to use. Let me know what you want to do. Neither of us will make any edits (be it commas or articles) anymore if that is what it takes. Airbring (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Fudgewunkles (talk · contribs) also your WP:ROOMMATE? Pol430 talk to me 10:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No. I believe that is my boss who I showed how to set up and edit yesterday, after I demoed the article writing. Honestly, I didn't think that he would use it after the demo and was just interested in having access to a new tool, but if there are too many of us from the same lab acting as editors, I can ask him to stop too. Airbring (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You do recognize how far-fetched this is now sounding, right? Room-mates don't usually edit the same things (we call it meatpuppetry), or use exactly the same verbiage. Bosses don't usually show up there either ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a checkuser might be helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think 3x your idea is entirely appropriate given the unusual nature of the situation. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Airbrings explanation is certainly plausible. I see no reason for any of them not to continue as they have been, though linking accounts might be helpful.Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous- the fact that I room with someone with similar interests should not be in question. Rooming with someone you work and study with makes sense as we both have the same oddball hours. And why would our boss not show up when we work from the same set of lab computers? We have limited resources and share our information freely. I edit when I get a break from programming and grant writing and I showed off how to write an article. What is wrong with that?! If I had known that it was going to be such a problem to contribute we never would have suggested it for this year's new outreach activities. We cannot waste the whole workday dealing with distrust when we were just getting our lab involved in a free information sharing system. If you want to delete our usernames, please do. I respect wiki too much to ever violate such a simple rule and believe that everyone in my lab feels the same. Airbring (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• No one is accusing you of anything at this time, no one has suggested blocking or banning anyone. You have to be a little objective here, and realize that if you were looking at it from this side of the issue, you might be a little cautious and request a closer look as well. You have to admit, the edit histories look "unusual", from any perspective. It isn't an attack on you, it is a precaution. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't mean to snap. How can I prove that we are different people? We will both be in different locations because of the holiday weekend. We can get on comps in our different cities and do some random edits or something so that you can check our location and verbage to see that we are different and independent. Would that help? Airbring (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Log in and edit from IPs that are not near each other at the same time. That won't prove it, but it's evidence.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind explaining, are you always editing from your house (and so is your room-mate) or do you edit only from the lab or do you edit from both? Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Airbring has explained the editing situation of him and 2 other editors. Unless someone has any credible evidence of anything unseemly, then there is no need for any further interrogation and this incident should be closed. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks, edit warring and possible spamming by User:Kieranrdblack

Disregard

 – User blocked by User:The_Bushranger SÆdon^talk 04:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This user is attempting to edit war what looks like WP:UNDUE weight or possibly spam here on Seduction community. They haven't crossed 3RR, but are warring none the less. When reverted by User:Ohnoitsjamie they reverted with the summary "You are an idiot, the reference is the web page which is linked in. Blow me." When I reverted they reverted once again with the summary "moronic behavior." Can someone please indef this fine member of the seduction community? Thanks SÆdon^talk 04:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring and personal attacks. While not a technical 3RR violation, there's four reverts within 25 hours - the IP just before that started is quacking as them logged out, too. Honestly don't have high hopes for them once the block expires, but hopefully they'll prove me wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't know if you have experience IRL with people from the "seduction community" but let's just say that this behavior isn't exactly unexpected, nor do I expect it to change in the future. You never know though! SÆdon^talk 04:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I'm the wrong gender-orientation combination to "encounter" people like that outside of the movies. ;) I see the block has been upped to indef on account of spam, spam, glorious spam - a move I have no problem with. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Compromised admin

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked by Geni for being a compromised account. Pending an appeal. Doc talk 07:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Check out this edit by Centrx (talk · contribs) to the Main page [83] Hot Stop 05:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Doesn't seem compromised from what I've noticed [84]. Centrx should definitely know better than to make such edits without consensus, though. --Rschen7754 06:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are concerned about the Main Page, please answer my question on its Talk Page.

If you do not want to answer the question. Reverse the edit.

Why have you reported this to a third party before contacting me about this? —Centrx→talk • 06:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So admin coming back after not contributing for 6 months and vandalizing the MP isn't suspicious? Hot Stop 06:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the vandalism?

I am editing now and less than two months ago, but you are not even talking to me.

—Centrx→talk • 06:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• My last edit was two days ago when no one responded to my question on the talk page.
• If you respond to more questions at the main portal to Wikipedia, you will have reverted my edit before it happened.
• How important is this?

—Centrx→talk • 06:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Account almost certainly compromised, either that or the admin in question is drunk. — foxj 06:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense to be a compromised account. Just pointy. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 06:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be compromised, I'd say it's just being pointy indeed. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• You misunderstand and it is my fault.
• Do you hate me?
• Do you have any constructive improvements for the Main Page?

—Centrx→talk • 06:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've given a warning to not do this again. --Rschen7754 06:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw all my previous statements and I promise never to edit a Main Namespace Page again. —Centrx→talk • 07:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Just don't get all "flaky" on the admin decisions, now, huh? Doc talk 07:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How can I be an administrator if I cannot edit a page or get an answer on the talk page of the most trafficked page on Wikipedia? —Centrx→talk • 07:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if the account is compromised or not, but judging by Centrx's talk page, this isn't Centrx's normal style of expression, and this comment is rather odd. - Bilby (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Something does seem off, on reflection. Either we have an admin gone rogue, or a compromised account. --Rschen7754 07:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• How can I be an administrator if I cannot edit a page or initiate a discussion on the talk page of the most trafficked page on Wikipedia?
• Who are you doing this for if not the readers or the editors?

—Centrx→talk • 07:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear the account isn't compromised, but I do see the potential that Centrx has gone a little rogue. Perhaps the wait and see approach is best here - Next inappropriate edit to the main page and we can issue a quick block and request a desysop. I see no reason why anyone would edit the main page when they've barely edited in the last 6 months. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Was about to block and saw Geni did already. Clearly compromised imo -- Samir 07:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is compromised, just Centrx's style for the last few hundred of his edits. Used to be a good guy as well. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Gonna email ArbCom. --Rschen7754 07:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Good call Rs - I don't think anything's urgent at the minute - doesn't look like he's going to go crazy. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps it is compromised actually - this is just weird. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 07:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Email sent, linking to this thread. --Rschen7754 07:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Asking "Do you hate me?" as a general question here is truly bizarre behavior for any competent admin, for sure... Doc talk 07:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as an admin he should already know that everybody hates him automatically--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Compromised (since when?) or not in a competent state of mind. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ultimately its academic. Once the account is de-admined we can work out what is going on.©Geni 08:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• To keep the community in the loop: the Arbitration Committee is aware of this incident and has made contact with the administrator in question. (Thank you to all the editors who conducted this sensible, reasonable discussion. It's good that we can deal with things without panicking.) For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 12:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Suicide by Arbcom"? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's possible, but an odd way to go about it. My own speculations run in different directions, but the account has been desysop'ed and ArbCom will sort out as much as we can now that that's been done. Note that the full details of our investigation may not be made public, in the interest of preserving editor privacy, as we've done with others who've had similar unexplained breaks from past constructive behavior. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, note that a checkuser has already been run; regarding the idea of a compromised account, AGK says "technical data suggests this is probably not the case". Nyttend (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Desysopping of User:Centrx

Pursuant to WP:AC/P#Removal of permissions "Level I procedures", the administrator privileges of Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are revoked pending a full review. The motion was supported by AGK, Hersfold, and SilkTork. (Meta permissions request.)

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious why the desysopping was done by a steward. For the sake of transparency I'd think it would be better if it were done by a local bureaucrat so that it would appear in the local rights log. 28bytes (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the discussion handy, but there was a general feeling in the discussion that led to bureaucrats getting the ability to revoke rights that such would be used only in the most dire emergencies. If we just needed 3 Arbs and a local Bureaucrat to do so, Hersfold could have done it himself. We're trying to balance speed, transparency, and separation of powers appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. Wasn't sure what the SOP was in these cases. Sure would be nice if the user rights log pulled in the meta actions, but I guess that'd be up to the devs. 28bytes (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I approve of using stewards for such things. While in theory this meets point two of Wikipedia:CRAT#Removal_of_permissions, the Arbitration policy at Wikipedia:AC/P#Removal_of_permissions only designates the Stewards as fulfilling emergency Arbcom requests, presumably in the interests of transparency and also expediency (Stewards are more available). MBisanz ^talk 16:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but we have a member of the community who is apparently going through a difficult stretch, and I hope I won't be the only one leaving good wishes on Centrx's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's entirely appropriate. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the actions have been malicious, but rather simply disruptive, and we remain concerned about what prompted those series of actions. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

An article I created has been deleted. Also who can I complain to?

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 and another contributor created an article about a famous, notable person in the Muslim community. An article about him had been deleted 2 years ago. The article I made has just been deleted, and the reason "G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." was given.

A few questions. Firstly, the rule states "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.[3]". The article I created was clearly not an identical copy, as I had no access to the originally deleted article. Also, since the deletion of the first article, the person has become much more notable. So how can it possibly be "sufficiently identical/unimproved", if circumstances have changed?

Secondly, is there some form of appeal process for this? My "contest for speedy deletion" was seemingly ignored.

Thirdly, who can I complain to about this? It's no hidden fact that many in the Muslim community believe the people editing Wikipedia are mostly anti-Islamic Jews (not saying I personally believe this). Things like this certainly don't help. Any advice? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The first resort is to talk to the admin who deleted your article. If you disagree with their explanation, then go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Rschen7754 19:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to view the article, or the talk page, that he deleted? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I will userfy it for you if you like. (We Wikipedia Jews try to be friendly and helpful to article writers whenever we can.) There are two similarly-named deleted articles, Abdul Raheem Green and Abdur Raheem Green; these appear to be the same individual (born in Tanzania, converted to Islam in 1988.) If they are the same person, the deleting admin was within policy to delete your article, as there had been a deletion discussion in 2010 that determined that Mr. Green did not meet our notability guidelines: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Raheem Green. 28bytes (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As stated, his circumstances have changed, and he has become much more notable in recent years. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case (assuming the deleting admin is not willing to restore the article), your best bet is to file a request at WP:Deletion review and make your case there that Mr. Green's notability has increased and the AfD is no longer relevant. The instructions there are pretty straightforward, but I can help you with this process if you require assistance. 28bytes (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall do this Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Leaf Green Warrior—if you don't "personally believe " that "people editing Wikipedia are mostly anti-Islamic Jews" then why are you bothering to mention it? Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand the content of the link you provided. The answer to your question is because it's a very common opinion amongst Muslims I discuss Wikipedia with, and I am sure that such sinister agendas is not what people like Jimmy Wales wanted Wikipedia to be conductive to Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the pages had 183 edits over 3 + years. Secretlondon (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this. What page? Is that a lot of edits, or not a lot? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the first one Abdul Raheem Green. It means (in my eyes) that its less likely to be promotional. It has a long edit history with a range of editors. Secretlondon (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So am I right in believing that these facts you have provided back up my argument (that he is extremely notable)? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That'll need to get decided at deletion review. 28bytes (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

IP: 131.123.123.124

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

---

Resolved

 – IP range blocked by MuZemike

131.123.123.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps reverting two articles against the consensus of recently closed AFDs. In the case of UFC on FX 4, the consensus was to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4, and it ended up becoming a redirect. In the case of UFC on Fox 4, the consensus was also to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4, I had to seek and obtain full page protection [85], and it was recreated two days later, same content, and the speedy tags removed. I left a warning on the users page because they kept restoring articles clearly against consensus in the AFD, the responded by warning me. AIV refused action due to the lack of level 4 warning[86] but this is more complicated than a single event, so I'm not surprised. My reverts have been to try to restore the article to redirects (the only alternative to delete) per the actual AFD closings, trying to provide reasonable rationales. This back and forth reverting has gone on long enough that someone else needs to look at this editors series of edits and offer some guidance as to a proper course of action. From my own (admittedly biased) perspective, either we enforce the closing requests of admins at AFDs, or we say it is fine to ignore them if they don't suit us. I don't want to have to seek full protection for all these MMA articles, when the problem is a single IP at this time. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that it is a University IP. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 21:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Resolved by User:MuZemike elsewhere with an extended rangeblock. [87]. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Request to delete personal attacks else topic ban

I've warned Rivercard (talk · contribs) to cease making off-topic personal attacks, here, here and here. In response, Rivercard has doubled down the personal attacks and defended them with Wikilawyering.

The personal attacks I'd like to see deleted are from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#BMW R1100GS .28Reopened.29: "This is so hubristic it almost offends: to argue for the deletion (seriously?)" and "Fan fervour can be good - without great enthusiasm there would be no Wikipedia - but it can also effect objectivity. (And not sure why motorcylists seem particularly aggressive about 'their' edits - is it something to do with the tightness of the riding suits?)". From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#RfC on WP:WPACT.2C trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles, please remove the ad hominem accusation "(Note: There is an absence of full disclosure in the initial proposal here in that it is not mentioned that the proposing editor is already involved in a dispute that involves WP:PACT and which is covered in depth here BMW R1100GS discussion (reopened) and here Talk. Please remain mindful of and conversant with WP:GAME, WP:GAMETYPE.)".

This all began with Rivercard carrying out a pointy campaign of retaliation against Biker Biker (talk · contribs), after Biker Biker removed some of Rivercard's edits from an Volkswagen Corrado [88][89][90]. Rivercard took a sudden interest in pages Biker Biker had edited or created, particularly BMW R1100GS.

Deleting so-called "trivia" from and impugning sources on BMW motorcycle articles to get back at Biker Biker for removing trivia and poor sources from Volkswagen Corrado is bad enough. But at the very least, can we discuss articles without making personal attacks? If Rivercard will not delete the personal attacks and cease making further off-topic personal attacks, then I request a topic ban. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Have you used such terms as "silly" and "laughable," as Rivercard claims? If so, this is a WP:BOOMERANG deal, and you really have no leg to stand on to complain about such oblique "attacks" as you cite. Ravenswing 18:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely. I have used strong language to criticize arguments, but not people. I have said the info page WP:WPACT was "stinking up the place" but have made no attacks on those who wrote it. It is obvious that Rivercard thinks that if his argument is harshly criticized, he is justified in ad hominem attacks. But WP:BOOMERANG says no such thing, it merely points out that it can be hard to referee disputes like this. I'd be happy to agree to use gentler language to criticize arguments if it meant we'd have no more attacks against people from this editor. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, so you claim, at any rate. However, I expect you are no more psychic than I am, and I have no more way of knowing that your use of such terms isn't (of course) targeting people than I have of knowing that Rivercard's intent is to target people. Since I've used such language myself, I'd never dream of hauling someone before ANI to whine about it; my idea of a personal attack is "You are an idiot," not "This is hubristic." Ravenswing 02:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• I also don't see anything worth WP:REVDEL there ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not asking for REVDEL. Rivercard can edit his own comments, and be sure to not alter his intended meaning while removing the off-topic attacks. Most of his comments are constructive enough; it's only the attacks that need to cease. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is already being handled at an open WP:DR case [91]. I don't see any advantage to spreading the disagreement over two venues. There are plenty of admins and others over there. While I'm sure you aren't forum shopping, it doesn't look good to drag the situation over multiple open discussions. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[non-admin]

• Those issues can't proceed in a constructive manner until the personal attacks cease. Hence the need for ANI. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I guess I'm asking, have you approached any admin involved over there on their talk page? Coming here probably shouldn't be the first or second option, because it spreads the dispute over multiple venues. This is less than optimal. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

• That's a good point. But if I had complained to two different admins, they could have just as easily said that it should go to ANI because the issue spanned multiple venues. Wikipedia has more than one way to address almost everything, and it seems unfortunate to have to start over because of a technicality in forum choice. If an admin here can fix it, I would think they should go ahead and do it. And next time I'll try harder to hit the right forum on the first try. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• And now we can add Canvassing for sympathetic editors. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Let me just weigh in one last time, do with it what you will. Dennis, you might want to just drop this and focus on the dispute. Against my own better judgement, I went and read everything I could on your dispute, and I just don't see anything that warrants serious action. You both can get snippy. His "canvasing" wasn't canvasing, it was on the talk page of someone who had already participated in the DR 4 days ago. Compared to recent ANIs re: 2012 in UFC events that resulted in mild warnings, this dispute looks like two people having tea and crumpets. I think you are both acting in good faith (from what I can tell), being a bit snippy, and getting on each other's nerves. This is exactly why it needs to be dispute resolution and not here. There simply isn't anything that is far enough over the line to warrant any action. Or provide diffs if I've missed something. Sometimes in a dispute, people get a little dickish, but as long as the conversation stays on topic, I think we all have to man up and ignore petty jabs, and focus on the issue at hand, to avoid that nasty old boomerang[92]. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

• Good points, again. I'm sorry to hear that civility is even worse elsewhere. However, I don't think the worse behavior of others justifies me having to tolerate personal attacks. On canvassing, it would not, generally, have been canvassing to notify everyone in a discussion. But when you pick the one editor whom you think will favor you, and don't notify the others in the same discussion, that's canvassing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  
  

Hi. I'm very glad that other editors are looking at this and some sense is being seen. (Many thanks to Dennis Brown in particular for investing so much time here.) Dennis Bratland clearly knows many Wikipedia codes, but this can be a problem in itself: I genuinely believe that heavy handed use of issuing code violation warnings is counter-productive to Wikipedia. So, for the record, my reponse to the Dennis Bratland's first accusation above is written below. Thanks, Rivercard:

There has been no 'double down' of so-called 'personal attacks', and the so-called 'Wikilaweyring' was no such thing - it was only the presentation of the evidence that the user Dennis Bratland is using Wikipedia advisories and accusations in bad faith. Please see - Talk for the premature use of guidelines such as WP:OWN and WP:SNOW without there being any evidence whatsoever of these being breached - and the premature use of those codes only threatens to inhibit and shut down debate, and is also contrary to Wikipedia policy guidelines on these matters.

The mentions are not 'off-topic' because they speak to the faith of the way in which they are being used. And that is relevant.

The assertion 'But at the very least, can we discuss articles without making personal attacks?' might carry more weight if not for the following: The same BMW R1100GS 'Talk' page also features the first instance of what the user Dennis Bratland would categorise as 'personal attack' but this time the words are those of Dennis Bratland:

(1) "All I have to add to this interminable debate is WP:SNOW. ..this is absolutely silly." (2) "drawing out interminable arguments that have no chance of success is disruptive." (3) "Statements like '...' are bizarre, even laughable." (4) "...drawing out interminable arguments that have no chance of success is disruptive."

• The only difference being that I did not attempt to use these attacks against me as a reason for closing down the discussion. I thought then, as now, that the result of the discussion and how it impacts on the article page is the most important thing. I could have resorted to violation reporting, but I didn't.

The edit to the BMW R1100GS page was not a 'pointy' edit; it was a result of the interconnectedness of Wikipedia, and also of an interest in bikes. And if we go to the noticeboard discussion - - BMW R1100GS (Reopened) - we can see that all the 'sources' that supposedly supported the edited material have been proved weak or non-existent (see the [1],[2],[3],[4] and A,B,C points). In fact, a non-involved Wikipedia editor Coaster92 reviewed the noticeboard discussion evidence and came to the same conclusion - that the case had not been proved for keeping the text and that the case had been proved for deleting the text. (3 other editors have since contributed the same opinion).

Re 'Deleting so-called "trivia" from and impugning [sic] sources on BMW motorcycle...' - The trivia is not so-called, it is now proved, again see the relevant noticeboard discussion for sourced evidence. And 'impugning sources' that do not stand up, or more accurately rebutting them, is central to wikipedia - in this case, the sources were correctly 'impugned'/rebutted.-(And yet the evidence that proved the sources weakness was not rebutted.)

Important to note

It does not advance any discussion to misuse Wikipedia advisories or misuse 'attack' accusations. Or to mistake criticism (which is allowed) with uncivility. Even over guidelines such as good faith WP:AGF, Wikipedia policy clearly states that this "does not prohibit discussion and criticism." And so it is already established that criticism is not the same as uncivility. The two are not the same. Please keep the distinction in mind.

Other evidence that speaks to the disengenuous use of advisories and 'personal attack' accusations is provided here: please note that the user Dennis Bratland's own comment on this subject is this: 'Calling a bad argument a bad argument is not a personal attack, and pretending that it is a personal attack is also disruptive.'- Dennis Bratland (see - Talk) - I agree. And users should strive to abide by their own words and not attempt to 'topic ban' a discussion that has concluded unfavourably.

So let's keep some perspective on this: the user's 'offence' at criticism is exacerbated by fact that the hard-won and referenced research shows that the disputed material on a book by Neil Peart is better suited to an entry about him, but tangential and is non-relevant to the BMW R1100GS motorbike. It would genuinely be better for the entry for the material to relate to Peart rather than the bike.

Rivercard (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• This all seems very familiar. I recently ran into a serious of tendentious discussions with Dennis Bratland on the Honda Super Cub article. There appeared to be a few instances of original research, I made edits accordingly and received this "stop accusing me" notice from Dennis Bratland. For such a seasoned editor to conflate tagging edits as wp:or with "accusation" is telling. The situation quickly devolved to where the editor repeatedly discouraged me from editing the article during its DYK review. It appears there's a pattern of discouraging others by ramping up accusations, so as to game the system. 842U (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's an ugly pattern in your editing behavior too. We could discuss that, since you seem to have come here to reopen old disputes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• I come in good faith to point out earlier, recent and similar behavior that's again contributed to disruptive editing.842U (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• OK, let's talk about this. "Appearance" of original research? You pulled accusations original research out of thin air. Your only basis for the accusation was that the sources were offline. Full stop. That's it. Offline source? If it's offline then the editor is presumed guilty of original research and the burden of proof falls on the accused, not the accuser. When I resist this kangaroo court mentality, based on the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS, which says it's not my job to make it easy for you, I get accused of disruption!? And now here you are again, leveling the same baseless accusation, even after I did all the heavy lifting of proving that my edits were true to the sources and were not original research. I was first presumed guilty, then accused of disruption, then I exonerated myself (no thanks to you), and now I get it thrown back at me again?

  It's absolutely vile. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, hey look. Now I understand how you got recruited to jump in here. More canvassing -- this time as an anonymous IP -- looking for sympathetic allies to pile on. It looks like sockpuppetry, doesn't it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• No action needed. - I think we just need to close and move on as no action is needed for any editor. I believe both editors have acted in good faith, although both could have been more polite. Rehashing the content dispute or previous actions by other editors here isn't appropriate nor is it likely to be productive. It is time for everyone to drop the stick and agree to disagree, and handle the dispute in the proper channels. Needs to be boldly closed by someone else. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

Email badgering by DeFacto

This thread was archived before being closed. I have relisted it for un-involved closure. Toddst1 (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the last series of block appeals, DeFacto (talk · contribs) has continued to badger me via email, despite my request for her/him to stop. I believe that s/he should have email revoked but since I am the recipient, I'd rather someone else set the bit. His/her talk page privileges have already been revoked. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we're defacto done with this editor. Toddst1 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

He is? He was also in email conversation with me regarding potentially restoring talk page access so he could appeal again. (He also wanted me to unilaterally unblock him, but I flatly told him no.) How many people is he appealing to? Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You, me, and Toddst1 make at least three. TNXMan 14:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Time for a community ban discussion? This user doesn't seem to get it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

From WP:BAN, "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned." I believe this already applies here. Calabe1992 18:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference being any admin in the future could decide to unblock him under the current circumstances. A community ban would pretty much cement that he cannot be unilaterally unblocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto ban discussion

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

---

Propose community siteban of DeFacto for ongoing abuse of e-mail, shopping multiple admins for unblocks, etc.

• Support as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Since we're going this far, I also support. Calabe1992 21:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Blocked + socking to evade should = ban automatically anyway. This is just icing on the cake. → ROUX ₪ 22:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - as Hand points out, the difference between a de facto ban and a community ban is that a community ban requires the community's consensus to overturn. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite ban, with NO opportunity to appeal for a minimum of 6 months. Any attempts to request unblock/unban through any channel automatically resets the clock for a fresh 6 months. On October 5, 2012 they may contact the ban appeals subcommittee as per their policies - any other requests or methods reset the ban to a new 6 months (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support He's gone off the deep end and needs a while before we're ready to re-consider editorship. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. There is no doubt that DeFacto bought this upon himself with his by hook or by crook attempts to keep the strawberry story in Metrication in the United Kingdom by filibustering other participants who didn't have as much time on their hands as he did and there's no doubt that he needs a long break. However, the other participants in the threads (1 and 2) that lead to his block didn't have clean hands either. Particularly troubling comments were But it is a vote - that's how you reach a consensus in a democracy! So far 3:1 in favour of binning the irrelevant Asda paragraph. Probably 5:1 by tomorrow if HiLo48 and Martinvl do what I suspect they'll do [93] (canvassing perhaps?) and Some like deFacto himself have been toiling away in their Mums' basements making all the "Down with Metric Measures" and "British Imperial Measures for the British Worker" placards ready for the Great Defence of ASDA [94] The whole thread eventually looked more like "let's gang up on defacto" then it did a discussion. However, one might attribute some of this to their frustration with DeFacto's fillibustering. Still battlegrounding is battlegrounding and both sides are guilty of it. As an alternative proposal, I would like to suggest a block of fixed duration, let's say 3 to 6 months followed by an indefinite topic ban on anything related to British metrication. From looking at his contribs, he does have other interests so it might be wise that he stays away from anything he's very passionate about. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

1. I was never canvassed.

2. I avoided battlegrounding by leaving the page, often for weeks at a time. (I DO have a life.) But do recognise that such action was only necessary because DeFacto was always there as self appointed article owner. Nobody should feel forced, as I truly did, into giving up on the quality of an article because one editor was a pain in the ass. And he really was. His actions were the root cause of all the other unacceptable behaviour. Don't make excuses for him.

3. DeFacto's most recent public request to have his block removed on his Talk page is an outrageous, insulting diatribe containing blatant personal attacks on other editors. He has completely lost perspective here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ron, I think you should take a bit more time to review his actions of late. You're addressing behavior that already resulted in his indef block—this ban discussion is really a result of his behavior since the block. Also, he has already rejected any suggestion of a topic ban, so that's out the window. --Laser brain (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Does not have the social skills necessary to engage effectively and constructively disagree. See WP:COMPETENCE Toddst1 (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. His behavior since his indef block in and of itself has been appalling: casting ridiculous aspersions and impugning other editors on his talk page, socking, flooding admins with email and out-of-process unblock requests, hiding evidence, and so on. Needs a long break and can come back when the community is ready to accept him back and when he is ready to conform his behavior to community standards. --Laser brain (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Quiet word needed (IMO)

• Oldrecordswithrufl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mrs Mills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Oldrecordswithrufl is very keen to add to Mrs Mills the fact that Rufl plays old records by Mrs Mills on Rufl's radio show. IMO this is problematic because of notability, CIO and SPAM etc. I've reverted a couple of times, with explanations in edit summaries and on talk page, but to no avail. Please could somehave a quiet word, either with User:Oldrecordswithrufl, or with me, telling me I'm wrong? Thank you almost-instinct 16:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• You're not wrong, and I've just removed the latest such addition myself. That Some Guy Somewhere With A Radio Show is a fan of hers is trivial information that doesn't belong as part of this article, and its inclusion is blatant self-promotional spam. That being said, why didn't you attempt to communicate directly with the editor on his talk page before taking it to ANI? You did note that this editor joined Wikipedia Wednesday and has all of four edits to his name, yes? Is there reason to believe that he recognizes what an edit summary is or knows his way around a talk page? (A bit WP:BITEy, if you ask me.) Ravenswing 01:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As you'll see from my own contributions I don't do much editing at the moment and am a little unconfident of my estimation of things. Getting an experienced administrator's eye cast over the situation was actually an attempt not to be BITEy: rather than starting a fight with them on their talkpage (where they had already been told why their addition was being reverted by someone else) I thought someone more experienced could deal with it more smoothly. (If I was interested in being BITEy I wouldn't have used a phrase like "a quiet word", nor expressed the possibility that I might be in the wrong.) Anyway, thank you for your time. In future when I have need of guidance / help may I come straight to your talkpage? almost-instinct 09:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

ps Ravenswing's revertion has just been undone almost-instinct 09:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've left a polite but strongly worded comment on their page, linking WP:3RR and explaining that they will be blocked if they revert again, suggesting they go to the talk page of the article. We will see. They appear to have already reverted 4 times, but because they are new, I would rather not see a block unless they revert again. While it has calmed down, I felt someone needed to explain 3RR to prevent it starting up again. The COI can be dealt with on the talk page. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Reason to believe a sock puppet has threatened me without any reason on my talk page.

He (IP address 71.139.163.192) wrote the following on my talk page:

"you a bitch

I hope you die you worthless pathetic fucking cunt."

I have a reason to be believe it is the user Amarru who has recently been blocked for vandalism and resembles a former sock puppet known as Seaboy123. Currently there is a investigation about him done by the administrator Bushranger.

Here is it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DBSSURFER

I would ask anyone responsible for this to look at the user who is clearly a sock puppet and who threatens people without any reason.

Thank you.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked for a week for gross incivility and personal attacks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

He (IP address 71.139.163.192) also wrote this on the user Coquidragon's talk page after threatening me;

"Suitcivil133 is a little bitch. he is a bandwagon barcelona fan who needs to be put in his place, fuck that fagget.

I have strong reason to be believe it is either Amarru or the sock puppet Realcowboys (now banned from Wikipedia)

Could some of the administrators make a quick comparison between either Realcowboys or Amarru to see it there is any similarity?

Those two sock puppets are starting to annoy me to say the least.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Amarru (talk · contribs) and the IP user are technically  Unrelated. I have not compared Amarru and Realcowboys or Seaboy123, however. This is something that should be determined at the SPI page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Well I imagine that he is not that stupid to threaten another persons life while using the same IP address but I find it hard to believe that anybody else would write such nonsense especially considering the fact that this has never happened before and that Amarru has an ongoing dispute with me and 2 other editors. A big coincidence in other words.

The adminastrator Bushranger also quickly concluded that this Amarru is probably a sock puppet which his edits has certainly not changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DBSSURFER

Here is the ongoing investigation but it seems to take a bit of time. Before it only took a few hours to confirm the sock puppets Seaboy123 and Seaboy123 and their new usernames.

And thank you for giving me notice and sorry for my English I am not a native English speaker (half Spanish and Italian/French on mother's side.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just to note, Amarru does not appear to be a sock of anyone. Did turn up another sock of DBSURFER, but someone had already blocked him. Suggest Suitcivil133 hold off on any more allegations of socking at this time, and focus on Amarru's editing, which appears to be less than perfect. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

#90, anonymous user and pervasive genre changer

For the past several years, I have dealt with an individual who almost always assumes an IP address that starts with 90.21X.XXX.XXX. This user repeatedly goes to music pages, namely album and band pages concerning grunge, alternative rock, and especially metal music; most of all (s)he does here is change the genre description in the infobox to some other genre line-up. This person has generally refused to discuss any changes, save for possibly manipulating some nearby invisible text (example 1 example 2, among other examples). This user has been given many warnings and invitations to discuss the activity, but to no avail. This would not be as irritating if it wasn't for the constant IP hopping that this individual's technology has performed. This person has been changing genres, usually without sources, for over 3(!) years, and I was past sick of this activity back when I issued this sockpuppet report in August 2010. The scene this person made at Faith Divides Us - Death Unites Us (history) is one of the few times that the person put forward a source for any of his or her claims. Since January 22, 2012, this user has utilized the following IPs, and thismight not be an exhaustive list:

1. 90.217.208.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
2. 90.217.208.148 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
3. 90.217.208.136 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
4. 90.212.194.246 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
5. 90.218.174.107 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
6. 90.217.208.159 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
7. 90.216.240.240 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
8. 90.218.174.122 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
9. 90.216.240.232 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
10. 90.216.240.194 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
11. 90.213.124.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
12. 90.218.174.80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
13. 90.213.199.101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

As you can see, the list above and the list described in the sockpuppet investigation is only a small glimpse into this anonymous editor's activity. I have observed this person to have varying distribution of activity, timewise; what I mean is that sometimes, this person has edited genres every few days, maybe more than once or twice in a week, as is the case currently; but in the past, I have also not observed any activity from this person for months at a time. As of this post, the most recent editing activity from the genre warrior is from the IP of 90.213.199.101 (contributions), which edited the Anathema (band) band page and related album pages on 7 April 2012 between 3:06 and 3:24 UTC time.

This person's genre editing activity should not merely be dismissed as "minor genre changes"; it should be viewed as a threat to the academic, encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia. This virtually non-stop readjustment of genres is disrespectful to so many of Wikipedia's guidelines, such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR, et cetera. The user has refused to comprehend this for over three years, and I have been reverting and discrediting his/her edits for as long. I really hope there is something that can be done about this; I am beyond sick of reverting this person's genre edits and posting on his/her talk pages only for some of the edits to reoccur a short time later. I don't know what else to do! This person has essentially made changing genre descriptions on Wikipedia his or her life's work (I think it's reasonable enough to say that), and is not showing signs of letting up any time soon. I truly hope something can be done about this, because I know that genre warring is unacceptable on Wikipedia, and that what this person is doing is academically repugnant. Seriously, over three years is way too long. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 08:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I support Backtable's claims. I too have been trying to combat this issue of constant, unsourced and unexplained genre edits in music/band articles, and this IP is a major contributor to the problem. Can we do a range block or sorts or something? Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute at Easter involving a user with strange and hostile conduct (unfortunate timing)

Beginning midday on April 5, User:Bloodofox edited the Easter article to add information about etymology to the third introductory paragraph and to remove all citations from the lead per WP:LEADCITE. I reverted the etymology edit (User:JimWae also reverted the leadcite edit) as I felt it was undue weight due to sufficient existing etymological information in the very first section of the article titled "Etymology" and the introductory sentence mentioning Eostre. An edit war broke out involving myself, two other users and User:Bloodofox (please see Easter's history page for detailed info). Ultimately, User:Bloodofox conceded on that point and began adding "celebrates the goddess Eostre" into the significance field of the infobox and at this point also inserted a NPOV dispute tag.

At this point a section was opened on the talk page, where discussion ensued between myself, User:Bloodofox and User:Jordanson72. User:Bloodofox's conduct was very uncivil, and he(/she) continued making unsubstantiated personal accusations against myself and Jordanson72 instead of focusing on the subject matter (ex.: [95][96][97]). Ultimately, I asked him to please keep discussion civil and on-topic, and not wanting to continue discussion directly with him at this point I opened an RFC to bring in others.

It was at this point that User:Bloodofox's behavior made another turn, and he began acting in a strange sarcastic manner (which continues to the present time), striking out his own comments in the RFC with the edit summary "I have seen the error of my ways" and proceeding to say things like this and this, in a manner seeming to mock other users or opinions. He hasn't made any serious effort to resolve the "NPOV dispute" since that time.

With Easter approaching, User:Howcheng (an administrator who frequently edits selected anniversary articles) posted to Talk:Easter with grave concerns about the NPOV dispute and its effect on the Easter article being featured on the Main Page on April 8 as part of the selected anniversary feature. Is there anything that can be done by way of administrator intervention to either temporarily ban User:Bloodofox from participating at Talk:Easter (due to his inappropriate conduct) so we can remove the NPOV dispute tag (temporarily?) and feature Easter on the selected anniversaries, or another similar measure to resolve this matter before or by April 8? — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 09:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag and asked Bloodofox to stay off the article and talk page for 36 hours. I don't think a topic ban from a talk page is needed here (or could be discussed in time) but if Bloodofox continues then a short block would have the same effect of protecting a high profile page from disruption. The discussion on POV can be carried on more calmly and carefully after Easter. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that an involved editor blocked another because of edits to Easter is potentially problematic. Maybe it should have gone to 3R, maybe worked out at the talk page, maybe anything but this. I have absolutely no involvement here other than the fact the editor's page, with whom I recently had a discussion regarding an entirely different matter, remains on my watchlist. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked Bloodofox for what I assess to be disruptived editing at the article on Easter and would appreciate a block review. This editor made these changes] to the article two days ago, which were reverted by other editors. Bloodofox added the same or similar edits twice more, but did not stop to discuss them in a timely way at the talk page, despite being asked to do so (see edit summary). S/he then added material which I personally feel gives undue weight to any pagan origins for Easter (and I speak here as a Pagan who celebrated full moon last night!) S/he then added a POV tag to the article with the edit summary: Tagged for neutrality issues; serious bias in favor of Christian at expense of Neopagan, historical Germanic pagan, and secular.

Now anybody can call any article on POV issues at any time, of course. However I don't feel that a single editor with a particular POV of their own should be able to slap such a tag on an article and keep it there two days before it's likely to be a main page link. Have a look at the talk page of the Easter article for more of the discussion.

I removed the POV tag and asked Bloodofox not to return it. I said I would regard doing so as being disruptive. The tag was re-added by Bloodofox and I asked them to self-revert, but they declined. I then blocked the user. Any admin who feels this is unwarranted is welcome to overturn this and trout me. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Support block. It is hard to see a Bloodofox's large revert (about the etymology) just three days before the holiday itself can be viewed as a good faith action. It didn't suddenly become an emergency for Bloodofox to get his particular version into the article at such a late date. (That is a matter for the long-term consensus of editors). I have no comment on whether the article's etymology needs improvement or is currently adequate, but inserting a POV tag just before a main-page appearance to get an advantage in a long-running debate is too much like gaming the system. It seems to be saying, 'I'll prevent the main-page appearance unless you let me get my preferred version into the article.' Bloodofox also made five reverts at Easter since April 5 to try to keep his version of the etymology in the article, or to restore the POV tag, which could make him sanctionable for edit warring. Bloodofox is requesting unblock, and I suggest it could be granted if he will agree not to edit Easter until the main page appearance is over. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm unblocking for procedural reasons: the lack of notification about this discussion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't think that was wise - he had enough notes on his talkpage warning him about his editing, and he ignored them. If he makes a further problematic edit, I will have no hesitation in reblocking him, and I'm a pagan too (different kind to Kim, but y'know...) Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jpgordon and Truthkeeper, for being voices of reason here. What a farce! FoxCE decides to start this thread and so then Kim swoops in and slaps me with a block until Easter is over (!). Then EdJohnston here debates the merits of unblocking me, but with conditions. Jpgordon then unblocks me because nobody notified me about this thread until after Kim blocked me. In response to this inane nonsense, I'm just going to post my (since approved) unblock request here for good measures:

Greetings, uninvolved administrators. For the first time during my several years of editing Wikipedia, I have found myself blocked. Specifically until Easter Sunday is over. Why? The reason given was "disruption". What does this translate to in my case? Re-adding the {{npov}} tag to the Easter article when a discussion about neutrality (mainly about the article essentially ignoring the secular) is currently being waged by several users on the Easter talk page, including myself. See, for example, the "Well, why not debate what Easter is Easter?" thread.

It's all very simple, really. User Kim Dent-Brown responded to a post by user howcheng complaining about the NPOV tag being on the article as an "huge embarrassment", as it would be there on Easter Sunday. Kim agreed that we couldn't have that (it being Easter Sunday tomorrow and all), and so the tag must be removed (despite the big NPOV dispute going on at the talk page). He is now insinuating that I have "manufactured" this argument (??), despite the talk pages making it highly clear that it was going on well before I came along, with various charges of bias being made by users all over it. Indeed, the article almost entirely ignores the secular. Kim also talks a lot about the "pagan" aspects of the discussion, a minor issue in the face of the secular issue, but one that comes up a lot due to apparent confusion on the part of some editors about the historic chronology of the use of the name Easter (and its Old English ancestor, Ēostre).

After the ban was made, Kim decided to notify me that there was a discussion going on about me at the Administrator's Noticeboard. As a result, I was unable to participate. Very convenient! In his edit summary when notifying me, Kim also ceded that the block was "potentially controversial". Hum.

Anyway, I request that this ban be lifted. I feel that the ban is completely inappropriate; this article has very real issues with neutrality that the NPOV tag exists to reflect. It is there to note that neutrality has been called into question, and, indeed, several users on the talk page have discussed that the article totally negates the secular and downplays or ignores the non-Christian and that this needs to be fixed. The article should not be given any special treatment, regardless of if Easter Sunday is tomorrow—these issues need to be addressed. I am essentially being blocked—by an involved administrator—to keep the Easter page free of neutrality discussion and without an {{NPOV}} tag until after Easter is over!

I think that basically says it all (and saves me from yet further waste of my time). Elen — whoever you are — nice to meet you? You might want to spend some time at the Easter talk page reading things over before deciding to jump in guns a-blazing. The block shouldn't have been made in the first place, and the threat to block was completely inappropriate; of course I'm going to reject it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks jpgordon for the unblock, which I agree with. I had not noticed that the AN/I notification had been omitted from Bloodofox's talk page. I've asked FoxCE to be more careful in future about notification - we wouldn't be in this wrangle if it had been properly given (and another reason to be pernickety about notifications, I guess....) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this whole debacle, I was away from the computer for several hours. I do sincerely apologize for not having notified Bloodofox on his talk page about the AN/I immediately before or after posting it, it was rather unprofessional and seemingly "hit and run" of me. I had assumed that Bloodofox would have been notified by other means, and wasn't aware that it was my responsibility to notify him (this is my first AN/I contribution). Again, my apologies. Also, although I was not here to express any support for a block, I do support the unblock as inappropriate given his lack of notification about the AN/I. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Closure needed

Resolved

 – Thread has been closed, thank you User:CambridgeBayWeather. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Would someone be willing to close the discussion on this discussion at AN? I think it has run out of steam and can only degenerate if it's left open. Thanks in advance! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I am currently in possession of a ten foot pole, I choose to keep it aside (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Awww come on someone. If it's not closed soon I'm going to commit an outrageous process crime and close for myself a thread which I opened! For the record, this would be an anodyne "No consensus for anything" close, with no comments. But I do think a thread like that deserves some slightly more detailed closure summary if someone dares.... I have a spare ten foot pole if anyone needs one, plus a fast getaway car standing ready! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've been reading over that article, the talk, the AN, everything I could. Wow, that might be wikicide for the closer. Ask someone in line at WP:RFA, with auto-admin granted if they can do it without starting a flamewar. ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

@Kim, yea - I agree, and would myself close as no consensus; but I commented in one of the later sub-threads ... I'd prolly have the hounds of hell (hmmm.. what should I link that to?) down on me if I closed it. — Ched :  ?  16:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash

There are a serious issue with two of the people who edit this article, one at least is a spa. Since at least 28 September 2008‎ user:AmandaParker has done nothing but revert any additions to the article, and that appears to be her only contribution to Wikipedia. The other user:McKhan appears no better, all he does on this article is revert. It is simply impossible to advance the article past a stub due to these two users ownership of it. I am proposing a topic ban on both users from the article so it can actually be improved upon. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• EdJohnston has said I should mention the AN3 reports also. McKhan just got a block recently for edit warring[98] AmandaParker was recently warned for edit warring[99] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a content issue that likely belongs at WP:DRN but one thing that did jump out and bite me was this talk page thread which runs counter to the concepts of WP:BOLD, "anyone can edit" and WP:OWN. With some exceptions, nobody should have to ask permission before editing an article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That's an insanely long talk page for an article that only contains three small paragraphs. I think there's way too much discussion and not enough WP:BOLD, imo. Skimming through the talk page, there certainly appears to be an WP:OWN issue. - SudoGhost 18:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Consider opening a WP:Request for comment on the outstanding issues. That would require you to state clearly what the issues are that need a decision. Since the Al-Ahbash movement is surrounded by controversy, it is understandable that the views of Wikipedia editors would be divergent. I'm not surprised at the great length of the talk page, though archiving should be considered due to the abundance of very large posts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:AmandaParker needs to explain her relation to User:McKhan because I'm smelling socks. --MuZemike 19:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Second accounts that are transparently opened

Hello. I think this probably doesn't qualify as an 'incident' as such, but I do not know where else to enquire. I have encountered a new editor who has transparently opened a second user account with a different name. I do not know what policy dictates on such matters, so do not know how to advise the editor, if indeed they do need advising of anything. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That is permitted in most cases. For more information read WP:SOCK. If you have questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia please use our helpdesk. For factual and other kinds of questions you can use the reference desk. Von Restorff (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In general, if someone creates a second account, transparency is a good thing; most of the problems associated with people having multiple accounts comes when they attempt to conceal the connection between the accounts, seeking to make it seem as if more people support something than really do. Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume that I should direct the editor to WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, as although I said they have opened the second account transparently, it is only transparent in the sense that it's obvious what they have done from studying their contributions, but currently neither of the 2 accounts openly states a connection to the other. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought you meant that the usernames are similar or that they linked the two accounts on their userpages; for example, my username and that of my alternate account, or the example given at WP:SOCK, User:Mickey and User:Mouse. Nyttend (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

AFD templates and potential socking

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 was using Huggle to review changes to school articles when I noticed some odd AFD templates being added by User:Hillsdale09. I decided to AGF and broached the subject on their talk page. After reading further, I am beginning to suspect that they may be a sock of User:Schoolnerd09, who was recently banned as a sock of User:Youtubek. I'm not really familiar with handling this kind of thing and could use the input of someone more versed. Little help, please? Matt Deres (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted Hillsdale09's edits. Hillsdale09 has been blocked by MuZemike. Singularity42 (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. Matt Deres (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia Revolution

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

---

Wikipedia is in jeopardy! To stop the deletion of Wikipedia, join me and my team to save Wikipedia. Mike is the ultimate antagonist of Wikipedia, creating the rules leading to the war. Join me now before it's too late. WebTV3 21:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, at first this was mildly amusing, now it's gotten out of hand. WebTV3 is just upset because I corrected and warned him about a series of pagemoves he did that were against naming conventions, as well as correcting some other misinformation or unnecessary edits he's recently added. Along with some uncalled for personal attacks on me posted to his talk page, he's blown this incredibly out of proportion. It's time to drop this, WebTV3.... MikeWazowski (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

NEVER! WebTV3

(edit conflict) WebTV3, could you please provide some links/diffs and define what administrative action you are seeking here. As it stands your original post comes across as an attempt at humor, but I suspect that is not the case. — Ched :  ?  21:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm itching to close this because I am detecting intentional drama with shouting.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I did find The Wikipedia Revolution, and looking at their respective talk pages I'm guessing there's a disagreement about page moves and/or renames. It does appear to be heading into the WP:BATTLEGROUND area though, and that I think is a valid concern. — Ched :  ?  21:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well in that case I'm staying out of this.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take "Extraordinary Meltdowns" for $1000, Alex. --MuZemike 22:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

EpicFasttimes68 (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Like The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Eyes requested

I'd like to request admin eyes at WP:AN3#User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick reported by User:NULL (Result: ). This editor is continuing to edit war across multiple pages, including a new 3RR violation at Category:Gondola lifts in China. Note that I also accidentally crossed 3RR there and have self-reverted, but accept any consequence of such. Thanks in advance. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• • As of now, neither of you have crossed WP:3RR - you've each reverted three times, which is the limit - it's if you go beyond three reverts that's a problem. That said, he's inappropriately applying the C1 tag and I'll give him a ping regarding that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, I miscounted. Nevertheless, there is edit warring going on, I'd appreciate if any interested admins could take a look at the AN3 report. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Could you elaborate in what way was I 'inappropriately applying the C1 tag'? The tag was applied thirteen hours before Null nominated the category for Cfm and twelve hours before he tried to populate the empty category. Jeffrey (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, after a further look, this appears to be confusing. The C1 tag was originally applied at 09:37 April 7, but was then reverted by User:Train2104 at 22:25. The CfD was opened at 23:00, but the C1 tag was restored at 23:19, with it being replaced by the CfD tag at 23:22. Based on that, I'm assuming the category was not empty at 22:25? I'll ping Train2104 and ask for an opinion on this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I spotted the category on the emptycat database report, already tagged as a C1. It was not empty (contained one subcat), so I reverted the tag addition. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• At which point it was nominated for CfD, with the C1 tag being restored after it was CfD'd. Open and shut case; the removal of the C1 tag was appropriate, the CfD was appropriate, the re-removal of the restored C1 tag was appropriate. The cat's now at CfD, if there's no further edit-warring by any party on the category page, it seems we're done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Jeffrey (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposing indef ban of the Stephanie Adams sockpuppet...

I am proposing a community ban of Hershebar (talk · contribs), or, for that matter, whoever the person is that keeps reappearing, claiming that Stephanie Adams is notable enough for her own article, adding non-notable information about her, and abusively using sockpuppets. This IP's contributions are a pretty good sample of the articles that are being hit.

See this for at least some of the socks. The latest one was NEMESISGOTCHA (talk · contribs), who only left what was evidently an abusive message at User:Fasttimes68's talk page (edit has been hidden). Because of the returning flow of puppets and apparently lack of intent to discontinue disruption, I am proposing an indefinite community ban. Calabe1992 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding this only so the thread will not be archived, to allow others' input. Calabe1992 22:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Calabe1992 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Time to go. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Whip out the weapons, wax the motherfucker and deposit him directly into /dev/null! —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

More puppets

LIJUAL (talk · contribs) is the latest. SPI has been opened. Calabe1992 14:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Request relating to this issue

In an attempt to put an end to this recurring issue of User:Fasttimes68 deleting references to Adams and the resulting edit wars with sock puppets, I have been in contact with Adams. Adams has had a fair amount of media attention lately due to winning a lawsuit against the New York City police department. I think that there is more than enough material on Adams to write an article that passes WP:GNG. That should put an end to the games associated with this entry. If someone will put a copy of the deleted article in my userspace, I will work on it there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If the article passes GNG, then by all means, put it back in. Put back then vanity links to the other lists as well. Did you explain to Ms. Adams that she will not OWN the article, and as such that information that she finds objectionable might be included in the article? Of course any such information must be subject to BLP guidelines and be well sourced. Since she is clearly not WP:COMPETENT to edit (and indefinitely blocked at this point) will you be acting as a buffer between her and the rest of the community? Has she agreed to stop the incessant socking and account abuse? What about the other articles which she has been abusing? Basically if you are going to adopt a puppy, you should be responsible for cleaning up when she shits on the carpet. Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I made no assurances of any kind, only that I would attempt to rewrite the article. I did warn her that it was quite likely that someone would nominate it for deletion again. Your comments alleging that Adams is controlling the sockpuppets would seem to be personal attacks and violations of our BLP policies. I suggest you strike them. It is past time for you to be topic banned from this subject and you would be well advised to give this article a very wide berth. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I was going under the assumption that Ms. Adams was controlling the socks because you seemed to confirm that on your talk page. If I am mistaken that Adams is not related to the confirmed sock User:Hellotoyoumyfriend then of course I will strike my comments, but I strongly suggest you strike her personal information from your talk page. If you ARE confirming that Adams is related to the sock(s), did you have permission from her to post her personal information? Otherwise you might have inadvertently outed Ms. Adams. Your suggestion that I should be topic banned is based upon what? Tendentious edits? Failure to honor consensus? Socking? Drowning kittens? Exactly what are you saying I did that is topic ban worthy? Since you intend to work on this article and have admitted communicating to the subject I ask that you declare your relationship to the subject so as to clear up any possible COI. Fasttimes68 (talk)

[edit clash] A topic ban? Fasttimes68 has made a lot of edits relevant to Adams, and clearly annoys the indefinitely blocked and hydra-headed editor who Fasttimes68 has rashly but not unreasonably identified as Adams. (If one, very energetic editor is not Adams, then this editor is, or pretends to be, so close as to raise eyebrows. Please see this, this, the edit summary of this, and more.) Fasttimes68 is at times abrasive, and has rubbed some people the wrong way. I haven't looked for warnings to Fasttimes68 from level-headed (non-special-purpose) editors, but would not be surprised to see them. I do however note that Fasttimes68 has received a grand total of one block. As we can see here, this block occurred years ago and was related to the article on Nancy Pelosi, who is surely unrelated to Adams. While not claiming that every relevant edit by Fasttimes68 has been for the best, I'm sure that Fasttimes68 has been a net plus hereabouts, and I would strongly oppose any proposed topic ban unless shown damning evidence of which I am now unaware. -- Hoary (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As someone who handled this before; resurrecting the article is probably a bad move, liable to end in (another) disaster. DC; this is not the first time the article has been rewritten and resurrected. We eventually redirected it simply to make life easier, with community agreement, as she is only marginally notable. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of press coverage since that time and I think that the community will agree that this person meets our guidelines. If not, the article will simply be deleted again. There is very clearly an issue here and I hope to address it by communication with the subject of our coverage. At this point, we have an editor with a history of malicious activity in relation to the subject (both on- and off-wiki). Is it any wonder that the subject is upset? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If one editor uses an allegation that another has "a history of malicious activity in relation to the subject (both on- and off-wiki)" to charge that second editor with CoI, then the first editor should provide evidence for this allegation, particularly if this editor also proposes to edit the article "by communication with the subject of our coverage" (which clearly risks CoI). Meanwhile, I wonder how a search engine is inadequate to the task of providing material for an article, and why any possible later objections by the biographee (and I realize that not only vandalism but also well-intentioned editing can bring legitimate objections) can't be expressed in a standard way. -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hoary, I think you misunderstood something. There is a long-term issue here which seems to be focused around Adams. My goal here is solving that issue and re-writing the article may (or may not) be that solution. My correspondence with Adams was simply to state my intentions and ask if this was ok with her (I do not wish to write a BLP for someone who does not want one here). Adams is not "providing material" in any way, shape, or form. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite know what you mean by this "issue", but certainly there's been a lot of hot air over the article. The article hasn't been deleted but instead redirected, so you have the right to re-create it. If an article is about a person of borderline notability, then yes of course it's OK to ask this person and then, on her say-so, to go ahead. Meanwhile, please don't be too quick to infer malevolence from the gruffness, etc, of others. (And Fasttimes68, please limit the pungency of your metaphors.) ¶ Meanwhile, Talk:Stephanie Adams has over a thousand deleted edits. A large percentage are pretty dreary and I'd never recommend that you should read them. However, if they were restored they'd be searchable and might help you. Would you like them to be (temporarily?) restored? -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:B3430715

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:B3430715 performed this cute legerdemain[100], followed by this [101], which forced me to clarify and sign his post[102] and here you see I added what I saw as a necessary postscript post. I don't know how one does such magnificent things, but I am sick of this user creating these little tricks so well, with such skill, and then has all the admins buying his story of his WP:INNOCENCE and his poor little lack of WP:COMPETENCY. If I somehow misread the diffs - and I doubt that - then someone please tell me how he managed this, made the diff look like I posted it, and all in pure innocence. Admins and others here already know I have had problems with B3 before .... Also may I suggest any interested parties (that'll be the day) peruse this[103].—Djathinkimacowboy 12:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the involved editor was immediately notified[104].—Djathinkimacowboy 12:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? It looks to me as if you are the one issuing threats and making inappropriate comments; all of the diffs you link are your own comments, and the only way for diffs to be misattributed is malicious intervention by the developers. Please supply links to edits by B3430715 that you believe to be sanctionable. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The link I showed you which presents the broken-English comment is proof, it is that to which I refer. Now what is the problem with it? The rest was to give a brief history of this. And no, I beg to differ: I am not "issuing threats". I have had reason to warn this user before - and no, I am not dredging that up again so 5 admins can come to his defence. Nyttend: here[105], the diff at the left at line 18, before the edit I made, you see what B3 added yet it looks as if I wrote that. Look at it carefully. Do I utilise English in that manner?—Djathinkimacowboy 12:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently so, because when I go to the diff and I click the name of the user who left that comment, I'm sent to your userpage. Telling someone "You are most welcome to stay the hell off" any page is inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Right: apparently so. So, how did he do it? [106]--and look yet again at this. After seeing how he deftly did this up - and that has been noticed in the past by admins - his use of "SB" in my opinion means 'S.O.B.' There is no one involved that could be SB and he says it in reference to me. That is yet another personal attack, such as his past attacks.—Djathinkimacowboy 13:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If you had any idea of the past, and the recently closed ANI involving him, you'd probably understand why I welcomed him to stay the hell off any Columbo-related project. You are right; that was out of order on my part.—Djathinkimacowboy 13:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This diff[107] is the one we need. Look to the right-hand column diff, line 15. It is dated April 1st, and also shows his removal of a fair and polite warning from me, dated 23 March. Clearly shows B3 added the comments in question. It's simply a case of my not having noticed them since I was otherwise occupied at that time. Apologies for presenting the wrong diffs before.—Djathinkimacowboy 13:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That diff shows B3430715 removing comments from his own talk page, which he is entitled to do. It shows him adding a further comment, and there's no evidence of any attempt to incriminate you. Rather this ANI has shown you calling B3430715 a troll, making of personal attacks with no evidence, and generally returning to the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour that's gotten you blocked twice in recent months. Unless you can come with with some real evidence of anyone other than yourself misbehaving, I'm going to block your account. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It's all here. And he did not have the right to add those unsigned comments then personally attack me. And you are not reading the history in full. Of course, I know people have been waiting for this move to be made on me. Do what you feel you have to do. However, I will point out that you have no right to block me. It isn't to be used as punishment, and clearly you are threatening to punish me. Which you will no matter what since you've already posted it. This is in no way battleground behaviour and I'm sorry you see it as such.—Djathinkimacowboy 13:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If I may add: isn't a bit improper to fling out my past blocks just so you can find a reason to "block my account" now?—Djathinkimacowboy 13:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You've made serious claims, and provided no evidence at all, but of your own hostile and uncivil actions. Blocks are intended to defend Wikipedia, and its good faith users, from those who can't or won't edit in the collegial fashion that 99.9% of users can manage 100% of the time. The purpose of your previous blocks was to make sure to you, in no uncertain terms, that you've seriously crossed the line and must change. Unfortunately the first block wasn't effective in achieving that, nor the second. Frankly I rather doubt you're interested in changing, but I'm assuming just a shred of good faith, which is why I've not blocked you indefinitely. But if you can't manage yourself when the block expires, it's likely that the next block will be indefinite. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)What I'm seeing: "I hope soon your goose will be cooked."[108], "You are most welcome to stay the hell off Columbo forever as far as I'm concerned." [109], then (ironically) you come to ANI question another editors competency and offering your own diffs as proof. His changing of your comment wasn't what you think, it was removing then adding a different comment. The diffs make it look worse than it is for technical reasons (and he might be taking advantage of that to antagonize, but there is no proof). I would be careful to avoid a nasty boomerang. You haven't been a pinnacle of civility in those discussions, and the more I dig, the dirtier it gets. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that Djathinkimacowboy has now been blocked for one month by Finlay McWalter, based on a history of battleground behavior and spurious noticeboard reports (for which Djathinkimacowboy has received previous blocks). It's probably safe to close this thread. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Indefinite block

I've turned this into an indefinite block without talk page access per this diff and also per the edit summary on this diff.--v/r - TP 16:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• That seems a little strong although self requested indef blocks are technically permitted per WP:BLOCK#Self-requested_blocks (I didn't see you at the cat of editors who do this [110], however). This is the third block for them, and I could easily see and support blocking talk page access for their 30 day cool down period for their behavior you linked, but I'm not so convinced their "request" wasn't just blowing steam, rather than a sincere request for indef block, particularly since they weren't asked to confirm their desire for an indef block. If their request isn't obviously and clearly a sincere request to be indef blocked, it shouldn't be done. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]
• Uhm, I think the indefinite block was a bit heavy-handed (disclaimer: I consider myself involved). Dja was venting and revoking his talk page privs was the right thing to do, mainly to prevent him from digging an even deeper hole, but I'm not sure we should also have increased the block to indefinite. In my opinion, the block should be reduced to the original duration and a final warning issued that the next one will be indefinite. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that this is a very fair proposal. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Blockevasion and constant swearing and threats? Keep him blocked for a while. Von Restorff (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually I just read the comment which he posted at Salvio's talk page and am having second thoughts. They are certainly trying very hard to use up all possible goodwill and would be best advised to go away for a couple of days and calm down. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
        • @ Salvio: My primary reason for the indef was this comment: "you will know what uncivil means and you'll think your grandmother was uncivil when I'm done with some of you." I felt it was a threat to continue to disrupt and/or sock.--v/r - TP 16:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
          • Sadly, I agree with Rangoon... It's rather hard to argue that he was just venting, considering his latest edits, sigh. That said, TParis, I understand why you blocked; those edits and the edit summary were definitely worrying. It's just my personal approach a little more tolerant; when I block someone and see him venting, I let him do that, eventually supporting the revocation of his talk page privs if he starts threatening or making serious personal attacks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Blocked editor appears to be playing the pathos card. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

He is evading his block using 76.195.85.118 and 75.21.107.248. Von Restorff (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• But was the indef the reason they are going rogue? I don't know. Links for VR's notes: Dennis Brown (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• 76.195.85.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 75.21.107.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Per this attack, my well of patience and sympathy is pretty dry. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 17:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Blocked both IPs for 1 month for block evasion.--v/r - TP 17:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, indef suits him fine it seems. He has also used 75.21.156.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 75.21.105.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Von Restorff (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)These were after the indef block, not before. That is the concern, that we accidentally opened up a Pandora's box. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• According to the timestamps on my computer, this and this were before the indef. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 17:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• You are correct that those were after the 30 day block and before the indef, assuming they are linked (good reasons to think it was socking). Now we just weather the storm, and look at a rangeblock for a few days. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

He continues with 76.195.87.205 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Von Restorff (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Time for a range block. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, listen to you bunch of (Personal attack removed). Take a few months - you'll need at least that long - and look at this place. Pathos?! What dork said that? I need to 'play the pathos card' like I need WP. But you all just go on talking it to death, ice picking me in the eye and patting yourselves on the back. This cultist BS disgusts me. And so do some of you. Rangeblock away!!!76.195.88.197 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC).

We love you. But we want you to be calm and friendly. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

protected

I've semi-protected User talk:Anna Frodesiak due to some of the IP posts that have been left. If she wishes the protection to be lifted, any admin is more than welcome to do so. I set the time to 3 days - I figure that should give you folks who do the range block stuff time to get it all sorted out. — Ched :  ?  20:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

From User:B3430715

Hello all, recently User Djathinkimacowboy tries to simplify what's on the Columbo page. Some of the works are good and some are over simplified. (wiki simple shall be used if so)...

Anyway, what comes tough is that it's hard for Djathinkimacowboy to accept others idea, in another word, he has no patient\is self-opinion\is stubborn(in short, never tries to understand others). Thus he did lots of changes without others agreements.

However, I do appreciate his contributions, and I'm glad to see SB who got so much time to edit one thing(well, one reason is he tends not to plan ahead). And the conclusion is, I do think it is ok to give him one more chance to learn how do teamwork.

More over, It is pointless to block one or so, at least one can always register a new account (which means nothing will change). B3430715 (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

At which point they get reblocked for sockpuppetry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:124.180.240.17 disruptive editing of userbox

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

---

I am an atheist. I am also a Roman catholic, which I will be unless I am excommunicated (unlikely) or go through a special process to put on record that I am no longer a Roman Catholic. I made a user box for atheists like me who are also roman catholics. Someone has come along and decided this is not acceptable and keeps removing the cat "roman Catholic". I would like this disruptive editing to be put to an end. Thank you. diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATiml2k4%2FUserboxes%2FAtheist_Roman_Catholic&diff=486010853&oldid=485896707 --TimL (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you made a userbox for atheists who were raised Roman Catholic, not a userbox for atheists who are members of the Roman Catholic Church, if that is even possible. I am removing Category:Roman Catholic Wikipedians from it. --124.180.240.17 (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I made the latter and it is absolutely possible. I am an atheist and I am a member of the Roman Catholic church. It is part of my heritage. Do not vandalize my user space. Can an admin semiprotect this template please from this "crusader"? --TimL (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Your userbox does not say "this user is an atheist and Roman Catholic", but if that is what your userbox is all about (which I assume it is because you said "I made a user box for atheists like me who are also roman catholics"), I will gladly fix it for you, because I'm such a nice Christian. --124.180.240.17 (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is just vandalism. As such, it has been reported. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have explained why it is not vandalism. --124.180.240.17 (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• At the very least, it is disruptive, hence we are here. More likely, it is a bit WP:POINTy. Once you start crawling around in another users pages, you should use extreme caution, or better yet, don't do it and instead bring up the topic on their talk page if you have a suggestion or comment about their userbox. Unilaterally pushing your own religious viewpoints into his userbox isn't acceptable behavior here. If you can't understand that, then you shouldn't be editing here. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Magioladitis abusing AWB and edit warring

Today, I noticed that Magioladitis had abused AWB to orphan Template:nasdaq2 and then immediately nominated it for deletion as orphaned. Moreover, Magioladitis did the orphaning with AWB, patently violating the AWB rules against making edits that only bypass redirects [111] [112].

I undid these inappropriate edits and left a message on the user's talk page [113]. Before I finished the message, he had already re-made the same edits that I undid, without inquiring on my talk page or discussing the matter at all.

This is far from the first incident that Magioladitis has had with AWB abuse. He was blocked in 2010 for the same problem (block log) and his bot Yobot has been blocked often for AWB problems (block log). At this point, it seems that more strict sanctions will be required. I am recused from using my administrator tools here, but I would appreciate a review by uninvolved administrators. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't propose deletion because it's orphan. Orphan is not a valid reason for deletion. Please read the RfD before escalating and causing drama once more. I am really upset with your behaviour against me and against other editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You also seem not to know what edit war is. You reverted BEFORE contacting me just to upset. I am very disappointed on you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

CBM, you forgot to mention that the template nasdaq2 has no reason to exist. Why are you defending it? Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not defending it; I have not commented at the deletion discussion. If there was consensus to delete the template, a bot would take care of orphaning it automatically. Regardless whether it has a reason to exist, violating the AWB rules to orphan it, and then proposing it for deletion because it is orphaned, is inappropriate behavior. In this case Magioladitis has established a track record of performing similarly inappropriate tasks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are further examples of edits today by Magioladitis' bot Yobot which violate both the AWB rules and WP:COSMETICBOT. [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] The bot has been blocked numerous times for this sort of edit, as recently as March 21, and the issue was raised again on the bot's talk page on April 5 [119]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

All the edits you diplay have a different html output. Now AWB supports "Skip if only cosmetic changes are made" and checks againsted the html code produced by wikicode. The code is improved almost every day and this doesn't explain why you reverted also my edits not done by AWB. Moreover, the redirect was in AWB's page in order to be replaced sooner or later. There seems to be consensus to replace this redirect. In to my eyes it seems you aonly want to discourage me from editing in Wikipedia and this disappointing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Re the edits I madt, I was planning to revisit them all to see if there was anything salvagable - but you edit warred so quickly that I did not have a chance. WP:BRD allows for edits to be reversed, but not for you to re-do the edits that are undone.

Re the bot edits, simply changing whitespace [120], or just changing underscores to spaces [121], is not a permitted task under WP:AWB nor under WP:COSMETICBOT. I am bringing up the bot because I think it would be more efficient for this thread to obtain a remedy for your AWB edits and your bot's AWB edits, because both have the same set of problems. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

These are problems that can be fixed and not related to your current actions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer's article redirections

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

---

This section has been retitled from "TenPoundHammer switches from deletion to blanking" for neutrality. --Tristessa (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) has been at WP:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer for a while, although with RFC/U's usual lack of resolution. A new technique of his appears to be mass blanking and redirection of articles (undiscussed, naturally), rather than trying to have them deleted outright. As noted at the RFC, this has included 50+ Viz (comic) character articles in under half an hour (for an editor who's repeatedly dismissive of WP:BEFORE). Today I noticed similar behaviour across music articles - in particular at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back from Ashes we have a band AfD where TPH has already blanked a number of their related album articles, pre-judging the AfD outcome and also skewing the visible prominence of the article topic and coverage, whilst the AfD is still under discussion. We have specific policy against doing this with the subject article itself, I don't see the band/album distance as being that much further.

This behaviour (see RFC/U) could be considered as an excessive readiness to delete, contra WP:PRESERVE. It's certainly a dismissal of other editors and any attempt at WP:CONSENSUS, preferring instead to see just TPH's opinion as the only arbiter of article worth, to the exclusion of others. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Show me how the Scatman John songs are notable. WP:NALBUMS and WP:NSONGS clearly say that album articles consisting of little more than a tracklisting can be redirected without having to bug anyone else for consensus. And we have a long precedent of redirecting non-notable song stubs without need for redirection. I see nothing wrong with my actions, and I find it outright absurd that you think it a "readiness to delete". Redirection does not equal deletion, nor is it blanking. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

More than one article a minute is simply too fast to give any sort of proper consideration to articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a valid criticism - he may have spent some prior time considering them all, and only then redirected them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

AGF only stretches so far - and this is an editor known to be poor at searching for sources, with a scathing disregard for BEFORE. They either spent under a minute considering each of a large number number of non-trivial articles (these articles are longer and more complex than most other comic character articles) or else they decided that Viz characters en masse were simply non-notable and could never be notable, then deleted them as a group. I don't know which is worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• One of the issues that's relevant here is how we view redirection. There are some users who will argue that redirection is a form of keeping an article and is unrelated to deletion, while others feel that redirection and deletion are in many cases similar or complementary outcomes. Unfortunately the same argument often occurs over merges. But until there is more of a consensus on this front, this type of thing seems to fall into some weird sort of grey area.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't decided myself which of these views is right but if it's compared to deletion then it would be like PROD. If nobody objects it gets deleted, if somebody objects they can remove the PROD tag or request undeletion at WP:REFUND. In any case, it's covered under WP:BRD, if you object, move them backundo the redirect. It only becomes a problem if TPH moves them again or pulls a Dolovis and edits the redirects so the moves can't be undone without admin interventionwhat was I smoking or refuses to stop if reasonably asked to do so by multiple editors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

TPH's behaviour here has been to go after articles around an article already at AfD. He's blanked those articles and converted them to redirects, he has also edited other articles to remove the links going to the now-blanked articles. That's a pretty persistent effort to remove indication that there's even an article remaining in the history. When, by contrast, we use PROD, we do it by tagging onto an article, not removing or hiding its content.

It's only possible to "easily undo a redirect" if you're aware there's a hidden article to do it to. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

1. click the 'redirected from' bluelink. 2. click 'history'. 3. click 'undo'. Et viola. While some of TPH's AfDs have been trout-worthy, there's no need for any seafood here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How does an editor find the 'redirected from' bluelink? If the article is gone, and also the links to it have been removed too, then there's no realistic chance that readers or editors will notice it's there to restore.

We're supposed to work by openness and consensus. TPH's actions seem increasingly calculated to make an end-run around this. I don't care about these album deletions, it's the attack on the community process that I'm by far the most concerned about. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How does an editor find the 'redirected from' bluelink? Like so: "McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Redirected from F/A-18)". The find it at the very top of the page, right below the big page title text. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, how does an editor find the bluelink? If they type in the article title, they get there - but who's going to know to do that? They can't navigate from the band article to the album article, because TPH has removed those links. They can't see categorization (by genre or artist) because TPH has removed the cats from the blanked album article too. These are actions (maybe correct, maybe not), to hide the previous existence of this article. Does an article still even exist if it's held in the MediaWiki database, but has been orphaned and is no longer part of the web of links? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have attached a photograph to illustrate how one finds the bluelink, which is pretty easy to find... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not in finding the link on the redir target page, but on finding the page from which a reader will then be redirected. "FA/18" is short and obvious. "Take Your Time (Scatman John song)", especially with a disambiguator, is not, unless the reader was following a link (now removed) from the band's page. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Er....you find the link, you click on the link, you're on the page redirected from. It's hardly rocket science. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're making a mountain of a molehill. Any editor can figure out how to undo a redirect and restore links to articles. And you honestly seem to be wikistalking me just to pull out all my redirects. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Any editor perhaps. But it's a disservice to our readers (who may or may not be as fluent in editing Wikipedia), who we are all here to service. That said, TPH isn't the only one doing this, so it may be unfair to single them out in this. - jc37 05:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If pointing out these blatant violations of policy (example: saying "I found no sources" without bothering to check Google) is wikistalking, put me on the wikistalker list, because I share the same concerns. As for the "other policy violators exist" argument, only TPH has done these sort of things to articles on my watchlist (mostly engineering articles). If I see someone else doing it, I will object to that behavior as well. High-volume editors like TPH should be held to a higher standard of behavior, not given a free pass. If someone with ten edits total does something that is against policy, it is easy to undo the change and to review all his other edits and correct as needed. If someone with 50,000 edits does the same thing, it isn't feasible to find out if he did it elsewhere, and it is more likely that the action will be repeated hundreds of times if we let it slide. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with an editor boldly redirecting an article they think doesn't meet the notability requirements. That's much better, in my view, than PRODding it, since with a redirect the history is not destroyed and any editor can undo the redirect later and expand the article. Unlike any form of deleting, redirecting is incredibly easy to undo. (Just click "undo"!) 28bytes (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• You didn't provide diffs, so I'm confused as to the exact actions you find objectionable. As for creating redirects, this should be a non-issue as they are non-destructive, can easily be reverted or discussed on a case by case basis on the article talk page, they preserve attribution, can be restored if a topic becomes notable, and remove nothing, only point to a more comprehensive article related to the subject name. You are rehashing much of what was already covered in the failed RfC here, without providing diffs for your actual complaints. Exactly what has he done that is 'over the line' (with diffs, please) and what remedy are you asking for? Dennis Brown (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• So am I correct in understanding that multiple comic book characters were redirected, rather than merged? Redirection is a perfectly good process that doesn't need any additional bureaucracy surrounding it, but the speed, breadth, and other issues as related above sound concerning to me. I'd like to hear TPH's response to the assertions about the comic characters. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• This smacks of some sort of turf war, by my reading. The main thing that I wanted to comment on was the semi-automated editing though. Automated editing can be (very) disruptive, but simply accusing someone of disruption based on their edit rate does not make a case. Tools such as AWB allow users to make lists of pages and then fly through them making a series of changes, but focusing on the final batch run ignores the often hours worth of labor involved in creating the article list in the first place, let alone the testing to ensure that the changes made aren't going to screw something up. It's blatantly obvious when people don't properly prepare their runs this way, generally speaking.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Dingley indeed seems to be digging up a turf war, and trying to start shit with me just because he disagrees with my actions. As is clear above, redirects are not a harmful thing because — if one is deemed wrong — YOU CAN FREAKING UNDO IT. Every time I have tried to invoke WP:BRD, I can never get anywhere on the "D". Either I get no response anywhere from anyone, or the discussion merely goes in circles, with everyone saying a different thing and/or presenting tautological arguments ("Keep because it should be kept"). I may do a lot of similar edits in rapid succession (e.g. the Viz ones), but I did read each article individually and did (an admittedly quick) source search. What I saw was a wall of fancruft with no out of universe notability or sources, and not a single word worth salvaging. My options there are "redirect" or "improve". That I chose the former over the latter is in no way detrimental, since as I said, REDIRECTS CAN BE UNDONE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  Don't overstate your case here, man. It'll be OK (most likely). Don't stress! :)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  • "Discuss"? When your typical reaction is like this ? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
    • That was a misread on my part. I thought that I was on one of the AFDs you started on one of the Scatman John albums, and the "keep" !vote seemed like a total non sequitur to me — add that to that editor's "but Back from Ashes was nominated for a grammy! Whatever music festival IS notable!" crusade and I honestly thought he was spreading his crusade to totally unrelated AFDs to make a point. Furthermore, that I still believe the Back from Ashes guy is just acting in good faith and trying his damnedest to defend an article on something he likes (a totally natural reaction). Notice how quickly I reverted myself on that edit? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  "Every time I have tried to invoke WP:BRD, I can never get anywhere on the "D". Either I get no response anywhere from anyone, or the discussion merely goes in circles, with everyone saying a different thing and/or presenting tautological arguments ("Keep because it should be kept")." - In my experience, this assertion is just simply not true. And from what I've seen, the typical response is not to try to discuss, it's to immediately nominate to XfD. (See this for just one example.) I honestly don't have much of an opinion on the rest of the above (the redirect vs deletion nonsense has been going on for sometime, and by more than just TPH), but when I saw this assertion, I thought I should comment. - jc37 05:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is sending to XFD not a form of discussion? It sure is to me. Had I sent the Mama's Family characters to the talk page, I know DAMN well that I wouldn't have heard a peep from anyone for months. No one looks at talk pages unless they're high traffic articles. Sending those to AFD looks like a rational move to me, since indeed most of them turned out to be non-notable and were deleted via consensus — i.e., people discussed the articles, and their notability or lack thereof. I sure don't see anything wrong there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  I can be described as a "rabid inclusionist" myself, at least to a certain extent, and I think that XFD is a form of discussion. I don't think that it's a particularly good form of discussion, but as you've pointed out here most article talk pages are ignored by people. If anyone reading this can come up with a useful idea other than XFD, that I know of many, many people who are interested in hearing it (myself included).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Temporary editing restriction?

Well, I've looked at the current state of the RFC/U, the articles in question, and TPH's recent contribs. From what I can see, TPH is genuinely attempting to do good faith work, even if deletion policies are being interpreted and applied in extremely odd unproductive ways and consensus is not being adequately listened to. That said, I must also point out that the behaviour of the opponents in this matter is similarly combative — and whilst I fully accept there is obviously a serious issue as to how TPH is using redirects and applying CSD, the issue isn't really being resolved by the current situation, especially where TPH is continuing to perform the conduct being discussed. So, I've decided to take a leaf out of WP:BRD. What I think the best thing would be is for TPH to refrain from redirecting or nominating any AFDs, CSDs or PRODs until the RFC has finished by means of a community editing restriction. When the RFC/U has finished, the ban expires unless the community has affirmed it in a discussion (either here or at the RFC/U). The !vote is below. --Tristessa (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Slight clarification. --Tristessa (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedy withdrawn

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is temporarily prohibited from redirecting or blanking any articles with significant content or nominating any articles for deletion through any deletion process, criteria or method. This restriction will expire once Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer has concluded unless community discussion(s) have indicated consensus for the ban to continue (both as determined by the Wikipedia administrator closing the RfC). The provisions of this community editing restriction are to be broadly construed. I'm withdrawing this proposal, as the purpose and intent of it appears to have been totally misunderstood. I'd like to make it crystal clear that have no personal connection with TPH or emnity towards him, and I don't feel I need to be presenting any evidence against him; I'm just an uninvolved admin who came across the AN/I thread. The reason why I proposed this was so that discussion could take place about his editing without him performing the actions that people had problems with. No, I wasn't trying to set a precedent saying people should be automatically banned from questioned conduct via RfC. It's unimportant, though; it seems to have been misinterpreted as punitive. --Tristessa (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Support as proposer. --Tristessa (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose First of all, this has nothing to do with deletion. Redirects, as I said above, are not harmful. I haven't edit warred over them, so I don't see what's wrong with my redirect process. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC) I agree with you that it isn't about the deletions themselves — it seems as though the gist of the complaint is overlooking WP:BEFORE. Nor is it probably about the redirects themselves, in that they may not be intrinsically harmful; but it's their use in the wider disputed editing behaviours which is a problem. I think it'd be best if you weren't doing what people don't like until the RfC has finished, whatever the course of it and no matter how irrational the negative reaction may be in your eyes, hence the proposed restriction. --Tristessa (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Which I find ironic, since one of the things WP:BEFORE says is "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term." WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE HELL I'M DOING. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC) The trouble lies in the "If the topic is important enough..." part. It appears that you're redirecting a relatively large number of articles that people feel are important enough to merit separate ones, and there is a perception (I'm not making a judgement either way) by other editors that you're ignoring objections on this call and/or not engaging in consensus-building. Can you see how this is happening? --Tristessa (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC) As I said though, every time I try to build a consensus on a talk page or noticeboard, everyone else mysteriously clams up. Or if they don't, literally everyone says something else and we go absolutely nowhere (witness the FIVE YEAR slog of failing to build consensus on Halifax, Nova Scotia). I think you can understand my frustration over consensus building. If I'm told by someone else, "hey you shouldn't have redirected this", have you noticed that I never editwar over the redirection anymore? I send it to AFD for consensus. Which seems totally logical to me. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC) WP:SOFIXIT. I'm not trying to be flip here, but we are discussing regular edits which anyone is capable of doing or undoing. Heck, you don't even have to be registered! If you're right that "redirecting a relatively large number of articles that people feel are important enough to merit separate ones", then undoing some of the edited converting pages into redirects will stick. A word of warning here though: chasing after TPH and undoing all of his edits is not likely to go unnoticed or be well accepted. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Exactly. As I said above, I know better than to edit war when someone undoes my redirect. I honestly feel that Dingley is the one who's in the wrong here, since he seems to be watching my every move, lurking in the shadows to undo my every redirect just because HE disagrees with me. If he thinks the articles have merit, maybe he should be the one fixing them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC) The actions are indeed reversible, but users chasing each other around and disagreeing with each other by reversal than via discussion is not the way things should be happening. Bold, Revert, Discuss needs all three of its parts, and the Discuss bit has to happen after the Revert. Nor, indeed, does it work when the Revert and Discuss stages happen in parallel (as in this case) or when the only thing that happens is Revert (the approach Ohm describes). It's clear there is a dispute involving a wider set of people than just Dingley: the dispute needs to be solved rather than being treated as though it doesn't exist, even if one considers its arguments meritless. --Tristessa (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC) I still see nothing that I'm doing wrong. If someone reverts a redirect I've made, I'll either leave it be, send it to AFD for discusison, or !vote if someone else AFD's it. Dingley does have the right idea in undoing the redirect and sending it to AFD to gather consensus, but the fact that he's doing it so often — with seemingly every redirect I make — concerns me. He honestly seems to be wikistalking me, regardless of his motive. And if I seem to be making lots of redirects, well, that's because I make a lot of edits, period. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC) I agree with TPH here. There's no BRD cycle occuring here because the "R" for "revert" is apparently being short circuited by what looks like wikistalkerish like behavior and personalizing issues through the use of processes like this. The least that Dingley, yourself, and others could do is start a discussion on his talk page or participate in relevant AFD discussions, which I don't really see occurring here. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose, since there's absolutely no need for this. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Comment I agree, that pages associated with Back from Ashes should not be blanked until the AfD is complete.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose for two reasons: first, I believe we should let Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer play out and not have parallel sanction proposals here in the meantime. Secondly, as has been discussed in the above section, redirecting is a much different animal than deletion and is very easy to undo if anyone disagrees with the redirection. 28bytes (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose: There are procedures to follow in order to impose edit restrictions on editors. Even if I agreed that TPH's actions merited one - which I don't - let's see if I have this straight: the mere filing of a RfC against an editor should result in an immediate injunction against the alleged behavior the filers oppose, because those filers are now acting up? That's a nasty precedent. How about we get that consensus at RfC first? Ravenswing 04:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose If an editor's behaviour is enough to have them show up at RFC/U, then it ought to obvious that their behaviour is being questioned and that they perhaps ought to reconsider it of their own volition. Not that this has happened in this case. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose This seems like a second bite of the same apple in ways. I might not agree with every decision that Hammer makes, but I think he has stayed within the guidelines and policies. As a friend, I would recommend that he slow down a bit, something that I'm finally learning to do. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose This is ridiculous. I can't believe I wasted my time reading this. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose - proposer failed to present any evidence Bulwersator (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't really see anyone else other than Dingley opposing me at this point. Can we close this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Earlier you claimed that "every time I try to build a consensus on a talk page or noticeboard, everyone else mysteriously clams up". Really? I tried to engage you in a discussion and to seek some sort of consensus about this issue here, here, here, here, here, and here. No response. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

IP address failing to abide by 1RR on Troubles-related pages

65.184.192.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IP has twice breached the IRR imposed on Troubles-related pages at the Troubles (1, 2) and on Jimmy Brown (Irish republican) (1, 2, 3). This is despite ample warnings here and here. It may now be time for administrative intervention. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 14:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked him 72hrs for a slow edit war on History of London, for which he has been warned before. If someone wants to pursue AE sanctions as well, we have a venue for that. This seems to be a static IP, or at least one that rotates only slowly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Attack website being spammed on wikipedia

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.

---

Hi,

There's an attack website called causepimps.ca whose subpages are being spammed onto wikipedia. See:

• [122]
• [123]
• [124]
• [125]
• [126]
• [127]
• [128]
• [129]

Can something be done to block the pages from being added and the accounts involved?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.160.126 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• And the editor adding the spam is calling other's reversions "vandalism", so good faith is out the window. Website obviously fails WP:RS, adding to the blacklist would be the best solution. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, this can be added to the blacklist. My connection is dog slow right now but I will get it added in a few minutes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) You can request the website be added to the blacklist here MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. You can ask for spammers to be blocked here Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Since one of the IPs hasn't edited since April 6 and only added the link once back in March 31(and there's now the new IP involved) it's IMO unlikely that one will be blocked even though all the edits from that IP appear to be in bad faith. BTW, from the diffs shown, no accounts were involved, only anonymous users/IPs. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I have already requested the site be added to the blocklist. Do continue to revert, and report repeat offenders at AIV. Please note that IP accounts are also accounts, albeit anonymous, and can be blocked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

IPs are not generally referred to as accounts in wikipedia parlance (or for that matter, mostly anywhere on the internet that allows you to register for an account and also contribute without signing up for an account) as there are a number of key distinctions. This doesn't include whether they can be blocked although one distinction is because there's no guarantee they belong to any particular individual for long (whereas we forbid sharing of accounts so it's not an issue for them) so it's rare they will be blocked if there has been no problematic activity from that account for a while (and the amount of problematic activity was in the grand scheme of things fairly low). An account with the editing history of 68.197.106.65 has a fair chance of being blocked indefinitely. To put it a different way, there's a reason we have things like Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont agree with the logic of "the editor adding the spam is calling other's reversions "vandalism", so good faith is out the window" by D Brown above. If the user believed these additions were proper in the first place, then of course the user would also interpret their removal as vandalsim. The user has now been warned, so if this persists after the warning, then there is a better argument for a block. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Then you would be mistaken. If you add a link, then I delete it, is that vandalism? Of course not, and the act of calling it vandalism is assuming bad faith of other edtiors, and will get you blocked if done a few times. That is exactly what is happening here. WP:BRD clearly says this isn't vandalism, and for the ip to do so was improper and violated WP:AGF. Likely, it was a form of bullying to continue their spam assault uninterrupted. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the IP themselves violated 'assume good faith' of the reverting editor, very much so. I thought you were talking about our assumption of good faith of the IP. Two different things. Lets say the link was legit and the IP adds the link as a good faith addition. Then three days later the link is removed. The IP reverting the removal of that link (restoring that link) and labeling the edit as vandalism is consistent with the IP's belief that the link should belong there in the first place. Of course, the IP himself is not assuming good faith of others with that action of labeling the edit as vandalism. See the difference? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

So just to sum it up. I now understand what you were saying and I do not disagree at all with your take on the case at hand. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 19:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Re to NE, after multiple ec's: Who are you addressing your "introduction to the internet" lecture to? My only interest was ensuring the editors who came here concerned about this were not confused into thinking that only registered accounts were blockable. You seem to have decided I don't understand the Internet or Wikipedia. I fail to see the benefit in either you nitpicking my verbiage, or your extended lecture. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont want to answer for someone else so just speaking for myself. I often state the obvious just for clarification purposes. I don't intend it to be a comment on another editors level of expertise, nor do I take it as such when others do the same thing. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I would not have taken it as directed to me had it not been 'entirely about my (somewhat poor, I admit) phrasing along with a commentary on who is likely and not likely to be blocked, and the threading made it a reply to my post. I find it bizarre that NE felt it necessary to inform an experienced admin who was likely to be blocked. As you say, however, perhaps he did not think it through, and it was not meant to be as insulting as it reads. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Block, revert, deny. These edits were clearly intended as spam, no reason to discuss further really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've added the site to the spam blacklist. Also, WP:BRD refers to "bold-revert-discuss". I think you were looking for WP:RBI ("revert-block-ignore"). Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Or just plain old WP:DENY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Major Problem with AAlertBot; Needs Shutdown

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

---

In two seperate article alert pages, AAlertBot has posted about numerous radio station articles, along with other non-radio articles, being up for RFD (Redirects for Discussion). Though, at present, there isn't any discussion on WP:RFD that matches the articles and pages up for discussion. I believe there might be a problem with the bot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a BIG problem. This is thousands of articles on hundreds of article alert pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Appears it was due to an accidental transclusion, mentioned here. I don't think there's any need for a block on the bot as it's manually run, the owner seems to be aware and is fixing it. the wub "?!" 21:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:MuZomikx

WP:DENY people, this type of thing happens a lot. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
New user User:MuZomikx has directed user and talk pages to User:MuZemike and is using "MuZemike" as a sig. I really don't know if it's a genuine MuZemike alternate account, and MuZemike doesn't seem to be around on his usual account right now to ask. I'm pretty tired and just odd to bed now and can't really concentrate, so could someone who's more alert please have a look and see what they think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC) This edit to User:Allie420 doesn't look MuZemike's doing, so to be safe I've blocked User:MuZomikx for 3 hours - hopefully someone will be able to take a more wide awake look at it than me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Not this again. This happened yesterday at an RfA. Someone is trying to make MuZemike look like he's sockpuppeting. This user is impersonating his signature and also create a lot of user pages with the "blocked as a sockpuppet of MuZemike" box. Block indefinetely now and initiate a sockpuppet investigation.—cyberpower Happy EasterOnline 20:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)I think it is a vandal account. I can't see MuZemike going in and deleted wholesale sections of admin pages under a brand new name and claiming they were "all blocked". (I guess you could check the block log...) [130] As well as forging his own name at an RfA [131] to support a candidate. Prime candidate for blocking. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Looks like a rather obvious impersonation to me (the blanking of AIV for example), so I've increased the block to indefinite and deleted the user's userpage. If it does turn out to me MuZemike (highly unlikely) he can request it be unblocked or unblock it himself. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Similar situation yesterday, which MuZemike took care of himself. Safe to block first, ask later here, I think. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) I requested speedy deletionn of User:Allie420. MuZomikx just created it out of whole cloth. Also, not quite sure why Boing! left in MuZomikx's edit to a SPI report.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Because, as he said, Boing! is very tired and not capable of clear thought right now. Thanks folks, and goodnight. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

68.197.163.149 creating huge amounts of inappropriate pages

• 68.197.163.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Looking at this IP's contribs, he's making tons of random talk pages for latin characters, which are either test edits and/or simply vandalism. Requesting a nuke of the pages and a block for like 1 week.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, asked to discuss before adding any new pages. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Now this IP is abusing the user talk page. Time to revoke access.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, this person is continuing to the same thing as 69.122.139.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the nuking. I really hope a mass-salting does not have to be done too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hazara people

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

---

I am asking for at least a semi-protect for this article. It's being changed by User:Gharjistan who is adding unencyclopedic and poorly sourced material in it, partially using racist terminology ("a Mongoloid people"; that is not even fully true as one can see in the pictures in the article). He is also totally exaggerating with the numbers and the percentage of the Hazara people in Afghanistan. --Lysozym (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no attempts to really discuss these issues with the user on their talkpage, and in fact, you have failed to notify them of this complaint filing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the place to request page protection is WP:Requests for page protection, not here. After you first take Bwilkins advice and approach them about it on their talk page, of course. They've been here for only two weeks, there are probably lots of things they haven't learned yet. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Gizgalasi COI

I brought User:Gizgalasi to this board before in January (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive736#Conflict of interest---block requested, and there wasn't much interest, with only a few comments either way. After that discussion, the editor decreased xyr frequency of editing, but has since resumed xyr unbalanced COI editing. This revolves around a cluster of articles on Ali & Nino: A Love Story and its author, Kurban Said. The name "Said" is a psuedonym, and the author's real identity is not known for certain. Gizgalasi is associated with Azerbaijani International, a cultural/literary magazine, which published a very extensive analysis of the question, and arrived at a specific answer. That's fine and good, but Gizgalasi has repeatedly attempted to highlight AI's analysis to the exclusion of all others.

The best recent examples can be found in this series of edits, which culminated in Gizgalasi removing the NPOV and COI tags in the this edit. The article is not even close to neutral; for example, see my edit, which attempts to just start fixing an extremely obvious POV point (the article was asserting that one theory was wrong in Wikipedia's voice).

Another example is this series of edits to Lev Nussimbaum which attribute to another author (the one whose theories AI reject) an opinion he never held.

Gizgalasi is a perfect example of the reason why we have the COI policy. Gizgalasi is too closely connected to AI, and is unable to see that xyr edits are not, in fact neutral. I don't know what else to do other than to block this editor until such time as they agree to stop editing the articles directly. They could either use "edit request" templates on the talk page or try Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help‎. Outside of WP, Gizgalasi's commitment to a specific academic position is a good thing; here, it prevents xyr from editing per WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic sidebar
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apropos of nothing really, but what the heck does "xyr" stand for? — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Just one of the many knots that people who don't like singular they tie themselves into about gender-neutral third person pronouns.--Shirt58 (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Ah, I see! I've seen "xr" before, but I just couldn't parse this "xyr" thing... that's actual nonsense, for crying out loud! I had a suspicion that it had something to do with the "xr" silliness, but I couldn't quite be certain. I really hope that this fad dies out soon. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

While I actually enjoy conversations about gender and language (and even grant creeedance to Ohms laws' concerns), and I know that bringing an issue to ANI means one opens up one's own behavior to scrutiny, is there any chance that anyone is interested in actually looking at the articles/editor in question? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There are editors who are able to contribute to Wikipedia successfully while writing about subjects they are personally close to, but G. is clearly not one of them. He obvious subscribes to an "us vs. them" attitude, where "us" is Azerbaijan International and other Azerbaijan-related topics, and "them" is anyone who disputes his take on things. I do not believe he is able to edit with a neutral point of view and is the poster child for the precautions prescribed in the WP:COI policy. I would suggest that an admin review the situation, and put G. on notice that he must follow the guidelines prescribed in the COI policy, which are not to edit those articles directly, but to make editing suggestion on the articles' talk pages to be put into effect by other, neutral editors. (And one of the problems here is that G. thinks that anyone who disputes his edits is not neutral, and editing per policy, but is instead "against" the magazine, or Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis in general.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

For an example of G.'s sensibility, see this comment on his talk page, where he implies that Q. and I are the same person because we agree with each other, a totally ludicrous conclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan

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.

---

• Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Less than 3 weeks ago, a long, wrenching RfC/RM regarding the articles/titles "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" was finally closed and the interpreted consensus enacted by an admin trio. Today, this Requested Move, which would basically rehash the whole issue, was filed on the talkpage.

Obviously consensus can always change, but as that policy section also says, "if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again". Consensus is particularly unlikely to change as drastically as this in such a short time.

I therefore ask if the request in question could be speedy-closed on purely procedural grounds, to avoid further conflict/tension/strife/etc. of the sort that occurred during the prior discussion, of course without any prejudice to permitting reopening said topic of discussion after a more reasonable length of time has elapsed. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The requested move is on the selecting the primary topic between different Taiwan subjects, thus I think the discussion on how to choose the common name for a subject does not apply. It is like someone agreed Orange is the official color name but moved the color's page to Orange, instead of Orange (colour), disregarding what people say about the fruit.--Skyfiler (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Skyfiler, we need to go catch an extra-huge trout and repeatedly slap it around your ears. Seriously. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Closed. (Though does anyone know why the trout is messing with the formatting? : ) - jc37 06:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well, just tlx it... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talk • contribs)

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.

What is going on here?

Are User:Karogaanatu, User:IronBeefCurtain, and User:Pppowercurve the same user? 99.126.204.164 (talk) 05:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is thataway... :)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No, Pppowercurve just edited my page, since apparently Wikipedia lets people do that.IronBeefCurtain (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• A look at the contribs (identical in places), when they signed up, etc. does look pretty odd, not sure if that could justify a CU, but it is still odd. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed them edit-warring on the same article, and posting in the same places, so it looked pretty suspicious. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• • (Non-administrator comment) Just a newbie/three newbies spreading some WikiLove for teh lulz, perhaps?
    
  • Yes, Pppowercurve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the accounts
    • IronBeefCurtain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
    • Karogaanatu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • But I'm not seeing anything malign here. Yet. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I got kittens. Why would I not respond with more kittens? These are very different accounts. Also, how could Pppowercurve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have created them when it's younger than IronBeefCurtain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Karogaanatu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? IronBeefCurtain (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe you finally got the Delorean up to 88mph? But seriously, no one is accusing anything, it is just that when we see something "unusual", we look carefully to make sure it isn't someone up to no good. If you aren't doing anything bad, you have nothing to worry about, we just always explore "coincidences", and this appears to be one, just a coincidence. I notice you are already pretty handy with wikicode (which is a good thing). Have you edited her much before? Dennis Brown (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The silliness isn't harmful, but I did initially notice them edit-warring over the image on Elf (Dungeons & Dragons), which is disruptive. Rather than continue to edit war, I came here to see if anything unusual was going on. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I notice that User:IronBeefCurtain is now User:PlutoniumCurtain, so we can put the Profanisaurus back in the bookshelf.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Very bizarre... so, the account's name was changed, but then someone continued to post using the old name? 99.126.204.164 (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The account's name was changed, and then someone (likely the same person, I'd think) recreated another account with the old name. I'm starting to think that the whole point to all of this is disruption.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If an account called IronBeefCurtain still exists, it should be blocked as a username violation (I said I would comment here, but I changed my mind). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Pardon my ignorance, but how does IronBeefCurtain violate WP:USERNAME? Dennis Brown (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

[132]. Open to interpretation. Doc talk 21:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Beef Curttains is slang for labia. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Slang terms for parts of the female genitalia aren't appropriate as usernames. The account clearly needs a block. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, he already changed the username, but I blocked IBC, just to be sure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• You crazy kids and your newfangled slang words. That was a new one for this old dog. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Jikaku

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

---

I am writing to report that a former employee of the Union Institute and University, who originally created the article of the same name, has reverted content that I had contributed and that had been there for about a year. The new content is biased. I originally added the content because your editors flagged the article as an advertisement. I am now locked out, but I made the reverts in repsonse to the Union's former webmaster reverting mine. You now have biased information representing the Union's PR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero Radi (talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the easiest way to determine what Wikipedia considers bias is to stick with what the sources say, and go no further. Your edits... to the article were unsourced. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And I see you have not notified Jikaku about this thread, I have done so. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Both User:Jikaku and User:Nero Radi have plenty of reverts, 3 each two days ago and one each today The overall language of Nero Radi's changes isn't neutral and is without citation, I can see why they reverted Nero's addtions, I would have reverted them, too. Even if they were true, Wikipedia's goals are not to seek The Truth®, is it to document facts that are substantiated by reliable sources. If you continue to edit war and add them back without sources that pass WP:RS, it will result in your own boomerang block. I noticed the article is now semi-protected [133], which should calm things down for a while. Nothing else can be done here. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added this article to my watchlist and I'll keep an eye on it when the protection expires; I have expertise in U.S. higher education and lot of experience editing U.S. college and university articles. ElKevbo (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attack replaced after removal

Request admin action - to block the user.

User:Malleus Fatuorum is attacking other editors again. His attack was removed as WP:NPA and he has simply replaced it - I have asked him to please self revert but, he has refused and told me to "go play elsewhere" - Youreallycan 18:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This won't end well. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Operation This Will Most Likely End Badly is a go! —chaos5023 (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It already hasn't ended well. Shame, but the user had a post removed as a personal attack and chose to replace it and then when politely requested to self revert their replacement of the insult they refused -The behavior and style of confrontational discussion using uncivil insults is something the user is under arbitration control for and the violation of that restriction has resulted in this outcome. Youreallycan 18:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That you, of all people, should take someone else to task for their "style of confrontational discussion" is interesting from several points of view. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This thread is not about me, however I will reply, I occasionally overstep the mark but you will notice I am the first to strike and apologize when I have occasionally lost my temper. Youreallycan 18:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the understatement of the week. "Queer agenda", anyone? You still don't understand what was wrong with that. Great work Youreallycan and Courcelles; you can be proud of yourselves. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Here, for interest, is the antecedent baiting which led to this. --John (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Can't really see much baiting in that, given the context in which it's made. I don't think we need to rewrite the rulebook so that anyone who strongly disagrees with Malleus is automatically to be considered "baiting". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Others can re-close this if necessary, but I've been reviewing all afternoon. I wanted to believe that the comment by Anthony was innocently badly phrased, but the sequence of comments leading up to it eventually yields a clear slow escalation pattern. Malleus was also escalating some, the two of them are equally at fault in one sense, but Anthony was the one who took it up to the point it was dark grey area and almost certainly likely to draw Malleus offsides / bait him. I am left concluding he did it on purpose.

Traditionally I've advocated for and symmetrically blocked baiters. I see that there's a lot of dispute about that read of Anthony's actions here, so I am not taking any action. But I think that a closer review of the sequence by other admins would be useful.

Courcelles and John left admonishments, but seem to have concluded the intent wasn't most likely malign. I don't believe at this time that the intent was innocent. I invite more admin review/attention.

I don't believe that a finding of baiting disqualifies the block on Malleus, but it does need more review and appropriate anti-baiting pressure to at least ensure it doesn't repeat. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

My intent most certainly was not to provoke anything. I hope Malleus reconsiders his departure.

I admire Malleus enormously. I agree with most of his political stances here, especially his constant calling out of peurile admin actions and his defense of content contributors. He is one of the most helpful people around, and that help often goes unacknowledged. He's a particularly excellent helper of good-faith newbies. And his content work is legendary.

If the project loses him because of this it will, in my opinion, be a great loss. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The light is seriously dimming now on Wikipedia, as continued attacks against the remaining core talents succeed. Neither Anthony nor Malleus deserve this absurd intervention, just because they interacted robustly. Soon we will just have block-obsessed admins strutting the empty halls, admiring the trim on their fingernails. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There really does appear to be a concerted effort to hound all the talented content-creating editors off the project. What is so appalling is that rampant trolling, vandalism and edit-warring now goes unchecked whereas the civility police are ready to leap out from the shadows to arrest anyone who says fu.k, cu.t or just happened to use strong langauge in a discussion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Those of us admins who battle the trolls, vandals and edit-warriors appreciate the noticing of our work and the compliments on our efforts against it. With the sarcasm-meter now off, I will remind that WP:CIVIL is a policy, and even if we have the best content writers in the world, nobody is going to be willing to join the project if the first thing they see upon entering discussion areas is pages of strong language and swearing. It is entirely possible to have constructive, high-quality discussions without resorting to strong language; it's a shame some people don't - or won't - understand that. Malleus' contributions to the project are legendary and he deserves every ounce of credit for them, and it's a shame he feels the need to leave the project, but if he, or anyone else, is unwilling or unable to adhere to Wikipedia's policies - in fact, to one of the Five Pillars - and instead helps to create an environment that drives new editors away, then that's something that those of us who are willing and eager to work as part of a productive and civil community can't help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that we dispense censure impartially. Earlier in that conversation I had said Do you think the other editors can only pull you into line if some policy says you can't be a particular kind of arse hole here? Do you think policy lists, or should list somewhere all the different kinds of arse holy things a person is not allowed to do here? Strange..." and later I explicitly likened him to a naughty brat. He followed with "I've yet to see any convincing evidence that you have a mind, or that if you do you've actually ever used it."

It was a robust discussion, and his riposte was no more aggressive than my characterisations. On reflection, I realise the tone was inappropriate for this board, but Malleus' tone was simply matching mine. Somewhere, since then, Malleus objected to the removal of only his comment while mine remained on the page. I agree with him. Certainly his should have been removed, but equally, mine did not belong here.

I see an injustice of exactly the kind that Malleus has been complaining about for years. The appropriate response from the community here would have been removal of all intemperate comments, accompanied by warnings to both of us. He's entitled to be profoundly pissed off. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. Blocking one side and not the other without leaving any warnings was incompetent and calculated to raise drama. ill-judged and counter-productive. It also seems punitive rather than preventative. --John (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I do have to agree that block or warn, "it takes two to tango". Not sure which would have been more appropriate in this case though...equiviliancy in actions is absolutely desirable. But (not necessarily the case here, but speaking as a general question that has bugged me about the "block one, block both" standard) what if you have two editors, one of whom is squeaky-clean without so much as a warning, while the other has a pageful of warnings and a block list with multiple entries? Do both get blocked even though one has no prior history of violations? Or do both 'get off with a warning' even though judging by patterns of behavior a block would ordinarily be near-automatic for one? Again, that's not necessarily the case here and not saying one or the other should have taken place vs. what did happen, but it's something that I've wondered about more than once. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing that tipped this into a block for Malleus was his restoration of the redacted comment. Given that, the more I think about this, my comments were more insulting and inflammatory than his, I believe his restoration of his comment can be seen as a very reasonable insistence on parity. He was right. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense Nobody Ent 10:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Any human endeavor involving more than two people is political. (This is neither an inherently good or bad thing, it just is.) Our highest elected body has stated relatively clearly:

Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.

— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

At some point Wikipedia has to draw a line in the sand and assert the civility thing isn't just a fantasy -- if it doesn't then it becomes an alt newsgroup which was just a tiresome unpleasant experience. The not punitive policy is not a Get Out of Jail Free card ... when other dispute resolution mechanisms have been exhausted it's an appropriate deterrent for chronic incivil behavior. Nobody Ent 11:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Malleus was not blocked for incivility, he was blocked because he restored a comment that had no business being deleted while my insults stood on the page. Courcelles was mistaken. He thought I had not been attacking Malleus, so didn't see, at the time of the block, how unfair it was to have Malleus' comment censored but not mine. His stated reason for the block (I think) was Malleus' restoration of his comment. I doubt that he would have, or at least believe that he shouldn't have blocked Malleus for defending his edit, if he'd realised at the time that Malleus was entirely justified in that act. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The other reason behind this block is Courcelles perceived Malleus' comment as a personal attack. I didn't feel remotely attacked. All that we did wrong was use AN, a community board, to host a forthright conversation. That was impolite. We should have taken it to a user talk page if we wanted to go on in that vein. And, as I said above, the community should have erased the offending comments and told us to take it elsewhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought about it too (collapsing that section of discussion), which is a decision that I regret not making now. It's tough though, jumping into the middle of an argument between two people. Tough, and often thankless (usually to the detriment of the person jumping in).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the mood on these boards is generally in favour of that now. I for one, obviously, need the guidance of my colleagues from time to time, and would have appreciated it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on what Courcelles has said about the block, it appears he blocked Malleus for compounding a behavior he'd already been warned against - a personal attack - with edit warring to keep that attack visible. Let's assume for a moment that Anthonyhcole's remarks were uncivil (which appears to depend on who you ask) and that Malleus's response to having incivility used against him was not to remove the incivility, or to request that it be removed/redacted, but to hit back even harder with his own incivility, and then fight to keep that incivility visible even when someone asked him to remove it, he declined, and someone else did remove it. "Editors should not respond to [baiting, trolling, harassment, etc] in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums" says arbcom in a remedy that Malleus must have read, since he was the central party to the case. "In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, be understanding (people do say things when they get upset) rather than judgmental, and do not respond in kind," says our Civility policy, which all editors are expected to adhere to. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion[...] Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned," says our policy prohibiting edit warring.

In short, Malleus's upping of the ante was explicitly against both our policy and the relevant arbcom precedent, and it should be unsurprising that he was blocked for it when he showed no sign that he was willing to remove his comment or stop edit warring over it. That remains true whether or not Anthonyhcole should also have been spoken to, had his comments redacted, or been blocked - each editor is responsible for their own behavior in matters like this, and one person not having been given the sanction the other prefers does not allow the second person a get-out-of-jail-free card. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You miss two points. It was not a personal attack. It was a style of discourse I am perfectly comfortable with. The mistake we both made was carrying on discussion at that pitch on a community board. Malleus had my measure, he knew I was up for it, because I had already set the tone. Please recognise that this was not a personal attack. And Malleus had every right to insist his comments remain while mine remain. Please don't quote policy at me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This non-attack is being mistaken for one and punished, while frequently I see editors subtly humiliating and intimidating others, and either nobody notices or nobody cares. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's also not forget that WP:TPO is applicable to this line of reasoning as well (I'm thinking specifically of "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." here). Refactoring (let alone removing!) someone else's talk page comments is Bad™. I'd think that would be worse behavior than any subjective "personal attack", regardless.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignore it. It's stupid. The people on this board these days are generally clueful enough to identify decent relevant discourse. Show yourselves the minimum of respect and insist on it here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

Update: Malleus has been unblocked by an admin who immediately requested his own desysopping for wheel-warring by doing the unblock. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well let us hope things have not sunk so far that he is indeed desopped for displaying courage and integrity. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, they have sunk that far. Even though he was not actually wheel warring. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think Steve's only pre-empted the inevitable complaint about wheel-warring by asking for his tools to be removed. But I think the unblock was unfortunate — not saying it wasn't correct, necessarily, but made in unfortunate circumstances — and I think he's done the right thing to ask for a desysop. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Good action on the part of Steve, given Athony's comments above (seriously; those arguing against the person supposedly under attack need to reread that whole thread.. ;)). Recommend sanctions for those who violated WP:TPO in trying to remove the message and unnecessarily escalating the situation. Again. Civility is a double edged sword. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Checking up, that appears to be Ianmacm and A Quest For Knowledge (two editors I find usually clueful). I suspect a simple warning & reminder of what WP:TPO says will be sufficient. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

They did the right thing in removing the comment, but they overlooked mine. You people on this board need to start imposing decent standards of decorum, and removing intemperate, frivolous or off-topic comments is a good place to start. You need to be an example to the rest of the community. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, any time the community has attempted to do what you're advocating for it leads to nothing but strife and, ultimately, a bunch of what just happened here. There's no magic bullet to these sorts of problems (which, incidentally, are age old problems...), and I think that trying to prevent them from occuring does more harm than good (which is a bit counter-intuitive, I know, but that's what my experiences in life tells me).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying I sense the general mood here has changed. This instance blew up because of the intrinsic unfairness of removing only Malleus' and not my inappropriate remarks. If someone had judiciously removed my "arse hole" and "brat" comments along with Malleus' "no mind" comment, the rest of the community would have nodded sagely and Malleus and I would have had no grounds for objection, since our comments were patently inappropriate for a community forum. You have the right to enjoy civil, professional discourse here, and get on with the very important job you do in a quiet, orderly, respectful environment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If Anthonyhcole hadn't used the terms in the first place the community would have no grounds for objection. Nobody Ent 11:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

We could, however, take this opportunity to revisit the WP:NPA policy. Just off of the top of my head, it may be worth considering editing the document so that blocks are more of an absolute last resort in dealing with "personal attacks". I think that's more where the community as a whole is at, regardless (and I'd point to Courcelles statement on Malleus' talk page in support of that stance).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of events

Have I got this correct? Two editors personally attack each other, one get blocked for 72 hrs - due to a long history of civility breach - ; the other isn't blocked - due to a short history of civilty breach. The Blocked editor retires from Wikipedia & is latter unblocked. Then the unblocking administrator requested that he no longer be an administrator & his request is approved. GoodDay (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrt personal attack. no. Neither party felt he was attacking the other - i.e., attempting to hurt or harm - or felt attacked by the other. It was robust discourse, but inappropriate for a professional working environment. Not PA. Most real PAs around here are much more sleazy. They involve genuine attacks on the character of others. Nobody believes I have no mind, as Malleus suggested. That was colourful language seasoning a robust exchange. I just found this piece of sleaze. That's a personal attack. Hosted on the talk page of the editor who blocked Malleus for a bit of hyperbole. Still sitting there. Unchallenged. Unredacted. Nobody blocked. Target not even notified. See the difference?

The rest is about right. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Your summary is incomplete, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement. Nobody Ent 11:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Your summary forgot to mention the semi-pro drama addicts bringing this here in the first place as a thinly-veiled effort to get rid of an editor who they don't like. This is an important part of the Wikipedia Lord Of The Flies dynamic, in which the least worthy triumph and the most worthy are banned or chased from the project. Carrite (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  The subject was blocked even before the report at this noticeboard, as such, the report served as a block discussion. A bit of a romantic summary. in which you support an environment where attacking/insulting each other is acceptable. - he didn't even request an unblock, he had a couple of days left of a block supported by his Arbitration history and unblocking him in such a situation just strengthens his belief that he can be rude to whoever he wants, and, he wants to be rude to whoever he wants - he has retired in a huff because he thinks he might not get away with it any longer. - This User:Nomoskedasticity who asserts he has a Doctor of Philosophy and a degree in Sociology and asserts he is a working University professor, has been demeaning and sniping at me repeatedly for over a year, in this latest attempt to demean me he asserts I must have low self esteem - actually my self esteem, which is none of his business at all, is fine - this is nothing less than bullying when it is repeated and over a lengthy period of time. Youreallycan 08:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Per: "The subject was blocked even before the report at this noticeboard, as such, the report served as a block discussion. A bit of a romantic summary." -- That's why the very first words in this thread, written by you, Rob, are "Request admin action - to block the user." Carrite (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you check the time stamps - the subject was already blocked when I opened the report so my request was never considered or actioned. - Whats your point?Youreallycan

I'm not an admin, but I think this discussion should be closed. Not much reason to rehash events imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-involved non-admin, I have to wonder if it's really likely to be productive to spend this amount of time and energy discussing a 72-hour block. Not even a week. Some editors might consider that a vacation. Also, I don't think it's appropriate for admins to kowtow to an editor, no matter how valuable their contributions may have been, when they start issuing ultimatums. Nobody here should be perceived as "too big to fail". I also don't see how it's not obvious that unblocking an editor is inappropriate when there hasn't even been a discussion here and the unblock will clearly be controversial. I suppose as a non-admin it's possible I'm unaware of factors that need to be considered. Given that I might one day be interested in serving as an admin (frankly I'm just not sure what I could do with admin mojo that I can't do already), an explanation might help me or other confused editors. Doniago (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest reviewing the ArbCom I linked above and further thoughts here: User:Nobody_Ent/Notes_on_civility. Nobody Ent 17:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

They both make an interesting read. Never heard of the American "colloquialism"; even though I'm American, maybe it's because it's a sports metaphor. Moving to the heart of NE's complaint, though, my speculation is that even if Wikipedians confronted civility policy (rather than the many scattered incidents), there would be no consensus as to what that policy should be, but perhaps I'm overly cynical.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that you're overly cynical there, at all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

IP treating WP as a Battleground

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

I am not getting through to this user. I have tried to point them in the direction of various policies and guidelines about editing collaboratively on Wikipedia, specifically WP:NPA and WP:EW. They either can't understand these policies due to a lack of maturity or simply won't read and follow them.

This user's behavior is very similar to 24.189.168.173, who was blocked for a year due to not being constructive. I think this user may be 173 returned.

After his most recent outburst, three other editors ([134], [135], [136]) told him to calm down. He left for a few days, and then the very next edit to an article about the New York City Subway was not-constructive. I think his thought process was "Let's see what happens if I delete some text and fundamentally change the meaning of the sentences." When I reverted it, he flew off the handle again.

I have left him yet another message on his talk page, but I doubt it will be heeded. Please block him to prevent further disruption to the project. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Full home address on Talk:DirecTV

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

---

IP 66.76.180.81 posted his/her full home address on Talk:DirecTV thinking it was DirecTV customer service. Someone else took it down but I think the revisions should also be deleted for his/her privacy. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Zappa'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

I have been concerned about the behaviour of Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · block user) for about a month now. He has been making comments that are consistently aggressive towards other editors. A sample of examples follow: [137], [138], [139] (edit summary), [140], [141], [142], [143] (edit summary), [144], [145], [146], [147], [148]. Other users have approached me as an admin with concerns about these and other comments. One of these comments in isolation would be easily forgivable. But the attacks and negative tone seem to be incessant.

I made an attempt to raise these concerns with the user here, and my edit was simply reverted with a put-down edit summary.

The user has twice been blocked in the past six months for disruptive editing, and it is starting to reach that stage again. Normally, I would have no hesitation to block the editor for the accumulated nature of the comments he has made, but since I have been the target of some of his attacks, I feel it is best dealt with here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have had a few run-ins with KW over the years, and I consistently found him to be disruptive, counter-productive, and often quite rude. He always seems to be the first one to accuse others of personally attacking him (often when they're not), while simultaneously dealing out personal attacks of his own. The diffs towards the end of the list in the above post are particularly concerning. Calling other editors stupid, moronic, and idiotic is unhelpful and clearly incompatible with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as is telling an editor that "Life is confusing when you have a brain." Any of those diffs on their own are not a blockable offense, but I agree that the demonstrated long-term pattern is problematic. At the very least, I would support issuing a final warning to KW, to let him know that future incivility will result in blocks of significant and increasing duration. —SW— ^chatter 03:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents For what it's worth, I brought this to Good OlFactory's attention and I have previously had run-ins with Kiefer before. I explicitly told him on two occasions that he needed to stop this belligerence or else I would have an admin intervene (if someone really needs diffs, I'm sure I can find them.) He then posted more positive notes on my and his talk pages--it's impossible to say if that was genuine good faith or just hoping that I would forget about him for awhile, but he has made it a point to be needlessly provocative and it really needs to stop. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I must say, I've had a lot of troubles with this user over the past year or so, but recently we've been getting along (especially since we agreed to stop discussing our past). I have been a little worried about his recent behaviour - declaring only people who have tought statistics should edit an article, Telling an editor who has created around 85 chemistry articles that he "writes so little". The above disruptive editing mentioned by Good Ol'factory, which I also raised with KW, I hoped had passed. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Would this be worth starting a RFC over? --Rschen7754 08:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz is a blue link. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

From that RfC's summary, [...] KW has agreed voluntarily with two viewpoints in particular (Fetchcomms and Sławomir Biały) that he can be tactless and aggressive in discussions, although most editors can be at times, and that he should try to minimize the behavior and be a little more respectful to those around him (close paraphrasing of Sławomir Biały) and also that he should say things in a nicer and non-demeaning manner (close paraphrasing of Fetchcomms). Apparently, he has not changed his ways and can still be tactless and aggressive. If there are no objections, in a couple of hours I'll impose a week-long block due to the ongoing pattern of violations of WP:CIV. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have been the previous recipient of some of KW's hostility, and although we've not had much interaction since, I do not think he has learned from the RFC despite his claims to have done so. He still treats editors he disagrees with (or, perhaps more correctly, editors who disagree with him) with contempt — perhaps to intimidate, I'm not sure. But I'm not convinced a block will do anything. It's probably time for civility parole, or failing that, bringing this to a higher court. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any point in a final warning after the RfC, earlier ANI discussions and his blocks. Maybe being blocked for a week will change his behavior. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I wasn't aware of his previous RfC. Looks like he has already received plenty of warning. —SW— ^chat 13:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I, too, have had to speak to Kiefer in the recent past about his civility issues, and he responded to me with extreme anger (though he did eventually redact what I had asked him to redact). It doesn't look to me like the RfC on him made much of an impression on him, and I think Salvio is probably right that it's time to start actually holding him responsible for his behavior. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• KW never seems to miss an opportunity to needlessly insult or attempt to belittle someone - there is a little club of editors who conduct themselves in a similar fashion, all of whom are very unpleasant to deal with. Perhaps the most astonishing and concerning thing is that he and they genuinely believe that they are somehow superior to other editors, with little or nothing to support that view. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• I should note that after I called him out on casting nonsense, disruptive !votes ([149], [150]) in a CfD ([151]), KW responded by Wikilawyering over WP:POINT, claiming that I was misusing WP:DISRUPT, and also falsely accusing me of altering his comments ([152]), which (a) I did not do and (b) the striking of the bolded part of a !vote when a user has cast multiple !votes in a discussion is a standard admin task, especially when said !votes are cast disruptively and in bad faith. I agree that a block for disruptive and uncivil editing that goes contrary to the collaborative goals of the project would not be out of the question here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I also have asked User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz to tone down his comments, both during a CfD discussion (which he blew off with what appears to be his typical rhetoric), and at his talk page, only to be told to "go away" (which he later redacted). Archived here. And after User:Good Olfactory dropped further concerns on my talk page, I suggested this AN post to get more eyes on this. This would seem to be consistent behaviour. - jc37 00:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Devil in the details

The ANI choir sings in tune, with no caveats or concerns about the "alert" by Good Olfactory, who lists the following edit summary:

• "redact personal attack with hysterical vindictive invitation to nuke my contributions. What the fuck is wrong with this page?"

Anybody who bothered to investigate the surrounding diffs knows that Elen of the Roads commented on that thread, as she commented (most actively!) on my RfC. I submit that Elen is well aware of WP policy and the black stains on my soul. Nonetheless, she did not consider that comment as block-worthy as Good Olfactory, who has with considerable restraint, he assures us, not blocked me himself.

Would any of you explain your rush to judgment and to pass a civility block, and failure to discuss any of these diffs? Why didn't anybody object to Good Olfactory's listing of this diff? Isn't that prime facie evidence of misfeasance by you all?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Would any of you explain your rush to judgment and to pass a civility block... This thread has been going some 20ish hours (forever by ANI standards) and you have not been handed any civility block. How on earth is this a rush to judgement? Your regular misinterpretation of comments (either deliberatley or for some other reason - AGF says the latter) is one of the thing that most irritates and this is a prime example. Kiefer - I'm afraid I have to agree you seemed to have learnt nothing from the RFC linked above; a shame as I assumed you had. Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pedro,

A "rush to judgment" is a cliche in US legal discussions, describing a failure to show due diligence in discussing a case. ANI is not a courtroom, of course, but some discussion is usually advised.

Please focus on the substance of my remarks. Where is there any discussion of any of the diffs cited? Where is there any caveat that in e.g. one diff, KW may have actually been helping protect the encyclopedia?

We all have off days. I have noted being irritated by my year's work on Peter Orno, which included my politely accepting comments about my lack of logic and misunderstanding of "author" and striving for consensus (resulting in a TLTR page), being left off the April Fools Day DYK, and so losing 10 thousand or more readers, commenting that "even Homer nods". Comparing Crisco1492 to Homer was not intended as a personal attack.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on "rush to judgement". Luckily I'm not an American so didn't parse it as a reference. Indeed I seem to recall us disagreeing in the past, partly because you couldn't quite grasp my Bitish humour? On a multi-cultural site these things are tough, and I'm a regular offender in that respect too, I suspect. No matter. I would note that opening this sub-heading with "The ANI choir sings in tune" is hardly likely to win people over however. Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pedro!

We almost always disagree, and you usually show up criticizing me, but I still like you because you are a good person. I don't like persons behaving well because of conformity or a wish to become administrators, etc. I do appreciate you because you are sincere---"Before all Temples th' upright heart..."--- both when you are good, in which case you are very good, and even when you are bad .... ;)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If I "usually show up criticizing" then that's likely for a reason. I don't tend to go aound criticising for the good of my health :) Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I certainly discussed the diffs in my initial post in this thread. I referred to specific comments in the diffs and how they violate policy: "Calling other editors stupid, moronic, and idiotic is unhelpful and clearly incompatible with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as is telling an editor that 'Life is confusing when you have a brain.'" For further recent discussion and evidence of KW's typical WP:IDHT response, see Talk:Design of experiments#Competence. I'd fully support a block, but KW appears to be set in his ways such that I doubt it would change his behavior for very long. It would certainly be sad to lose a prolific contributor, but being prolific/experienced/intelligent does not afford you special treatment here. —SW— ^converse 21:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  Scottywong (formerly Snottywong),

  You are continuing to repeat falsehoods, confusing my labeling statements as "idiotic" with my labeling editors as "idiotic". There is one editor that I frequently insult in comment summaries, but nobody has ever complained about those.... In my youth, I would have labeled such falsehoods with an f-word, but I have matured with the help of my friends....

  A reader complaining that they were confused by an infobox did not have the patience to read a few sentences of the lede of John Rainwater, which explained things. Of course, an article about a mathematical in-joke may make some readers puzzled, until they read the lede.... (Mathematical scientists spend most of your lives being puzzled and frequently cursing our stupidity, and I obviously have trouble understanding why puzzlement is regarded as a problem.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In this ANI thread, I count 11 editors who unanimously see a problem. In the Talk:Design of experiments#Competence thread, two editors are telling you that your comments are inappropriate. How many editors need to tell you the same thing before you will begin to even consider the possibility that maybe you're wrong? —SW— ^communicate 22:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it help you to know that I am naked and carrying a lamp?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that my opinion particularly matters, but this comment pretty much tips the balance for me. I'm with everyone above, some admin action seems to be needed here unfortunately. Kiefer apparently can't help himself, even here at ANI, so he probably needs to (metaphorically) go sit in a corner for a bit to consider his actions.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The degree to which you are cryptic when you try to label me as dishonest and/or inauthentic does not change the reality that you are attempting to insult me rather than discuss the real issue. This is the status quo for KW. —SW— ^talk 00:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see what's wrong with this here. Using a vandal template to list someone is in poor taste, and the edit summary is an appropriate response. I don't work on the same articles that Kiefer does, I do think they could tone it down, I detect verbosity and hyperbole--but I don't see a reason to start throwing punitive terminology around. Now, if you'll pardon me, I'm going back to where I was. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  The first nemesis in my tragic attempts to bring Peter Orno to the main page... kindly forgave my first Ornoery period. I appreciate his letting my latest Milton quote pass without complaint....

  When it was applied to me, twice, the vandal template did not have Elen's helpful note that "nuke" only removes very recent contributions, not all of the contributions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  Maybe I should not have included that particular diff, as it seems to be a distraction for Kiefer from the main issue. Had I not included that one, there were several others I could have used in its place. The point is that there is a consistent problem with incivility and aggressiveness towards other editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

• Update. I have just blocked Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) for a week. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• For whatever it's worth, I support the block. - jc37 00:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• And so do I. Even the most brilliant content creation doesn't excuse the attitude he displays. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• No. I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Yes, I'll admit that KW is very confrontational at times. He's blunt, at times painfully so. I also think he is outright wrong on many occasions. If there were an ongoing dispute where he was being abusive to another editor in calling them names - then yes, I'd support a block as a preventative action. KW is (in my personal opinion) an arrogant person - and I can not stand arrogant people. I'll suffer fools gladly before I'll tolerate arrogance, but this block is just flat out wrong. "We don't like you because you don't conform to our standards" is what this block is saying - and that reeks of "punitive" which blocks are NOT supposed to be about. Sure, it would be very nice if we could all come together and build a kumbaya utopia - that would be great ... but that's not reality. KW, to be blunt - you can be a royal pain in the ass. But I'm sorry - that's simply not a blockable offense in my opinion. We are supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia. Much of what I'm seeing lately is a whole bunch of political game playing. This is a global project, so there are going to be differences of opinion. What should be happening is everyone putting their cards on the table, offering their very best views backed by facts and documentation. What is happening is people falling into cliques of "you watch my back, and I'll watch yours". People don't agree? .. Fine - talk it out. Salvio, I have a huge amount of respect for you - but I think you're wrong here in blocking KW. Bush - I think the world of the work you do .. but sorry: content creation doesn't excuse the attitude ??? Wow - you really lost me on that one. "Content creation" is what this project is supposed to be about. A person's "attitude" has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. Since when are we a judge and jury of a person's attitude? There is WAY too much "block him, ban her" bs going on within this project - and if it continues it will be a case of us destroying ourselves from within. This entire idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit was founded upon ... well ... the idea that "anyone" can edit. You don't like what KW puts forth? .. Then prove him wrong with facts. Sorry, I just can't get behind this whole thing. — Ched :  ?  04:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not "we don't like you and you don't conform to our standards", it's "we appreciate your contributions but you refuse to conform to our policies". WP:CIVIL is a policy, not an option - if somebody cannot contibute in a civil manner, and when they, in fact, consistently seem to go out of their way to flaunt the civility policy, then all the content in the world doesn't change the fact that they are being disruptive to the project - and stopping current/avoiding future disruption is what blocks are all about. (as for "not liking what he puts forth" - 'putting forth' two deliberatly ridiculous, bad-faith, and disruptive !votes at a CfD ([153] [154]) because it's going against his wishes - when he's already registered his opposition ([155]) - and then Wikilawyering when called on it ([156] [157])...it's clearly not what the project is about and is not what it should be forced to tolerate because "he makes good content, therefore he gets a pass".) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia Content creation is not the purpose--it's collaborative (quality) content creation. If one user is so belligerent and aggressive that other users don't want to add to the encyclopedia, then that's a bad thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on this point; MickMacNee comes to mind as someone who was a content producer but was so brash he ended up getting banned by the Arbs... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. "Would it help you to know that I am naked and carrying a lamp?" --Rschen7754 05:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ched that Kiefer is arrogant and annoying (and I also don't think he should have been blocked), but that comment was actually genuinely amusing. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, as initiator of this thread. For a user to suggest that someone can continue to act like a complete dick towards other users over and over again without repercussions "as long as he's doing good work" is an attitude that I won't get behind. WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars, not just a suggestion. It's not a punitive block, it looks to me like a last resort attempt to try to help the user "get the message" that his behaviour is not acceptable. He'll get another chance—a week is not forever, nor is it indefinite. Here's hoping the week off will do some good. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No active dispute. I find KW a pain, but Ched is correct, this wasn't the time. Block him unrepentant over fresh name calling, I'm fine with that. Block him after the fact, it gets arbitrary, and sets up for more arbitrary blocks, especially of the politically less-well-connected on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a statute of limitations on personal attacks and incivility? Ravenswing 09:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. To quote arbcom, "the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors" (emphasis mine). T. Canens (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Unfortunate support How many fricking times does one have to say "cut it out" and hear promises of "ok, I'll stop" before the community patience is exhausted? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block per my comments above in the original section which appear to have been taken as being for a block. A block will not accomplish anything. It is punitive at this point. It has gotten to the point where sanctions should, imo, come from a larger cross-section of the community in the form of civility parole, or from ArbCom. Not from a small group of ANI users who would generally be opposed to Kiefer anyway. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support The punitive/preventive mark is not a bright line when it comes to civility violations. Often, a long-term pattern of disruption must be demonstrated before a civility block is warranted, and this can blur the line between punitive and preventive measures. KW has received more than a few warnings (including his very own RfC/U). There is no excuse for his behavior, and the warnings have not provoked any change in his behavior. This is the next step. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 13:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support block as necessary and preventative. We have an editor who is 100% aware that his behavior is disruptive, to the point where an RfC was closed acknowledging his awareness of this, but who remains unable or unwilling to stop the disruptive behavior. Since he can't/won't stop the behavior, it falls to the community to prevent the behavior. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per ongoing civility violations, including in this thread. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I have encountered KW only at CFD, where his incivility is persistent and ubiquitous; this discussion includes plenty of evidence that his incivility extends elsewhere. He has had plenty of requests to desist, and plenty of warnings, but they seem to have had little effect, even in thius ANI discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Seriously, what the hell? Is anyone else sick and tired of the syndrome that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA cease to apply to anyone who's hit a certain edit count? For behavior which would get one-month newbies indef blocked a hundred times over, people keep giving free passes to editors who are not merely serial offenders, but are not in the least ashamed to boast that they consider - at level best - Wikipedia's civility policies to be optional, and certainly not intended to apply to them. (And by the bye, while there are still apologists for KW's unconscionable behavior, have they given the slightest bit of thought to the many productive and civil editors who've washed their hands of Wikipedia because of such antics?) Ravenswing 09:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are we supporting and opposing? The block's been done. Next step is while he's out for a week, think of what to do with him upon his return. More editing sanctions, perhaps... Rcsprinter (converse) 20:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly standard practice at AN/I, as it's an area which is quick to block in a shoot first, ask questions later type way. Editors go on and discuss the behaviour past the end of the block. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't see that a 1 week block will make any difference. It's after the fact, slightly excessive and a blunt instrument which doesn't really stop anything. (It's also a fairly ineffective block, since I don't think it's curtailled Kiefer's editing particularly, he's been very prolific on his talk page!) Having said that, I can't see any other options, since this isn't the first time KW's editing has been inappropriate. As such, I'm left sitting on the fence, and would say I am neutral with regards to the block. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to start thinking about restricting talk page access for the remainder of the block, if his talk page will continue to be filled up with endless rants. The block is clearly not having the intended effect. If anything, it's accelerating KW's inevitable sprint to ban-town. —SW— ^confabulate 21:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering the amount of polemic content and personal attacks he's thrown up on his talk today, I think it's really getting to the point where it's clear he has no intention of using his talk page to request unblock, and is instead abusing his access to it to continue the behavior that earned him the block. At this point, we have two options: one, to keep him from digging his hole any deeper we remove talk page access, or two, the block is increased to correspond to his continued personal attacks. Both of those are likely to anger him even more and refresh the attacks on other fronts, but on balance I think pulling talk page access is a better option than either leaving him with access or increasing the block. It gives him the option to regroup, calm down, and come back in a week having created no new issues for himself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Blocks are not suppose to be punitive, they are supposed to be protective. What possible rationale is there for this one, other than the fact that K-Wolf didn't genuflect to the lynch mob??? Carrite (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The rationale is that the user has a consistent history of flouting WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It is hoped that the block will lead to the user understanding and abiding by the policy - something that all attempts short of blocking, up to and including a RFC/U, have singularly failed to do - thereby protecting the wiki from future disruption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Protected

• Comment For what it's worth Jc37 (talk · contribs) has protected KW's talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"You have the right / To free speech / As long as you're not dumb enough to actually TRY it..." —Joe Strummer. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:FREESPEECH - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What? The lyrics confuse me--how are they relevant? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The comment was attempting to claim that Wikipedia is suppressing the right to free speech through blocking - hence my reply. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"IDONTLIKEIT so I'll shut off talk page access." Par for the course for the highly censored Wikipedia talk pages. Carrite (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest that Point 18 has some applicability, if you replace 1984 with censorship. As someone who edits Ainu and Burmese articles, both people who are subjected to particularly vicious forms of censorship, I am always astounded at how freely the word "censorship" is tossed around. It's Wikipedia's substitute for Nazis. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, we've got those too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, freedom of speech is an important right worthy of being defended in a variety of situations, including this one. ANI is nothing if not a drama-hungry mob in search of adrenaline fixes obtained by raking new victims over the coals. Shutting down the freedom of expression of the victim is part of the power trip. It's bogus and should be called out, not something to be dismissed with a smirk and a tortured reference to a non-germane ultra-lite internet meme like the so-called "Godwin's Law." Carrite (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a privately run website. Thus, there is no right to free speech here. We all edit at the whim of the WMF, and must abide by policies, including WP:CIVIL. When someone refuses to abide by policy, they get blocked. When they turn their talkpage into a further venue for incivility, they lose access to that venue. He is still free to email ArbCom to request a review of his block, or simply wait for it to expire. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Shutting down the freedom of expression of the victim is part of the power trip. It's bogus and should be called out, not something to be dismissed with a smirk and a tortured reference to a non-germane ultra-lite internet meme like the so-called 'Godwin's Law.'" Carrite (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Who's power tripping, exactly? Do you really think admins have an ulterior motive, because I certainly don't see one; if anything, now that I am an admin I can assure you we'd be more inclined not to block because that would mean less of a chance we have to deal with the associated uproar. And yes, referring to this as "censorship" is a gross misuse of the term; I assume you've read about what real censorship is, so I won't patronize you with reading material. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned, there is no free speech right on a private website. If there is a "victim" here, it's self-inflicted wounds. Like any other private organisation, you either follow the rules of the group, or you don't get to be part of the group. Wikipedia is not an unailenable right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

@Bush Well, I got it--I just wanted Carrite to explain it in his own words... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

@Carrite What should have been done instead? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to unprotect user talk page

User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz has full protection, and I'm wondering why this (rather than the more usual revocation of talk page access, if required) is deemed necessary? I had intended to grace said page with a Grannious lecture benign influence, which I'm sure he would have appreciated (really, I am!) but was unable to do so.

To the best of my knowledge, KW has been temporarily blocked, not shunned to the extent that nobody is permitted to talk to him. On a more serious note than my proposed Grannical Pearls of Wisdom, though, having his talk page protected means that he can't receive any notifications in relation to any articles, categories, etc. which he's involved with. So – can someone please unprotect the page so that the normal functions of Wikipedia may continue thereon? Pesky (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Reaper Eternal has reverted the protection. I won't strongly oppose this, per my comments here. - jc37 19:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Reaper and Jc37. Pesky (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with tentative unprotection. If I'd noticed that it was a protection and not a access-revocation when it happened, I would have suggested we avoid the former, but I seem to have read "protected" and heard "revoked". Abuse of talk page by a blocked user should lead to revocation of access for that user, not for everyone, unless there's some serious bear-poking going on. If, at this point, Kiefer resumes posting personal attacks or polemic on his talk, then his access should be revoked. If other users poke him, it should be protected. If neither, let's just wait and see. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct place to issue a dare?

WLU (talk · contribs · block user) has been hounding me for over a year, with various uncivil tactics such as bluffing at an RFC/U posting since 23 March 2011 and a separate AN/I posting since 15 December 2011‎. A concise example of his Wikihounding and tendentious editing is at sexoloxy: I commented[158], and WLU reacted, doing the opposite[159]. The EL I thought should be removed was the only one left, and one EL that I though quite useful was removed. I requested input at ELN[160]. WLU declared the request resolved twice[161][162]. After asserting that Sexualmedicine.org was "the international page"[163] and "a world-wide agency"[164], WLU checked the EL, and was forced to concede that my original comment was correct[165]. There are many, many more examples, but some conflicts have become so entrenched that this pattern is unclear.

More often, WLU abandons one bad position for another and continues fighting. In one conflict, WLU fought to cite 47 pages of one source[166][167], then 5 pages (4RR/28 hours)[168][169][170][171], then he hijacked a third-opinion request[172], then zero (0) pages[173],[174][175][176], and then finally one (1) page [177] of the same source at the same article. He claims to have read that source seven months into the conflict[178][179].

Recently, WLU has decided to be more overt in his threats and more explicit in personal attacks on my sexuality (eg [180][181][182]). This is close to the one-year anniversary of an admin's suggestion that he properly format his RFC/U[183] against me, Currently, both attack pages are just lists of times that I, for example, asked an admin for advice[184] and lots of quotes.

Anyway, to skip a lot of posturing an preparation, I'd like to issue a dare. I and those supporting me will limit ourselves only to conflicts in articles that I edited first, and that WLU chased me to, IF WLU and those supporting him will limit themselves only to conflicts in articles that he edited first, and that I chased him to. If both of us haven't edited the article, we'll use the edit dates for the talk pages. Priority on noticeboards will follow from the article that the issue escalated from.

The conflicts at articles that WLU followed me to were at Wikipedia talk:Conflicts of interest (medicine) (where the wikihounding started), Sexology, Paraphilia, List of paraphilias, Talk:Homosexuality, Paraphilic infantilism, Adult diaper, Diaper fetishism, and Infantilism. The articles WLU edited before I did include Talk:Andrea James, but since he was only active there in February and I responded to an invitation in late March, that arguably wasn't a conflict. Outside of these and the various noticeboards, I don't recall any conflict between us.

Does this sound fair?

My hope, of course, is that he'll leave me, and the many articles he only came to to hound me, alone. Being hounded by a full-time editor has made this past year on Wikipedia like pulling teeth (worse, actually). It has ensured that I'm hesitant to consider touching other articles. I've little doubt that seeing vested editors like WLU act this way, especially at the articles where he's been successful at singling me out, has discouraged new editors from investing in Wikipedia. BitterGrey (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(WLU's comments de-interlaced to restore my comment. BitterGrey (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC))

Regarding the ELN, this is pretty much my last substantive comment on that page. Despite the link Bittergrey wanted included being in the {{DMOZ}}, in order to end yet another pointless discussion, I replaced the link he advocated for. My initial review of sexual-medicine.org was too cursory, after further research I ended up agreeing with Bittergrey that it was not appropriate and replaced it with a more genuinely international one here. So the above discussion seems to indicate that I do make mistakes, but I admit to them and correct them. I even apologize when warranted.

Regarding my alleged "two lists", my last substantive edit to the User talk:WLU/RFC subpage was December 10th [185] before blanking it [186]. My first edit to User talk:WLU/Absolutely unnecessary page subpage was on December 15th [187]. I haven't been maintaining two pages, I reworked the contents of one page in order to start another. I've never made any personal attacks against Bittergrey's sexuality; Bittergrey believes two sources conflate paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia (they don't) and therefore that I think all paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles. My opinion is irrelevant, but I have not only explicitly stated I don't think paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles, I've stated I don't think Bittergrey is a pedophile [188], and I've edited the paraphilic infantilism page to make it explicit that it's not [189], [190].

I didn't follow Bittergrey to WP:MEDCOI, WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) invited me to review it, see here. After interacting with Bittergrey at WT:MEDCOI, I clicked on paraphilic infantilism since on his user page he self-identifies as a webmaster of a page on paraphilic infantilism and on this page he discusses being a paraphilic infantilist [191]. Seeing the obvious problems on the page, I started editing - changes I largely consider uncontroversial. Consider this version versus this version. The former was immediately before my first edit, the latter the stable version I consider adequate.

Regarding wikistalking, from paraphilic infantilism, it's obvious to jump the links to the list of paraphilias, adult diaper, infantilism and diaper fetishism. However, there is indeed wikistalking on both our parts.

A more accurate summary of the "47 pages of sources" would be I came to the page with three different citations to the DSM ([192], [193], [194]) which I collapsed into a single citation using {{sfn}} [195]. Then I acquired a hard copy of the DSM and read the pages cited, and it turns out none of the information the DSM was used to verify was actually dealt with in the DSM itself, a conclusion supported by not one, but two noticeboard discussions (RSN and ANI). Despite this obvious, unanimous consensus in August, 2011, Bittergrey continues to claim that the DSM is relevant on the paraphilic infantilism and related pages (see here for a list of diffs).

I believe Bittergrey is a belligerent editor who is close to a single-purpose account focusing on his personal fetish of paraphilic infantilism. He misrepresents other editors positions, misrepresents sources and clear community consensus, accuses many editors who disagree with him of bad faith and turns nearly every discussion he is a disputant in into a lengthy, pointless battle. I'm generally the other disputant, but given so many of his claims are either misleading or outright lies (for instance, the claim that two sources say pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism are the same thing, and the claim that the DSM discusses infantilism). Bittergrey is uncivil, assumes bad faith, inappropriately comments on contributors rather than contributions, treats wikipedia like a battleground, misrepresents, ignores and fights consensus, misrepresents sources, misrepresents the positions of other editors, accuses others of having a conflict of interest without acknowledging his own (and misrepresenting James Cantor (talk · contribs)'s current behaviour see here) and refuses to acknowledge any input that he doesn't agree with and will keep asking the question despite a clear answer. I believe at minimum a topic ban on paraphilic infantilism and related pages is warranted, but a full site ban would be appropriate. I plan on continuing to expand the subpage currently aggregating problematic edits; note that it contains very few diffs from after March 10th, 2012. The issues are the same however. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, you wouldn't want me altering the context of your multiple attack pages. Please don't alter the context of my comments here. BitterGrey (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, would you care to substantiate your accusation of wikistalking: "However, there is indeed wikistalking on both our parts."[196] Given that I had edited all of the articles we've had a conflict at before you did, where exactly are you claiming that I stalked you to?

(ec)Also, your accusation that I "keep asking the question despite a clear answer" is comical, given you recently asked the same questions nine times[197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205] in the same discussion. Regarding misrepresentation, I wrote "47 pages of one source", not "47 pages of sources", so WP:Kettle. BitterGrey (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Rather than trying to parcel out the articles between them, perhaps the best solution is for both parties to refrain from editing all of the articles referred to here, and avoid following each other to any new ones. As for User talk:WLU/Absolutely unnecessary page, unless this will be used to start an rfc in he next week or two, it should be voluntarily deleted. WLU can keep a private copy to refer to later. (I've had some prior interaction, not always pleasant, with both editors). DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This would be unfair, first because WLU only came to these subjects to harass me, and second because using meatpuppets to get around bans wouldn't be new to WLU[206]. BitterGrey (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Pulling a thread from 5 years ago to insinuate a current behavioral problem is pretty bad form and a weak argument. I'm sure WLU is aware today that doing something like that would be problematic and I seriously doubt he would. Unless you have a more recent example it's just conjectural. SÆdon^talk 22:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:DGG, Just to reiterate: You are still "too-involved"[207], and I again request that you support or retract specific past statements.

Re:Saedon, I have no doubt that WLU wouldn't do it on-wiki these days. There is a lot of conjecture and poor form here, I'll agree. For example, when WLU accuses "so many of [BitterGrey's] claims are either misleading or outright lies (for instance, the claim that two sources say pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism are the same thing...)", he only provides diffs of me quoting one source[208][209]. He neglects that he edit warred to include the text "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia"[210][211][212][213][214][215] in the article (quote is form the last altered section). This, combined with his personal attacks[216][217][218] amounts to an accusation of criminal activity (that is, being a pedophile). BitterGrey (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your response to me is a bit of a red herring. You insinuated that WLU would do something based upon something he did 5 years ago, I called you out on it and you replied by pointing to other issues. My only point was that if you're going to make assertions about other editors then you should use something more recent - this is true without regard to any other issues. If you have no doubt that he wouldn't do that on wiki these days, why did you bring it up? SÆdon^talk 23:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, The point was that I had a diff that supported my claim, even though it wasn't the most recent. On the contrary, WLU does not have diffs to support his claims. Please note that I didn't say that I had not doubt that WLU wouldn't do it - just that he wouldn't do it on-wiki where it would be easily documented. BitterGrey (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

DGG, I was planning on bringing the list directly to AN once I had worked through the most recent batch of edits. This posting pre-empted that plan. It's linked heavily in my reply, but I can paste it here directly. The issues are essentially identical but the diffs illustrate it's still an ongoing problem.

Saedon, you may be interested in this COIN posting where Bittergrey similarly raises conduct issues from 2008 and 2010 despite James Cantor being obviously aware of his responsibilities regarding conflict of interest (see here). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly it's all a bit much. A couple months ago I started going through all the diffs and quickly got overwhelmed with how much background there is so I'm probably going to keep a distance here, but I wanted to call that particular accusation out because it was so stale. It's going to take a lot of patience from an admin to deal with this issue, but it clearly needs to be dealt with. I will echo DCG's call for you to start an RFC, as this might be the most efficient way to muddle through the mess. @DCG I don't expect that this will be dealt with simply by both parties refraining from the aforementioned subjects; this issue goes far deeper than it appears at first glance and I'm truthfully astonished that it took this long to make it to ANI. It appears that this has been brewing for a long time. SÆdon^talk 00:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, I'd prefer to get this resolved here, among admins. Too often I've seen friends of WLU come out of the woodwork, claiming to be uninvolved, drowning out any neutral participants. For example, at that 2600-word COIN discussion there was only one comment by an involved editor. At least among the admins, there is some potential for accountability. That, and if the powers-that-be don't care anymore, maybe I shouldn't either.

As for refraining, if WLU agreed to stay away from articles and talk pages involved in the conflict that I edited first, and I stay away from all articles or talk pages that he edited first, that would eliminate most of the conflict. There would still be a risk of ongoing hounding, but I'm not sure how to avoid that without another[219] interaction ban on WLU. BitterGrey (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I would rather have a solution that would eliminate all the conflict and perhaps an interaction ban would be an efficacious solution. WLU do you have thoughts on that matter? Also, BG, regarding what you said above about DCG's solution being unfair to you; honestly that's not much of a concern, we have to do what's best for the encyclopedia as a whole, and while we should strive to be fair, it will generally be a secondary consideration SÆdon^talk 01:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

An interaction ban and a topic ban, for both of us, on paraphilic infantilism and list of paraphilias would resolve the conflict as far as I am concerned. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I have been following these issues and have stayed out of it because of the hostility, provocative demands, distortions by cherry picking diffs, and the fear of being a target (Not by WLU). But I agree, this is a bit much, it would be a mistake to keep WLU from the infantilism essay. He has done much to fix the essay that was mostly single sourced by a controlling editor. The essay would fall back into disarray and cited with original research once again.Gogreenlight (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, you mean DGG's? I believe priority must be considered, otherwise the Wikihounding is being rewarded. By the way, do we all agree that WLU was Wikihounding me? Here is a list of the other articles he and I have had conflicts at, with the dates: (For clarity, I've omitted noticeboards, etc.) As you can see, with only one exception, he came to articles that I was already involved with.

• List of paraphilias(my first edit 2009-05-05 / WLU's first edit 2009-07-13) - WLU edited before conflict, but still not first
• Wikipedia talk:Conflicts of interest (medicine) (my first edit 2011-02-19 / WLU's first edit 2011-02-21)
• Paraphilic infantilism(my first edit 2006-01-20 / WLU's first edit 2011-02-28)
• Adult diaper(2010-09-25 / 2011-03-01)
• Diaper fetishism(2006-07-10 / 2011-03-03)
• Infantilism(2007-12-13 / 2011-03-02)
• Talk:Homosexuality(2010-09-27 / 2012-02-05) - WLU reacted to my comment by doing the opposite ... at the less-defended paraphilia article
• Paraphilia(2009-06-25 / 2012-02-05)
• Talk:Andrea James (2012-03-02 / 2012-02-10) - another editor moved the entire discussion from ANI while I was typing
• Sexology(2009-07-06 / 2012-03-04)

WLU wrote "...there is indeed wikistalking on both our parts." We can take this as a concession that he engaged in Wikistalking. As is clear from the easily checkable dates, I had been involved with all of the articles (except for Talk:Andrea James) before the conflict between WLU and myself started. I've asked WLU to list any articles he claims that I stalked him to. BitterGrey (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Saedon/Noformation, during a discussion at WP:NPOV, you asked for WLU's side of the story on his talk page[220] and banning came up, but you never asked for my side of the story. Do you understand how that can seem non-neutral? BitterGrey (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly see how you could construe that as not neutral and I would not purport to be neutral (as most people really aren't, but our articles should be). I know WLU's name from around the way and I have a lot of respect for him as an editor after having read numerous discussions where he accurately represented WP policy, as well as rational argumentation, and a lot of productive article editing as well. So yes, I would generally take an accusation against him with a grain of salt and would intuitively support him unless I had reason otherwise. I acknowledge that I'm far less familiar with your editing than I am his, and I have witnessed you being (IMHO) unreasonably confrontational. That said, I certainly don't know the entire situation and will not place blame on one side or the other. I don't think it really matters who is at fault, it just matters that we fix it and move on. WLU appears to agree to a mutual topic and interaction ban on the basis that it would solve these issues and I agree that it would. Do you disagree? I realize that you may not think this is fair, but the question before us is: will it fix the problem? SÆdon^talk 09:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

An interaction and topic ban for both of us would resolve this completely. There is fault on both sides and we could move on without this thread becoming pointlessly long like so many others. It would resolve Bittergrey's apparent issue of wikihounding, it would resolve my issue of the continuous edit warring agains the misrepresentation of sources, save everyone here time and aggravation and I will tag my User talk:WLU/Absolutely unnecessary page for speedy deletion immediately. If I am the problem, Bittergrey will never run into a dispute with another editor again and we can both focus on generating content. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If WLU would voluntarily leave me and the articles he wikihounded me to alone, that might end his hounding of me. Outside of the articles (and the related talk pages and noticeboards) that he followed me to, there is no conflict. If WLU won't do so voluntarily, a topic ban (on him) might need to be discussed. Discussing any form of ban on me would merely reward WLU's wikihounding. Above, WLU wrote "...there is indeed wikistalking on both our parts." Given the number of conflicts he initiated (including one with a bot, thinking it was me) this is a concession that he is Wikihounding me. His statement also accuses me of stalking him. As usual for WLU, this accusation is without any support or details.

I'm not sure what WLU meant by "the continuous edit warring agains[t] the misrepresentation of sources." Perhaps he gives as little thought to his own comments as he does about mine[221][222][223]. I'm also not sure what he hopes to achieve with the theatrical redlink: Both his four-month old ANI preparations and his one-year-old RFCU preparations are still here. This sort of flim-flam is one reason why conversations with WLU are needlessly long. The other reason is that WLU has a tendency to spew long lists of accusations without supporting any of them. This tactic was expressed in a line that used to be in the lead of attack page #2: "lie enough and it becomes the truth".

Of course, WLU can't complain about discussion length. I offered a simple challenge that would have keep this discussion short. WLU has implicitly rejected it. Please note that again, all of the conflicts that WLU and his supported have referred to relate to articles that I edited first.

My proposal is this: I will voluntarily not edit Andrea James IF WLU will voluntarily not edit Sexology, Paraphilia, List of paraphilias, Homosexuality, Paraphilic infantilism, Adult diaper, Diaper fetishism, Infantilism, and Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine). If he wishes, we can omit the articles that we were invited to (Andrea James and Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine)). This won't leave WLU's interests unrepresented: A brand new IP editor has already shown up out of the blue at Paraphilic infantilism and done nothing but agree with WLU. (WLU was at 3RR in 13 hours[224][225][226] and his version wasn't up, which made the new arrival really convenient.) BitterGrey (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before I plan to never edit Andrea James again (irrespective the outcome of this discussion).

I don't believe Bittergrey should be permitted to edit paraphilic infantilism and the list of paraphilias page, where most of the disputes have occurred, and but I do believe a mutual topic ban would help both pages. The paraphilic infantilism page is responsible for nearly all the disputes that occur between us, occupying the entire archives of talk:paraphilic infantilism/Archive 3, 4, 5 and 6, the current talk page and several lengthy sections of various noticeboards (FTN 1, FTN 2, FTN 3, RSN 1, RSN 2, the ELN, currently at the 3RRN). In fact, I will happily never edit any of those pages again so long as the topic ban is mutual. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that an IP who believes that "everything WLU has said is absolutely right and that everything Bitter[G]rey has said is absolutely wrong"[227] has suddenly emerged at paraphilic infantilism, there is no doubt why WLU is so eager to accept a mutual ban from that page. Unlike WLU[228], I don't have a history of working through puppets to dodge bans.

WLU also hopes to distract from the scope of his hounding. He's followed me to and fought me at a number of locations, not just one or two: At sexology I posted a comment[229], only to have him do the opposite[230] and try to close my request for input from ELN twice[231][232]. WLU hadn't edited there before.

Before this, I posted a comment at homosexuality[233], and WLU reacted by stating that he would do the opposite:"I'll read and integrate it". Just as was the case with the ELs at sexology, this was not about the paper, which WLU had not yet read. It was about harassing me. Homosexuality is a well-watched article, so there wouldn't be an opportunity to single me out. Instead, WLU fought to add a new paragraph dedicated to the paper's author at paraphilia[234] and cite the paper in multiple locations[235][236] in the article. After the edit war, WLU claims to have re-read the paper[237] and accepted one of the reservations I raised in my initial comment. He was again wrong. WLU hadn't been involved at either homosexuality or paraphilia before.

I and two other editors got involved to stop WLU. KimvdLinde considered the source primary[238] but kept one citation to it to try to make peace. She quickly announced her retirement from Wikipedia. The third was Jokestress, also known as Andrea James. WLU reacted by deleting her from one article[239] and adding negative material to her BLP[240]. WLU hadn't edited Andrea James or Blanchard's transsexualism typology before.

Those wondering what paraphilic infantilism would be like without me should look at diaper fetishism. WLU has had free reign to improve that article - but has not. It should also be noted WLU has had edit wars at paraphilic infantilism without me. The most comical was with a bot that he must have thought was me[241]. BitterGrey (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That accusation of meatpuppetry was from 2007, do you have anything more recent?

What was the result of the discussion at the ELN? My summary of it is here, pointing out your issues were essentially resolved as you suggested. I still think including a link that is part of a {{DMOZ}} is unnecessary, but it stopped the discussion from becoming even longer.

KimvdLinde didn't "stop" me at homosexuality, as I said two times, I read the article and thought it was relevant on paraphilia but not homosexuality and did not add it to the latter page. Like most of your summaries, it is extremely selective, leaving out that my initial addition of that paper to paraphilia was shortened and retained by KimvdLinde [242], who supported including the article on talk:paraphilia [243]. Also note why I attributed the paper rather than simply leaving it as an uncontroversial statement - which I consider unnecessary since Cantor's statement is uncontroversial, but I did so anyway to accommodate your objection that I was "promoting" it. Attribution weakens a statement from "X is Y" to say instead "Z thinks X is Y".

Regarding the "edit war with a bot", which you've said several times 1, 2, 3, a more accurate summary would be that as part of a series of edits I moved a template [244], then after Yobot reordered, I moved it back, once. As User:WhatamIdoing once said, [245] I don't think that failing to memorize WP:LAYOUT is a sign of a poor editor, and I think your disparagement of me on this wholly unrelated point is completely inappropriate. If this is about me wikistalking you, why bring up "edit warring with a bot", a completely unrelated topic that serves no purpose than to insult my competence? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, the tendentious editing at ELN is clear in that you marked the discussion closed twice[246][247] before even carefully considering your position - and realizing you were wrong. The edit war with a bot is another example: It shows that you don't assume good faith. With your wikihounding, you've engaged in similar tendentious editing in a number of articles. At paraphilic infantilism, you badgered me for F&B's definition of the term "masochistic gynephiles"(eg, same Q;[248][249][250][251][252][253][254][255][256]) hoping for support of your WP:OR that it was infantilism. You've been arguing for this OR since August, 2011, and have been edit-warring to keep it in the article. Now at RSN, you admit "Wow, I just realized we've both been reading the article wrong for a very long time". Had you not been ignoring my points[257], you would know that my position[258] has not changed: F&B doesn't use 'infantilism' or any established synonym, so we can't use it without OR or SYNTH. I was right and you were wrong, again. Now, is a ban going to be needed to make you let me edit, to stop you from edit-warring for your own personal version? BitterGrey (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm supposed to assume good faith with a bot?

You didn't realize F&B wasn't defining the term either, but you're still ignoring the substance of my point - the source discusses masochistic gynaephiles who are infantilists, a point that Paul B agrees with. Rather than letting that independent evaluation close the discussion, you've ignored it completely and started a new section in hopes of getting a reply you wanted (here). Nothing in the paraphilic infantilism page needs to change because the sources are still appropriately summarized; F&B and CB&B both state that paraphilic infantilists wish to role-play children, while pedophiles wish to rape children. This is the same assessment given by Ludwigs2 at the FTN in December, "BitterGrey: Your argument against the source is more or less baseless - The source is not being misrepresented, and is not an unreputable source. You are yourself misrepresenting what they say in a passage that's not even being used in the article and trying to remove the source on those grounds." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU forgets that Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Had he accepted Yobot's edit per AGF, that would have been OK. Had he explored and discussed it in good faith, that would have been OK. No, he assumed any version other than his own to be wrong, and edit warred disruptively, violating AGF. WLU can't rightly blame this on me, although he still tried: He wrote another editor ..."he [BitterGrey] lacks experience and in my mind tends to start disputes rather than resolve them. You may want to take his advice with a grain of salt."[259] At that moment, WLU and I were between skirmishes, so the only active conflict he had was with Yobot.

Yesterday, WLU conceded that he has "been reading the article wrong for a very long time." Of course, he still asserts that his version is right. Additionally, he claims that everyone he claims claimed he was right before now still claim he is right, even though they haven't updated their position since WLU changed his. They either agreed with him before the change or after the change, not both.

Of course, he still claims that I'm wrong. WLU started ignoring my input in February 2011[260][261][262]. Had he AGF'd and been open to input from Yobot and myself, much fighting could have been avoided. BitterGrey (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering I hadn't even noticed Yobot's edit, and only reverted once, calling this an "edit war with a bot" seems inaccurate, and not really worth discussing. I'm still waiting on a reason to ignore the the opinion and reasoning of two independent editors, Paul B and Ludwigs2. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Some general observations on the power dynamic at play

I’ve been asked by Bittergrey to comment here, but rather than take sides on the mutually problematic conduct issues, I’d like to make a case against sanctions (voluntary or not) for either editor. Both have made many good contributions across multiple articles. I feel they each check each others’ excesses in shaping content. Articles are generally stronger when more than one POV can reach consensus. I don’t believe I have ever edited the key article in question, but I’d like to make a couple of general observations about personal attacks on editors via altering article content.

On controversial topics about misunderstood minorities (in this case, the ageplay community), Wikipedia has significant systemic bias that reflects the same problems these people face outside of Wikipedia. Articles about roleplaying communities and sex and gender minorities are heavily slanted toward medicalized worldviews sitewide. This kind of scientism is widely discussed in the field of philosophy of science (see Foucault’s concept of the medical gaze). Many “uninvolved” editors who involve themselves in articles about sex and gender minorities see the world through a medical lens because of personal experience or professional training. They wish to impose that view via these articles, often by suppressing the views of the affected minority.

There is a tendency among editors with a medicalized worldview to dismiss or seek to suppress the POV of those whose lived experiences and direct involvement give them insight and expertise into their own communities. There are books covering ageplay, adult babies, etc., and there have been a number of notable mainstream media outlets which have produced pieces on the subject. I seem to recall Phil Donahue saying that his groundbreaking episode on adult babies was one of the most polarizing moments in his career. Yet none of that is covered in the article. It is currently sourced with “experts” who see this community as a manifestation of a disease of some sort, the same sorts of “experts” who used to say the same sorts of things about gay and lesbian people. Even the current title is problematic, as it frames this as an exclusively sexual matter. A more neutral title would probably be Infantilism (ageplay) or something that acknowledges there are non-medical and non-sexual aspects of the population.

This kind of bias allows Wikipedia to be misused for personal attacks against minorities. These direct attacks appear to be indirect, because they are carried out by altering articles where the content directly affects the minority person. This creates a lopsided power dynamic where the affected editor is often accused of advocacy and the “uninvolved” editor is often defended as “objective.” It’s clear this is personal for both editors at this point, and that’s when this kind of editing gives a disproportional edge to the editor not personally affected by the article’s content. In a case like this, a topic ban is an unqualified victory for the ”uninvolved” editor, and a complete loss for the minority affected by the content.

I’d like to see both editors find a productive way to interact and improve articles. It’s possible. Jokestress (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Currently, WLU has the time and connections that permit him to dominate part-time editors like myself. With his admitted[263] wikihounding of me, he has shown a willingness to abuse that position extensively. He has also shown a sense of ownership[264][265][266], reverting the contributions of myself and multiple other authors. He has been preparing for (or bluffing at) disciplinary action against me for over a year[267][268], and he has stated the conclusion that I should be driven from Wikipedia [269][270]. While WLU does some good, we need to take steps to keep him from driving away good editors like myself. Disciplinary action seems necessary. BitterGrey (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Jokestress, do you think Bittergrey's use of the DSM as a source here was appropriate, particularly given clear consensus in two places (RSN and ANI) that it doesn't define infantilism? I have no problem with the paraphilic infantilism page being edited, I do have a problem with sources being misrepresented (such as claiming Freund & Blanchard or Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree define parpahilic infantilists as pedophiles) or using spurious grounds to exclude sources (such as claiming the sources are not independent, despite being published in a peer reviewed journal and by Oxford University Press respectively). If there are more scholarly sources on paraphilic infantilism that can be used to verify further text, such as the points you make above, I have no issue (I've seen no such sources but they may exist). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU, the DSM has defined infantilism as a type of sexual masochism (302.83): "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism.')" I haven't looked at all editions, but that certainly seems appropriate. As far as assertions of type, Stekel said pedophilia is "a common form of infantilism" (in the Freudian sense) and people associated with CAMH have thrown around the term "autopedophilia" to describe infantilists and interpreted infantilism "as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." My concern is that all of these sources treat this as a disease instead of a phenomenon. This dispute has become very personal between you two, similar to your editing my Wikipedia biography in response to a content dispute. That is a serious conduct issue in my opinion, and it's related to your conduct here. I completely understand why Bittergrey is concerned about sources that assert infantilism is a form of pedophilia, just as gay men have concerns about the many sources that assert a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. These kinds of theoretic or taxonomic assertions are extraordinary claims. Our article should balance these in proportion to sources which state other points of view, including first-hand reports, autobiographies, and self-published materials from the affected population. WP:MEDRS and WP:SPS should both be represented here, as both are equally valid on an article about the topic. People with a medicalized worldview will certainly beg to differ, as they used to with gays who worked hard to get out from under the medicalized mindset that defined them for a century. It's OK that you see the world through a medical lens, but that's not the only POV that should be represented in the article. Your arguments about sources above seem spurious and tendentious, and I recommend that if you can't find a way to work with Bittergrey productively, you should consider editing in other areas of interest. Jokestress (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree fully with Jokestress, but would like to clarify that Stekel wrote about psychosexual infantilism (which included everything but heterosexuality as signs of a lack of Psychosexual_development), not paraphilic infantilism specifically. WLU's claims are based on political correctness, not the sources: One (F&B) reports 6 diaper related cases; 4 pedophiles and 2 masochists. It does not use the term infantilism or any established synonym. The other (CB&B) claims "They [F&B] interpreted infantilism as an autoerotic target location error for persons whose erotic target location error is children, that is, infantilism is an autoerotic form of pedophilia." (p531). These sources are misrepresented in the article. No non-CAMH medRS confounds paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia. BitterGrey (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Jokestress, the conclusion of two noticeboard discussions were that the DSM states that that may be one behaviour undertaken by masochists, not a general definition of infantilism. In addition, according to several sources not all infantilism is masochistic, making it partial at best. The term autopedophilia is used as part of Blanchard's theory of erotic target location errors, in which erotic target location is a basic dimension of sexual preference, and is used to make a distinction between pedophiles and infantilists. Can you point to a section of paraphilic infantilism where it says "infantilists are pedophiles"?

As I explained on the NPOVN, my recall of our very few interactions were that they were minimal, civil, and not a dispute as I understand the word to mean.

If information is missing from the page, then reliable sources are needed. The page currently contains descriptive sections and does not seem to medicalize the condition unduly, in fact noting that the condition is generally not a medical one because it does not cause distress. Bittergrey's claim that CAMH sources should be dismissed (for a claim they don't even make) is nothing but spurious, and ignores the fact that there are simply very few sources to draw upon regarding PI. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU is partially correct regarding his version of the article: It now says nearly to opposite of the CAMH sources with regards to pedophilia, but still cites them. Prior to his December waffling, he had edit warred to include the text "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."(quote is from the last altered section)[271][272][273][274][275][276]. WLU is also correct in that Jokestress' has been consistently and remarkably civil, given that WLU had reacted to her valid comments at paraphilia by deleting her from one article[277] and adding negative material to her BLP[278]. These edits were at best questionable, and possibly malicious. I hope that WLU does not continue to wikihound her.BitterGrey (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Hey there BitterGrey, WLU, and Jokestress. Have any of you noticed that the administrators here at the Administrator's Noticeboard have stopped commenting on this discussion? Are you really here to get administrator guidance to help resolve your dispute or are you just looking for another venue to argue over content of these articles? If you want administrator help, then maybe you shouldn't have completely ignored the admins that tried to comment on this way back at the beginning of the discussion. I don't mean to be rude, but if you all just shut up then maybe an admin will look through the history of the articles in question and help you come to some sort of agreement. I don't really care, and really I just come to WP:ANI to read through things and sometimes get a good laugh, but this conversation is really just so unreal that I figured I would say something.

BitterGrey, I don't mean to pick on you, but I find it interesting that you complain about WLU rounding up his followers to support him, and yet you solicit Jokestress to come here and back you in the middle of this ridiculous argument.

I would also like to point out the irony here - that the subject of the articles in question is adults acting like children. Ok, that's my two cents. Please continue MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 15:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

DGG wrote last year that "I am no longer acting as an intermediate of neutral party ... Recent events have made me too involved..." No other admins have commented. As for the "solicitation", that was just the required note since I had mentioned Jokestress at AN/I[279].

I would welcome suggestions on how to get input from neutral admins. BitterGrey (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Good, if you actually welcome suggestions you should stop talking and listen. And that goes for your opponent, to boot. --Calton | Talk 01:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)